SENIOR jMvr \ \ t X RAPHAEL’S APOLLO AND MARSYA S.” RAPHAEL’S "APOLLO AND IARSYAS. A EUROPEAN SCANDAL, BY MORRIS MOORE, SENIOR. “To lap st in fulness Is sorer than to lie in need; and falsehood Is worse in kings than beggars .”— SHAKESTEARE. “ Omnia verba suis locis optima: etiam sordida dicuntur proprie .— QUINTILIAN.” Second Edition ROME TIPOGRAFIA TXBERINA 1885. CONTENTS 1. Letter to W. E. M. Tomlinson, Esq., M. P. 2. Letter from Viscount Delaborde. 3. Letter from M. A. Gruyer. 4. To the Nation. 5. Letter to Sir W. H. Gregory, M. P. 6. Letter to W. Beckett Denison. 7. Reply to ditto. 8. Extract from a letter from M. James Spedding to the Editor of the 44 Examiner.” 9. Letter of Lord Elcho to the 44 Morning Post.” 10. Mr. Frederick William Burton.—A Statement. 11. Extract from the Will of theRt. Hon. the Earl o f Onslow. 12. Description of Michael Angelo’s 44 Virgin of the Lectern.” Morris Moore, Senior. 13. Description of Raphael’s 44 Effigy of Dante.” Morris Moore, Senior. 14. Letter to Lord Bloomfield, English Ambassador to Prussia, by Morris Moore, Senior. 15. Translation the from 44 Corriere Italiano” of Vienna. 16. Translation 44 from II Raffaello.” 17. English Official Knavery. 18. Letter to Sir Frederick Leighton, P. R. A. 19. Supplement. 20. Postscript. m LETTER TO W. E. M. TOMLINSON, Esq., M. P. “ Strike me, but hear me! TO William E. M. Tomlimson, Esq,, M. P. “ Ma perch & frocle 6 dell’ uom proprio male, Pill spiace a Dio; e perd stan di sutto Gli frodolenti, e piii dolor gli assale.” Dante, La Div. Com. Inf., e. xi. “ But whereas fraud is man’s peculiar stain, God hates it most; and hence the fraudulent Are placed beneath, and racked by greater pain.” “ As I shall have to detail startling facts, l cannot avoid in describing them the use of the strongest language .” — Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone to the Earl of Aberdeen. Neapolitan Letters. J. Murray, 1851. Raphael’s “ Apollo and Marsyas.” — “ The story of this picture is too humi¬ liating to be set forth.”-— The Times, Thursday, May 31, 1883. “ No Government, unless it were put to the utmost straits, could consent to use, or to countenance the lamentable subterfuges and prevarications which have characterized the answers of Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons during the present week. ”— Saturday Review, April 26, 1881. “ A master-piece of Raphael, once lost to the nation can never be recov¬ ered-still less can it be replaced by anything else. ”— The Times, Friday, May 23, 1884. SIR I enclose transcriptions of two communications from authoritative foreigners. They may assist appreciation of the reply given you and the House of Commons on the 2nd of June, (1883,) through one Courtney, Gladstone’s obscure mouthpiece, respecting England’s irrevocable loss of so great a factor of Public Instruction as Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas , ” a masterpiece of beauty, exceptional even for Raphael; its authenticity ratified by the chief art centres of Europe, as Paris, Munich, Dresden, Vienna, Venice, Milan, Florence, Rome, and—London. But above all 44 authenti- 2 city, 99 manifest in itself and by Raphael’s monogram R. V., perspicuously expressed in golden dots by his own hand on the border of the quiver at the Deity’s feet, as though Raphael himself were witness to confound his foul detractors of all sizes, felly conspiring to rob him of yet a sovereign glory, and myself of the humble merit of rescuing the em¬ pyrean Master from official jobbery and the slough of aca¬ demic ignorance, restoring him to the contemplation and instruction of my fellows. This crime against England, Public Instruction, and the Beautiful , is chargeable on William Ewart Gladstone, ex- officio 44 Honorable” — 44 Right, 99 too! moreover, repeatedly Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1850, date of Raphaels 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” becoming mine, hence England’s purse at his discretion—at his discretion also, had he had eyes to see, heart to feel, and patriotism to covet for his country pre-eminence in recognizing the Beautiful, to have won for her the revendicaled Raphael, a 44 thing of beauty,' 1 a— 44 joy for ever. 99 The same year, 1850* now thirty-four years ago, impel¬ led perhaps by curiosity or by the admiration it was exciting , he visited me in.London to see the picture. Struck at its sight, he exclaimed, 44 It is a work only Raphael could have painted, and regretted that it rested not with him to lend it the authority it deserved . ” He was not then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Eulogy from such a source savoured of the instinct of Panurge’s 44 moutons. 99 How otherwise from one who, having had golden opportunity, as here exampled in Michael Angelo's 44 Virgin of the Lectern, 99 elected to grovel, and speculate amid the grotesque types of china and crockery ware, to ennobling his Trust by the former, thereby achieving honour for England and for himself; one who 3 dogmatizes on Art while spouting at Royal Academy feeds to the music of servile and imbecile applause, and would evoke Nature from Royal Academy Art; one who congra¬ tulates his privileged hosts on the very great strides they are making towards rivalling the deathless masters of the Italian Revival. A second time he visited me in the same year, now to scan Raphaels monogram. His scrutiny must have been satisfactory; hence tangible proof of authenticity; the sole it was vouchsafed him to comprehend, since having twice seen Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas and had it more than two generations within his reach , backed by England*s Exchequer , he proved his mind too low or too dishonest to rise to its grandeur, or feel its superlative beauty. The reply to your question on the 2nd of June, 1883, in ihe House, pleasantly entitled 44 of Commons, ” upon Ra¬ phaels 44 Apollo and Marsyas ,” and the Salon Carre of the Louvre , was a tissue of brazen mendacity , a personal and professional slander against an absent, hence defenceless fellow-citizen, four years afflicted with paralysis. Courtney’s exordium bore the impress of his Right Honourable confe¬ derate and inspirer, William Ewart Gladstone, first Lord vof the Treasury. He affirmed that 44 the authenticity of this picture had been in dispute for a generation . ” No argument .against authenticity , yet withering for 44 a generation! ” the fool and his inspirer disputing it! By no recognized Authority on Art was it ever in dispute. With such alone here rests the right of umpirage. With other, dispute were idle. A nobler instance could not be cited, whether for fame or integrity, than Frederick Overbeck. The 4th of December, 1860, he emphatically wrote: — 44 No need of certificates, monograms, sketches or studies 4 of any sort to certify that this priceless painting, ‘ Apollo and Marsyas , ' is by Raphael's oivn handl. ” Again, in ra¬ tification, on the 7th of ^December, 1862, Salvator Betti,. President of the Roman Archaeological Society and Perpetual Secretary of the Academy of St. Luke: “I believe there is no artist in Rome , among the celebrated ones of every nation who does not repute ‘ the Apollo and Marsyas ’ a magnificent work of Raphael. ” These highly responsible authorities epitomize the judgment of artistic Europe. Frederick Overheck, in virtue of his eminence as a practical artist and his reliability of character; Salvator Betti, as an unimpeachable witness for every no¬ table artist in Rome. Courtney on the slips for whatever fraud , nowise abashed, amused the sapient administrative conclave of the Commons with a choice of names of time-honoured Masters, albeit none able to discriminate between them, that one at least of many might chance to hit the Cabal's exigency, figuring with the crowd peopling the sanctuary of our Third Estate , as the inspired painter of the “ Apollo and Marsyas .” Despite Raphael’s intact and perspicuous monogram traced by his deified hand, and his unrivalled Art effulging in all its splendour, the pliant Courtney by official veto omitted Raphael’s name in the choice of possible painters who might have painted, and did paint the “ Apollo and Marsyas. ’> The ascription of the picture to Mantegna may be found in Christie's Catalogue of the 2nd of March, 1850. After the sale, Christie told me he had received it without name of Master, and had ascribed it hap-liazard to Mantegna. On its becoming mine, knowing it to be by Raphael, I at once so proclaimed it, the authoritative corroborating