The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-25 00:00:00

ENING, APRIL 25, 1860.

selves. It appeared that Mr. Smirke's plan was made with-
out the slightest consultation with the heads of depart-
ments. Mr. Hawkins handed in a virtual protest, contra-
dicting aluiost every position of Mr. Smirk° with regard to

the structure of the building and the arrangement of the
collections. Professor Owen bad proposed another plan,
which lie sent to the trustees, but the trustees decided not
to send the report to the Government, altbcugh they knew
that the government were considering the question at

that very time.}le trusted the Government would acquiesce
in the motion ; and he only hoped that by means
of this committee full justice would be done to the magni-
ficent collection which they possessed. (Cheers )
ALT. KINNAIRD seconded the motion, which he be-

Rested the government did not intend to oppose.
Sir G. LEWIS had no objection to that portion of the mo-
tion which hadbeeu agreed to in a previous session, and which
was not carried irlto effect because of the dissolution of parlia-
ment. It was an appeal to vulgar prejudice to say that the mem-
bers of the Government were not discharging their duty in
seeking to inform themselves on questions of this nature,
and attending and voting upon them as they did at the
meetings of the trustees. lle (Sir G. Lewis) was not pre-
sent at the particular meeting to which the hon. member for
Galway had referred, but if he had been he should certainly

have voted in the majority. He believed it would be mast
expedient for the interests and the management of the Mu-
seum that there should be no attempt made to purchase
land in the immediate vicinity of the present building, but
that portions of the collection should be removed. He said
nothing as to the site to which such removal should take
place. If Kensington was thought to be too far west, let
the hon. gentleman point out some eligible situation to the
east or to the north, and it would be considered. But what-
ever the site, he had no doubt it could be procured at far
less cost than land could be purchased for enlarging the
building in the immediate neighbourhood of the Museum.
A. plan had been suggested, and it was fully considered at
the meeting of the trustees, to enlarge the building by
adding to it another story ; but, upon inquiry, it was found
that the removal of the collection to an upper floor would
be so difficult and so inconvenient, seeing that it would
necessitate the closing of the collection altagether for seve-
ral years, that though favourable to the plan generally
they decided against it. The honourable gentleman had
adverted to the qaestion of duplicates, and proposed that
duplicate specimens should be removed to other places
in different parts of the country where branch museums
should be established. This was also a question of expense.
If the house was disposed to found a number of district
museums and send to them any duplicate specimens there
might be in the British Museum, that was a question for
the House of Commons to determine. But they would be
under a mistake if they supposed that any great advantage
would be derived from the duplicates. The house already
voted £1,200,000 for science and art, independent of the
Museum vote, and if this suggestion were adopted a very
considerable increase would be necessary. So far as perso-
nal considerations went he should rejoice at such a deci-
sion, but the state of the public revenue and expenditure
rendered it necessary before incurring such a charge to con-
sider the matter in connexion with other questions of a
similar nature from which public benefit might be proved
to be obtainable.
Mr. A. TURNER observed that if five acres and a half
surrounding the present Museum were purchased, and the
buildings planned by the architect erected, the cost would
be £807,000, and if five acres and a half were taken at Ken-
sington, and the same plan was there carried out, the ex-
pense would be £594,500. Now, he held that the country
was not prepared under existing circumstances to spend
either the one or the other of these sums upon the proposed
object. Suppose they adopted the Kensington proposal, con-
sidering the experience they had of the estimate as compared
with the eventual cost in the case of public business, they
might expect that the sum that they would have to pay would
be very largely beyond the £600,000. He was informed
that the cost of removing the natural history collection
would not be less than £20,000, and that the fittings neces-
sary to receive it and snake it presentable to the public
would cost at least £30,000 more. Then, if the building
were ready, the removal would take twelve months ; but if
it had to be erected, and all the fittings to be made and
fixed, the Museum must be closed to the publicfor two years,
or perhaps longer. Then, look at the risk of removing a
collection, many of the articles in which were of a very de-
licate nature, and perfectly unique, so that if broken and
destroyed, they could not be replaced. He believed that all
that was necessary might be accomplished by purchasing
the row of houses on the south aide of Montague-place,
which might be done at no very great expense, and, upon
the a lditional ground so obtained a building might be
erected, on the ground floor of which all the heavy articles
of antiquity might be arranged, while the room above might
be devoted to the lighter articles.
Colonel SYKES urged the house not to lose sight of the
immense advantage which belonged to the present central
situation of the Museum, and also to endeavour to come to
some arrangement to render the collections available to the
inspection of the public on week-day evenings.
Lord PALMERSTON remarked that the whole question
of expense was entertained by the trustees of the British
Museum, and he felt it to be his duty to attend one of their
meetings to consider that matter, on the part of the
Government and the public. The trustees had no interest
but that of the public, neither had the Govern
ment. There were many additions made to the Museum
for which there was no room, and the qtestion arose as to
where those collections were to be placed, so that the public
could see them with advantage. After a careful considera-
tion of the whole subject it was considered, that if any part
of the additions were to be removed it should be the natural
history department. Then came another subject for inquiry,
namely, as to how additional space could be obtained in the
immediate contiguity of the building, and it was found on
inquiry, that such a place could not be obtained under
£200,000. Surely, no one responsible for the expenditure
of the public money could approve of such an outlay. He
therefore thought that it was the duty of the Government
to find adequate space elsewhere at less expense. He cer-
tainly could not approve of the suggestion of the hon. mem-
ber for Manchester, that a sum of £590,000 should be
expended for additional space. He hoped the committee
would go into the inquiry, with the view of providing ade-
quate accommodation for the public and the specimens,
and without incurring any unnecessary expenditure.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. JACKSON thought the ratepayers of the metro-
polis should bear all the necessary expenditure, as they
would derive all the advantages from the institution.
Mr, GLADSTONE differed from the doctrine that the
persons employed at the British Museum were underpaid.
The offices were of an exceedingly agreeable character, and,
according to the la se of supply and demand, the salaries
were at their natural level.
The motion was then agreed to.
DOCKYARDS.

