The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENTING; MAY 12, 1859.

ber for Wolverhampton. If we may not count upon
a Code VICTORIA—may we not hope, at least, for
this Victorian, and, as we doubt not it would prove
in the end, the Victorious Commission.

The elaborate paper upon the National Gallery
in the current number of the Quarterly—much of

it evidently written upon authority—conveys an
impression that is anything but satisfactory. It
is evident, to begin with, that a decision has yet to
be arrived at in regard to the site of the building
henceforth destined to receive under its roof the

British Art-Collection ! Although, to all rea-
sonable intents and purposes, the House of Com-
mons, according to the general impression, had
decided that point, at least, definitively ! Every one
hitherto interested in the matter had surely long
since come to the conclusion that the site of the
National Gallery, after much wrangling, had been
at length selected, for once and for all, beyond the
possibility of future misapprehension. The distinct
alternative long kept before the public was notori-
ous this :—Either the gratification of the whim
inspired by a favourite hobby of H.R.H. the
PRINCE CONSORT by the bodily removal of the
National Gallery from Trafalgar-square to that out-
of-the-way corner of the metropolis in the hollow of
South Kensington—Or the continuance of the Na-
tional Gallery in its present situation, because of that
situation being so very central, and consequently
so manifestly to the public convenience. The prin-
cipal objection to the latter course of proceeding
was notoriously—we all know that—one aris-
ing out of a dread of the evil influences supposed
to be exercised upon oil paint, canvas, panelling,
and even marble, by the dingy, dusty, smoky Lon-
don atmosphere. The evidence of scientific men,
among them men as illustrious as OwEN and FARA-
DAY, set at rest conclusively any fears of that kind.
A more central point could nowhere be discovered
in the metropolis than the very one already occu-
pied. A site in every way more admirable, if in-
deed any one so admirable in elevation and so forth,
could nowhere else be found in all London and
Westminster. The various pros and cons were con-
sidered coolly, carefully, dispassionately—and hence
the conclusion, as we have said, according to the gene-
ral impression, eventually arrived at—and arrived
at then, as definitively as explicitly ! Trafalgar-
square was to be the home—Kensington was not
to be the home of the new National Gallery. The
selection was so distinct and positive and final that
the Royal Academy distinctly received notice to
quit, and was required to prepare betimes for its
ultimate removal thence to its future place of habi-
tation at Burlington House in Piccadilly. Yet now
the old problem as to the eventual whereabouts of
the National Gallery is revived under a new form
by the art-critic in the Quarterly. The alternative
put by the reviewer is the revival of a choice a
long time ago hinted at by some speculators
incidentally. A selection, namely, not between
Trafalgar-square and South Kensington, but one
between Trafalgar-square and Bloomsbury ! It is
argued that, all things considered, we had much
better make room at the British Museum for the
reception of all our scattered treasures in the form
of pictures and sculptures. The natural history
collections, the geological collections, the specimens
of taxidermy on the staircases, a considerable por-
tion of the antiquities—in effect, the vast majority
of the extremely miscellaneous marvels jumbled
together in the British Museum, are to be cleared
out and swept away, and distributed elsewhere—
this portion say to the Geological Museum in Pic-
cadilly, that to the Zoological Society in the Re-
gent's-park, that to the Botanical Gardens at Kew,
or at Chelsea, etcetera. And in lieu of all this the
vacant halls and galleries of the British Museum
are to become the receptacles of the art collections
at present distributed about the metropolis and its
vicinity. Dulwich, we presume, is to be permitted
to preserve its gallery intact. So, also, we may con-
jecture, is Sir JOIIN SOANE'S Museum iri Lincoln's-
inn-fields proposed to be dealt with. So, also, the
Nautical Gallery preserved down at Greenwich
Hospital, in the great hall painted in fresco by Sir
JAMES TIIORNHILL. But beginning with the
National Collection of Pictures—the National
Gallery par excellence, hitherto preserved in
that unsightly building in Trafalgar-square—we
are to have the art collections of England concen-
trated in the halls and galleries of the British
Museum! Thither are to be brought the pick of
the treasures now preserved in Hampton Court
Palace—including amongst them RAPIIAEL'S car-
toons ! Thither are to be drawn, as to a focus of art,
the paintings given to the nation by Mr. VERNON,
by. Mr. TURNER, by Mr. SHEEPSHANKS. The
library, already fast approximating to a stupendous
total of 600,000 volumes, is still, of course, to be
accommodated somewhere upon the site of the pre-
sent building known hitherto as the British
Museum—but it is to be subordinated to the new
purposes to which that edifice, according to the
novel plans, shall be henceforth dedicated under,
doubtless, its new title of National Gallery ! And
all this chopping and changing, and confusion
worse confounded, for what reason ? Because,
forsooth, the original project .of constructing an
appropriate edifice for the purposes of a National
Gallery on the northern side of Trafalgar-square
is, though in other respects obviously and unde•
niably preferable, altogether (so intimates the
Quarterly) too costly and magnificent ! According
to the acknowledgment of the reviewer, the plan
for erecting 'ta new and suitable building upon the
site now occupied by the National Gallery, adding
the ground in the rear occupied by the barracks,
St. Martin's Workhouse, and private dwellings
. if carried out in a proper
scale, and with judgment and tact, would, no doubt,
be the most worthy of the nation and of the object."
These are the words of the Quarterly—this is the
reviewer's own confession. Yet, having admitted
all this, what literally is his proposition ? That
the ground occupied by the barracks should remain
unpurchased—though Scotland-yard presents a
much better site for that purpose, and would,
besides, be nearer to the offices of the Government.
That the finest site in Europe should permanently
remain as at present disgracefully disfigured—the
Royal Academy being allowed to remain there
(instead of being removed to Burlington-house)
upon
these payment
deorfs,
aNV
evils, b
1 t
achseudrdaintineus, objects
n That
all
rent
1 of
s
uni-
versal scorn and derision should be perpetuated.
Although (these are the volunteered admissions of
the Quarterly;--" To erect :d pon a site in every
respect inviting architectural • display, and afford-
ing every opportunity for the most effective
beautiful architectural combinations,
a vast edifice,
with spacious galleries, lofty halls, and varied
suites of decorated rooms, all specially contrived
for the exhibition of the matchless treasures in every
branch of art, which the nation already owns would
be an undertaking well calculated to stimulate the
highest genius of the architect, to insure the grandest
and most complete public monument of which any
country could boast, and to create the noblest
temple. of art in the world." Surely the realis.ation
of something at least approximating to such a result
might well be urged upon the patriotism, the daring,

the taste, and the munificence of the Legislature

and the Government.