Star.
London, England, 1821-04-12 00:00:00

BRITISH MUSEUM.

Mr. LENNARD, in submitting the motion of
which he bad given notice, stated, that his object
was to put the House in possession of the number of
persons who, in the last five years, had applied for
admission to the reading-room of the British Museum
without success. It appeared, indeed, by the returns
lately made to the House, that the number of admis-
sions was exactly equal to the number of applica-
tions, and that the greatest inconvenience to which
applicants were subjected by the present regulations
was merely a postponement, as it was called. But
when this postponement was continued till the person
applying for admission obtained a recommendation
from a Trustee, or an officer of the house, it was evi-
dent that it must in many cases amount to a refusal.
All he thought necessary was, that the officers should
ascertain that the persons applying for admission
were of that respectability and station in fife, which,
were they personally known to them, would procure
their admission. The names of all the persons who
had applied within the last fire years might easily e
furnished;; and if no list had been kept of those whose
applications had been postponed, as it was called, in
the Returns on the table, then another mode must be
taken to ascertain their numbers, and he must apply
to the persons themselves to come forward. He con-
cluded by moving for an account of all.such appli-
cations for admission to the reading-room of the Bri-
tish Museum a's have bgen postponed, in the last five,
years, on the plea that the persons applying should'
be furnished with the required reference.
Mr. MONCK seconded the motion.
Mr. BANKES observed, that the Han. Mover
complained of the discretion vested in the officers of
the house being too narrow; but surely it was fitting
to see that the persons applying were of that descrip-
tion that oughr to be admitted. He believed there
WAS no instance of a proper person being refused ad-

••••

•..

mission ; and therefore he hoped the Hon. Gentleman
would withdraw his motion.
Sir CHARLES LONG challenged the Honour-
able Gentleman,' if he had any case of grievance, to
state it to the ouse; but at present he could see
neither the object of the motion, nor any necessity for
it. He was not aware of any better rule that could
be adopted, or that the Honourable Gentleman had
to suggest.
Mr. DICKINSON bat testimony to the facility
with which proper persons obtained admission.
Mr. H. GURNEY could not help adverting to the
opinion which had gone abroad, that the libraries on
the Continent, particularly in France, were more
easy of access than that of the British Museum.—
That this opinion was unfounded, would at once ap-
pear on adverting to the fact that the library of the
British Museum was open six hours a-day, with only
a vacation of three weeks in the course of the whole
year ; whereas the libraries of Paris were open only
four hours a-day, with a vacation of six weeks.
Mr. LENNARD was not disposed to press the
motion to a division. As the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir C. Long) had challenged him to pro-
duce a case of hardship, he would mention two out
of many that had come to his knowledge. The first
was the case of a Gentleman engaged in the profes-
sion of the law, and who had been a contributor to
the Museum. This Gentleman, whose name was
Jones, wrote to Mr. Planta, requesting admission to
the reading-room, and was answered that a reference
was required. The consequence was, that for three
months Mr. Jones had been unable to obtain ad-
mission. The other case was that of the sons of an
eminent Professor at Geneva, who wished for ad.
mission to see the Manuscript of Rousseau's works,
but who received the same answer, and consequently
had not been able to procure admission.
Mr. BANKES explained. He had made inquiries
that very morning, and, to his certain knowledge,
there was no such list as that, for which the Hon.
Gentleman had moved.

Mr. LENNA RD again explained, and expressed
a hope that the ;louse would allow his motion to be
withdrawn.

Mr. BANKES, after‘what had taken place, de-
clared he must object to that allowance.
Mr. DENMAN hoped, after the candid and hand-
some explanation of the Hon. Gentleman, that the
House would skew him that courtesy which he de-
sired—( of " No, no").
The motion was then put, and negatived without
a division.

•4- - -

• ~ •

hen, and gambling. This he knew to be A fact—he
knew the names of all the persons who frequented
these, nightly meetings. The Clergyman of the Pa.:
risk gave it in evidence, that he bad lost eighteen'
' guineas in one night. He really thought, that upon
this statement, which he assured the House he was
ready to substantiate, and even upon the allegation
of the Petition alone, complaining of unexampled se-
verity and cruelty, he House might grant a Com-
mittee to investigate the matter. If these assertions
turned out not to be true, the Keeper would have the
benefit. He then moved, " That a Select Commit-
mittee be appointed to inquire, and report to this
House, what has been, and at present is, the condi-
tion of the prisoners confined in llchester Jail ; also
to examine the scite and state of the building, and re-
port their observations on the same to this House."
Mr. F. BUXTON seconded the motion. He had
been charged by Mr. Hunt with having raised the
character of the jail, and he readily admitted, that
he saw much in the management of the prison that
merited the highest praise. If he had been mistaken
he would be the first to expose those mistakes.
Mr. DICKINSON would give no opposition to
the motion, but from what he knew of the Jailor, he
should be much surprised if any acts of cruelty
should be proved against him. The irregularities
in the jail had taken place without the knowledge of
the Jailor, and five of the servants had in conse-
quence been dismissed. From the great number of
prisoners sent to the jail, the accommodation was not,
in all respects, so desirable as could be wished.—
Every attention had been paid to the accommcdation
of Mr. Hunt, and a well had been lately sunk for the
use of the prisoners. The bed of the river was
feet below the foundation of the jail. A female
Quaker had been put in solitary confinement by her
own wish. He should think a Commission would be
better than a Committee.

