The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-28 00:00:00

reasons for bringing forward a motion on this sub-

ject. By a bill now before Parliament, called the
National Gallery Site Bill, the house were called upon
to affirm the proposition that the site of the National
Gallery should be fixed at Kensington-gore. Now he was
not prepared, and many other hon. gentlemen were
not prepared, to vote upon that proposition one way or
the other. He had given notice of the present motion be-
cause he thought the question would be more properly
brought before the house in that form than by the bill ;
and he had to thank the noble lord at the head of the
Government for the courtesy with which he had post-
poned the second reading of the bill until the motion had
been disposed of. The motion naturally divided itself into
two parts, as it raised the questions, first, whether a
royal commission should be issued to determine the site
of the National Gallery, and, secondly, whether that royal
commission, if issued, should likewise consider the de-
sirableness of combining with the National Gallery the
fine art and archmological collections of the British Mu-
seum? The question as to the site was a very simple one
—were the house prepared,without any further inquiry,
to vote for the removal of the National Gallery to Ken-
sington-gore ? He was not prepared so to vote. One rea-
son why delay was. imperative was the great difference
of opinion upon the question which existed both in and
out of the house. Some gentlemen were anxious at
all price, at all hazard, to remove the National Gallery
to Kensington-gore ; others thought that, of all situa
tions which could be selected for a National Gallery,
Kensington-gore was the worst ; others, again, said that
if Kensington-gore was the only alternative its removal
there might-perhaps be desirable ; and that was the view
taken by the committee of 1853 ; another class thought
that from the commanding and central position which
the National Gallery now occupied it ought not to be
removed. Various arguments would no doubt be brought
against his motion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
He had heard it argued in the first place, that Parlia-
ment was committed to the site of Kensington-gore by
the vote of 150,0001. for the purchase of the ground,
which had been moved by the right hon, gentleman op-
posite (Mr. Disraeli), when Chancellor of the Exche-
quer ; in the second place, it was asked what was the use
of further inquiry when there had been commissions and
committees without end ? (liedi ) Thirdly, it was said
that the committee of 1853 had determined upon accept-
ing the site of Kensington-gore by a resolution em-
bodied in their report. With regard to the first objection
having carefully looked through all the discussions which
had taken place on the subject, he thought that Parlia
went was in no way committed upon the question of the
site. When the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) in
an able speech explained his scheme, although he sha-
dowed forth a National Gallery as one of the purposes
to which the ground might be put nothing specific was
determined. Oa that occasion the late Mr. Hume ob
jected to the removal of the National Gallery from its
present central position, although he cordially approved
the industrial scheme proposed to be carried out at Ken-
sington-gore. He (Lord Elcho) must here disclaim any
intention to interfere with the industrial scheme proposed
by the Royal Commission, of which Prince Albert wasthe
able and active head, a scheme proposed in consequence of
the defiziency of this country in the arts of design as ap-
plied to manufactures. The hon, member for Warwick-
shire, as well as Mr. Hume, raised his voice on the oc-
casion to which he had referred against the retrieval of
the National Gallery, so that nothing had then passed to
commit the house. In 1854 the question was again
brought before Parliament, as it was found that 27,5001.
beyond the sum already voted was required, and then an
hon. friend of his, now on the Treasury bench, whose
vote he was afraid would not now be given 'o him, but
whose sympathies he knew were with him, be meant the
hon. member for Poole (Mr. Denby Seymour), objected
to money being voted for the removal of the National
Gallery, and said he distinctly remembered that no
pledge had been given on the part of the house that it
should be removed. With regard to the second objection
he had mentioned, he certainly admitted that a number
of inquiries had taken place, for there bad been no less
than two commissions (appointed by the Treasury) and
five committees. The commission of 1850 inquired into
the state of the pictures, and recommended, in conse-
quence of the dust and dirt accumulated on them, that
they should be covered with glass. The commission
of 1851, of which the present Duke of Somerset
was a member, reported in favour of one or two
sites in Kensington-gardens —one, the end of the walk
near the Bays water-road ; the other the paddock near
Kensington Palace. The first committee was appointed
in 1836, and only considered the question of the occupa-
tion of part of the building by the Royal Academy.
There hal always been something unfortunate about the
National Gallery ; it had been a ricketty child from its
birth, for no sooner was it erected than a question arose
as to its occupation, and a great part of it had always
been occupied by the Royal Academy. The next commit-
tee, which sat in 1841, merely inquired into the number
of visitors to the gallee.-y. The committee of 1850, though
they thought the site not as advantageous as it might he
for the preservation .rd the pictures, could make no re-
commendation on the subject in ignorance of the site to
which it was proposed to be removed. In 1847-48 a com-
mittee sat, of which the late Sir R. Peel, Lord Carlisle, the
noble lord the member for London, and other dis tinguish ed
'nen were members, and they came to the unanimous
decision tl.at the National Gallery ought not to be remov-
ed from its present site. The last committee sat in 1855.
