HC Deb 19 June 1865 vol 180 cc484-98

(9.) £20,000, National Gallery Enlargement.

MR. COWPER

said, that the Committee would naturally expect from him some explanation in regard to this Vote. The national collection of pictures had increased to such an extent since the year 1838, when the present National Gallery was first used, that the gallery was no longer adapted to fulfil the purpose for which it was originally intended. Every resource had been adopted to enable the existing building to supply the space required by the public. As the Committee were aware, the pictures were crowded together in such a manner that they were hung in some rooms as high as the cornice, which was 22ft. from the floor. Screens were also placed on the floor to receive the pictures that could not be hung on the walls, to the great inconvenience of the visitors. Yet, after all, a large portion of the national collection could not be received with- in the building, but received the hospitality of South Kensington, where they were exhibited to the public. The large and useless hall of the National Gallery had been taken for the purposes of exhibition, and formed the only good gallery in the building. It was taken just in time, when the National Gallery ran the risk of losing the Turner bequest, for the space thus gained enabled the Trustees to fulfil the condition of the donor, that his pictures should all be exhibited in one room called the Turner Gallery. He had given notice to the Royal Academy that the time had come for them to surrender to the National Gallery the rooms they had occupied for so many years, and the Royal Academy were now engaged in considering the propriety of erecting a new gallery for themselves on the site of Burlington House. But when the rooms now occupied by the Royal Academy were added to the National Gallery there would still be insufficient space for the proper exhibition and classification of all the pictures in the possession of the Trustees of the National Gallery. Those pictures were now 750 in number, exclusive of 200 water-colour drawings at South Kensington, and exclusive also of 19,000 Turner drawings, and the building was not sufficient by about one-fifth for the proper exhibition and classification of all the pictures. The collection was increasing annually by purchase and by gifts, and bequests of pictures would be encouraged by providing a suitable place for their exhibition. There were valuable original drawings in the British Museum which could not now be seen, and were put away in drawers. If these drawings could be exhibited at the National Gallery, near the pictures which they illustrated, great assistance would be afforded to the study of those pictures. There were some portraits in the British Museum, which it was contemplated to remove to the National Gallery. Then there were certain pictures at Hampton Court, which it would be desirable to exhibit in London. It was necessary, moreover, to have a proper place for the exhibition of the portraits belonging to the National Portrait Gallery. These would require a building, and the site of the National Gallery would be the proper place for these portraits, even if there were no combination between the two galleries, and if the National Portrait Gallery should remain under different trustees. It was necessary that a proper structure should be raised for these purposes in some part of the metropolis. The present National Gallery was not only inadequate in regard to wall space for the proper exhibition of the pictures, but also in regard to floor space for the visitors who thronged to see them. From the Return it appeared that 630,000 persons visited the National Gallery last year, and one Whit-Monday there were not less than 10,000 persons in the gallery. Such numbers assembling in these small rooms must be inconvenient to the public, as well as most prejudicial to the pictures. Experiments upon the purity or foulness of the air in various exhibitions and places of public resort had been made, and he was sorry to say that the National Gallery showed a greater degree of foulness in the atmosphere than any other place. This was not owing to any neglect of ventilation, but to the crowds forced into these small rooms, in which there was not proper space for them to circulate freely. A building of this kind ought to be a large and spacious gallery, where people were not obliged to jostle each other, but could pass and repass with the greatest ease, and containing benches upon which they might sit down and enjoy the pictures quietly. Such a building should have sufficient entrances, vestibules, and staircases; but the reverse of all this characterized the present building. A National Gallery intended for the receptacle of these choice specimens of art ought not in itself to violate the rules of art, but in its exterior as well as its interior it ought to be an example of architecture. The present building was designed by Mr. Wilkins, the architect, in compliance with the wishes of those who did not desire the edifice to overpower or obscure the portico of St. Martin's Church. The front was set back from the pavement, and the several features were arranged so that they might not interfere with the portico of the church. The object was undoubtedly obtained, for if any one stood near the statue of George III.