Italian city, but it would be difficult to make Dalmatia an Italian province once more. The task would not be impossible, but, by occupying the whole of it or even the northern part as far as the Narenta, Italy would risk creating a new irredentism within her own gates, a movement in favour of the union of Dalmatia with the Slavs beyond the border. Perhaps the frontier might be that indicated by Dante, viz. the Quarnero, 'che Italia chiude e i suoi termini bagna.'

But an agreement between the two peoples should not be limited to a question of frontiers. The Adriatic is bound to be a waterway for peaceful traffic and a means of uniting the various peoples dwelling on its shores. It would seem as though Italy's mission on this sea were to extend her civilisation and culture even to nations of a different race, and to radiate into the rising Balkan States the benefits of her own older tradition and longer experience. Those countries have great potential wealth and untouched resources. Italian capital and Italian technical skill will help to develop them; Italian industry will furnish them with much of the products which they formerly drew from AustriaHungary; while Italy herself offers them a good market for a large part of their raw materials. The DanubeAdriatic railways, which will undoubtedly be built some day, will thus revive the old trade routes whereby in the Middle Ages the silks, woollen stuffs and other manufactured goods of Lombardy, Venice and Florence were exchanged by way of Dalmatia with the hides and minerals produced by the Serbia of Urosh and Dushan. There is, in fact, every reason for the cordial co-operation of the Italians and the Southern Slavs; and, now that Italy has entered the lists by declaring war against Austria, comradeship on the stricken field should weld this friendship still more closely.

FENBE PUBLIC LIBRARY

Art. 3.—THE TRUSTEES' REPORT ON THE NATIONAL GALLERY.

Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Committee of Trustees of the National Gallery. (Cd. 7878-9.) London : Wyman, 1915.

No apology is needed even at this time for dealing with the Report just published on the retention of important pictures in this country, and other matters connected with the National Art Collections, including the resources and administration of our National Gallery. The Committee of Trustees of the National Gallery, appointed for the purpose of considering and reporting upon these questions, have devoted a substantial part of the Report to recommendations for an increased annual grant available for purchases. Owing to the war these recommendations have, of course, become academic. Not only is there no question of any increase, but the Treasury has decided that for the current year even the ordinary grant of 5,000l. shall be withdrawn. However much the decision may be regretted, in view of the opportunities likely to occur of adding important works as a result of the war, and in particular in filling, at a reasonable cost, the considerable lacunæ that still exist, it cannot be denied that there is justification for this course. In the struggle for national self-preservation in which we are engaged we must be prepared to sacrifice even Art. At least as important, however, as the recommendations involving financial obligations is the large portion of the Report devoted to administration and kindred subjects, to which effect can be given without any additional cost to the nation. It is much to be hoped that time will be found for the careful and sympathetic consideration of these proposals. Indeed this work might well devolve upon the many keen and active individuals who are unable for one reason or another to take any other part in national service. If action is taken in regard to so much of the Report as does not depend upon finance, and the consequent and very necessary reforms are inaugurated without delay, there will be greater hope of satisfying the Treasury in happier days of the reasonableness of the financial demands.

Turning to the Report itself, it is somewhat disquieting to find that not since the year 1853 have the matters there dealt with been considered and reported upon in any full and systematic manner. Yet, since that date, the National Gallery itself has grown out of all knowledge, while the National Gallery of British Art has also come into existence.

For some years prior to the year 1913 attention had been drawn publicly in the Press and elsewhere to the need for a careful investigation, not only into the exodus of great masterpieces from this country, which had been constantly assuming the gravest proportions, but also into many questions connected with the development and administration of our great Art Collections. In 1903 the formation of the National Art-Collections Fund, and the success which attended its earliest efforts, drew the attention of art-lovers throughout the country to the vital interests of the nation in the retention and proper use of its great riches of works of art. In 1911 the present writer published The Nation and its Art Treasures,' in which he endeavoured to state briefly some of the most urgent problems that had arisen, and to collect and put forward for consideration various suggestions for dealing with them in the interests of the nation at large. At the end of 1911 the Trustees of the National Gallery appointed a committee of four of their number, consisting of Lord Curzon of Kedleston (Chairman), Lord D'Abernon, Mr R. H. Benson, and Sir Charles Holroyd, the Director, with the writer as Honorary Secretary. The work undertaken by the Committee consisted in the accumulation of a large amount of evidence, not only on the main question under consideration, but on the many side-issues, which, as soon as investigation began, were found to be involved. A large amount of evidence was taken and was of the most representative character, including as it did the evidence of the President of the Royal Academy, of the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, of the heads of Departments at the British Museum, of the Keepers of the Tate Gallery and of the Wallace Collection, of the Director of the National Portrait Gallery, of the then Director of the National Gallery of Ireland, of leading writers and authorities upon Art, and of experts Vol. 224.-No. 445.

