the proper officers of the House. Those authorities having investigated the matter, duly reported that there was a failure of compliance with the Standing Orders which could not be dispensed with, and the Bill, as a matter of course, was laid aside. Thus terminated a controversy which had excited no small amount of agitation and strife, and which, in the opinion of many, it would have cost the Government a severer struggle than all their Parliamentary strength would have sufficed to carry to a successful issue. By the City the result was hailed as a signal triumph.

The other question, involving a matter still more narrow and ephemeral in character, but which produced one of the warmest debates that took place during the present Session, related to the proposed acquisition by the Government of the building constructed for the International Exhibition of 1862 at Kensington, and the site which it occupied.

Beneath this question, in fact, lay another, which had, on more than one occasion, been mooted in the House of Commons in past Sessions, and on which the majority of the House had manifested a decidedly adverse leaning, namely, the transfer of the national collections of paintings from their present depositories in Trafalgarsquare and elsewhere to Kensington. The International Exhibition building, whatever might be its other defects, was generally admitted to contain one of the best constructed picture-galleries in existence, and, in the opinion of many, would have afforded a very eligible receptacle for the art treasures of the nation, or a part of them. On the other hand, a large part of the public were resolutely opposed to making a point so distant from the centre of the metropolis as Kensington the site of a popular exhibition; while others, as a matter of taste, entertained the strongest objection to retaining for permanent use a building which, however well adapted to the special and temporary object for which it was built, was loudly condemned by the public voice for its architectural demerits. As soon, therefore, as it became known that the Government entertained the design of purchasing, on behalf of the nation, the Exhibition building and site, a determined hostility was manifested in many quarters to the proposal. The question, however, was twofold. It might be wise as a matter of prudence to secure for the public a piece of ground of large actual and probably increasing value, provided the purchase could be made on favourable terms. But whether the building as it stood, or as it might be adapted by alteration, formed a desirable acquisition, was another and a different question.

Lord Palmerston accordingly, with his usual tact and adroitness, presented his proposition to the House of Commons in two parts; asking a vote in the first place of 67,000l. for the purchase of the land on which the Exhibition edifice stood and some ground adjacent to it. He prefaced his motion by some remarks upon the inferiority of London in its streets and public buildings, compared with other cities and with the character of the country,

and ascribed the cause of this inferiority to the great value of the ground in London, and the immense competition for it. He mentioned instances of the enormous prices demanded for pieces of land in London required for improvements, amounting in one case to no less than 119,000l. for an acre. A fraction of an acre near St. Paul's Cathedral was valued by the Corporation of the City at 60,000. The same cause, he observed, operated in other cities in the country, owing to the value given to land by the natural progress of wealth; and the question was where to look for land for the purpose in view. Now, the land held by the Exhibition Commissioners of 1851 was suitable to our wants and not too distant from the centre of the town. What was wanted was sufficient space for a Patent Office, some collections from the Museum, and a National Portrait Gallery. Supposing land were to be purchased in the metropolis, he showed the enormous price that must be paid for it by reading a series of estimates, whence it appeared that a space of three acres would cost at least 750,000l. The proposal the Government had to make was to purchase seventeen acres from the Commissioners for 120,000l., and to pay 80,0001. for the building, making together 200,000. As the building was not erected by the contractors for the purposes for which it was now wanted, further expenses must be incurred to make the fabric substantial, to alter the domes, for ventilation and protection against fire, and for improvement in the exterior, the total amount of which would be 284,000%. This sum, added to 200,0007., would make 484,000l. for seventeen acres of land, covered with a substantial building, to set off against 750,000. Some might say, he observed, that it would be better to buy the land only and let the contractors remove the building; but the erection of a new building would create an additional expense of 40,000l. The Government did not propose to remove the National Gallery at Trafalgar-square to Kensington, nor to send the learned bodies there. In conclusion, he expressed his belief that the proposal of the Government would be advantageous to the public; he observed that the plan admitted of future development, and that it combined economy with convenience. He moved the first vote of 67,0007. towards the purchase of the land.

Mr. GREGORY protested against the proposal. He objected to the removal of the collections to so great a distance, and the drawing of all our institutions into one focus. He condemned the bargain in strong language, contending that the estimates of the Government were fallacious, and, upon the faith of counter-estimates, that the supposed cheap bargain would involve the country in enormous expense. Why did not the Commissioners, he asked, give up all the land? Because they had involved themselves, or rather the public money, in a private undertaking, the Horticultural Gardens. He asked for more information, for plans and specifications, before the House committed itself to the proposal,

and imploring the House not to make this purchase, he moved the rejection of the vote.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied to Mr. Gregory, following him into details, in which he charged him with exaggeration. It was the duty of the Government, he said, to take the sense of the House upon the question whether or not it was better to purchase the building at 80,000. But that was not now the question before the Committee, which was, whether the Government should endeavour to obtain possession of the seventeen acres of land. After some further discussion, which was of rather an excited character, the House divided upon Lord Palmerston's motion, and affirmed the vote for the purchase of the ground by 267 to 135. The House, however, in adopting this motion, had merely decided that the acquisition by the Government of the freehold of a very desirable plot of land would be a judicious investment of public money; the real struggle as to the purchase and retention of the building was to come. On the day fixed for this discussion the Prime Minister was unfortunately prevented by indisposition from proposing the vote in person, and that duty devolved on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The great powers of that right hon. gentleman were perhaps less favourably displayed on this occasion than on questions of greater breadth and importance. It was generally considered that his conduct of the case which he had to present to the House was characterized by some deficiency of that tact which the peculiar circumstances of the juncture demanded. The vote which Mr. Gladstone asked was, for the purchase of the buildings at Kensington-gore, and for repairing, altering, and completing them, at a cost of 105,000. Inviting the House to look at this question as a dry matter of business, and touching upon a few preliminary points, he proceeded to state the nature and extent of the discretion sought by the Government. He explained the course taken by them to obtain information as to the estimate of expense, and then suggested to the Committee the situation in which the Government and the House would be likely to be placed, if, after the important step already taken for the purchase of the land, they should stop short, and nothing more was to be done. There was no obligation upon the contractors to remove the building within a certain time, and if the Government removed it they would have a great architectural question to deal with, besides a great money question, while serious inconveniences would result from the unavoidable delay. He then stated the means taken to ascertain the value of the building, and the data upon which the Government had made the offer of 80,000l. to the eontractors. The next question was the position of the Government with reference to the objects to be provided for. They had, he said, to provide for three urgent public wants-the National Portrait Gallery, the Patent Museum, and the Natural History Collections of the British Museum

