The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-20 00:00:00

THE BRITISH MUSEUM BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in ineving
the second reading of this bill, stated the object of the
measure, and explained the views of the Government in
relation to the proposed alterations in the Museum and the
removal of a part of the collection, giving a conjectural
estimate of the expense.
Mr. GREGORY strongly objected to the enormous ex-
penditure, utterly disproportioned, he said, to the object in
view; and to the plan itself, which had been disapproved
by every man of science who had been examined before the
committee, except Professor Owen. He analysed the pro-
posed plan, pointing out what he considered its objection-
able features, and dwelt upon the vices of the existing
system and management, continued by the bill, which set
aside and contravened the decisions of the committee. He
moved to defer the second reading for six months.
Mr. M. MILNE S did not consider the subject of economy
was involved in the bill. The question was whether the
Museum should be a scientific institution or a mere exhi-
bition. If the former, it ought to be dealt with liberally.
He supported the second reading.

Lord H. LENNOX objected to the prospect of expense
which the bill offered, and especially to a radical defect in
it, in the proposal to transfer to South Kensington the
body of trustees, whose management was so generally
condemned.

Mr, H. SEYMOUR condemned the removal of the col-
lection from the present site. l'rofessor Owen did not de-
bite mes xeuiuy../ , 114 witut.eu °Lily autumnal ewe.

Mr. S. BOOTH objected that the bill proposed division
instead of concentration, and a divided administration,which
would occasion great public inconvenience.
Mr. PULLER, observing that the real difficulty was as
to the disposal of the antiquities. suggested a more econo-
mical arrangement than that proposed by the bill,
Mr. WALPOLE, in supporting the bill, acknowledged
that he had been in favour of keeping the collection toge-
ther : but, for reasons he stated, this, he observed, was no
longer a matter of choice, but of necessity. Ten years ago
the Museum might have been extended, and the present
difficulty got rid of; but the refusal of the Government and
the action of the house had prevented the adoption of the
proposal of the trustees.

Mr. COX opposed the bill on financial grounds.
Sir G. LEWIS said this question had been referred by
the Executive Government to the trustees of the Museum,
including persons of various opinions, who agreed that
some separation of the collection was a matter of necessity.
Land in the immediate vicinity of the Museum being more
expensive than in the suburbs, it was proposed to remove a
part of the collection to Kensington. Another reason was
that by maintaining the collection in one building effici-
ency of management was prevented.
_ _ _

Mr. OSBORNE observed that the Chancellor of tho Ex-
chequer's modest estimate of the expense of the removal
was £680,000, but the question was where the money was
to come from. The house had been twitted with its extra-
vagance; let it then test the Government whether they
were sincere in their aspirations after economy. •

After a few words from Col. SYKES,
Lord PALMERSTON observed that it was agreed by
all that an extension of space was required, and the only
question was whether land should be purchased in the
neighbourhood of the Museum at £50,000 an acre, or, as
proposed by the bill, at Kensington for £lO,OOO an acre,
and, strange to say, the advocates of economy preferred the
most expensive plan.

Mr. HENLEY said he objected to the hill on this simple
ground—that it proposed to give power to the trustees of
the Museum to do something that would cost the country
between £600,000 and £700,000.

•
Upon a division, the amendment was carried by 163 to
to 71, a majority of 92 against the Government; so the
Bill is lost.

On the order for the third reading of the Peace Pre-
servation (Ireland) Bill,
Colonel DICKSON called attention to the recent mur-
ders in Ireland, observing that the Government was bound
to take some steps to grapple with crimes which, he be-
lieved, were connected with the land.
Sir R. PEEL said there had been no neglect on the
part of the authorities ; prompt measures had been taken
by them to arrest the criminals, and in the most recent case
the murdererlad been immediately seized and identified.
He deprecated a departure from the ordinary course of the
law, firmly administered.

A discussion of some length followed upon the subject,
in the course of which the Government were strongly
urged to reorganize the constabulary, so as to give them
less of a military and more of a police character.
The Bill was read a third time and passed.
The remaining orders having been disposed of, the House
adjourned at 25 minutes past 2 o'clock.