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

VIII( 31, 1839

perhaps it would have been more for his in-
terest had he shown less of this zeal, for
it might be that had he been more cringing and sub-
missive to the powers that bc, he would have been
more fortunate ; was it to be borne, however, that an
artist who had displayed zeal for the progress of the
arts should be rejected by a Society, professedly in-
tended for their advancement. The statements of
Mr. Haydon, however, he need not particularly advert
to, they were before Hon. Members. The returns he
asked for, let him observe, had been granted several
years previously, and he only wished them to be con-
tinued. Sir Martin Shee had addressed a letter to
him, not over respeCtiul—directed to Joseph Hume—
(A laugh)—making a peatmal question ei,it—and using
strong terms towards him, which only shovie.; that lie
had no arguments.--(Sir R. Inglis, " Aeadl) Well,
he would : Sir Martin said that, notwithshlnd:;ing
dilettanti drilling which he (Mr. Hume) had recei*n.t!,
he had not been sufficiently enlightened on this sub-
ject ; that the fine arts did not seem his forte--(A
laugh)--that his sensibilities were not exquisitely acute—
that in matters of taste he was not much of a critic—
(Laughter)—that he had indulged in course invective
against the Royal Academy—and had shown more of
personal enmity and rancorous virulence than of a
liberal desire for the prosperity of the arts. Sir Mar-
tin went on to deny that the Academy received a
shilling from the public. Now he (Mr. Hume), re-
peated what he had often said, that the grant of a mag-
nificent public building was equivalent to a considerable
grant of public money.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
He asked for these returns not to satisfy himself, but
the public, who had a right to have a full knowledge on
the subject. The Hon. Member concluded by moving
for the returns of which he had given notice.

Mr. WARBURTON seconded the motion.

Sir R. INGLIS moved as an amendment, that the
order should be rescinded. The Hon. Member for
Kilkenny had stated, with somewhat too much confi
dence, that Parliment might call the Royal Academy
or any other body before them ; that might be true, but
the question was, would they come ? The motion of
the Hon. Member for Kilkenny wag, in his opinion,
extremely uncalled for, and unfair. If the House made
any grant to the Royal Academy, there might then be
something on which to found the motion ; but as it did
not, he considered the motion unjust. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Kilkenny had called the Royal Academy in-
terlopers; how could that be the case, when the key of the
present place which they occupied was placed in the
hands of the President of the Academy by the Sovereign
himself ? The bitterest enemies of the members of the
Royal Academy had not dared to impeach the integrity
of their administration ; and since that Society had
been established they had actually expended upon
national objects and works of art no less a sum than
300,0001. The Hon. Member for Kilkenny had said
that the Academy had acted as a blight upon art ; he
denied that it had done so, firmly believing that under its
auspices the arts had been nourished and fostered.
It should be recollected that from 1795 to 1814 the
Continent was hermetically closed, so that it was phy-
sically impossible for the Academy to send students to
Rome. The Hon. Member had alluded, "ad invidia,"
to the sum of 19,0001. being spent in dinners, and the
exclusion of artists not academicians had been men-
tioned as a grievance. He would ask who paid for
that dinner ? Did the House pay for it ? No ; the
Academy, which had never received any grant from the
Government. There was not another institution of the
sort in Europe which was not supported by the State,
and in this the richest nation in Europe the Academy
had never received so much in money's worth from the
State as the King of Bavaria had expended in one year
for the promotion of the arts in his capital. The
Academy, so far from being a monopoly, was open to
any artist, and with regard to the choice of places,
he knew that one academician, Mr. Leslie, had with-
drawn a picture of his own, lest it should interfere with
that of a brother artist ; and the President, Sir Martin
Shee, when he was a member of the Hanging Com-
mittee, had actually refused to exhibit. This brought
him to the attacks of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny on
that gentleman. He had accused him of having expressed
himself in a different tone before and after he became
President of the Academy. He was elected a Royal
Academician in 1800, and did not publish the " Elements
of Art " until 1809, so that, at all events, he was a
Royal Academician at that period. He would admit
the proposition that, where there was money there should
be inquiry, but in this case there had been no money,
and more than an adequate return had been made for
any moneys' worth. According to this principle, the
House would have a right to inquire into the affairs of
the Athaseum—that stood upon Crown Land—and
what difference could it make whether the rent was paid
in money or in services. It had been said that the
dignity of the House was concerned in enforcing obe-
dience to this order—were the Royal Academicians,
on receiving a paper, impressed with the magical letters
J. H. Ley, Cl. Dom. Corn., to bow nine times to it,
and prostrate themselves obediently before it ? He
would ask the House, were they prepared to go further
if this return were refused? for he could answer that
a great deal more would be required to enforce obedi-
ence than the issuing another order, signed " J. H.
Ley, Cl. Dorn. Com." They bad already got into a
difficulty respecting privilege, to which he would not
further allude. But by rescinding the order, it was said
the House would admit that it was in the wrong.
The House had before made ill-advised orders, and re-
scinded them. It had made an ill-advised order now,
and he hoped the House would do the same that it did
in the case of Samuel Wells.
Mr. HOWARD seconded the amendment. He
would not deny the right of the House to the return.—
(Hear, hear.) But they aught not to exercise that
right inquisitorially. They should consider the feel-
ings of the gentlemen of that Institution, by whom so
much had been done for the country.

Mr. HAWES said he concurred in the motion of
the Hon. Baronet, and considered that his Honourable
Friend the Member for Kilkenny, had made no case
for the enforcement of his order.—(Hear, hear.) The
returns in question were new—they had not been made
before ; they could only be justly called for on the
ground of a direct public grant, which was essentially
a different thing from the mere occupation of a public
building. It was not sufficiently recollected that the
Royal Academy had originally received a direct grant
from the Crown of apartments in Somerset House.
which were only relinquished in consideration of re-
ceiving those they now occupied in the National Gallery.
—( Hear, hear.) But could the mere grant of a public
building justify a call for an account of every farthing
received or paid by the academy, of the money earned
by the industry and the genius of the Members.—
(Hear, hear.) As to the question whether the institu-
tion of such an academy was beneficial to the arts, let
it be recollected that, unlike similar foreign institutions,
the academy was not supported by Royal bounty—it
received nothing from the country—it asked nothing
—(Hear, hear, and cheers)—and the names it had
produced had shed a lustre upon British art which
had never been surpassed.—(Hear, hear.) Some per-
sons, indeed, considered that the arts were injured
rather than benefited by any direct aid from the
Crown or from the country. Suah was not his (Mr.
Hawes') opinion'; on the contrary, he believed that the
direct patronage, whether of the Sovereign or the pub-
lic, might be greatly conducive to the interests of art.
In fact it was impossible that it should be otherwise
for the arts must depend on the patronage of a compa-
ratively narrow and select circle of the educated and re-
fined, and could not rely, as manufactures might, on
general trading principles.--(Hear, hear.) France, in
the reign of Louis XIV., had derived, under the saga-
cious Administration of Colbert, incalculable benefit,
from the direct Royal bounty and patronage given to
divers manufactures, as of porcelain, tapestry, &c.—
(Hear, hear.) Tue public, when they granted the use
of some half dozen paltry rooms, had only the right to
demand an account of the state of those rooms ; but
to say that they thereby acquired a right to look into
into every item of the expenditure and receipts, was
really monstrous.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that
it would be highly beneficial to the public that the ex-
hibition of the Royal Academy should be gratuitous ;
so it might, and it would be equally so that the Water
Colour Artists' Exhibition, and that the British
Artists' Exhibition should be gratuitous—but could it
be expected ? As to Hampton Court Palace
exhibition that was maintained by annual grants from
the national funds, and the pictures were the property
of the country,—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer—
"Of the Crown.") Exactly so, but they had been vir-
tually surrendered to the public.—( Hear, hear.) Really
he could not see the justice—above all the policy—of
entering into this petty kind of warfare with the Royal
Academy,which had for the last fifty years been of such
'great service to the arts, and had acquired a reputa-
tion which had covered Europe.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
This proposition would violate the clear private rights
of the Academy, and would be a most ungrateful return
for the benefit of the country.—( Hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON reminded Hon. Gentlemen
that they had much wandered from the question, which
was, whether or not the Royal Academy should or not
furnish the account which had been ordered ? The
Academy received from the public about 3,000/. a year,
therefore they had a right to produce those returns.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
could not allow this subject to drop without making a
few observations, first with respect to the right and
authority of the House ; secondly, as to the furtherance
of the Fine Arts ; and thirdly, as to the welfare of the
Royal Academy itself. None of those considerations
were opposed to each other—they were, in fact, iden-
tical. With respect to the powers of the
House he was rejoiced to find that there was no denial
of its power in the petition, although the Hon. Member
for Oxford had in fact denied them. He thought the
course pursued by that Hon. Member was calculated
to do much harm, as nobody could doubt in a case
where the public was concerned, that the House had a
right to have the fullest information. He regretted
exceedingly that this contention had arisen, and he was
only at a loss to know from whence it originated at all.
—( Hear, hear.) He could not see why the Royal
Academy should choose to set at defiance the orders
of that House, their having done so made