HC Deb 23 July 1866 vol 184 cc1303-22
MR. BERESFORD HOPE,

in rising to move, pursuant to notice, that a new National Gallery be erected on the site of Burlington House, said, that although this was a stale topic, he hoped to make it as little of a bore as an art question could be made. In moving that the new National Gallery be erected on the site of Burlington House, he was only inviting the House to re-affirm that which was the opinion of Parliament until about two years ago. When, one evening in June 1864, in Committee of Supply, the then First Commissioner of Public Works obtained a vote which affirmed a contrary decision, and laid down the principle that a building in Trafalgar Square with the Carlton House pillars in front and barracks and a workhouse behind should be manipulated and converted into a new National Gallery, he ventured to say that the only argument which could now be adduced in favour of maintaining that position would be the argument of consistency. But considering how often that House had been called upon to discuss all sorts of artistic questions in connection with the National Gallery and the Royal Academy, and considering the totally different conclusions to which it had at different times arrived, he must say that the necessity of consistency in art questions was about as impudent an assertion as could be imagined. He would appeal to his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Works whether he did not remember the old adage which they had both learned at school, Sera nun-quam est ad bonos mores via, which he would venture to translate, "It is never too late for Manners to reform." The proposition he recommended to the House was that there was a certain area, at present not built upon, of the size, shape, and dimensions required, larger in extent than any of the great existing public galleries of Europe, already the property of the public, and on which a national gallery could be economically and speedily constructed. On the other hand, there was another area cut up by streets, covered by a workhouse, which could not be procured without an enormous outlay of money, covered also by barracks which could not be obtained in less than two years, nor be removed without great inconvenience to the State, and covered besides by schools and private houses. He called upon the House to say which of these two areas it was most desirable to occupy for the National Gallery. One was Burlington House Gardens, and the other the Gallery in Trafalgar Square and the buildings behind it, a Bill for the purchase of which had slipped through the House during the small hours of the morning, the last stage having been taken immediately after the successful Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Galway (Lord Dunkellin). The area which he called upon the House to sanction was the large oblong space behind Burlington House and occupied as its garden upon which a National Gallery might be built 280 feet long and 215 feet broad, leaving two ample roads east and west, so as to admit the passage of carriages, carts, &c., and to isolate it from neighbouring buildings, and avoid the risk of fire. It contained an area of 60,000 superficial feet for the whole building, equivalent to one of 42,000 feet for the gallery floors, after deducting partitions and lobbies. What was the great advantage of this site? It was necessary in a National Gallery to have a series of larger galleries and in connection with these of smaller chambers for the pictures exhibited, in which set of apartments there were two competing and contesting requirements to be provided for—ample space for circulation and sufficient wall-space for exhi- bition. He contended that this site would enable both those requirements to be met, on the evidence of a plan which had been prepared at the order of the Board of Works by architects of eminence (Messrs. Banks and Barry), and had been set aside in consequence of the vote of 1864. He was not there to be the advocate of any man, and so if he referred to this plan it was, not by way of forcing it on the House, but only to use it in proof of what might be done by competent persons. Burlington House itself had architectural merits. The screen to Piccadilly he would lighten and open, but he would preserve the curved colonnades. Then there were now at the sides of this court and beyond that colonnade two long and heavy buildings occupied by the Royal Society and the University of London, which he would by all means have improved. Burlington House itself would not need extensive alteration in its exterior, the inside being re-cast as a vestibule to the gallery behind, while on the gardens at present belonging to the house the architect would be able to give full play to his ingenious fancy. This consideration would, he believed, go far to meet the arguments of those who contended that in order to build a National Gallery on the site of the Burlington Gardens Burlington House would have to come down. Without entering into the controversy as to whether the windows of picture galleries should be sloping or perpendicular, tinted or plain, he was, he believed, expressing the general conviction when he stated that our galleries should be lighted from the top, with what the unlearned called skylights. A building of that description would require a sort of masking ornamental frontage, and for such a purpose Burlington House would suit admirably; while on the plan to which he had referred, it would be found that the main galleries took the shape of two large naves crossing at a central dome, with the angles filled up by smaller rooms, so as not to lose an inch of space. Of course, with skylights as the system of illumination, internal courts and well holes were not wanted, and the expense of external decorative elevations would be legitimately minimised in a structure possessing so little frontage. Indeed, this gallery would only need one new ornamental façade, that to the north, facing Cork Street and Saville Row. But the House would be surprised to hear the result of a few calculations which he had obtained. The first set of figures related to the linear feet—namely, the measurement of the walls all round—in certain galleries. The linear feet in the Louvre numbered 1,300; in the gallery at Berlin, 1,116; in the gallery at Dresden, 2,220; in the gallery at Vienna, 1,700; and in the old Pinacotek at Munich, 1,600—while our own, with that at South Kensington in addition, only reach 1,850. But at Burlington House 3,950 feet could easily be obtained. The surface flooring, too, of the present National Gallery, including the Royal Academy part of it, measured 9,550 feet, while at Burlington House it would reach no less an area than 42,000 feet. The figures which he gave to the House were from the plan of Messrs. Banks and Barry which he had previously mentioned, and showed to what advantage Burlington House might be turned. The wall surface of the present National Gallery gave only 16,200 square feet against 67,600 which might be obtained at Burlington House. So much for elbow-room, now as to cost. The adaptation of the Trafalgar Square site with the additional buildings which it would be necessary to purchase would involve an enormous expenditure of money, while everything that was requisite might be done on the Burlington House site for £200,000. The architects to whose figures he had been referring had estimated the cost at only £168,750, but £200,000 would give an ample margin even on that estimate, while the Gallery if fixed at Burlington House would receive additional importance from the historical recollections with which the place was connected, built as it was by so eminent a man, and immortalized by Pope and Gay. On the other hand, to get possession of the Trafalgar Square site it would be needful first to get, he believed at a price of —78,000, St. Martin's Workhouse, of which possession could not be obtained till October 1868. Then five houses and Archbishop Tenison's school would have to be bought, and finally the barracks would have to be appropriated and the soldiers sent elsewhere. He doubted whether any adaptation of the present National Gallery to the requirements of the nation, even after the purchase of the buildings in the neighbourhood, so as not to interfere seriously with an important portion of the London traffic, could be made in any manner which would not puzzle a whole board of architects and Chancellors of the Exchequer. It might be urged that the site of the present National Gallery was the one recommended by the Committee of 1853 and the Commission of 1857; but it should be remembered that at both these dates Burlington House had not become the property of the nation, and could not therefore be fairly brought into question as a possible site. The decision on those occasions was in reality given in favour of the site of the present National Gallery in its aspect of a westend position within London itself, as against the suburban claims of Kensington House and Gardens or Kensington Gore. On the other hand, the site of Burlington House was recommended by the Commission of four years ago, which sat upon the Royal Academy, after Burlington House had become public property, as possessing equal advantages, on account of its central situation, with the present National Gallery. It was certain that no National Gallery ought to be placed in such a position relative to the centre of the capital as to call upon people to make a solemn resolve before going to see the pictures. We had heard a great deal of the ease with which South Kensington would be reached when the network of Metropolitan Railways was completed. But this was not enough, the National Gallery should not be planted where it was easy to reach, it should stand where it was difficult not to pass by it. But the objection of distance from the haunts of traffic could not be urged against Burlington House any more than against the present National Gallery; while, at the same time, it would be just so much more retired as to avoid the umbrella and nursery-maid element, of which those who go to Trafalgar Square to study the pictures so frequently complain. Correlatively the rather less secluded and dignified associations of Trafalgar Square would contrast with the more popular and bustling character of a continually changing exhibition of contemporary pictures. The only objection which could be raised in reason against the Burlington House site must, he should think, be based upon a certain vote which his right hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) had ingeniously taken in the earlier portion of the Session. He believed, however, that his right hon. Friend would now record his vote in his favour when he reminded him of what was said by an eminent Member of the House two years ago in the debate which followed the proposal made at the time by the noble Lord the present Chief Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners.) Two years ago that Member, who was none other than his right hon. Friend himself, said that fixing the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square instead of at Burlington House was a retrograde step from which they never could recover. He thought it was a retrograde step; but, more sanguine than his right hon. Friend, he believed it was one from which they could recover. He hoped they would do so that night; but after such a statement, his