The result of these inquiries was not conclusive or satis-
factory. Indeed the reports on the subject were most
contradictory. He now came to the committee of 1853,
and he imagined that it was to carry out the views of that
committee that the Government now proposed to remove
Lhe National Gallery to Kensington-gore. He was quite
ready to admit that that committee came to a resolution
accepting the site of Kensington-gore for the National
Gallery, but it was merely on the idea that there was no
other alternative, and the resolution to that effect was
only carried by a majority of one. A paragraph inserted
in the report for removing the National Gallery to Ken-
sington-gore was, undoubtedly, carried by six to three,
hut if the substantive-motion had not been carried by a
majority of one the committee would not have affirm ad
the acceptance of the site. lie was in the minority, and
he was supported by the hon. memter for the University
of Dublin, who was the financial secretary of the right
hon. gentleman opposite at the time when the decision
was arrived at. He was also supported in the minority
by the late Sir W. Molesworth, and he thought that all
that he had stated showed that the opinion of the com-
mittee on this subject was anything but unanimous, and
that too much weight must not be attached to a decision
accepting the Kensington-gore site as the only alterna-
irive. The chairman of the committee on the occasion was
Col. Muir, and there was no doubt that if ho had had
occasion to give a casting vote on the subject he would
have voted against the Kensington-gore site, for he
drew up a draught report condemning it. He therefore
could not help thinking that the case of those who based
their views in favour of the removal of the National Gal-
lery to Kensington on the report of that committee was
not very strongly supported. The committee, he re-
peated, adopted Kensington-gore site because they be-
lieved there was no other alternative, but if honourable
members looked over the Parliamentary papers and
documents they would find that no less than 13 other
sites were suggested as available or desirable for the
National Gallery. It was not, therefore, on the sup-

posed want of alternatives that the how() was obliged to

adopt the proposed site. These were the reasons which
induced hun to desire that there should be some fur-
' ther inquiry to determine the site of the new Na-
tional Gallery. But besides this there was a larger and
wider question, to which he should shortly call the atten-
tion of the house—namely, whether it would not be de-
sirable to combine with the new National Gallery the
fine art and archmelogicel collections of the British Mu-
seum. This subject had frequently engaged the atten-
tion of Parliament, and it would be, no doubt, lee in the
recollection sef the noble member for London, who
moved the vote for the British Museum, that the ques-
tion as to what should be done with the collections in
the British Museum was more or less brought before the
house. The right hon. gentleman opposite, formerly
Chancellor of the Exchequer', gave what was a true ac-
count of the origin of the difficulties connected wish the
collections in the Museum. Since those a Alections,
formed by Sir Hans Sloane, came into the possession of
the natiou continual additions had been made to them,
until the Museum had become a perfect Noah's ark,
containing birds, beasts, fishes, and other things, ar-
ranged without system, while each department appeared
to be in a state of chronic congestion. He was told that
two cases which had arrived from Edinburgh must re•
main in the cellars along with a hundred others, and that
when a new bull came from Nineveh a stable was ob-
liged to be built for itin someout-of-the-way place. With
regard to books, however, he was told by M. Panizzi that
in consequence of the vote of 140,0001. for a new read.
ing-room there was space for 1,500,000 volumes. The
committee of 1853 were in favour of combining with
the new National Gallery the Fine art and archm)-
logical collections of the British Museum. It the
collections were to be moved, they must be moved as a
whole. When the question came before the committee of
1853 he had hesitated to give an opinion upon it, and he
had moved to recommend the appointment of a commis-
sion on the subject. The 11th resolution of the commit
tee was to this effect. He was happy to say that in this
proposition for the appointment of a commission he had
the concurrence of Lord Ellesmere, whose opinion on
these subjects was entitled to the greatest weight. The
question of site depended not only upon whether it should
be determined to combine our collections, but on the
manner in which that was to be carried out ; whether it,
was to be done in a handsome manner, worthy of the,
arts, or whether it was to be done economically. It,
might be done in such a manner, however, as to keep,
both considerations in view. He had had considerable
delicacy in mentioning Kensington Palace as a site, be-
cause that was a royal residence, and he spoke in utter
ignorance of the intentions of her Majesty with regard:
to it. It must be remembered, however, that the gardens'
of Kensington Palace were now open to the public, and'
the privacy of the palace as a royal residence was there-1
fore destroyed. Still, if it were determined to erect on
that site a palace worthy of the arts it would not pre-'
elude her Majesty, or any future sovereign who might
fed so disposed, from erecting a royal residence in close
connection with the gallery. This was the case in Paris,:
in Berlin, and in Florence; and there would be this great,
advantage, that on state occasions the two might be thro wn'
together, as was done with the Tuileries and the Louvre
gallery, so as to form one magnificent suite of moms. If

her Majesty sbould co:lsent t; such a sacrifice as giving
up Kensington Pal ac,-; for the benefit of the public, iure he
wai that Parliament and the country would he ready to
offer any equivalent which her Majesty at any future time

might desire. Another way in which it had been suggested
that this combination could be carried out was to give
Burlington-house to the Prince of Wales, to clear away
St. James'sPalace and Marlborough-house, which would
give a frontage of 1,100 feet, and there to erect a
National Gallery in connection with a new suite of
Royal reception-rocms, which were very much needed.
