The request preferred on Friday last cannot, by any process of reasoning, be excluded from that category. The deputation merely asked that the Government should place on the Estimates a sum of money sufficient to erect the contemplated additions to the Library and Museum, the plans of which had already been prepared, and the foundation-stone of which was laid a year ago by the Prince of Wales. In replying to the deputation, Mr. Illingworth took up attitude which, on second thoughts, he is himself scarcely likely to wholly approve.

Almost without qualification he described the institutions whose cause the deputation pleaded as mere luxuries. Hardly less out of place was his insistence upon the counter claims of the country mechanics’ and miners’ institutes. There is, admittedly, force in the contention that the country institutes should receive their share of attention. No one, however, has urged any course to the contrary.

Where the Minister was at fault was in seeming to play one off against the other. The Government is in duty bound to do its best for both with such means it has at its disposal. The needs of the Public Library cannot be accepted as an excuse for starving the country institutes. Neither, on the other hand, must the necessities of the country institutes be put forward as an excuse for impoverishing the larger national institutions. Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Illingworth’s strictures on the extravagance of such institutions as the Public Library and Museum were justified—which, except for the sake of argument, cannot for a moment be admitted—his refusal to accede to the request of the deputation came at the wrong time.

As was pointed out by members of the Committee, the additions asked for were promised nearly two years ago by Mr. Throssell's Government. This fact alters the whole aspect of the case. Relying on that promise, and the further promise of Mr. Leake's Government that it would respect the pledges of its predecessors, the Committee of the Library and Museum have added largely to the collections.

The result, of course, is that a state of absolute congestion now prevails in every department. A host of exhibits for the Museum, many of them invaluable to the public, are rendered useless because there is no room to display them. It is also a serious consideration that not a few of these treasures are, in consequence of their having to be packed away, in jeopardy of irreparable damage.

The same remark applies to the books as to the works of art and to the scientific exhibits. The accommodation afforded by the Library is hopelessly inadequate. There is sufficient room neither for the  readers who resort to the institution, nor for the books they want to read. If it had been intended by the Government to say, “Thus far thou shalt go and no further,” the time to have done so was before the promises already referred to were made,  and certainly before the foundation stone of the Beaufort-street wing of the present building was laid by the Prince of Wales.

Seeing that his Royal Highness participated in that ceremony, on a distinct assurance the building would be proceeded with at once, anything like a breach of faith becomes doubly regrettable, and renders Mr. Illingworth’s unsympathetic reply to the deputation even more open to animadversion than it would be otherwise.

It is bad enough, however, that the Committee should have been led to suppose that the required accommodation would have been forthcoming, and that after relying upon the fulfillment of Ministerial promises they should suddenly be told that they must make-shift indefinitely without it. If it is part of the policy of the Government, and if Parliament intends to endorse it, that the Museum, Art Gallery and Library are for some years, at any rate, to be kept at a standstill, the Committee will know what to do in the future.

Needless to say, such a decision would be very much to be regretted. It cannot be supposed, however, that any such retrogressive course is contemplated. But, whether it is or not, one thing is quite clear, that the money must be found for the proper housing of the national treasures we already possess.

For a Treasurer with a surplus of anything between a quarter of a million and £300,000 to talk of not being able to spend some £13,000 to provide the necessary accommodation is to talk nonsense. The money must be found, and can be found easily enough, Mr. Illingworth’s protestations notwithstanding. As  to the Minister’s remarks regarding the utility of public libraries, it is perhaps charitable to allow them to pass without comment. They carry their own condemnation.

Mr. Illingworth has evidently forgotten his Ruskin. Everyone knows on what a high pedestal the great apostle of art placed pictures and books as a source of national education and inspiration. His admiration of museums and his definition of their function is, perhaps, less widely known :—

A museum is (says Mr. Ruskin) be it first observed, primarily, not at all a place of entertainment, but a place of education. And a museum is, be it secondly observed, not a place for elementary education, but for that of already far-advanced scholars. And it is by no means the same thing as a parish school, or a Sunday school, or a day school, or even the Brighton Aquarium. Be it observed, in the third place, that the word “school” means “leisure,” and that the word “museum” means “belonging to the Muses,” and that all schools and museums whatsoever can only be what they claim to be, and ought to be, places of noble instruction, when the persons who have a mind to use them can obtain so much relief from the work, or exert so much abstinence from the dissipation, of the work of the outside world as may enable them to devote a certain portion of secluded, laborious, and reverent life to the attainment of the Divine Wisdom. . . .  The first function of a museum is to give an example of perfect order and perfect elegance to the disorderly and rude populace. Everything in its own place, everything looking its best because it is there; nothing crowded, nothing unnecessary, nothing puzzling.

As Minister of Education, Mr. Illingworth should be most in sympathy with educational institutions of this character. It is matter for surprise that, holding such an office, he should in this particular so signally have failed to realise its responsibilities.

In subsequently referring the deputation to the Minister for Works, after practically giving its members a flat refusal, Mr. Illingworth showed no saner appreciation of the position. However, as events proved, that course had at least one advantage. The presence of Dr. Jameson, a member of the Government, on the deputation was sufficient of itself to show that Mr. Illingworth was not in harmony with his colleagues on the question, and the more than sympathetic reply of Mr. Rason still further strengthened that impression.

The fact probably is that Mr. Illingworth spoke hastily, and allowed his views as an individual to carry him further than he intended. At any rate, it is inconceivable that the majority of the Cabinet will support him in the stand he has taken. Apart altogether from the respect due to pledges, it will be a penny wise and pound foolish policy not to make adequate provision for housing our library, our museum, and our art collection in a manner that will enable them better to fulfil  the objects for which they are intended than is now possible. It is not to say, because any young country might be pardonably proud of what we have already done in that direction, that we should now rest on our oars. Where education is concerned, not to go forward is, inevitably, to go back.