me by cordially agreeing with the judgement upon it, that it was r perhaps, 44 the purest and most beautiful specimen of the Master in England .” (Lord Elcho’s letter to the Morning Post, June the loth 1850.) At the same time, I pledged myself that all applicants should be allowed to see it. On Friday, May 24th, 1850, about two months after its purchase, Herr Passavant, Eastlahe's ally and guest, more¬ over, Director of the Gallery at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, at my house, and before the 44 Apollo and Marsyas, ” magisterially pronounced it by Francia, the very name Easllake had tried to fasten upon it, at the same time declaring it xt a first-rate specimen of the finest period of Italian Art.” How could he endorse the man who had disseized of office his notoriously incompetent fellow-functionary, the Director of the English National Gallery ? On the Monday following, without seeing it in the interval, his 44 unalterable ” opinion was changed; with equal intre pidity he now ascribed it to Timoteo della Vite, comforting me with the assurance that Raphael, Francia, and Timoteo della Vite were all the same thing! Witness Lord Elcho’s letter to the “ Morning post,” 10th of June, seventeen days later. To Pinturicchio, Lorenzo Costa , Perugino , and Timoteo della Vite , it was ascribed by one Giovanni Morelli of Bergamo. In 1860 at Milan, Count Giberto Borromeo, President of the Brera Academy, besought me to exhibit Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas” in the Brera Gallery. Giovanni Morelli , then picture agent, and promiscuously for whatever infamy, had been hired by Eastlake and earned his wages by covertly slandering me and Raphaels 44 Apollo and Marsyas .” In Milan, I denounced this Giovanni Morelli by name, in a pamphlet entitled 44 Apollo e Marsia , ” 6 Opera di Raffaello di Morris Moore; Milano Tip. di G, Merlo , 1850. The Cabal notorious, and the masterpiece having ecstasized Milan, the honest received the publication with high approval. Opprobriously become “ Senator! ,r and finding his Italian patronymic a questionable credential with Italians, he trasformed it to “ Lermollieff. ” Thus masked, he pursues his foul game of venal backbiting . In the “ Edinburgh Review” as recently as January, 1883, this Giovanni Morelli, alias Lermollieff, blushlessly publi¬ shed: “and such another instance we have in Morris Moore’s so-called Raphael (“ Apollo and Marsyas”) attri¬ buted by Waagen to Timoteo della Vite, and nov) believed to be an early Perugino”—early too! Posthumous gratitude to Eastlake , his duplicate in villainy, to whom indebted for some few hundreds of our money. (Estimates, Civil Service, 1865, p. 40.) Courtney mendaciously further averred that “ the owner of this picture had vainly offered it at “ several national museums in Europe.” Then he must have known what National museums, or at least, one of his “several” spe¬ cified by “ vainly, ” where I had offered it. I have never offered this picture to any museum, national or other, nor to any individual, nor contemplated it. Grovelling to the Right Honourable Gladstone , Courtney altogether suppressed my name, “ though a necessary que¬ stion of the play to be considered.” But he oracularly identified me, by a lie, as “ the owner of the picture which had been in dispute for a generation ” The greater disgrace to a Royal Academy, boasting professional connoisseurs, and to Gladstone’s Executive. Yet the name “ Morris Moore,” he full well knew had been signally honored in both hemispheres; in America, by official invitation, in 1876, 7 to be present, free of expense , at the first Centennial of American Independence; in France by the artistic elite of Paris;. in Germany by its Academies of Art and Universi¬ ties; in Italy also by its Academies of Art; but above all, on the most glorious crest of Apennine —at Urbino in Ra¬ phael's Natal House , on the 6th of April, his anniversary, 1873, Avhere the name C4 Morris Moore” was shouted by a rejoicing city; that city , the eyry whence Raphael de¬ scended to amaze mankind with a torrent of Beauty engen¬ dered by his prolific Fancy, (a) To this Right Honourable conscienceless man-pleaser the name of 44 Morris Moore, ” no joyous reminder of his conni¬ vance, the 2nd of December, 1880, with Burton’s crawling to my sick-room like 44 any creeping venom d thing, ” withal muffled by the forged name of 44 Johnstone, ” since months expectant to find mo, paralytic, supine, and speechless; Burton’s infamous purport, that having seen Raphael's 66 Apollo and Marsyas 99 recently, the how indifferent, he with his Right Honourable sanctimonious confederate might concert how best to slander it; slander a nonpareil, of Art that 44 lames report to follow it, and outdoes description. ” Thus by deliberate treachery has this first Lord of the Treasury swindled his fellow - citizens of a dazzling glory, exuberantly sufficient to have proved that the compatriots of Shakespeare and Milton could have held their own, at least (a) Raphael’s Fourth Centenary Celebration at the Capitol, Friday, March 28th, 1883. — The Hall of the Tapestries in the Capitol was set apart for the exhibition of the beautiful cabinet picture by Raphael of Apollo and Marsyas, borrowed by the Municipality Of Rome for the occasion. The King and Queen lingered a long time admiring the work, and congratulated its fortunate owner, Mr. Morris Moore. This gentleman’s large donatiou towards the purchase of Raphael's natal house at Urbino, some years ago (1873) was referred to with gratitude by Professor Leoni in his discourse.—The Times, 29th March, 1883. as nowise inferior in discernment of the Beautiful to Sister nations. Be now weighed the Courtney credential for Director Burton, 44 I need scarcely add, ” said Courtney, Gladstone’s mouthpiece for the emergency, 44 that the present Director and Keeper have both been appointed to their several posts long since the sale in question. ” Shoots of fraud they are well leashed. In May, 1870, this Burton, an entire stranger, presented himself to me here, asking tos qq Raphael's “ Apollo and Marsyas. ” He professed the greatest admi¬ ration, earnestly wishing it in the National Gallery. There¬ fore, I myself had shewn it him, at least, thirteen years before it left Rome for the Salon Carre of the Louvre; nine since Gladstone had appointed him Director of the National Gallery. Installed in his unearned office, Burton's 44 great admiration ” of 1870, and 44 wish to see the picture in the National Gallery 99 vanished. From time to time I was reliably informed that with one William Russell, a Trustee of the National Gallery and Sinecure Accountant General, he had lost no opportunity to vilify the masterpiece. On the 6th of February, 1880, I was struck with paralysis, by able medical authority attributed to injustice and conse¬ quent mental distress suffered. Mrs. Moore, in London, conscious that I must be painfully anxious about the valuable paintings notoriously in my possession, though personally unknown to this Burton, wrote to him by advice, but simply as Director of the National Gallery , on the 2nd of March, within the month, informing him of my condition. This unknowm to me. I had reason, as above stated, to reckon him one of the most abject of knaves. Mrs. Moore emphasized Raphael's 44 Apollo and Marsyas, 99 adding a photograph of the picture; dwelt on Michael Angelo's 9 ,, Virgin of the Lectern , ” sole painting by the Master in private hands ; farther enclosing a printed description of Raphael’s “ Effigy of Dante ” (1506-7), cited as possessed by Cardinal Bembo, in Padua. She reminded Burton that I had shewn him Raphael's 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” in 1870, that he had expressed unbounded admiration, and had earnestly wished it in the National Gallery. He acknowledged receipt of the letter above cited, admitting that 44 he very w’ell remembered having seen about ten years ago the pictures mentioned, and that I myself had shewn them to him. ” He named the 44 Apollo and Marsyas , ” returning the photograph without a word of comment either upon photograph or pictures. In the face of the foregoing, Courtney must have been vouchsafed a phenomenal dose of audacity to have put upon you and the House of Commons the following fraudulent attempt to whitewash the felon Burton. 