100 LATE! we fancy we hear exclaimed by quite a chorus of voices, the question of the National Gallery site is already decided. The Government, through their Chief Commissioner of Public Works, has announced it, and Parliament has sanctioned the decision by a grant of public money. All this, no doubt, is true, or seemingly so; and yet we cannot admit that the case is absolutely hopeless-that any step has yet been taken in this important matter which may not, without serious inconvenience, be retraced; and as we think we can show cause why the present decision should not stand, we claim to be heard. We are the more emboldened to make this effort, because, having watched these proceedings with some attention, we feel thoroughly assured this question has never yet been publicly discussed fairly on its merits; that there has always been some sinister influence at work to warp the decisions arrived at - some consideration other than the true interests of the institution most concerned. At one time it was the 'pet scheme' of an illustrious personage which was to be thwarted; at another, an obnoxious clique was to be snubbed; and at another, an unpopular body was to be ousted from a portion of a public building. Even on the last occasion when the question was before the House of Commons, although the condemnation of the Government proposal in itself is not to be regretted, the object of the majority seemed rather to snatch a party triumph than to promote a great public end. As time rolled on, however, changes have been taking

place. Some of the old antagonisms have died out, or given way to juster ideas; while another generation has been rising up, and a new race of men entering public life. From this altered and better state of things, we derive hope that even. now, late as it may appear, an appeal to reason and common sense in this question of the National Gallery site, will not be wholly without effect. Before, however, entering upon our argument, it is necessary, for its due effect, to briefly trace, in its more leading features, the history of this question from its early beginnings. Much of this information will probably be new, and may not be without instruction to many, at least among the younger portion of our readers. There never was, perhaps, a question regarding the mere placing of a public building which has been so long and so obstinately contested. The period from which our own acquaintance with the subject dates may be inferred from the following passage from the pages of this Magazine, penned full thirteen years ago:

In regard to the history of this now popular institution, our memory carries us back to a very remote period, in short to its origin: when that amiable nobleman, the late Lord Bessborough, then Lord Duncannon, in almost apologetic accents, announced to a reformed House of Commons that a certain collection of pictures which had been purchased for the nation by the late king,

was in an old house in Pall Mall, about to be pulled down; and that it had become necessary to consider what was to be done with them; and how some suggested one thing, and some another; some were for removing them to the banqueting room at Whitehall, while some thought they might find a fitting place in the king's mews at Charing Cross, which had lately been vacated by the cream-coloured horses :A speech which of course caused

great laughter. And this was the beginning of our National Gallery! The King's Mews was at length decided on for the local habitation of our infant institution. And then came Mr. Wilkins' building. At first it was proposed that it should have a stucco front, after the fashion of Regent Street; but the bright idea of using up the old columns of Carlton House for a portico to the new gallery, favouring the economic notions then prevalent, determined the more ambitious design, afterwards carried into effect, and with which the public eye is now familiar.

So it may be seen we are veterans in the cause, and whatever may be thought of the wisdom of such devotion to a service in which we had no personal object whatever, or interest of any kind, beyond a desire to see a good thing done in the right way, we think we are at least entitled to some credit for constancy. But to pursue our subject. We need not dwell upon that obscure period of its history, when public men had yet but a dim perception of the meaning and importance of a national gallery of art-the days of honest Joe Hume, with his chronic antagonism towards the Royal Academy; and of the chivalrous but somewhat pugnacious Sir Martin Shee, who was ready to defend, even to the extremity of mortal combat, the institution of which he was the worthy president. Passing over this dark age, and taking up the thread of our narrative about the year 1848, we find that a Select Committee of the House of Com

mons

was appointed to consider the question of the permanent site of our National Gallery. This committee, of which the late lamented Lord Carlisle was chairman, reported in favour of the present

site, notwithstanding some very strong evidence taken before it as to the injurious effects of the locality upon the pictures from atmospheric and other causes, the principal grounds of the recommendation being 'the commanding nature of the site itself, and its accessibility and nearness to the chief thoroughfares and centres of business.' This was followed by an announcement in Parliament from Lord Russell, who was then, as now, Prime Minister, that it was the intention of the Government to act upon the recommendation of the committee. Things were in this state when a pamphlet1 appeared which attracted some attention at the time, and, judging from the turn which the matter subsequently took, was not without effect. This pamphlet, to which we shall have occasion to refer more particularly further on, commenced as follows:

To controvert the recommendations of a Committee of the House of Commons, and openly question the soundness of a decision of Her Majesty's Government, founded on these recommendations; a decision, too, more than once repeated in his place in Parliament by the first Minister of the Crown, must, I am aware, appear in one without personal weight or authority, a bold, if not a presumptuous proceeding.

tures were exposed, from atmospheric and other causes, in their then and present locality, will be noticed when we come to deal with the question more in detail. Following the course of events, the next point that attracts our attention is the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry, with the same object, composed of the late Sir Charles Eastlake, Professor Faraday, and Mr. William Russell, and the concurrence of their report with the conclusions of the previous committee, as to the injury to which the pictures were exposed from the causes before specified. Government seemed now to have determined upon its line of action, so far, at least, as the reversal of its former decision, and the removal of the National Gallery. The question then arose, for the first time, as to the selection of a new site; and, with a view to assist in determining this point, a Royal Commission was appointed, over which Lord Seymour (now Duke of Somerset) presided. This commission made their report to Parliament in 1851; and in this report we find, in reference to the choice of site for the new National Gallery, the following conditions laid down 'as indispensable :'

1. An isolated position where the gallery may be secured from obstructions of light and air by neighbouring buildings.

2. A site which may be easily accessible to visitors resorting thither on foot, or in the public conveyances.

The Report then points to Kensington Gardens as presenting many advantages, and darkly hints at another site in the neighbourhood which might be obtained by purchase. This last proved to be the Kensington Gore estate, afterwards bought by the Royal Commissioners of the Great Exhibition of 1851, and which, under their second charter, formed the commencement of those extensive acquisitions of land in conjunction with it, which they afterwards effected; and in which not

only the large balance of 170,000l. remaining on hand after the Exhibition was expended, but also a great part of a grant of 150,000l. obtained from Parliament through the Government of the day, Mr. Disraeli being then Chancellor of the Exchequer. To this grant was annexed the condition that the Commissioners should furnish on the land so acquired a site for the new National Gallery.

We now come to another Select Committee of the House of Commons, the one of which Colonel Mure was chairman. It was appointed in 1853

To inquire into the management of the National Gallery; and also to consider in what mode the collective monuments of antiquity and fine arts possessed by the nation may be most securely preserved, judiciously augmented, and advantageously exhibited to the public.

This committee took some very valuable evidence, and the conclusion they arrived at will be best given in their own words, as follows:

The

Resolved, that the site of the present National Gallery is not well adapted for the construction of a new gallery-that the estate at Kensington Gore, purchased by the Royal Commissioners of 1851, and by them offered to the nation, presents many of the advantages recommended by the witnesses before your Committee. position which has been suggested, at the extremity of Kensington Gardens, would afford a better guarantee for the future protection of the works of art there collected, from the evils incident to a crowded neighbourhood, and would improve the opportunity of erecting an edifice worthy of the purpose: but your Committee are fully aware that the acquisition of such a site is attended with difficulties they see no adequate means of removing; and in consequence they are prepared to recommend the acceptance of the offer of the Commissioners.

We beg the reader to note the passage marked in italics, as we shall have occasion again to allude to it.

A long and unhappy interval now occurs in our history, owing to the Crimean war, and it was not until the year 1856 that we find the Royal

Some of these names will be read with sad interest; and we naturally ask ourselves, can the great scheme, marked out under such high sanction, be nothing more now than a confused mass of fragments? But we must proceed with our historic sketch. We find the Commissioners, at this time, turning their attention to the apportionment of the ground they had acquired with such persevering endeavour and cost. In their second Report this important consideration is briefly alluded to, as may be seen in the following extract:

sioners,

The question of the apportionment of the ground among the different institutions to be erected on it, or of its division between the Government and the Royal Commismust obviously be left for future consideration and arrangement. It appears to us, however, that it would be desirable that the new National Gallery, if placed in this locality, should occupy the advantageous and more elevated site fronting Hyde Park, on the Gore House estate, while an institution like the Commercial Museum, or Museum of Manufactures, already suggested by us, might be established on the corresponding site, fronting the Brompton Road, at the further end of the property; the central portion containtaining a building in which the different societies might procure that juxtaposition, the means of effecting which we have before mentioned they have been for several years considering; while the two sides might be devoted to the departments of practical art and practical science.

