ART.

THE CHANTREY BEQUEST.

THE importance of the administration of the fund knowtt as the Chantrey Bequest is twofold. Firstly, because our Government, unlike that of France, does not buy modern pictures or statues. Hence without the Bequest there would be no national collection of modern English works of art for the delight and instruction of this and succeeding generations. Secondly, because the prominence given to a picture or statue and to its author by being purchased by the Chantrey*Ftnid, and thus added to the national collection, has a distinct influence upon public taste. It is perfectly natural that the uncritical opinion of the larger public who care for pictures should be greatly influenced by the fact that an artist has had his work bought by the Chantrey Trustees. It is known that only the finest works are supposed to be bought by them, and thus a work chosen and purchased becomes in the eyes of a great number of people an authentic example of the best in

contemporary art.. ,

Before criticising in detail the administration of the Trust, it is well to consider the intentions of Sir Francis Chantrey in regard to the splendid gift. In his will—which is Printed in the appendix to the Royal Academy Commission of 1863, Parliamentary paper costing a few pence—after laying down rules for the working of the Trust, he says 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 &waits or 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."

Now what is to be gathered from these words as to the idea for the realisation of which Chantrey bequeathed his fortune ? He desired to found a Gallery of English pictures and statues which should be continually added to. The phrase, "or THZ HIGHEST MERIT," which he repeats more than once, taken with the provision that purchases need not be made every year, indicates that above all things he set store on quality. There is no suggestion that a representative collection of con- temporary art is to be formed,—i.e., an historical monument of passing fashions in painting. On the contrary, the provision that the works may be by "a deceased or living artist" shows that no such small' limit as that of "a picture of the year" was contemplated. Neither were foreign artists excluded, provided that their work had been executed in this country. There is a very significant clause in the will which directs that after a picture has been bought it shall be "publicly exhibited for the period of one calendar month at the least in the annual exhibition of the Royal Academy, or in some im- portant public exhibition of the Fine Arts." The important* of these words is that they show that Chantrey was far from contemplating that purchases would be almost entirely con- fined to exhibitors at the Academy. In fact, by the insertion of these words he seems hardly to consider the Academy Exhibition as the source of the collection he wished to found.

Having examined the intention of the Trust, its adminis- tration remains to be considered. The President and Council of the Academy are the Trustees. Do they carry out the objects of the Trust, so clearly stated by its founder?: The controversy is an old one. Fifteen years ago a protest was raised, and during the last few months this -controversy has again engaged public attention. The Daily _Chronicle, the Westminster Gazette, the Saturday Review, and other papers, by means of their responsible and able critics, have examined the question. The critics have given their verdict with no uncertain voice. They find that the administration of the Trust has been such that the wishes of its founder have been neglected by practically restricting the purchases to works exhibited at the Academy. By this procedure the scope of the Trust has been limited to the acquisition of pictures either by Academicians or by exhibitors at their gallery. The pictures bought from outside have been few, and with one exception unimportant. When there is such a consensus of expert opinion, and when such grave charges are preferred against a public body, it is of importance that those who wish for enlightenment should examine the facts for themselves. 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 impossible 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 :

Port of London. Vicat .c.ole, RA. .422,000 Two Crowns. Dicksee, R.A. 2,000 Speak, Speak! Millais, R.A. 2,000 St. Elisabeth. Calderon, B.A. 1,260 Beyond Man's Footsteps. B. Riviere, R.A. 1,200 The Vigil. Pettie, R.A. 1,000 Charterhouse. Herkomer, A.R.A.... 2,200 Amy Bobsart. Yeames, A.R.A. . 1,000 June in Tyrol. Macwhirter, A.R.A. 800

y en a toujours un autre. M. Stone, A.B.A.

