The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-22 00:00:00

As nothing definitive, however, came from this very
positive, and we will even say from this very rational
decision of the Royal Commissioners, there can be
no reasonable objection that another Royal Com-
' mission shall be forthwith appointed by the SOVE-
I REIGN as proposed by Lord ELCHO'S motion.
Time enough that something were done in this

matter. It has remained a moot point too long
already. There must be an end at last to any
further hesitation. The building at present shel-

tering under its roof on one side the Royal Aca-
demy and on the other the National Gallery, is, in
point of fact, not merely incapable of containing
both collections together, but even of affording each
of them adequate accommodation. Externally the
edifice is a disgrace to the country to which it be-
longs and to the object for which it was designed,
that object being, we repeat, the foundation of
a permanent home and abiding-place for
the National Gallery and its custodians. In-
ternally the edifice affords anything but sufficient
accommodation either for the purposes of the Royal
Academy or of the National Gallery. And while
this is so, it has to embrace within its narrow com-
pass both of these growing collections. Every
year, of course, the inconvenience of this, both
to the Royal Academicians and to the officials ap-
pointed to take care of the National Gallery,
increases. The TURNER Bequest has happily
brought matters to a climax. There is no escape
now from the imperative necessity for an early re-
moval from Trafalgar-square of either the Royal
Academy or the National Gallery. Which shall
make way for the other ? That is really the plain
alternative. And in regard to the decision to be
arrived at upon this alternative, almost every-
thing seems in favour of the removal of the Royal
Academy, and against the removal of the National
Gallery.
The Royal Commission already referred to came,
indeed, to that one simple and obviously reasonable
conclusion. It recognised that the site at present oc-
cupied by the building called The National Gallery
was intended, as the name indicated, for the pur-
poses of The National Gallery. From the outset the
Royal Academy wasthere as the occupant of one-half
of the edifice simply and notoriously on sufferance.
As far back as 1839 the then Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, known at that time as the Right Hon.
SPRING RICE, but more familiar to the present
generation as Lord MONTEAGLE, as plainly as pos.
Bible, though in the politest terms of course, inti-
mated that the Royal Academy was there just
simply—tolerated ! It occupied a portion of the
building, a whole moiety of it, as it happened, with-
out having any legal right of property at all in it.
Nay, with an imminent risk perpetually dangling
over it, like a sword of DAMOCLES, that it might at
any moment receive notice to quit, and to quit, too,
forthwith. Notwithstanding which, up to this
present date, the Royal Academicians have been in
no way disturbed. They have had broad enough
hints given them, no doubt, that they were becoming
every year more and more de trop, that the room
they occupied would be more welcome than their
company, that they would do well to be at last
flitting.

Not one of those hints have they, however, had
the grace to take. Even though they saw the
masterpieces of one of the most illustrious of their
body doomed for a while (in consequence) to be hid
away like the ghost of HAMLET'S sire " in the cellar-
age." Even though they saw that those glories of
English art had to be dragged off, one while
to Marlborough House, and another while to the
Brompton Boilers, until—under a threat from the
Crow❑ Lawyers that the TURNER collection might
be altogether lost to the nation unless hurriedly
brought back to the National Gallery—they were
brought back thither again to be " cabined, cribbed,
confined" within the narrow compass of rooms alto-
gether unworthy of their reception. As the suffi-
ciently plain and positive decision of the last Royal
Commission (sufficiently plain and positive, that is
for all unprejudiced minds), was nevertheless in-
sufficient to convince the judgments of the Royal
Academicians, by all means let us have another
Royal Commission, whose decision in their regard
may be a trifle more imperative. Further delay
would be something less than preposterous.
Besides which, it will be a comfort to
every one to be well - rid of what
has long been an intolerable annoyance. If the
Royal Academy has not the grace to take itself off
—it must be made to do so. The Building about
which, or rather about the site of which, there has
been this long contention, is called, we believe, not
the Royal Academy, but the National Gallery ! It
was erected for the National Gallery, we believe,
and not for the Royal Academy ! It was only after
its completion that the Royal Academy was permit-
ted to move thither from its old habitation in Somerset
House. It was so permitted as an act of grace, and
just for the time being—it never being intended
that it should remain there en permanence. Like
incorrigible squatters who have been tolerated
too long, the Royal Academicians required some-
thing more than broad hints, though unmistakably
uttered some of them, to induce them to leave at
lall, however reluctantly. The fact is, the Legisla-
ture must decide on their eviction—if in no other
way, by Act of Parliament. As a preliminary to
their removal, we heartily rejoice, at any rate, at
this immediate prospect of another and a final Royal
Commission—a Commission expressly appointed, if
appointed at all, to put an end to this vexatious and
too long protracted Fine Arts Difficulty.

We are favoured with another opportunity to
" see oursels as others see us." In social and tri-
vial matters M. As3OLANT and others have been
presenting what they think to be Exhibition pho-
tographs of us to France and Europe—what we
think, however, to be caricatures or daubs. In a far
graver matter Mr. TifußLo-w WEED has been
giving a picture of us to the citizens of New York
which we can fairly recognise. He was sent
over here to be a kind of unofficial rectifier of Eng-
lishrong notions respecting the North, to nullify,
as far as
Possible, the mischief supposed to have
I been
,_ causedbY the visitors from the South, one of
wham obtained
English cheers by a free trade dis-
play at Fishman
Hall. With him were asso-
ciated two ecets'
terisa Catholic one, Arch-
bishop HUGHES, for France
.. Bishop APILVAINE,
and the Continent ;
and an Episcopal Church ; ,
for the instruction of the glthch
flel". His
bishops and
clergy, and through them of
general report is, tbat the mission was not in vain.
" Peculiarly fortunate"rx'a
was the appointment of the
ci The services of those enlightened
two bishop'. ghtened
devoted Union-
and eminent divines, and ~,,n,
the
former in Paris, the latter all over England, Were
seasonable and effective ; their exalted positions,
their high characters, and their fervid zeal, gave
weight and authority to their statements and

pinions."
o
In one respect we think Mr, Tut:Row WEED
is in error—he seems to think that she South bad
produced a more favourable opinion itself at the
beginning of the quarrel than exists now, and had
formed a public opinion against the North by an'
ticipation, The reverse of this, so far as we can
judge, seems to be the fact. From several causes,
'lid in America, we should
both in this country
limy that there is a far more wisely diffused opinion