Sir G. Beaumont begged to observe that he had himself presented the country with a picture by that artist. P.R.A. lite saint with a bow and arrows, an argumentative and disagreeable saint, a saint who advances his opinions politely and insinuatingly, a stupid saint, and a female saint violently fright- Dr. Waghorn remarked that few men had ened at something she is holding in her hand, ever been more deeply imbued with a feeling for and which bears a distant resemblance to a the works of the masters, and more reverently feather, but is equally like (or unlike) the drum- a student of those works (bringing no audacious stick of a fowl. All these saints are in one pic-novelties of his own into play), than MR. WEST, ture, by the same token that this composition is in the school of ANDREA DEL CASTAGNO, of whom we are told in the catalogue that he was called the Infamous, though whether from the infamy of his art, or of his private career, does not come out. Being quite sure of his professional infamy, however, we will suppose that to be the subject of allusion, and leave his moral career alone. But what a purchase was this! a picture not even by the "Infamous" himself, but in the school of his infamy. We are not only to buy the works of unknown (and infamous) masters, but even those of their more unknown (and more infamous) disciples. Dr. Waghorn was of opinion that too much was being said about the picture. It only occupied a position in the Hall. That Hall, witness continued, was certainly the best place for such works. It was not adorned with an exhilarating collection of gems. There was an Apostle of awful size, and very horrible to contemplate, who presided over one of the doorways, and was the handiwork of one PORDENONE. [Another of those illustrious masters whom witness had never had the advantage of hearing about.] Professor Waghorn begged to remind Professor Fudge that the work in question was a gift, and not a purchase. It was the gift of Cavaliere Vallati. Witness begged the Cavaliere's pardon. It was very liberal of that nobleman. Witness was glad to find that on a subsequent occasion, in 1859, a "deal" had been effected with the Cavaliere by which he became possessed of 3037. sterling. How was it, that the liberal donor of the invaluable PORDENONE had been induced to accept that sum ? Professor Waghorn submitted that this question was irregular. There was no connexion between the two transactions-how could there be? A Juryman remarked that there could be, in this way. "This same Cavaleerairy might want to come round the country in order to make 'em buy some of his pictures, or what not ?" Professor Waghorn begged he might not hear any such insinuations, and that the evidence of Professor Fudge might be resumed. Witness quite agreed with Dr. Waghorn on that point. He submitted, however, that perhaps the pictures of the deceased President would have been more interesting if he had put something more of his own into them. Be that as it might, witness had meant no allusion to the gift of Sir George Beaumont, which was the best specimen of the artist in the collection, but to subsequent donations of inferior works. The Saints, by TADDIO GADDI, given by Mr. Coningham, might have sufficed as specimens of the school to which TADDIO GADDI belonged, and might have exonerated us from purchasing any more: though this gift had a different effect. The especially vile picture by Razzi might be quoted as a gift horse whose mouth had by all means better remain unexamined; and so might the villanous Assumption of the Magdalen, surrounded by redfaced furies, of JULIO ROMANO. In the name of the Prophet, what is to be said of this JULIO ROMANO? Is he not artistically a miscreant of the vilest order? It is time he was exposed once for all, as an impostor. Does he ever fail to outrage every good principle in art? Did he ever paint a good picture?" Dr. Waghorn begged that witness would give his evidence more calmly; and Sir G. Beaumont took the liberty of reminding Professor Fudge that the name of GIULIO ROMANO was dear to fame, and was not to be. handled thus lightly. If we turned from gifts to bequests, the witness resumed, we should find that it was often inexpedient to look a bequeathed as well as a gift horse in the mouth. The Rev. Carr had left some nasty bequests. Sir G. Beaumont could not allow that expression. Witness threw himself upon the Jury; what did the Jury think of The Holy Family, by ANDREA DEL SARTO? The Jury knew nothing about it, did they? What did they think of The Dream, by MICHEL ANGELO? What a specimen of that name! Referring to the body of the catalogue, however, witness found that though this picture was put down under the name of MICHEL ANGELO, it was stated in its description While on the subject of gifts, and that of be- that