The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-22 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES.

COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
This committee met again yesterday, the members
present being Colonel Mure (in the chair),, Lord Sey-
mour, Lord Elcho, Lord Graham, Sir H, Inglis, and
Mr. Baring Wall.
Baron Klintz, who has the reputation of being ac-
quainted, as a connoisseur, with most of the collections
of art and painting throughout Europe, was the first
witness examined, and after giving the committee some,
interesting information with respect to the collections at
Munich and St. Petersburg, stated that, in his opinion,
our National Gallery, though young and not particularly
prolific in point of pictorial production, was nevertheless
a repository of some of the finest works of' the most
eminent masters, and that, comparing the relative pro-
portion of the pictures it contained with that of other
collections of paintings, fewer pictures of either an
equivocal or mediocre character were to be met with
than in any other National Gallery with which he was
acquainted.
Dr. H. Wellesley, curator of the University Galleries,
and principal of New Inn Hall, Oxford, was of opinion
that the recent "cleaning" of the pictures in the Na-
tional Gallery, though it had deteriorated their appear-
ance, had not damaged them. It was an injudicious
step to clean them at all. These pictures were not
injured by the cleaning process generally, except as re-
garded the varnish or glazing. He alluded more par-
ticularly to the larger Claudes. Neither the smaller
Claude nor the Velasquez ever had, he thought, any
glazing. It would be desirable to remove the National
Gallery to a comparatively smokelesss atmosphere out at
Kensington. He objected to the "cleaning" process al-
together. It interfered with the beautiful effect conferred
by the toning of time, and the mellowing influences of
maturity on the masterpieces of art. Directly a pic-
ture changed hands, the possessor thought it must, as a
matter of course, be cleaned. This was a vulgar error.
He objected to the present constitution of the trustee-
ship of the National Gallery, and expressed himself in
favour of a general director in chief, well up in the
knowledge of pictorial art, with plenary authority for
the purpose of picture purchasing, as was the case in
connexion with the gallaries at Berlin and Paris. In
default of this he would decidedly prefer that the national
collection of pictures should be under royal trusteeship,
and that such collection, if under the direction of the
sovereign, would have all the essentials to excellence
that now formed the characteristics of individual collec-
tions. It was on this principle that the unrivalled collec-
tions of Charles I. King of Bavaria, Louis IV., and
of the Popes had been formed. Had there been a
director in chief of the National Gallery or had it
been royalty constituted, the last picture of the
"Tribute Money," by Titian (if indeed it were a Titian),
would not have been purchased, nor the " Adoration of
the Shepherds" bought for 2,000/. with the united ap-
probation of the trustee; and which was not in his (the
witness's) opinion worth buying at all. The trustees of
the National Gallery had purchased some of the best and
some of the worst of pictures. He blamed the system in
saying this, and not the trustees. Did not know of any
instance in which Parliament had been niggardly in al-
lowing grants for the purchase of pictures, but some-
times it was an inconvenient thing to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. The trustees might have selected better
pictures and pictures more worthy of the nation with the
money n they had already expended. The committee
then adjourned.

( Front the Times. ) •
The question of the Attorneys' Ce ificate Duty was
discussed and determined on Wedne ay under what
Lord Robert Grosvenor very justly to ed " peculiar"
ridm
circumstances. The house was in somehense committed
to the repeal of the tax, for it had dided in favour of
such a proceeding more than once. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer was committed againslt the repeal, and
the force against him bad been partialli neutralised, not
only by a concession on another poin but by the acci-
dental absence of certain members. n the end, the
1 Attorneys' Relief Bill was rejected by majority of 84,
so that this matter is at length decided That the con-
clusion of the house will be also tile onclusion of the
country we have little doubt.
Mr. Gladstone stated the case so strongly as to leave
his hearers no practical alternative. Recapitulating the re-
sults of his budget, and taking into account the unfavour-
able prospects of the coming harvest, he could not, he ob-
served, safely reckon on a surplus of more than 50,000/. or
100,0001. This was on the supposition !that his financial
scheme was to be accepted entire ; but there were two
points on which the house had shown a disposition to
make retrenchments for itself. The advertisement duty,
amounting to 80,0001., had been condemned, and the
Attorneys' Certificate Duty, producing-exactly the same
sum, had also been marked out for abolition by an inde-
pendent vote. Mr. Gladstone was tllreitened with a
loss of 160,0001., which was evidently more than he
could sustain. His anticipated surplus of from 50,0001.
to 100,0001., considering the happy tendency of such
estimates to exceed themselves, might- perhaps enable
him to meet the house half-way, and concede one out of
its two demands, but it was clear that both sets of re-
monstrants could not be indulged without ruin to the
whole budget, inasmuch as the financial scheme for the
year would then present a. deficit.: It was suggested,
therefore, that the advertisement (hitt Could certainly
not be repealed if the attorneys were relieved, and, this
being the alternative. offered, the house threw the attor-
neys overboard without any further ado.

