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 ga,llaries 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 2,0001. with the united ap-
probation of the trustees, 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 they had already expended. The committee
then adjourned.