it was "from a design only of MICHEL quests, which naturally suggested itself at the ANGELO." Truly, BUONAROTTI must have been same time, witness thought that the terribly cy-in a bad way when he did that design, and called nical but true proverb, which suggested the impropriety of examining the dental arrangements of eleemosynary horses, was sometimes applicable to pictures. Was it judicious to accept such gift-pictures as some of those that adorned the walls of the National Gallery? How liberal people had been with the works of BENJAMIN WEST, R.A., for instance. This it A Dream of Human Life. It must have been mankind." Oh, Mr. Carr, Mr. Carr! that of TURNER, and were left in a kind of hopeless MICHEL ANGELO was a nasty bequest. The attempt to conquer the prejudice which exists Conversion of St. Paul, by HERCULES OF in the majority of minds in favour of the old FERRARA, was another nasty one. It was un-painters, and the insane belief in their unifeeling again of Carr Sir George Beaumont: The Rev. Mr. Carr. It was unfeeling of the Rev. Mr. Carr to leave to a country that had done him no injury the two DOMENICHINOS-St. George and the Dragon, and St. Jerome and the Angel. Nor was it easy to see how we had brought the Ecce Homo of LUDOVICO CARACCI upon ourselves. It is not contended that we did not deserve these pictures, but why of the Rev. Mr. Carr? There was a great name of a Venetian painter, one of the greatest that the world knew; how absurd to have that name of TINTORETTO represented in such a country as this by that sketch of St. George and the Dragon! This, again, was Carr. But there was no end to Carr. Dr. Waghorn called the witness to order. Let the evidence be proceeded with. Witness found the name of another public benefactor on the books of the National Gallery as having bequeathed a large and terrific collection. This was Lt.-Col. Öllney, who let loose upon us in 1837 a perfect avalanche of indifferent art. The Ruins and Figures of the great PANINI, the Palace of Dido by STEINWYCK, the Cornelia of PADOVANINO, the Moonlight of the illustrious WILLIAMS, came to the country from this gallant lieutenant-colonel. Ah, Heaven! had those pictures been left to him by some previous Olney, or did he buy them out of his pay, or did he, in the sack of some foreign town, receive them as his portion, and leave them -out of spite-to the country which assigned them to him? Yet the bequests of Ollney are more cheery than that of Forbes, Esq., who made over to us just one gem, an Allegory, by ANGELICA KAUFFMANN, and there ended. Dr. Waghorn thought witness was carrying his views to an excess. Witness appeared to him to like nothing. Sir George Beaumont gave it as his opinion that ANGELICA KAUFFMANN was a great and gifted creature, and that if there were one thing in which she excelled more remarkably than another, it was Allegory, in which invigorating phase of Fine Art she was indeed at home. Witness bowed to the opinion of the accomplished Ghost who had last spoken. He, however, must protest against the remark which had fallen just now from the lips of the learned Dr. Waghorn. He (witness) appealed to the Jury whether he had not spoken in terms of high admiration of many works hanging on the walls of the National Gallery? There was one donation to the country-in addition to that of Mr. Vernon, which, not being in the National Gallery, could not claim any part of their consideration during the present investigation -there was one gift of which he could not speak in terms too high. It consisted of two magnificent pictures: one, of Sunrise by the Sea-shore: the other, of the Building of Carthage. They were the work and the bequest versal superiority to the new; a belief which, if it was not shaken by these pictures, must be indeed deeply rooted. Let any person with the use of his eyes, compare these pictures with the CLAUDES among which they were placed. Dr. Waghorn and Sir George Beaumont both attempting to speak at once, the preference was naturally given-the superiority of mind over matter being an established thing-to the accomplished Ghost, who proceeded to say that: He had now lived (or rather he had died) to see the day when impiousness, audacity, and freethinking, had attained their climax. He had heard the gentleman to whose evidence the Jury had been listening, and who, he begged to say, was a very young gentleman, to give his opinions in the confident manner in which he enunciated them-he had heard that young gentleman speak in a manner which would have made his flesh, if he had had any, creep. He had heard names which he had been accustomed to mention-ay, and to hear mentioned-with hushed breath, spoken lightly, flippantly, disparagingly, and the owners of those names criticised as if they were mere ordinary mortals. Here was a young