The Cornhill Magazine (Vol. I, No. 3, March 1860)Various
History
The Cornhill Magazine (Vol. I, No. 3, March 1860)
Various
England -- Periodicals; English literature -- Periodicals; Short stories, English -- Periodicals
From its first conception to the present time, no building has ever been
a more lively subject for public criticism than this unlucky National
Gallery. Poor Mr. Wilkins, the architect, was sorely perplexed with
conditions. The building was not to intercept the view of St. Martin’s
portico; it must not infringe on the barrack space in the rear; the
public must have one right of way through it, and the Guards another;
the old columns of Carlton House were to be used up; and true faith in
architecture insisted on having porticos, dome, and cupolas; moreover,
the building, by no means too large for a National Gallery, was to be
shared with the Royal Academy. With such instructions, Mr. Wilkins
prepared his plans and estimates. The building was to cost 50,000_l._,
but no architect is to be bound by his estimate; and judging from late
instances, the public got well out of this job in having to pay only
76,867_l._
The structure was scarcely occupied before it was discovered to be much
too small. The National Gallery had no space to display its additional
purchases and bequests, and the Royal Academy found itself obliged to
close its schools of art whenever its annual exhibition was open. For
these inconveniences parliaments and governments have been for nearly
twenty years trying to find a remedy. In 1848, Lord John Russell, Sir
Robert Peel, Mr. Hume, and others, forming _one_ House of Commons
Committee, “after careful deliberation, unanimously concurred in the
opinion” that the present National Gallery should be enlarged and
improved. In 1850, Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Hume, and
others, constituting _another_ Commons Committee, reported that they
could not “recommend that any expenditure should be at present incurred
for the purpose of increasing the accommodation of a National Gallery on
the present site,” and “were not prepared to state that the preservation
of the pictures and convenient access for the purpose of study and
improvement of taste would not be better secured in a gallery farther
removed from the smoke and dust of London.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account