though possessing considerable merit for its rough fidelity of impression, can hardly be considered as being a school of landscape painting at all, since its method is almost wholly opposed to all the traditions of the great masters. Such work is adapted for conveying what may be called the cheap melodrama of Nature, its lurid sunsets, its drifting mists, the flashes of sunset on a hill side, and similar effects; but it is incapable, by its coarseness, lack of subtlety and detail, its deficiency in all the traditions of great painting, of giving us work of permanent value, and it has this fatal drawback, that its qualities are such as to deaden all our perceptions to landscape art of really fine quality. It is above all others, for this reason, painting to which an Academy should steel its heart, and close its portals, since if it prevails, it will stamp out all the finer and more delicate renderings of Nature; the more inevitably, as it is above all others the painting which looks well in an exhibition.

Q. Then you assert that religious, historical and poetic art are neglected, that architecture is despised, that costume art of a trivial and un-national kind is encouraged, that landscape painters are considered inferior generally, and that those who are admitted, are not the best men, and that while this is the case with oil painting, all other kinds of fine art are unjustly overlooked, and there is provided neither proper teaching of their processes, nor recognition of their results?

A. Yes; I assert that this is to the best of my belief an absolutely accurate state of the case as regards the neglect of the interests of fine-art shown by the authorities at Burlington House.

Q. But you do not show that, even if the above is true, the Academy deserve blame, since it may be urged that they are but members of a private society, and as such have a right to make such rules as seem to them fitting, and for those who do not like them -they may go elsewhere—

A. That is just the point, that word "elsewhere," for that is practically where the outside artist cannot go. He is bound to the Academy, simply because it has gradually usurped all authority in art matters, and owing to its enormous influence, not to be exhibited there, is considered by the public, and above all, by the picture dealers, as a great misfortune, if not crime. Moreover, it is the outside artist's best, almost his only chance, of getting his work seen and sold; its exhibitions are the very life-blood of large numbers of the artistic world, so far as sale and reputation are concerned.

Q. Still that does not prove it is not a private society.

A. No; but it proves that it can only be a private society in name, for a body which affects directly the livelihood of a whole profession, which receives protection and encouragement by a special Royal Charter, which has a very important site freely granted for its exhibitions

and schools, which derives large sums of money from the exhibition or outside work, and which always takes upon itself to represent the art of the whole country, cannot be considered private in any real sense of the word.

Q. Would you then interfere with the action of this society so long as it did nothing contrary to law?

A. Certainly, if it can be shown that it has gradually acquired enormous extension of influence, has become practically a great public institution, and has used that influence unwisely and selfishly, and in neglect of the interests of the public and the outside artists. Q. But how would you attempt to prove this?

A. I would prove it partly by the facts that I have already adduced as to its conduct towards every branch of art but one, and its neglect of all the best divisions of even that one branch. And I would prove it by pointing out that its system affords no recognition to the younger members of the profession, who, if not elected associates may (and do) paint excellently for years, swelling all the time by the interest of their works the profits of the Academy Exhibition, and receive not even the reward of acknowledgment, or the certainty that their works would be even hung the next year. I would point out men whose works have been not for one or two, but twenty years admittedly attractive features of the annual exhibition, who have never received, and very likely never will receive, academic notice, though by all the rest of the world around them, their merits are well known. I would point out inferior men, who have received and will receive such reward I would give the names of artists, whose quality is well known, whose pictures are hung on the line one year and rejected or skied the next-and I would show that the market value of the inferior work was directly affected by election to the Academy, to the detriment of the public and good art. I would even point to many of the greatest men in English art, both living and dead, the works of whom never received academic distinction.

Q. In Heaven's name stop; there seems to be no end to your answers on this head.

A. In truth, I have not yet enumerated half the reasons; but pass to another point, and I will do my best to satisfy you.

Q. You have spoken of favouritism; it is an easy charge to make, and a hard one to deny; can you show clearly that there has been any undue amount of that failing?

A. I think I can show it clearly even without making personal allusions, though of course the great majority of such incidents relate to special men and circumstances, and must therefore be omitted. Thus, I would quote the favouritism shown to the Scotch school of landscape painting; the exclusion of poetic and historic art, in comparison with the space given to costume pictures of slight

domestic or sentimental interest; the exclusion of water-colour painters and decorative artists of all kinds from the Academic ranks, and the fact that approved exhibitors are frequently rejected without any reason being assigned. I would point to the works of art purchased for the nation by the Academy with the Chantrey fund money, and inquire how it happens that so many of them are by Academicians and friends of Academicians, and whether the majority can be said to fulfil the terms of the bequest, that they should be the "works of the highest merit that can be obtained." I would show too, that the works of great foreign artists, sculptors, or painters, suffer, as in the present exhibition, when the work of one of the best known French sculptors was rejected, and one of the most splendid of Carolus Duran's portraits hung up above the line, while in a place of honour, almost beneath it, hung a picture by one of his pupils.

I could show, moreover, that even of those good artists whom the Academy did eventually elect, the best were kept waiting for years, and only admitted grudgingly when their continued exclusion had become too flagrant an exercise of partiality.