800 Ayeslia. Prinsep, A.K.A. 300 Cast Shoe. Macbeth, A.K.A. ... 630 Annunciation. Hacker* 840 Rebel Hunting. S. Lime— ... 700 Hopeless Dawn. Bramley* 367

These are fifteen works which it RI impossible to believe fulfil Ohantrey's requirements. They are all by men who gained Academic rank, and cost altogether 217,097, making the average price 21,139. The next list consists of unsatisfactory works by outsiders :- Early Promise. J. Clark ...

£210 Mother's Darling. J. Clark ...

89 Last Voyage of Hudson. S. Collier

420 Dog in the Manger. Hunt... ...

230 Realms of Fancy. Molten Fisher

500 Colt Hunting. Kemp-Welch ...

525 Lament of Icarus. Draper ... • -• 840

The total of these seven works amounts to £2,834, the average price being 2404. From these two lists of works, certainly not of the "highest merit," it appears that unsatisfactory Academic pictures average 21,139 apiece, while a similar quality of work by outsiders only averages 2404,—a somewhat startling re- sult. 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. Orchard.son, R.A.

Psyche. Watts, R.A.

Flower Girl. Shannon, A.R.A.

Man with the Scythe. La Thangue* Pilchards. Napier Homy* Their Only Harvest. Colin Hunter* Britannia's Realm. Brett* Toil and Glitter. W. Wyllie* ...

Carnation, Lily. Sargent*...

When Nature Painted AU Things. Glad.

Prodigal Son. Swan* ..‘ At the Gate. Clausen* ...

August Blue. Tuke*

Here the total is 29,945, and the average price 2765. The Outsiders' list contains the following :—

Valparaiso. Somerscales 42250

Winter's Sleep. Adams ... 195 Morning. A. Brown 420 Sheepwashing. Aumonier 300

making the total and the average price respectively 21,165 And 2291. Thus it appears that Academicians' pictures are much more expensive than those of out- siders, and also that inferior pictures, whoever paints them, cost more than good ones. Why should such works

£2,000 1,200 525 500 Parsons* 1,200 725 600 420 750 400 700 400 525

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 Charterimuse Chapel, or Mr. Dielrsee'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 260,064 10s. have been spent. Fifty-six of these works were by actual or future members of the Academy; 246,314 has been spent within the Academy, and 213,750 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 ad- ministrators 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. The exceptions of works bought elsewhere have been so few as to be negligible. The Academy make no answer to criticism. They seem perfectly aware that the only answer possible is silence. They know quite well that if they argue their ease they are lost. Being in such a predicament, it is hardly to be expected that they should speak and succumb.

The friends of the Academy no doubt consider that the purchases of the Trustees are justified, and would say that had there been better works obtainable they would have been chosen. "Could the Trustees compel finer pictures to be painted P " they would say. This plausible answer, however, has no force, because there have been a number of great and distinguished painters whose pictures have never been bought. What attempt has been made to secure works by the following artists: Whistler, Rossetti, Burne-Jones, Alfred. Stevens, Holman Hunt, Cecil Lawson, Madox Brown, Lewis, David Cox, Cotinan, Alfred Hunt, Edward Lear, E. A. Abbey? Could not the will have been made to include so great an artist as Charles Keene ? Was any attempt ever made to obtain Whistler's portrait of his mother, which the French Government bought, or the Carlyle acquired by the City of Glasgow? In this last list are some of the artists who have made us famous over Europe, yet they were apparently not considered worthy of the attention of the Trustees. It can hardly be possible that the neglect of Stevens by the Academy during his lifetime has become a vendetta, carried on after his death. Still, it is difficult to imagine that none of his sculpture or painting was obtainable.

So one might go through the list and show what striking possibilities of enriching the Chantrey Collection have been neglected. What guarantee is there that the future will be any better than the past, and that successful mediocrity will not continue to overshadow and exclude the "highest merit that can be obtained " ? H. S.

[We publish our Art critic's strictures on the administra- tion of the Chantrey Bequest, but we do not desire to pro- nounce an editorial judgment till we have heard the other side. That the Trustees will refuse to make any ansvrer tG 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 reason- able kind.—En. Spectator.]