bringing into requisition the talents and acquirements of several persons, for duties demanding a wide diversity of knowledge, and dealing with a great variety of tastes. With this view, it is proposed to impose a very stringent responsibility upon each member of the Board, compelling their attendance at frequent meetings throughout the entire year, and requiring their written approval of every important transaction, such as purchases or picture-cleaning. The object would be 'to secure good and constant work,' in a belief that the 'opinion of five well-qualified gentlemen, or of a majority of these, would and ought to weigh more with the public, even if they are not entirely satisfied, than the opinion of a single individual.' (Nos. 5760. 5783. 5776.) And although Lord Aberdeen has not gone so far as to propose any scheme to supersede the existing system (which he in no way attempts to justify), he seems to point at principles leading to these very results. (Nos. 5289-90. 5318. 5320. 5334.) Simplicity is, however, of great importance, and to that any continuance of the Trustees as a superintending or controlling body appears fatal.

The Committee have applied themselves with laudable anxiety to the discovery of adequate precautions in regard to picture-cleaning. Those proposed by the Chairman are somewhat more stringent than the suggestions ultimately adopted; but in neither case is there much novelty, while some of the regulations go into technicalities scarcely within the grasp of such a tribunal. On the whole, we should say that this, like other points, might be safely left to the discretion of a small competent Board, with a proviso, however, that the removal of old varnish shall be authorised only after the Keeper's written report upon urgent cases, where the obscurity of a work is such as to prevent its proper qualities being enjoyed or studied, and where no extraordinary risk seems to attend that process. Farther, that each commission should be entrusted by the Board to the restorer most skilled in that particular description of art, with specific instructions, he alone being held liable for their due implement. But the main point is, that, by regular and careful wiping of the surfaces, and by employing the best varnish when these require to be refreshed, all more extensive manipulations should be long, if not indefinitely, postponed.*

* To instance the multiplicity of opinions in trifling matters, we may refer to the various ways of wiping pictures recommended to the Committee by different experts. 1, dusting with a feather-brush; 2, dry wiping with an old silk handkerchief; 3, wiping with a wet

It is satisfactory to find that the recommendation which we formerly made of a stated annual parliamentary grant for purchases is approved by the evidence, and adopted in the Report; but we consider it a great oversight, that neither a code of regulations nor an annual report to the House of Commons is rendered imperative, as proposed by the Chairman. And, seeing that a national art-museum ought to include a series of favourable examples, exhibiting chronologically and critically the progress of painting at various periods, while showing its origin, development, and successive transitions in style, we cordially adopt the following dictum of the Committee:

The intelligent public of this country are daily becoming alive to the truth, which has long been recognised by other enlightened nations, that the arts of design cannot be properly studied, or rightly appreciated, by means of insulated specimens alone: that, in order to understand or profit by the great works, either of the ancient or modern schools of art, it is necessary to contemplate the genius which produced them, not merely in its final results, but in the mode of its operation; in its rise and progress, as well as in its perfection. A just appreciation of Italian painting can as little be obtained from an exclusive study of the works of Raffaele, Titian, or Correggio, as a critical knowledge of English poetry from the perusal of a few of its master-pieces. What Chaucer and Spenser are to Shakspeare and Milton, Giotto and Masaccio are to the great masters of the Florentine school; and a national gallery would be as defective without adequate specimens of both styles of painting, as a national library without specimens of both styles of poetry. In order, therefore, to render the British National Gallery worthy of the name it bears, your Committee think that the funds appropriated to the enlargement of the collection should be expended with a view, not merely of exhibiting to the public beautiful works of art, but of instructing the people in the history of that art, and of the age in which, and the men by whom, those works were produced.'

Having thus considered in its various bearings the Management of the National Gallery, we have but little room left for what seems to us the subsidiary question of Site. Those who advocate a costly removal of the collection maintain that it is at present irreparably exposed to detrimental influences; that the space is too contracted for the necessary enlargements; and that it is desirable to centralise the principal art-museums of the metropolis in a more eligible position. Let us examine these plans in detail.

or moist sponge; 4, ditto, with an old soft wet linen rag; 5, ditto, with wet cotton wool; 6, the application of a liquid secretion unfit for ears polite.

I. Coming from climates of brighter sky and liquid air, Dr. Waagen and Baron von Klenze are, like other foreigners, dismayed by the dense and smoke-stained atmosphere of the Thames. They feel its leaden action on their temperament, observe its soots begriming their linen, and conclude that such an influence must be deleterious to health, and destructive to all beautiful objects. They see the marbles at the British Museum dusty and discoloured, and many pictures at the National Gallery almost equally obscured, so they ascribe both results to one noxious cause. The like impressions tell in a minor degree upon ourselves: a cry for removal of the national pictures is raised, and is gladly seconded by the Gallery officials, who, if relieved from daily dustings and hebdomadal washings, would enjoy a comparative sinecure. The impulse thus given by prejudice and self-interest is alleged to be seconded by Royal Academicians, in hopes that, should the old masters be ousted from the finest situation in Europe,' the vacant quarter might be theirs. But if, at Trafalgar Square, the smoke and dust from without, the exhalations of crowded humanity from within, are ruinous to ancient canvasses, indurated by patina and varnish, how fare the freshly painted and still unprotected surfaces of modern works in more crowded saloons under the same roof? True, the former remain there for years, the latter for months. Yet, if conscious that the situation is peculiarly injurious, would artists expose, without remonstrance, their valuable property, and hazard their enduring reputation in these and other adjacent exhibition-rooms? or would the Academicians there permanently place their diploma-pictures and other important works? But, since the question is made one peculiarly of ancient paintings, are we to believe that the Dukes of Northumberland and Sutherland, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Ellesmere, Mr. Rogers, and other connoisseurs, wilfully keep their admirable collections in a quarter ascertained to be dangerous above other parts of London; or that the Messrs. Woodburn have long preferred the same foul neighbourhood to deposit sale pictures of rare merit and importance? Probabilities being thus against the prevailing impression, how stand the facts? We have already shown the pictures that have become darkened at the Gallery to be those on which an oil varnish has been applied, the noxious qualities of which are very generally condemned, while others, uniformly refreshed with mastic varnish, remain in a satisfactory condition. We are, therefore, entitled to believe, that, with ordinary precautions in dusting, wiping, and varnishing, no farther complaints on this head need arise. It is made unfortunately palpable in evidence, that damage from dirt and

