THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
„London 31st August 1853.
Sut—I have been waiting several days. in the earnest hope that some ad- vocate of the working °loges more able andmore:infteential than myself would come forward to remonstrate against theLgrietaus. injury about to be done toward us by -the-projected removaL-of4lie.-National Gallery of Paint- ings from Trafalgar Square. .In the absetice-of-a%werthier advocate, I beg to be allowed, through the medium of your-pretzel,- to point out the serious annoyance to which we shall be subjected, if this .scheme be carried out.
As one of the working classes of the 3Ieteopolis---s clerk engaged in daily business from nine to four o'clock—I feel that the proposed removal of the National Gallery to Kensington will be almost tantamount to our total ex- clusion from the use and benefit of the Galkry. It has been my habit, and is most probably that of thousands of my class, to visit the National Gallery after business hours—say between the hours of four and six o'clock p. in.; walking from my office, -I ean reach the door at half-past four, wad have an hour and a half's clear leisure to enjoy the pie- tures before my return home to dinner. Pictures and works of art can be most fairly studied in this way ; long morning attendances are both imprac- ticable to the working man, and less satisfactory in their result, than these
repeated short visits. For my own part—and I think I am a fair average re- presentative of the clerks of the lietropolie--I have gained what little in- formation I possess of our national pictures, of our Museum, end public collections of art and science, entirely from casual visits paid in the leisure hours of any business-days.
To Kensington, however, if the Gallery be transferred, such visits will be entirely impraetioable - and- the pleasure and .profitable study at present de- rived from the National Gallery only possible on rare occasions and at long intervals. I should not object to he Society of Arts being amalgamated with the new School of Practical Art at Kensington: their intimate connexion, and their comparative independenoe of thegeneralpublic„ lustily such a uni- on; and, as the Comeuiss ioners have absolntelyporchesed ,the Kensington es- tate, I shall expect to see a great central establishment and School of Design and Practical Art on this site. But the suggested removal of theNational Gallery to this establishment would be as ahead as to bring St. Paul's Cathedral to the Institute of British Architects or to strand the Duke of Wellington steamer at Woolwich for the benefit of the young shipwrights. Equally ridiculous is the abandonment of the present valuable qualities of our National:Oallery in favour of the young art-students at Kensington; and equally monstrous will be the suggested transfer to their establishment of the treasures. aesculpture from the British Museum and the Cartoons from Hampton Court—both of which are threatened.
One would think that, instead of this centralization, it Vrotild have been more desirable, even on mere grounds of convenience and for the avoidance of crowds, to keep these points of attraction ecattered.crrer the wide space of London.
Of course the English collection should tot, as now, be separated from the rest of the National Gallery, of which it is itifict en integialPait ; but the British Museum, the National Gallery, _Dulwich Gallery, Hampton Court, the Greenwich Pictures, all the well-known resorts ef.ua Cockney holyday- makers, are surely more advantageously placed at present than if they were all at Kensington. In the absence of the printed evidence of the National Gallery Committee, on which their zeppet is grounded, we must suppose that the main reasons for this unfortunate removal are—
First, Want of accommodation; and
Second, Doubts of the wholesomenees-of the present Gallery.
But as to the first of these objections, Sir Charles Barry, who has so ad- mirably altered the Treasury and Privy Council Office, could in six months convert Wilkin's edifice into a capacious, elegant, and airy building. Always supposing the Royal Academy to be ejected from their Ill-merited lodgings. Plow it comes that this rich and select body of artists is permitted year after year to occupy, rent free, the better half of our scanty Gallery, might puzzle even a Hayden. The sister Academy of Music, a really meritorious but poor institution, receives no such public favour. As -to the second of the supposed reasons for the removal of the National Gallery, it appears on inquiry to be even more absurd than the former, and even more unfounded. The smallness of the present rooms, the dust in- separable from the concourse of thousands of visitors, are not without re- medies. The rooms are capable of enlargement ; and Mr. Russell's proposal to protect all the pictures with glass—as some have already been for years so protected—is perfectly feasible.
A strong testimony of the correctness of my view is given in the memorial of the Royal Academicians to the Queen, printed at the end of. the first Re- port of the Exhibition of 1851. At the first hint that theNational Galleg might „possibly be removed, even withina mouth of the opening of the Exhi- bition, the Academicians had signed and forwarded their petition to her Majesty, humbly entreating—prok pudor1—to be permitted to appropriate the entire building to their own use. More satisfactory evidence of the safety of the situation for the deposit of pictures, and of the humbug of those who maintain its inealubrity, bad air, and inconvenience, cannot be expected.
If the pictures are to be seen and enjoyed by the public,. it is absurd to re-
move them to a suburban district, comparatively inaccessible to the present visitors of the Gallery. The select and -valuable specimens which form our small national collection were not purchased mainly for the use of students in the fine arts, however excellent such a purpose might.be. They were purchased from time to time for the general use and enjoyment of the pub- lic • and I do trust that, in the sudden enthusiasm for Schools of Design, De- partments of Practical Art, and Museums of Manufactures, the real purpose and object of the national collection may not be forgotten, nor the old ad- mirers of its beauties be neglected, for theiryounger brethren, the riabie school of Marlborough House and Kensington. In conclusion, Sir, I do trust that while yet there is time, all who hie me have enjoyed and still hope to enjoy the -use of the National Gallery, Will raise their voices to deprecate its removal to the suburbs. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, G. W. B.
Previous page