44 I need scarcely add, ” said Courtney, 44 that the present director and keeper have both been appointed to their several posts long since the sale in question. ” 44 Whom the Deity dooms he first maddens. ” Courtney further said, 44 I believe the picture is of great merit , whoever painted it, but it will be obvious that the paragraph in the Times ^Thursday, May 31), was misleading in treating what is really only a matter of past history , as an incident of to-day. ” Raphael 44 a matter of past history, ” hence obsolete! So of Homer , who sang the parting at the Scsean; so of Virgil , 44 Tu Marcellus eris! ” Dante , chanting 44 Oh anima affannata, ” and Shakespeare who bequeathed : — “ I had as lief not be, as live to be In awe of such a thing as I myself. ” 10 All these matters of past history, yet they still 44 rattle the Welkin’s ear, ” as 44 incidents of to-day! ” Stripped of his moral hideousness, Gladstone’s slanderous mouthpiece may now be left to settle accounts with his Right Honourable inspirer and with the less mendacious and less servile of his fellow citizens. Vindicating an Englishman’s imprescriptible Right, I im¬ peach this William Ewart Gladstone, First Lord of the Treausury, at will Chancellor of the Exchequer, in either function, scoffing honor, 44 Right Honourable, ”—I impeach, I say, this sanctimonious obtrusive huxter of 44 Family Prayers from the Liturgy, ”—this maudlin declaimer on 44 the duty of maintaining untainted and in virgin purity the honor and character of the Country, ” while tainting both; —this concrete 44 Negation of God , ” of sacrificing im¬ perial interests and national dignity to profitable unconsti¬ tutional knee-crooking and the “Hell-born-spirit of Revenge; ” this ci-devant energumenous Tory, of pursuing during thirty-four years a fellow-citizen with slanderers subsidized by our Exchequer ; a fellowcitizen who, unaided, in defiance of devilish spite, has everywhere won distinction in an exquisite human discipline, rescuing from oblivion two paintings by Michelangelo; the 44 Virgin of the Lectern, a prodigy of Art, and of illustrious derivation ; the other, the 44 Virgin enthroned and Saints, ” eloquently of the same immortal progeny. The latter masterpiece, offered in 1844, at £. 250 to the Nation, Shee and Eastlake, successively Presidents of the Royal Academy, hence compendiating the artistic perspicacity of the Forty official 44 connoisseurs ” catering for the Nation, rejected it. 44 I must state that Sir Martin Shee was decidedly against the purchase of that picture ; and the trustees could not but be influenced by his 11 judgment. Eastlake’s evid., June 17,1853, qq 6178-9 Nat. Gal. B. Book, pp 431-2. On the 22nd, of July, 1853, under gravest responsibility, before a packed Committee of the Commons, 44 surrounded by scoundrels of all sizes, ” (utterance of my illustrious friend, Walter Savage Landor,)—witnesses Col. Mure, chair¬ man, Lord W. Graham, Mr. Vernon, Lord Elcho, (now Earl of Wemyss and March,) Lord Seymour, (now Duke of So¬ merset,) Mr. Baring Wall, I emphatically asserted the stupendous work, before ignorantly ascribed to Domenico Ghirlandajo, incontestably by Michelangelo, judgment ratified by the competent; the two-fold presidential blindness to art, not to have secured it for the nation a culminant argument against the Executive and Royal Academy for their chaotic conduct of the National Gallery. For this no mean service, no acknowledgment in the Committee’s Report, nor in the catalogue of the National Gallery; there¬ fore, fraud upon myself, and justice set at nought. Futrher, two works by Raphael of his Florentine epoch, the 44 Effigy of Dante,” once Cardinal Bembo's, and the 44 Apollo and Marsyas ,” the former inspired by Giotto's fresco in the Florentine Prsetorium, sole accredited from the living Poet, 44 Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita,” chanted in the Divina Commedia; the latter, an archetype of Elysian beauty epitheted 44 The Soul of Raphael /” The 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” revendicated to the World by English perspicacity from Academic brutishness and Executive treachery , England had an hereditary right to sit at the Banquet spread by this 44 Miracle of Art.”— 44 —a perpetual least of nectar'd sweets, Where no rude surfeit reigns.” 12 Of the “Apollo and Marsyas ” it was aptly said: c’est comme les Grecs devaient peindre—“ It is as the Greeks must have painted!” Europe has long* made this judgment her own. Conception Homeric, form Olympian, colour ‘'sharing with great creating nature-,” thus beguiling her of herself, unless inches, not perfection, be gage of art, the “ Apollo and Marsyas ” excels whatsoever work of Raphael extant, small or large now obtainable (a). Genius is not quantitive! but rated by style and execution, attri¬ butes superlative in Raphael’s “ Apollo and Marsyas , ” subject, the Penalty of Presumption, the loftiest bequeathed by mythic lore. Area modest (l£i by 1H inches, 7 inches square , the “ Connestabili Virgin”), style colossal.—protagonists two, both nude, the Deity and his rash challenger;—a plain enamelled with verdure and flowers:—a stream meandering t —a bridge spanning it, figures crossing; below, a fisherman; —on its banks, a castle;—between converging mountains, the horizon. High above Apollo resting on his shepherd’s staff, a hawk swoops on a colchian pheasant, flight and plumage simu¬ lated to the life,—victim emblematic of a greater!—here too, the tell-tale crow sacred also to x\pollo,—at the Deity’s feet, the plenteous quiver whereon, in golden dots, the miraculous Master’s autographic monogram, R. V., the melodious flute, and the unerring bow;—near, two of those graceful trees so greatly fancied by Raphael;—therefrom a withered branch propending towards Marsyas , forecast of his doom, while at his feet, menacing erect the deadly nightshade sacred to Atropos! Far on the extreme firmanent, flight of the sacred Pierides. (a) Notably the “ Ansidei Madonna. '* 13 Such Raphael’s Olympian Epic with its luxuriance of classical incident and towerig style. Here, the Master of Masters between adolescence and puberty ( 1506-7), the most idiosyncratic phase of his miraculous powers; here, now emancipated from Umbriam conventionalism, the creator of an Apollo, counterpart of that pattern of Greek art, the Hymen in the Elgin Saloon. The “ Ansidei Virgin ,” surpasses the “ Apollo and Marsyas" only in quantity and cost ; excesses loudly glorified by the vulgar , but ever unrated by Genius. Oh the 2nd of June, 1883, this nonpareil was slandered. in the House of Commons, by instigation of William Ewart Gladstone, Rt. Hon .; his eyes thriftily “ uplift'to the hills of the Court,” on tongue stereotyped, “ nothing more asso¬ ciated with the true development of human excellence than art," with other like bombast , it had, nevertheless, been his unpatriotic doom, while ostentating himself “ bound by every tie of honor, as well as of office , to do what in him lay for the intellectual advancement and fair fame of England,” to figure as experimentum vile to ostracize Ci ce miracle du grand, art," a work “among the greatest pro¬ ductions (his own words \) of which mankind has been the author;” ostracize it tho the indelible disgrace of England, and for the perennial glorification of France, where, enthroned in the Salon Carre of the Louvre, though of modest size, it towers b y grandeur of style, and “Perce le plafond.” In the Salon Carre , renowned Fane of the Beautiful, the Rt. Hon. First Lord of the Treasury with the “scoundrels of all sizes,” who so rancorously have slandered Raphael in one of his most transcendent creations, will there find the Ferculoe Caudinoe of their infamy, and in the official 14 catalogue of the Louvre, see the masterpiece Signalized— “Le Rapheal de Morris Moore!” Mea virtute me involvo .—Horace MORRIS MOORE, Senior. Rome , September, 1884. In Hell (Inf. c. xxi), Dante descried Bonturo, shame¬ less barterer of the public thing at Lucca, seething in boiling pitch. He had sold liis party. Duplicate of the Rt. Hon. First Lord of the English Treasury, for he too, notorious barterer of the public thing, (albeit not at Lucca! ) had sold his party, abruptly veering from “iVo” to “Aye” and vice versa, by way of illustrating “the virgin purity and character of his country.” What more heinous than barter a country’s glory against “respect of persons.” of all respects, the basest ; moreover, against a work of super¬ lative Genius that “nothing could replace!” But Bonturo Bonturi had yet to shine, like the Rt. Hon. First Lord of the Treasury, as the Apostle of Slavery, the Satanic institution on which England has expended so much treasure and English blood to quench. Methinks, I hear a hair¬ splitting unprincipled casuist, touched to the quick, exclaim, —“Slavery !