—that with the pigtail—the building made an excellent vista and a pretty appendage for the portico of St. Martin's Church. The whole effect was undoubtedly picturesque from this point, and there was variety of light and shade. But the effect was very different when the National Gallery was viewed from Trafalgar Square and Charing Cross, for the edifice was not suited to that point of view. From those points it had a low and mean appearance, and was deficient in harmony and dignity. It was not high enough for its situation on that eminence, and was not a building which Mr. Wilkins would have desired to erect in order to be seen from Parliament Street. The first thing to be considered was the possibility of extending the present building, and of enlarging it on a site contiguous to that upon which it was erected. Now, in the rear of the National Gallery, between the northern wall and Hemming's Row, there was about an acre of ground covered by the Workhouse of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, the parochial offices and schools, Archbishop Tenison's School, and five houses in St. Martin's Place and Castle Street. This land it was possible to acquire. The workhouse was not well adapted to its present purpose. It was in a confined situation, and was less healthful and convenient than a workhouse was required to be for the benefit of its inmates, or than it would be if it were removed to the suburbs in a fresher air and where the inmates would be better accommodated. The Vestry of St. Martin's did not object to their workhouse being taken for the purpose of enlarging the National Gallery. All that they required was that they should be paid such a sum of money as would enable them to re-build their workhouse in some other position not in the heart of the town. They also required that there should be built for them within the parish a casual ward and the necessary parochial offices. The trustees of Archbishop Tenison's School were also willing to surrender the present buildings and the site if another school equally convenient were erected for them. If all these buildings were removed, and the site were covered by the enlargement of the National Gallery, the street now leading to these offices and schools—Castle Street— would be unnecessary, and might by an Act of Parliament be stopped up and acquired for the site of these buildings. Assuming that this site could be acquired, the next step would appear to be to prepare plans for building upon it. It would he premature, however, to obtain plans until the Government knew what was to be the site, and no steps had yet been taken for any preparation of architectural plans. Such an extension would afford all that was necessary for present use. It would provide a building double the size of the whole of the existing edifice. Whatever might be built could be erected from time to time according to the wants of the Gallery, and it would be a great advantage thus to possess the means of future enlargement. Before, however, any additions were built, a complete plan of the whole design ought to be adopted, so that every addition made from time to time would he an integral part of the complete whole. He did not think that a plan for new buildings in the rear of the National Gallery would he complete unless it included a plan for the re-construction of the faÇado of the National Gallery. The new part should be made to harmonize with the old, and it would be impossible to obtain such a building as the House would desire should occupy so fine a site without a plan for its greater or less reconstruction. That might be done in several ways. They might remove those portions of the building most offensive to the eye—the dome and pinnacles—and substitute a more elevated and dignified structure for the centre; or they might construct a building with a new facade along the edge of the pavement at the point where Mr. Wilkins originally drew the line of his building. This would give thirty feet additional space between the present building and the new front, or they might demolish all the existing building and re-construct it on a different plan. Any plan that would make the Gallery worthy to contain such a collection of pictures opened a vista to considerable expense, but he believed the House and the country would not wish that this subject should be dealt with in a niggardly or pennywise spirit. England possessed a most admirable collection of national pictures, and the people were deservedly proud of it. It was very comprehensive, and illustrated the history of art from the early development of the ancient school, to those modern pictures which interest the general public. It thus provided the means of amusement for persons possessing different tastes, and promoted the study and cultivation of art. It would be admitted that our National Gallery ought to be worthy of such a collection of pictures and also of the dignity of the country. It would be necessary to bear in mind the desirableness of enabling the pictures to be seen at night, and it would, therefore, be necessary to have proper regard in the new building to its space and ventilation, and to make provision for the introduction of gas without injury to the pictures. The estimate he laid upon the table referred to the portions of the site covered by the workhouse, the parochial offices and schools, and Archbishop Tenison's School. He was unable to give an accurate estimate of the sum which these buildings, &c, would cost, as it would be premature to have entered into negotiations with the vestry and the trustees of Archbishop Tenison's School, without the authority and sanction of the House. He believed, however, that the sum of £100,000 would be a maximum sum, beyond which it would not be necessary to go. The first step would be to make an agreement with the vestry and the trustees for the purchase of the site. It would not be possible to conclude the bargain and pay the value of the land at once, because it would be necessary for parochial purposes, before the vestry surrendered the present buildings, that others should be provided for them elswhere, to which the inmates of the workhouse could be sent. A large deposit might, however, be paid to the vestry in the first instance i to enable them to enter into contracts, &c. The sum of £20,000 would cover all that could be paid on the conclusion of the agreement between this and the 21st of March. No further proceedings would be taken by the Government except to obtain a site, but at some future time, perhaps next year, an estimate of the buildings for the new site must be brought forward, and that would be the time when the question of the plan and extent would be before the House, and when the Government would state what in their opinion the new design ought to be.