We have often said that there is not, and perhaps
never will be, a single tax against which a case of more
or less force cannot be made out ; but we really think
the Attorneys' Certificate Duty is as little obnoxious to
criticism as moat of our financial propositions. It is
levied upon a class of men well able, on the average, to
pay it, and to an extent which certainly cannot be called
oppressive. Taking the general body of town and coun-
try solicitors, no person, we presume, would assert that
a contribution of 91. a-year from the former and 6/. from
the latter class can operate seriously to their hardship.
For our part, indeed, we are of opinion that the only
argument maintainable against the tax is that against
licences in general. It certainly seems hard that an at-
torney should be called upon to pay for the mere privilege
of practising his profession, while a surgeon on the other
side of the street is exempted from any such demand, for as
far as "securing respectability" goes the guarantee, if
really created by a 91. tax, is quite as desirable in one
faculty as the other. We may go beyond professions,
and say that in the case of trades, according to the
prima facie view of principles, either all should be taxed
or all left free. Why should a grocer, or a tea-dealer, or
a wine merchant be taxed, any more than a butcher or
a draper, or a silversmith keeping a shop in the same
town ? Why, to take a still stronger instance, should a
man who sells fish over his counter without hindrance
be compelled to pay for the right of selling game ? If
the attack had been made upon the whole system of li-
cences there would not have been much to say, excepting,
perhaps, that it yielded its contribution to the treasury
without having hitherto produced any complaints. In
point of fact, the licence of the dealer is paid for by the
customer in the price of the articles purchased ; nor has
the arrangement, as far as we are aware, ever excited
any opposition, excepting at that particular point where
the objections to be taken were the smallest. If grocers
and snuff-dealers are fit subjects for this species of taxa-
tion, attorneys are unquestionably fitter still ; nor could
their certificate duty be repealed without creating great
injustice in the case of all licences whatever.
Of the advertisement duty, which was definitively
abandoned last night, we have repeatedly said that it
acted both oppressively and unfairly, not upon adver-
tisers but upon newspapers. Advertisements in books,
in carriages at railway stations, on railway tickets, and
even on vehicles so troublesome as to be put down by
special act of Parliament, were left scot free. It was
only when a person advertised in the regular channel
that he was called upon to pay duty, and this duty was
so regulated that it was exceedingly oppressive in some
cases and absolutely inappreciable in others. It was a
tax upon the intercommunication of wants, and was un-
doubtedly opposed to many of the most approved princi-
ples of trade and finance. Unluckily, the same may be
said of so many other taxes that the argument loses
much of its weight, but, as the houte has determined
upon the relief of newspapers preferentially, we can only
congratulate ourselves upon the decision, and, if the sub-
ject were one in which we were less-immediately inte-
rested, we should affirm without much scruple that ad-
vertisements had certainly a far bate* claim than attor-
nev,4.
The simple truth is, that the success of the attorneys
up to a certain point was due less to their cause than
their position. Mr. Gladstone, in describing them ironi-
cally as-" a meritorious class, entirely without organisa-
tion, not represented in that house, and cut off from all
the ordinary means of communication with it enjoyed by
other classes," indicated very graphically the real secret
of Lord Robert Grosvenor's strength. As hon. members
care a good deal about their solicitors, and not much,
we fear, about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was
easy to gratify the former by a vote which would only
be troublesome to the latter ; and but, perhaps, for the
absence of that interesting class which Mr. Murrough
described as "the juvenile bar," the division of Wednes-
day evening might still have assumed another form. The
attorneys, however, have no reason to complain of their
representatives. Their case received throughout at least
as much support as it deserved, and the last vote, we hope,
will put the question at rest. The result of the original
agitation will not be received, we fear, without a certain
amount of malicious satisfaction. The attorneys had cla-
moured for a revision of the duties affecting their profes-
sion. To this demand Mr. Gladstone acceded; but in-
stead of abolishing, as was anticipated, the whole certificate
duty, he contented himself with taking off a fourth, in
consideration, as it appeared, of the diminution of law
profits recently experienced. But he did not stop at
this point. While upon the subject he directed his in-
quiries to certain other fees—those, namely, which are
paid upon entrance to the profession, and these he re-
duced by one-third. The consequence is, that attorneys
find competition encouraged in their calling to a greater
extent than will be compensated by the relief of those
already in practice, and, while the profession is not made
much richer by the reduction of duty, it is made con-
siderably easier of access by the reduction of the stamp.
The incident is not without its moral. There are many
classes beside attorneys who confine their views too ex-
clusively to their own obligations, and who overlook the
fact that in such a general revision of the subject as in-
quiry must bring they run the hazard of losing at least
as much as they gain. A second conclusion suggested
by the debate points to the inseparable connection of
one tax with another. The repeal of the certificate duty
must have inevitably entailed the reconsideration 'of the
whole system of licences, and even the repeal of the ad-
vertisement duty, as Mr. Gladstone himself predicted,
will make the taxes upon insurances and other such
transactions exceedingly difficult to defend.