have so few good situations, that they constantly differ even amongst themselves. Have you had reason to complain that your historical paintings have been jostled out of an appropriate place for them by the intrusion of some petty portraits?—Yes, that is generally the case; every artist must have that to complain of, particularly those who have given a great deal of time and study to their works. It is a shame that a portrait, which is already paid for before it is sent to the place, and a thing of little or no study, should occupy the place of an historical picture."―(Ib. 829-830.)

Mr. Haydon also states, that

"The Academy is benefited by the works of some of the most eminent men in the world, and they deny them the right of preparing pictures for the public, on which their existence depends, after they are hung up. Mr. Martin gave an extraordinary instance of their hanging a picture of his: some of the academicians dropped a quantity of varnish and ruined the picture, and be suffered a whole season by this unreasonable oppression. May and June are the very existence of an artist who is working for bread, and who depends on the effects his works have in these months, for the existence of a whole year afterwards. It was infamous to injure an eminent man's work, and deny him a just remedy. In fact the Academy is a House of Lords without King or Commons for appeal. The artists are at the mercy of a despotism, whose unlimited power tends to destroy all feeling for right or justice; forty men do as they please without appeal.”—(Ib. 1063.)

He

Speaking of his own case, Mr. Haydon continues: “My first picture was painted in 1806, and exhibited in 1807; it was well hung, and purchased by Thomas Hope. Then I began a much greater picture, 'Dentatus,' well known in the art, and in Germany, and which was for Lord Mulgrave, my employer. begged me to keep it for the British Institution. I told him I was a student of the Academy, and wished to support it, as I derived the greater part of my knowledge studying there. I then sent 'Dentatus' to the Royal Academy (in 1809.) . . This picture was hung in the great room, in the same place as the other; and after two days it was taken down and put in the dark, on the assertion that I

⚫ I have not quoted this at length, because the incident occurred a long time ago, and was doubtless accidental. The important point about it is that it illustrates the badness of the regulation which precluded remedy in such a case.

occupied the place of an academician; when, instead of an academician's picture, a little girl in a pink sash was put there to fill the place. Not the picture of an academician?-Certainly; and in the ante-room there was no window at that time; therefore it was destruction to an artist of any reputation to have a picture of that class, which cost him two years painting,* put in that position. . . The consequences were so dreadful that I lost all employment; a handsome commission was taken from me, and I never had another commission for sixteen years. I then tried to found a school, and produced Eastlake, the Landseers, Harvey, Lance, Chatfield; but here the Academy opposed me, and destroyed my school by calumny."-(Ib. 1066-7,) &c. &c.

The defensive and explanatory statements of the Academy in relation to these various charges are contained in the evidence of the president and secretary, from which I quote the following. Sir Martin Shee, speaking of the arrangement of the exhibition, says:

"In my experience, which I am sorry to say now extends to thirty-six years, I never knew a more disagreeable duty; I have known several persons refuse it, and nothing but the strongest representations could induce them to submit to the drudgery of hanging the pictures. Upon a very recent occasion, one of the persons appointed to hang the pictures remonstrated in the strongest manner, and actually declined to fulfil the office; and nothing but the representation of the council that it was his duty, could induce him to undertake it . . . The exhibition is arranged in this way: members not of the council, for the time being, are not admitted to the rooms during the process. It might be supposed that the members of the Academy generally would have the power of dictating where their own pictures should be placed, and of coming in and disapproving of the situations allotted to them. This is not the case; and no member of the council is allowed to utter a word to any artist out of the Academy as to the situation in which his pictures are placed.- Is it not usual for members of the hangingcommittee to place their own pictures in the best situations?-By no

It is right to add, that this picture afterwards obtained the first premium from the British Institution. Amongst the pictures in competition with it on that occasion was one by an academician who was on the "hanging-committee" of 1809.