LORD ELCHO

said, he had given notice of a Resolution on the subject which he did not propose at present to move, but which he would read, since it expressed the opinion he held on this subject— That the present National Gallery, owing to its architectural defects, and to its not being fireproof, cannot be considered a fitting receptacle for the national pictures, and does not safely admit of their exhibition at night for the benefit of those who are unable to visit them by day; that, if the present site is to be retained, a fire-proof building should be constructed, capable and worthy in all respects of containing the national collection, together with such future bequests and additions thereto as may from time to time be reasonably expected; and that any money that may be required for the purchase of land at the back of the Gallery should, if granted, be voted on the understanding that plans for its re-construction shall be forthwith obtained, by competition or otherwise, and shall be laid before Parliament early in the ensuing Session. Having, however, been told that as a matter of form it would be inconvenient to press a Resolution anticipating the labours of the Committee, he should abstain from doing so, merely observing that the Resolution he had read expressed the views which he held upon this question, and entertaining the hope that this expression of opinion would receive such sympathy from the Committee as would induce his right hon. Friend to go a little further than he had done towards there-construction of the National Gallery. He thought that they might assume two things, The one was that the present National Gallery was utterly insufficient for the exhibition of the national pictures. The other was a question of taste, that such a building should be erected as would be benefiting the great object to which it was to be dedicated and worthy of the British nation. The present building was not fire-proof, and was not a fit receptacle for the treasures of art which constituted our national collection of paintings. The national jewels ought to be lodged in a safe and suitable casket. The subject had been constantly under inquiry and discussion, and since 1833, when it was built, there had been eight Committees and eight Commissions to inquire into various subjects connected with the edifice and its contents. The Government had at last proposed that Burlington House should become the sight of the new gallery, and he had supported that proposal because he believed it would be the cheapest and the most convenient that could be adopted. It would not have necessitated any removal of the pictures while the new gallery was being prepared for their reception. But if the present National Gallery were to be re-constructed he feared that it would be necessary to remove the works, and that they would probably be removed to South Kensington, for that was the point to which all our art collections seemed by some invincible force to gravitate. When Mr. Cole paid him a visit he implored him not even to wish for any work of art of his (Lord Elcho's) to he exhibited at South Kensington. With regard to economy, he believed the re-construction on this new site would cost far more than double that which the construction on the Burlington House site would cost. The two sites were equally central, and therefore equally convenient. With regard to the Royal Academy, the Royal Commission recommended that the Royal Academy should adopt certain suggestions favourable to other artists, and by handing over to them the present building better terms might be obtained from them in the interest of art, and they might be obliged to put up such a handsome front as Parliament, might order. But the House had decided that the National Gallery should remain where it was, and he looked upon that question as settled. The only question that remained to be considered was the best mode of carrying it into effect. His right hon. Friend proposed to buy land at the back of the National Gallery, and to erect upon that site buildings which should form part of the new Gallery. But that would be, as it appeared to him (Lord Elcho), a simple continuance of what had been the bane of the present building—a system of jobbing and patchwork, which must be fatal to the completion of any great and satisfactory work. Those who were liberal in politics were also liberal in voting money for good purposes, and a well considered plan would be sure to meet with their approval. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, in speaking on a different subject, laid great stress upon the importance of being able to light those galleries at night, so that the industrious part of the population who were employed during the day might at night have an opportunity of enjoying themselves. But as long as we had a building which was not fire-proof, it would not be safe to light it at night, though the Royal Academy had ventured to light their rooms. On all those grounds he hoped the Government would deal with the question in the broadest way, that they would invite the whole world, if necessary, to send in designs to be laid before the new Parliament, where the matter would be settled in the way which he believed would be the cheapest in the end, and which he was sure would be the most creditable to the nation.

