QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 11 July 1884)

THE EARL OF ANNESLEY
, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they would take into their consideration the necessity for providing proper and fireproof accommodation for the National Portrait Gallery? said, that the general opinion was that, in its present condition, this Gallery was in imminent danger of being totally burnt down. It was not built originally for the purpose of a National Portrait Gallery, and was so flimsy a structure that the pictures were receiving great damage. A short time ago he was in the Gallery with a very distinguished authority on Art, whom he asked to look at one of the pictures by Lawrence. He examined it with great care, and said that it was crumbling away, and directed his attention to several spots where the paint was dropping off the canvas. On inquiry he found that that was the case with many other pictures. As he had said, the building was flimsily constructed, and when a number of people were walking in it the whole shook, and the motion affected the pictures. That there was imminent danger of fire was manifest. The approach from Exhibition Road was a long, narrow structure of wood, inside of which was a collection of desks and chairs. In the Report of the Trustees of 1880 was this paragraph— The Trustees think it their duty to point out that the temporary entrance which constitutes 811 at present the only approach to the Gallery leaves much to be desired in regard both to convenience and safety. It consists of a low, narrow passage leading from Exhibition Road, constructed entirely of wood, with weather-hoarding for the sides, raised on piles of wood which are exposed to all kinds of mischief from the outside. Among these piles rubbish and broken packing cases, paper, and straw have been allowed to accumulate. These passages are not only unsightly themselves, but placed in dangerous contiguity with other wooden buildings close below certain apertures in the walls of the National Portrait Gallery. A single spark struck by one of the crowd of visitors passing through these passages to evening concerts at the Albert Hall, might, in a few moments, reduce the Gallery and its contents to a heap of ruins. And the Trustees added, in concluding the Report— Should any accident ever occur from the above causes, they trust that they would, by having drawn attention to them, be freed from all responsibility in the matter. That was in 1880, and since then nothing had been done. He would quote a few lines from the Report of 1881 to show, not only that there was danger, but that a fire had actually occurred there. The Report said— Early on the morning of Friday the 28th of January, after a continuance of very cold weather, when a considerable accession of heat had been required, the flue became red hot and set fire to inflammable materials accumulated round the base of it in communication with a wooden platform that extended to the flooring of the lower western gallery and the foot of the spiral staircase before mentioned. Happily the watchman at the moment of perceiving a dense smoke gave alarm, and by the prompt assistance of the Museum officials the fire was checked. He believed it was by a mere accident that the Gallery had not been burnt down. He would read a short extract from a letter he had received from the Curator of the Gallery, whom he had asked as to some of the facts he had mentioned. The Curator said— While I was writing to you yesterday afternoon, a huge deposit of planks, shavings, and empty wooden boxes, ready to burn at the smallest spark and fly through the air, was shot down out of carts in the corner of the grounds just under the Board Room windows. The Trustees who were responsible if a conflagration broke out were Viscount Hardinge (Chairman), the Lord President of the Council for the time being, the Marquess of Bath, the Earl of Derby, Lord Ronald Gower, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Lord do L'Isle and Dudley, 812 Lord Lamington, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Beresford Hope, Sir Coutts Lindsay, Sir Richard Wallace, the Dean of Westminster, and the President of the Royal Academy for the time being. He very much doubted whether it was of advantage to the Gallery that a large number of the Trustees should be gentlemen with an enormous amount of business to attend to, and, as he should imagine, with very little time to devote to the affairs of the Gallery. How was it to be expected that the Prime Minister, or the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for instance, would have time to attend to their duties as Trustees? Speaking in the House of Commons on March 5, 1878, Mr. Beresford Hope had said— These refreshment sheds, these temporary ebullitions of the Exhibition of 1862, were constructed—cheap, nasty, and rapidly—of the most inflammable materials possible. … The floor is made of rough wood—so rough that it never can be washed down or cleaned; and the consequence is that there is a perpetual cloud of insidious dust rising from it, to the very great detriment of the pictures, which are plainly suffering from it. Not one of those arrangements which modern science has, with eager emulation, being following in the Galleries of London, Vienna, Dresden, and all over the world—not one of those appliances can in the most rude, rough, rudimental way be applied to our Gallery. … So far as mere arrangements go, they are very inconvenient. But beyond that inconvenience, there is this risk—which really is almost too painful to dwell on—of immediate and perfectly helpless destruction."—(3 Hansard, [238] 766–7–9.) That was six years ago, and perhaps his noble Friend opposite, when he came to reply, would use the argument that as they had lasted for those six years, there was no reason why they should not go on. He would, however, put it to their Lordships whether it was not a disgrace to Her Majesty's Government and to this great and wealthy nation that this collection of portraits, which, if destroyed, could never be replaced, should remain in their present condition? Without any intention of going into statistics he would like to call their Lordships' attention to the fact that since the opening of the National Portrait Gallery, upwards of 1,000,000 people had visited it, which showed that an interest was felt in it by the country. Probably the noble Lord would tell them that there was no money for the purpose; but he maintained that it was the duty of the country to find money for such a purpose. If the 813 Trustees were to follow the example of distinguished agitators across the water and make themselves disagreeable to the Government, they might be able to get something done. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.