Mr. JACKSON moved that a humble address be pre-
sented to her Majtsty, praying that she would be graciously
pleased to issue a Royal Jommission to inquire into the sys-
tem of control and management of her Majesty's dockyards,
the purchase of materials and store; the cost of building,
repairing, altering, fitting, and refitting her Majesty's ships.
The system was, in itself, most imperfect, and the time was
coma for inquiry and alteration. The cost of building ships
differed in almost every yard, and in some yards there were
two officers to one is other yards. In some places the man
who measured the work participated in the profits of the
work, and there was no one to overlook him. Then, in
order to reward captains and admirals they made them
superintendents of dockyards, and by the time they learned
something of their duties they were promoted. If private
establishments were conducted in the way these public esta-
blishments were, they would soon be in the Gazette. The
Government had given him every assistance, and, as the
,members who were to compose the commission Were already
settled, ho should no longer take up the time of the house.
Mr. KINN AI RD seconded the motion.
Mr. CORRY had no objection to the appointment of a
commission, and hoped it would be attended with public
benefit. He hoped the motion was not brought forward in
any spirit of disrespect to the report of the committee.
(" No," from Mr. Jackson.) With many of the recommen-
dations of the committee he did not agree, and he thought
the system of shipbuilding followed in private yards could
not be introduced into the Government establishments. No
doubt the cost of building ships latter Majesty's dockyards
was more than the cost of building in private yards, but it
should be recollected that the work was heavier and better
done. However, the subject was well worthy of inquiry,
although he was not very sanguine as to results.
Mr. BENTINCK feared the hon. member was setting
about this inquiry in the wrong way. The best persons
to make an inquiry was a properly constituted Board of Ad-
miralty, and the best thing they could do was to recon-
struct that board with a view to this and other improve-
ments. He did not, however, think that the charge of
wastefulness would be substantiated against her Majesty's
dockyards so far as building ships was concerned, although
there might be waste in a thousand other ways. But the
root of this evil was in the constant changes that were going
on amongst the superior authorities, and until that system
was changed little good could be done.
Mr. LINDS .1Y asked what the hon. member would pro-
pose instead of the present system of having the Board of
Admiralty go out with every Administration. If he pro-
posed that the Board should be for life, he (Mr. Lindsay)
would decidedly object to it, although he concurred with
him that the First Lord should have a knowledge of nauti-
cal affairs. What he stated on a former occasion with respect
to the cost of buil in ships in her Majesty's dockyards
was not on his own authority, but on that of the committee
appointed by tho late Government. He hoped the commis-
sion would perform its duties efficiently, and especially in-
quiretwlwao
hos uti
el
session
s extendnssuggestioona
etichto
that
tnoto
fit
t‘v,h,lre,eai ssmmei odei
onre
n.
gisfiarvi,oeel
ncvn
hd
into the charges made against the dockyard authori-
ties of unnecessarily expending the public money. He
t ot h madee
a tohuen
ts motionwere
ch
kept. The present Secretary of the Admiralty stated
moneyh
ew es
lir oo
ue
lxdp e
likend e
tdh
ao
tf
to be inquired into, as well as the manner in which the
menoburrde
he
tocwi ont r
the ktpoe
Adt
h.
G eE‘country
Heo rwbd
in
al
believed
elom,
dpo
uoo
asvr
eeedgf a
eats
non
eabirnena
inquiry,
aaudmfi
der amendment, dment, the
words he suggested to his hon. friend.
surveyor's duties were performed, and the mode in which
the erLoo
'inatogndthehmeeismstae:‘-'

