The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-23 00:00:00

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

Mr. PEASE asked the First Lord of the Treasury, whe-
ther it is the intention of the Government to propose to the
house, during the present session, any measure with a view
to the encouragement of the formation of harbours of re -
fuge on the coasts of the kingdom, in conformity with the
report of the Royal Commission oilast year upon this sub-
ject ?
Lord PALMERSTO g said that everybody must be
aware of the importance of this subject, but according to
the calculations that had been made, the cost of erecting
these harbours would bo £4,000,000. However, any per-
son acquainted with the subject must be aware that
the expense of such work generally exceeded the estimates,
and the Government did not intend to make any provision
this session for the formation of these harbours. "
SHIP PRINCESS ROYAL.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved for a return of the name of
the captain of her Majesty's ship Princess Royal, who or-
dered 2,141 lashes to be inflicted on 53 of the crew of that
ship, who were flogged in the year 1857, as stated in a re-
turn presented to this house.
The return was ordered.
THE TREATY.
On the order being read of going into committee of
Mr.
Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether he had reason to believe that there
is a provision or understanding in the late Treaty of Villa-
franca that the late dynasties of Tuscany, Modena, and
Parma are to be restored to those possessions, if necessary,
by military force • and, if so, whether her Majesty's Go-
vernment are prepared to take part in any Congiess, or
other diplomatic negotiation, having that object.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he understood from the Govern-
ment of the Emperor of the French that there was no pro-
vision or understanding that those dynasties were ito be
restored by military force, and he further understood that
it was not the intention of the Emperor of the French to
employ force for the purpose of restoring them.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
Mr. CONINGHAM, in moving that it was the opinion
of this house that the system of management which now
existed at the National Gallery was highly unsatisfactory,
and was detrimental to the public service, said the increased
expenditure in all departments of the Government was
matter of general observation. The people did not feel that
they got value for their money, and they were discontented.
The expenditure was so great, and the system, as a whole,
was so colossal, that no member could deal with it in its en-
' tirety. But with regard to the expenditure on the National
Gallery he hoped to be able to show that in that department
a bad system had too long prevailed, and it ought to be abo-
lished. It appeared by the return which he held inhis hand,
that during the last 12 years there had been an expenditure
of £90,000 for augmenting our national collection of pictures,
and he would boldly assert and appeal to those who had a
knowledge of pictures, whether the National Gallery as it now
stood, compared with what it was before it came under its
present administration, had not positively deteriorated. It
was not by the quantity of pictures, but by their quality,
that a national collection was to be judged. So large a quan-
tity of inferior pictures had been purchased for the National
Gallery, that the masterpieces were lost sight of in the mass
of rubbish that had been collected around them. In
1857-8 the expenses for the National Gallery amounted to
£29,000, but the vote of this year was reduced to £9,000.
He was not actuated by any personal feeling towards
Sir C. Eastlake, by whom he had always been treated
with courtesy; but a sense of public duty compelled him
to set forth the errors of his administration. Since 1845,
Sir Charles Eastlake had been attached to the National
Gallery in various capacities. He was appointed keeper
of the gallery, at a salary of £2OO a-year, but he was soon
deprived of that office in consequence of the constant
attacks which were made on his administration. He pur-
chased a Holbein portrait which was a double counterfeit—
a counterfeit Holbein, and a counterfeit work of art. This
picture cost £633. He also purchased a " Youthful Saviour"
and a " St. John" as Guido's, but they were described by
him (Mr. Coninghatn) as a disgrace to the National Gallery.
He also purchased for £2,604 a work as Titian's, whjeh he
(Mr. Coning-hen') asserted to-be spurious. The hol". gen-
tleman quoted extracts from the Examiner and the Westmin-
ster Review, in confirmation of his opinion of the bad admi-
nistration of the National Gallery under Sir C. Eastlake.
So much for the comments of the public press. He would
now quote Sir C. Eastlake against himself. On the leth
:November, 1852, he reported, " I approve of the result of
the cleaning of the Queen of Sheba," but in March, 1853,
he wrote, "To my mind the Queen of Sheba has been too
much cleaned; the glaze or dirt has been taken off. It wants
dirt ; dirt answers the purpose of glazing, and is quite as
good." What was the opinion of Hogarth ? He said, "It
is absurd to talk of pictures being improved by time or
dirt." In May, 1853, Sir C. Eastlake recoramended that
" the Annunciation" should be left without the glass, that
it might be improved by the dirt. He says, "I think the
dust will give it.gusto." That was Sir C. Eastlake's opi-
nion of the cleaning process. As a specimen of his taste it
was only necessary to quote his remark that " early German
art was corrupted by the introduction of a classical taste."
Even Punch assailed the system ; he said, " Pictures care-
fully removed. Apply to the director of the National Gal-
lery." (A laugh.) Honourable gentlemen might laugh,
but it was their duty, as guardians of the public purse, to
look after this large source of expenditure. He would next
call attention to the eight pictures
_etated_ in tha report to
have been purchased this year. The first was an Antonij
Moro, purchased from Mr. Nieuwenhuy,s ; that gentleman.
was one of the most experienced dealers in!Lcindon; `and it
would have been easy to get a good picture from him instead
of giving £2OO for such a wretched vamped up specimen.
The next was :called a Moretto, purchased for £360; then
a Lippi and a Marco Zoppo, purchased for £2OO. The
next was a Marco Basaiti, purchased in Florence for £640
This was one of the results of the £650 paid to the travelling
agent. There was not an inch of the original picture left.
The next a Zelotte, for £216; and last, was one called a
Palmezzano, which was nothing but a coarse, common.
place picture by some tenth or fifteenth rate artist. The
same system of management still went en, except that the
destruction of the pictures by cleaning had stopped—an
admission that the system was wrong. 'The management
made this country an object of ridicule on the continent.
When the agent arrived in any place the price of pictures
at once went up 500 per cent., and he never got anything
but the most indifferent specimens. £12,000 or £14,000
was paid at Venice for the Paul Veronese, and shortly
after an English amateur went aver and purchased from
the same gallery several Titians and Giorgionis, each
of which was worth an acre of Veronese._ The Paul
Veronese was] bought to coverthewhioh after
purchasebeing handed
of "The
Adoration of the Magi,'
about for £2OO, was sold to the National Gallery for
the Government weresubject in was
searnone
owsthinichthwooiruldprotmiestsowshoefther
re-
trenchment and economy; and if he had made out his
case, the noble lord at the head of the Government was
bound not to oppose his resolution.
The motion not being seconded fell to the ground.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
Mr. HENNESEY called attention to the failure of the
system of mixed education in Ireland. He contrasted the
separate denominational system in England with the mixed
system in Ireland, and showed that the latter had not ful-
filled the expectations formed from it, and had not identi-
fied itself with the spirit of the country. He adduced a
variety of facts to show that the results of the Queen's Col-
leges were in no way commensurate with the expense, that
their students were attracted by an undue proportion of
scholarships and rewards, and even with this inducement
hadenfalitoofith. e
pHreeswenats,ltihoshweGveevr,ernmniwillin
pwlahneichefh t
ehrdadDseormbye gentto. trust for ame-
lioration Mr. WHITESIDE said that the College of Belfast,
iancquthaiisntraenspceec,
twhaasd
nnoott
baeocailurte.
wiThteh
car-
ried out. He entered • into several details to show what, in
his opinion, the system ought to be.
rem Mr. BUXTON and Mr. LONGrIELD having made some
arks.
Mr. AD DERLEY hoped that the time would come when
there would be a uniform system of -education for the three
kingdoms.
Mr. MONSELL said that every person who had gradu-
ated at the Queen's College had cost the country £l,OOO.
Could'any failure be more signal than this ?
Mr, LEFROY demanded that religious teaching should

