THE ROYAL ACADEMY AND BURLING

TON HOUSE.-QUESTION.

LORD OVERSTONE said, he desired to ask a Question of the Government which had reference to a subject deeply interesting to the inhabitants of the metropolis. He had not given notice of his intention to put the Question, as the holydays approached; and he thought it would not be proper to allow a delay of ten days to intervene. Attention had been called to the subject in a letter which appeared in The Times of this morning, signed by Mr. Beresford Hope-no mean authority in such matters. He alluded to the decision for the retention of the National Gallery at Trafalgar Square, and the grant of a portion of the site of Burlington House to the Royal Academy. During the last Parliament an attempt had been made to effect the removal of the National Collection of Pictures from Trafalgar Square to South Kensington; but this design had been successfully resisted in the House of Commons. Now an arrangement had been come to by which the whole of the building in Trafalgar Square would be devoted to the exhibition of the National Gallery, and provision would be made for the Royal Academy at Burlington House at the expense of the Government. He believed the decision of the House of Commons had been come to hastily and without due consideration, and it would be most unfortunate if so fine a specimen of architecture as Burlington House (which was one of the architectural ornaments of the metropolis) should be interfered with by the erection on a portion of the site of an incongruous building. A plan was formerly drawn up for a National Gallery, to be erected on the vacant garden ground at the back of Burlington House. This plan had been carefully examined and fully approved by the Trustees, and it was a plan by which the Gallery would have had the best possible light, and by which ample accommodation and complete arrangements were provided. The plan now proposed to be adopted was objectionable on account of the annoyance which would be occasioned by continual traffic and noise. It must, moreover, involve great expense in obtaining the necessary site and in the erection of the requisite works. He trusted that the decision so hastily come to by a former House of Commons might be again brought under the consideration of a new Govern

ment, a new Parliament, and a new Prime Minister; and he wished to know, Whether there were any negotiations now pending between the Government and the Royal Academy which would prevent such a result being arrived at?

EARL GRANVILLE said, he entirely
concurred with the noble Lord in regretting
the decision come to of maintaining the
National Gallery in its existing position,
and of taking up a not very good space
behind for the purpose of the Gallery.
But that was the decision of the House of
Commons, and the Government thought it
necessary to bow to that decision. It was
quite urgent that some definite measure
should be adopted, and after negotiations
between the Government and the Royal
Academy, the Government felt bound to
grant to the Royal Academy a site, at all
events, for a new building, that body
agreeing on their part to erect suitable
buildings out of their own funds. With
respect to Burlington House, he agreed
with the noble Lord as to the architectural
beauty of that building; but it was quite
clear that the public, in giving a large sum
for its purchase, did so not with the view
of maintaining a handsome monument, but
to make some use of the building for
public purposes. The Government, hav-
ing been put
in a corner by the
decision of the House of Commons, had
felt themselves justified in making ar-
rangements with the Royal Academy for
giving that body the best site at their
disposal, and those arrangements had been
made. The Government had insisted on
certain conditions, which the Royal Aca-
demy had assented to. Therefore, as far
as the Government were concerned, they
were entirely bound to carry out the
arrangements come to. He understood
that on the part of the Royal Academy
there existed some doubt whether the new
site would be so advantageous as they
could desire; and should the Royal Aca-
demy consider the site not so eligible as
they had at first imagined, and were willing
to release the Government from the obli-
gation entered into, the Government would
be happy to listen to anything the Royal
Academy might have to say on the subject.

SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUN-
DAY BILL-(The Lord Chelmsford.)
(No. 119.) REport.
Amendments reported (according to
Order).

down to the lower House a measure which there would not be the slightest chance of passing.

LORD HOUGHTON said, he rose to appeal to the noble and learned Lord who had introduced this Bill (Lord Chelmsford) whether the most convenient course to LORD CHELMSFORD said, he felt inpursue would not be to withdraw it. The debted to the noble Lord for pointing to noble and learned Lord must have observed his windows as an object of public attenthat though no division had been taken on tion. As to the Bill which his noble the main principle of the Bill, that it was Friend wished him to withdraw, he should not because noble Lords on that (the Mi- like to draw his noble Friend's attention nisterial) side of the House were in favour with respect to some circumstances of its of the measure, but because they wished progress until it had arrived at its present that every opportunity might be given for stage. The second reading was opposed full and fair discussion. At the conclusion by a noble Lord opposite (Lord Teynham) of the debate the other night a noble Earl in a very long speech, who moved that it (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who of all men be read a second time that day six months; was the best entitled to command atten- but the noble Lord did not divide the tion on a question affecting the social con- House on that occasion, his own voice dition of the people, declared that part of being the only one raised against the the Bill might be injurious, and that the measure. The noble Lord gave notice whole of it would be useless. He believed of a similar Motion when the Bill was that if the noble Earl's speech had been about to go into Committee, and made a made at the beginning instead of at the speech in opposition to it; but upon a end of the discussion, the effect of it division he was in a minority, and the would have been very great. The noble Bill was committed. In Committee a Lord the Chairman of Committees intend- discussion took place principally with ed to propose an Amendment, the effect regard to the exceptions proposed, but of which would be to alter almost entirely they were all agreed to after two or three the whole Bill. Considering how little divisions. That being so, he did not look probability there was that the Bill, even upon the present stage of the Bill, after if it should pass their Lordships' House, the Bill had been agreed to in its principle would receive the assent of the other and all its details, and their Lordships House of Parliament, he would ask his were asked to receive the Report, as a noble and learned Friend whether it was fitting occasion to be invited to withdraw worth his while to proceed with it? He it altogether. It was true that certain would ask his noble and learned Friend to Amendments, of which notice had been remember the fate of his Bill of 1860, given, would, if introduced, be fatal to the which was a much less obnoxious measure, Bill; but he had a decided objection to and which, though it passed their Lord- abandon his measure. His noble Friend ships' House, did not receive the assent of (Lord Houghton) indeed said, that if it the other House of Parliament. He ap- passed their Lordships' House, it would pealed to the noble and learned Lord not pass the other House of Parliament; whether he would press his Bill in the but he did not know where his noble face of the Amendments of which notice Friend obtained that information. [Lord had been given. He would remind him of HOUGHTON: From induction. I judge by the unhappy disturbances and confusion the fate of the former Bill.] It seemed which occurred in London on the Sabbath to him to be very bad logic to contend that some years ago, and he was sure the noble what had occurred on a former occasion and learned Lord was one of the last who must necessarily take place on the present. would like to see those disturbances re- Unquestionably those who undertook to vived. In withdrawing his Bill he would introduce such a Bill as the present must be conferring a favour on the House, and be prepared to encounter very great diffipreventing the probability of much ill-will culties, and he could assure their Lordand unpleasant feeling arising. He did ships he had not very willingly undernot suppose for a moment that his noble taken the task. He had, however, been and learned Friend had more respect for pressed so strongly on the subject, the aphis windows than for his public duty; peals of thousands and tens of thousands but he hoped he would find it to be not of persons who were anxious to have a inconsistent with that duty to adopt the weekly day of rest which they might apsuggestion which he threw out for his con-propriate in accordance with the dictates sideration, and thus prevent their sending of their own consciences, that he felt he

