The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-08 00:00:00

r which was the amount proposed for the travelling ex-
! penses.
Mr. H. VERNON said that while seconding the amend.
went of the hon. gentleman he should feel himself com-
pelled, in many respects, to express different opinions from
Whim. In common with the hon. gentleman, he felt that the
committee ought to be satisfied why they should be called
upon to pay 6501. for travelling expenses. Having taking a
very active part on the committee appointed to confer on
thin matter, he certainly had-been surprised to find that a
secretary had been appointed at a salary of 7501. a-year in
'addition to a director at 1,0001, a-year and a travelling
agent at 300/ea-year. He was at a loss to understand what
was the object for appointing a secretary. He certainly
considered the appointment to be a mere job. The sole duty
he would have to perform was one of a mechanical nature
—simply that of drawing out a Catalogue Raisonnee,
chiefly of the Italian masters. He always understood that
that would form part of the duty of the director. He was
against the employment of a travelling agent, as hebelieved
that pictures might be purchased in a better manner. He
thought there were persons in this country who would do
the duty without its being necessary to pay a travelling
agent. He felt bound by a sense of duty to make these re-
marks. He was in a position different from that of the hon.
gentleman, for he had the pleasure of the personal acquaint-
ance of Sir C. Eastlake, therefore he had no wish to say any-
thing that could be annoying or personally offensive to him.
Bat it was impossible after having heard the evidence of Sir
C. Eastlake himself that he (Mr. H. Vernon) should wish to
see that gentleman a director of our National Gallery. At
the same time it was fair to state that it would be difficult to
point out anyother person whopossessed betterqualifioations.
In Sir C. Eastlake the Government had found a gentleman,
and a man above all sordid considerations. He was a person
of great refinement and of considerable pictorial knowledge.
Whether in all respects he had displayed a sound judgment
was a matter he would not then enter upon. In some
remarks on the subject of the spurious "Holbein," Sir
Charles Eastlake himself candidly acknowledged that he
did not know anything of art, except of Italian art. Sir
Charles Eastlake had stated, upon the authority of a well-
known artist, that a Velasquez had been well restored.
That artist was summoned before the committee, and he
stated distinctly that he had been employed by a picture-
dealer to repair the picture, and that he had supplied a
space equal to the size of a sheet of foolscap paper in the
picture. He (Mr. Vernon) was so astonished at this
statement that he went to the artist himself and care-
fully examined the picture, when the artist said that he
said not believe it was a work by Velasqttez, and that
the only part that was touched by him was the back of
a mule. The same artist stated that his (Hr. Vernon's)
grandfather had placed his pictures in his hands to
have them restored; and that Mr. Payne had damaged
one of the pictures, and had made a great hole in it.
He stated that it was a Rembrandt, that he had painted a
black man in it, and that his hon. relative the member for
Oxfordshire had said that it was a good picture, and was
well restored. Now, such a picture never belonged to his
grandfather—(hear)—and the hon. member referred to de-
nied that he ever said anything of the sort attributed to
him. Nevertheless he bejievedathat the gentleman stated
what he believed to be true ; and he merely mentioned the
circumstance to show how inaccurate some statements in
reference to matters of fact were. He had seen the story
in the newspapers, but he had not taken notice of it before,
as he was not in the habit of writing_to newspapers. With
respect to Mr. Mundler, he had been very much startled to
hear the story about the Correggio. Ho had seen Mr.
Mundler in some of the towns of Italy, and that gentleman,
appeared to be an extremely painstaking and laborious per-
son, and he had heard his opinion with reference to pictures
very favourably spOlcen of by competent persons. He also—
though his opinion might be worth very little—was favour-
ably impressed with what he saw of Mr. Mundler. He
could not help lamenting that the director should have gone
abroad in company with Mr. hfurdler for a considerable
time, for he did not think that that was the most likely
way to buy pictures cheaply. (Hear.) A travelling agent,
if there were to be one, shonld -keep himself as quiet as
possible. (Hear.) In his opinion, Sir C. Eastlake, if al-
lowed a fair trial, would prove himself more worthy of
public confidence than the recent unfortunate purchase,
which had justly caused so much sensation, would make
him appear to be. Having said thus much in justice to Mr.
