§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, as the Vote for the New National Gallery at Burlington House has been rejected, it is the intention to take any steps to obtain possession of the rooms now occupied by the Royal Academy, in Trafalgar Square, so as to render the same available for the exhibition of the National Pictures?
§ MR. GREGORYsaid he also would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the, intention of the Government to take immediate steps to procure the buildings to the rear of the National Gallery, in as much as the present structure is not large enough properly to exhibit all the National Pictures and selections from the National Drawings?
MR. COWPERsaid, in reply, that, in order to make his answer intelligible, it was necessary that he should say a few words in explanation, for which he hoped to have the indulgence of the House. There would be no difficulty, he apprehended, in the re-moral of the Royal Academy to Burlington House. The Royal Academy were in possession of a considerable capital, which they had accumulated from the proceeds of their annual exhibitions, and they were prepared to spend a portion of it in providing a permanent gallery whenever they might have the opportunity of doing so. They would be prepared to build a sufficient gallery upon the Burlington House site with, he believed, only one stipulation,; which was that they should have an entrance in Piccadilly, and the expense of a building which would be suitable for their purposes would be somewhere about £80,000. If, on the other hand, they had been permitted to occupy the whole of the building in Trafalgar Square, they would not, of course, have expected that that gum of £80,000 would have remained in their pockets, but they would have contributed it any way which the Government might have required, either as a credit towards the expense of the new National Gallery, or in embellishing architecturally the facade of the building in Trafalgar Square. It seemed to be immaterial to the Royal Academy whether they went or stayed; so that, as regarded them, no great difficulty existed. But as regarded the interests of the public there were certain considerations which required a good deal of attention. The building, supposing the Royal Academy should at once vacate the room which they possessed for exhibition, would not be large enough properly to exhibit the whole of the pictures which belonged to the trustees of the National Gallery. The apartments now occupied by the Royal Academy were about 7,000 superficial feet of floor area, which was not actually so large as the rooms at South Kensington, which were at present occupied by the Vernon, Jacob Bell, and other collections of British artiste, and consequently even if the rooms now possessed by the Royal Academy would suffice to enable the pictures at South Kensington to be united to the rest of the gallery, they could not also provide for the better Arrangement and hanging of those pictures, which were now so greatly crowded in their temporary position in the present National Gallery. Any one who had visited 1638 the Turner Gallery must have observed that the pictures were piled up from the floor to the ceiling, where they could not be seen, and in making any permanent arrangement it would be necessary that consideration should be given to the continual annual increase of pictures in the National Gallery, by purchase, gifts, or bequests. In addition to that it had been thought desirable by most persons who had paid attention to the subject, that the drawings of the original paintings by the old masters, alluded to by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), should be placed in the same building with the original oil paintings, that the two collections should be placed together, not only on account of the immense artistic value of the drawings themselves, but also as illustrating and explaining the oil paintings. It was, he thought, admitted by all the Committees and Royal Commissions who had investigated this subject, that it would be necessary to acquire either the whole or the greater part of the space which was in the rear of the present National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, which was at present occupied by the workhouse, Archbishop Tennison's library, the schools, some houses on the western side of St. Martin's Place, and the barracks. His impression was that ultimately the whole of that space would be required to make such a gallery as that House and the country ought to be satisfied with. Now, as far as one could judge, the parish of St. Martin was ready to come to an arrangement with the Government relative to the workhouse. They would require that a new workhouse out of the parish should be substituted in lieu of the old one, within a reasonable distance. They would also require a parish office in the parish, award for the casual poor, and the library would have to be rebuilt. Then the houses-ho had alluded to would have to be purchased to complete the area and give a proper frontage on the eastern side. The barracks were considered very important by the military authorities, but they might assume that it would be possible to provide other barracks of equal size in a central and convenient place. The expense of the alteration would be not less than £300,000, which would be required to be spent in obtaining a site of an equal area to that of Burlington House, and consequently that sum would be required to be provided by Parliament in addition to any that would have been required if they had taken Bur- 1639 lington House, Between the cost of building on the two sites there would not be so much difference as to call for special remark, but the site in Trafalgar Square would be the more costly, having more ornamental frontage. If the site of the National Gallery were permanently decide — ["Order, order !"] He thought the House wished him to explain, for if he were not permitted to do so he should have some difficulty in answering the question of the hon. Member for Galway. It was right that the House should consider that if a sufficient National Gallery were to be placed on the Trafalgar Square site, the extent of building required would be reduced by the extent of the existing building. But on the other, if the same accommodation were to be provided elsewhere—at Burlington House for instance—although the building would not be diminished, the cost would be diminished by the amount of £80,000, or any other sum which the Royal Academicians might have to contribute. Under those circumstances he thought the House would not expect that he should be able to state the views of the Government at once upon the point, because those were matters which required great care and consideration. He was unable to say that any notice would be immediately given to the Royal Academy to vacate their part of the building.
§ MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether there is any objection to produce the plans prepared by order of the Government by the late Sir Charles Barry, and also those of Mr. Wilkins, showing the plan of the barracks as intended to form galleries in the National Gallery, if the building were ever extended?
MR. COWPERsaid, he had never seen Sir Charles Barry's plans, and as far as he could learn they never had been sent to the department. The plans of Mr. Wilkins were mentioned before the Committee of 1848. [Mr. HENRY SEYMOUR: The Committee of 1836.] But he was quite ignorant whether there was any foundation for the statement alluded to. There was no record of the matter in the Office of Works, and he was totally unable to give any information on the subject.