tion of his hon. friend the member for Sunderland. Public
opinion had lately given its impressions in pretty strong
terms as to the manner in which money was spent in the
dockyards, and the Government he thought very properly
were ready to grant an inquiry into the subject. The only
difference now was, whether it should be a committee or a

commission, and as no inquiry could be properly canyed on
without visiting the dockyards and examining the actiounts,
and bearing in mind that a considerable portion of the session
had already past—that report could be made by any commit-
tee in the present year, he thought for all these reasqns that
a Royal commission would be better. He did not complain
of the committee that sat last year on this subject, but
there was one part of the system, viz., that Of ship-
building, which they entirely passed over. Now, he
believed that omission to be one of the best grounds for

granting that commission. One of the duties will be to

ascertain if tho strenzth of the Comptroller's Office was
sufficient for the discharge of its enormous duties, and

ho believed it would be found that some additional assist

ance was necessary. First of all, the Comptroller had the
entire management and control of the whole of the ship-
building in the dockyards, the repairing and fitting them
out, the superintendence of contracts, and the purchasing
of a great number of stores. In addition to this, he must
look to the promotion of officers in the various dockyards,
and a considerable portion of his time was taken up in the
consideration of new inventions, which had of late years

become considerable. So that he could not visit the dock

yards to see if the works were properly carried on, but was
imprisoned in his office in London. Now that question was
never discussed by the committee, but so strong did the
Admiralty feel the necessity of procuring him assistance that

an assistant was about to bo appointed. When, however,

his noble friend the Duke of §Ornerset saw the motion oi

his hon. friend on the paper, he thought it better not to do
so until he saw the result of the commission. He himself

believed the present work at the Admiralty was only
exceptional, btit it was better the inquiry should go into
every point. Another part of it ought to be, whether it
was possible to give the House of Commons the cost of
every ship that was built, and of every ship repaired or
altered. He had himself, some years ago, brought this
subject forward, and urged it on the attention of that
house and the Admiralty, but without effect, and it passed
unheeded. In 1858, when he returned to the house, he ear-
nestly called its attention to it again. He stated that there
were two mysterious votes in the estimates, amount-
ing to £2,326,000, and defied any one to say how the
money was expended. He did the same thing last year,
and he wished on the present occasion to say a few words
in reference to it. The right hon. gentleman the member
for Droitwich said the other night that he (Lord Clarence
Paget) ought to have expressed his regret at the statement he
made respecting the five millions which he said could not be
accounted for. What he said was in answer to a question
put to him by the hon. and gallant admiral the member for
Southwark, who had acted in this matter rather ungenerously
towards him. The right hon. gentleman opposite did the
same thing in accusing him of making statements which
he was unable to substantiate. He had never for a mernent
believed or stated that the money was not properly accounted
for by the proper authorities, but that it was not already ac -
counted for to the house, and put so clearly in the estimates
that it could be understood. He was -willing to admit that
there were some sums in the account of which he had no
knowledge whatever. If he was asked his deliberate opinion
as to the economical management of these large funds, he
could not say that the money spent during a long series of
years had been expended with due economy in the ship-
building department of the navy. If the commissioners
should report that he was wrong in that opinion, and that
the department had been conducted with a due regard to tke
public service, no one would rejoice more than himself. He
had troubled the house with these fewpersonal remarks be-
cause he did not wish that night after night hon. members
should make observations on statements supposed to have
been made by him, but which be had never either made or
intended. On other subjects he would not trouble the house
with any lengthened remarks. The hon. member for New-
castle had objected to the practice of giving the men at the
dockyards a half-holiday when the Lords of the Admiralty
visited them. The fact was, that the Lords of the Admi-
ralty last year did not give the half-holiday, and though
it had been a rule from time immemorial to do so after
mustering the men, the rule had now become obsolete, and
the practice had been given up. With resp ect to the
motion, all ho could say was that the Admiralty
would give every facility to the inquiries of the corn •
missioners in every department, and in acquiring in-
formation on every subject embraced in the address. He
could not agree to the proposal of the hon. member for
Norfolk, that the inquiry should include the constitution of
the Board of Admiralty. That was a very different ques-
tion; but on the part of the Government he would offer no
opposition to the motion of the hon. member for New-
castle. (Hear.)
After a few words in reply from Mr. JACKSON, the
motion was agreed to.
PAWNBROKERS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
This hill passed through committee.
Several orders of the day were postponed.
LONDON CORPORATION BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this