man coming forward, unshaved, and with no neckcloth to speak of Professor Waghorn begged the accomplished Ghost to take notice that the majority of the Jury was characterised by the same peculiarities. Sir George Beaumont begged pardon of the Jury; he had lived in days when men shaved and wore stocks; that was a period, also, when they believed things that were told them on authority, and did not presume to lift up their voices to give expression to private opinion. Had veneration ceased to exist for anything? Had reverence and razors gone out together? He (the accomplished Ghost) had heard the names of the CARACCI and of GUIDO spoken of in disparaging terms; he had heard it assumed that RAPHAEL himself could sometimes paint a bad picture; and now he was to hear the glories of CLAUDE-CLAUDE, the idol of his youth, the worship of his manhood, the stay of his declining years-spoken of as likely to suffer by comparison with certain works by the late MR. TURNER, a clever gentleman, whom he had had the pleasure of knowing, but whom he could not hear spoken of in the same breath with a master like CLAUDE LORRAINE. Did witness remember that MR. TURNER was a modern artist, and CLAUDE an old master? And was not that enough? Dr. Waghorn was heard to murmur that it was enough. The Eye-witness said, on the other hand, that it was not enough. He was of opinion that there were masters of the olden time who excelled masters of the new time; but there were also some masters of this day whose performances threw into the shade those of some masters of the day for which the accomplished gentleman who had just spoken had expressed such reverence. A Juryman did not see, under those circumstances, the good of having a commission at all. Another Juryman remarked that he didn't know as commissions ever' was much good. This observation being, however, considered to be irregular, and to have no connexion with the Professor Waghorn wished to know what witness meant? Did he conceive that people were not interested in the works which had been the subject of the present examination? Had wit-matter in hand: ness observed any symptoms of indifference to the works of the old masters, among the visitors to the Gallery? The Eye-witness had observed some very remarkable symptoms among those visitors. He had noticed that the most essentially modern picture in the collection was that most crowded about. It was a small picture, but it certainly was the great favourite. Dr. Waghorn begged to inquire what that picture was? Witness replied that it was the work of one DYCKMANS; that it represented a Blind Beggar and his Child, and was bequeathed to the country by-of all people in the world-the late Miss Jane Clarke, a milliner in Regent-street, and the inventor of the prettiest form of bonnet that ever was perched upon the female head. Witness did not like that picture, but he was of opinion that the public did, and that a perceptible difference was observable in the demeanour of those who turned from the contemplation of, say the allegory of Angelica Kauffmann, to a consideration of this picture. They lost for a time that jaded and listless appearance which had characterised them while engaged in the study of the old masters. Dr. Waghorn concluded, from the nature of the witness's remarks, that at any rate he did not consider the collection which had been presented to the nation by Robert Vernon, Esq., an inconsiderable or trifling gift? Witness replied, that indeed he did not. He wished, however, to ask a question with regard to those pictures. He wished to know whether a commission had not been appointed to decide whether it was desirable to remove those pictures to South Kensington, or to keep them as parts of the National Collection? Professor Waghorn believed that such a commission had been appointed. Witness begged next to inquire what was the result of the inquiries of that commission, and what the conclusion arrived at by them? Professor Waghorn believed that the conclusion arrived at was that the pictures in question should not be removed to Kensington. Witness-And yet that removal was effected; could the learned Doctor explain that circumstance? The learned Doctor was not in a position to explain that circumstance. Possibly it had appeared to higher authorities than that commission, or than any commission, that such a removal would be an agreeable portion of a plan in which those high authorities were interested. If so, the removal of those pictures was one of the most gratifying things that had ever come under his notice, and ought to be so to the country generally. Witness went on to say that he considered such neglect, on the part of Government, of the conclusions arrived at by a commission of the Government's own appointing, was most extraordinary, and that it