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, 1 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. Finances 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 ? I cannot quit this part of the subject without adof the Royal verting for a moment to the past conduct of the financial 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 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. Plans for the future manage annual exhibition. Mr. Martin is of opinion that the managing body of the annual exhibition should not be permanent, but ment of the "elective for a certain length of time: all artists who have exhibited for two or three years in London having the privilege of voting for the managers of such exhibition;" and the committee to include "representatives of each branch of Art." (Evid. ut sup. 885.) Mr. Haydon concurs in this recommendation, and that the term to entitle to vote should be three years; and he is of opinion that "in the present state of the Art, six hundred artists might form the first constituency" for this purpose. (ib. 1085-9.) He indeed carries the principle so far as to say, "I would manage the whole Art by twenty-four directors, professors, and lecturers in the same way; I would restore the principle of the chartered body of artists." But I need not repeat the arguments which have been already adduced against this jumbling together of various and dissimilar objects, from which so much mischief has arisen heretofore. Mr. Foggo (ib. 1381), Mr. Hurlstone (ib. 763), and other witnesses, concur in the general principle that the exhibition committee should be elective for short periods from a general constituency of exhibitors of a certain standing, and of course without any exclusive privileges, such as those complained of in the Academy. But it does not appear that any questions founded upon these recommendations were put either to the president or to the secretary of the Academy. Entirely concurring in the general principle thus laid down, I will only add my earnest hope that the first point to engage the attention of such a committee, would be the practicability of effecting a classification of the pictures exhibited, at least into the broad divisions of history and poetry-landscape and portraiture. Such a step is indispensable, if it is to be really the aim of our future exhibitions to improve and elevate the public taste, and not to degrade it. It might then be hoped that our chief annual exhibition, under the management of a clearly responsible body, free from the distraction of other objects, and therefore under no undue anxiety about the amount of receipts at the doors, and free also to take public measures to promote the sale of the works committed to their charge, would both increase the immediate rewards of our artists, and powerfully contribute to bring about that enlightened and liberal appreciation on the part of the great mass of the public, which alone affords a sure basis for the future and permanent prosperity of the Arts in this country. Summary I submit, then, that the most desirable reform in the Royal Academy,-the reform which would most extend of desirable and strengthen its usefulness,-consists, 1, In the separation of its functions as assembly 3, In the appropriation of such a sum from improvements. |