§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he rose to move "That it is the opinion of this House that the system of management which now exists at the National Gallery is highly unsatisfactory, and is detrimental to the public service." The increased expenditure in all departments of the Government was matter of general observation. There was a growing feeling also among the people that they did not get 282 value for the money expended, 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 entirety. But with regard to the expenditure on the National Gallery he trusted in a brief statement to be able to show that in that department a bad system had too long prevailed, and that it ought to be abolished. It appeared by the return which he held in his hand that during the last twelve 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 the advent of its present administrators, had not positively deteriorated. It was not by the quantity of pictures, but by their quality that the value of a national collection was to be judged. So large a number of inferior pictures had been purchased for the National Gallery, that the masterpieces which adorned the walls 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. In entering into this question he was not actuated by any personal feelings 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 that gentleman's administration. Since 1845 Sir C. Eastlake had been attached to the National Gallery in various capacities. First of all, he was appointed keeper of the gallery, at a salary of £200 a year; but from that office he was soon driven by the censures of the press and the constant attacks which were made on his administration. His purchase of the Holbein portrait implied not only a want of knowledge of the master, but a want of knowledge of art, for that portrait was doubly a counterfeit. During Sir C. Eastlake's first administration, the last picture purchased was "the youthful Saviour embracing St. John," ascribed to Guido, but which was a disgrace to the National Gallery. When Sir C. Eastlake retired from the office of keeper, he became President of the Royal Academy, and as President he appeared at the board of the National Gallery as trustee, and while he was trustee there were various inferior and spurious pictures purchased, among which was "the Tribute Money," 283 ascribed to Titian. In confirmation of the opinion he now expressed as to the maladministration of the National Gallery he might refer to articles in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine, and the Westminster Review. The Examiner, which paid a great deal of attention to questions of art, said the national collection was not in fit keeping under Sir C. Eastlake, and that it had come to that opinion not hastily, but advisedly, on due and careful consideration of the facts. But he need not go further on the subject than to the testimony of Sir C. Eastlake himself. In the evidence from which he had quoted he found, under date 12th November, 1852, that gentleman saying, "I approve of the result of the cleaning of the 'Queen of Sheba.'" Again March 31, 1853, "The 'Queen of Sheba' has been ill and tastelessly cleaned. It is now out of harmony, and I could not positively say that time will restore it. Dirt has the effect of glazing, and is quite as good sometimes." That was very different from the opinion of one who must be admitted to be a master on these subjects—Hogarth. That great master's words were, "It is absurd to talk of pictures being improved by time or dirt." In May, 1853, Sir C. Eastlake recommended that "The Annunciation" should be left without the glass that it might be improved by the dirt. He says, "Dirt gives gusto." That was Sir C. Eastlake's opinion 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 carefully removed. Apply to the Director of the National Gallery." [A laugh.] Hon. Members 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 pictures stated in the report to have been purchased this year. During that period eight pictures had been purchased, most of which were of a very inferior description, and did not deserve a place in the gallery. The first was an Antonio Moro, purchased from Mr. Nieuwenhuys. That gentleman was one of the most experienced dealers in London, and it would have been easy to get a good picture from him instead of giving £200 for such a wretched vamped-up specimen. The next was a Moretto, purchased for £360; then a Lippi and a Marco Zoppo, purchased for £200. The next was a 284 Marco Basaiti, purchased in Florence for £640. This was one of the results of the £650 paid to a travelling agent whose approach was the signal for an immediate increase in the price of such works on the Continent. There was not an inch of the original surface picture left. The next a Zelotto, 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 on, 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 over and purchased from the Manfrini gallery several Titians and Gior-gionis, each of which was worth an acre of Veronese. The Paul Veronese was bought to cover the purchase of "The Adoration of the Magi," which after being hawked about for £400, was sold to the National Gallery for £2,000. This subject was one which would test whether the Government were in earnest in their promises of retrenchment 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.