LORD TEYNHAM observed, that under the operation of the Bill tobacconists' shops would be shut up on the Sabbath, while cigars and tobacco might be sold in public-houses. The result would be, he contended, that the tobacconists, who maintained their families by their trade, and whose profit was principally on Sundays, would apply for a beer-house licence in order to enable them to continue their business. There were a number of temperance societies, and among them one large society called the Alliance, whose object was to prevent drunkenness, and who proceeded on the principle that that vice increased in the country in proportion to the multiplication of houses devoted to the sale of spirituous liquors, and they would find their efforts thwarted by the action of the Bill professing to prevent Sunday trading, but by which such a multiplication would be largely effected. On these grounds he joined with the noble Lord (Lord Houghton) in again urging upon the consideration of the noble and learned Lord the propriety of withdrawing the Bill.

could not withhold any assistance which I trusted their Lordships would allow the he could lend in the promotion of the ob- Report to be received. ject which they had in view. There were in this metropolis no less than 60,000 tradesmen, who, with their workmen and servants, amounting to perhaps double that number, were anxious that the Bill should be passed, in order to relieve them from the necessity of trading on the Sabbath. He was informed, he might add, that 60,000 persons interested in its passing had presented a memorial to Her Majesty, praying that they might be, in some way or the other, relieved from that necessity. His action in the matter had been the subject of a great deal of, he would not say misrepresentation, but misconstruction. But the measure which he proposed was-as he thought experience justified him in saying-the only one by which the desirable object of putting an end to Sunday trading could be accomplished. The Committee appointed by the House of Commons in 1835 were clearly of opinion that the existing law on the subject ought to be amended, and held, that in giving that opinion, they were not only advocating the best interests of the labouring classes, but giving due weight to the complaints of a large body of tradesmen who felt that their pecuniary interests would suffer, if, acting in accordance with their conscientious desires, they were to refrain from selling on the Sunday. Again, the Committee which sat in 1847, stated that the majority of the traders by whom Sunday trading was carried on were anxious that it should be put a stop to, but that all voluntary attempts with that view had proved to be unavailing in consequence of the refusal of the minority to cease from selling. The Bill which he had submitted to the House was based entirely upon the principles recommended by those Committees, and after what had already taken place he did not think he ought, on the mere invitation of his noble Friend, to withdraw it. He had, he might say, from the first been of opinion that the Bill ought to have been introduced in the House of Commons, and had strongly recommended that that course should be adopted. A Member of that House, however, who represented a large metropolitan constituency, gave it, he was informed, as his opinion that if the Bill were to go down with the authority of their Lordships' sanction it would have a better chance of passing. He had undertaken, under those circumstances, to bring it in, and he

LORD REDESDALE said, that certain objections had undoubtedly been taken during the progress of the measure both to its principle and its details. The many exceptions it contained had been animadverted upon, and it had been urged that, without directly abrogating the existing law, the Bill would give an indirect legislative sanction and licence to Sunday trading. It was thought that it might be better to maintain the existing law, although inefficient, on account of the principle embodied in it. But the principle of closing shops during the hours of morning service on Sunday was no new one, because it was already applied to public-houses. It might be extended to shops generally by enacting a prohibition against their being opened between the hours of ten a.m. and one p.m. on Sunday, and still leaving the old law to remain in force during every other part of the day. The noble Lord then moved an Amendment for the purpose of prohibiting the sale between the hours of ten in the morning and one in the afternoon of any articles except medicines.

An Amendment moved, to leave out ("except as hereinafter excepted") and insert (" between the hours of ten o'clock in the morning and one o'clock in the afternoon.")-(The Chairman of Committees.)

1042 doubted to secure the better observance of the Sunday in which they did not carry along with them the general feeling of those with respect to whom they were legislating, they would not only fail in their object, but bring about a serious recoil against their legislation. For these reasons he should be better pleased to see the Bill dropped altogether. As to the proposal to substitute for the restrictions contained in the Bill a prohibition of Sunday trading during the hours of Morning Service-namely, from ten a.m. to one p.m.-that might be the time when most of their Lordships attended Divine worship, but he doubted whether it was the time during which the poor people affected by that Bill did so. He thought that legislation of that kind was likely to do a great deal more harm than good, and by no means to realize the benevolent intentions of the noble and learned Lord.