The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-12-18 00:00:00

THE COUNCII..&ND THE GAS COMPANY.

The Mayor's communications, included a letter fronsuMr.;
George Hall Lawrence,. enclosing the reply of- the Gas Com- '
pany to the report—of. the special committee of the Town, I
Council, and expressing_ a hope that if that report were to be;
taken into consideration by the Council, the company's reply
would be considered at the same time. _ _ 1

After some discussion, it was agreed, on the suggest!On of
Mr. S. HOLME, to apppint a special day (the 9th January), on
which the whole subject might be considered.
A memorial from the ineu employed at the North Landing-
stage, for an increase-of wages, was referred to the Finance
Committee.

A letter from Mr;Splney Herbert to the Mayor, asking his
co-operation in reference to the " Nightingale Fund,'.'. was
read; but it was stated that the Council had uo power to..make
a grant of public money, in aid of such an object, and that it
must be left to individual subscriptions.
One or two other matters of no public interest havirg_been
disposed of, the Counciladjourned.

DESTRUCTION OF WORKS OF ART:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE " TIM ES."
SIB,—As the proprietor of the celebrated engraved4ates
recently destroyed, and as having been the person under whose
order this act, whieh.has so. unexpectedly called forth so much
public notice, has' been done, I feel confident that you will
kindly permit 11:10 a space-in your potential columns,.in:answer
to some of the-observations made, and to justify thatwhich I
have done—first, as the exercise of a private right ;: and,
secondly, as having for its end a public good. Thefirat point
may, I think, he disposed of in a very few words:. the• plates
were mine, they, were comprised in a very large purchase, from
Sir. F. G. Moonpn•his- retirement, and they were bought for
profit; anddf I considered that in their destructioul could in
a desirable-manner realise a profit, I had a right to do so. I
mean an abstract right but, if in exercising this right, ac-
knowledging the public duty of every member of satiety not to
mar by eared of his- the social good, I perceived that that
good would be. benefitted, I say then that that act would be
doubly warranted. This then I have, secondly, to.prove; but,
before It proceed to this, it would be well to state one er two
facts bearing upon, the case in question.
The plates, wheadestroyed, were, undoubtedly, all of them
in fine-condition; they were all steel, and capable,. if I had
pleased, of taking. off 3,000 impressions each,.which have been
attributed to.them, arising from the superior excellence and
talent of those who. engraved them. But they. were not taken
in such numbers.; a very limited number-of impressions were
taken ,forthe purpose of being sold at a very moderate price,
sufficient to accomplish the end of remunerating the market-
able value of the plate to be destroyed. In ,a trading point of
view this was. the object, all ulterior bendl was to the 'public
good. At this moment most of them may be obtained by the
public at. about half their original publication price, but the
number being so, limited as it is, they will,. doubtless, from the
nature of the ease, rise in value as each impression leaves the
market. This is not to be denied; of some of them I have
myself now not one impression left. Of the positive certainty
of the destruction of the plates, under the circumstances of
this private transaction having been so prominently brought
forward as a public principle, there cannot be entertained a
doubt. As to the motives which. induced the destruction of
these famous plates which have cost such an enormous sum, it
is not, and has not been pretended that they were sacrificed for
the pure object of public good irrespective of private interest;;
but I do claim' the credit of having public good in view, though
associated with-a hope of private interest. I beg also to state
that no impressions from the plates were destroyed, as has
been asserted by some writers.
In a public point of view, I Maintain that the fame of the
country as regards the fine arts—l now refer especially to that
of engraving—is involved in the non-depreciation of the finest
works of our best English engravers : and that if those works
are, after the first few years of their production, so far thrown
open to purchasers at a very moderate price, that they may be
had in a perfect and reputable state at the reduced price of
half their original publication, or, in some cases, less, it is the
lowest minimum to which, for the benefit to art, and, therefore,
for public benefit, they ought to be permitted to fall. This is
historically correct with regard to the plates in question. For
nearly three years they have been open to the public so to be
obtained ; if carried further than this, and what is called made
cheap, the plates more generally fall into a worthless state, the
printing and materials are done at a cheaper rate, and conse-
quently very inferior, and so art is damaged; the destruction
of the plates, at the right point of time, before their original
good qualities are gone—l speak of the finest plates—is in fact
not the act of Vandalism it has been called, not the destruction
of fine art, but in truth its preservation in comparative purity ;
and this is what has now been done.

But there are other considerations : the productions of the
graver are now twentyfold what they were about that number
of years since, and therefore the destruction of a certain number
of plates of an important character, and which have had their
meed of admiration which they will always uphold—tends to
make room for present and future aspirants to fame. There is
still a much more important point. which T feel assured must