Dr. LUSHINGTON had made inquiries, and, as
the result had not been satisfactory, he was in favour
of further investigation. When he was last at ll-
chester, he had examined the Jail, and thought the
mode Of employing the prisoners reflected much cre-
dit on the Jailor. He had heard charges of cruel
treatment in the prison, and he was unable to make
up his mind. He, therefore, wished for inquiry. In
the Borough Compter, two women had been de-
tained eleven days, half-naked. That was -one of
the greatest abuses he had ever heard of. When such
instances had taken place, he thought inquiry indis-
pensably necessary.
Mr. BATHURST was in favour of inquiry from
the facts that had been stated, and which had not
been contradicted. He thought it would be proper
to iAquire into the structure of the Jail, as well as its
internal management, as some improvements might
be suggested.
Mr. H. G. BENNETT said, that the statements
formerly made by the Honourable Alderman had
been flatly contradicted, but had now been fully ad-
mitted—(Hear, hear). He thought the House should
not resign the power out of their own hands, and he
hoped that a Commission would not be appointed.
He happened to know something of a Commission in
a similar case (Lincoln Castle). That inquiry was a
perfect mockery—(Hear, heat).
Sir T. LETHI3RIDGE was in favour of inquiry
by a Commission. Much attention had been paid
by the Magistrates to the management of this Jail.
Mr. CREEVEY should vote fora Committee. A
Commission was only putting patronage in the hands
of the Crown. He wished to avoid giving Ministers
an opportunity of creating new places; the old ones
were ssufficiently expensive to the country—(Hear).
Sir M. CHOLNIONDELEY said, that the Hon.
Member for Shrewsbury was not justified in calling
the Commission of Inquiry relative to Lincoln Castle
a mockery. He would be glad to know on what
grounds he made that charge? He knew one of the'
Members of that Commission, who was a Magistrate,
and a most honourable man. He objected to the
source whence Mr. Bennett drew his information; he
believed he had that information from Mr. Finnerty.
Mr. G BENNETT stated, that he had no com-
munication with Mr. Finnerty on the subject, but he
believed him to be entitled to as much personal cre-
dit as the Hon. Gentleman himself—(Cheers).—His
opinion would have as much weight with him on the
subject as that of the Hon. Gentleman, and whatever
his authority was, it was equally good with his own..
Sir R. HERON confirmed the statement of Mr.
Bennett as to the Lincoln Commission, and sup-
ported the principle of inquiry by Committee.
Mr. D. BROWNE objected to the interference of
that House in every babbling complaint about pri-
sons, and therefore he opposed the motion.
Mr. FIUME said, that all had admitted that strong
grounds had been laid for a Committee ;las no less
than five servants had been dismissed. He would re-
commend the last speaker to learn the object of a
motion before he opposed it—( Hear, hear).
Mr. D. BROWNE, in explanation, stated, that he
did not mean to discountenance the interposition of
the House upon any serious and material case of op-
pression, but lie must oppose any attention to bab-
bling or trifling complaints.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said, that the last speaker
had been only two minutes in the House when he
had given his opinion of what he could know nothing
about—(Hear, hear).—He had 32 witnesses to bear
out his facts. He should prefer a Committee to a Com-
mission; but if three Members of that House would.
go as a Commission, he should agree to it readily.
Mr. ROBINSON said, that for many reasons a
Commission would be the preferable mode, in order
to put both parties on an equal footing.
Mr. Alderman WOOD observed, that he had been
unable to obtain any information on the subject of
the _person who had been confined at the suit of the
Crown in Ilchester Jail.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the individual formerly alluded to had not been
detained at the suit of the Crown, but of the Parish.
Mr. HARBORD would protest against any paid
Commissions.

Mr. HUSKISSON said, the Commissioners were
only paid their expenses.
Mr. GOULBURN moved, as an Amendment, that
a Commission should be appointed instead of a
Committee, as the Member for Somerset was pre-
vented, by the forms of the House, from moving an
Amendment.

Mr. MARBORD would suggest that, in the first
instance, a Committee might be appointed ; out of
which, if necessary, a Commission might grow.