Mundler and Sir C. Eastlake, he must express his opinion
, that the sum for travelling expenses was a most wasteful
expenditure of money, and he trusted that some explana-
tion would be given of the duties of Mr. Wornum, who
received 7501. a-year.
Mr. BOWYER agreed with what had fallen from Ur e hon.
member for Sta.fferd, but was inclined to go further, because
he could not help thinking that 1,0001. a-year with travel-
ling expenses was too great a remuneration to thedirector—
regard being had to the duties performed. The most im-
portant part of his duty consisted in getting opinions with
respect to the purchase of pictures, and he should have
thought that Sir C. Eastlake and the Royal Academy of
which he was President, and which enjoyed privileges
from the Government, would have considered itan honour
to be consulted in reference to the purchase of pictures,
and would have given their opinion for nothing. The first
commissioner for consolidating the statutes was paid 1,0001.
a-year, and the sub-commissioners, on whom the great
duty devolved, were paid only 6001. Their duties were
extremely onerous compared with the duty of Sir C. East-
lake, who had to give his opinion respecting the purchase
of about a dozen pictures in the course of the year, and he
thought that there ought to be some more fair proportion
than appeared is exist between the labour done and the
salary given. He was informed by very good judges that
Sir C. Eastlake made great mistakes in the choice of his
pictures, and he was told that the picture by Paul
Veronese, which cast the country 1,977/., was offered
for sale some short time ago for 501., and that that sum was
about its worth. He was acquainted with Italy, and he
could well conceive the sensation v hich would be produced
in an Italian town by the arrival of an agent of the British
Government, sent abroad to purchase pictures. The price of
every picture would be immediately raised 100 per cent.
He thought that our diplomatic) agents might be employed
to find persons in the different cities who would discover
what pictures were for sale, anti he conceived that 5001.
r -year for the director of the National Gallery would be
snore than enough.
Lord ELCHO could not agree with the hon. and learned
gentleman with regard to the salary of 1,0001. a-year to the
director being too large. He (Lord Elcho) was on the
committee of 1853, and it was the unanimous opinion of
that committee that the officers of the National Gallery wore
underpaid, the chief keeper having only 2001. a-year.
Where much work was to be done me„ should be well paid;
and the committee thought that if a well educated and
superior man could be got as director he would be
worth 1,003/. a year. But the Treasury had outstripped
the committee in generosity, and had tar excee lei what
the committee had recommended, for not only had he
granted what the committee wished, the 1,0001. a-year for
the director, but appointed a secretary also at 8001. a-year
Now there was not even any motion made in the commit-
tee for the appointment of a secretary with any salary at
all. The hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury
had likewise appointed a travelling agent with a salary of
3)01, a-year, and permission to draw an unlimited amount
for travelling expenses. Now the question of appointing
a travelling agent was never mooted before the committee.
• To him (Lord Elcho) it did appear that those two:appoint-
ment's were superfluous and unnecessary. Ho had, indeed,
expressed his opinion that 1,000/. a-year was not more than
a sufficient salary for the director, and that there was
abundant for the director to do. But every gentleman was
I well aware that there was a period of the year in which, to
far as regarded the purchase of pictures, there was nothing
to be done in England. The time when the sales of pic-
tures took place at the auction-rooms of Messrs. Christie
and others was during the London season, in the summer;
but there was nothing of that kind to be done in the win-
tor, and that should have been the time for the direc-
tor to be his own travelling agent, and to go abroad,
and to do himself what he appeared to have done
this winter with the assistance of this Mr. Mundler.