required explanation. Witness was of opinion, that if any pictures were to be removed to a distance from the centre of the town, the works of the old masters should have been selected, as the modern pictures would certainly have afforded more delight to the public, and, consequently, should be within easy reach. Dr. Waghorn considered that the public was not justified in expecting to have what it likes, but rather what is thought good for it. If the public liked modern art better than ancientwhich the learned Doctor could hardly believe possible--but if it did, he could only say that it deserved no consideration at the hands of Government. The learned Doctor then went on to say that he thought it was time for the present inquiry to draw to a close; was his accomplished colleague (Sir G. Beaumont) of the same opinion? Sir G. Beaumont was of the same opinion. He had been much shocked and outraged by the things he had heard in that court, and it would be a relief to him to be released from so painful an ordeal. In addition to this, the accomplished Ghost felt that the evening was drawing on, and that he would be wanted elsewhere as soon asas-in short, as soon as it was dark enough. Dr. Waghorn requested the Eye-witness to bring his evidence to an immediate close, and, in doing so, to state exactly what the object of that evidence was, and what it was that he was endeavouring to establish by the very revolutionary and unpleasant sentiments to which he had given utterance in that court. The Eye-witness, in conclusion, begged to add, that the whole intention and purpose of the evidence he had given, was, he had hoped, made sufficiently clear by the nature of that evidence. He had gone through-not, indeed, completely, but he believed completely enough for the present purpose-the pictures of which our National Collection was composed, and more especially those works which had been recently added to it. He had endeavoured to show that many of those purchases had been characterised by a mingled timidity and rashness which would sometimes strangely enough go together, but always in most unhappy union. He had shown that pictures had been purchased in lots, at prices which forbade the possibility of their being fit works for the National Gallery of England, and that the money thus spent in small sums might, by being allowed to accumulate, have tempted the possessors of some one or two fine pictures to part with them; and witness con tended that to acquire one or two such works, was better than to gain any number of second or third-rate pictures, such as might indeed be endured in private collections, but not in the National Collection of this great and prosperous country. He had (giving a larger margin than his own judgment entirely coincided with) granted that out of the 78,1857. spent since the year 1844, the following purchases were justifiable the Judgment of Paris at 4000, the Boar Hunt at 22007., the Vision of a Knight at 10501., the Tribute-Money at 26047. (against this the E.-W. protests, but it is allowed, as is the case with the Adoration of the Magi and the two RUYSDAELS, because of the public consent), the Adoration of the Magi at 1977, the RUYSDAELS at, respectively, 11877. and 10697., the PERUGINO at 3571, the Adoration of the Shepherds of VELASQUEZ at 20507., and the Darius of PAUL VERONESE at 13,6507. These pictures were not purchased in lots, and together made up a sum of 33,3587., leaving a balance of upwards of 40,0007., which witness contended had been misapplied. Two things more, the witness had endeavoured to prove first, that it was not right, when a picture was purchased for the country, that it should be made over to an individual; secondly, that it was absurd to appoint a commission to decide on the proper position for the Vernon Gallery, and then not to abide by the conclusion arrived at by that commission. Witness had now one more inquiry to make, and he had done. He had been told that the really fine works by old masters, which were to be found in various public and private collections on the Continent, were not to be bought for money; he wished to know if it were the opinion of the Jury that if good pictures by the old masters were not to be had, the only thing to do was to buy bad or indifferent ones, and he wished also to know whether it would not be better to spend the public money on good modern pictures, both English and foreign, than on bad ancient ones, purchased merely because they were ancient? By Sir George Beaumont-Yes, witness was of opinion that there actually were some pictures by the modern artists which were superior to some pictures by the old. Witness had that very morning, in walking down St. James'sstreet, seen a pair of photographs from two pictures by a living French painter, which gave him greater pleasure