right hon. Friend could not hesitate to lend a helping hand to settle this struggling and floundering question of the National Gallery. In the early part of this Session the minds of hon. Members were a good deal occupied with another matter, and votes were sometimes taken at the very ticklish time of between seven and eight o'clock, when hon. Gentlemen thought more of dining than they did of legislation. On one of those occasions a Vote of £10,000 was taken to put the London University on the site of Burlington House Garden. Some hon. Members who were present at the time, mastered sufficient presence of mind to protest against the Vote; but he did not suppose that if Demosthenes himself had come down his eloquence would have prevailed at that particular hour against the Motion. He had, however, some hope that the proposal to bring the London University to Burlington House would not be persevered in. In 1864 his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper), in replying to a question, said there was not much chance of finding accommodation for the London University at Burlington House without interfering with other objects. Now, if the buildings intended for the London University were placed in the north area of Burlington House Garden, there would be put there a building inadequate to cover the space, but at the same time sufficient to spoil that spot for a National Gallery, a purpose for which the site was otherwise eminently adapted. A picture gallery must be lighted from the top; and, therefore, it must be a building of one story, or of one story and a basement; but a building for the London University would require to be a series of examination halls, with offices for the transaction of business by officials, and it could therefore be any number of stories high, so that it was much easier to find a place for that structure than for a picture gallery, while it admitted of being more closely packed upon the ground which it covered. But if the erection of such a building would spoil Burlington House for a National Gallery, then to put the London University in Burlington House Garden would be to fix the right building in the wrong place, as there were plenty of spots both central and convenient which might be found for it—why not the Thames Embankment, or one of the new streets leading to it? As he understood certain observations which were made when the £10,000 was asked for, that was a Vote on Account, and there was a sort of pledge that nothing would be done towards erecting the building till the House saw the plan, which Mr. Pennethorne was preparing. Under these circumstances, he hoped his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works would acknowledge the pledge, not to carry out the project until the House had had the opportunity of seeing Mr. Pennethorne's design. Indeed, he thought the London University would do well gracefully to withdraw their claim on Burlington House. He did not indeed see why they should not put in a claim for the National Gallery or for the ground in the rear of Trafalgar Square if St. Martin's Workhouse was to be purchased. To remove the national collection to Burlington House would in no way prejudge the question as to the future location of the Royal Academy. Every one knew that the building in Trafalgar Square was hideous beyond comparison. At the same time they knew it was a long thin building, and that any additional beauty would have to be applied to the front. Going back as far as Leicester Square would not benefit the façade. Whether Trafalgar Square was the finest site in Europe or was not, it ought to be better occupied. Would it not, then, be better to improve the building that stood there out of some one else's money rather than out of our own? The Royal Academy were rich. Might not the building be leased to them on condition that they should improve it as much as possible out of their own funds? Any want of popularity of which the Royal Academy might have to complain arose, not from the fact of its being an Academy, but from the supposition that the Academicians did not do as much as they ought in proportion to their great advantages. He would not touch on that tangled question. It was one respecting which much might be said on every side; but if that House wanted the Royal Academy to do more, and thus rightfully win popularity, would it not be well that it should have some hold over that body such as lodging them in Trafalgar Square would tend to create? One argument put forward against handing the Gallery in Trafalgar Square over to the Royal Academy was that as they would have it open for only three months in the year, it was making an uneconomical use of the property; but there was nothing in that argument, because there might be an understanding that the annual exhibitions should last for four or more months, or that there should be other exhibitions in the course of the year, of sculpture for instance, or architecture, or art-workmanship. Besides, those who fell back upon that pretext forgot the schools which were at work while the show was closed. To say that there could be no other arrangement with respect to exhibitions than that which now existed, would be to bar any change or improvement by the stupidest of all arguments, that which deals with things as they are as if what was existing was therefore immutable. Still, the question before the House was one regarding the National Gallery, and not the Royal Academy, and ought to be treated with exclusive reference to the former institution. In conclusion, he asked the House to reverse the hasty and unfortunate decision of a Committee of Supply two years ago, and begged to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is desirable that a new National Gallery be erected on the site of Burlington House Gardens,"—(Mr. Beresford Hope,)—instead thereof.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

