The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-25 00:00:00

~.<_ -,

vestigation set on foot by the Society,
Lord BROUGHAM mentioned, on Saturday, an inci-
dent which he described as having occurred at the
meeting on the 13th instant, a meeting over which
the noble and learned lord himself presided as
Chairman—" an incident," said his lordship,
" which had not been mentioned at the time in the
public newspapers." " A gentleman," remarked
Lord BROUGHAM, " who was supposed to be ad-
verse to the opinions of the meeting wished to be
heard, and there was a disposition not to heir him,
but he, as chairman, insisted on his being heard
respectfully, the more so that he differed from the
meeting, and the result was that he was not only
attentively but even kindly heard. The gentleman's
statement was a very clear one, and Mr. Chamerovzo w
answered it ; but that fact showed that they were
disposed to hear both sides. As to the mode of pro•
ceeding, the memorial asked for a committee, but
he feared there was no time for it. A week or ten
days would not suffice for this inquiry, and his
grace should therefore consider whether there was
not another course to be taken, such as by a com-
mission " Therefore " his Grace" while venturing
to express his own individual conviction that the
society had been misled in several of their repre-
sentations coincided readily in the opinion already
expressed directly by Lord BROUGHAM and indi-
rectly by the memorial which had been submitted
to him by the country on behalf of the
deputation—the opinion, namely, that, in the first
instance, a rigid and searching inquiry into the
question at issue was for all reasons most desirable.
As to the manner in which the inquiry itself ought
to be made, his grace readily concurred with the
noble and learned lord in thinking that it would
be impossible to have a committee at this period of
the session. Apart from which, he confessed,
that he had great doubts as to the utility of inquiry
by a committee. The noble duke continued, "It
would be impossible to bring over the governors of
colonies, while still more important would be the
evidence of some of the planters themselves, who
would not come, or if they did it would be at a
very great expense and inconvenience, which would
not be justifiable if the information could be ob-
tained in any other way. We had a great deal of
information already. Nothing was concealed from
Parliament, at least it was so some years ago, and
the emigration commissioners, he knew from his own
personal knowledge, were most anxious to prevent
any abuse in connection with the scheme. We had
then very considerable power of supervision, and an
immense amount of information which was annu-
ally laid before Parliament, but if further inquiry
was necessary, he thought it would be far better
it should take place by a commission." Notwith-
standing which sufficiently emphatic and appa-
rently conclusive opinion, it must not be imagined
for an instant that the Colonial Secretary on Satur-
day decided point blank for a commission. Nothing
of the kind. A glance at the next sentence shows
that the question opened up before his grace—as
every question, it may be remembered, used in times
past to open up before a late right hon. baronet—a
choice of three courses! A committee was out of
the question under the circumstances. A commis-
sion was altogether very excellent. " But," said
his grace coming to the point at last, " What he
thought would answer every purpose still better
was, if some of the gentlemen present would assist
him in drawing up questions which would be sent
out, and he would undertake that they would be
answered by persons of authority in the colonies,
and they could 'also be sent to other persons to
whom it might be thought proper to send them."
Voila tout ! The device is very simple, but we are
sanguine that it will prove very effectual. It will
be a commission conducted by correspondence. It
will be the accumulation of written instead of
spoken evidence. It will be the very inquiry Lord
BROUGHAM has so earnestly and so reasonably
desiderated—an inquiry all the more reliable in its
way, seeing that it will be set on foot through the
co-operation of the British and Poreign Anti-
Slavery Society and the Colonial Department of
her MAJESTY'S Government. The all but inevitable
result of which wise and generous co-operation (let
us now therefore repeat) we do confidently hope
will be the speedy mitigation and eventual ex-
tinction of the miseries hitherto caused in the
West Indies by the twin evil systems of Coolie
and Chinese Immigration.

It is deeply to be regretted, we cannot but think,
that the hon. member for Brighton could find no
one on Friday evening to second his motion in the
House of Commons—a motion declaring the system
of management now existing at the National Gal-
lery to be highly unsatisfactory. What was Lord
ELciio about that he did not come to the
aid of Mr. CONINGIIAM? Their opinions, if
not identical in regard to the mismanagement
of the national collection of pictures, are well
known to have, at least, a very remarkable
coincidence. Sympathising ourselves to a very
great extent in those opinions, as they have fre-
quently before now been expressed by our pen in
the columns of The Sun, and by the lips of Lord
ELCIIO and Mr. CONINGIIAM, in the House of
Commons, we do sincerely regret that after the
extremely able remarks of the latter gentleman on
Friday evening in support of his motion, that mo-
tion fell to the ground, simply because it did not
find a seconder ! The accusations directed against
Sir CHARLES EASTLAKE were explicit enough, and
were given by the hon. member for Brighton clearly,
succinctly, and categorically. We should like to
have them answered as clearly, as succinctly, as
categorically. Why not ? It is due to Sir Chas.
EASTLAKE'S reputation—not as an artist, not as an
academician, not as President in the Chair of Sir
JOSHUA, and Sir THOMAS, and Sir 3IARTIN—but
as chief director of the National Gallery, as
Conservator of the National Art Collection.
The allegations have been so often repeated—
yet never on Contradieted ! What were Mr.
CONINGHAM'S remarks on Friday ? The hon. gen-
tleman's allusions to Sir CHARLES were as follows :
Since the year 1845," said he, " Sir CHARLES
EASTLAKE had begn attached to the National Gal-
lery in various capacities. During the short adminis-
tration of Sir CHARLES EASTLAKE, a Youthful
Saviour,' which in his opinion was a disgrace to the
National Gallery, had been purchased. There was
also a HOLBEIN, which cost £635. Soon after that
Sir CHARLES EASTLAKE became President of the
Royal Academy. But he need not go further on
this subject than the testimony of Sir C. EASTLAKE
himself. In the report from which he had quoted,
he found, under date 12th November, 1851, the
hon. gentleman saying, I approve of the ' Queen
of Sheba' being added to the gallery.' Again,
March 31, 1853, The ' Queen of Sheba' has
been ill and tastelessly cleaned. It is now
out of Lharmony, and I could not possibly
say that time will restore it. Dirt has the
effect of glazing, and is quite as good some-
times.' That was very different from the opinion of
one who must be admited to be a master on these sub-
jects—ROGaßTll. That great master's words were,
Nothing can be so al;surd as the notion that time
is an improver to a good picture.' It appeared to
him that when large sums of money were to be
voted for these purposes, that it was the duty of
the keepers of the public pux" to see that
these sums were fairly expended, and. good
value was obtained." Coming down to a more re.'
cent period to fresh reminiscences, the hon. member
continued—" Among the purchases made in the
present year were a 'Sir Antonio Moero' for
X2OO, and a Iloretto' for £t33o, neltpx of which,