When, a century ago, there was no Parliament or public to care for national collections, it may be admitted that trustees of science and art were useful; but the circumstances are now wholly changed. There is a large and increasing public deeply interested, forming itself into scientific and artistic societies, spontaneously creating museums and galleries, which, perhaps, it may be said, are a-head both in feeling and intelligence of Parliament and the Government, and almost supersede the necessity for trustees. But trustees may still be useful and honorary, if they have only the limited functions of counsellors. As administrators of Parliamentary funds they have become positive obstructives. In the Record Commission, in the Excise and Stamp departments, in the Ecclesiastical Commission, in the School of Design, the sham of management by numbers has been long exploded, and so it must be with the British Museum. It is unnecessary to dwell on this topic, which both theoretically and by practical illustration has been exhausted by Lord Henry Lennox in his very able speech on Irresponsible Boards, which, although praised by Mr. Disraeli, uncontroverted by Mr. Gladstone, and applauded by the House of Commons, has been for four years only a vox et præterea

nihil.

In justice to the trustees it may be conceded that they have of late made several important purchases, with courage, liberality, and judgment, acting, as we believe, on the advice of Mr. Charles Newton, the present able keeper of the Department of Antiquities. Thus the fine series of the Halicarnassian marbles, the Farnese marbles, the purchases from the Pourtalès Collection, and the exquisite bronzes recently obtained from Signor Castellani, are magnificent additions to the national collections. But, having made the necessary effort to secure these precious objects, the trustees appear to be utterly indifferent to the proper display of them. Thus the Budroun and Branchida marbles have literally been deposited for seven years in glazed sheds, which deface the portico of the Museum, scarcely afford common protection from rain and fire, and are not open to the public. The trustees have destroyed the arrangement of the hall, originally occupied by the Elgin marbles (for which, indeed, it was constructed), by separating the groups from the friezes: they have thus two halls, imperfectly occupied by ill-arranged sculpture, in place of one magnificent assemblage, and this at the time when they complain of want of space to exhibit their more recent acquisitions. The largest halls in the sculpture galleries have a bare and povertystricken aspect, at the very time when we are told that there is

not room to show the grand Lion from Cnidus, which is believed to commemorate the victory of Conon-the Apollo from Cyrene-the Demeter and other statues from the temenos of the infernal deities of Cnidus, which are of the school of Praxiteles-or the statue and chariot-horses of Mausolus. One of the pretexts assigned for this strange result is said to be a pedantic objection on the part of some of the trustees to what they call mixing' the styles of Greek art, by placing different schools in contiguous apartments. But, as if in flagrant defiance of their own principle, they have allowed a plaster cast of our own statue of Mausolus to be placed in the centre of the room surrounded by the frieze of the Parthenon. It is impossible to visit the Museum without a feeling of profound regret at the singular want of taste and skill evinced by the arrangement of its collections; and we are satisfied that this merited stricture falls entirely on the trustees, and not on the officers of the department, who are continually struggling against their unfortunate influence.

The opinions we express are those of Lord Ellesmere's Commission of 1859, and may be usefully repeated here:

'Such a board of trustees, to any one who considers the individuals who compose it, with reference to their rank, intelligence, and ability, would give assurance rather than promise of the most unexceptionable, and, indeed, wisest administration in every department. High attainments in literature and in science, great knowledge and experience of the world and its affairs, and practical habits of business, distinguish many of them in an eminent degree; and it would be unjust either to deny the interest which all of them feel in the prosperity of the institution, or refrain from acknowledging the devoted services which some of them have rendered in its administration. But, on the other hand, absorbing public cares, professional avocations, and the pursuits of private life must, in many instances, prevent those individuals whose assistance might have been best relied on from giving anything like continued attention to the affairs of the institution; and, what is perhaps of more importance, the large number of the board, by dividing, or rather extinguishing individual duty or responsibility, has, in a great measure, interfered with the superintendence and control which might have been exercised by any small or selected number specially charged with the duty. The inconvenience likely to result from the affairs of the Museum being devolved upon so large a board, appears to have been felt at a very early -period.'

Again

It is not surprising that, in such circumstances, the standing committee should have been confounded with the general board,

without any practical distinction between their functions, and that the actual management of the Museum should have devolved upon a fluctuating board, having no special charge, nor direct personal responsibility; and all this in constant disregard of that precaution which the trustees very wisely established against themselves, by throwing the ordinary business of the Museum upon a portion of their number, specially appointed and accepting.' To return to the standing committee, or to the board of trustees for these may be spoken of together-the course of conducting business is unfortunately calculated not to correct, but to aggravate, the inconvenience.'

'On the whole, the conclusion has been forced upon us, that the mode in which the trustees have exercised their functions of government in the Museum has not been satisfactory; and that the inconveniences arising from so great a number of trustees, and from the fluctuating nature of the board, have been increased by the neglect of such precautions as, with reference to the accustomed modes of transacting business, we should expect to find strictly in observance. However admirably qualified the trustees may be individually for the transaction of business, it is impossible to expect satisfaction in the conduct of their affairs where they act, not by a select number, but at meetings-which they are left to attend as they please, and as leisure and inclination serve-to which they are called by summons announcing the time of meeting merely, but giving no notice of the business-at which business of great importance to departments is conducted without direct and personal intercourse with the officers at the heads of the departments, and in a manner so cumbrous and fatiguing as to be hostile alike to good decision and despatch.'