said, he thought it was a most unusual course for the hon. Gentleman to move a Resolution of this character when a Bill for maintaining the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square had not only passed that House, but had gone through Committee in the other House. As the Bill had been introduced by one Government, and was being proceeded with by another, both were equally committed to keeping the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. Certainly there was not a very great distance between Burlington House and Trafalgar Square; but the latter was decidedly the most central position that could be found in all London. That site had been called by the late Sir Robert Peel the finest site in Europe, and the most eminent statesmen, as well as the Commissioners who had considered the subject, had sanctioned it as the best for the National Gallery. A great agitation had been got up for months past by the Royal Academy in order that it might not be turned out of the building in Trafalgar Square; and that body had most assiduously instigated the hon. Member for Southwark, the hon. Member for Galway, and other hon. Gentlemen, to bring the matter before that House. The Royal Academy, as a quasi-private institution of painters, were at first admitted as suppliants to a portion of the National Gallery building which there were not enough pictures to fill. They were in no respect a State institution; but having now become prosperous, they who formerly were humble petitioners for the use of the vacant room actually wanted to oust the National Gallery and the national pictures altogether, and to occupy the whole of the building themselves. That was the real state of the case. There was no good ground for allowing the Royal Academy to have such a fine site and such a large building, or for making them so valuable a present. In fact, the Royal Academy required far less room than the National Gallery. The site of Burlington House was not very extensive, and, moreover, half of it had been give away, while the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford Hope) himself did not want to interfere with the buildings on the other portion. The University of London had actually received, by the vote of that House, a part of that site, and had commenced the erection of buildings; and, therefore, the present proposal of the hon. Gentleman sought to disturb the whole of a settled arrangement. On the other hand, there was good reason to suppose that if the National Gallery had only had proper accommodation for them, the presents made to the nation of pictures and other works would be enormous. What would French people say to any proposal to remove the collection of the Louvre to the Bois de Boulogne? He had the authority of Mr. Barker, a gentleman well known for the interest he took in works of art, and for his knowledge of them, for saying that he had been in communication with eminent architects on the subject, and that he had been assured that the expense of erecting a fine new building in Trafalgar Square, and converting the present structure into one that would do honour to the metropolis, would not exceed £200,000, which was the sum named by the hon. Member opposite as necessary for building at Burlington House. The hour could not be far distant when a communication would be made between Regent Street and the Strand, and then an opportunity would be afforded for placing at the back of the present National Gallery one of the finest buildings on one of the finest sites in the world. He therefore trusted that the Government would decide upon keeping to the site which had been chosen, and would not disturb the arrangements which had been made with the sanction of a Commission and also of that House.

MR. LAYARD

wished to say a few words on the subject, on behalf of himself and some of his colleagues who were trustees of the National Gallery. He was authorized to speak in the name of Mr. William Russell and Lord Overstone, as also in the name of Mr. Boxall, the Director of the National Gallery; and he must express his entire dissent from what had fallen from the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Seymour) as to the Royal Academy. He could state that he did not take up that question in the interest of the Royal Academy, which might go to Trafalgar Square, or it might not. But the question was, whether Trafalgar Square was the best place for the National Gallery; and after that point had been decided, they might then deal with the question as to the Royal Academy. In his opinion, and in that of the director and the majority of the trustees, Trafalgar Square was not the best site for the National Gallery. [In support of his assertion, the hon. Member read a letter, dated the 14th of June, from Mr. W. Russell, and then proceeded.] He thought that any gentleman who went into the National Gallery on a summer day, when the season was favourable for the experiment, would be of opinion that the atmosphere was most injurious to the pictures, and detrimental to those who had to study there. Some people misunderstood the object of a National Gallery. It was most desirable that the working classes should have access to the Gallery, but neither the British Museum nor the Na- tional Gallery was intended merely as a place to gratify curiosity, nor, as was the case until lately, as a place where the visitors could have luncheon. They were intended also for study. It was held by some that the Gallery should be open to the public every day. From