bill,

Mr. Alderman SALOMONS appealed to the Home Se-
cretary to postpone it, because many hon. members who
' intended to take part in the debate had left the house in
the belief that other matters would occupy the whole of the
evening, and consequently that it would not come on.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT said the_ bill had already been post •
polled some half dozen times, without any apparent cause,
and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would not yield to
the appeal that had beon made to him.
Mr. AYRTON in rising to move, according to notice,
" That it be committed to a select committee, with instruc-
tion to inquire into and report upon the charges and taxes
on the metropolis, and the expediency of constituting the
metropolis a county of itself, for all purposes of local ma-
nanagement, and for the administration of justice," said
it was no doubt much to be regretted tha t the conduct
of the Government with respect to the postponement
of orders of the day should lead to so much misappre-
hension on the part of members, who could never be cer-
tain what business would be brought on. The late Govern-
ment never acted in that way. When they resolved to
postpone a bill due notice was given ; but the present kept
their determination in their own breast till the last moment.
The present Homo Secretary especially seems) to take a
delight in thus perplexing, confusing, and baffling hon.
members in this way. However, as he was there to watch
her Majesty's Government, he should feel it to be his duty
to proceed with his motion. He must say, at the outset,
that he could not understand the reason why the Govern-
ment should have devoted a single hour's labour b this
question —to the reform of this municipality. The time
wis past when it could do any good whatever, although,
unfortunately, the :imo had not passed' when it could be an
obstruction and a nuisance to the rest of the metropolis.
He saw no reason why the Government should trouble
themselies with an attempt to improve this petty munici-
pality. It occupied an area of 700 acres out of the 7,000
acres which constituted the area of the whole metropolis,
and had a population of only 113,000 in the midst of a me-
tropolitan population of at least two millions and a half, and
it was also certain that the population was diminishing in
proportion to tho increase of business premises. An at-
tempt of a remarkable character was now made. That
municipality was really at one time metropolitan, but why
it should now receive so much respect from the right hon.
gentleman he could not possibly understand, when it had
long lost all claim founded upon its original character
as guardian of the trade of the metropolis and the seat
of the capital of the empire. In ancient times
the city of London had a double basis, arranged in a
double manner; for every trade was a guild, and each
guild was connected with a great corporation. It was
necessary, before any person could be admitted as a mem-
ber of the general corporation, that he should be a mem-
ber of some guild, that he should be a freeman of a city
company, before ho could be a citizen of the general
municipality. At the time of the first Edward, the power
of electing the members of the common council of the cor-
poration was vested, not in the local inhabitants, but in the
trading companies of which the corporation was composed.
The City was divided into wards, and each ward was to
select a member of the governing body. That gave rise to
a feud between the inhabitants on one hand, and the guilds
on the other; but the guilds continued, nevertheless, to be
the basis of municipality. But when the City had reached
its ancient limits, marked at the present day by the words
Ludgate, Newgate, and other places where the City gates
formerly stood, and which occupied the crests of the hill on
the other side of the Fleet, the City, with a degree of wis-
dom well worthy of imitation at the present day, expanded
itself to the wants of its population at the time, It then
extended to an outer ring, traces of the course of which
were still indicated by the words " bars," such as Temple-
bar," " Holborn-bars," " Smithfield-bars," 4C:c. That trans-
action took place at a very remote period, but when the
bridge was built across the Thames, of which the City were
justly proud, the corporate limits were extended, and South-
wark became a part of the corporation. The citizens, how-
ever, never gave to Southwark a share of their municipal
privileges. There were other indications, also, of a desire
on the part of the Crown not to narrow the Metropolitan
Corporation to the limits of its walls. It obtained from the
Crown control over all the markets for seven miles round,
so as to include the whole body of traders whose produce
was sold in those markets. More than that, to show that it
regarded its position as being not merely local, but as en-
titled to the care and control of the traffic of the Thames, it
conferred upon it the jurisdiction and guardianship of that
river from Staines to its mouth. (Hear.) The City was
deprived of that jurisdiction only two or three years ago
in the spirit of reform ; but he had said enough to show
that it was not a corporation of that narrow character
with which that bill sought to invest it, as a final
settlement of the question. In the course of time, how-
ever, the City came to be regarded as the seat of a malig-
nant body. It had become a place where those who had in-
curred displeasure fled, he would not say for protection, but
for consolation and support. That had been the case from a
very remote period ; for after the Barons had signed.Magna
Charta, they proceeded to shelter themselves behind the
City walls, where they
were splendidly feasted 13, the citi-
zens in safety. The last person who had availed himself 9f
the countenance of the City was Wilkes, a man by no means