The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-29 00:00:00

into committee of supply—except on Fridays, I
will not say anything about them, because Friday
is devoted avowedly to other purposes—on the
motion for going into committee of supply,
honourable gentlemen should refrain from inter-
posing motions unless on matters really of urgent
importance, or with regard to which there was a
reasonable expectation of coming to some practical
result." Adding, " Mere statements of opinion on
general questions I think should be avoided." Now,
really—than this—nothing, we repeat, could well
be more reasonable under the circumstances. We
would therefore most earnestly commend Lord
PALMERSTON'S suggestion, for the Despatch of
Business to the unselfish and patriotic considera-
tion of independent members generally.

Apropos of the Turner Gallery, there was a little I
glimmering of light thrown on Thursday evening,
down at the House of Lords, on the long-delayed,
long " vexed-question" of the National Gallery.
This still problematic question of the National
Gallery, it is true, was rather implied than
even hinted at indirectly during the Discussion
which took place in the Lords on Thursday
in reference t• the Collection of Pictures by Mr.
TURNER, and of the magnificent bequest of them
to the Nation by that gifted and munificent Acade-
mician. We have to thank Lord ST. LEONARDS
for bringing the subject again under the considera-
tion of the Legislature, and for extracting some ad-
ditional words of explanation, no matter how vague
and unsatisfactory those words of explanation
were in themselves, from the chief representative
in the Upper House of the present Government. It
should be particularly borne in mind for a moment,
by the way, who those two noble lords are who
spoke. •of TURNER'S Bequest—on the one hand,
in behalf of the Nation, and on the other in the
name of the Government. Lord ST. LEONARDS then
was speaking upon this subject, on behalf of the
Nation, in too distinct capacities, namely, as a

lawyer and as a lover of art—as a hsver of art
whose taste is recognised and appreciated—
as a lawyer great amongst the greatest. Lord
GRANVILLE, on the other hand, spoke upon the
side of the Government, and we cannot but feel
also of the Court, in his double capacities as first of
all President of the Council, and secondly, President
or Chairman of the Commissioners of the Great Inter-
national Exhibition. Now we all know perfectly
well—how, with the funds left in the hands of those
commissioners, after that world-famous display in
Hyde-park ten years ago, a certain tract of land was
purchased, land " eligible for building purposes,"
or for what not, land capable, it was sug-
gested, of being selected as the site for New
Museums and Picture Galleries, or as the very
place for the laying out of a grand Winter
Garden for the 3,000,000 of her MAJESTY'S
lieges peopling London and Westminster. It is
an old story—how that land was purchased. How,
in the direction of Kensington-Gore, there has
gradually grown up a sort of pale-green ghost of the
Crystal Palace, the future home, or favourite haunt
of all the Metropolitan lovers of floriculture and
horticulture. How, in the direction of Brompton
there has slowly risen one of the ugliest assemblages
of outhouses ever seen collected together, higgle-
piggedly, built, some of kith and plaster, soma of
bricks and mortar, some of iron, some of wood—all
of them partaking largely of that pecu-
liarly mixed Order (of no Merit), capitally ex-
pressed by JOE GARGERY, the Blacksmith,
in Mr. DICKENS'S new tale, as of a style decidedly
" architectoorallooral."

The consequences of all this being in themselves
so eminently ridiculous that the structure, or struc-
tures, have acquired several facetious designations
of anything but a respectful character, being vari-
ously spoken of by the profane vulgar as " The
Prince's Folly," or "The Brompton Boilers." There,
indeed, we have all seen collected together—
(these being facts, by the way, only too notorious)
—one national Collection of Pictures after
another. There, in truth, at this moment, are
stowed away in those absurd Brompton Boilers—
the Turner Gallery, the Vernon Gallery, the Sheep-
shanks Gallery ! The promoters of the " Prince's
Folly," quite clearly and plainly all the while
—nay, for that matter, at intervals avowedly—
hankering after the transference of the National
Gallery from Trafalgar-square to that same remote
site in the Far West, in what has, at length,
come to be called South Kensington. It is
true that the Question as to this transference
has been long ago argued in the House of Com-
mons, and definitively decided there decided,
that is, for Trafalgar-square, and against South
Kensington. Yet—persistently—the Brompton
Boilers, like Friar BACON'S legendary Brazen
Head, crave loudly and ravenously for " More !"
Nothing will satisfy them but " More ! more !"
They must have the National Gallery as well as
the galleries of VERNON, of TURNER, and of
SHEEPSHANKS. That it clearly is thus, as we have

remarked—namely, that in spite of all that has been

l said in and decided by the House of Commons to
the contrary, the champions of the " Folly" and
the "Boilers" still insatiably hunger for the
possession of the National Gallery— may
be now 'quite plainly seen, and quite
clearly understood after Lord ST. LEONARDS'
really remarkable statement—about the TURNER
Bequest and its conditions—on Thursday. The
noble and learned lord " In rising to ask the Pre-
sident of the Council whether any steps had been
taken to provide a separate gallery for TURNER'S
pictures in connection with the National Gallery,
according to the conditions of his will under which
the nation possessed his pictures, said that under
Mr. TURNER'S will the Trustees of the National
Gallery took 324 pictures, besides a vast quantity
1 of water colour drawings, and the Royal Academy
£20,000 in
Royal Academmyonbeeytivaenadthbeoythhetlhdennaattipornopaenrdtythase
their own, not subject to any conditions. But,,,
added the noble and learned lord, " he (Lord ST.
LEONARDS—surely an authority upon these mat-
ters!) believed the whole of these pictures were held
by the nation subject to certain Conditions. A mem-
ber of a former Government had promised that the
intentions of Mr. TURNER should be carried into
effect. He had asked the question publicly of the
succeeding Government, whether it considered itself
bound by the declaration of its predecessor, and the
reply was in the affirmative. The noble and learned
lord then read the codicils to the will of Mr. TUR-
NER, to prove that the pictures were left, in trust,
to the National Gallery, on condition that a separate
room should be built for them, to be called the Tun-
NER Gallery. The Trustees of the National Gallery
were to have no power over the pictures unless
this condition were carried out. A third codicil
made the bequest void unless the Trustees of the
National Gallery complied with the condition within
five years; but another codicil extended this period
to 10 years. He had no hesitation in saying that
the nation had received these pictures under a legal
obligation." Now, in the presence of authoritative
statements like these, the doggedly obstinate
retention of the Turner Gallery down in those
Brompton Boilers, can be alone regarded as in any
way explicable, upon the understanding that the
" powers that be" have made up their minds that
the National Gallery—in spite of the House of Cow.