T .1 AST October we published an article by our Art

critic severely censuring the President and Council of the Royal Academy for the manner in which they have ad- ministered the the Chantrey Bequest,—thus joining in a protest which had been made in the Press with virtual unanimity. During the last three or four years almost all the important newspapers in the country have referred to the matter, but we cannot recall a single instance in which the action of the Trustees has been expressly vindicated. To the article by our Art critic we added an editorial note to the following effect :— " We publish our Art critic's strictures on the administration of the Chantrey Bequest, but we do not desire to pronounce an editorial judgment till we have heard the other side. That the Trustees will refuse to make any answer to the criticism that has been levelled against them, not only by our Art critic, but in many other quarters, we cannot believe. Mere abuse they would rightly treat with silent contempt, but our Art critic has certainly kept well within the bounds of courtesy. Those who exercise public functions should certainly be prepared to meet criticism of a fair and reasonable kind."

Since that time, however, no defence has been put forth by or on behalf of the Academy. The Trustees—i.e., the President and Council of the Academy—consider, we understand, that none is needed. They assert that they have not acted illegally in any particular ; that they are not responsible to the Government, to Parliament, or to any external body ; and that if they satisfy themselves, and do not break the law, they are beyond the reach of censure. They deny, in fact, that any one has the right to call them to account for their stewardship. That being so, it seems to us that the time has arrived when it becomes necessary to call for an impartial and public inquiry into the administration of the Trust. We do not suggest that the Trustees' silence must necessarily be taken as an admission of a dereliction of duty, but we do hold that a case exists for investigation. In cases of frivolous charges, or of charges which are primci, facie absurd or unreasonable, we should agree that silence was a sufficient answer, and should not think of arguing that failure to notice the indictment demanded an inquiry by some impartial body.

No reasonable person would assert that in every case unanswered criticism directed against a public institution should be followed by a public inquiry. In the matter of the Chautrey Bequest, however, the case for inquiry is so strong as to be practically unanswerable. In the first plate, the President and Council of the Academy in administering Chantrey's will are carrying out a Trust. But the carrying out of a Trust involves obligations and duties of a most serious kind. The plea, "We are not acting illegally," or "May not we do what we will with our own ? " might, perhaps, be admitted in a private person or in a corporation not tied down by any deed. Such pleas cannot hold good when a Trust has to be ad- ministered. There the public has a right, nay, a duty, to ask : "Is the Trust being carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter ? " We can perfectly well understand the Academy refusing to have anything to say to the criticism of its general administration,—i.e., as to its choice of members or management of its annual Exhibitions. The somewhat cynical defender of the Academy who com- plained that— "The Bigots of the iron time

Had called its harmless art a crime "-

and insisted that the Academicians were not to be treated as wicked because they preferred a type of painting and painters which supercilious critics declared to be "bad," had, no doubt, a certain show of justice on his side. The statutes of the Academy leave that body a free hand. When, however, we come to deal with the Academy administering a Trust through its President and Council it is a very different matter. In that case the Trustees have no sort of right to declare that they will do what they will with their own. There the propagation of their own "harmless art" may indeed become a crime. In the case of a Trust we have a right to ask whether the Trustees are carrying out the conditions of the Trust both in the letter and the spirit, and if no adequate answer is given, to demand a public inquiry into their actions.

Before, however, insisting on a public inquiry it is, we admit, necessary that a primd-facie case should be made out for such inquiry. Does a primd-facie case exist ? We believe it does, and one so strong on the face of it that the best friends of the Academy will welcome investi- gation in order to get rid of the disagreeable impression created by the repeated attacks that have been levelled against the administration of the Chantrey Bequest, and yet have never been met and answered. What is the Chantrey Bequest ? The Chantrey Bequest is one of the noblest, most liberal, and most ably devised benefactions ever made to art by a testator. By his will Sir Francis Chantrey left the whole of his considerable fortune in order to create a col- lection of British works of art which should be worthy of the nation. With that aim in view he drew up a testa- mentary document which deserves the highest possible praise, and shows its author to have been a man of the most remarkable ability and breadth of view. His object was to form a national collection of painting and sculpture, and he conceived and laid down the conditions under which it should be formed with an acumen and a liberality of purpose wholly commendable. There is nothing petty in his scheme. It is full of good sense, and every precaution is taken to prevent his generous purpose being frustrated. The operative portion of his will is so admirably expressed that we will set it forth in detail. The will declares that the money shall be laid out by the President and Council of the Academy— "in the purchase of WORKS OF FINE ART OF THE HIGHEST MERIT IN PAINTING AND SCULPTURE that can be obtained, either already executed or which may hereafter be executed by artists of any nation, provided that such artists shall have actually resided in Great Britain during the executing and completing of such works, it being my express direction that no work of art, whether executed by a deceased or living artist, shall be purchased unless the same shall have been entirely executed within the SHORES OF GREAT BRITAIN. And my will further is, that in making such purchases preference shall, on all occasions, be given to works of the highest merit that can be obtained, and that the prices to be paid for the same be liberal, and shall be wholly in the discretion of the President and Council of the Royal Academy, or of such other society or association as aforesaid. And my will further is, that such President and Council, in making their decision, shall have regard solely to the intrinsic merit of the works in question, and not permit any feeling of sympathy for an artist or his family, or reason of his or their circumstances or otherwise, to influence them."