that opinion he dissented. On the contrary, he thought that it would be sufficient to throw it open to the public three days, and to reserve the remaining three days for students. The site of Burlington Gardens was accessible, and, at the same time, sufficiently out of the line of the great thorough fares of the metropolis to prevent it becoming a place of general rendezvous for persons who had nothing to do. A very handsome building for the reception of the pictures now in the National Gallery might be built on that site, and there was sufficient space also for a sculpture gallery, without the necessity of pulling down Burlington House, which he admitted was a fine structure, though not of so high a character as the hon. Member attributed to it. It was contrary to usual practice to reverse a decision of the House, but he believed that many who were formerly opposed to the selection of the site of Burlington Gardens, were now convinced that it was the best site that could be chosen. He regretted that a noble Friend of his (Lord Henry Lennox), who used, when those subjects were under discussion, to twit him for being silent because he was subject to the restraint of office, was not present to take part in the debate. The noble Lord was now under restraint himself; but he knew the opinion of his noble Friend to be in favour of the removal of the national collection to Burlington House. He was surprised that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, or any friend of economy, should advocate the retention of the National Gallery in its present site; for in that case the existing structure must be pulled down, as it was not suited for the exhibition of pictures, and a new one must be built on an enlarged space, at a great expense for the purchase of the land; whereas the nation already possessed in Burlington Gardens a site which had been paid for. If the House decided upon rebuilding on the site of the present Gallery, no one, he believed, could venture to predict when they would have a suitable National Gallery.

MR. AYRTON

said, that he supposed the discussion would end in the withdrawal of the Motion, which he thought would never have been brought forward if the hon. Member for Stoke had been a Member of the last Parliament, and had heard the full discussion that was raised on this question, and the final decision which was then arrived at. The present proposal was that Burlington House should be turned into an edifice proper for the collection of our National pictures. He objected to the design on many grounds. The Government had offered to give to the Royal Academy a site at Burlington House, and the Royal Academy deliberately came to the conclusion to reject it, because it was inconvenient and unsuited for a building for the exhibition of pictures. That body ought certainly to be good judges of the fitness or unfitness of a site for a building intended for the exhibition of pictures, and yet it was now proposed that the National Gallery should be placed on the site which the Royal Academy had rejected, and that the present National Gallery should be given up to the Royal Academy. He believed that if the National collection was once turned out of the Gallery in Trafalgar Square it could not be located at Burlington House, but would be moved from place to place, and would ultimately find a resting-place at South Kensington. But the question of that site had been discussed over and over again, and the House had decided that the Collection should not be transferred there. In point of fact, for the last twenty-five years the House and the country had adhered to the one opinion that Trafalgar Square was the most suitable site for the National Gallery; and so settled was this conviction that Lord Palmerston, recognizing public opinion, as he usually did when it had once been definitely pronounced, asked the House to spend £17,000 in altering the National Gallery, so as to make it better adapted for the exhibition of the National pictures as soon as we could get rid of the Royal Academy as tenants. The money asked for was voted, but his hon. Friend, who was a master of art, said it had since been discovered that the National Gallery was so badly constructed and arranged that the only thing to be done was to pull it down. Now, somebody could be found to say the same thing of any building. But what guarantee was there that anything better would be obtained? Probably, if the course now suggested were taken, we should be just as badly off two or three years hence as we were now. Why not, then, rest content with what we had got? If ne- cessary, the Gallery might be enlarged, turning to account the additional space which had been obtained; and it would be time enough to pull down the present building when another had been built behind which fulfilled our ideas of perfection in art, and with which it was desirable that the existing structure should harmonize. Trafalgar Square was the most convenient site in London. He would leave art in the hands of those gentlemen who professed to understand all its principles, and to expound them for the edification of the House. But Charing Cross was most convenient of access from all parts of London, and it was an enormous advantage to have your picture gallery in the centre of the metropolis, where anybody could visit it in passing, instead of having to lose a whole day in searching for it. On this ground alone, if on no other, he should vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Stoke; and he thought that the House should adhere to its often expressed resolution on this subject and stand upon what had been done, instead of being led away by those who professed to have a fine taste for art.