2 A

directly concerned with the purchase or valuation of pictures.

It is impossible to give within the limits of a short article a complete conspectus of the problems considered and dealt with in a report which, with the evidence and Appendices, covers some 170 closely printed pages; but, while those interested in our National Art Collections must be referred to the Report itself, some idea of the magnitude and importance of the questions involved, and the courses recommended for their solution, may be attempted.

In an introductory paragraph the Committee's Report, which has been approved and adopted by the whole Board of Trustees, points out that the problem is one, not merely of finance or opportunity or policy, but of administration and organisation; and that more scientific and effective co-ordination might be a material factor in producing better results for our National Collections. It proceeds (Part 1) to show that the National Gallery, though representative, is by no means as completely so as is often believed, and that there remain a number of important masters either quite unrepresented or inadequately represented on its walls.

The recent enormous rise in the value of works of art, amounting in some cases to many hundreds per cent., is so well known that it may be a matter of surprise to many to learn that, while the prices to be paid for pictures have risen, the amount granted by the Government for their purchase has actually fallen. Yet such is the case. From 1865 to 1889 the average Parliamentary Grant for purchases for the National Gallery (including both ordinary and extraordinary grants) amounted to some 13,000l. per annum. From 1892 to 1901 it fell to under 7,000l., and from 1902 to 1911 rose only to some 9,000l. Yet during this period the expenditure of the State on all other matters has, as is well known, enormously increased. It is also somewhat surprising to note that, since the formation of the Gallery, the total Government contributions towards the purchase of pictures have amounted to less than 720,000l.; and that, of the 2,863 pictures of which the Collection consists, only 606 have been purchased out of Government money. Where then, it may be asked, have the

remaining funds and pictures come from? The answer is, from private contributions by individuals, from the income from patriotic bequests and legacies, and from the contributions of the National Art-Collections Fund, which last alone amount to more than 120,000l. The present position is, therefore, that, while the Parliamentary Grants are less than at a much earlier period, the market price of purchases is incomparably higher, and the purchasing power of the Trustees is consequently reduced in both ways. Further, while the Government is contributing a smaller sum, the generosity of private persons is becoming more and more marked; and in consequence the Government is doing less, and private effort more, than their fair share.

Part II of the Report deals with suggestions for reform. These include the consideration of proposals for restricting the rights of owners to export their pictures, the increase of financial resources for the acquisition of pictures, and the question of raising further money, available for purchases, by taxation. As to restrictions on the rights of owners, whether on the lines of the Italian legislation or otherwise, the Committee will have none of it, and condemn such proposals without hesitation, as being costly, inquisitorial and ineffective. They reject also the suggestion that a large capital sum should be set aside by Parliament for the acquisition of a limited number of masterpieces, though only on the ground that there is no prospect of Parliament considering such a project with favour. The Committee recommend, however, that the Annual Ordinary Purchase Grant shall be raised from the 5,000l. of which it at present consists (having been 10,000l. from 1865 to 1888) to 25,000l.

The Report then proceeds to consider whether such increased grant should be raised by any form of financial expedient, and to consider the advisability of special taxation. The proposal of a tax of, say, 10 per cent. on the gross proceeds of the sale of works of art by auction is recommended; the tax to be collected and paid to the Treasury by the auctioneer, with the corollary that the proceeds of such tax be added to the grant available for purchase by the various National Museums and Galleries, in proportion as the proceeds are derived from the sale