One sees clearly from this and other limitations in the will that it was the desire of the testator to get together the best possible examples of British art obtainable. His object was not to encourage Hybl,. artists.-or to heln the be missed on the plea that it was painted or carved many years ago, or that the artist was a foreigner, or that buying it would prevent the Trustees from helping some deserving living painter. The Trustees were to keep before their eyes the one object of buying the best things ever done within these shores. They were to act as the most careful private collector and connoisseur acts who is determined to put together an unrivalled gallery. Think of nothing but the intrinsic merits of the pictures and statues : that is the injunction which comes from Chantrey's will. To give greater security that his wishes shall be respected, the testator makes some notable conditions. One is that every purchase must be exhibited for at least one calendar month "in the annual exhibition of the Royal Academy, or in some important public exhibition of the Fine Arts." This shows that Chantrey did not contemplate that his pictures would necessarily be bought out of the Academy Exhibition. It also shows that he deeired the President and Council to justify their choice by public exhibition. He did not wish them to get into the position described to the present writer some twenty years ago by a prescient policeman in a public gallery : "They goes and buys a lot of rubbish, and when they gets 'em home they're ashamed to hang 'em up." Another very remarkable condition laid down by Chantrey is that a book shall be kept, and shall be open to inspection by the whole body of Academicians, in which shall be recorded the names of those who respectively sanctioned or opposed the purchase of each work of art actually bought.

We have said enough to show what were Chantrey's intentions. He wanted nothing to be bought but pictures and statues of " the highest merit," old or new, and he took great precautions that the Trustees should be made to justify their purchases. It is alleged by the critics of the Trustees that these intentions have not been, and are not being, carried out, and alleged, not merely by a single Art critic or group of critics, but by a large number of responsible newspapers, including, among others, the Daily Chronicle, the Westminster Gazette, and the Saturday Reiliew. Let us see what the case is. To do so we will quote the words of our own Art critic :—

"As a help towards forming a judgment the following lists have been drawn up. The first list contains fifteen pictures by Academicians and painters who subsequently entered the Academy which have been bought by the Chantrey Trustees. It is im- possible that any serious critic would assert that the whole of these are pictures of the highest merit,' though taste might differ over individual works. The list begins with the pictures by Academicians and Associates, giving their rank at the time of purchase, while an asterisk denotes that the painter received Academic distinction after the purchase of his work :—

Porto/London. Vicat Cole,B.A. Pwo Crowns. Dieksee, BA.

£2,080 , June in Tyrol. Macwhirter, . — 2800 Speak, Speak ! ' Millais, BA. ... 2,000 /1 y en a toujours en' autre. EL.

St. ElisaUth. Calderon, B.A... 1,280 Stone, A.E.A... 800 Beyond Man's Footsteps. B.

Ayes ha. Prinsep. A.K.A. ... 300 Hitler% BA.... ... 1,200 Cast Shoe. Macbeth, A.B.A.... 830 The Vigil. Fettie, BA. ... 1,000 Annunciation. Hacker* ... 840 Charts rhouSe. Herkomer, A.R.A. 2,200 Rebel Hunting. S. Lucas* ... 700 Amy Robsart. Yeames, A.B.A. 1,000 Hopeless Dawn. Brander ... 367

These are fifteen works which it is impossible to believe fulfil Chantrey's requirements. They are all by men who gained Academic rank, and cost altogether 417,097, making the average price 41,139. The next list consists of unsatisfactory works by outsiders:—

Early Promise. J. Clark Mother's Darling. J. Clark Lest Voyage of Hudson.

Collier .. ... ... .

...

... J.

...

2210 89 420 Dog in the Manger. Hunt ...

Realms of Fancy. Melton Fisher Colt Hunting. Kemp-Welch ...