—but only in the Soudan !” plagiarism without Shaksperian salt, from FalstafTs men in— “buckram.” LETTER FROM VISCOUNT HENRI DELABORDE. Raphael’s “Apollo and Marsyas.” IN THE SALON CARRE OF THE LOUVRE. Copy of a letter from Viscount Henri Delaborde, a Director of the Bibliotheque nationale of France, Secretary of the Academie des Beaux-Arts of Paris, an accomplished writer on Art in the Revue des Deux-Mondes etc. “Bibliotheque Nationale, “ Paris , le 23 Mai , 1883. “ Cher Monsieur Moore, “ J’ai eu enfin la joie de contempler hier votre ad¬ mirable Raphael , sur une des parois du Grand Salon du Louvre oil on l’avait place depuis quelques instants. II va sans dire que j’avais ete le voir, quelques jours auparavant, dans le cabinet de M. de Ronchaud , aussitot que je V y avais su arrive ; il va sans dire aussi, que ce jour-l& comme hier, j’ai retrouve en face de cet archi-chef d'oeuvre toutes mes impressions d’autrefois, que de ce cote-l& du moins je n’ai pas vieilli, que mon admiration est aussi vive et aussi profonde, sinon meme plus profonde encore qu’elle n’etait aux premiers jours, qii’en un mot je m’associe plus que jamais a l’enthousiasme de ce brave homme qui vous disait dans la naivete de son etonnement: L e tanto piccolo epare tanto grande ! ’ “Gruyer vous aura ecrit sans doute, pour vous dire l’accueil fait ici k ce miracle du grand art par M. Jules Ferry, par tous ceux, administrateurs des beaux-arts ou autres, qui out des yeux pour voir et un coeur pour sentir , par tout le public enfin qui comprend quelle conquete la France vient de faire, et quelle reconnaissance elle vous doit. Tout francais en effet qui’il est devenu, le Raphael B 18 que nous possedons n'est pas moins, il n’en restera pas moms, & jamais ‘ le Raphael de Morris Moore, 9 et ceux qui, comme moi, ont ete assez heureux pour pouvoir intervenir dans les preliminaires de la cession que vous avez consenti a faire , ceux-l& n’oublieront pas, croyez-le bien, l’obligation contractee par eux et par tout le monde des artistes envers vous, Nul plus que moi, cher Monsieur Moore, n’est p6- n6tre de ce sentiment. Veuillez-en agreer l’expression avec celle de mon entier devouement. “V™, HENRI DELABORDE. ‘‘Monsieur Morris Moore, senior, Rome.” LETTER FROM M. MATOLE GRUYER. Raphael’s “Apollo and Marsyas.” IN THE SALON CARRE OF THE LOUVRE. Copy of letter from M. Anatole Gruyer, member of the Institute of France, conservator of the Paintings in the Louvre, author of various works on Art, etc. : “ Minis tere de l’lnstruction Publique et des Beaux-Arts— Sous Secretariat d’Etat des Beaux-Arts—Direction des Musses Nationaux. Palais du Louvre , 1 te, 1883. ‘“Cher Monsieur Moore, “Si je ne vous ai pas ecrit plus tot, c’est queaprSs, plus d’un mois d’absence, je me suis vu charge d’une foule d’obligations et d’occupations, vis-a-vis “desquelles j’ai du me mettre tout d’abord completement en rSgle.” “j'ai voulu, d’ailleurs, attendre le temps necessaire pour voir dignement place le tableau d’Apollon et Marsyas, et pour juger de TefFet produit sur le public par cette admi¬ rable peinture. “Je puis vous dire maintenant que notre nouvelle perle est placee en belle lumiere dans le Grand Salon Carre du Louvre, et je puis ajouter qu’elle tient tres-dignement sa place au milieu des oeuvres redoutables qui lui font cortege. C’est 1& une epreuve h laquelle bien peu de tableaux pourraient 6tre impunement soumis. Quand une oeuvre non seulement se soutient mais grandit encore en pareil voisinage, o’est qu’elle est bien veritablement un chef-d’oeuvre. “ M. Jules Ferry est venu le premier en compagnie de Madame Jules Ferry voir notre nouvelle acquisition. L’un et Fautre ont ete fort touches de labeaute de cette peinture. 22 “J’esp&re, cher Monsieur Moore, que vous 6tes plus satisfait de votre sante. Je vous prie de presenter mes respectueux hommages k Madame Morris Moore, et je vous- adresse, avec mes compliments, mes meilleurs souvenirs. “A. GRUYER. u Monsieur Morris Moore, senior, Rome. “M. de Ronchaud, directeur des Musees, me charge de ses compliments pour vous.” TO THE NATION. TO THE NATION “ Better a penurious kingdom, than where excessive wealth flows into the graceless and injurious hands of common sponges, to the impoverishing of good and loyal men.”— Milton. “ Roguery is countenanced and protected in the highest places. I do not wonder at it; but I do wonder that English gentlemen and noblemens\ion\<\ fail in their consistency and integrity, as you have proved they do/' — Letter from W. S. Landor to Morris Moore. u Surrounded as you are by scoundrels of all si*es, you maybe deprived of rest and quiet, although unwounded., as we may be kept awake by gnats, even if unbitten.... Alas! we are a Nation of sycophants/' Letter from the same to the same. “ I cannot possibly close my letter without tendering you my warmest admiration of the upright, firm, decided, uncompromising, and manly bearing which has marked your conduct throughout the whole of this affair." — Letter from the Earl of .Onslow to Morris Moore. “ Yon have worked hard and proudly in the public Vineyard (I use the word, proudly, in a flattering sense), for you have stooped to no one, but held on your course with a bold and steady step, and with a sternness of resolve that nothing could ever shake. I honor you from my soul."—Letter from the same to the same. “ The Public mainly owe to Mr. Morris Moore's unwearied remonstran¬ ces. an inquiry which can hardly fail in future to protect their interests and property."— tr Edinburgh Review," April, 1854. “ Surely if there be one thing in a free country more clear than another, it is, that any one of the People may speak freely to the People."—The Rt. Hon. John Bright, St. James* Hall, Dec., 1866. ”As I shall have to detail startling facts. I cannot avoid, in describing them, the use of the strongest language."—The Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone to the Earl of Aberdeen. To YOU I AGAIN DEVOTE MY PAGES. 44 Nothing is more radically associated with the true development of human excellence than Art, ” (a) echoed lips ministerial. Their authority derived from ourselves, (a) Rt. Hon. W. E, Gladstone, (Chancellor of the Exchequer), Royal Academy Dinner, May, 1864. the sentence carries our stamp: antique as Pericles, it wears the halo of a matchless Age. The special subject, therefore, of these pages exhausts commendation. But specialties cloud the vision of the uninitiated. Leav¬ ing Art in its Empyrean, I invoke attention to matter trriking straight home to every freeman. I here accuse and arraign our several Ministries since 1853 till now, but notably our Chancellors of the Exchequer, liegemen to a spurious influence, and hence flouters of the Divine Inhibition against 44 respect of persons, ” the key¬ stone of the arc of Truth and Justice; I accuse and arraign them, I say, of abusing our delegated authority and diverting Public Moneys in abetment of a conspiracy to pursue and ruin an English citizen; a conspiracy stigmatized by grave authority, as 44 combining with the ferocity of the dark ages, the meanness of ours, ” (a) and far and wide, to our moral and intellectual discredit, characterized a European Scandal. Deepest in this ministerial mire, figures Mr. ^-Chancellor of the Exchequer, William Ewart Gladstone, exofficio , 44 Right Honorable, ” and now Premier, the new Messiah by fra¬ ternal patent, and his own complacent acquiescence in the grotesque and audacious parallel (b). Nor is this the first time, nor the second, that I arraign and—convict him. If I (a) Dr. Cams Privy Councillor to the King of Saxony, and President of the Academy of Sciences at Dresden. (b) “ In talking of his brother’s Parliamentary 4 sufferings ’ Mr. Robertson Gladstone becomes blasphemous. The only parallel is, in Mr. R. Gladstone’s opinion, to be found in Holy Writ. The way in which Mr. W. E. Gladstone is assailed in the House of Commons reminds his brother (Mr. R. Gladstone) of that Great Expiation when the veil of the Temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, when the sun was eclipsed., and the world was covered with total darkness. ”—From the ” Globe " of June 6th, 1868. 