The Express.
London, England, 1864-06-08 00:00:00

151rWMA-

Tart snornic 1100.11RTIITIPPRENI1CRi ; or, Industry
sod 1,11...01es —BOB ROY. Master Prrcy Room. and Wia C.
ER. Came —And IJOLUED TO IRK KELM ; or, The ILW•Strlke
sod the Mutineers.—Coinmence at Ge.

NIGH wAnts AT LONDON BUDGE.
TEL DIT Wombs. 46, 21m.....A110m0ca. 46. Us
To zoosow Mosta& 46. .Ationlooa. 56. 16s.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8.

lr is impossible not to admire the bull-dog
pluck and tenacity shown in the repeated at-
tempts of a well-known clique to remove the
national pictures to the West-end. Only two
years ago Lord PALYZRSTON obtained a vote of
17,000/. for the National Gallery on the distinct
promise that the present building should be made
fit for the whole of the national pictures, by the
removal of the Royal Academy to Burlington House.
Yet on Monday evening his lordship frankly
announced that he had changed his mind, and
urged with all his energy and ingenuity the ad-
vantage of spending 150,0001. in removing the
national pictures, and abandoning Trafalgar-square
to the Academy. There is something more than
natural in this obstinacy. The scheme of carrying
every public institution westwards was, it is well
known, the favourite idea of the Late Pavics
CONSORT. But the public refused to consent to
the project even during the PRINCE'S life, and
therefore naturally expected that no more would
be heard of it after his death. The hope is plainly
doomed to disappointment. The royal desire has an
undying vitality. After twenty hostile votes it rises
again, and tries still to push us from our stools.
It reappears in Protean forms, and in every variety
of seductive guise. If it cannot carry off the birds
and beasts from Bloomsbury, it will at least entice
away the Old Masters from Trafalgar•square. If
it cannot lead us to Kensington, it will at least
lure us to Piccadilly. This persistence is more
than human—it is preternatural, ghostly, and
weird. Flesh and blood cannot stand against the
operation of an invisible and impalpable agency.
We may resist and defy it for a time, but in some
moment of levity, or weakness, or distraction, or
prostration of spirit, the immortal and unquench-
able Presence will triumph, and we shall thence-
forth only have the knowledge that we have been
overborne and lost.

Yet if fate could be averted by any process of
ressouing, we might certainly still hope for deli-
verance. No argument worth examination is ever
propounded in support of the desired removal.
Smoke was the first bugbear used, but roses now
bloom in the Temple-gardens, and it is impossible
to pretend that pictures must fade at Charing-
cross. Dust was the next suggestion, but it seems
the dust rises chiefly from the visitors' feet, and as
the bulk of London lies to the east, it is hardly
probable that the visitors' feet would be made less
dusty by trudging an additional half-mile towards
the west. The theory of danger from foul air and
gas has been silenced by scientific experiments.
80, as no imperative necessity for removal can be
insisted on, we can only consider the comparative
advantages of the central and the western
sites. In favour of the latter there is
urged the greater quietude of the Burlington
House region, the greater convenience to students,
and the economy of building a new edifice rather
than extending an old one. These reasons hardly
need refuting. It will, we imagine, be a novelty
to most persons to find that the noise of Charing-
cross disturbs their contemplation of pictures, and
we must in that case admire the self-devotion of
the Royal Academy, which is very willing to
accept the continued use of the rooms for the pur-
pose of its exhibitions, and for the instruction of
its students. The economy of abandoning the
gallery to the Academy and building a new one,
instead of leaving the Academy to build for itself at
Burlington House. according to its agreement with
Lord DERBY'S government, is a theory which is also
as new as startling, and which the most ingeniously
framed estimates will hardly persuade the public to
accept. But that which after all must rule the
decision is not a question of money. It is whether
the pictures which the nation buys and keeps are
bought for the few or for the many. If for the
few, and these few are chiefly the rich, we grant
that the removal to May Fair is a convenience ;
but if for the many, and the many are necessarily
not the rich, then they ought to remain in a site
which is so much more accessible to the bulk of
the population.
Accepting the Royal Academy's approval of
either site as decisively settling the question re-
specting the convenience of students, it would
thus appear that the whole matter in debate turns
upon the numbers which each locality is likely to
invite. All the expected superiority of Burling-
tou House as regards quietude and freedom from
dust, depends on the assumption that fewer per-
sons will there enter the gallery. And we doubt
not that this assumption is perfectly correct. It
is a quarter of an hour's further walk ; going and
returning it will demand half an hour's more time
at each visit. This is irrespective of the fatigue,
a serious tax on most workers, and will
undoubtedly render their visits less frequent. But
is this an object to be aimed at 1 The very pur-
pose of Art is to educate and inspire, and how can
it perform its functions, if obstacles are placed in
the way of its lessons 1 We may admit that a
large proportion of those who peas through the
galleries are scarcely sensible to its influence. But
its glory is that it influences insensibly. All who
gaze are not made connoisseurs. But few gaze
without carrying away some memory to rise in after
years, some subtle and inexplicable suggestion
of a new sense, some revelation of a higher and
purer world. They cannot explain it, they may
think they care not for it, and may never return
again. But even then there has been a moment
in their lives abstracted from the weary cares
of the world, and spent among the smiles of angels
and in the freshness of bountiful nature, and who
shall say that even such a fleeting respite of the
soul is fruitless T But to suggest such cases as
these is to put the question at its lowest. The
majority of men and women do care something,
more ur lets, and according to their several under-

standings, for Art, and are semi* infiuegeediril
pleasure in beholding ite wqrks. On thin its
effect is undeniably beneficial, and sway indeed ii
were strange if appreciation of so divine a faculty
were given to none but a few elect. So for the sake
of the majority of the visitors we must still plead
for the retention of our collections in the heart of
the metropolis, and still thank the House of Com-
mons for every fresh rebuff it administer to the
meddling fanatics who would remove them to the
richer neighbourhoods.