The Sun.
London, England, 1845-10-16 00:00:00

tteldlls

LONDON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1845,

" Shall CROMWELL have a statue in the new Houses of
Parliament ?" is a question that seems calculated, notwith-
standing all that has been written on the subject, still to form
the subject of a "very pretty quarrel." As we happen to
have been the first to direct public attention to the originally
proposed omission of this illustrious warrior and statesman
from the Commissioners' draught list of English Worthies to
be commemorated in the halls of the British Legislature,
we feel ourselves scarcely at liberty to exercise the option of
retiring from the discussion on its revival by the appearance
of the " Fourth Report of the Commissioners on Ellie Arts."
But, tedious as it would otherwise be to reiterate the grounds
on which we are to contend for what will appear to the
convictions of every dispassionate reader of Englisl: history a
self-evident proposition, the wailings of the Morning Post
on the delinquencies of the Commissioners cannot fail to
furnish ample amusement to counterbalance everything that
is wearisome in the matter. The report itself, too, is a do-
cument so replete with inconsistencies, that there can be no
lack of novelty in the treatment of the subject, if we do not
avail ourselves of some of the more startling passages upon
which we have just fallen.
"Commissions of Taste" and " Commissions of the
Fine Arts," invariably determine in this country in miserable
reports, or still more worthless constructions in brick and
stone. Without a moment's hesitation we must rank the
" Fourth Report," now before us, among the number of
those periodical extravagances which the British Go-
vernment or Parliament commit, with all pomp and
circumstance, against the " taste" and the " arts"
involves
they take under their especial patronage. The list of the
eme
me nh-r bl
oegr se ooff
nt latims
eCe ast o i pi oom n r
enp ar us,to sosoimnceoenxgtreunotu,s
foran the
e-
incompatible resolutions at which they arrive, while affinities
of connoisseurship and taste in the Fine Arts approximate
the perceptions of the Duke of Sutherland, the Marquis of
Lansdowne, Lord Francis Egerton, Lord Ashburton, Mr.
Gaily Knight, Mr. Samuel Rogers, and Mr. George Vivian—
all of them munificent patrons and acknowledged judges
of art, withs Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, or the Earl of Lin-
coln, or Mr. Thomas Wyse--it would be abundantly pleasant,
did our time allow of such a diversion, to inquire. Mr.
MACAULAY is too universal a genius not to make it
dangerous to question the propriety of adding him to the
list of the Commission ; but why Lord Blartost and the
Earl of SHREWSBURY, a mediocre historian and an unsuccess-
ful pamphleteer, should be associated, together with Mr.
B. Hawes, and Sir James GRAHAM in a tribunal of judgment
upon matters connected with the Fine Arts we are utterly
unable to understand. The Commissioners report that "many
situations for statues consist of niches oily, which, in accord-
ance with the style of Gothic architecture adopted, are uni-
formly narrow, snot exceeding two feet in width ; that there
are also situations where insulated statues might be fitly
placed ; and we conceive that, with a view both to conve-
nient inspection, and the expediency of affording opportu-
nities for displaying the abilities of the artists, the last-named
situations are the most important." They further submit that
" six. insulated marble statues might be conveniently placed
in St2•Stephen's porch, and that six such statues might be
conveniently placed in St. Stephen's Hall ;" and they are
at once prepared to recommend that "statues of Marlborough
and Nelson be placed in St. Stephen's porch, and
that statues of Sclden, Hampden, Lord Falk-
land, Lord Clarendon, Lord Somers, Sir Ro_
bert Walpole, Lord Chatham, Lord Mansfield,
Burke, Fox, Pitt, and Grattan, be placed in St. Stephen's
hall." But which is the porch and which the ball of St
Stephen, since Mr. Parry, or Prince Albert's suggestion;
altered the working plans approved of by the Lords' Com-
mittees for superintending the building, by the creation of
an enormous excrescence on his orignal design in the shape
of a new gallery? At p. 12, we find a foot note that does
but the more bewilder us as to these localities. " The names
of various apartments have been altered and finally (more
last words !') determined, since the date of this memo-
randum. The principal lauding place is called the Nor-
man Porch; the Victoria Gallery is called the Royal
Gallery; the Lobby to the House of Lords is called
the Victoria Hall." We do not, however, attach much
importance to this difficulty of ours ; for, no doubt, by
the close of the first week of the next sessionthe whole no-
menclature of these portions of the fabric will be again trans-
formed. We hasten, in the first place, to sympathise with our
afflicted Contemporary. The signatures of the Commis-
sioners, he observes, " sufficiently testify not only what is to
be done, but what is to be left undone." Under both heads
there is matter for deep regret. After all that has " recently
been said on the subject . . - public feeling and national