27 single him as protagonist of this Dedication, j udge whether justly. From the first moving for the Committee of 1853 on the National Gallery, to receive evidence and to report upon my charges of vandalism and waste in that department of the Public Service, this meek and model man, ducking to persons , prostituted his high delegation to aid incompetency and fraud. On that motion being made, he, with affected zeal for justice, 44 implored honourable members not to prejudge the question. ” Now, mark his Dialectics, as well as his justice! To screen the Court minion, Eastlake, alone responsible, as Mr. Joseph Hume on the same occasion rightly affirmed, for the havoc and other abuse set forth in my Indictment, he, in the same breath, with presump¬ tuous, perverse, and clumsy self-contradiction, and flatly belying his own spontaneous condemnation of them in the National Gallery, but three days previously , as then attested, and later re-attested in the rebuke administered him direct by Mr. J. P. Davis, painter, in the Morning Post of May the 1st, 1855 , prejudged the question himself, by pronouncing the impeached officials, 44 gentlemen of very high character and consummate competency . ” The parliamentary inquiry at its height, and victory mine on every count, though but a presage of proscription and ruin! he offered further incense to the common Patron, by a manoeuvre to soften an ignominious defeat. At that very juncture, he empowered his convicted and seZ/'-convicted client to hazard yet a purchase for the National Gallery, although in this same branch of his duties, the latter had only just then, by overwhelming testimony and his own avowal, been proved signally peccant. This defiance of decency, judicial prescription, and Right, was visited by 28 failure and general condemnation. As of those three thousand pounds Kruger gems, the Right Honorable gen¬ tleman’s own peculiar exploit and trophy, so this still more flagrant dicing with public money turned up a blank. Ever alert, when safe , to barter the Public Thing for the Royal nod, he was the arch-tool in those nefarious Jobs, the re¬ instatement, with quintupled emolument , and the repeated quinquennial confirmation of the twice disseized and self- condemned Eastlake in the Directorship of the National Gallery ; profligacy which he scrupled not to gloss with mendacious encomium of his exploded client. Of that re¬ instatement, Lord Onslow wrote : “ It is a direct and studied insult to the Nation at large , and loudly calls for some mark of popular indignation. That the lot ahould have fallen on the very man who had tolled his own death- knell by publicly proclaiming his own incompetency to the charge that has devolved upon him, is beyond all credence” Again: “ Sir C. Eastlake has demonstratively proved himself unfit for the Directorship of the National Gallery, both on the shewing of the printed Evidence before the Committee , and on his own oral admission. Nothing less than his removal will'satisfy the Country, or blot out the glaring insult that has been so studiously offered to it.” And Mr. William Coningham, M. P. for Brighton: “ Eastlake’s re-appointment deserves especial notice. His own admission that he is unfit for the place of Director would alone damn him , and the mass of evidence against him must render the place untenable” And the Hon. P. Ashburnham: “ I fear the late appointments leave us without hope, while they last, of any improvement in the management of the National Col¬ lection of Pictures. It is much to be wished, in the mean time, that the public money may not be worse than thrown away in the 29 purchase of pictures, for no real lover of Art can desire to see a fine work consigned to that Gallery of torture. ’ And Mr. Frederick Hurlstone, President of the Society of British Artists: “ The announcement in the Builder is certainly most extraordinary, after the virtual , if not positive , declaration by Lord Palmerston in the House , that the appointment had not taken place. If this atro¬ city is committed , I must acknowlegde that it would excuse any terms of condemnation” And Dr. William Hepworth Thompson, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, Master of Trinity College, and Canon of Ely Cathedral, etc. : “ However I may distrust my own judgment on a point of con- noisseurship in Art, I cannot feel the same diffidence in a question of public morality , and saving, of course, the audi alteram partem , though without believing it could have much to say. There can be no doubt that a gross Job has been perpetrated with unexampled levity and sang-froid. I had seen Eastlake’s appointment with much surprise, and wonder that no public notice has been taken of it.” But that 44 direct and studied insult to the Nation at large, ” that 44 glaring insult ” to it, that 44 gross Job perpetrated with unexampled levity and sang-froid, ” lacked not suitable blazon. Under date of March the 27th, 1855, and signed by the late James Wilson, Secretary to the Treasury, 44 Right Honorable ,J to boot, a creature moulded for such work, was issued the following : “My Lords consider it a fortunate circumstance that they are able to select for the first appointment to this important office, a gentleman of such high attainments as Sir C. Eastlake , who is President of the Royal Academy, and has shewn qualifications of the highest order for the office” A Peer’s sentence upon this Treasury production: 30 “ Richmond , Saturday Nighty Aug . 4, 1855. “ Sir. “ I have just finished reading the Treasury Minute you were kind enough to send me. It out-Herods Herod in unreachable impudence. It is a gross and pointed insult to the People. “ The 4 travelling agency ’ appointed can be acceptable in one quarter only: it is most disgraceful. “ The 4 Government verdict’by no means warrants the inference you deduce from it. The sins of the Governing Powers cannot directly, or even virtually, incriminate any one but themselves. Why you are to be regarded by the Public as 4 ignorant and calumnious/ because the Government have by their acts and under their signatures affixed their seals to their own degradation, is a sequitur that cannot properly be followed out. The lower they sink in public estimation, the higher you rise in it. 44 I think you may make yourself perfectly easy as to the position you hold in public opinion : this flagrant abuse of power on their part can never harm a hair of your head. The Victory is vir¬ tually yours: you have just to bide your time for a season : the laurels are only in abeyance. 44 Believe me always faithfulJv, 44 ONSLOW. 44 Morris Moore, Esq., 27, Soho Square , London ” Again: 44 The eulogium of the Treasury Lords, as enunciated by their mouthpiece, after Eastlake's self-confessed incompetency , ought sure - Iy to have led to the immediate resignation of the Director, under the persuasion that, though he was fully alive to his own utter inefficiency, he was still but little deserving of the taunts o such cutting irony. Eastlake ought to have viewed it in this light, and to have acted upon it\ for this, after all, was the true state of the case; his Supporters well knowing that, while they were bedaubing him with their praise, he was the very last man on whom it ought to be bestowed.” Again: 44 The case is, and has been, so disgraceful, so lamentable, and so disreputable throughout its different phases, as to render the 31 powers of language effete in attempting to describe the disgus* it so naturally inspires. Is there not one out of the six hundred and fifty-eight of that chivalric mould to challenge the appointment and move its rescindment? ” And Mr. James Fergusson, the architect: “ The Treasury Minute is certainly as bad as can be . What is far worse, is the utter apathy and indifference with which both Parliament, the press, and the People regard it. No one seems to care two straws about it. If Lord Palmerston had appointed his own Butler , it would have been all the same, and he knows it; and knowing that he has nothing to fear, these Jobs will be perpetrated every day . The People have themselves to blame for all this. Whafs to be done? Who will fight it out? The more I see of it, the more hopeless have I become. If you can't do it, I dont't know who can. Do try and do something.” Lastly, not to dilate, Professor George Long, of Brighton: 44 I am much obliged to you for sending me the Government reply to the Protest and Counter-Statement. It is just what I expected. Honesty is out of fashion . However, I do not believe that any body who has seen your pamphlet will have his opinion changed by anything Prince Albert and his flatterers can do.” Tim Treasury Lie savored of the diction and bore the Imprimatur of our new Expiator; yesterday his own shrill trumpeter as “a member of the