There are, as it seems to me, two questions respecting the enlargement of the British Museum. The first may be called the legal question, which is raised by Sir Philip Egerton and others—viz., whether Sir Hans Sloane made it a question of his gift that all his collections should be kept in one building, or whether, in dealing with these collections, there is a ‘will of the founder,’ which the legislature is bound to respect, and which is to be a law for all succeeding generations, whatever additions the different branches of the Museum may receive or require. If this view is to prevail, it is clear that we are prevented from even entertaining any plan for the division of the collections, whatever its intrinsic advantages may be. But if this restriction upon the operations of the present generation is not admitted to exist, then we come to the second question—whether it is more expedient to enlarge the Museum by adding to the present building, or by detaching some branches of it, and providing them with a fit repository elsewhere. I do not pretend to have mastered the subject sufficiently to have formed a confident opinion upon it; but so far as I am at present informed, the inclination of my mind is to believe that the Natural History branches would be provided for in a separate building, and to a certain extent under a separate management. At the same time, if the scientific men are to take up the question as one of personal feeling and party struggle, and if the cause of stuffed beasts is to be argued against that of antiques, as if it was Whig against Tory, or Catholic against Protestant, I am not prepared to say what are the advantages, if separation are worth the strife and animosity, which its accomplishment would create.