smoke is infinitely more fatal and permanent to marbles; but should that plea be considered to warrant removal in either case from the seat of mischief, very effectual measures would probably be desirable, and a still purer atmosphere than the West End should be sought out, in order to warrant the inconvenience and expense of new galleries. Yet the argument might lead to results little foreseen by its supporters. If objects of art are really so damaged by London smoke, the sooner public and private collections go to the provinces the better. The metropolis would thus be shorn of half its attractions, while the wealthiest and most cultivated community of our countrymen might learn that money given for short-lived painting and sculpture is misspent.

To us, who avoid the National Gallery on the few holidays when it is much frequented, the alleged mischief of dense crowds and dirty visitors appears exaggerated: yet, if facilities of access elsewhere withheld are here abused, very simple regulations might suffice to remedy the evil, without operating as an exclusion to any. Double swing doors, and tickets taken a few yards off, would keep out much dust and some idlers. But ready admission seems to us of primary importance, and hence the value we attach to the present situation. There is probably no spot in the world where so many human beings daily pass for business or pleasure. Those who would for a moment rest their jaded limbs, or relieve their harassed thoughts; who change their omnibus at Charing Cross, or have miscalculated an appointment, or are caught in a shower, here find a refuge at hand, and in it a series of objects ennobling to the mind, improving to the taste, soothing to the spirits. As some who enter church to scoff remain to pray, so men who ascend the Gallery steps for convenience often find improvement: and to many, a few minutes thus stolen from the cares of material existence, to gaze on Del Piombo's Miracle, or Claude's Arcadian scenes, will continue, like the oasis in the desert, a sweet memory amid a joyless retrospect. Mr. Foggo well says, I perfectly agree with that beautiful opinion expressed by Sir Robert Peel, when the National Gallery was first pro'posed, that, placed in the centre and in the full stream of London industry, persons of various classes would all meet in 'mutual good-will; and I do think that to remove it from the 'centre through which everybody at times has to pass, and 'where many men who cannot afford a whole day in going ' after a picture, can for a single hour just go and see what the 'nation has done for the enjoyment of the people, would be exceedingly injurious and imprudent.'

6

II. If, however, it be proved that the accommodation in

Trafalgar Square cannot be sufficiently extended for the eventual requirements of the Gallery, the question of site will assume another aspect. Additional space is urgently needed, and may be sought by taking in the eastern portion of the building, now occupied by the Royal Academy; by projecting the whole front elevation to the railing; or by a back extension over the ground covered by the workhouse. Assuming the Academy to claim compensation, and admitting that a workhouse need not have one of the choicest positions in London, all this becomes a mere question of expense. Although quite inadequate for centralised museums of sculpture, &c., this space would abundantly provide picture galleries on the largest scale, leaving undisturbed the barracks, which the authorities have wisely decided to retain as a military position. In this view, drawings alone would become ancillary to the collection of paintings, the engravings remaining annexed to the Museum library.

III. Before, however, this question of site can be satisfactorily entertained, it will be necessary to dispose of the more extensive one, which has been raised by a recent proposal to centralise the principal museums and literary institutions of London. With this view, there have lately been secured to the public above eighty acres of open ground at Kensington Gore, between Hyde Park and Brompton, and much evidence, of the usual vague and discursive character, has been tendered in reference to its application. The prevailing theory seems to be that in this, or some adjacent space, the National Gallery, the artistic and monumental departments of the British Museum, the establishments for art education, and the principal literary or scientific societies should be clustered, for the benefits of mutual reference and intercommunion. The vastness of this idea lends it a questionable grandeur, and veils many difficulties both of plan and execution. The vacated sculpturegalleries and halls at the Museum would be a welcome relief to the groaning bookshelves under Mr. Panizzi's charge; and it is pretty generally agreed that statuary would be usefully located near the pictures. But here arise doubts as to separating art from archæology, aesthetics from antiquities. Although the Elgin marbles may well be classed with Raffaele's and Del Piombo's panels, must their migration be attended by Egyptian mythology, Assyrian monsters and polyglot inscriptions? Or does not a stronger analogy of interest bind these, and the medals, to the library than to the plastic collections? Again,

The matter in hand is sufficiently complicated without now going into the merits or claims of the Academy, which would of course be fully looked into on any such arrangement as we point at.