Lament of Icarus. Draper ... E250 500 525 840 The total of these seven works amounts to 42,834, the average price being 4404. From these two lists of works, certainly not of the 'highest merit,' it appears that unsatisfactory Academic pictures average 41,139 apiece, while a similar quality of work by outsiders only averages 4404,—a somewhat startling result. The following two lists contain the names of pictures which seem worthy to form part of the collection Chantrey contemplated. They are arranged in a similar manner to the last:—

Napoleon. Orehardaon, BA.... E2,000 Britannia's Realm. Brett* ..

moo

Psyche. Watts, ... 1,200 Toil and Glitter. W. Wyllle•... 420 Flower Girl. Shannon, A.E.A. 525 Carnation, Lily. Sargent* ... 750 Man wit!), the Scythe. La

When Nature Painted All

500

Things Glad. Parsons* ... 400 Pilchards. Napier Hemy ... 1,200 Prodigal Son. Swan'

700 Their Harvest. Colin

At the Gate. Clausen'

400 till

August Blue. Tuke•

525

Here the total is 49,945, and the average price 4765. The out-

siders' list contains the following :--

Valparaiso. Somerscales £250 j Morning. A. Brown ... 2420 Winter's Sleep. Adams ... 195 j Sheepioeshing. Aumonier ... 300

making the total and the average price respectively 41,165 and

. 4291. Thus it appears that Academician? pictures are much more expensive than those of outsiders, and also that inferior . pictures, whoever paints them, cost more than good ones. Why should such works as are enumerated in the first two lists ever have been bought ? Are we to think so meanly of national art as to suppose that the highest merit' could only be found in Mr. H. Von Herkomer's 'machine' picture of the Charterhouse Chapel, or Mr. Dicksee's prettily arranged stage properties called The Two Crowns? Since the year 1877, when the Trust first came into operation, a hundred and one works have been bought. These include sculpture, oil-paintings, and water-colours, on which 480,064 10s. have been spent. Fifty-six of these works were by actual or future members of the Academy ; 446,314 has been spent within the Academy, and 413,750 without. The figures on which these observations are based are taken from the Year's Art, 1903,' published by Messrs. Hutchinson and Co.

The most important part of the charge against the adminis- trators of the Trust since its foundation has been that they have looked almost entirely to the Academy and its exhibition for works to buy,—that they have interpreted Chantrey's desire to make a really great collection of works of art in a narrow way, converting his large-minded scheme into little more than Academic prize-money."

Our Art critic in his article last autumn went on to meet the possible defence (though it is one which has never been made), that the Academy cannot buy better pictures because so few good pictures are painted, by asking why, in making a representative collection, the Trustees did not, as they were empowered and encouraged to do by the will, purchase examples of "Whistler, Rossetti, Burne-Jones, Alfred Stevens, Holman Hunt, Cecil Lawson, Madox Brown, Lewis, David Cox, Cotmau, Alfred Hunt, Edward Lear, E. A. Abbey. Could not the will," he adds, "have. been made to include so great an artist as Charles Keene ? "

• The above is the case against the Trustees. What the case for them is no one knows, for they have steadily refused to state it. But whatever may be its nature, the argument in favour of inquiry stands good. All we con- tend is that a case has been made out for a public and impartial investigation to ascertain whether the Trustees of the Chantrey Bequest are fulfilling their Trust. But if there is to be an inquiry, by whom should it be undertaken? In our opinion, it should be conducted by a Committee of the House of Lords. A Royal Commission is too tedious and, costly, and a Committee of the Commons is more difficult to obtain owing to the amount of work done by the Lower House. The Lords have leisure, and their Committees seldom fail to do their work well. Those who attack the Trustees might possibly argue that a Lords' Committee would be too partial to the Academy ; but though there may be a certain truth in this, we think such a favourable inclination towards the Trustees would, on the whole, be a good thing. No one wants to treat the Trustees as criminals, but merely to ask whether they can- justify their action in regard to the Chantrey Collection. Therefore an inquiry by a friendly and sympathetic body such as a Lords' Committee would be welcome. The Lords are the last people in the world to deal harshly with the President and Council of the Academy. We trust, the n that a Committee of Peers will be asked for in the Lords as soon as the House reassembles, that the Govern- ment will grant the request, and that the terms of the reference will be wide enough to make the investigation thorough as well as impartial. We may then hope for an authoritative answer to the question : "Are the Trustees of the Chantrey Bequest carrying out the intentions ex pressed in the will of Sir Francis Chantrey ? "