MR. TITE

said, he was glad that the question before the House had been raised before it was too late, and if a division took place he should certainly vote with the hon. Member for Stoke. As to the argument drawn from conveniences of site, there could be little difference between Piccadilly and Charing Cross, as the one site was almost as central as the other. There was, on the other hand, an obvious economy in selecting the site of Burlington House, behind which a suitable building could be erected for a moderate sum, and a National Gallery thus secured, which would afford ample accommodation, not only for the present collection, but likewise for all the additions which were likely to be made to it for many years to come. The site in Trafalgar Square could then be handed over to the Royal Academy, who would make such changes as they thought reasonable and desirable, subject, perhaps, to the condition that the old façade, which was allowed to be an entire failure, should be amended. It was said that if this course were taken all that had been done must be undone. If, however, a mistake had been committed, it would surely be unwise to go on perpetuating that mistake? No doubt it was undesirable to continue changing your plans from year to year; life was not long enough for this. At the same time, a convenient opportunity seemed to have arisen for reconsidering the whole question; and, believing that it would be desirable so to reconsider the subject, he felt much obliged to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) for bringing it forward.

MR. T. BARING

said, be believed that successive Governments had been of opinion that the National Gallery should not remain as it was. All parties agreed that greater space was needed, together with a superior building for exhibiting the pictures, and sufficient space for such a building could not be secured there without great expense. No one who visited the National Gallery could dissent from that opinion. There was not room to exhibit pictures which might be acquired by purchase, by donation, or bequest. He should vote for the Resolution of the hon. Member for Stoke, because he believed that in the Burlington House site we should get a more suitable and a more economical gallery for our National collection of pictures than we now had. It was a great object to obtain a suitable gallery without much delay, and there could be no doubt that if the Resolution which was proposed two years ago by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and of which the trustees of the National Gallery unanimously approved, had been adopted, they would now be far advanced in obtaining a fitting place for the National pictures. The injury that arose from a vitiated atmosphere, and from a mixed concourse of visitors—some not of a very desirable class—might be comparatively slight in an exhibition that was open only for two or three months; but this was a more important consideration as affecting a permanent exhibition. On these and other grounds he maintained that the site of Burlington House was superior to that of Charing Cross. We had made one mistake, and it was too late to go back; but it was not too late to adopt the better and cheaper of the two alternatives that still remained.

MR. COWPER

said, he was deeply sensible that the House made a mistake in 1864 in this matter; but, at the same time, he feared that the House would not correct that mistake, but would make another if it adopted the proposition of the hon. Member for Stoke, which would involve another year's delay. He himself was anxious to make all the progress he could, and not to go back. The present state of the National Gallery was discreditable; there were pictures that could not be hung up for want of room; and if the Motion were adopted it would waste a year in addition to the interval since 1864. They had already passed a Vote of £128,000 for the purchase of the ground in the rear of the National Gallery, and they had made arrangements with the guardians of St. Martin's and the trustees of certain schools for the land they possessed, and further, they had given the London University a site at Burlington House, and voted a sum of money for building, and he thought it best to complete what had been begun. A comparison of the Charing Cross and the Burlington House sites gave no great advantage to either. Both were elegible, central, and afforded ample room for a National Gallery. When, however, in 1864, the Government gave a preference to Burlington House, they did so on the grounds of expedition and economy. The building might have been commenced immediately the Vote was passed; but no steps had then been taken to acquire the other site. It might be more economical to build on the Burlington House site as requiring only one ornamental façade, but the House was unwilling, for economy's sake, to place the National Gallery where it could hardly be seen. While it was an exaggeration to speak of Trafalgar Square as the finest site in Europe, it was the finest in London, and it was fitting that they should have a building there, of which the country would be proud. Two years would suffice for the Royal Academy to build on whatever site it might select, and the guardians of St. Martin's Workhouse had agreed to erect another building as soon as they could procure a site. We were now within two years of the possession of the whole building in Trafalgar Square, and of the land in the rear of it. He doubted whether the adoption of the Motion would enable them to build at Burlington House in less time. The Motion of the hon. Member for Stoke would defeat his darling object of preserving Burlington House; it must be pulled down if the site were selected for the National Gallery, and a larger and grander building must be substituted for that graceful dwelling-house. If the Royal Academy did not desire to make use of Burlington House it would be available for the London Uni- versity and the learned societies, who would now be inconvenienced if they could not use it. The cost of the Trafalgar Square scheme had been exaggerated. The amount of land purchased was an acre and a half; the present building stood upon an acre; and if it should become necessary the barracks at the rear could be appropriated, which would give a total of five acres. The land purchased cost £128,000, and that occupied by the National Gallery might be valued at £100,000. The Burlington House site was worth £200,000. The Burlington scheme was the cheapest, but the increased expenditure on the Trafalgar site would produce an architectural effect and a metropolitan improvement that was worth the money. He preferred to continue the course they had begun to a retrograde movement, and he therefore felt justified in opposing the Motion.