than nine-tenths of the works of the old masters. They were pictures that reached the mind, and not the eye only. The first represents a scene in the Coliseum at Rome, in the days when it was used for the vile purpose for which it was built. A group of doomed gladiators approach the seat of the Emperor, which is raised high above them, and salute him on their road to death. The grace and magnificence of this group, marvellously fine as it is; the strange truth of the scene, which is put before one with inconceivable reality and force; these qualities are nothing to the mind that is in the picture. The athletes are presented by a courtier-like and flippant master of the revels, and the royal salute rises to the imperial throne. "The men about to die salute thee, Great Cæsar." Words that fall like idle sounds on the ear of him to whom they are addressed. The fat and blasé wretch is not even looking at the men as they approach him. These preliminary forms only bore him; let them come to bloodshed, that may rouse him, perhaps. This fat Emperor, seated on his high throne, is something removed from his court; he is lonely and cursed in his look, and is more an object of pity than the men below, who are "butchered to make a Roman holiday," and how much more than those already slain, whose bodies lie about the arena. This is the first picture. It shows the Sin; the second-representing the Assassination of Julius Cæsar-shows the Punishment. An unpromising subject enough it might be supposed; but what are sterile subjects in the hands of unthinking and conventional men, are invested with novelty and interest by the touch of genius. The artist has in this great work abandoned himself to a guide that leads men on to glory with sure and unerring steps; he has bowed himself before the Throne of Truth, and bound himself by her eternal laws. What the senate was in the time of Cæsar, the senate is now; and a senator in a toga or a paletot is still a man. That Senate-house, in which the Emperor is murdered, has its seats encumbered with papers, as they would be in the Luxembourg. One man has left a cloak in the place where he was sitting, and one has fallen asleep so heavily that the assassination itself has not awakened him. The body of the emperor lies decently covered in the front of the picture, and the throne on which he was seated is wrested from its place. Meanwhile the conspirators are departing in a little group, huddled together at the back of the picture, and some of the hindmost of these turn, as they depart, to look on what they have done. Witness would now put it to the Jury whether it was not better, till we could get firstrate pictures by the old masters, to buy such glorious specimens as these of the new, and whether any triumph of Julius Cæsar that MANTEGNA could commemorate was such a triumph as this of which he had spoken? Professor Waghorn said in few words that the Jury had heard what Professor Fudge had put forward in the course of his evidence. He (the learned Doctor) was of opinion that the views of witness were extreme and exaggerated. He had consulted with his colleague on the bench (the donor of some of the most beautiful works in the National Collection), who was of the same opinion as himself. He (the learned Doctor) was determined to stand by those time-honoured names which had come down to them from former ages adorned with the high laudations which the voices of each succeeding generation had accumulated over them. The learned Doctor had, however, no wish to influence the minds of the Jury. Their business was to form their own verdict upon what they had heard-upon the evidence of Professor Fudge, accompanied by such remarks as he (the learned Doctor) and the accomplished Ghost, with whom he had the honour of sharing that bench, had from time to time delivered as comments upon the statements of the Eye-witness. : The Jury, without retiring, announced that they were prepared with their verdict, which was to the following effect: That they considered that an undue number of works by those early masters who were called pre-Raphaelite, had been purchased by the Trustees of the National Gallery. That the practice of buying works irrespective of their merit, merely to represent a certain name, was highly objectionable as was the system of purchasing pictures in a "lot," good and bad together. That it had appeared that since 1844 a sum of upwards of 40,000l. had been misapplied, out of 78,000%. spent. That the disregard shown to the decision of the commission appointed to determine on the removal or non-removal of the Vernon pictures, was disrespectful and inexplicable. That the handing over to an individual of a picture purchased for the country, on consideration of the payment of the original purchase money by that individual, was a transaction requiring explanation. Finally, that it was most desirable that, in the existing difficulty of procuring fine works by the old masters, arrangements should be made which would render possible the purchase of the best works of modern artists, both English and foreign. and solemnly round; those who were accompanied by friends seldom speaking to them. In fact, they discharged their consciences of a visit to the National Gallery, and went away again. The E.