§ VISCOUNT HARDINGE
agreed with the noble Earl that the buildings of the National Portrait Gallery were utterly unsuitable for the exhibition of pictures. With the exception of the top galleries, all the lights were side lights. While he was quite prepared to admit that there was great risk of fire, the Trustees did not hold themselves responsible, because they had from time to time called the attention of the Board of Works to the different risks that might occur to the building. He was bound to say that on every occasion upon which they had made recommendations to the Board, the Board had readily and promptly come forward, and, as far as they could, attended to the wishes of the Trustees. The noble Earl was in error when he said that nothing had been done. When they had called the attention of the Board of Works to the danger of the entrance corridor, the Board had taken steps to provide against the risk of fire by building a brick wall, presumably fireproof, which would shut out the National Portrait Gallery from the Health Exhibition, and also constructing iron doors to prevent fire from spreading from the entrance corridor, which was made of wood. As to the eastern end, a solid brick wall had been built up, so that there was no chance of another fire occurring. They had called the attention of the authorities to the cooking, and to the heaps of boxes near the building; but all they had achieved was that there was to be nothing of the kind within 60 yards of the building. Having drawn the attention of the authorities to the matter, they did not hold themselves responsible for any accident that might occur. With regard to the wooden corridor from Exhibition Road to the principal entrance of the Gallery, he thought that it was high time that it should be abolished, if they could not get a better Gallery altogether. The present was one entirely unworthy of the nation. The present First Commissioner of Works was not indisposed to comply with their wishes as far as he could; but they all knew the difficulty in regard to funds in 814 which officials were placed. With regard to the circumstances of the Board of the Gallery, he could assure the noble Earl that he was mistaken in supposing that the members of the Board were not able to spare some time for their duties upon the Board. The attendance was very good, the Prime Minister himself taking a great interest in the Gallery. In conclusion, he hoped that at no very distant date the Government would see their way to providing buildings for the accommodation of this national and interesting Collection.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
said, that, as one of the Trustees of the Gallery, he had several times called attention to the matter; and it had always surprised him that, with the taste for Art which was conspicuous in the Leader of that House and in the Prime Minister, nothing had been done to remedy the defects in this National Portrait Gallery.

§ LORD SUDELEY
In reply to the noble Earl, I have to state that there can be no doubt that the building in which the splendid collection of national portraits is now placed is not one which would be chosen for a permanency, and there are many objections both to the building and to the site. The noble Earl urges that it is not fireproof, and that there is great danger from fire. In saying this I believe he rather exaggerates the danger. The building is not actually fireproof; but it must be remembered that there are very few of the great Picture Galleries, either here or on the Continent, which are fireproof; even the National Gallery is only partly so, and that to a very limited extent. On the other hand, every precaution has been taken in the National Portrait Gallery to prevent danger from fire. The Report quoted by the noble Earl is a very old ono—1880—and since that time, as stated by the noble Viscount the Chairman of the Trustees (Viscount Hardinge) nearly all the recommendations of the Trustees have been carried out. Brick fireproof walls have been put at each end, isolating the galleries. Solid iron doors have been substituted for the wooden doors, and these, are shut, I believe, at 4 o'clock. The building is heated by hot water, except the Board Room, which has a fireplace, and the furnaces and flues are removed away from the building. There is also no gas. All fear of fire arising in the 815 building itself is, therefore, removed. The noble Viscount the Chairman of the Trustees has referred to the entrance-passage being of wood, which certainly is to some extent an element of risk, though it is considered doubtful even if it caught fire if the flames could penetrate the iron fireproof doors. The cooking buildings of the Health Exhibition are kept at a distance of 85 feet, and are themselves erected in fireproof buildings. The First Commissioner will be very happy to consider any suggestion which the Trustees may wish to make, and is at the present time considering how far it might be desirable, if there is really any danger, to substitute a corrugated iron passage for the present wooden entrance. The noble Earl has stated that the pictures are getting damaged by the walls shaking. I can only say that I believe no mention of this has been made by the Trustees; and if it is the case, it is clearly a matter for the Trustees to take active steps about. The Government would very much like to erect suitable fireproof buildings and in a more convenient position nearer to Parliament Street; but, unfortunately, owing to the large number of public buildings now being built, they do not see their way at present to incur the large expense which would be necessary.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, it had been assumed on both sides during the discussion that there was such a thing as a fireproof building. He had a great idea there was no such thing.

§ VISCOUNT HARDINGE
remarked that the National Gallery could hardly be said to be fireproof. He had been told that the flooring in the new portion now to be erected was fireproof.