This arrangement underwent some modification afterwards, but it is still to be observed that,

although there was juxtaposition, there was no absolute connection between the new National Gallery, as proposed, and the rest of the scheme of the Royal Commissioners. The management of the gallery the Government seemed determined still to keep in their own hands, as a separate establishment.

And now came that memorable debate in the House of Commons in June 1856, which changed the whole aspect of the question; when a motion for a grant towards the erection of the new gallery on the proposed site, supported by the leaders of the Opposition as well as, to all seeming, the full strength of the Government, was defeated by an amendment of Lord Elcho's. This adverse vote, though carried by only a narrow majority, in a House of more than average strength, was generally understood to indicate an unfriendly feeling on the part of the House of Commons towards the great scheme with which it was sought to associate the new National Gallery. And it would seem that it was so felt by the Commissioners and the illustrious Prince at their head, for, soon after, the sum which had been advanced by Government on the previous understanding, was returned, and possession of that portion of the land which had been consigned to the Government was resumed by the Commissioners. This land was afterwards converted into the Horticultural Gardens, with which the public are now familiar. It would appear that all connection between the Government and the Royal Commissioners on the subject of the National Gallery was now finally broken off; but it was not quite so, as will appear further on.

The next incident in the order of these events which attracts attention, is the issue of the Royal Commission over which Lord Broughton presided. This commission, with some modification, was but the

fulfilment of Lord Elcho's amendment, the terms of which were:

That a humble petition be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to issue a Royal

Commission to determine the site of the new National Gallery, and to report upon the desirableness of combining with it, the fine art and archæological collections of the British Museum, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on the National Gallery in 1853.

This commission, as at first nominated, consisted of six members. One of these, the late Mr. Ford, owing to ill health, did not act. Five, therefore, only, sat and took evidence. These were Lord Broughton (chairman), the Dean of St. Paul's, Professor Cockerell, Professor Faraday, and Mr. George Richmond. In a division on the question of site, a majority voted in favour of the present one, in Trafalgar Square, the three first-named being for, Mr. Richmond against, and Professor Faraday declining to vote. As the Government required unanimity in the decision of the commissioners to give it validity, the Report of this commission consequently left the question of the National Gallery site still open.

Then came the International Exhibition of 1862, and its great picture gallery; and the proposal that this gallery should be purchased from the Commissioners, with a view to its becoming the future depository of the national pictures, a proposal which, though favoured by the Government, and more especially by the eloquent support of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, was, like the former proposition of 1856, rejected by an adverse vote of the House of Commons. It was painful to witness the destruction of this great building, but the site was defective, very inferior to the one previously designed for the new gallery, and the building itself unsatisfactory, to say the least, in architectural design.

Next followed the proposal of

Government to place the new gallery at Burlington House, and a motion with this object was brought forward in the House of Commons by the present Chief Commissioner of Works, in June 1864, as follows:

That a sum not exceeding 10,cool. be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the erection of the new National Gallery at Burlington House.

On a division, there were for the motion-ayes, 122; noes, 174: majority, 52.

The reader will perceive that this vote did not affirm that the new gallery was to be in Trafalgar Square. It merely negatived the proposal to place it at Burlington House. The more recent vote of the House of Commons of a grant of money for the purchase of certain buildings at the rear of the present gallery with a view to its enlargement, implies no doubt that the new gallery, whenever erected, is to be on the present site, and this brings us back to the point from whence we started. It is against this implied decision that we now strenuously protest.

The point at issue, it is to be remembered, mainly concerned the choice of a site for the new National Gallery. In the pamphlet of 1850, to which we referred as opening up the question in so marked a way, it was contended that the present site in Trafalgar Square, whatever might be its other merits, was not well suited for this particular purpose; that for the due preservation of the pictures and the other great ends in view, the gallery would be better placed more to the westward of the metropolis, where the atmosphere would be purer and the gallery itself approached and surrounded by open and ornamental grounds; and Kensington Palace, or some site within Kensington