MR. TITE

said, he could not help fearing that the Government would find it very difficult to obtain the land they would require, unless they should take compulsory powers for the purpose as was done in the case of the Law Courts, and he would recommend them to introduce a measure which would give them those powers. He had no objection to grant the £20,000, which was the amount of the Vote; but he should rather the Government had produced a plan for the complete re-construction of the gallery, as in the case of the Foreign and India Offices, and had stated what would be the total estimate of such a work. The £20,000 asked for to-night would probably go like the £10,000, which was all that was asked for at first for Brompton, and which had now got to £120,000 a year. It was quite idle to think of adapting the present building to the purposes of a National Gallery. They had only to be made acquainted with the real nature of the undertaking, and it would then be their duty to set about it in a bold and liberal spirit.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, that this piecemeal mode of voting money away could never prove satisfactory. The present National Gallery was a building to be greatly reprobated. It was said to occupy the finest site in Europe, but it was one of the meanest and most detestable buildings in the world. The building was low, while what was specially required was height. He protested against resorting to the mode of showing pictures by means of skylights. As to the remedy, they might add a storey to the National Gallery, which would improve its appearance and give room for the Royal Academy, but he thought the best way would be to pull down the building altogether. He was sure the House would vote the sum necessary for a new one. Why had they not a building like the Louvre? He begged to express his disapproval of the proposition to pull down Burlington House, which was one of the finest pieces of architecture in London, and he did not think anything half so good was likely to be erected in its place. He had no confidence in the architects of the present day, who had never yet erected a fine building.

MR. LOCKE

said, he entirely concurred in the opinion that if anything was to be done with the National Gallery it ought to be pulled down altogether. After his right hon. Friend's condemnation of the original entrance hall of that building, which was the only good thing about it, and his admiration of the little miserable rooms which had been built at the back of it, he could repose no confidence in his taste; and, therefore, before he began any of these works, he should like to know exactly what he was going to do. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he was about to put a. new face upon the National Gallery, but putting a new face upon a man did not alter his inside, nor did it produce any greater change in a building. Although a new face might be put upon the National Gallery, the old miserable rooms would remain within, and every disgrace and inconvenience which attached to the building would be perpetuated. It was premature to ask for this sum of money until the House was informed what was to be done with the existing huilding, and he should refuse to support a grant for such patchwork proceedings. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Dumlalk (Sir George Bowyer) in protesting against the destruction of Burlington House. If the site was to remain as an "open space," about which there had been a good deal of discussion lately, it might be very well; but the probability was that if another building was erected in place of that which now covered the ground it would prove to be an eyesore. If Burlington House, which was a very handsome building, were pulled down, what was to be put up in its place? He was decidedly opposed to the present Vote without a full explanation being given of what was intended to be done.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

said, that the nation now possessed a remarkably fine collection of pictures which was increasing in value daily, and last year the House decided that the site of the building for them should be Trafalgar Square. He was surprised, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should have allowed the Session to pass over without bringing in a Bill for compulsorily obtaining ground for the buildings which Parliament determined should be erected there. The arrangement proposed was different to what any railway company would have asked Parliament to grant them. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to leave standing behind the National Gallery the baths and wash houses, which ought never to have been erected there, and which were most injurious to the national collection? He considered the right hon. Gentleman's plan very inadequate, but he would vote for it, because he looked upon this demand for £20,000 as a pledge that something would be erected worthy of the nation. The Government of the day was to blame for beginning the building in Trafalgar Square. It was an express stipulation that the Royal Academy should only be located in the building of the National Gallery while the apartments were not wanted for the national collection, and he had frequently asked why the Government did not call on the Royal Academy to give up their apartments. He trusted that when the new Parliament met the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared with plans for all the space behind the National Gallery, for a building worthy of the splendid national collection of pictures, and also for proper approaches to it.