Conservative, party in one of the great families of European nations,” a favorer, too, of that 44 false, base, demoralizing, abominable, and ludicrous doctrine” (his own epithets with amended application) the Right Divine of Kings, and loudly a sympathizer with the Southern States of America, hence of Slavery, the 44 Ne¬ gation of God erected into a system of Governmenta champion, moreover, of that abomination, the Irish Curch, and of other abominations, as so artlessly confessed, orww- confessed, in his electioneering stroke, A Chapter of Auto- biography; to-day, jumping with the times, a renegade 32 from whatever may impeach his neo-demagogy, and thus balk his personal aggrandizement; the man, in sum, who declaims upon “keeping an eye steadily fixed on moral aims, and remembering under all circumstances, the duty of maintaining untainted and in virgin purity, the honor and character of the country.” Prescience is a very essence of Genius, and the idea itself of Statesmanship. A Chapter of Autobiography gives us the inches of its Hero. The Government announcement was a falsehood, which not even the Caledonian circumspection of Lord Elcho, a personage by no means morbidly scrupulous, could stomach. On the 6th of June, 1853, the opportunity came. Lord Elcho retorted in the House of Commons, both by “the lie circumstantial” and “the lie direct “■ Now, although Sir C. Eastlake is President of the Royal Aca¬ demy his opinion has no weight with the artistic world”. And Mr. Harcourt Vernon, M.P., a member of the Com¬ mittee of 1853 on the National Gallery : “ It is impossible, after having heard the evidence of Sir C. East- lake himself before the Committee of 1853, that I should wish to see him Director of the National Gallery.” And Mr. Arthur Otway, M.P., now Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs : “ Every magazine of character, every newspaper worth anythiug, has commented with severity on the operations and purchases of Sir C. Eastlake, and the opinion of the press has been confirmed by that of persons holding high positions in the profession and by distinguished amateurs . Sir C. Eastlake’s evidence on the subject of 4 cleaning ’ proves that he is by no means qualified for such a position as that of Director of the National Gallery. The notions expressed by him are really so absurd, that any person having: the slightest knowledge of Art must have seen that they are entirely false. The whole current of evidence is condemnatory of 33 his management: “ Sir C. Eastlake stands condemned out of his own mouth” And Lord Onslow : “ That able Commentator on the works of Claude, the President of the Royal Academy (Eastlake), stands convicted on Jus own ev¬ idence of his total unfitness for the situation he has so unworthily and so unfortunately filled; he has set his seal to his own incapacity, and effectually closed the door (it is to be hoped) to any future appointment within the precincts of Trafalgar Square. His very simple remedy for educing the beauties of Painting, by first skinning the surface , and then casting dirt over the canvas of the Old Masters, conjointly with the hope that he was at the same time throwing dust into the eyes of the Committee, by this rather novel process, is so preposterously ridiculous, as hardly to raise a smile: it ought to have been scouted, and his examination immediately closed.” Thus, by five responsible and conspicuous Englishmen , among whom his ministerial colleague, the actual Under Secretary of State for Foreing Affairs, not to mention wider reprobation, does the Declaimer upon “the duty of main¬ taining untainted and in virgin purity , the honor and character of the Country,” virtually stand branded as the defiler of both. Of the same virgin purity and ghostly paternity, as u My Lords’ ” announcement of Eastlake’s re-instatement, was the Lie that inducted into the vacant Directorship a Mr. Boxall , who, despite the deafening noise about “ Admini¬ strative Reform ” and “ competitive examination ” was foisted into that “ important office, ” uncredentialled, save by that staple English official virtue , the soul of a menial. As a natural sequence, behold, “ undeified and despoiled of all its force,” the magnificent Beaumont Rubens! defaced “ past recognition,” so by Lord Elcho authoritatively de¬ scribed on te 9th of August, 1867, with general confirmation, c 34 •and a vamped-up counterfeit Rembrandt, the thrifty invest¬ ment of seven thousand pounds! Hear Now Lord Lytton on the association of the Great Masters with their mortal and self-proclaimed foes and maulers, our Royal Academicians: “ I am much obliged by the perusal of your powerful pamphlet? and sensible of the honor you have done me in sending it. “ As to the Royal Academy, I hove long been of opinion that it operates injuriously on Art in its principle, and is altogether wrong in its motley constitution: it is a private body usurping the rights and refusing the responsibilities of a public one. I think you have quoted enough from Sir Martin Shee to prove that a National Gallery should be wholiy dissociated from the Royal Academy/’ And Sir George Strickland in the House of Commons, on the urgency of rescuing the National Pictures from their Academic destroyers: “ I think that it would have been more practically useful had the inquiries of the Comittee been limited to the National Gallery. The rescue of the divine monuments of Art there, from the de¬ stroying process of what is called 4 cleaning, * is alone an object of vast interest. I can say for myself, that pictures which here¬ tofore 1 had gazed at with delight, are now transformed by this process into objects of absolute disgust in my eyes. ” And Sir John Stuart Hippisley, on Academic ignorance, audacity, and vandalism: “ I have ever felt, and feel now more strongly than ever, that it will be to you the Public will owe the preservation, for the future of our remaining Pictures. But the committee, I trust, will go further, and recommend a change in the Management. It would be absurd to continue to intrust the future management of our Pictures to the ignorance which commenced, and to the au¬ dacious pertinacity which has persisted, in spite of all remonstrance in such a system of ‘cleaning.’ ” And Sir Matthew White Ridley, his text the same: (i No reprobation can be too strong for the perpetrators of such 35 deeds; and I doubt not for one moment that your opinion is cor¬ rect. I consider that the Nation is really indebted to any one acquainted with Art, for exposing these Academicians. Such pro¬ ceedings com home to every one. 33 And Lord Southesk: ct I and all who have a spark of love for Art must thank you for your exertions in curbing the brutality of these Academicians. They spoil our National Pictures as if they were their own pro¬ perty. If the Nation expresses its wishes on the subject (as it has done), nay, if only a small section does so, they should, in common honesty, at least pause. Instead of this, they avow a de¬ termination to brave the wish of the entire Nation. ” And Mr. Dawson Turner: “ Could I ever have the pleasure of talking with you on the ‘Subject, I believe we should find our only serious difference to be, that, in my opinion, you had not gone far enough. For I should ihave been glad to have heard you distinctly state that no member ith our interest. I am old enough 'to remember the publication of the Catalogue Raisonne , and the ^consequent delight of the Academicians , which they were glad to hide when they found the offence naturally taken by those patrons of Art upon whom they themselves depended. The publication is now rare/’ .And Professor James Taylor, on the Academic plot to banish the National Pictures from London, and usurp their place: “ Having read your able Protest and Counter-Statement to the Report of the Select Committee on the National Gallery, 1 fully concur that the Report is a perversion of the evidence taken before that Committee . It is much to be regretted that there is not .some practical means of dealing with such flagrant abuses. There really needs some Association tho follow up Parliamentary inquiries .and lead to the punishment of the perpeIra ors of the gross Jobbery 36 which is from time to time brought to light. I cannot but con¬ gratulate you upon the very able manner in which you have done your part. The insidious means pursued by the Royal Academy to get possession of a great National Institution, and the subterfuge by which they seek to arrogate the ichole building to their private use , cannot but