And the Commissioners proposed this remedy:

'With respect to the executive management, your Commissioners are unanimously of opinion that a change should be adopted, involving the abolition of the offices of Principal Librarian and of Secretary, as they now exist, and the establishment of a responsible executive council.'

But Lord Langdale, who well knew that an executive council was a practical absurdity, refused to sign the report, and entered a protest as follows:

'Many and considerable inconveniences have crept into the management of the Museum. The remedy must, as it seems, be sought for,

1st. In the establishment of, or revival of, an executive government, vested in one person, solely responsible for the due execution of his duty, but assisted by a council, to whom he might readily and on all occasions resort for advice and assistance.

2nd. In the establishment of a committee of trustees, a standing committee, elected, and undertaking personally to perform all

those duties of superintendence, investigation, and control, which seem to be the proper and peculiar duties of the trustees, as distinguished from the duties of practical management and executive government, which seem to be the proper and peculiar duties of a GOVERNOR OR DIRECTOR.'

All that is now required is to act upon this last judicious recommendation, which subsequent experience has amply confirmed since it was made; and we acknowledge that our hope of a radical improvement in the administration of the Museum rests entirely on the appointment of a competent and responsible officer invested by Parliament with the necessary powers to effect it, under the control of the Government. Is there instance in England of so large an expenditure of the public money by men over whom Parliament has no effective control whatever?

any

Between the founding of the British Museum and the National Gallery there is a long space of seventy years, much spent in foreign wars. On the 10th May 1824, the National Gallery was opened to the public in the house of Mr. Angerstein, the banker, No. 100 Pall Mall, which stood on the site of the present Carlton Club. Before that time George IV., the first monarch since Charles I. who had cared to collect works of art, had brought together collections of Dutch pictures, Sèvres china, Goutière and Florentine cabinets of the finest quality, and he made some atonement for a sensual and selfish life by presenting to the British Museum his father's library. He also laid the foundation for a National Gallery of pictures, by inducing his Ministers, according to the authority of Sir Charles Long, to propose to Parliament the purchase of Mr. Angerstein's collection of pictures for the sum of 57,0007.

Following the fashion of the times, the management of the new Gallery was placed under a board of trustees, having no distinct parliamentary responsibility. The natural results have ensued. Almost from its very birth to the present time there have been chronic complaints connected with the management of this collection, which have provoked heated controversy in and out of Parliament. The genuineness of the purchases; a reverential affection for the dirt and discolouration which London smoke confers on pictures, that 'tone' which is so dear to your connoisseur and so very unlike nature except in a fog; the prejudice in favour of certain schools of painting; the want of space; the disgusting and pernicious ventilation, and the injury done by it to pictures*; the suit

* The report of Mr. Faraday, Professor Tyndall, and Dr. Hofmann

ability and unsuitability of the present site; the quarrels about the merits of ten other sites, which began in Mr. Hume's time; the promiscuous admission of the public; the wasteful dispersion of pictures by public sale, are some of the topics which have occupied committee and commission, and commission and committee, and provoked annual discussions in Parliament which, as they do not fall within the special department of any one Minister of the Crown to guide, have only resulted in confusion worse confounded.

The site of the National Gallery, after sixteen years of controversy, may perhaps be considered as settled, unless Parliament should again change its mind, as it has already done, on the point. But what is to be the size and character of the structure? It is at present in the hands of the First Commissioner of Works, who is at issue with every member of the House of Commons, Lord Elcho, Sir John Pakington, Sir G. Bowyer, Mr. Tite, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Henley, Mr. Henry Seymour, and all who usually express views on the subject. During the last session of Parliament he stood unsupported by a single member in his wish to patch up the present building, instead of erecting a new one, as good as the age could erect, in which all the experiences of all the necessities of picture-galleries which the last ten years have made manifest should be attended to. Meanwhile these precious works of art-precious by their cost and money-value, but far more precious from their beauty and importance in art are stored in a building wholly deficient in ordinary securities against fire, and exposed to the most disastrous accidents. Lord Elcho properly asks, how the plan of the New Gallery is to be obtained? By a public competition, limited or otherwise? But there is no answer. The trustees, who, if worth anything, ought to express an opinion, stand mute. It is not settled to this very day what are the scope and limits of a National Gallery. Is the public to house in one central spot every picture, good, bad, and indifferent, which the trustees accept? Is room to be found for Leslie's Uncle Toby,' given by Mr. Vernon, and a replica of the same given by demonstrated that out of fifteen sites where pigments had been exposed, for nearly two years, for experiment, the most injured are 'from the National Gallery, Charing Cross, and the next from a 'country privy; the third, much less changed, from the House of 'Commons; the fourth, from the Barber-Surgeons' Hall; the fifth, 'from the Bridgewater Gallery; the sixth, from the Royal Society's Rooms, Burlington House; and the seventh from the British Mu'seum.' (July, 1859.)