As we have said, it was to the pictures of what is by common consent regarded as the best period of each school that the purchases of the trustees were until recently almost exclusively confined. But since the importance of obtaining works of the earlier and immature periods of the several schools has been recognised, very rapid progress has, as we have seen, been made towards supplying the defie envies. And important as this chronological view of art unquestionably is, wo may perhaps doubt whether any attempt to carry it into operation at an earlier date would have been altogether advantageous, or whether it may not even now be carried too far. The public required at first to have its interest in art ru-oused by means of pictures of such unquestionable merit that no one could gainsay their value, and of a kind which, by appealing to the common feeltngs and understanding of mankind, would require) no special nrchteological training to under stand and to appreciate. In truth, there is already something a little bewildering to the common mind in the present almost heterogeneous admixture of the noblest works of art, at its highest stage of develop ment and independence, with those produced when art was the mere instrument of the ecclesiastic, and artists, themselves as yet but feeling their way even to the technics of their pursuit, wore hampered by archaic forms, conventionalities, and clerical symbolism and precedent Such works can have little interest for the uninstructed visitor, and assuredly they can do little to refine his taste or elevate his thoughts. No lover of art will however object to the purchase of such works ; but on the contrary, be most anxious that they should be purchased, their true value being clearly recognised. It is said In the Report for 1858 of the Director of the gallery in reference to the purchase of the Lombardi-Bahli picture», that "the unsightly sped mens.of Margaritone and the earliest Tuscan painters, were selected solely for their historical importance, and as showing the rude beginnings from which, through nearly two centuries and n half, Italian art slowly advanced to the period of Raphael and his con temporaries." And this is precisely the reason for desiring similar pictures of every other important school. But there should be no exclusive or even preferential regard given to these works. Let them be bought for their archaeological N•allie, but let-the really great works of art be at least as anxiously sought for. Beauty is too rare and too precious a thing to be set aside for the sake of the " unsightly " antiquities whose chief charm is their ago and their ugliness. And it is further of the first importance that, in exhibiting these early works to the public, this historical " purpose should be distinctly pointed out, ur we may only increase the confusion in uninstructed minds as to the true purpose of art, and as to what is really admirable in it. These very early works are not merely often unsightly, but they are (to modern and Protestant eyes) not unseldom profane, and aomotimes gross. Their unsightliness, profanity, and grossness, are, of course, of no consequence to the historical inquirer and the art-student, but these are qualities not to be wholly overlooked in catering for the great public. The chronological and the geographical arrangement of all the works of this antiquarian character ought to be strictly main tained. The truly great works—those which are really works of fine art—ahould not be buried amidst the uncouth, unsightly church decoration work of the pre-flue-art ages. A strictly chronological and geographical arrangement of all the works, however it might satisfy formal spirit of systematise, or accord with the fashionable mediae valiam, would assuredly be very wearisome if not misleading to the general public.. The early works, in short, are for the historical student; the masterworks for all.
Of course any chronological arrangement according to schools is impracticable in the present National Gallery. The building, which was erected from the designs of Mr. W. Wilkins, ILA., was only com pleted in /838, yet that portion of it appropriated to the national collection of pictures Is already so crowded—though it contains only the comparatively small collection of paintings by the old masters— that many works are necessarily hung in the passages and vestibule, and space has only been found fur the display of recent acquisitions by means of screens placed in the centre of the great room. For the
British pictures, rooms have been provided at South Kensington, but no spare space is left in them for relieving the overcrowded Natonal Gallery of any foreign works, nor consequently do they afford any suitable room for the reception of new purchases or presents. Successive governments have however, pledged themselves to provide adequate accommodation for the national collections. To do this, various schemes of a more or less official character, for altering and enlarging the existing building, have been projected by the director, Sir Charles Eastlake; by Captain Fowkes, the designer of the galleries at South Kensington ; and on a more magnificent scale by the late Sir Charles Barry. The only sufficient remedy if the present site be retained, would be the removal of the present most ungainly, incon venient, ill-lighted, and utterly inappropriate building, and the con struction in its place (the barracks, &c., at the rear being included in the site) of one of sufficient size to contain in two great divisions— Foreign and English—all our national pictures, and to admit of their arrangement in a convenient and systematic manner. But a far better plan, if indeed it be not too late so to appropriate the site—incom parably more suitable for the pictures, and hardly at all less con venient to the public—would be the construction on the site of Burlington House of a grand National Gallery ; which,—from the almost indefinite capability which the site affords for extension with the growth of the gallery,—might be at once designed, as such a gallery ought to be, to include a systematic collection of English as well as foreign pictures, and English as well as foreign sculpture, and also afford room for a National Collection of Water Colour Paintings, and the National Portrait Gallery : in a word, be a really compre hensive National Gallery of Art, worthy of the country. Of this there is little probability. It is, however, admitted by all that the time has arrived when some provision must be made for the growth of the collections, and it is understood that the Government has decided to carry out a plan prepared by Mr. Pennethorno, for the extension of the present building, though only as a temporary expedient.
Gallery of British Art: Vernon Calleetion.—As we have seen, there were included in the Angersteiu collection, which formed the basis of the National Gallery, seven paintings by Hog,arth, one by Reynolds, and one by Wilkie; and among the Beaumont pictures, five were by British painters. There was thus provided, at the very origin of the National Gallery, the germ of a Gallery of British Art. It would seem that one of the most obvious duties of the trustees would be to watch over and cherish the growth of the native section of the institution, with at least as much care as the foreign. But native art was resolutely discountenanced. It is a remarkable fact, that every addi tional specimen of English art which the nation possesses has been obtained by what may be called chance. Except the nine works which were included in the Angerstein collection, purchased six-and-thirty years ago, not a single English picture has, up to the present hour, been purchased for the national collection. Every one which the nation possesses has been either a gift or a bequest. Such a thing is probably unparalleled in any other country possessing a collection of pictures; but it arose from the entire control of our National Gallery being vested in gentlemen who regarded the Old Masters as the only legitimate representatives of painting. From the first they resolved that from the British National Gallery, British art must be excluded. Such works of Hogarth, Reynolds, Wilson, Gainshorough, and Wilkie, as were given or bequeathed they could not, of course, actually refuse to admit ; but even to them they only accorded a contemptuous shelter. That any approach whatever has been made to a collection of works of British art is in no wise due to the trustees of the National Gallery, or to the British government, Lut solely to the patriotism and the benevolence of private individuals.