Another site was that of Kensington-gore, where, al-
though there was ample room in the lower part of the
ground, the frontage was somewhat restricted, and where
no one who had given attention to this matter believed
that there could be erected a building which would be
an ornament to the metropolis. Immediately in front of
this site there were two parallel dusty roads, and the low
ground behind looked towards Brompton and parts of
London little frequented except by those who were in
the habit of going to Cremorne Gardens. There was
one plan by which the proposed combination might be
satisfactorily and economically carried out. He had
already referred to the crowded state of the British
Museum. If you sent the botanical collection to Kew,
that of zoology to the Z )ological Gardens, and the mine-
rals and foasils to Burlington-gardens, where it would be
at the back of the learned societies, which were, he un-
derstood, to be lodged in Burlington-house, and in the
immediate neighbourhood of the Geological Muieum in
Jernayn-street, there would then be in the British Mu-
seum three sides of the quadrangle for the reception of
paintings and sculpture, a space greater than this country
was at ail likely to require. It would be desirable, in
order that all these questions might be set at rest, that
there should be a cenuniseion to inquire. If that com-
mission should report against the desirableness of com-
bining the various collections, he for one should be op-
posed to the removal of the National Gallery from its
present site. (Hear.) A great deal had been said of
the extent to which the pictures in that collection suf-
fered from dirt and dust ; but in that respect they were
no worse off than were the various private collections in
the heart of London, such as those of the Duke of Nor-
thumherland, Lord Ellesmere, Lord Westminster, the
late Mr. Rogers, Mr. Hope, and various ethers. lie
believed that the pictures might to a great extent be
protected against these evils by unproven ventilation,
by the use of doors to check the entrance of dust,
which had only lately been introduced into the
National Gallery—and which, when he .went there
the other day, he found carefully tied open—and by co-
vering the pictures with glass. He was himself one of
the majority of ten to one which voted for the removal
of the National Gallery; but ha voted for that removal
only with a view to the combination of the collections,
such as was to be found at St. Petersburg, Berlin, Naples,
Florence, and other continental cities. If that scheme
were not carried out, he should be very much tempted
to keep the National Gallery where it was. The commit-
tee of 1847 and 1818 said in their report, which was
drawn up by Lord Carlisle, the chairman :
" After careful deliberation, they unanimously concurred
in the opinion that, taken into account the commanding na-
ture of the site occupied by the present building, to which it
would perhaps be difficult to find a parallel in our own or any
other capital; its accessibility and nearness to the chief
thoroughfares and centres of business, which are fed by what
has been described in a well-known phrase as ' the fullest tide
of human existence;' the aids to economy, which, without
sacrificing the beauty of effect which a new front and addi-
tional height would confer on the structure, would be fur-
nished by the rare circumstance of only one ornamental front
being rendered necessary from the disposition of the ground,
and by the means which are at hand for making use of the
whole of the present interior, due regard beiug paid to the
convenience of the Royal Academy in procuring suitable ac-
commodation elsewhere ; the space for further enlargement
which, in the process of time, and concurrently with the exi-
gencies of the collection, might bo supplied by occupying the
uncovered ground now in the occupation of public establish-
ments in the rear of the present buildings; for all these rea-
sons your committee would recommend that whenever it is
undertaken the enlarged and improved National Gallery
should be on the saute site as at present."
Another point on which it was essential that the house
should be informed was, what were the intentions of the
Government as to disposing of the present National
Gallery, and as to the accommodation of the Royal Aca-
demy. If that society were to be permanently lodged at
the national expense, it became a question whether there
ought not to be an inquiry how far it fulfilled the objects
for which it was established, and a decision ought to be
come to as to whether it should be a self-elected or a re•
presentative body, or whether its members should be no-
minated by the Crown. He was convinced that the best
way of dealing with this question would be by the issue
of a Royal Commission ; but at least he hoped that the
house would not assent to the bid for marking out the
site of the National Gallery, which was the next order
on the paper. Either that bill was premature, or there
was something behind it of which the house was not
aware. Unless the Government had plans and every-
thing ready they could not mark out the site, and if they
had such plans prepared the house ought to see them. In
reference to the production of plans he confidently anti-
cipated the support of the right hon, gentleman opposite
(Mr. Disraeli), who, in supporting the vote of 150,0001.
for the purchase of the land, said that all further plans
must be submitted to the house, which would not, he
was certain, consent to the erection of any building with-
ea fsvery rigid scrutiny into all the arrangements, and
without taking care that all the talent of the country
should be brought into competition. With reference to
this public competition, he (Lord Elebo) was of opinion
that designs ought to be received from the whole civilised
world, and that they ought to be publicly exhibited. If
such a plan were pursued we should not be likely to
make such mistakes as we had hitherto done, and in-
stances of which were to be found in the monument of
the Duke of Wellington, standing where it was sup-
posed no sta'u) could ever have stood ; the front of
Buckingham Palace, which had had to be painted over;
the National Gallery ; and the fountains in Trafalgar-
square, which gave to foreigners the impression that
these things -gould not be managed except under a
Government haying somewhat of a despotic character.
It behoved the house to take care that in this instance
no similar mistake should be made. He was not pre-
pared to admit that the country which had producel
a Reynolds and a Wren was wholly destitute of a
taste for the fine arts, and he trusted that the Govern-
ment world refrain from coming t ) any hasty decision
on this matter by acceding to the motion which he ven-
tured to submit to the house. The noble lord concluded
by moving—
" That an humble address ba presented to her Majesty,
playing her Majesty to be graciously pleased to issue a Royal
Commission to determine the site of the new National Gal-
lery, and to report on the desirableness of combining with it
the fine art and archaeological collations of the British
Museum, in accordance with the recommendation of the
select committee of the National Gallery in 1853."
