§ Mr. Humewished to put a question to the noble Lord opposite of some importance. The sum of 50,000l. had been voted last Session towards building a National Gallery, and he wished to know whether anything had been done in the expenditure of the money? He had understood, that the estimate originally delivered was for only 32,000l., that then it was raised to 40,000l., and subsequently to 50,000l.; but that at present difficulties had been found in finishing it at 76,000l. He should be glad to know whether Ministers had come to any and what determination upon the subject.
Lord Duncannonreplied, that the hon. Member was quite correct in his information. The sum of 50,000l. had been voted by Parliament last Session; since that time, alterations had been suggested, which had increased the estimate. Complaints had been made against the proposed line, interfering as it would with the view of St. Martin's Church, so that with the alterations the Gallery would cost more by about 4,000l. than the largest sum mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. As such was the case, a new, more convenient, and more practicable plan had been proposed for the reception and exhibition of the national pictures; it was, that they should be placed in the Banquetting-house at Whitehall, in that part of the building now employed as a chapel for soldiers. It was a very fine room, and, 535 at a comparatively small cost, would do full justice to the pictures, while recompence could be made to the architect intended to have been employed. To convert the chapel into a Gallery, with apartments for a keeper of the pictures, and to erect a new chapel for the soldiers, would not cost more than 25,000l. or 26,000l., and the saving to the public would on the whole be little less than 100,000l. by letting the proposed site for buildings which would in no respect interfere with the front of St. Martin's Church.
§ Mr. Humewas anxious to obtain further information regarding another building. He had observed a great deal of scaffolding about Buckingham Palace; had any increased expense been incurred there, or was it intended to complete the whole on the scale and plan already submitted to the House?
Lord Duncannoncould answer the hon. Member exactly on that subject. He was aware, no doubt, that 75,000l. had been voted to complete the building under the recommendation of a Committee. It had been stated on that occasion, that as soon as the building was finished, it would be necessary to come to Parliament for a sum for fittings, fixtures, and decorations, and a very large amount had been named for the furniture and fixtures. He had the satisfaction to be able to state, that notwithstanding some changes made in the finishing of the building, it would be completed within the 75,000l. voted. The hon. Member had seen a good deal of scaffolding on the side of Pimlico—it arose from Government having failed in purchasing at any price which could be justified, that part of Pimlico which was required. It had, therefore, been necessary to make offices on that side of the palace; they were of stone, in order that they might have a handsome appearance, and they had been carried further in order to give the public the accommodation of a wider turning than before existed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman meant to allude also to a scaffold in front of the palace; that was connected with what was called the marble arch, and he was happy to say, that it had been paid for before the repairs of the palace were entered upon. Parliament would have to provide in some way for fixtures, furniture, and decorations, and he (Lord Duncannon) thought, that he should be warranted in asking a grant for the purpose even in the present 536 Session; if not, between this date and the next meeting of the House, the works must be suspended that would otherwise be entirely finished. It had been proposed, that the sum required for furniture, fittings, fixtures, and decorations should be taken out of the land revenues of the Crown, and for that purpose a Bill would be necessary. If it would be any satisfaction to the House to hear his opinion as to the amount, he had taken some trouble to be able to state, that 50,000l. would probably be sufficient. It was the express and gracious wish of his Majesty, that no more gilding and decoration should be introduced than was necessary, and he was also anxious that the furniture should not be of the expensive and extravagant description originally contemplated.
§ Sir Robert Inglisreminded the House, that the intended gallery was for sculptures as well as for paintings. Another point was whether at Whitehall a good light could be obtained for the pictures. He was quite aware, that the public feeling could not in any degree be outraged by converting the chapel into a gallery, as it had never been consecrated. This fact, however, was not universally known. He expressed his regret, that when the new room for the King's Library was built, the notion of a National Gallery had not been entertained.
Lord Duncannonremarked, that a gallery for pictures only, and not for statues, was originally contemplated. As to the second point of the hon. Baronet, he could state, that the chapel in Whitehall had been examined by competent persons, who had assured him that it was peculiarly adapted for the reception of the national pictures, the light would be extremely good, by placing them upon screens between the windows. It was undoubtedly true, that the building had never been consecrated; and when the project was mentioned to his Majesty, he was pleased to express his entire approbation of it. As to the extent to which Ministers were pledged, he must say, that he thought they were pledged to the architect to the extent of the grant already made for this object by Parliament. That individual had been directed to prepare a plan upon the scale of 50,000l., and tenders had been received for the contract. After the grant of 50,000l. had been made, two or three persons of science were 537 appointed to look over the plan, and some alterations had been suggested by them, one of which was the change of the line of the building, and another increasing its elevation. Of course these alterations would increase the expense, and it was supposed, that if 62,000l. in the whole could be procured from Parliament, tenders and contracts might be made, and the work be commenced. Afterwards, when it was found that not less than 75,000l. would be sufficient, the work was at once stopped.
§ Mr. Warburtonwished to impress upon Government, that whatever site was selected, it ought to be capable of extension; and he ventured to doubt whether the gallery at Whitehall would be capable of extension. It might be suited for a temporary deposit of the pictures, but not for a permanent gallery. Individuals might, and no doubt would, make valuable bequests and donations to the gallery, and there ought to be room to add pictures as they were obtained. He begged the noble Lord to state what, from first to last, the marble arch at Buckingham Palace had cost the country.
Lord Duncannonsaid, that the point, whether the gallery at Whitehall could not be extended, had been considered; and it was thought that it might. As to the last question put by the hon. Gentleman, he (Lord Duncannon) doubted whether it would be any satisfaction to him to know the whole cost of the marble arch. It had certainly been very expensive, and a proposal had been made to pull it down; but it was thought, that that would be a fresh source of charge, and that the best mode would be to finish it merely as it stood at present. Originally it had been designed to make it much higher, but it was considered that in that case it would overbear the palace. He had the pleasure of assuring the hon. Member and the House, that the marble arch had been entirely paid for, though it had already cost 70,000l.