advisable to create one. The next question must be for the Academy themselves, whether-under the liability to be turned out as interlopers, and under an admission that their holding the apartments renders them liable to a public annual return of all accounts they can consistently, either with the dignity of their Royal foundation or of their own stations, and with a just view of their own advantage resulting from their own exertions, submit to the degradation forced upon themto the position, however it may have the sanction of high authority, of "remaining in upon sufferance?"

We think the King had the right to put the Academy into apartments in his own Palace; and that, if that right was at the first doubtful, but never questioned, the undisturbed possession of nearly seventy years ought to constitute the right. It would have been the more manly part in Parliament at the time of the wrong, if it were wrong, to have resisted it; they have made the supposed wrong a right, and it is a mean thing now to consider it. Then the acceptance of terms from the King, the stipulation under which Somerset House was pulled down, and the location of the Academy according to that stipulation - the King himself, and not any authority delegated by the Commons House of Parliament, giving the keys into the hands of the president-constitute, if any thing can, an admission of the previous right. Why did not Mr Hume then protest against this assumption of the right in the King? Why did they submit to the President, Council, and Officers of the Academy, for their approval, the plans of the New Buildings, if they were to have no right in them when completed? We extract the following from the Appendix to the Report in 1836:"The Royal Academy received these apartments (Somerset House) as a gift from their munificent founder, George III.; and it has always been understood by the members, that his Majesty, when he gave up to the Government his palace of old Somerset House, (where the Royal Academy was originally established,) stipulated that apartments should be erected for that establishment in the new building. The Royal Academy remained in the old palace till these rooms were completed, which had been destined for their occupation; plans of which had

been submitted to their approval, and signed by the President, Council, and Officers." Yet surely, after all, a right to the building, if substantiated, (and a right claimed by the all-potent House of Commons may amount to the same thing,) does it follow that they have a right to have accounts laid before them, of moneys towards which they have not contributed a farthing? This sort of right is pushed to an extraordinary extent an extent which, the principle being admitted, may reach to every establishment, private as well as public. If the rule is to be, that whatever the public is interested in, or takes pleasure in, must be liable to Parliamentary scrutiny as to accounts, we do not see what is to escape. Public interest is easily implied. Mr Hume boldly declares, that he would carry this scrutiny into every Exhibition. Sir R. Inglis says, "the Royal Academy was the only Institution of the kind in Europe which was not supported by the state, but it was maintained by the hard-earned rewards of its own members, aided by contributions of artists associated with them. He denied that money had ever been granted; and for money's worth he thought that a sufficient return had been made; and, if this return were persisted in being demanded, the honourable member for Kilkenny might as well carry out the principle to all exhibitors. Would he do that?" Mr Hume said, "yes.""Then," resumed Sir R. Inglis, "he asked the honourable member to move for returns of the proceeds of the Pantechnicon; or, to go to a case nearer to himself, of the Society of British Artists." What will the "Yes" of Mr Hume not include? We are sorry to see the principle as strongly laid down by Sir R. Peel. He said, "He could not concur with his honourable friend near him (Sir R. Inglis,) in denying the right of the House of Commons to call for enquiry. He should be very sorry to limit their jurisdiction with respect to public institutions, even if they did not receive the public money. There was a clear distinction between all commercial societies_those connected with the aequisition of gain, and institutions intended for the promotion of public objects." Now, here the door is opened for more scrutinies than one. We may have inquisitions of public objects. Public objects! It is the very cry of every patent humbug-of every vender of pills and and blacking-of every exhibition -from that of the tarantula and white mice, to Van Amburg and his lionsall to amuse or benefit the public. It has been well said by one of our wittiest divines and a politican, that a man cannot leave his home for five or six weeks, without the risk of finding a commissioner in it on his return. Really, if such a principle is to be claimed and acted upon by the House of Commons, let Mr Morison the hygeist take care how he takes his ride in the Park, lest he be stopped in his canter by a Committee of the House, with Mr Hume at its head, and be ordered to empty his breeches pocket, and instanter give a full account of his hygeian establishment, its proceeds and expenditure, including his own personal. A distinction, too, between gain and public good! Are not an acquisition of gain and public good, in nine cases out of ten of every concern, interwoven; exhibitions of all kinds especially? There is the Quarterly, the Edinburgh Review, the Magazines, all established for " public objects;" they are exhibitions to which the public contribute. Will Parliamentary privilege justify Mr Joseph Hume in demanding the bill and receipt for cost of Christopher's crutch? The attempt would surely double the expenditure for that item of Maga's establishment. Here are Thomas Moore and Lady Morgan receiving the public money; and, good easy souls, while enjoying themselves to their uttermost, little dream they of the prying principle that will haul over every little curious item in their "expenditure of the public money." And acquisition of gain is to make a distinction! Then, do not the Academy exhibit with a view to the sale of their works, to the acquisition of gain? What else could possibly induce many an R. A. to endure to canvass the countenance of many an honourable member whom we have seen flourishing in paint and flattery, but the acquisition of gain? You countenance me and I will countenance you, is the common bargain. Pay your money, and ask no further questions. Well the religious inquisition has been abolished, we wish a civil inqui. sition may not be set up in its stead. If it be, it is easy to see whence its members will be chosen.

We must, however, in justice, quote

another portion of Sir R. Peel's speech; and, as it is so different in spirit from the extract made, we hope there has been some error in the report, or that we have been mistaken in the import of the first part, or, what is most improbable, that the Honourable Baronet was not quite aware of the import of his own words; we the more readily extract it, because it leads to the question of what the House of Commons should do. "The right honourable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that a case might occur, in which, from the increase in the collection, (National Gallery,) it would be necessary to provide additional accommodation. When that time arrived he hoped the country would be rich enough, notwithstanding the deficiency of the post-office revenue, to build for itself a palace of the arts, (cheers.) He hoped to live to see, in the most favoured part of Hyde Park, a magnificent structure devoted to the reception of works of art, not merely forthe accommodation of the sovereign, but for the accommodation and delight of the people of this country; for their amusement, their intellectual refinement, and their improvement in the arts, (cheers.) He hoped then to be able to give up the rest of this building to the Royal Academy; and when they did so, he hoped the time would come when they would not have to blush with shame whenever they took a foreigner to see the Royal Academy at Charing-Cross. He hoped they would be rich enough to provide a structure of which they should not be ashamed." We presume that it is far beneath the really liberal spirit of Sir R. Peel to imagine he would mean to annex to this gift, the niggardly condition of prying into the accounts of the Academy. And this, as Sir R. Peel recommends, is what the House of Commons should do. But, if they are still disposed to act in a contrary spirit, we do not see what is left for the Academy but to refuse to remain on the condition of Mr Hume's motion-but to suffer themselves to be ejected, and build for themselves out of their own funds another Academy; and we think their spirit and energy would be amply rewarded, their triumph be complete, and the Arts further promoted. We question not that the Arts will be lowered in

public estimation, and in efforts of

genius, by any degradation and mean submission on their own parts. Hither to they have acted nobly in the distribution of their funds; the sole question, according to the motion given, that should have been before the House. They have expended L.300,000 for public benefit, which the state ought to have expended. We entertain not the slightest doubt that they will proceed honourably, and do right, having some pity even in their own contempt for the narrow, the envious, and perhaps the malignant, minds that have set on foot this persecution against them. We cannot forbear making an extract from the speech of Mr Hawes. It is in a good spirit, and, we think, in few words contains the common sense of the whole matter: -" He, however, entirely concurred in the view taken of the subject by the honourable baronet (Sir R. Inglis,) and differed in consequence from his honourable friend the member for Kilkenny, who, in his opinion, had not made out a case for insisting that the order for those returns should be enforced. If there had been a bona fide grant of public money received by the Royal Academy, then, he admitted, it would be right that the House should know what had been done with it. But no such grant of money had been made to the Royal Academy, and the House ought not to forget, that their occupation of their former apartments in Somerset House had been founded on a direct personal grant from the favour of the Crown; and that they now were in possession of their apartments in the National Gallery, as an equivalent on being removed from their original premises. Reference had been made, by his honourable friend, to Academies and Institutions abroad. Those establishments on the Continent were entirely dependent for support on the bounty of the Crown, to whom they were of course obsequious, as the source from which their subsistence was derived; but that was not the case with the Royal Academy, which, he must say, had done great credit to the national taste, and encouraged the study of the fine arts in this country in the most efficient and liberal spirit, (hear, hear.) Several of his honourable friends on that side of the House, were of opinion, that public patronage was not desirable for the encouragement of the fine arts. That was the opinion of his honour

able friend the member for Wigan, and of his honourable friend the member for Kilkenny; but the great improvements introduced in the arts in France, under the patronage of the minister Colbert, are an illustration of the benefits derived from the patronage of the State, under whose auspices the Gallery at the Louvre was formed, and the Gobelin tapestry, and other useful discoveries in the arts and manufactures, introduced and encouraged. Therefore, instead of deprecating the patronage of the fine arts by the State, he was of opinion that, on the grounds of commercial policy alone, the House ought to do more, much more for art, than ever had been done in this country, (hear, hear.) It was too much, because they had given half-adozen paltry rooms to the Academy, to found a claim on that ground to insist on an account of the receipts and expenditure of that institution, consisting of funds raised by the skill, acquirements, genius, and industry of the artists themselves. Allusion had been made, by his honourable friend, to Hampton Court Palace, and the argument was raised, that because Hampton Court Palace was thrown open, so also should the Royal Academy. Why, Hampton Court was public property, and an annual vote taken in Parliament for its maintenance, (hear, hear.) He could not see the policy of this petty warfare on the Royal Academy, the only gratuitous school of art in the country; arthought the object sought for y the returns, utterly unworthy of the House. He would far rather have seen the House evince a disposition to build a national depository of art worthy of the country. He did not, however, undervalue the services of the honourable member for Kilkenny for improving the knowledge of the people; but he could not support him in those exertions to the prejudice of private rights, and the rights of meritorious men, who had received a small boon from the country, but who in the services they had rendered to the arts, had repaid that boon a hundred-fold," (hear, hear.) This is very good-because it is just. In doing our humble endeavours to show the honourable conduct of the Academy in respect of the management of their funds, we have not thought it fitting to enter into any discussion as to the advantages of academies. Plausible arguments for and against them may be adduced; nor should we have a right to quarrel with any opinion on that subject. We find them established here and elsewhere, and being established, we must not, cannot, abolish them. Annihilate the Royal Academy to-morrow, others will be immediately set up, and you will get no good for your wrong. Not that we admit that they are disadvantageous-we believe quite otherwise. One good we see every day the distressed widow and orphan of departed genius, eating their bread in peace and quietness. This is much. And of the good to art the numbers who gain their bread by the profession, are beyond calculation more than they could have been had the Academy never existed. We know not what deadness of feeling there might have been for art, had not the Aca. demy promoted a love for it. We look back to Hogarth, Wilson, Gainsborough, and Sir Joshua Reynolds; and some assert they owe nothing to the Academy. But we would say, that Wilson at least owed the comfort of his latter days to it, and all owe the estimation in which their works are now held, to that improved taste which the Academy has engendered in the public mind. The increased value of the works of Hogarth, Wilson, and Gainsborough, is a test of that improvement. It is very easy to find fault with minor matters, and there are some matters which it has been the democratic fashion to consider as high crimes and misdemeanours, which are yet, perhaps, harmless-perhaps beneficial in their result. The very word dinners, in allusion to corporations and societies of any kind, has become synonymous with mal-appropriation of funds. We are not, therefore, at all surprised that the painter of the great Reform Dinner, and who, while daubing with all his frenzy, witnessed the fullblown corruption of that, and had but the reeking steam for his share, should be quite wroth that the Academy should have expended, in seventy years, L.19,750 in annual dinners. But not so hasty, Mr Haydon. Though you never did, and probably never will, digest any portion of their dinners, they are not so undigestible, and unconvertible into good, as you suppose. It is all humbug-and that you know-catchwords for the reforming mania to take up-but you really

know better. "What do you do," said a little wondering boy to a drover, "with all those cattle?" " I eat them all myself," said he. So would you have the public believe that the Academy are the greatest of gourmandizers, and bid all beware of cannibalism. However, if you have not seen them eat, you really know little about it; and if you have, why, in that case, you have been in good company. Failing in convicting them as the "Forty Thieves," dub them gluttons and cannibals. But who can doubt either the object or the success of these dinners, cheaply obtained, for they tend greatly to create the funds? The wealth of the country is here brought into social contact with art a more than common interestcreated aknowledge imparted, and taste diffused. The conversation makes patrons, not patrons for the academicians alone, but for art generally. The dinners are, in fact, a wise policy. One was given to Mr Hume, the other day, to promote a feeling of reform. Had he a surfeit, and cannot see the policy in another line?

As to other complaints, doubtless there may be some truth in them; they may not be very important. Where there is proof, in the distri. bution of funds and general arrangements, of a disinterested spirit, we may reasonably expect that faults pointed out, in a friendly manner, will meet at least with consideration. There are two things, we think, well worthy the attention of Academicians, from both of which we think they are sufferers, and mostly sufferers themselves. We allude to their hanging the pictures, and to their privilege of repainting upon the walls. We would suggest, with all respect, that they should abolish the latter altogether; it is an invidious, an indiscreet privilege, and one which, we are persuaded, is injurious, in a high degree, to Art itself; and, we verily believe, has engendered that artificialness, that attempt to outdo all modesty, and to become conspicuous, which is the great error of the English schools. For the former, in the advanced state of the general taste, a ready remedy offers itself. Let the Academicians entirely forego the hanging the pictures, and annually appoint a Committee of Taste for the purpose, of persons not artists nor exhibitors. Such a committee would be above the suspicion of partiality, and could not be themselves interested beyond their desire to make the exhibition as good and worthy of the public admiration as possible. And we might venture to suggest that, if they would limit the portraits to one room, they would rescue art from the blight of vanity, which it is scarcely expected that artists can themselves do. They would thus have a greater scope for the various branches of art. Sir M. A. Shee, the President of the Royal Academy, in his Rhymes on Art, and in the notes, has strongly animadverted on some of these mistakes; and, it must be confessed, he has furnished a handle of satire, which the opponents of the Academy now very adroitly use. It may not be quite fair, to insist upon the opinions of 1809 to be necessarily the opinions of the same man in 1839; yet, as great advantage has been taken of them, we would refer the reader to the examina.

tion of Sir M. A. Shee before the Committee of the House of Commons, as given in the Report, of which we have before made mention. Sir M. A. Shee may there comment on his own opinions, The examination of the President and Secretary are specimens, on their parts, of good taste, good temper, truth, and talent, which their adversaries have not exhibited. The Academy have, after all, but few adversaries. Disappointment may have created some, who yet, at one time, did not object to be members. Allowances may even here be made for sore feelings and prejudices. We should be the last to find fault with a man because he is an opponent, and

because we differ from all his conclusions. But the dirty petty warfarethe warfare of pretence, of harassing by insult, by insisting on a scrutiny of accounts, when thereby an injury is meant, with which the accounts have nothing to do, we cannot too strongly reprobate. We think, in this respect, Messrs Haydon and Hume cut very sorry figures, and, in unhappy fraternity, are entitled to the designation that the wrathful Mr Bumble bestowed upon the law. It is a great thing to have a good "mouthpiece" in a proper place. Pan was no great warrior in himself, but he did mighty feats, and routed many hosts, by riding an ass, who knew how, when, and where to bray.

A word to the Society of British Artists. They petitioned the House not to sanction the removal of the Royal Academy to their new apartments. And upon what plea? Because a rival exhibition so near to them would injure their property!! About as wise and reasonable as if Mr Jones, the surgeon at No. 5, should petition Parliament, in its omnipotence, not to permit Mr Thomas, accoucheur, now removing his goods to No. 10, to set up business in the same street with him. Let this Society, however, beware how they petition Parliament to interfere with any other Societies, and reflect upon the "yes" of Mr Hume, which is meant to include all exhibitors and exhibitions within the rule of Parliamentary enquiry. We would remind them of the fable of the horse, who, in his enmity to the stag, suffered the saddle to be put upon his back, and never could shake it off again.

We do not hesitate to say that we have been more gratified by the pre sent exhibition of the Royal Academy, than we have been with any of its preceding. There is a vast improvement in the most essential character of art in mind. Vulgarities are much more rare. The unmeaning is vanishing. We greatly rejoice at this, and look forward with strong hopes to the future fruits of so great promise. Our artists are taking that range of historical painting that is the most engaging, not truly in the divine walk of Raphael, in whose days both the pub

lic desires and devotion inspired the painters to works of superhuman character; but still are our artists rapidly progressing in that next best line, the line of human sympathies. When love, pity, fortitude, tenderness, innocence, as well as the greater energies of cultivated worth, engage the genius of the painter, as we see they do, and will do, the British artist is raised to a higher profession; his venture is great; and he will elevate himself, the art, and society. Oh what a scope has the painter still, though he paint not Madonnas, even in earthly female