SUPPLY-REPORT.-BRITISH MUSEUM. POSTPONED RESOLUTION. MR. GREGORY expressed a hope that the Session would not terminate without some arrangement being made to alter the government of the Museum. The Royal Commission of 1860 had made a very useful Report, but every one of its recommendations had been ignored in the Trustees' Bill. The majority by which that Bill was thrown out was an aggregate of differing elements-those who objected to the separation of the collections, those who objected to the management, and those who objected to the extravagance of the system. The proposal for the removal of the Natural History collection came from Professor Owen, he believed, almost alone; and however great that gentleman's authority, it was not, he thought, sufficient to justify the proposal, which was in direct opposition to the Report of the Royal Commission. He (Mr. Gregory) believed a satisfactory arrangement might be come to now by providing for the Natural History collection in the second floor, and the sculpture in a building upon the small piece of ground which it had been recommended should be purchased, adjoining the present building. This would involve an outlay of not more than £270,000, instead of £670,000, which was the expenditure involved in the Government proposal. The plan he proposed would admit of indefinite extension of the galleries, so as to provide for future additions to the collection. in solving the most perplexing questions, both as to the classification and mode of exhibition of objects of art and science. It was unfortunate, however, that these gentlemen were able to agree only in objections to the plans of others, and not in support of any one of their own. It would be the duty of Government to consider what further provisions ought to be made for the national collections, and to submit any proposal on the subject to the House, in such a manner and with such information as would best enable them to deliver a judgment upon it. He believed the preponderating element in the majority against the recent Bill consisted of hon. Members who held that this was not an opportune season for incurring a heavy additional outlay. He wished, however, to repeat that the second reading of that measure would have committed the House merely as to the selection of a site, and not as to the extent of the new museum. Committee it would have been competent for any hon. Member to have proposed to limit the extent to an acre or a couple of acres. MR. CONINGHAM thought the drawings had better remain where they were than be removed to the National Gallery; and that if a vast quantity of rubbish were removed that never ought to have been placed in the Museum, and by a rearrangement, room might be found for a great deal more of what was really useful than was generally supposed. He objected to the system of restoring the sculptures in the Museum which had recently been introduced, and which he thought as objectionable as the restoration of the paintings. He should certainly be sorry to see the drawings withdrawn from the British Mu seum. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he would not follow the hon. Member through his speech, which was mainly a criticism upon a defunct measure. The hon. Gentleman, with many others in the House, found no difficulty In The Government did not intend to cover the whole of the proposed site with buildings; but he thought it fair to inform the House of the dimensions to which the plan might ultimately be carried. The Government deemed that it would not be right to propose the extension of the Museum on so costly a site as Bloomsbury, when one so much cheaper could be obtained at Kensington. He could not, therefore, hold out any hope to the hon. Member that the Government would adopt his proposal; nor did they think it would be desirable to make any proposal on the subject to the House during the present Session. LORD HENRY LENNOX said, he was glad to hear that the Government were going to give this question their careful consideration. He believed that Ken. sington was, on the whole, the cheapest and most desirable situation for the national collection. He could not concur with his right hon. Friend in approving the government of the British Museum by Trustees, and if he had the honour of a seat in that House next year, he should move an address to Her Majesty, praying that in future the Estimates for that institution might be moved by a responsible Minister, and that £100,000 of the public money might not be annually expended under the direction of gentlemen who held their offices merely because their grand them adrift at the end of their days without any provision. fathers had some years ago disposed of POOR LAW OFFICERS SUPERANNUA- SECOND READING-ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [15th May]. "That the Bill be now read a second time." Question again proposed. MR. MACEVOY observed, that there was no superannuation for Poor Law Offi cers in England. MR. SCULLY said he represented a very large county, and had never been asked to present a petition from that county for superannuation such as that proposed by this Bill. He should like to see this measure introduced at Tamworth, in the first instance, by way of experiment. MR. H. A. HERBERT recommended LORD EDWIN HILL moved, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland to withan draw the Bill, in order that boards of Amendment, that the Bill be read a second guardians might have time to consider time that day three months. what its effects would be. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day three months." Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." LORD NAAS recommended that the Bill should be postponed for another year, though he was himself in favour of the principle of superannuation. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, as almost every Member, except the hon. Member for King's County, was opposed to his press. SIR FREDERICK HEYGATE was op-ing the Bill, he would consent to withdraw posed to the principle of superannuations it. generally, but thought this Bill ought to be passed, being merely permissive. COLONEL DUNNE thought this Bill the very worst in the category of Irish measures. The Poor Law seemed to be made the favourite engine of wringing money in every way from the Irish taxpayers, and, looking to the present amount of the rates, he looked with alarm to the coming winter. