The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-17 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JULY 17, 1858.

Iclaims of " the movement party " to a large
share of place and patronage. Out of office they
have made common cause with the champions of
democracy, and have descanted on popular rights
without possessing one iota of popular principles
or of large-hearted sympathy with the real se-
*rings of the muses. They have stormed the
Treasury benches under false colours, and by the
aid of pledges which they never dreamed of
keeping i they have kept the fortress by bribing
a few leaders of the free lances of Liberalism, and
holding out hopes of foray and plunder to a host
of irregular retainers. They are at length found
out; their opposition tactics are as transparent
as their official delinquencies are notorious.
Those who had condoned " Finality John's" two
abortive reforms of his own Reform Bill have
heard of the empty pigeon-holes bequeathed to
the present Administration—the damning proof
that Whig promises do not imply intentions.
Those who had forgotten the Appropriation
Clause have seen the votes of our present Oppo-
sition on Mr. LOCKE KING'S Bill and the aboli-
tion of Church-rates.
At such a time, the praises of " Whig Conser-
vatism" are not only absurd but insolent ; they
are at once a futile attempt to falsify the history
of a generation, and an affront to the common
sense of a now awakened people.

A NEW " NATIONAL GALLERY."
WE rejoice to see that the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER has been enabled to announce, that
the Government is sensible of the present dis-
creditable suite of the National Fine Art Collec-
tions ; that it is of opinion that sufficient inquiry
into the subject has already been made ; and that it
intends to undertake the responsibility of placing
before Parliament a plan for making a more
suitable provision for the National Gallery, and
its kindred institutions. Thus after twenty years
of discontent the economical plan of Lord
GREY'S Government having proved an utter
failure—we have at last a prospect of obtaining a
suitable Palace of Fine Art. And we feel that
we may confidently expect, that when such men
as the present PREMIER, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, the SECRETARY for the CoLoNzEs,'and
the FIRST COMMISSIONER of PUBLIC WORKS, agree

upon any plan of this kind, it will be a very different
sort of a building from that which now disfigures
Trafalgar-square.
We suppose we may assume that no definite
scheme has yet been adopted. The first ques-
tion, indeed, that will present itself, will be, What
is the plan to include The nation possesses six
valuable collections. In so saying, we presume
we may speak of the Hampton-court Gallery in
that point of view; for, although a Royal Palace,
the Crown has dealt with it as a National pro-
perty. The Dulwich collection was bequeathed
to the nation, and no reason can be assigned why
it should be for ever buried in that out-of-the-
way place. The other four galleries—the An-
gerstein, the Vernon, the Turner, and the Sheep-
shanks—are all at hand, and each claims its place
in any new arrangement. And the whole of these
six collections, brought into one splendid build-
ing, would form a gallery scarcely exceeded by
any other in Europe. The omission of any one of
the six would so detract from the aggregate value
of the collection, as to render it very desirable
that the new plan should include the whole.
Two objections of no great weight may be
started against thus uniting all the collections.
Some persons may shrink from the idea of strip-
ping Ilampton-court Palace of its pictures. But
the Palace need not be so stripped. In Hampton
Court, at this moment, there are many pictures
possessing some interest, but which are not of a
sufficiently high class to be placed in the National
Gallery. All such, therefore, will remain. But
there is another proposition to be made which
seems tolerably feasible. Why should not
Hampton Court furnish accommodation for the
new Historical Portrait Gallery. We cannot
think of any better place; and thus Hampton
Court, losing the Cartoons. might gain a new
and scarcely inferior attraction.
Possibly Dulwich College also might put in its
plea, and object to be deprived of its beautiful

collection ; but we must not forget that that
lection was a distinct bequest to the nation,
that Dulwich College has merely g►ven i
lodging for some forty years ; and if the gen,
good seems to point to the union of all -
collections under one roof, no local or pee,
claim ought to interpose an objection.
Sush an aggregate, however, as we _
here contemplated would need a large galls
for its proper display.. The two sites NO
the Government appears to have at its
mand, and suited to the purpose, are those
in Trafalgar-square and at Burlington-house.
Probably either of these sites might afford the
quisite space ; and we do not know that either
them possesses any great advantage over
other.

The present building in Trafalgar-square
capable of extension in two different ways.
might be enlarged in the rear, by the removal
the barracks; or, without being extended in'
direction, it is capable of great enlargemen
its present site.
That site was most lamentably wasted
the present building was erected. To have
duced a magnificent whole, the architect should
have availed himself to the utmost of the length
and height which were at his command. But h(
chose to neglect both. lie gave us a low build•
ing, when it was in his power to have reared up
a lofty one ; and he wasted the length which
was at his command, by cutting his budding
several little pieces.
To make use of the present site, and o)
present building also, which is not thirty ,
old, it is only necessary to regard it as one story,
and as fit, or to be made fit, to bear another stor
of greater magnificence.
The present building might be treated as
carcase, and a noble gallery might be placed u
it. One single room, extending from end to
with one long series of windows, looking
Trafalgar-square, would give at once to
building, what it has always wanted, the
racter of magnificence.
The fit appropriation of the whole building
a question upon which an opinion ought not
be hastily formed. All will admit that if
National Gallery itself requires the whole,
the whole must be claimed. But the presen
(so-called) National Gallery occupies only .
half of the present building ; and if that building
is doubled in size, the accommodation becomes,
at once, four times that which the present
lery now possesses. Probably the whole of
quadruple accommodation would be needed,
the Royal Academy must in that case recei
notice to quit. This question, however, is one
calculation and admeasurement, and an
formed person can have no means of forming
judgment. On one point, however, we may spec
with confidence. The Gallery formed for, and
the expense of the nation, ought not to be
cumbered with third or fourth rate pictures •
ought any but such as are in a thoroug'
genuine state to be admitted into such a collection.

SCRIPTURAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
WHEN the advocates of one side of a question
have a real grievance to complain of there
device more common, whet ewith to meet
complaint, than to get some one on the opposi,
side to make an apparently opposite objection
It is then affirmed with complacency, that neiK
complaint is just, and that it is only because
juste milieu is preserved that both parties
discontented. This, accordingly, is the con
nient inference drawn by the Times, from
respective objections of Mr. MAGUIRE and
LEFROY to the so-called National System
Education in Ireland. Nothing, however,
be more unfair than such an inference. Whethl
the National system does or does not give lath
to the inculcation of Popish doctrines sufficiem.
satisfy the most bigoted or the most enlightened
Papist, one thing is certain—that it is so
trived that it presents no obstacle to Po)
priests and laymen connecting themselves
it ; since, in point of fact, the great majorE.,
of the national schools are under the manage-
ment of the Roman priesthood. On the other

at col_
1, and
it a
eneral
these
:culiar
have
;allery
which
com.
those
house.
,he re-
:her of
51' the
are is
rS. It
)yal of
in this
ant on
when
e pro-
should
length
3ut he
build-
red up
which
g into
of the
years
story,
r story
d as a
d upon
to end,
ig into
o the
e cha-
ding is
not to
if the
e, then
present
y one-
uilding
comes,
it gal-
)f this
and
receive
5 one of
unin-
ming a
7 speak
and at
be in-
s; nor
oughly
ection.
iAND.
testion
is no
et the
►posite
action.
either
use a
es are
:onve-
m the
id Mr.
em of
can
tether
,titude
ient to
atened
) con-
Popish
with
ajority
inage-
other

hand, that system has been so contrived as
to prevent the majority of the Protestant
clergy and laity from uniting themselves
with it. The complaint, therefore, of Mr.
LEFROY, on behalf of the Church Education
Society, is by no means the converse of the com-
plaint of Mr. MAGUIRE on behalf of the Popish
Church. The latter complains, not of not getting
anything, but of not getting enough : the other
complains, not of not getting enough, but of not
getting anything—of a system being called
National which imposes a condition on the great
majority of the Established Church, which con-
dition works, for them, absolute exclusion from
its benefits. Now, it is quite clear that these two
complaints are essentially different in character,
and therefore that in the mind of an impartial
observer they do not neutralize each other.
If the demand of the Church Education So-
ciety was to establish such new rule as would
raise in the minds of the Irish Roman priests an
insuperable conscientious obstacle to their con-
tinuing in connection with the National Board,
this demand, unreasonable as under existing cir-
cumstances it would be, would only be the exact
equivalent to the practice which now exists,
and which the supporters of the National Board
require should be maintained inviolate. But the
requirements of that Society are of a far humbler,
and, as we think, of a far juster nature. All
that they ask is, that the rules of the Board
should be so modified as to enable them to take
advantage of the benefits which they would
derive from bringing their schools into connec-
tion with it. They say,—

"We do not ask you to alter a single rule af-
fecting the existing national schools—let them go
on as heretofore, if so it ought to be ; but let us
manage our existing schools as we do at present,
and withdraw the rule which now operates for
their exclusion, by which we are forbidden to
read the Bible to all the scholars that frequent
our schools. Our ordination vows (vows not of
our own framing) impose this duty upon us ; we
cannot receive into our schools a child to whom
we are prohibited from communicating the Word
of God."

Surely this is a most reasonable request on the
part of the Protestants of Ireland. It is met
chiefly in two ways. First, the religious liberty
of the child, it is said, would be outraged, by
compelling it to read, or hear read, that to which
it had a conscientious objection. What, they
cry, would you introduce a compulsory system
into your schools ? And it is perfectly won-
derful how many Solomons are caught by this
very plausible question. But the answer to it is
this—How is it possible to carry out any system
of school discipline without compulsion ? What
is the meaning of the word Master, if it do not
imply the possession of compulsory authority
over those of whom he is the master ? With-
draw the principle of compulsion from any school,
and anarchy is the necessary result—it ceases to
be a school. To say then that a child is under
a system of compulsion who goes to a school
where, by the rules, he is obliged to listen to the
Bible,—and not under a system of compulsion,
when he is compelled to sit quiet, not to disturb
his companions, and to learn his task,—is to talk
arrant nonsense, and to affirm and to deny the
same thing with the same breath.

Compulsion, then, is the essential element of a
school ; but although this is the kind of com-
pulsion about which those who use the argu-
ment are really speaking, it is not in reality the
kind of compulsion which they mean. The
compulsion which is actually in their heads is
the compulsion of the parents ; because the
child is under compulsion, they deceive them-
selves into imagining that the child's parent is
under compulsion. They jumble the two kinds
together, and extract from the two the compul-
sion which they denounce.
Now, we have shown that compulsion on the
child is a necessary consequence of his being sent
to any school ; therefore, to that there can be no
possible objection. The objection, and doubtless
it would be a valid one, is to compelling the
parent. How then, we ask, can the parent be
Placed under compulsion ? If he sends his child
to a school where he knows the Bible will be
read to him, and if he is under no kind of
compulsion to send him there, but does it volun-
tarily, of his own free will, what becomes of this
c°ll3Pullioli argument ? The parent acts a volun-