Amongst such men would be John Brett and Henry Moore, the two best sea-painters in England, each only admitted after about fifteen years' waiting; Burne-Jones, admitted after five-and-twenty-years'; Albert Moore, not yet admitted, after nearly twenty years' exhibition; Alfred Hunt, and Albert Goodwin, the most delicate and thoughtful, and the most imaginative landscape painter in England, neither of whom are in the list of Associates. And perhaps to these names I might add two of even greater, or at all events more world-wide repute, since they are those of the two most daring and highest-aimed of all living English artists-Mr. Madox Brown, the historical, and Mr. Holman Hunt, the religious painter. Both of these are old men, and men who have been great for more than a quarter of a century, and both as utterly neglected by the Academy as if they had never lived.

Q. But do the Academy not deny that the men of whom you speak, and others who have received like treatment, are worthy of public recognition, and so justify their conduct, no matter how mistaken?

A. No; for they say nothing at all as a rule, and generally towards the close of an artist's career, if he be one whose reputation has, in spite of their neglect, become established, they offer him election.* Sometimes even when he dies without recognition, as

*This charge seems almost incredible, but it is completely borne out by facts: vide supra. This offer of election is a difficult matter to substantiate, since it is rarely actually made in specific terms-for obvious reasons. The artist, however, is "sounded on the subject, and if found agreeable, is elected. As an instance of this, the following extract from a letter of Mr. Madox Brown's is interesting: "Fifteen years since, Mr. Holman Hunt called at my studio to ask my advice whether he should accept overtures made to him with a view to entering the Academy."-Pall Mall Gazette, August 23,

1886.

with Linnell and Rossetti, they exhibit his works in their galleries, and so make money out of the artist dead, whom they had despised and ignored living.

Q. But do artists and their friends submit to such elections at the end of life, and such collections of works being made after death?

A. Yes; because the influence of the Academy is so great that few artists are able to bear its enmity in the first case; and in the second, friends and relations sacrifice their own feelings for the sake of the honour (?) shown to the deceased artist. Within a very short time the lifelong (or nearly lifelong) neglect is forgotten by the public, and when Brown or Jones is spoken of in future years, he is claimed as a member of the Academy; a proof of how wide are their sympathies-how impartial their actions!

Q. Let us pass to another subject since you will not abate your charges on this point. How can you justify your complaint as to the Academy Schools?

A. I judge them by the narrowness of their scope, the lack of consistency in their teaching, the absence of encouragement and recognition to the student directly he has completed his course, and by the poorness of the results shown.

Q. Give me some ground for believing you on these points.

A. Certainly; their narrowness of scope is proved at once by their having but small provision made for the art of sculpture; none (to the best of my belief) for water-colours; no schools of decorative art, etching, or engraving. The lack of consistent teaching is shown in many ways, chiefly the fact that the instruction in painting is given by two Academicians who are changed every month or two; above all, by the poorness of the result upon the student; for whereas, if a student goes to Antwerp, Düsseldorf, Paris, or Rome, he is taught in one systematic manner, and comes out from the school able, after his method, to paint; when he leaves our Academy, he is generally at but the beginning of his instruction in painting, and most frequently, if he can afford it, goes to a foreign school to learn his business. And if he can't afford it, and begins painting at home, he generally muddles away some years in search of a systematic method of work, and goes in the end abroad, instead of at first, and learns his business at thirty, instead of at fifteen.

Q. Have you ever known such things to happen?

A. Yes; and to my personal friends. At the present moment there is, in a great French painter's studio, learning to paint, one whose pictures have been hung frequently on the line at the Academy. Like a wise man, he discovered one day that he didn't know his trade (though the Academy thought he did), and so went off and began again. Besides this, the majority of well-known English artists at the present time have been trained abroad-and this even includes the best of the Royal Academicians.

Q. But do you tell me that after the student has been taught at the Academy, no help or recognition is afforded him?

A. By the Academy as a body, none whatever. An Academician may perhaps take a fancy to him, and see that his pictures receive favourable consideration when they are sent in for exhibition, but there is absolutely no provision for helping him, or making his merit known to the public at large. He is kicked out, a very young bear, into the world, to sink or swim as best he may.

Q. Then you consider the Academy Schools teach too little, teach that little badly, and leave off their teaching and their help at the very moment when it is most needful?

A. That is exactly my opinion.*

Q. I must say that if the facts are as you have stated them, you have made out a strong case against the late administration of the Academy; but do not all or most of the matters you blame, belong to bygone times, and is not the present administration doing its best to remedy all deficiencies?

A. No doubt there is a party, and one of considerable strength in the Academy itself, in favour of reform, and it consists of some of the strongest members, headed by the President; but it is numerically weak, and there is no chance of any radical alteration, such as is necessary, being made even by that party. So long ago as 1863 a Royal Commission of inquiry was held into the state of the Academy, which recommended amongst many other things the restriction of the members to the exhibition of four instead of eight pictures, and a few weeks ago, twenty-three years afterwards, a motion to the same effect having been brought forward it was rejected by a large majority.† Except under pressure from without, there is no reason to believe that the Academicians will abate a jot of their present privileges, or exercise them in a more generous manner.

Q. What then is to be done?

A. Apply that pressure most assuredly, in the interests of the public and twenty thousand suffering artists.

Q. Do you consider, then, that the Royal Academy is entirely responsible for all the defects you have enumerated?

A. By no means, for these defects could never have existed had it not been for the culpable indifference of the public, the want of resolute and continued action on the part of the outside artists, and, above all, the deplorable ignorance and partiality shown by the public press.

Q. How have the press been to blame in this matter?

*There are many vital defects in the Academy Schools which I here omit for sake of brevity.

Several other recommendations of this Commission were assented to by the Royal Academy at that time when they were desirous to gain the site of Burlington House, but I do not know that one of them has been carried out.