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, the Bill had not originated with the Government, but with the Select Committee of last year; seventy-one boards of guardians in Ireland petitioned the Government to bring forward such a Bill, and only twelve raised their voices against it. Three of the most important unions had written to him by their chairman, urging the adoption of the measure as one of economy. The Bill would certainly necessitate the raising of a permanent fund of £153,000. If the Irish Members thought that amount excessive, he should be very glad to get rid of the responsibility of the Bill, but he did not feel himself at liberty to withdraw it without some marked expression of feeling on the part of the House. MR. HENNESSY hoped the measure would be proceeded with. It was one in favour of which a strong public feeling existed, and was calculated, he thought, to have a most beneficial effect. LORD JOHN BROWNE said, it was unfair towards Poor Law Officers to cast Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn whole country, will appreciate the national to his country, for his own glory he has loss which it has sustained. died not too soon; for he was not withdrawn from the scene until he had achieved the greatest honour that can be won by a subject of Her Majesty he has preserved to the English Crown its most important province, and in the country which he governed he has left a people prosperous. LORD CHELMSFORD: In the absence of my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), I cannot refrain from joining in the deep sentiment of grief which we have just heard expressed by the noble Earl. I am sure your Lordships deeply sympathize with those sentiments, and I only wish I had words to express my sense of the irreparable loss which the country has sus tained. LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, there will not, I am confident, be one dissenting voice, either in Parliament or in the country, from the expression of deep regret for the loss we have sustained to which my noble Friends have given utterance. Without any distinction of party, without any difference of rank, I believe it will be adImitted that the talents and the virtues of Lord Canning stand as high and in as proud a position as those of any man who has ever served the Queen. It is LORD LYVEDEN: My Lords, having been publicly associated with Lord Canning during the most eventful period of his career, I cannot refrain from saying one or two words on this occasion, although the opportunity was unexpected. singularly to the honour of Lord Canning that he went out to India impressed with the belief that he would have a long reign of peace and prosperity, during which it was his full resolve to devote his utmost exertions to promote the social happiness. and the material welfare of the people of India. But during his sway the greatest and most extraordinary insurrection which history records took place, and instead of new social and financial arrangements, Lord Canning had to display his energy and his resources in defending the empire of the Queen. Lord Canning had the rare felicity of proving that he was incapable of being swayed by popular ap: plause to do what he thought wrong and that he was equally incapable of being driven by popular detraction from that which he believed to be right. He had the infinite glory of finishing his career in the manner in which he had hoped to commence it by putting the finances of India in order and advancing its condition to a greater extent than it has ever before reached. Although, therefore, his private and attached friends, his public associates, and the whole people must deeply deplore his removal from us at a time when his services might have been so eminently useful House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.' HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday June 17, 1862. SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read, Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 (Annual Close-time). MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE said, he would propose to add at the end of Clause 7 the following proviso: "Provided always that in tidal waters where salmon fishing by means of net and coble can only be carried on during a certain state of the tide, it shall be lawful for persons having such rights of fishing to commence to fish by net and coble only at such hour of the Monday morning as may be suitable for the same." THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he should oppose the proviso, which would leave it in the discretion of proprietors of fisheries to say when they should commence fishing, and when they should leave off. By an Amendment which he had already proposed to the clause, the Commissioners would have power to vary the period at which the weekly close-time should commence in any district; and he did not think it would be advisable to go beyond that. Proviso negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 14 (Penalty for causing or allowing Poisonous Substances to flow into Rivers). MR. MURE said, he would move, in line 20, after the word "Scotland," to insert, "after notice duly given by special advertisement, in some newspaper of general circulation in the district, not less than ten days before any such visitation, MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE opposed the Amendment. Amendment negatived. MR. W. EWART said, he should support the Amendment. MR. FINLAY said, that he approved of the proposal of the Lord Advocate to delay the operation of the Act for a period of two years. MR. CAIRD said, he would withdraw his Amendment, and proposed in substitution for it the following::-" from and after the 1st of January, 1866," which would give three clear years to the parties to compensate themselves for the loss which they would suffer from the passing of this measure. Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 24, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words "From and after the Clauses 16 to 28 inclusive were also first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six." agreed to. Clause 29 (Certain provisions of Act 24 & 25 Vict., c. 109, applied to Solway Firth). MR. CAIRD said, he thought that the interests of the tenants of fisheries on the Scotch shores of the Solway Firth were sacrificed by the Bill. Under these circumstances he thought it only fair that the parties should be allowed a certain time to work out of the business, and he should therefore propose to insert the words "from and after the 1st of January, 1867," the object of which was to prevent the Act coming into operation, so far as these persons were concerned, before that period. MR. WEMYSS supported the Amendment. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he thought it would not be unreasonable to suspend the operation of the Act with respect to the parties for a certain period. He thought, however, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was too wide in its terms. He (the Lord Advocate), should have no objection to insert words providing that the Act should not come into operation till the 1st of January, 1865, which would meet the case, by giving ample time to the tenants for compensation arising out of a change in the law. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, that the Bill proposed to extend the English Act to a certain portion of Scotland in a way which would act injuriously to the interests of proprietors and tenants, and therefore he could not help thinking that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stirling was fair and reasonable. Question put, "That those words be there inserted." The Committee divided:- Ayes 20; Noes 65: Majority 45. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that notwithstanding the result of the division, he did not object to make the Amendment he had himself proposed, and to extend the time for the Act coming into operation until January, 1865. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 30 was likewise agreed to. River Tay, excepting as to the Weekly Clause 31 (Act not to apply to the Close-time). MR. WEMYSS said, he would move an Amendment, providing that the weekly close-time should commence at six o'clock on Saturday night, and end at six o'clock on Monday morning. Amendment negatived. MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE said, he wished to move the insertion of a clause to follow Clause 24, to provide that fishings in the possession of any proprietor, by virtue of a Royal grant or charter, and who should have exercised the right to fish the same for the term of forty years, and situated within certain estuaries, to be defined by the Commissioners, might be fished with fixed nets or fixed engines, until purchased. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that it was impossible for him to accede to clauses which would legalize fishing in places where it was unlawful at present. MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE said, he would point out that he had inserted the proviso, "not being an estuary already, lums were sometimes choked up with indefined or determined by law." curable cases; and if the means of removing those who were harmless existed, there would be an opportunity of taking in new cases. It was well understood, that if cures were effected in cases of lunacy, they were generally brought about within the first twelve months. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, the object of the Bill was to provide that, within the limits of estuaries to be fixed by the Commissioners, all fishing with fixed nets or fixed engines should henceforth be illegal. Clause negatived. MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE said, he would then move a clause empowering district boards to grant annual rod licences. The clause, with others following, had been taken verbatim from the recommendations of the Committee of last year. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that these were the very clauses upon which the Bill of the last session foundered. He hoped his hon. Friend would not renew a discussion which was very fully gone into during the last year. MR. D. ROBERTSON said, he should oppose the clause, as it was calculated to demoralize the people, who would not take out licences to do that which had been a custom for 100 years. MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE said, he would withdraw the clause. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to. Clause 6 (Powers of District Board, if they fail to provide Accommodation, may be exercised by Person appointed by Court of Session). the MR. BLACKBURN said, he objected to power being given to the Commissioners. It was quite a new principle, and had come upon the Scotch Members by surprise, for at their meeting on the previous day, they were told that the measure would be merely a continuance Bill, whereas the clause was entirely new. It was, he thought, unfair to override all the counties by the clause because a few of them had neglected their duty. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, the clause contained the most important provision in the Bill. The Bill was an Amendment of the Lunacy Act—and not a continuance Bill reported; as amended, to be con- Act-in any other sense than it continued sidered To-morrow. House resumed. Clause 3 (Board to Licence Lunatic wards of Poor-houses). MR. ELLICE (St. Andrews) said, that some of the northern counties had heavily assessed themselves to build asylums, in which the lunatics were well looked after, the harmless and incurable being allowed to reside with their friends. He should therefore move as an Amendment, excepting from the operation of the clause the counties of Inverness, Nairn, Ross, and Sutherland. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, that asy- the existing Board. SIR DAVID DUNDAS said, that when the district board refused to build asylums, there was no means of compelling them to provide the requisite accommodation. The clause would give the desired power, and he should support it. SIR ANDREW AGNEW said, he hoped the hon. Member for Stirling county (Mr. Blackburn) would persevere with his objection. MR. MURE suggested, that the provision enabling the Secretary of State to exercise the powers given him by the clause should be qualified by the insertion of the words "unless cause be shown to the contrary." THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he did not object to the Amendment. MR. BLACKBURN said, he should press his objection to a division. Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." The Committee divided: - Ayes 57; Noes 9: Majority 48. Clause agreed to. Remaining Clauses, with the exception of Clauses 12 and 22, agreed to. Ꮓ |