means; there is an artist here present who is far from placing his own pictures in the best situations; he had the liberality to withdraw from the last exhibition, when he was arranger, two or three of his pictures, in order to accommodate artists not members of the Academy. Other members of the committee acted in the same liberal way on the same occasion. . . . (Ib. 2010-1.) Have not the academicians who exhibit their pictures at the annual exhibition, the privilege of previously varnishing, cleaning, and retouching those pictures, which other artists who exhibit at the same time have not? Yes. Do you consider that a fair advantage, and one of those privileges which you consider beneficial for the interests the Academy hold in trust for the public?—I consider it perfectly fair; it is one of the privileges or advantages which the Institution grants, and which are alluded to in the diploma of his majesty; for if the Royal Academy did not confer upon its members any advantages which were not possessed by the whole art at large, I do not see what effect it would have, as offering a stimulus to ambition, or a reward to ability. You consider it a proper advantage?—I do. When I say so, however, I must add, that it is one of those advantages of which I myself have made very little use, and which I should have no kind of objection to see abolished... The Academy could have no objection to allow the same privilege to the artists at large if it were possible, but the number of the exhibitors renders such an extension of it impracticable." (Ib. 2017-20.)

I think it would be of little use to proceed further with · extracts on this subject. The utter inexpediency of continuing the present connexion between the annual exhibition and the other functions of the Royal Academy rests upon their inherent incompatibility, and not upon any individual cases of abuse. The interests at stake are too serious to be left to the mercy of chance, and uncontrolled, irresponsible power is not the less dangerous because it sometimes falls into hands too pure and honorable to misuse it.

Nor does it seem either necessary or expedient to make this question a mere question of finance. The needful expenses of the schools, and those of the Academy, as an assembly of honour, should be defrayed directly from public funds; because, by both institu

Benevolent fund.

tions, the whole body of the public is advantaged. The pensions to reduced and superannuated members are already provided for by funded property; but the expenses of the exhibition, and such charges upon the present 'charity fund' of the Royal Academy, as accrue for the benefit of artists, non-members, ought fairly to be defrayed (as at present) from the profits of the exhibition itself. And it is beyond all doubt that ample provision might be made for both, and opportunities be nevertheless accorded for the perfectly gratuitous admission of the less affluent portion of the community.

With reference to this last-named charity, or benevolent fund, (for artists, not members of the Academy,) two questions may perhaps arise: 1. Whether it should not be confined to artists who had been exhibitors? And 2. Whether its distribution would not be best managed by the present "chartered society for the distribution of the Artists' General Benevolent Fund;" the net proceeds of the exhibition being paid over to that society in order thereto ?

Finances I cannot quit this part of the subject without adof the verting for a moment to the past conduct of the financial Royal Academy. affairs of the Royal Academy. The average receipts of the exhibition amounted up to 1836 to about £5,000 a year (since its removal to the new gallery they are understood to have very greatly increased); and the total amount of revenue received by the Academy from its first establishment, up to the same period,* to about £260,000. It is to be regretted that no annual accounts have ever been published of the disposal of this revenue; but as nearly as the evidence affords data for its calculation, it may be stated as follows:

Namely, from 1768 to 1836, a period of sixty-eight years.

1. As ASSEMBLY OF HONour.

£

In official salaries necessary to this function, about 28,000
annual dinner to the patrons of art, &c. about 20,000
pensions to members and their families, about 12,000
miscellaneous expenses
about 6,800

2. SCHOOLS.

In official salaries to keeper, professors, &c. about 36,500

Funded property, for continuance of pensions to academicians, &c.

52,000

This statement, while it justifies the acknowledgment of Mr. Haydon (to whose testimony reference has been made already) that, "as respects the management of its money transactions," the Academy "has come out purely," also proves that the income already accruing from its funded property would suffice to defray a very considerable proportion of its future needful expenses as assembly of honour, and as central school, quite irrespective of the proceeds of the annual exhibition; respecting the future management of which, I proceed to offer some suggestions, founded upon the evidence taken before the committee of 1836.

Letter to the Spectator, Sept. 11, 1837.