neither be compulsorily enforced not' CompiilsorilY ex-
cluded.

Lord NAAS augured the greatest good to Ireland from the
temperate spirit in which the subject was now treated by all
parties. As for the national system, it had been productive of
great good ; but it had departed from its original plan, and
could no longer be counted as a national system. The subject
had been deeply considered by the late Government, and if
they haul remained in office they would have presented a
scheme for extending the sphere of usefulness of the
system. He could not agree that the English. system
should be transferred to' Ireland, It was true that some-
thing should be clone, and he, trusted that the present Ad-
nlinistratidn would put an end to the.present difficulties.
1 Aft& sdme remarks by ',Mr. ESM6NDE,
Mr. CARDWELL expressed his surprise that the
Queen's Colleges shoull be regarded as failures, when all
the difficulties of their origin and position were taken into
account. What they had done gave every reason for hope
and encouragement. It was idle merely to quote the num-
ber of graduates, they should consider the number of those
who received education without requiring a degree. Com-
paring the results of the new academies with those
of others, he saw no reason for dissatisfaction.
The calm temper of the present debate was a
sufficient proof of their beneficent influence. He
further denied that the national system, even in the point
of view of being a mixed system, had failed. The practical
result had, in every way, been invaluable to Ireland. He
could not pledge the Government to any course on a mat-
ter of so much difficulty and delicacy, but he would give
it his most careful consideration, maintaining strictly the
principles under which the national system was founded,