MR. GREGORY

said, he had always contended that the pictures at Kensington, the drawings of the great masters at the British Museum, and the pictures in the National Portrait Gallery should be placed in the National Gallery, and he was happy to say that this principle had been conceded by the right hon, Gentlemen. For these pictures 2,200 linear feet would he necessary, hut in the present gallery there were only 1,500 feet. It was now promised that before anything was done a complete and comprehensive plan should be exhibited to the House; and he trusted that such would be the case. The piece of ground at present proposed to be taken would form part of what might afterwards be converted into a quadrangle by the purchase of the site of the barracks; but he believed that to the proposition to take the barracks there was some military objection which he could not understand. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would make it a sine qua non that the new gallery should be built de novo, and that nothing should be taken from the present structure. No patchwork whatever could convert the present Gallery into a creditable building worthy of the treasures it was to contain. The bequest of Turner alone had been valued at £400,000, and having such treasures of art, it was the duty of Parliament to provide a structure to contain them which should be a credit to the nation.

MR. COWPER

said, he had heard of no proposal to pull down Burlington House, and therefore the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Bowyer) was premature in his alarm. There was a proposal to build on the front of the courtyard, but that would leave Burlington House on one side of a quadrangle, and be the substitution of a building for a dead wall. With regard to the National Gallery, the hall had been useless for the purpose of exhibiting pictures, while the alterations made there had converted it into the only good gallery—seventy-one feet in length —to be found in the whole building. In the hands of a skilful architect that gallery would be turned to account and would be of use in constructing a new building. It would be a clumsy thing to pull down the present Gallery entirely; a good architect would leave great part of it standing, but transform it by additions into all that was desired. There might be a new facade, and a new building might be attached to the old building, which might be so altered and re-constructed that you would not know: it again. With regard to the discussion that had taken place, he was glad to see a different, and, as he thought, a wiser tone than in the debate of last year. It was true the Government had not got the most economical plan, but by reconstructing the present building in Trafalgar Square, and by the proposed extensions behind, they would, if successful in the architect they employed, secure a noble building, worthy of the treasures it was to contain. The Vote now before the House had no bearing whatever upon the building or the plan; it was therefore not a fair representation to speak of it as a piecemeal affair; it was confined to the preliminary step—the purchase of the site.

LORD ELCHO

said, he desired that there should be a clear understanding as to what it was proposed to do. Was it proposed to lay before Parliament next Session a plan or plans for the reconstruction of the old National Gallery?

MR. COWPER

said, that when the agreement had been made for the purchase of the site, the next step would be to bring before the House an estimate for whatever was to be erected upon that site. That would be the time to mention the plan. He would rather not give any pledge on these points, because the proper time to enter into the discussion of the plan was when the estimate was proposed for the building. At present the House was asked to decide whether the enlargement was to be at Trafalgar Square. If not, were they of opinion it should be at Burlington House? When that point was decided, then would come the estimate and the plan for the building to be erected there; and he had also stated that that plan would be made harmonious with the existing building, and would be treated, not piecemeal, but as a comprehensive measure.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, it was impossible to decide such a point until the plan was before the House. The first thing was to know what the Government meant to erect.

MR. COX

said, he wished to ask whether, if hon. Members voted now against the £20,000, it would be supposed they were voting in favour of the removal of the National Gallery to Burlington House?

MR. COWPER

It has been decided that there is to be an enlargement of the old building or the erection of a new one for the National Gallery, and as only two sites have ever been mentioned, I presume those who do not wish to have it at Trafalgar Square are for Burlington House. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cox) is for no enlargement of the old, and for no new building at all, he will vote against any grant whatever.

