HC Deb 10 August 1860 vol 160 cc1111-4
MR. CONINGHAM

said, he would beg-to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Sir Charles Eastlake, the President of the Royal Academy, has been this year re-appointed to the Directorship of the National Gallery?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the appointment in question expired on the 5th of the present month. Some weeks ago the trustees of the National Gallery informed him that the office would soon be vacant and recommended the re-appointment of Sir Charles Eastlake. It seemed to him, from his knowledge of Sir Charles Eastlake, that there could not be a fitter man for the post, and, as he did not think it expedient that the office should be vacant, he took the Queen's pleasure that Sir Charles should be re-appointed for the same period as before. The re-appointment of Sir Charles Eastlake, however, would not preclude the action of Parliament upon any portion of the National Gallery.

Afterwards,

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, considering the lateness of the Session and the length of time which must elapse before the Vote for the proposed alterations in the National Gallery will come before the House, he will agree to take no further steps on the question during the recess of Parliament? The Vote in question was in No. 7 of the Civil Service Estimates. The House had not yet got further than No. 1, and, judging from the present rate of progress, when the House got to No. 7 there would be no one left in it but those on the Treasury Bench. He trusted that good faith would be kept with the public, and that the Report of the Select Committee would be carried out.

MR. COWPER

said, he was sorry the noble Lord had been put to the inconvenience of waiting in the House until the Estimates came on; but it was an inconvenience which every hon. Member was subject to. He did not think he would be justified in putting off a matter of urgency, because parties who wished to take part in it could not conveniently attend. There was not sufficient accommodation in the National Gallery at present, and if fresh pictures came in there would be no place for them. He was sorry he could not accede to the proposition that had been made.

MR. H. BAILLIE

said, it might be urgent to obtain more space for the National Gallery, but it did not follow that the Royal Academy should he also retained in that building, since additional space would be obtained by their removal.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, that after the assurance given last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the tenure of office of the Director of the National Gallery would not be renewed until the House had had an opportunity of reconsidering the question, he was greatly surprised to hear that the President of the Royal Academy had been reappointed to that office. Circumstances had occurred since last year which strengthened the objections then urged against that appointment. A collection of paintings which a gentleman in Paris had purchased at various auction rooms for about £5,000 had recently been sold to the National Gallery for between £9,000 and £10,000. The officials of the Gallery had a most objectionable practice of purchasing a mass of worthless pictures for the sake of two or three good ones, and then of selling off the rubbish at Christie's. It was obvious that such a system afforded wide scope for jobbery of the worst description. One of the gems of the recently acquired collection, which was entitled the "Portrait of Ariosto," painted by Titian, had formerly been known as a portrait of Torquato Tasso, by Giorgione, and was altogether worthless. Certain pictures attributed to Giulio Romano in the same collection were, he asserted, not by that master, and did not even belong to his school. In the face of such proceedings he thought he had good ground for complaining of the renewal of the Director's tenure of office before the House had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. He regretted, also, the statement which had been made that evening as to the removal of the National Gallery. He need hardly remind the House that the Committee had reported in favour of Trafalgar Square as the site of the National Gallery; and that without a shilling of expense the simple removal of the Royal Academy would afford ample room for all the pictures in the collection which were worthy of exhibition. He had no hesitation in saying that one-half of those pictures ought to be expelled from the Gallery, as calculated to do injury rather than good to the public taste. He believed there was a deliberate intention of forming, under the Privy Council, a vast department which should exercise a despotic influence in all questions of science and art. An attempt had already been made to tamper with the scientific and art collections of the Metropolis. Under the pretence of economy there had been an endeavour to break up the magnificent collections in the British Museum, and Cabinet Ministers, Gentlemen who were not in the habit of attending the meetings of the trustees, had been induced to vote for the removal of a considerable portion of those collections to Kensington, an operation which would entail an expenditure of something like half a million of money. He trusted that the House would take this matter seriously in hand, and insist upon the postponement of the question relative to the National Gallery until next Session. The intrigues of the superintendents of the galleries at Kensington, who were at the bottom of all these extraordinary movements in our scientific and artistic collections, would be paralyzed if the House did its duty on the present occasion.

On Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday,