importance. They may now see that the ancient safeguards of order are now no longer sufficient in the realm, and that with the altered state of society, and the passions consequent upon it which the Reform Bill has induced, more powerful securities for life and property have become indispensable. It is no doubt an interesting theme for the moralist or historian to contemplate the period when the interposition of a stipendiary force was not required for the suppression of riots in the realm of England-when the unpaid magistrate discharged the judicial functions-when the village constable was the only conservator of the peace, and the largest of our seditious assemblages melted away before the sight of the justice's wand. These beautiful features must be numbered with the things that have been. The vast extension of manufactu. ring establishments throughout the country the infatuated neglect of our religious institutions by the Tories when in power-the obstinate resistance to all attempts at their enlargement by the Whigs, since they have been in office-the unbounded expectations which, for selfish purposes, the leaders of the Liberal party excited in the country during the progress of the Reform mania-the bitter disappointment of all these expectations since the new constitution came into operation-the atrocious wickedness of the leaders of the Chartist rebellion-and the wide-spread discontent arising from some of the harsh and unnecessary features of the New PoorLaw Bill, have now brought the country into such a state, that the old safeguards of order are utterly inadequate, and the general establishment of a stipendiary force has become indispensable for domestic safety. That such an establishment is the first step towards a more stringent and despotic frame of Government, may be perfectly true. But what then? Without it, life and property cannot be preserved.

It is of great consequence to the cause of truth and the enlightenment of the world in future times, to observe that this deplorable downward progress, which all men now see and lament, was distinctly foreseen and emphatically foretold at the outset of the Re

form mania in this country, not merely by the philosophic writers who had turned their attention to this subject in other states, but by the political journalists which, in the outset, opposed the general madness which prevailed in this country. We shall content ourselves with referring to three passages from different authors, illustrating this position in the most remarkable manner.

"The Legislature in France, which the middle classes had themselves appointed," said Thiers in 1825,

"became from the very first the object of the dislike and jealousy of the lower; and the history of the Legislative Assembly is nothing more than

the preparations for the revolt which overthrew the monarchy. This is the natural progress of revolutionary troubles. Ambition, the love of power, first arises in the higher orders; they exert them. selves, and obtain a share of the supreme authority. But the same passion descends in society; it rapidly gains an inferior class, until at length the whole mass is in movement. Satisfied with what they have gained, all persons of intelligence strive to stop; but it is no longer in their power, they are incessantly pressed on by the crowd in their rear. Those who thus endeavour to arrest the movement, even if they are but little elevated above the lowest class, if they oppose its wishes, are called an aristocracy and incur its odium."*

"It is the middling ranks,"

said Mr Alison in 1830,

"who organize the first resistance to Government, because it is their influence only which can withstand the shock of established power. They, accordingly, are at the head of the first revolutionary movement. But the passions which have been awakened, the hopes that have been excited, the disorder which has been produced in their struggle, lay the foundation of a new and more terrible convulsion against the rule which they have established. Every species of authority appears odious to men who

have tasted of the license and excitation of a revolution; the new government speedily becomes as unpopular as the one which has been overthrown; the ambition of the lower orders aims at establishing themselves in the situation in which a successful effort has placed the middling. A more terrible struggle awaits them, than that which they have just concluded, with arbitrary power; a struggle with superior numbers, stronger passions, more unbridled ambition; with those whom moneyed fear has deprived of employment, revolutionary innovation filled with hope, inexorable necessity impelled to exertion. In this contest, the chances are against the duration of the new institution, unless the supporters can immediately command the aid of a numerous and disciplined body of men, proof alike to the intimidation of popular violence and the seduction of popular ambition." *

"The next Revolution," said Blackwood's Magazine, in February 1831,

"which Great Britain undergoes, if so deplorable an event ever shall occur, will not be long headed by the higher orders; it will not follow the guidance of the Lords and Commons-it will not be directed to the establishment of any civil immunities. Power, not freedom, will be its object; it will be directed against both Lords and Commons-it will aim at the destruction of all influence save that which emanates from the lower orders of society. It will be a general insurrection of the lower orders against the higher; an effort of the populace to take the powers of sovereignty into their own hands, and divide among themselves all that is now enjoyed by their superiors. It will be followed by the consequences which attend ed similar efforts in the neighbouring kingdom. It will, in the first instance, be loudly praised, and it will excite the most extravagant expectations; it will be headed by many good men, warm in their hopes of human felicity, ardent in their expectation of the regeneration of society. Speedily their ascendant will be at an end

vice, reckless ambition, daring selfishness, will rise from the lower orders of society; philosophic enthusiasm will instantly be annihilated by vulgar ambition. The property of the Church will be the first victim; the regenerators of society will declare that they take the public worship under the safeguard of the state, and they will perform their promises, by giving their ministers, as they did in France, L.40 a-year each.

"The national debt will be the next object of attack; the people will find it intolerable to pay the interest of burdens which they had no hand in imposing; the public creditors will be swept off, and the industry of the people relieved by destroying the accumulation of a thousand years. The estates of the nobility will then become an eyesore to the purifiers of society; land will be viewed as the people's farm; the public miseries will be imputed to the extortions of these unjust stewards, and a division of the great properties will be the consequence. In the consternation occasioned by these violent changes, commercial industry will come to a standagricultural produce will be diminishedthe employment of capital will be withdrawn-famine, distress, and want of employment, will ensue the people will revolt against their seducers-more violent remedies will be proposed stronger principles of democracy maintained. the struggle of these desperate factions, blood will be profusely shed. Terror, that destroyer of all virtuous feeling, will rule triumphant. Another Danton, a second Robespierre, will arise; another Reign of Terror will expiate the sins of a new revolution, and military despotism close the scene."†

In

THERE is no indication of the health and usefulness of any institution more certain, than the virulence with which it is attacked. In proportion to the good is the evil that is set against it. When it would live in and by its own strength, it must be strangled. Let it sleep, doze, and be bedridden, and it may be allowed to live unheeded. It has been the unceasing energy, the daily increasing usefulness, of the Church of England in Ireland, that determined the Papists to deal to it the "heavy blow." It is the present great and manifest advancement of Art in the Academy, and by means of the Academy, that causes the bitterness, envy, and active malevolence against it. This ill-natured warfare is of the old sore, that still festers in the human heart. It is but as it was "When they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them." Annihilate if we can; if we cannot do that, we will threaten and harass them year by year. Such are the honourable, the liberal proceedings adopted, and to be strenuously pursued, towards the Royal Academicians, who, perhaps more than any other set of men, for the proper prosecution of their studies, and consequently the general advancement of Art, require, and have a right to demand, from the public, an absence of all molestation.

The case of the Academy is simple enough. It was founded seventy years ago under the patronage of George III., who gave them apartments in his own palace, and for a time grants out of his privy purse. The members have been in undisturbed and undisputed possession of these apartments from the time of their foundation, until their location in the New Academy in Trafalgar Square. When, for the public advantage, Old Somerset House was pulled down, the King stipulated that his Academy should have rooms in the New Buildings; in accordance

with which stipulation, he, the King, delivered with his own hand the key of these apartments to the Academicians. Thus, if he had a right to give them apartments in the Old Somerset House, by the stipulation he had the same right to give them apartments in the New Buildings; and the Academy accepted them as a personal boon and gift from the King, whose property they were, as the first rooms were; and the title of the Academy is in nowise altered in the change-and this is admitted. If any thing, then, in this stage of the question can be disputed, it must be the original power in the King to grant, which circumstance at once transfers the dispute from the Academy to the Crown. They who received the keys from the Royal hands, cannot deliver them back into any other. Nor can they, without Royal permission, disclose to any other authority any of their concerns ; for, according to the nature of their foundation, their concerns have become a part of the private Royal Establishment.

Accordingly the Academy, with the Royal permission, in 1834, made ample disclosures both as to their general management and of their funds; in 1835, they underwent a strict examination before the Committee on Arts and Manufactures, from which every information that the most curious public might require, was voluntarily and undisguisedly given. No candid mind can read the Report of that Committee, and remain dissatisfied with the pecuniary management of the Royal Academy. They had accumulated large funds, which they employed, not for their own benefit, by any distribution among themselves which they might have made, but for the advancement of Art. They have accordingly formed schools of painting, and distributed in charity £30,000. And that their charity at least did not begin and end at home, may be seen from the evidence of their secretary before the Committee of the House of Commons-" It is not true that the members of the Royal Academy devote a larger portion of the funds to the necessities of

their own body than to those of art

ists not members. The gross sum expended in pensions to distressed members being £11,106; and the donations to artists not members and their families, £19,249."

Well, such was the state of the case, when, previous to their removal to the New Buildings, petitions were presented to Parliament against any such removal. A knot of men, virulently opposed to the Academy, are examined before the Committee of the House-most favourably examined, and full scope given for their severest animadversions, aspersions, and calumnies. And it is difficult to conceive a more contemptible figure than is made by some of the most bitter of those opponents. The most unfounded assertions to the discredit of the Academy are made, and clearly disproved. However unwilling the reader of the Report of the Committee may be to come to uncharitable conclusions, it is next to an impossibility to acquit those persons of malice and falsehood. As a specimen of the latter, we refer to question and answer 1057, 2d part; and the confutation by Secretary, 2117.

B. R. Haydon, Esq., examined: "The Academy has no act or charter like other public bodies?"

"No, they only exist by the Royal pleasure. They cunningly refused George the Fourth's offer of a charter, fearing it would make them responsible: they are a private society, which they always put forward when you wish to examine them; and they always proclaim themselves a public society when they want to benefit by any public vote.

Now, we shall see how cunning they were.

Henry Howard, Esq., Secretary, examined:-" The Royal Academy did not refuse a charter from George the Fourth, for fear that it should make them responsible. A charter was neither offered nor desired."

The Academy became established in their New Buildings. They might reasonably have now expected uninterrupted peace. They had given ample information respecting all their proceedings; and might fairly have considered themselves most honourably acquitted of all charges brought against them. Not so. Hatred is not subdued by the injury it commits. The very injury renders it the more-hatred. Do

NO. CCLXXXVII, VOL, XLVI.

the Academy commit any new crime? Does Art retrograde amongst the members? Are the Exhibitions of decided inferiority? Quite the reverse of all this. But the Exhibitions are more in public favour, the funds are increasing -" Hinc illæ lachryma." The wouldbe Public Accountant must be called in to scrutinize, and harass by a petty scrutiny, the accounts of the Academy, not for information, but for insult and degradation; and that such has been the view will be but too apparent.

as

Mr Hume is instigated to obtain an order from the House for the production of their accounts from the Royal Academy. Was his purpose, or the purpose of his instigators, to obtain accounts? No, the purpose was to annihilate the Academy-to have them "turned out" of their New Buildings "interlopers." Thus, while one thing is pretended, another object is subsequently, and not until the order was obtained, owned. On the 24th June last, Mr Hume says, upon his discussion on the enforcing the order obtained, "He would reserve all further observations till the discussion on his motion for enforcing the order for the production of the returns. But he might observe, in the mean time, that his object had been completely misunderstood. What he asked was, that her Majesty's Ministers would adopt measures to turn them out of the building. All that he asked was, that these interlopers should be turned out, to give proper accommodation to the public.' So much for the object-now for the almost surreptitious manner in which that order had been obtained-the confession of which, by the members of the House, we humbly think has a tendency to throw no little discredit upon their deliberations. We will adduce the evidence of Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, the best evidence on both sides of the House. Sir Robert Peel says: "The honourable member for Kilkenny had succeeded in getting this return ordered; but, if that House had been betrayed into a hasty and inconsiderate order, it would be to their credit to rescind it. The honourable gentleman obtained the order at half-past one o'clock, when the attention of members was not much called to it; and, even if members had read it, their suspicions would have been lulled by the words that were appended to the notice. The return so sought for

U

was a

purposed to be a continuation of a former return, made up to July 1836; but the return which the honourable gentleman now stated that he required, perfectly new return-a return founded on the evidence given by the President and Secretary of the Royal Academy. Why then did the honourable member try to lull suspicion, by stating in his notice, that he only required a continuation of an old report? He must say, that the addition of these words was apparently disingenuous." Lord John Russell castigates more mildly, fully admitting the fact, that the House was betrayed into the order: " He did not consider that they were in the least bound by a motion made by the honourable member for Kilkenny at a late hour of the night, at the end of an adjourned debate on the Corn-Laws; and when the members, hearing that it was a continuation of former returns, paid but little attention." The Royal Academy had respectfully petitioned against the enforcing of this order. Counter-petitions were presented from Messrs George Rennie, E. T. Parris, John Martin, George Clint, F. Y. Thurlstone, Holmes, and Geo.

Foggo; and as Mr Haydon generally wishes to stand alone, so does he on this occasion, and conspicuously petitions by himself, and at a wearisome length; and whilst ostensibly his petition is, that the House may not rescind their order, it is in fact a violent invective against the Academy, for all and every thing, and showing (he not being a member) very modestly, that the greatest talent is sure to be out of it.

The opponents to the Academy, however, and Mr Hume their great advocate, and Accountant-General of all discontented and disaffected persons, are defeated and the Academy are left, for the present, to the management of their own funds, and the keeping of their own accounts. But can the Academy expect a long respite from the Reforming Persecution? They may depend upon it, such persecution will be annual, annual as regards Parliament, and perpetual out of it. Two things will insure them that their superior attainment in art, and their success, their increase of their funds. Their opponents will not out-paint them, as they ought first to do, and then to complain; they will find it much more within their power to raise

The Academy have escaped for the present the scrutiny of their accounts; but are there not in the very setting forth, in the very marrow of their success, indications, more than indications, of their undoing? The general admission and feeling of the House of Commons is, that they have no right to their present favour, and present position in Trafalgar Square. The plain admission is, and we think unnecessarily acknowledged, or left undisputed in their own petition, that they may be turned out at a moment's notice, to suit the public convenience, without any right being infringed. Though we are decidedly of another opinion, such is the assumption, on the part of the public, as taken by the House of Commons; and though seemingly denied by the advocate of the Academy, Sir Robert Inglis, such is in fact the admission of the Royal Academy. We think this position in which they stand, willingly or unwillingly, derogatory to their own dignity as Academicians, dishonest towards the Crown, whose right is set aside by all parties, and illiberal and dishonourable to the country. Under these circumstances, what ought these three respective parties to do? We think the original right of granting apartments in Somerset House, certainly exercised by the Crown, should, in the first place, form a distinct proposition for the consideration of Parliament. 2dly, Whether the public did not confer that right on the Crown, (and in the private capacity of the Crown,) by accepting the terms of stipulation, and giving over into the King's hands the keys of the new apartments, to be by him delivered into the hands of the Academy? Then, if it should be decided that there is no inalienable right vested in the Academy, it is for the consideration of Parliament whether it would not be