-W. remarked a glee and briskness about the walk and general appearance of the visitors who were going away which was not observable in those who were entering. Under these circumstances, it may not irrationally be asked why the people go to an exhibition which they do not particularly enjoy when they get there? The answer to this question involves the very subtle principle, that there is an irresistible force of attraction about open doors which draws human beings through them. There are invisible currents that set towards these places, and which, on certain occasions, become irresistibly strong. The occasions chiefly alluded to, are those when some great public holiday dawns upon us, as Easter Monday, Whit-Monday, or Good Friday. At those times the power of suction possessed by these open doors is such that few people are able to resist them. The extraordinary distances, too, to which the power of these currents extend is very remarkable. On such festive days as have been mentioned above, it is nothing for a respectable family to be dragged, children, babies, and all, from distances even as remote as Hoxton or i Camberwell; and with scarce time to snatch a few provisions together, to victual them by the way, they are whirled along on this tide to their ruin, madly grasping as they pass at such unsubstantial objects as bottles of ginger-beer, oranges, and the like, with which their dread progress is only for a moment ineffectually retarded: their last snatch, when at the very mouth of the aperture which is yawning to receive them, being generally made at an institution called a catalogue, with which they hope to mitigate their torments, but which is generally found to add to them considerably. Dr. Waghorn begged to inform the Jury that the verdict which they had arrived at-and with which he entirely disagreed-should be forwarded to the proper quarter; that it would be received there, would be recorded as their verdict, that all the necessary formalities in connexion with it would be gone through, and that NO RESULT WHATEVER would take place in consequence of it. He hoped everybody was satisfied, and he begged to dissolve the commission. The Jury, the component members of which There is no other principle than this of the appeared to be perfectly contented with the fact suctional powers of doorways that can at all that they had been allowed to express an opinion, account for the presence of many people, who now departed, and the ghost of Sir George are evidently exquisitely wretched, in the halls Beaumont, which had been for some time impa- of the National Gallery. Why, but that he tiently rapping the table in evident annoyance at has fallen into one of these resistless currents, being detained so long, disappeared with won- should that weary old labourer in a white smockderful celerity. It is understood that Dr. Wag frock have got into those rooms on a bright horn at once betook himself to the National Whit-Monday? The force of the tide, in his Gallery, where he was found, some time after-case, must have extended at least to Kingston wards, contemplating The Infancy of Jupiter, or Watford. Why, again, that char-woman and by JULIO ROMANO, with evident symptoms of satisfaction. To this Report of the Official Evidence which the Eye-witness ought to have given, on the occasion of the inquiry which ought to have been held, he begs here to add one or two remarks upon less important matters, and upon the more social aspects of this dismal exhibition. The Eye-witness remarked that the visitors to the National Gallery were jaded and listless to a pitiable extent. That there were few persons who appeared to enjoy the pictures. The greater portion of the visitors walked slowly her little girl, the child asking who was St. Sebastian, and the char-woman replying that she don't know? Why the two horse-soldiers, a young private and an old non-commissioned officer, who walk round the rooms: the young man always a few paces behind his senior, and always looking at the pictures over the other's head, but not seeing anything? Why did the young man with the open mouth, who has sat upon one chair in the Large Room one hourwhy did that young man come? He is very miserable, and would be happier elsewhere. Why did the polite man come, whose life was rendered wretched because he was always dis |