RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 9 June 1881)

§ MR. COOPE
moved the following Resolution:— That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that immediate steps be taken to carry out extensions to the National Gallery, so as to afford sufficient accommodation for the present collection, and for probable future additions. 142 The work of extension, he remarked, was absolutely necessary, and could be carried out at comparatively little expense. There was at the disposal of the Government space at the rear of the National Gallery; and as it was only the first floor that required enlargement, the new building could be erected on iron columns, so as not to interfere with the present use of the space as an exercise ground for the soldiers in the neighbouring barracks Owing to the present want of accommodation, the Trustees of the Gallery were not able to expend to the best possible advantage the sum of £10,000 placed at their disposal for the purchase of works of art which would enrich the National Collection. There was also an observation that might be made as far as their choice was concerned. The most recent purchase was the "Viergel and Rochers," by Leonardo da Vinci, which, in the opinion of those well qualified to judge, was in a very different condition to that in which it left the easel of that master—a replica of which picture was now in the Louvre—and the sum given by the Trustees was £9,000. About 10 years since a painting, supposed to be by Rembrandt, of "Christ and the little Children," was purchased for the large sum of £7,000, which had turned out to be spurious, and was described in the Gallery as "of the School of Rembrandt," and was a very inferior production. Some years ago a painting by Mr. Ward was presented to the National Gallery by Lord Ribblesdale, but the Trustees came to the conclusion that it would occupy too large a space, and it was handed over to the British Museum, by the officials of which it was relegated to a vault, in which it remained for some years. On the representation of Mr. Ward that his first picture ought to have been placed in the National Gallery, it was decided to return the picture to the representatives of Lord Ribblesdale. And what happened? The Trustees of the National Gallery afterwards purchased that same picture, which had been presented to the nation and returned, for a sum of £1,500. In point of economy he appealed to the Government to extend the Gallery, as he believed that, however it might he extended, it would soon be filled by bequests from those who were possessed of rare works of art. On former occasions he had brought the subject before the 143 House, and acknowledged that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury fell in with his views, though not to the full extent, by admitting the public to the Gallery on the two students' days. He thought that the fee charged on those days for admission ought to be abolished, and that the public should be admitted, not at 12 o'clock, but at 10 o'clock. He believed that the more the public had the advantage of seeing such works of art as the building contained, the more their taste would be raised. A great deal was said at the present moment of the necessity for technical education; but he contended that by encouraging the people, especially the working classes, to see the glorious works of art in the possession of the country, they would raise their powers of design and enable them to compete more effectually with the work of foreign countries. He would further suggest that during the winter months the National Gallery should not be closed at 4 o'clock, but that it should be lighted by electricity—as that House was about to be—on certain days of the week; a step which would be the means of affording recreation and improvement to the large class on whose behalf he brought the subject forward. He had not met with as much support in this matter from the authorities as he had hoped for, and, probably, the fact was owing to the constitution of the Trustees. That Body consisted of six noblemen and gentleman, two of whom were engaged in diplomatic service abroad; a third was incapacitated from acting by ill-health for the last two or three years; so that, in fact, the management of the Gallery was left to three Trustees and the Director. The extension for which he now ventured to ask should recommend itself in an economic point of view, because the Government might withdraw the present grant of £10,000 a-year, and, by affording the necessary space, secure bequests of works of the highest merit from private owners and collectors. The English School of Art was rapidly gaining ground abroad; the taste for art was increasing in this country; the growing interest in the National Gallery was shown by the greatly increased and increasing number of visitors; and he therefore hoped, for the reasons he had given, that Her Majesty's Government would accept his Motion, and thus con- 144 fer a great benefit, not only on the Metropolis, but upon the people at large.

§ MR. M. SCOTT
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, the success which had attended the experiment suggested by his hon. Friend, of admitting the public to the Gallery simultaneously with the students when copying the pictures, entitled his hon. Friend to speak with authority on this matter; but he should be sorry to follow him into the Lobby with this Motion, because he did not think that the extension of the National Gallery was a question upon which the House ought to be divided as against the Motion for Supply. He trusted, however, that the Government would give the House an assurance that it was one which engaged their attention, for there could be no doubt that an extension of the Gallery, if not now needed, would very soon become absolutely necessary. With reference to the pictures in the National Gallery—a collection of the greatest interest, the more so, perhaps, because of its limited size—he should not be in favour of an undue or rapid accumulation of them. On the contrary, he should not be afraid of weeding out some of them in order to give room for others of a more representative character. He would only express a hope that the Motion of his hon. Friend would receive the favourable consideration of the Government.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
quite admitted the importance and interest of this question; but the hon. Member who brought it forward was mistaken if he supposed that nothing had been done for the extension of the National Gallery within the last few years. Very considerable sums had been voted, not only for the purchase of land, but for buildings to be erected upon it. Between 145 1868 and 1876, £64,000 was paid for land, in addition to £97,000 for buildings on the land. Within a few weeks a representation had been received from the Trustees of the National Gallery that the time was approaching when it would be desirable to consider whether further extensions should not take place. The matter would receive the attention of the Government; but he could not at present pledge them as to the course which would, be taken. Other demands, in respect of new buildings for Public Departments, involving a serious expenditure, must, at the same time, be considered. Considerable additions must be made to the accommodation of the Post Office in London, the War Office, the Admiralty, the Patent Office, and the National Portrait Gallery. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member would not expect the Government at the present moment to give a decided answer to his proposal. He did not think it necessary to follow the hon. Member in his comments on the administration of the National Gallery, which he thought hardly consistent with the Motion he had made. If the Trustees were spending the annual grant in buying pictures which were unworthy of the National Gallery, there would be little use in its extension; but he thought the hon. Member was mistaken in some of the cases to which he alluded. He was not aware of the Ribblesdale picture—it was the first time he had heard of it; but with regard to the picture of Leonardo da Vinci, bought from Lord Suffolk, he believed the universal opinion was that it was an extremely valuable one, and had been a most desirable addition to the National Gallery. For a picture of such rare quality, of course, a considerable sum must be paid. If valuable pictures came into the market, it was most desirable that the Trustees of the National Gallery should be in a condition to purchase them. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. SclaterBooth) that quality rather than quantity should be considered; and whether it might not be desirable to weed out a few might be worthy of consideration. But, if so, would it be necessary for a short time to make considerable additions to the National Gallery? That was a point on which he should be sorry to express any definite opinion. In the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Gentle- 146 man would be satisfied with the answer he had given.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
thought the pictures in the National Gallery were a great credit to the nation. They were of the utmost value. He only wished the public could derive greater advantage from their exhibition. There was an increasing demand for art, and all the people in our great cities were crying out for it; but in London, at all events, we did not seem to make the best of the opportunities we had for instructing the people in it. He, therefore, thought the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Coope) had done well to bring the subject forward. There had been no progress with the Gallery during the last 15 years.