The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-31 00:00:00

ROYAL ACADEMY.

On an re-admission to the gallery, we found
Mr. HUME presenting petitions from" Mr. Doo, the
engraver, and from Dr. Birkbeck, and others complain-
ing of the conduct of the Royal Academy. The Hon.
Member then moved that the returns ordered on the
14th March be made forthwith. The Hon. Member
stated that it had appeared to him these returns were
a matter of course, but in consequence of the proceed-
ings of the Royal Academy, it had become a matter of
serious importance. On the 14th of March he had
moved for a return of the amount of money received
for admission, and of the number of persons who visited
the exhibition of the Royal Academy of Art, in each
of the years 1836, 1837, and 1838, distinguishing the
amount pain for admission, and the amount paid for cata-
logues, and also the sum paid for salaries to servants. Also
for an account of miscellaneous expenses, and the number
of students. This was merely a continuation of the ac-
counts presented by the President and Council of the
Royal Academy in 1836, and it had not occurred to
him there would be any objection to these returns. He
did not understand how the Royal Academy could say
they received no assistance from the public when they
had accommodation in one of the best situations in the
metropolis, and for which that House had voted
43,000/. Was that no assistance ? He believed no
instance could be mentioned in which an Institution so
circumstanced had attempted to evade the call that the
House had made on it. The income of the Royal
Academy when at Somerset House averaged 500/. a-
year, and the public had a right to know whether that
income had increased or decreased since they had left
Somerset House ; and how fir it was right they should
occupy a public building at so heavy an expense to the
public. Their refusal raised the question whether they
had any right to occupy the building.
An HON. MEMBER moved that the House be
counted, and the Gallery was cleared. On our re-ad-
mission we ascertained there were 40 Members present.
Mr. HUME said he was aware that any Hon.
Member had a right to count the House, but he thought
it extremely unfair to interrupt the business of the
House at this late period of the Session. If the Hon.
Member did not think this a question of importance, he
(Mr. Hume) did. He contended that the Aca-
demy acted as a blight upon art, and was
most injurious to it. The Royal Academi-
cians in claiming exclusive merit overlooked the
Dublin Academy, which had produced Sir M. Shee, and
the School of Edinburgh which claimed Wilkie and
other eminent men. The academicians after stating the
lectures, &c., which they had given, said they had esta-
blished an annual exhibition to which all artists without
distinction are allowed to send their works. Now so far
from exhibiting the works of artists on fair terms, the
academicians had every advantage in the selection of
best places. They stated that they had gratuitously
educated, according to the best principles of art, nearly
2,000 students, the most promising of whom have been
able to pursue their studies in Italy at the expense of the
Royal Academy. Now, would the House believe, that
out of that number only 1,5 had been sent to Italy ?
(Hear, hear.) During 68 years the amount paid for
the education of artists abroad was 4,5861.—(Hear,
hear.) In 70 years the amount received by them was
2,52,000/. The salaries of the academicians paid out of
this, amounted to 73,0004, and yet their petition went
to show that their services were gratuitous. The pen-
sions in the same time amounted to 12,000/., the ex-
pense of the annual dinners, to 19,7004 the expenses of
the exhibition to 36,000/. and there was an unapropriated
fund of about 40,0001. Their annual income
amounted to 6,400/., out of which, the sum
paid to students at Rome was about 1201.
Petitions had been presented from various quarters, in
favour of the returns ; among others, from the Society
of British Artists, who stated that they had formerly
petitioned the House that they might be placed on
fairer footing in relation to the Royal Academy—that
they acknowledged with gratitude the provision made
by George 111. for the encouragement of the arts, by
granting a magnificent building for the use of the Aca-
demy—but that this privilege had been abused by that
irresponsible self-elected body, who had combined with
the jealousy of private competition the tyranny of public
authorities ; and they prayed the House to make abso-
lute the order of the 13th of March for returns from
the Academy, which would afford means for instituting
a fair comparison between that and other similar in-
stitutions. There was also a petition from Dr. Birk-
beck, and
the
as
worthy
arts
thy and sciences,
attention
and other distinguished persons, connected
w
whose
hoofs et h
eH
opinionsaase as
wtehree
self
elected Royal Academy ; they stated that they learned
with surprise, that
a public body, receiving public aid,
should claim exemption from the authority of Parlia-
ment ; and from the obligation to furnish information
which might be useful to the community. They sub-
mitted that exclusive privileges to particular bodies
were rather prejudicial than otherwise to the interests
of the arts—that all societies for the advancement of
the arts should be treated alike by the State—and that
it was anomalous to permit a Society to enjoy the
be-
nefits of public assistance, without the duties of public
responsibility.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The information
required by the House from the Royal Academy was
furnished without hesitation by other institutions—in
this, and foreign countries—which yet received no pub-
lic aid. Now there was the petition also of Mr.
Haydon—who might be represented perhaps as an
enemy to the Academy—as a disagtointed man—but
he certainly had displayed great zeal for the arts ;