MR. LOCKE

said, he did not want to destroy the harmony of the evening; hut he should be extremely sorry if the Committee came to any vote which pledged Parliament to the erection of a new National Gallery "in harmony with the old one." It would be a dead failure, cost a great deal, and satisfy no one.

MR. AYRTON

said, he thought this discussion wholly unnecessary; it appeared to be carried on chiefly by Gentlemen who last year wished to remove the National Gallery from its present site, and being then defeated were now striving to hinder anything being done to improve the present building. The Government only asked now for the means to purchase land adjacent to the Trafalgar Square site, and expressed no opinion as to the mode in which it should be used, whether for a new design or for a modification of the present one. That was left a purely open question. He thought it fair to give the Government a Vote on Account, and enable them to get the land by agreement, if possible. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) said that the first thing must be the destruction of the present Gallery, and that then you must run about to find a place for the pictures. But what would be done would no doubt be first to erect all the rest of the quadrangle except the front, and lastly to pull down the Gallery which was now being used. At present, however, there was no plan before the House, so that there was no occasion to discuss these difficulties, Why the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) introduced a question that could not arise for five or ten years to come he could not conceive.

LORD ELCHO

said, he regretted the defeat of last year, but he accepted that defeat; and all he wanted to do now was to stop this jobbing, patchwork system. What the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) proposed was simply to continue the patchwork. ["No no!"] He (Lord Elcho) said "Yes, yes !"He was about to buy a piece of land behind the National Gallery to erect a building "in harmony with the existing building," and then at some other time—the hon, Member (Mr. Ayrton) said five or ten years—do something else with the present building. He was quite willing to vote the money now asked for on the understanding that the Government would undertake next Session to lay on the table of the House a large and comprehensive scheme for a new Gallery which should be worthy of the nation.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he had been much alarmed by an expression which fell from the right hon. Gentleman — namely, that a new building was to be erected "in harmony with the old one." That was exactly what the House did not want to see, and he, for one, hoped there would be no harmony whatever between the old and the new, but a complete design made with reference to the site and to the objects for which the building was required. This, however, was not now the question before the House, and they would have ample opportunity hereafter to protect themselves from any plan which was, objectionable. The present discussion was in substance, a renewal of the discussion of last year between the National Gallery on the one hand and Burlington House on the other. He very much preferred the site of the National Gallery, and was quite prepared to give his vote now in favour of the proposal to intrust the Government with this money for the purchase of the land, which was indispensable for the erection of a proper building on the present site. He should support the vote with the understanding that there would be as little harmony as possible between the old building and the new one, whatever it might be.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he was glad that Government had no intention of pulling down Burlington House. He was afraid that in course of time this fine building would be surrounded by buildings which would be a disgrace to it, but he hoped the words of Pope, in his address to Lord Burlington, would not be forgotten. Those words were— You, too, proceed! make falling arts your care, Erect new wonders and the old repair; Jones and Palladio to themselves restore, And be whate'er Vitruvius was before.

MR, TITE

said, that what was wanted was for the House to have the plan of the building first and the site could be chosen afterwards. He meant that the two things should go together. They might take steps to obtain the site, but at the same time pains should be taken to instruct the House as to the sort of building to be placed upon it. When compulsory powers were applied for to enable the Government to obtain the land behind the National Gallery, the architect should be prepared with designs of the building to be erected upon the site. He thought they had waited long enough for the building, and that there was no occasion to wait ten years more. If £20,000 would faciliate in any manner the proceedings of the Government in this important work he should support the vote.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was willing to vote the £20,000, but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had used language in his closing speech which seemed to commit the House to some sort of scheme which he had in his head as to the future building. That was not fair to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that when the Estimates were laid on the table there would be plans which would present the old building in a shape in which hon. Members would not know it. He did not want the House to be pledged to any transmogrification of that kind. There could be no harm in voting this £20,000, if it was laid out in land, which would be always worth its money; but he strongly protested against being committed to any cut and dried scheme of the right hon. Gentleman.

Vote agreed to.