The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-14 00:00:00

the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, that
the portrait of no person, unless he was at least ten
years deceased, would be admitted amongst the col-
lection.

Mr. SCHARF said that the trustees had considera-
bly modified that rule recently.
The Earl of DERBY said he was sorry to hear it,
believing it to be a very good rule, and one which,
if they adopted, would relieve them from the pain of
refusing the portraits of certain persons whose merits
they would wish to leave to the judgment of poste-
rity. It was, however, a question for consideration
whether the works of living artists should be ad-
mitted into the projected gallery of portraits. There
might be some jealousy created if the works of one
living artist were admitted and those of another re-
fused. On the other hand, there might be valuable
portraits of persons who were dead 10 or 20 years,
but the artist who painted them might be yet living.
Mr. REDGRAVE said he should be sorry to see the
portrait of Sir Walter Scott by Landseer rejected,
because the artist happened to be still living.
The Earl of CLARENDON also expressed himself ill
favour of the chronological order in the arrange-
ment of the portraits, and said that he had many
pictures which would be of interest to the public,
and which he would place at the disposal of the
committee. (Hear, hear.)
Lord TAUNTON said he thought it would be im-
portant to be able to assure the owners of pictures
that they would be only required for a certain de-
finite period.

The Earl of DERBY suggested that they should
not be kept longer than four or five months, say
from April to August. But until they had some
idea of the number of pictures that would be offered
them, and to what periods they belonged, it would
be impossible to lay down any rule as to the dura-
tion of the exhibition, whether it would be for one,
two, or three years.
The Earl of CLARENDON thought that if it were
generally known that the pictures would be kept
for only four or five months in the summer it would
greatly facilitate the lending of them.
The Marquis of LANSDOIVNE said that the princi-
pal difficulty would be to ascertain in whose hands
the valuable historic pictures were. He should be
most happy to contribute his collection to the exhi-
tion. (Hear, hear.)
The Duke of BUCcLEUCH suggested that it would
be desirable to appoint district committees through-
out the country to ascertain in whose hands were
valuable portraits. He also thought that assurance
should be given as to the safety of the pictures from
damp or other injury.
Lord TAUNTON asked whether it was proposed to
admit busts into the exhibition.

The Earl of DERBY said that was a subject for
further consideration. He thought, however, that
the proposed arrangements would not be favourable
to the admission of busts.

Mr. COLE said that the proposed site for the ex'
hibition was perfectly dry, and policemen would be
employed to watch the collection of portraits niglA
and day. The committee had received assurances
of support from the Dukes of Buccleuch, Devon'
shire, Marlborough, Wellington, and Cleveland, the
Marquis of Lansdowne, Earls Brownlow, Spencer,
and Charlemont, Viscount Sydney, Lord De Lisle,
Sir R. Peel, the Dean of Christ Church, Mr. Foun'
tain, of Norfolk, Mr. Heywood Hawkins, Mr. John
Murray, and a great number of others.

The Earl of DERBY said that out of 125 notices
which the committee had sent out, they had received
80 or 90 answers, only two or three of which ex•
pressed any unwillingness to assist the society.
Lord HOUGIITON concurred in the suggestion of
appointing district committees throughout the
country to report to the central committee as to
where valuable pictures were to be found. He knell
himself that a Mr. Wynne possessed a most valuable
and interesting picture of Thomas More and 1-IL4
family, painted by Holbein.
_

On a motion of Earl GRANVILLE a vote of thank°
was passed to the Earl of Derby, which having been
gracefully acknowledged by that nobleman, the
proceedings terminated.