Mr. M. MILNES said that his noble friend had al-
lowed his imagination to run wild, and indulging in every
conceivable supposition, bad sketched out a magnificent
edifice for the fine arts, the basis of which rested on his
own prolifie invention, while its completion was not
likely to be realised during the life of any man among
them. Beginning with the hypothetical surrenderon the
part of her Majesty of two of her ancestral palaces for
the purposes of a National Gallery, the noble lord went
on to fill up a large portion of one of those parks which
the inhabitants of the metropolis so highly valued, and
not content with these extensive projects, he must needs
also knock down the whole of Pall mall with a view to
the erection of this imaginary structure. It was obviou3
that unless they dealt in a less fanciful spirit with this
question, they could never hope to arrive at any prac-
tical decision upon it. The scheme of the Government
appeared to possess many advantages, the foremost of
which was the removal of the pictures contained in the
National Gallery from the existing building. The noble
lord had slurred over the consideration of the damage
done to the pictures by their retention in their present
position, alleging that they were no mere liable to in-
jury than the paintings at Northumberland-house and
in other private collections similarly situated. But it
should be borne in mind that the uniform testimony
of the a iquisees examined before the committee
of which both he and his noble friend had the
honour to be members, went to show that there was no
analogy in this -respect between a private gallery and a
public exhibition. The evidence of Mr. Dyke especially
met this argument of his noble friend, and it must be
obvious to every one that a public resort, with its exi-
gencies of veet laaion and the other arrangements requi-
site for a crowd of visitors, could not be included in the
same category with a private gallery the pictures of which
were exposed to comparatively slight deterioration. He
bad the highest respect for the authori y of Lord Elles-
mere, but when that distinguished nobleman said that
the frequent inquiries which this subject had undergone
only made it rive for further investigation by a commis-
Bien, he (Mr. Milnes) must be permitted to remark that,
if counsels of that kind were to prevail, the present ge-
neration at least must give up all hope of seeing any
practical result attained in this matter. In asking thus
publicly for the concessions from the Crown which he
had named the noble lord had adopted a course hardly
consistent with constitutional'president. Proposals as to
concessions of that nature ought to be initiated by the
responsible advisers of the Sovereign. (Hear.) He was
astonished to hear the noble lord suggest, as a means of
preserving the pictures from injury, that they should be
covered with glass. It was well known that by interpos-
ing such a medium between the spectator and the pro-
ductions of the painter's genius the charm of such works
of art was materially diminished. No one who had
visited the splendid gallery at Dresden and gazed on
the magnificent picture by Raffaelle which adorned
it, and which was covered with glass, could for a
moment doubt the truth of this assertion. He did not
think Kensington gore was too remote a site for the
National Gallery. That situation, while it would be
sufficiently removed from the crowded parts of the me-
tropolis, would yet be within easy walking distance
from them. He would not, however, object to the ap-
pointment of another commission to examine into the
subject if he thought it would lead to any more
definite conclusion that had followed the series of inqui-
ries which preceded it. But the proposed commission
would be just as much at sea as those that had gone be-
fore—it would have ten or a dozen different sites placed
before it, from which it whould have to choose one. Tne
scheme proposed by the Government possessed certain
defi mite a Ivantagt s, one of e !rich was its cheapness. The
Great Exhibition had pr )ved so remunerative that the
commissioners, under the superintendence of Prince
Albert, had been enabled to make the country a magni-
ficent gift of one-half the laud necessary fur a site. He
did not agree with his noble friend in the opinion thaV
the locality was a disadvantageous one, but, on the con-
trary, it possessed this importantadvantage, that it was
expansive. The frontage might be narrow, but there was
a large extent of ground in the rear which would afford,
oportundietiseirsafboireetnoldarogsinogjo hesubchuialdninexg,
his noble fi iend's expectations, and to render it a fit re-
ceptacle, at s to should
realisebe
thought
ceptacle, not only for the pictures, but for all the worts
of art belonging to the nation. The military authoiat es
had refused to give up the barracks at the back of the
National Gallery, and it was therefore impossible the

present building -could be extended, and the objection of
want of room for expansion would equally apply to the
suggested site in Pall-mall. The advantage cf expan•

sion would of course ho obtained if a building were
erected in any of the parks. He remembered that the
late Sir R. Peel contemplated the erection of a building
in Hyde-park, which should contain all the national
treasures of art ; but that hope was entertained in those
legendary days when there was an ar trial surp'us in the
exchequer, and it was impossible to Fay when the country
would be restored to the same fortunate posit ion. His no-
ble friend had said that the opinions of the committee were
much divided on the subject ; and that might have been
the case before the question was discussed ; but after
prolonged discussions and repeated divisions his (Mr.
Milnes's) motion that the proposition of the commission-
ers should be adopted was agreed to without an opposing
voice. He contended, then, that the Government were
fairly justified in supposing that the question was to a
certain degree concluded, and in acting upon that deci.
sion to the extent they had done. He thought, consider.
lug all the circumstances, that it would be well to adopt
the alternative proposed by her Majesty's Government.
IiatsCHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I think
the house will agree that my noble friend has done good
service by laying before them the ample and clear eipo-
sition of his views upon this subject, and by assisting
them in the consideration of the question he has brought
under their notice, not only by criticising the plan pro-
posed by the Government, but also by submitting to
them—with a candour for which I cannot sufficiently
commend him—the various alternatives he recommends
for their adoption in preference to the plan of her Ma-
jesty's Government. We have not selected any one of
those plane, but unless some one of them should appear
preferable to that adopted by the Government I appre-
hend that the house will be prepared to accede to the
proposition we have submitted to them. In approach-
ing the examination of this question I think the house
will see that it resolves itself into two branches. The
first question we have to consider is whether the Na-
tional Gallery shall or shall not be removed from its
present position in Trafalgar square. (Hear.) Upon
that point I fully admit to my noble friend that this
house is perfectly free to come to any decision it may
please. It is not concluded by any previous decision on
that subject, but on the other hand, as the purchase of
a part of the estate at Kensington-gore has been made,
and as this house voted a grant in augmentation of the
purchase money, I must say I think the house at the
time it made that grant contemplated its application
to the purposes of a national gallery. If lion: gentle-
men refer to the debates which took place at the
time, I believe they will see, from the language used
iu proposing the grant, that such an application of it
was within the distinct contemplation of the Government
and of the house. For my own part, after having given
careful consideration to the subject, I must confess it
seems to me that the arguments in favour of the removal
of the National Gallery from its present position in Tra-
falgar-square greatly preponderate. It is true, as my
noble friend has stated, that the commissions which have
instituted inquiries on this subject have arrived at diffe-
rent conclusions; but the last and most complete inquiry
was that of the committee of 1853, of which Col. Muir
was the chairman. That committee investigated the sub-
ject with a full knowledge of the results of the inquiries
of previous commissions and committees, and they cattle
to a distinct resolution in favour of the removal of the
National Gallery from its present position, which they
embodied in these words,—" That the site of the present
National Gallery is not well adapted for the construction
of a new gallery." Now, these words are perfectly unam-
biguous. They apply not only to the present gallery, but
to any possible gallery that might be erected on the same
site. I find, on referring, to the account of the division,
that 10 members of the committee voted for the resolution
which was moved by Lord Seymour, and the only mem-
ber who voted against it was Mr. B. Wall. There is no-
thing more distinct than the finding of the committee on
the removal of the gallery from Trafalgar-square. The
grounds of that resolution are, I think, quite satisfac-
tory, and are borne out by the great preponderance of the
testimony of competent witnesses. Almost all the wit-
nesses examined before the committee gave it as their
opinion that the impurities of the atmosphere and otter
influences render that site very unfavourable to the pre-
servation of pictures in a perfect state. I quite concur
in the remarks of my hon. friend the member for Ponte-
fract, that it shows the desperateness of the remedy my
noble friend proposes when he recommends the use of
glass in front of the pictures. I can only say that if my
noble friend is reduced to the necessity of recommend-
ing that the pictures should be covered with glass, that
is a practical admission that Trafalgar-square is unfitted
for the site of a National Gallery. My noble friend re-
sorts to a somewhat desperate answer to this argument.
He asks whether there are not many great collections of
pictures in private houses in this metropolis, the circum-
stances of which in regard to situation are no better than
Trafalgar-square. But it is to be observed that private
gentlemen, whatever their income may be, have no op -
tion but to keep their pictures in their own houses. A
private gentleman cannot afford to bui:d a picture gal
lery at Kensington-gore. Where his house is there must
be his picture gallery, and if his house is not distant from
the centre of the metropolis his picture gallery must
labour under the same disadvantage. If the nation had
no other alternative my noble friend's argument would
be conclusive, but as it is, this argument appears to me
to be wholly irrelevant. Well, Sir, that being the case,
tho house will, I think, come to the conclusion that
the weight of reasoning and authority is in favour of
removing the National Gallery from Trafalgar-square.
I am quite aware of the fondness of this house fer
inquiry. But there is some limit 'to inquiry. We
cannot be always delegating our judgment to commit-
tees and commissions, and if henouraile members viii
refer to reports and documents which they will find
upon their tables, and if they will go through the neces-
sary process of examining the evidence they already pee-
seas, they will be as capable to judge for themselves upon
this question as they ever can be if the house appoint
a series of committees and commissions for ten years
to come. I think the house may conic to a conclusion
without further delegation or inquiry in favour of re-
moving the pictures from Trafalgar-square. Supposieg
that question decided, the next question—and what I
admit to be the chief difficulty—is whether the site of
Kensington-gore is preferable to any other. If I satisfy
the house that that site is decidedly preferable to any
other site that has been suggested by my noble friend
—and I cannot complain that he has not suggested suf-
ficient —the house will, I trust, not hesitate to vote in
favour of a second reading of the bill which stands upon
the orders for to-night. Let me state the priocipal rea
sons for selecting the site at Kensington-gore. Now,
the first consideration, which my noble friend passed
over lightly, and which I fear, from some portions of
his speech, is but a slight consideration with him, but
which, looking particularly to, the office I hold, is of
some importance—is the consideration of expense. The
site which is offered to the country is a site of which
half the expense has already been defrayed by funds
not paid out of the Exchequer, but offered and ten-
dered by the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851.
