CLASS IV.—SCIENCE AND ART. (Hansard, 27 February 1888)

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)
said, he very much objected to this Vote. Perhaps, the hour being late, some arrangement could be made allowing for a discussion upon the Report stage. This expenditure seemed to arise from the desire of somebody to add two or three trumpery pictures to the National Collection over and above the large sum annually devoted to purchases.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)
said, he thought this Vote demanded some discussion and explanation. In last year's Estimates, as presented to the House, no sum whatever was asked for the purchase of pictures, and on the 23rd of August—quite at the end of the Session, as his hon. Friend would recollect—there was a somewhat lengthened discussion of the matter, when his hon. Friend stated that a Supplementary Estimate would be necessary for the purpose. But his hon. Friend said most distinctly, as would be found on reference to the report of his words—and they were in answer to the hon. Member 1591 for Kirkcaldy—his hon. Friend said the money had not yet been handed over by the Treasury; but, so far as any expenditure by the National Gallery Trustees was concerned, he would undertake to say that they had not spent any of the fees received from the public, which might be estimated as amounting to £15,000 before the end of the financial year. Then his hon. Friend went on to gay that no expenditure for the purposes of the National Gallery would be incurred until the money had been voted by the House. Yet, looking over the Estimates, it appeared that the National Gallery had spent the sum of £676. He was not aware whether these pictures had yet been exhibited; perhaps his hon. Friend could say? It was rather hard, however, to press his hon. Friend upon these matters, because the functions of his Office were so multifarious, it could hardly to be expected that he should be acquainted with the working of the National Gallery, and might be unable to say whether the pictures had been exhibited or not. Speaking as one of the public, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) should take strong exception to the expenditure of money on this particular purpose, following out in this considerations and arguments he had placed before successive Secretaries of the Treasury, that the money devoted to pictures should be expended only on first-rate works of art, and not spent in acquiring possession of pictures which might gratify the particular fancies of the Director of the National Gallery, but which could be of no great interest to the public. He doubted if his hon. Friend or any other Member of the Committee was familiar with the name even of the painter, Mocetto. For the information of his hon. Friend he might say that this artist was an Italian painter whose works were of great rarity, few if any of his examples being known. It was rather a strong measure to give £250 for these panel pictures, which he had not yet seen, but which, before the Report came on, he would endeavour to see. Next in the list came a picture to which he imagined no exception would be taken; but then last came a "Dutch portrait by a painter unknown." He, for one, as representing the taxpayers of the country, altogether objected to any sum of money being expended on pictures by unknown 1592 painters. He did not care whether it was £50,000 or 50d., and he would be borne out, he knew, by a large portion of the public and also some of the Trustees of the National Gallery, who were opposed to the purchase but were outvoted. He would say again what he had frequently repeated in the House—the expenditure in buying pictures should be directed only to the acquisition of first-class works of art, and not buying pictures by unknown painters, even though for small sums.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
said, he was afraid his right hon. and learned Friend had not left him much time to answer his questions. He would not venture in the face of so high an authority to question a judgment on a work of Art, but when his right hon. and learned Friend admitted that he had not seen the pictures, he did somewhat discount the value of his own criticism. As to what was said last year, he then endeavoured to explain that in consequence of the Vote having been suspended for some years, in order to pay off the expenditure which had exceeded the annual average, nothing was put down in the Votes last year. He endeavoured to explain that an appeal having been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury had consented to hold a sum of money at the disposal of the Trustees of the National Gallery, but not as money to be expended this year; so it happened that this sum now asked for was in anticipation of the Vote to be taken next year, and by so much would the amount of £2,000 which would have been placed at the disposal of the Gallery next year be reduced.