incur the reprehension of every one acquainted with the fact. 1 shall have much pleasure in appending my name to the Protest and Counter-Statement, whic I trust will be widely circulated.” Again Lord Onslow: el The exposure of the gross and barefaced proceedings of the Clique in Trafalgar Square , in their character of Conservators (! !) of the National Paintings, imposes upon the public of Art am obligation which they can best repay by witholding all presentations- and bequests of pictures to the National Gallery, as long as the destinies of that Establishment are confided to the rule of one, or more, of the Royal Academicians. The preservation of the- Paintings with the retention in place of those who have now the control over them , or of substitutes of the same School , is perfectly incompatible. They cannot co-exist: the ones must be doomed to* rum, or the others to instant removal Again: “ Can you devise any feasible means, or suggest any tangible* plan, by which the increasing torrent of Vandalism may be stayed ?.' If men such as Eastlake , Uwins , and Dyce , are to sway the future- destinies of the National Gallery, the torrent will, in a very few years, burst its already injured banks, and swell into one vast sea of ruin, ingulfing in its vortex eve>y work of Art that now adorns its walls.” The prognostic involved in Lord Lytton’s Protest, and uttered in Lord Onslow’s, is fast maturing. Already ingulfed in the vortex , and not alone , lies 44 unrecognisable ” that pride of Flemish landscapes, the Beaumont Rubens. 44 The marring of Art, ” says Hazjitt, 44 is the making of the Academy. 99 37 So much for thh successive Jobs that perpetuate association of the National Gallery with its arch foes, our Royal Acade¬ micians , and its subordination to their mercies and discretion. Rating* at £. 5,000 the martyred Rubens, with £. 7,000 for his counterfeit Rembrandt, 14 competently appraised at literally nothing/* as Lord Elcho asserted on the pre-cited occasion, and £. 1,000 for his salary, Eastlake’s blear-eyed Academic successor's first year’s functioning as Director of the National Gallery cost the Nation, exclusively of damage to other pictures, a luxurious tour through France and Italy, and the discredit of his proceedings, a plain deficit of thirteen thousand pounds; waste resulting from the Right Honorable Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone’s 44 flexure and low lending. ” Sorrily, indeed to our shame, did this ex-self-plumed ‘ 4t member of the Conservative party in one of the great families of European nations, ” late ex-tory Corypheus of our 44 liberal” Opposition in the Commons, this Premier actual of England exhibit here his postures in 1866. His contortions in private and in print , to smooth the local 44 Conservative party, ” revolted the very men he had stooped to propitiate: notus Ulysses (a). His Neapolitan sallies of 1851, inscribed to an 44 antiquated imbecility , ” as per Palmerston , they had not yet forgotten-, nor that, white therein ostentating 44 alliance ” with them, he had somewhat more fondly than was welcome, chastened them to the right orthodox tune of, 44 He that spareth his rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes: ” neither had they failed to gather from his fast-following apostacy (a) See Gladstone’s filthy servility to the Pope 3 in the Giornale di Roma > -of Nov. 10th, ar.d Osservatore Romano 3 of Nov. 12th, 1866. See also his antics. Unita Cattolica, December, 1866. 38 that, with 44 eyes ever eminent on worldly matters, ” \\& was already even then hedging from their common cause, and counting the proceeds of his share in its betrayal. Yet this man-pleaser who renders so much to Caesar, that naught- remains for Caesar’s Master, must needs, to his two-and- sixpenny Family Prayers from the Liturgy, (a) give sequence, vouchsafing us from the Sinai of his sanctimony, a spick- and-span new Vade mecum (b) for our nearer contemplation of Him who 44 taught the way of God in truth regarding not the person of men; ” no, not even Caesar's. Not less faithless and obsequious, while more unpatriotic r has been the Right Honorable W. E. Gladstone’s demeanour- respecting Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas, ” a masterpiece famous wherever Art exists; the same whereof Lord Elcho, taunting our sleek Art-officials, Eastlake their chief, with having 44 neither the taste nor the feeling to appreciate so< fine a work, nor the critical knowledge which should have led them to discover under a false name, the master-hand of Raphael,” declared in the Morning Post, of June the 10th, 1850, that 44 it was a work of Art which he, in common with most of those who had had the good fortune to see it, believed to be of great national importance; ” that 44 public opinion had been strongly expressed in its favour,-through the medium of the press; ” and that 44 it was the bounden duty of the Trustees, ’’that is, of the Government, 44 not to suffer so important a work to leave the Country , or become the ornament of a private gallery. Happily there wanted not an wn-official Englishman to at once discern the unrecognized page, reveal its divine essence, and thus render (a) “ Family Prayers from the Liturgy/' by the Rt. Hon. W. E. Glad¬ stone. 12mo, 2s. 6cl. Murray, 1810. (b) “ Ecce Homo/* by the Rt. lion. W. E. Gladstone) Strahan & Co.^ London, 1S68. 39 England the not every-day service of converting an im¬ minent national disgrace into what intellectual Europe deems a national honor. How Mr. Gladstone, the stickler for 44 all appertaining to the purity of H. M.’s Government, ” (a) rates such service in theory and deals with it in practice, shall now be seen. Himself shall himself confound. The Right Honorable W. E. Gladstone’s were the lips ministerial that echoed the sentence wherewith I preluded * r namely, 44 Nothing is more radically associated with the true development of human excellence than Art. ” Repeatedly a visitor to Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas *' at my residence in London, boundless was his admiration on each occasion. Exhausting panegyric, he exclaimed in well recorded phrase: 44 it is a work such as one could wish Raphael had painted!” and hj 44 regretted that it lay not with himself to give it the authority it deserved.” He had yet to become Keeper of the Nation’s purse. Now, Raphael, by the unanimous acclaim of three cen¬ turies and a half, is the anointed Prince of Art; Art’s highest expression ; that is, Art itself. Therefore, 44 radically asso¬ ciated with the true development of human excellence ” must be every 44 work one could wish Raphael had painted; ” whence, with, or without, Mr. Gladstone’s leave, Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas, ” and the service rendered primarily to England, in particular, by an Englishman s timely re¬ cognition of such a masterpiece, a boon to Mankind. Haunted by the enchanting loveliness of the creation hailed by Sir James Graham, 44 the most God-like he had seen; ” by Walter Savage Landor, 44 not only by Raphael, but the most delicate and the most poetical of his works; ” (a) Gladstone's Speech on the Dis-establishment of the Irish Church,. House of Commons, March 30th, 1868. and 44 universally, a first-rate specimen of the finest period of Italian Art, ” Lord Elcho testifying; the creation which had enrapt Alfred Tennyson ; which was to 44 truly enamour ” Frederick Overbeck, and to inspire Ingres, Flandrin, and Cornelius, at once with wonder and astonishment at its beauty and power^ and with indignation, contempt, and disgust, for its brutal and perfidious ensnarers, we hear Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone later ejaculate to ringing cheers {a ): 44 What combination, what concentration of character, it requires to produce that something which is represented on, perhaps, a yard of canva< which we call a picture! Slight as they are in fabric, these works are yet reokoned among the greatest produ¬ ctions of which mankind has been the author.” The modest area, the fragile contexture, the transcending worth, and the crowning eulogy, reveal the source of this flight. What so proper to have winged it, as 44 a work such as one could wdsh painted by Raphael ” - Art’s incarnation? as the work unanimously pronounced by the competent, the comeliest extant of comparable dimensions ? That the memory of this Raphael has never quitted him, I have a sufficient witness. On the 20th of November, 1866, both being then in Rome, Lord Clarendon having with pre¬ vious cognition of the super-abounding testimony to its authenticity, emphatically declared and re-declared in sight of the masterpiece itself, that 44 doubt was indefensible , and remarked, moreover, that 44 a Nation alone deserved to possess it, ” spontaneously affirmed and re-affirmed, that 44 it was the object of Mr. Gladstone’s very great admi¬ ration. ” Pie at the same time inquired whether 44 Mr. (a) From the Chair, at the 15th Anniversary Dinner of the Artist's Gene¬ ral Benevolent Institution, March 31st, 1860. 