The estate at Kensington-gore consists of 86 ac- s.
These 86 acres cost 342,000/. Of that sum 177,000/,
was paid by the Government, but the remaining 165,0001.,
or nearly one-half, was paid by the Commissioners of the
Exhibition of 1851 out of the residue of the receipts of
that great undertaking. The value of the site is certainly
greater now than it was when the purchase was made,
and from the progress of building westward it must re-
ceive an annually increasing value. (Hear.) The nation
may therefore consider that it has made an advantageous
bargain with the commissioners in accepting that site to
be applied to public purposes. The bill enables the Go-
vernment to take from the commissioners of 1551 so
much land from that estate as shall be required for the
purposes of the site of a National Gallery. The bill does
not go beyond the acceptance of half their share of the
estate, which it vests absolutely in the Commissioners
of Woods ; but it does not pledge the house to a specific
sum of money or a specific plan. It accepts a portion
of that land for a site of the National Gallery, and it
vests that site absolutely in the Government. Well,
sir, that being the state of the case as to the cost of the
site, I cannot understand what doubt hon. gentlemen
can have, or what ground there can be for the opinion
that this site is not admirably adapted for a National
Gallery, provided we come to the conclusion that it
ought to be taken out of the centre of the streets and
placed on the edge and outskirts of the town. With re-
gard to distance, ft inclose to the Exhibition of 1851, and
we know from the crowds that flocked to that Exhibi-
tion that the distance is not so great as to prevent per-
sons who are desirous of seeing the pictures from accom-
plishing the distance. Then the number of acres upon
this estate offers ample room for the construction of a
building of the size required for a National Gallery.
It also admits of additions in future years if it should be
the pleasure of Parliament to make additions hereafter
to such a gallery for other purposes, and, although the
frontage of the estate in the Kensington-read is nar-
rower than the width of the estate behind, yet the front-
age will be sufficient for the purposes of a National Gal-
lery, and there is in the breadth of the site ample space
for the construction of a splendid and ornamental build-
ing. (Hear) My noble friend indulged in a remark that,
I admit, astonished me. My noble friend talked of the
Brompton marshes, and said that the lower part of the
estate' ssa.s a swamp and a march. Now, I hate hsd
some local acquaintance with this part of the town, and
I should as so in expect to hear the sands of Arabia do
scribed as a marsh or a swamp as the district in ques-
tion. (Hear.) I think my noble friend must be aware
that Brompton has been long celebrated for its salubrity.
Before the town had spread to its present extent our an-
cestors used to send their sick relations to Brompton for
their health. My noble friend no doubt remembers that
at no great distance from the s:te of the proposed Na-
tional Gallery stands the hospital for consumptive
patients, which was chosen by medical men for its re-
markable healthiness. Another class of persons reside
there who are considered to be very nice in their choice
of a situation. It is said that wherever you see a con-
vent you may be sure that the founders have selected an
advantageous site. Now, the Oratorians belonging to
the Church of Rome have built a large establishment on
the very edge of my noble friend's swamp, and any per-
son who visits that site will see the building of the Ora-
torians occupying a very conspicio us situation. The
more the subj comes to be exert ined the more it will
be found that this large estate at Kensirgton-gore, whe-
her we regard it on the score of expense, extent, or
ituation, offers the mot eligible site for the new Na-
ional Gallery. Ide not ask the house to take that on
my ate' ernent. I will follow my noble friend through
the long lie'_ of alternatives that he proposes. He has
said that there are not less than three- —I believe he said
four— different sites in ICeneingten-gardenF. First
and foremost, my noble friend proposes to pull down
Kensington Palace, and to build a National Gallery on
its site. Now, considering that there is a Lroat deal of
vacant land in the neighbourhood of the metro-
polis which is admirably situated for such a pur-
pose, it doss seem to me to be an odd and wanton choice
that my noble friend should select the site of an

, al
existing building in order to construct anew oire, al
that he should insist upon pulling down a building
which may not indeed be remarkably beautiful, but which
is stili an imposing ant extensive pile —(a laugh)—and to
replace which, if it wcra dernoli-heal, would invo ve the
outlay of a considerable sum of money. My noble friend
deals with such a building, which has stood for centuries,
and which was created at a great cost, as if it were a
mere cottage or a hut to he swept away at will. One
word with regard to the very summary way in which
,7,1
noble friend deals with the property of the Crown. 3L
seems to assume that the property of the Crown is 41e
property of the 'public, whereas ho must know that it is
only ceded for the life of the present Sovereign, and that
when the nation takes for any purpose Crown property,
it must purchase it in the same manner as if it were
the property of a privet individual. That occurred last
,
year with respect to a portion of the vacant ground
near Downing-street ; and, if in noble friend take P0_8;
session in a summary manner of Kensington Palace, 11_
must purchase it from the Crown. The cost at which
that purchase could be effected is not a matteraltogetheer
free from doubt, but it is quite clear that before my noble
friend would be in possession oftbesite on which his new
Na.ienal Geller) is to be erected he would have a very
largevam to adx a ce to the Crown. That I consider 10
be a moat formidable ohjectien to one of the plans of
ole
noble friend. Then, he has other p'ans cutting out p
of Kensington-ordatit,, and making roads and al)"
prom!! es through the gardens to his National Gallery,
and for no purpose that I can see which would not be
answered by adopting the site propose l by the GoveFr
went, which is on y on the other side of the road, and. i!