MR. GREGORY

said, that with reference to the statement that members of the Royal Academy had been soliciting hon. Members to take part in the debate with a view to keeping the Royal Academy in Trafalgar Square, he did not believe that any such application had been made to the Mover of the Motion. A very large proportion of the members of the Academy were in favour of accepting the proffered site of three and a half acres in Kensington, where they could build de novo, have ample space for exhibition, and get their schools open, without losing any considerable number of shillings. The Royal Academy had nothing to do with this Motion. The question they had now to consider had reference solely to the National pictures. The reason why the Royal Academy had refused the site of Burlington House was, that the Government had only offered a portion of it, and they found it would be necessary to have a larger space. For a National Gallery he thought the site of Burlington House infinitely better than the present. He did not object to the pictures being kept where they were on the ground of expense, for a question of £200,000, more or less, was not much, but he contended that they would have to spend £500,000 in Trafalgar Square, while they could have a better place for £150,000. As to the late Sir Robert Peel's preference for the present site, he would state that in May, 1850, that right hon. Baronet wrote to Mr. Russell, one of the trustees of the National Gallery, to the effect that he had misgivings whether it was the best site for their valuable pictures. A National Gallery was intended, no doubt, partly for the amusement of the people; but it was also intended for study; and, speaking as one who occasionally visited the National Gallery, he must say the sights one saw there were often by no means such as would conduce either to study or pleasure. They should be spared a great many of these inflictions if they went to Burlington House. Had they agreed to the proposal to remove to Kensington that place would now have been, or would soon be, as accessible as any other part of London, and a gallery might have been built there in a shorter time than anywhere else. No doubt it would be with regret if any interference took place with arrangements made at Burlington House for the London University; but he understood from his right hon. Friend that the London University had not yet approved the plan which had been submitted to them. It was not for him to point out any other site for the London University; but he had no doubt a place might be found for them which would entail no inconvenience. He could only say it would be found in the end that if Government acceded to this request we should in a comparatively short space of time have a gallery in which our fine collection of pictures might be exhibited in a proper manner; whereas if the pictures were retained where they are, several years must elapse before the exhibition could be properly carried out. The Royal Academy could not be in possession of their new structure before two years; and even after they had left their present apartments many alterations would require to be made with a view to the proper exhibition and security of the National pictures. It would be five or six years before the National pictures could be exhibited on their present site in a proper manner. If the present Motion were acceded to they could within a fixed and comparatively brief period carry out a plan which had already been investigated; if it was not acceded to the prospect was dim indeed.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, that the result of several deliberations was that the late Government had granted a site to the London University, in the grounds of Burlington House, and it would be a deliberate breach of faith towards one of the most useful institutions in the kingdom if that site were now to be taken away. Besides this, it was a retrograde step which was proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke, the House having already voted a sum of £20,000 for an erection on a site which he now proposed to deal with in quite a different way. He should therefore oppose the Motion.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he had listened attentively to the statements of the different Members who had spoken on this occasion, but he should not think it necessary to make many observations in reply. There was nothing new to be said on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman his predecessor in office had placed the question in a very clear and succinct manner before the House. He had to regret, on public and private grounds, that the hon. Member for Stoke had not brought forward his Motion in the last Parliament. The question could not well be re-opened, as the House had passed a Bill, and the other House had already passed the same Bill, for the purchase of ground, in connection with which certain arrangements had been made in reference to this subject of the National Gallery. He must say, with all deference to his hon. Friend, that far stronger reasons than he had alleged must be urged to induce the House at the fag end of the Session to reverse the decision which they had come to in former years no less than