Our Museums And Art Galleries.

however , is another matter . Before noting hoAV that question stands , Ave may refer to observations by Mr . Layard on some other points . Mr . Layard spoke of the opinion of the French artizans , in 1862 , of the progress made in art in this country in ten j ^ ears . As these opinions are

frequently quoted , ancl have been so , indeed , by ourselves , we should observe that there is danger of attaching too much importance to them . If the French have made sufficient progress in mechanical engineering to be able to supply this country Avith locomotive engines occasionallAve

y , have not reason to be satisfied ; and Ave must recollect that the discovery of an advance on our side , _ in art , is being met Avith the accustomed alacrity of the French , iu the improvement of their already good educational institutions . Eelative to the question of opening the British

Museum at ni ght , Ave have to observe that recent investigation into the causes of fires has SIIOAVU more and more , the danger from the desiccation of inflammable material in buildings lighted by gas , as well as the fact that buildings called " fireproof" are really far from being so , or are in some respects peculiarly favourable to the communication of fire . There are Avays , however , of meeting the want .

On the question of a considerable division of the contents of the British Museum , in order to form museums in different parts of the metropolis , Mr . Layard ' s appreciation of the value of chronological sequence in the arrangement ofthe works of art , led him to depreciate scattering the Avorks of that

class ; but he considered local museums desirable , and thought there might be an Ethnological Museum iu eastern London , and an Indian Museum south . But he did not advert to objection that might , with some reason , be raised on the part of the inhabitants of Avestern and northern

London , to such location , resembling that made -to the position of the establishment at South Kensington . There are strong arguments in favour of special museums ; and one of these , devoted to Avatchmaking , might be well placed in 'Olerkenwell ; but Ave see no argument in favour of placing an Ethnological Museum out of the centre of London .

Mr . Layard seemed to feel that there was reason in the objection to the distance of South Kensington , repeated by several speakers ; and a remark that the middle and upper classes had need of education in art , aud that the interests of the Avorkingmen required chiefly that there should be such education , might be considered admission of this .

In the course of the discussion , it appeared to be admitted that , in view of the danger from fire , no case could he made out for the immediate opening of the British Museum and National Gallery in the evenings . But it Avas asked Ayhether there were no means discoverable for lighting , if not by the electric light , by arranging

the gas-burners outside the building , the light coming through the Avindows . Mr . Lucraft said the Avorking classes had no desire to remove the South Kensington Museum , but showed , from his experience of the time and trouble of getting to it from Hoxton , the impossibility of their deriving

due advantage from it . Speaking in favour of local and special museums , he instanced a naval museum as the ri ght thing for the east of London , and a museum of cabinet-making for his own neighbourhood . As to the proposed Sunday opening , he condemned itas did several speakers

, , preferring that efforts were put forth to get the Saturday half-holiday made general . Mr . Layard , in replying to observations on the subject of the industrial Exhibitions , much

corresponding with those which have appeared in the Builder , contended that the working man should not be confined to his work of trade , and said he would rather promote his employing his spare hours on something else . He also thought that the working man , fatigued with his labour ,

would not be able to appreciate the British Museum in the evening . Mr . Layard distinctly expressed an opinion in favour of the Patent Museum being in the centre of London . Mr . Hart , R . A ., speaking previously , had observed that painting's could not be properly seen by

gaslight , and had remarked on the impossibility for the Avorking man of receiving the impressions that ' objects in the museums and National Gallery could afford , after a hard day ' s work .

The question of the designs to be submitted to Parliament for the proposed Natural History Museum on the site of the building of 1862 , has got into a curious position , and the facts are little knoAvn . After the competition , the designs which had received premiums were sent to the trustees of

the British Museum for their opinion . It does not appear that the trustees had been consulted before the competition , so that none of the competitors Avere officially informed of the importance attached to a well-lighted basement , as to be used for storage , and by naturalists even for examination of

specimens , and having a tramway . Neither does it appear that the judges Avere prepared by any knowledge of tho requirements . When the trustees received the designs they looked first at little more than the perspective vieAvs , and therefrom , Ave are told , Avere not disposed to accord with the

decision of the judges . But they remitted the whole question to their officers , Avho , comparing the plans and arrangement of the designs that had received first and second premiums , reported unanimously in favour of design No . 2 . The trustees sent the report to the Government Avith observations of their OAVU . Afterwards the discussion

came on in the House of Commons . A combination Avas advised of the external character of the design of No . 1 ( Captain FoAvke's ) with the arrangement on plan of No . 2 ( Professor Kerr ' s ) . Our readers may be able to say what would be