close at hand. Really, after all that we have heard pita:
sanctity of the parks, and remembering how much was
said upon the erection of the Geeat Exhibition building
of 1851 for a temporary purpose, I am lost in astonish"
went at the very quiet manner in which my noble friend
.
proposes to appropriate a large portion of Kensingtoax
gardens in order to erect a new National Geller'''. of
think that the same objections apply to his plan
building a National Gallery in different parts of Hyde:
park; for my firm conviction is, that if the Government
had acted upon the advice of my noble friend, and
proposed a plan for building the National Gallery int?:
centre of Hyde Park, they, would have gone into th
division lobby with scarcely a single man to follow thesint:
(Hear.) My noble friend then says, " Sweep away d
James's Palace ; sweep away Marlborough•house, a° _
erect a row of buildings which shall combine under the
same roof a National Gallery an' reception rooms for
levees and drawing-rooms." I am at a loss to know'
what reason there can be for combining two such thisdi3
similar objects under one roof. I must say that _
plan, including as it does a proposition to shut up the
road which the house a few nights ago determined to
open, appears to me to be more extravagant even. a°
less likely to be acceptable to the house, than the other;
plans which my noble friend has proposed. At present
the National Gallery stands at one end of Pall-mall, and
we are told that the smoke and dust wholly unfit the sitei
for the purpose of a National Gallery. Well, myll°/3 a
friend says—" Go to an enormous -expense and build the
National Gallery at the other end of Pall mall, at the
bottom of St. James's-street." What object can b;et
gained 1)3 that small change of position, and bow 't
remedies the objection to the present gallery on aecoul,
of the preservation of the pictures, it surpasses my corn•
prehension to pe}eive. Indeed I agree with the con;
elusion at which my noble friend arrived towards tb
end of his speech, that if we are to have no other alter-
native than the transfer of the National Gallery from
Trafalgar-square to St. James's Palace, it. would be rine:
finitely preferable to leave it where it if's
again, me noble friend teals not only with the re;
perty of the Crown, but with the property of
..
Prince of Wales, in a somewhat unceremonious row
As far as I understand, Marlborough-house was POT'
chased for the Prince of \Vales, and was to be
priated, with the assent of Parliament, to his use when
he came of age. Probably, therefore, it is at preset,'
vested in trustees for Lis benefit. Now, without thic l
smallest conversation with an erson, my noble frier'
proposes to take that property and to transfer the Fri"
of Wales, as if he were a picture or a statue in a
from Marlborough-house to Burlington-house, witbur
his having any reason to know that such trap
s'et
would be acceptable. lam at a loss to canceive w"
benefit could, under any circumstances, be derived frogs
such a change of position, of the expense involved ill.
which my noble friend seems to take such little acceen!
I must warn the house that persons who make proposli
tione upon these subjects without the wholesome fear
the " estimatea " bolero their eyes, and who are not
the position of responsible members of the Govern;
went, deal with them with an exceedingly light arj
easy hand ; and I would Caution the house against accept'
ie
ing too readily such propositions as those of my other
friend. My noble friend mentioned one or two o
sites, the exact situation of which I was not able t?.
catch. Oee I tbiuk that he proposed was at Whitehall
Lord ELCHO —I did not propose those sites. I re'
ferred to them to show how many sites bad been PI
posed, in order to prove the difference of opinion which
prevailed, acd the necessity that there was for further
consideration.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER continued'
—lf my noble friend did not consider them worthy of the
serious consideration of the house I don't see what adoll:,
tags there was in his mentioning them. -He called 1111°'
the house to agree to an address to her Majesty fora cool'
mission to determine whether those sites were not prefer'
able to that which had deliberate) be en proposed by th:
Government ; and I say that he hays been trifling with th
house, and merely wasting its time, if he did not prepcsl
those questions seriously to its consideration. (I-le",P"nra
,
oh.) However, with regard to the site of Whitehall, Et
at a loss to know where he would place the National G"`'
lery ; and I think we may consider ourselves extremelyfortunate that ray noble friend did not ro ose to eject til@
Houses of Lords and Commons from iptheir
present buil):
in; in order to appropriate it to the purpose of Nati°°3t
Gallery. (A laugh.) Let us look now for a moment at
the terms of the motion. My noble friend proposes thlaf
a commission should be appointed to determine the site
the new National Gallery, and to report on the desirable;
ness of combining with it the fine art and archxologlea'
collections of the British Museum, in acccordance with Of
recommendation of the Select Committee on theatione
N
Gallery in 18-i3. Now, sir, I wish to call the atteut/1.°f
the house to the recommendation of the committee of 10.3
;
With respect to the appointment of a commission, theta
recommendation was confined exclusively to the clue,9t„iei.
of combining the various artistic and archmologic,"
leetions of the British Museum with those of the
tional Gallery. The committee clearly recouircenqss
that the National Gallery should be removed from 1'
committee
present site, and on the whole they suggested the 11,1°13;
tin of Kensiugtou-gme for the site, although 1.:33,;11,,5e
add that they did not do so without some heslo,"4
and qualification. They said nothing, however, cti;ci
any commission upon the question of the site, 3
clearly they did not consider that any advantage was t° be
gained from a further inquiry into that question ; because
having recommended one subject for the consideratioul
a commission, they did not include that of the site, an
expressio stains, alterius cat cxclusto. They did express
their opinion that it would be desirable to have en 11.1,,
quiry into the question of removing the collections fro'.
the British Museum, but in making a epecific recoil:OW
dation to that effect, they excluded the idea that they
wished to make a similar recommendation with respect o
of
a site. Ido not charge my noble friend with any wen"..-
candour ; I merely regret his inattention to granitue-
,.