in the present Session. He had listened with great interest to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, who spoke with the authority due to a trustee of the National Gallery. But all he could gather from the speech of his hon. Friend was that the majority of the trustees would prefer a site that was less open to the public than the one now occupied at Trafalgar Square. They wished for a site that was more secluded—that was less open to the intrusion of people who were there not with the most artistic motives, and they thought that their object would be gained by removing the Gallery to the site of Burlington Gardens. He might say the same thing with respect to the remarks of his right hon. Friend who complained of the deleterious influence of the smoke of the metropolis. But so far as the injury caused by smoke was concerned, he might remind the House that in a few years if the present rate of building went on, the same objection would apply to Burlington Gardens that was applied to Trafalgar Square. They all knew that the smoke nuisance was the course of being greatly abated. He therefore could not attach much importance to that argument. If any weight were to be attached to that argument he must say that the conclusion to which he came was not that the site of the National Gallery should be removed to Burlington House, but to South Kensington, in accordance with the opinions of Sir Edwin Landseer, Lord Houghton, and other authorities on the question. With respect to other arguments used by hon. Gentlemen, they might be summed up under the head of economy and the necessity of maintaining faith with other public bodies. Now, as regarded the question of economy, his hon. Friend, pinched by the argument that the London University had an equitable claim to accommodation from the Government, actually proposed to meet that claim by purchasing the site which the Government proposed to purchase at the rear of the present National Gallery for the purposes of the London University. But he (Lord John Manners) thought that his hon. Friend would find on examination that there would be no economy in that purchase and the new buildings it involved. By taking £200,000 for the erection of the National Gallery in Burlington Gardens, £128,000 for the purchase of the ground in the rear of the existing National Gallery, and £60,000 or £70,000 as the cost of erecting a new London University, a very considerable sum total would be arrived at. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway, pinched by the same argument, had proposed that the London University should be called upon to emigrate to South Kensington. Well, but was the Senate of the London University to have any voice in the matter? [An hon. MEMBER: No.] No, but when it was proposed to move other bodies to different sites, it was found that they exercised a very considerable voice in the matter; and he would not undertake, after all the promises that had been made to the London University by the late Government, to treat them in the cavalier fashion that was proposed by the hon. Member for Galway. The speech of the hon. Member for Bath, he must say, was quite as much in favour of the proposition of the late and the present Government, as it was in favour of the hon. Member for Stoke. The hon. Member knew very well that there were various public bodies that had claims to accommodation from the Government. He wanted to know what was to become of the Royal Society and other learned bodies which had been hitherto very comfortably provided for in Burlington House, if the Burlington Gardens' site were now to be selected for the National Gallery, if the proposition of the hon. Member for Stoke was agreed to. The hon. Member for Stoke seemed to argue as if Burlington House would still remain intact. But the House would be under a great delusion if they supposed that after the National Gallery was removed to Burlington Gardens, Burlington House could be preserved intact. If the Gallery was erected in the gardens, it would be necessary to make an immense passage through Burlington House as an approach to the National Gallery, and that would unhouse the various learned societies at present provided for there. To procure other accommodation for those learned societies would add some £60,000 or £70,000 to the expense; and the grand total would be by no means pleasing to those who studied economy. The other matters which had been referred to were so completely discussed in the course of the debates upon the subject in 1864, that he would not weary the House by again touching upon them. Her Majesty's Government had not changed their opinion from the time when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to extend the accommodation for the National Gallery on the existing site, and he rejoiced to think that their predecessors in office had at last taken a similar view. He would only express a hope that the House would adhere to its original decision, again endorse the views of the Government and their predecessors in office, and finally settle the long pending question by declaring in favour of the present magnificent site for the National collection of pictures.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 17: Majority 77.