As the building advanced, the public attention was drawn to the great opportunity, which it offered for the encouragement of the arts of painting and sculpture. His Royal Highness, who frequently visited the work, and took considerable interest in its progress, was most anxious that this opportunity should not be lost, and at the same time felt, that only by great care and consultation of various authorities could it be used to the best advantage. Accordingly in Nov. 1841 a Royal Commission (the “Fine Arts Commission”) was appointed, under the presidency of His Royal Highness, and consisting of the following members:--Lord Lyndhurst, the Duke of Sutherland, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl of Lincoln, Earl of Shrewsbury, Earl of Aberdeen, Lord John Russell, Viscount Palmerston, Viscount Melbourne, Lord Ashburton, Lord Colborne, The Right Hon. Charles Shaw Lefevre (Speaker of the House of Commons), Sir R. Peel, Sir James Graham, Sir R. H. Inglis, B. Hawes, Esq. jun., Henry Gale Knight, Esq., Henry Hallam, Esq., S. Rogers, Esq., G. Vivian, Esq., Thomas Wyse, Esq. To these were afterwards added the names of Lord Mahon (now Earl Stanhope), T. B. Macaulay, Esq. (afterwards Lord Macaulay), Lord Willoughby d’Eresby, Lord Canning, Lord Morpeth, Sir B. Hall, and the Right Hon. J. Evelyn Denison (Speaker of the House of Commons), Lord John Manners, and the Hon. W. Cowper. Sir C. Eastlake was appointed Secretary. It is obvious, from a glance at the names of the Commissioners, that great care had been taken to represent on the Board, not only rank and official knowledge, but also artistic and literary excellence. But it will be noticed, that the name of the architect of the building does not occur on the Commission. It was thought, perhaps, that, as having to carry out the views of the Commission, he ought for technical reasons to have no seat upon it. It might also have been supposed, that he would be inclined to look at things too much from one point of view, and endeavour to subordinate painting and sculpture too much to the architecture of the building; so that, in the almost inevitable rivalry of the arts, he would not be a disinterested party. But it may be questioned whether technical propriety should have been allowed to override practical convenience. And it is not likely that a single voice on the Board would have been able to secure to architectural claims more than their due share of attention.