(a laugh)—for anybody who reads his resolution would
pose that the recommendation of the committee app,
to to both those objects. (Hear, hear.) My noble frie'a,
said a great deal about the British Museum. I quite 5
mit that it is a question well worthy the consideration °
the House at some future time, when perhaps the 11'.
chequer may be more overflom ing than it is at present
i!9g.
is likely to be next year, whether it would not be ad
able to take sotne steps for releving a part of the 131.',
Museum. Let me call the attention of the house to t."
state of that institution. The British Museum at preser.t
with the addition which has recently been made, contaein
ample accommodatiion for the library and the reading;
room, and for any extension of those departments Wihtiche
are likely to take place during the next century. 136,fe",,'
Museum consists of two other departments, one of anw,,,,--:;
ties, the other of natural history—for which I cannot
that there is quite adequate space. Nevertheless, there le
very considerable space, and if either department wee
removed a large portion of the Museum would be uneectv
pied. At present, therefore, there is no very stroeg
son for making the change referred to in the report of 1"
:
cornidttee. But it has been proposed to divide the elL;e
lection of antiquities on this principle—to leave in t
Museum that portion of the collection which is interesting
only on a-climelogical grounds, and to combine with the
National Gallery that portion wdich is interesting ,as
works of art. My noble friend, who is evidently farniber
with the arguments upon that question, has referred to arl
able paper which appears as an appendix to the report 01
the committee—a paper written to Mr. Charles Newton,
of the British Museum, and which I would strongly a,
(find,
every member of this house to read for himself-
hear.) Whoever peruses that document will t y
if ho is not altogether _convinced by it—which
confess myself to hove been—that very serious objection:
exist to the project for lividing the collection of antiquitiee
upon the principles which I have mentioned; and for th,
present, at all events, her Majesty's Government are notl'
prepared to entertain any such proposition. I admit, 11°°
over, that the plan for removing some Portions of the
collection of the British Museum to other buildings is !rint
which may reasonably be considered, although I do -a.
approve the scheme proposed by my noble friend for se°
Mg the zoological collection to the Zoological Garden%
which would be taking it out of the custody of the 10'69
and handing it over to a private society. (Hear, bear,e;
The same objection applies to the proposal to transfer
geological collection to the Geological Society. I
altogether adverse to any such arrangement. (Hear, 1304'
I would wish to keep the collections of natural history,
now under the able superintendence of Professor Owen'
not separately, but, if possible, in combination. (Ilea!'
hear.) Again, I must remind the house that all proposi:
tions of this sort involve a large expenditure of move se
and, unless the house is prepared to go to great expen?
for the purpose of providing buildings, I think I'.
will scarcely be disp, sec!to assume as a foregollee
conclusion that it has decided upon that step, and i'sji)o
a commission to decide by what means it ought to
carried into effect. My noble friend quoted, in supper',
of his recow mend atious, letter from the Earl t f Ellesmere,
which deservedly carried with it great weight, and 33321,
take this opportunity of mentioning that, since the diee!,.
sion which took place some time ago on the subject of e
to
lery of histol ice! poi traits, the noble earl has presented
tO
the Gov. ninaent,for the use of the nation, the picture knovlL
as the Chaudos portrait of Shakspere. (Cheers.), That roll
nificent donation, hope, may be regarded as a good evel.
for the coniniencement of a national historical portrait 1434
lery. (Hear.) I fully admit the weight to which the Ear!
El!esnlere's opinion is entitled, nor do lat all say that het
Mejesty'A Government would not be prepared at the propeet
season to lace a commission to inquire into the eXP_I
'honey of making some alteration in the distribution
the collections now in the British Museum. They the
however, that no advantage would arise at this rontoebe
from the issue of such a commission, though they roll it
prepared at the proper time to issue one ;• and they de time
desirable that a plain proposition should in the ines°%,„
he laid before the house, of which the:first part is '.4
bodied in the bill that now stands fors second re* ling.
the different portions of which I will now submit for
consideration. What the Government propose is, that tbllr
he tse should decide to iemove the National Gallery o°o
the present building in Trafalgar-square. They ProP&I
that the whole of that building should be assigned to ot
Royal Academy. It would be used during the *Mon

for wt
no dou
.ahich
of liar
in Hy(
teat lu
latter
But ar
inhabi
wposs
any bu
outdo
of Kau
extens
able p(
ated t 4
felt pe
than
enclos,
first IN
buildii
positic
had be
soon a
puryoE
and m,
gifted
any ci
these
from N
that ci
that u
obtain
thougl
was si
the m
gravel
purpn
tint i
sent s,
now a
the c
under
ample
that q
menat
point
to con
that al
at th
site iv
Mr.
the m
remo'
metre
not se
site f
advoc
Pictui