The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-09 00:00:00

urged upon the trustees of the National Gallery an object
which appeared to him not difficult of accomplishment,—
the obtaining a -collection of the early Italian masters, not
so much, perhaps, on account of their intrinsic beauty, as
for the great aid they would afford us in the tracing the
progress of painting. (Hear, hear.) He certainly antici-
vated very valuable results from the labours of the com-
inittee, and he should therefore give the proposition his
warmest support. (Hear.)
Mr. J. BELL hoped that the Government would' not
sanction the locality of the Great Exhibition as the site of
the new National Gallery, considering that the most com-
petent authorities—Mr. Uwins, Mr. Faraday., Sir C. East-
lake—had protested against that locality as calculated to
damage the paintings.
Mr. HITME doubted whether there were not too many
subjects of inquiry assigned to the committee. As to the
cleaning process, he had, years ago, called the attention of
the house to the subject, and from the inquiries instituted,
at his instance, by Sir Robert Peel, it appeared that this
cleaning had been ordered on the authority of one indi-
vidual, the general body of the trustees knowing nothing
about the matter. The whole history of the defective
management of the National Gallery was, in fact, simply
;this, that the trusteeship, nominally vested in a great number
e.f persons, was actually in the hands of one trustees, who
ditl. just what he pleased with the pictures. While large sums
were annually given to the National Gallery, not one single
regulation had been issued by the Treasury for the guidance
of the persons—person rather—who administered those
sums. How was it to be expected, he would ask, that the
First Lord of the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, or Lord Lansdowne, could give their personal
superintendence ? No. There was a whole string of trus-
tees—Lord Ashburton, Lord Overstone, Mr. W. Russell,
Mr. S. Rogers, and so on, whom nobody supposed would
attend, for one reason or another, until you came down; to
Sir C. Eastlake, who was himself, and solely, the com-
mittee. He noticed in the minutes mention of a number
of pictures, by good masters, offered to the gallery, and
rejected by the trustees. He should like to know why
they had been rejected. (Hear, hear.) If it was on account
of want of room, the room should have been supplied. As
to the question of an aggregate collection, it appeared to
him that the public had better opportunities of seeing works
of art when they were distributed in several collections.
Most certainly he should prefer that the collection at
Hampton-court should remain where it was • nor did he see
why, after expending more than 1,000,0001. in rendering
the British Museum a fit receptacle for great monu-
ments of sculptured art, those monuments should be
carried off somewhere else. Rather than have the
National Gallery removed, he would prefer that the
barracks, or workhouse, at the rear should be purchased
and added to it. He entirely concurred in the motion
for inquiry, because every inquiry of this nature
was attended with advantage. A proper building once
secured and placed under efficient management, the cost to
the public Treasury need not be a single farthing, because
he was convinced that the contributions of works of art
from the public would be ample.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that,
hotween those gentlemen who thought that the motion of
his hon. friend the member for Renfrewshire included too
much, and those who thought that it included too little,
there was ample room for a comfortable belief that the
motion was very judiciously framed ; and he, for one, was
. . _ .

glad to see it in the hands of his lion. friend. (Hear.)
There were, however, two subjects on which he wished to
make a remark. First, with regard to the question of the
removal of the National Gallery. It appeared to be sup-
posed that the Government had absolutely decided on that
removal, and were pledged to its taking effect. So far as
he was informed, no such decision had been arrived at ;
and nothing had been done which, in the event of an ex-
pression of public opinion on the subject (and he thought
it was a matter in which the public were deeply interested)
or in the event of its being found, on the whole, desirable
that it should remain where it was, rendered its removal
necessary. One word also with respect to cleaning the
pictures, because strong opinions had been expressed upon
that subject. The gentlemen who had been officially
employed in this matter might have been right or
might have been wrong in what they had done ; but they
were public servants of a very high character, and he was
sure it was not the wish of the house to' rejudge anything
they had done in the performance of their duties. (Hear,
hear.) The public were much obliged, he thought, to those
who called attention to anything which affected the custody
of these very precious treasures. At the same time it should
be known that what had been done had not been hastily
undertaken, but had been executed by Mr. Seg,nier, a gen-
tleman of great experience, under the close and constant
superintendence of Mr. Uwins. He held in his hand a com-
munication from Mr. Seguier on this subject, in which he
said—" I assure you; that during my very extensive prac-
tice, I do not recollect to have had any pictures improved
more to my satisfaction." He only mentioned this, not to
induce the house to subscribe to the opinions of Mr. Se-
vier, but, as the matter was about to undergo a close and
ntelligent investigation before a committee, to leave it in
he hands of the committee. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOCKE was glad to hear that the Government had
not come to any decision with respect to the very im-
portant steps mentioned in the report of the Royal Coni-
missioners, for he thought that the propositions contained
n that report was hardly creditable to the high names
appended to it.
The motion was then agreed to.
LAW OF PROBATES.

Mr. HADFIELD, having presented a petition in its
favour from the London and North-Western Railway Com-
any, moved for leave to introduce a bill to prevent the
ecessity of obtaininc, several probates of the same will, and
everal grants of administration in respect of the estate and
effects of any deceased person; and to make certain amend-
ments in the law of evidence in respect to the proof of
wills, and of probates and grants of administration. He
bserved that the bill was exceedingly short, that it made
ne probate and grant of administration sufficient, and
nacted that a probate should be proof of the devise of a
real estate in the same manner as it was of a personal
estate. He could have wished that this should have been
eluded in one general measure ; still, the subject was of
3 pressing and important a nature, that he felt justified in
introducing it per se ; and he had the sanction of the Soli-
citor-General for saying that he had no objection to the
bringing in of the bill. (Hear, hear.)

W. BROWN seconded the motion.
• Mr. R. J. PHILLIMORE recognised the importance of
the proposed measure, as calculated to put an end to a sys-
tem which cried aloud for amendment, and which no person
could wish to see continued. He remembered a case in
which, for one and the same instrument, it was necessary to
have a probate in Canterbury, another in York, letters of
administration from Scotland, and a certified copy of the
ill from the colonies. It was perfectly clear that it was
a monstrous state of the law which required such a multi-
plicity of documents when one probate would be ample.
He thought, however, that this should form part of the
great measure of reform to be introduced by the Solicitor-
General, and that the Government would be very ill-advised
if they allowed the present session to pass without achiev-
ing the reform which the Solicitor-General had promised,
a reform which, however surrounded with difficulties, was
not impossible. Ho trusted that they would do their ut-
most to deal with the subject as a whole, and to place the
testamentary law of this country upon such a footing as
would be consonant with the wishes of the people, and con-
sistent with the due administration of justice.
Mr. COWAN also supported the measure, and expressed
a hope that it would be extended to Scotland.
Leave was then given to introduce the bill, and it was
afterwards brought up and read a first time.