which they had no means of meeting except by appropriating some portion of the site at Kensington. Mr. Gladstone explained, by reference to a coloured plan, the arrangements proposed for each of the before-mentioned purposes, and then stated the financial results. The cost of the land, and buildings on a portion of the land, would be 120,000.; there would have to be paid to the contractors 80,0001., and the cost of adapting the buildings would be 90,0007., making a total of 290,000. For this would be obtained four and a half or five acres of land covered with buildings and twelve and a half acres of site; or, in another view, land and buildings worth 360,0001.

Lord ELCHO, in a speech of considerable length, denounced the whole scheme of the Government on the grounds of taste and economy, disputing the accuracy of the details given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressing his wonder at the attempt to force this vote down their throat, and stigmatizing the building as a disgrace to the country, condemned by public opinion throughout the civilized world. He moved the rejection of the vote.

Mr. BENTINCK characterized the scheme as one of the most wasteful, extravagant, and unjustifiable proposals ever made to the House of Commons, and one that would open the way to unlimited expenditure.

Sir J. SHELLEY thought it would be better to pull down the building, and, having the ground clear, to see what was practically wanted, and provide for it, than to attempt to patch up a building that could not be made perfect. He must vote, he said, against the proposal of the Government.

Mr. GREGORY, in opposing the vote, accused the Government of either negligence or disingenuousness with reference to the vote for the purchase of the land. He argued that there was no necessity to send the Patent Museum to Kensington; that the Portrait Gallery was always considered to be connected with the National Gallery; and that it was good policy, as well as economy, to build only as required. He believed the proposal to be an extravagant one that would lead to endless expense.

Sir S. NORTHCOTE observed that as the question before the Committee was one of meeting an important demand on the part of the public, and one which, on the other hand, involved a large expenditure, the Government should have come forward with a distinct and definite proposition, whereas their proposition was vague and unsatisfactory, and one upon which it was difficult to come to a decision. He moved the reduction of the vote by 25,0007., leaving the sum required for the mere purchase of the building.

Several members, among whom were Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Lowe, attempted to address the House in favour of the Ministerial proposition, but so excited was the state of feeling that even these influential speakers could not obtain a hearing. Finally, Sir S. Northcote's amendment being withdrawn, the House proceeded

amidst considerable tumult to a division on the main question, when the proposition of the Government was negatived by an overwhelming majority, there being for the vote 121, against it 287.

In proposing an outlay of money for public works of a very different description, the fortification of the dockyards and arsenals, the Government encountered some, though not an equally for• midable, opposition. Sir Frederick Smith, an engineer officer, and M.P. for Chatham, moved as an amendment to the Ministerial proposition, "That no further expenditure be incurred for the present upon that part of the project for fortifications which is based on the assumption that an enemy might land in force and attempt to besiege Portsmouth and Plymouth, except on such works as are in a very advanced state of progress." He supported the view upon which the Resolution was founded by a train of professional arguments, pointing out the large expenditure that would be incurred for objects which he held to be unnecessary. Having looked at the question, he said, with great calmness and attention, he had thought it his duty to put this Resolution upon the paper, and commended it to the consideration of the House.

The amendment was supported by several members, among whom was Mr. B. Osborne, who remonstrated strongly against what he believed would be an indefinite outlay of money, reaching, perhaps, to 20,000,000l.; also by Lord Fermoy, Sir Thos. Colebrooke, Colonel Sykes, and, in a speech of much earnestness, by Mr. Cobden. Observing that this was a question concerning inland defence, on the assumption that an enemy had landed and was advancing into the interior, he said the project had its origin in a strange fancy of Lord Palmerston, that steam navigation had diminished our naval power in comparison with that of France. He had first launched that idea in 1845, and it had in a variety of forms pervaded his speeches since. He had talked of steam having bridged the channel, and we had been spending millions since in consequence of this illusion; for steam had for the first time made blockades practicable, and we had at this time a far larger steam navy than France. Steam-vessels were building in our ports in great numbers, and was not that our strength? He ridiculed the construction of the enormous fortresses on the South Downs-and if he had not seen them, he should not have believed in such egregious folly-on the assumption that an enemy had landed, and that, when Frenchmen had landed on our shore, our soldiers were to take refuge there. His great objection to the scheme was that it was a disgrace and dishonour to Englishmen. He was of opinion that, whatever state they were in, these inland fortresses ought to be stopped. In conclusion, he made a powerful appeal to the Liberal party to consider whether they were acting wisely in identifying themselves, or allowing themselves to be identified, with this measure at the instance of Lord Palmerston.

The views of the Government as to the necessity of the pro