Sir Charles Eastlake was an amiable gentleman, of
high literary attainments, but in appointing him the
Government were guilty of a great mistake. (Hear,
hear.) Under a different title, firstly, as the keeper of the
National Gallery, with the salary of 2001. a-year, from
which office he retired for a short time in consequence of
the purchase of the Holbein, and secondly, as an ex °Oleic)
trustee after he became the president of the Royal Aca-
demy, for 10 years Sir Charles Eastlake had exercised a
very material influence in the purchasing of pictures for
the National Gallery, and virtually it was he, and nct the
trustees, who was responsible for what had been done;
and what had been the results? It was clearly prove
before the committee that not only had the Gallery been
mismanaged in regard to the cleaning of pictures and other
matters, but that, whilst for comparatively small sums of
money most beautiful specimens of Italian art might have
been purchased, very large sums bad been expended dur-
ing that period upon comparatively worthless specimens of
inferior styles of Italian and other artists ; and Sir C.
Eastlake admitted before the committee that he had made
mistakes which ought not to have been made by the per-
son who should be at the bead of the National Gallery.
These remarks he (Lord Elcho) had felt it his dutylo make,
however painful, as a personal friend of Sir C. Eastlake, it
was to him to be obliged to do so. He had also to com-
plain that, altbsugh at this time last year when the in-
tended appointment first got wind, he had asked the Secre-
tary to the Treasury the t the minute of the 27th March
might be laid before the house, so as to be considered when
the estimates came before them, months of lest session
were allowed to pass, and the minute, which effected most
important changes in the constitution of the department,
was not produced until ha (Lord Elcho) received it while
staying at a German watering-place, in the middle of
August. (A laugh.) He would suggest that some of the
best works of the contemporary artistsof foreign countries,
such as were shown at the Paris Exhibition, should be
purchased for the instruction of the art students of our
own country.
Mr. WILSON ebserved that by the minute of the 27th
of March, 1855, to which the noble lord had referred, Sir
Charles Eastlake, as director, was made solely responsible
for every act done in the management of the National
Gallery, though he might still confer with the trustees ;
yet it was difficult by any minute, doubtless, to define the
duties of the person who was to be thus solely responsible.
With regard to the motion to reduce this vote by the
amount of the travelling expenses, he would say that,
although Sir C. Eastlake did travel last year, it was no
Part of his duty to travel, and that he could not incur any
travelling expenses without the express consent of the
trustees, and an application to the Treasury for that pur-
pose. If this amount of 6221. were now granted by the
Louse, it was not therefore certain that it would be ex-
pended. But the functions of the travelling agent who
had been appointed would be at an end if the house did
not furnish the travelling expenses. It bad been considered
that Mr. Mundler was better qualified for that office than
another, because as a foreigner his presence anywhere
abroad would excite loss curiosity and attention, than if he
s ere an English artist of reputation.. As for the purchase
of this picture, which had been spoken of se much, an hon.
gentleman had said it was mace valued at 501. Now he
(lir. Wilson) could only say that he saw himself a letter
from Paris, which offered 60,900 f., or 2,4001,, for that pic-
ture, at the very moment when it was purchased for the
National Gallery. However, Sir C. Eastlake would take
the entire responsibility of the purchase, and none belonged
to Mr. Mundler. If the value of that picture were to be
tested by what those who wished to purchase it would give
for it, it bad been got below the marker price. 'With re-
gard to the office of secretary, it had been thought
belt to join that with the office of keeper, and that the
salary should be sufficiently high to command the ser-
vices of a competent person. The duties were impor-
tant, including the preparation of a catalegue, which,
when completed, would coi3prise a most interesting
history of art. These appointments were made after
Lprd 'Aberdeen himself had devoted as much attea-
,tion to the subject as a minister could spare; and al-
though much party feeling prevailed upon matters of art,
and any appointment which could be made was sure to be
objected to by some, he believed they were the best that
onld have been made.
Mr. EWART thought the constitution of the Board
which managed the National Gallery was anomalous and
inconsistent, a director being appointed who was to be en-
tirely responsible, yet surrounded by honorary trustees
impeded instead of as:doting him—men of considerable
wealth, who were appointed beam(' thou were owners of