41 Gladstone had been to see it heie?” Of Mr. Gladstone's 44 very great admiration, ” I said that I was aware, he having himself more than once expressed it to me at my residence in London. To the question, I replied in the negative. Himself no inapt illustration, Mr. Gladstone, too, opines that ours is the Age of meanness: 44 We live in times, ” says he gaily, to cheers and laughter, 44 when magnanimity is gone out of fashion. ” He lacks the stature to make the infinitesimal atonement which he still might, for the irreparable wrong worked me and mine, mainly through his obliquity . Unless heralded by the intimation of so gracious a scope, I would not have received him. His unabated admiration of Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas, ” after past three lustres, as by Lord Clarendon attested, I claim as a paramount argument against him. Be it here noted that, like Mr. Gladstone, Lord Clarendon also proclaims that 44 Art is essential to the prosperity of the Country. ” On principle, then, as well as by reiterated particular conviction of its authenticity and rare beauty, is Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” acknowledged by thj two leading members of the ostensibly Liberal actual Mi¬ nistry, namely, the First Lord of the Treasury himself and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as 44 a work of Art of great National importance. ” Patent, therefore, their hounden duty, in this matter, to the Country. But Mr. Gladstone’s 44 regret ” was heard, and his aspi¬ rations were favoured. Become Chancellor of the Exche¬ quer, and thus, ex officio, a Trustee of the National Gallery, no mere Trustee, pro forma, mind, as his predecessors, but the self-ordained Dictator as to the proper increment of our Collection, it did then at last, even doubly lie with him to clothe 44 the work such as one could wish Raphael had 42 painted, 44 with *’ the authority it deserved, ” by the practical recognition of 44 its clear and indefeasible title, ” as Lord Elcho uncontradicted maintained, 44 to a place in our National Collection. ” 44 And how'did the Purveyor of our Family Prayers discharge this 44 bounden duty ” to Englishmen, present and to come, this debt to 44 public morality? ” how redeem the pledge involved in the 44 regret ” which ac¬ companied his iterated fervid estimate of this Raphael? I mean the pledge that, no sooner his the power , he would enshrine it in its rightful Sanctuary, England’s National Gallery. Nor be it untold, that when, with increased rapture, he last saw this masterpiece, he was already invested with his two-fold office of Art-provider-in-chief to the Nation. Human dissidence hinges on judgment. Conscious that, to shake the verdict with which I had branded them, my discomfited adversaries, to whom by 44 respect of persons ” he stood enchained, staking their last throw upon my judg¬ ment respecting Raphael, truly the loftiest theme of Art- criticism, had plotted against the 44 Apollo and Marsyas, a subtle and ceaseless agitation, he impawned our delegated influence and our purse, as auxiliaries to their flagitious machinations. During his two long leases of the Chancel¬ lorship of the Exchequer, yacked Committees, garbling of evi¬ dence, and fraudulent Reports, at home, varied by venal ano¬ nymous articles, subornation, and political delation , abroad, with otherinfamies traced in the ensuing pages, flourished to my hurt under his auspices; while, concurrently, every effort was exerted to enable a condemned functionary to eclipse by a major acquisition, whatever the cost, or the corruption , the insidiated Raphael. But, not even an English Exchequer can extemporize 44 a work such as one could wish Raphael 43 had painted. ” Not the multiplied quintessence of the gatherings to which Mr. Gladstone devoted tens upon tens of thousands of our money, to stifle Right and bolster Wrong, could reach a tithe of such virtue. In the Ex¬ postulation which Fate sent him hitherto receive from me in December, 1866, taking for my vocabulary his Neapolitan Homilies on 44 conduct inhuman and monstrous.incessant, systematic, deliberate, violation of moral laic . savage and cowardly system of moral torture. enormities per¬ petrated under the sanction of Government ...... perjured witnesses. sacred obligations... . fraud, falsehood, and injustice .degraded hirelings_ forgery. perversion of evidence . inventions against the man it was thought desirable to ruin . contempt of truth, justice, decency, and fairplay . the Hell-born Spirit of Revenge , and the Negation of God,” phrases therein meandering and profusely mated, handy, moreover, to my need, I summed this matter, as follows : 44 And now having sketched this history of infamies vhich, if hurling invective at a weaponless and distant opponent,you would loudly denounce as plotted against the man whom it was though desirable to ruin\' > a history of all but seventeen years since the date of Lord Elcho and Mr. Spedding’s letters and your ecstacies before 1 the work such as one could wish Raphael had painted.’ I will take a nearer survey of the part played in it by yourself, the great Master of Ethics, the arch Vindicator of 4 truth, justice decency, and fairplay ,’ and so make manifest my title to have singled you for this Discourse. You, Sir, are the prime delinquent in this monstrous wrong, the chief author of these seventeen years of heartache and villainy. From ‘ respect of persons' and hence violating a fundamental canon of that Book which you are ever brandishing, you were, by your two-fold official connection wiih the conduct of Art in En¬ gland, as Chancellor of the _ Exchequer and Trustee of the Naiiona l 44 Gallery , the Minister directly responsible for that daring violation of 4 truth, justice, decency, and farplay ,’ there-instating, even with quintupled salary , a man convicted, re-convicted, nay, self convicted, before the Grand Inquest of the Nation, of mischievous incapacity, and compelled, in consequence, and re compelled, to abdicate his abused function. It was a barter of conscience , for you had full knowledge of your wrong-doing. 44 Still violating that same canon and all that it involves, you shrank not from confirming and re-confirming, at the expiration of each successive lustre, that hameless transaction; nor from glossing it with false and fulsome panegyric of the universally and self-condemned official. Thus, 4 No you made Yes;’black, white; fuul, fair; gave the Lie to Truth, and glorified Falsehood. Was this to exemplify that ‘hallowing influence of religion 9 upon which you so devoutly dwell at tavern and Royal Academy diuners ? “ ‘Beware instinct! 9 On the 20th of June, 1856, the Times fin¬ gers had written, that, for lack of this 4 great matter,’ no less than 4 three Chancellors of the Exchequer had succumbed ; 9 a hint for the fourth generation. A second Daniel in the 4 shewing of hard sentences,’ you interpreted the writing, took the hint, and outwitted the Second Commandment. But have you nowhere read that, 4 To have respect of persons is not good? 9 (Prov. xxviii. 21 ; that, 4 God is no respecter of persons? 9 (Acts x, 34): that, 4 He that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of persons'! 9 (Coloss. iii. 25); that, 4 The fear of man bringeth a snare? * (Prov xxix. 25) that 4 If ye have respect of persons f ye commit sm, and are convinced of the law , as transgressors? ’ (James ii. 9 . • 4 Again, from 4 respect of persons / it was you who lavishly sup¬ plied with public gold your mean and disingenuous client, not hesitating to sanction even the doubling of a whole year's grant for a single work of inferior rate, that he who was blind to the grandeur of Michael Angelo, and to the heavenly comeliness of Raphael, might, by the tinsel glitter of a startling price, repair in the eyes of a duped Public, his tattered reputation. 44 But, above all, from you came the gold scattered broad-handed by the 4 Hell born Spirit ot‘ Revenge ’ in hunting me down to sub¬ serve private ends; my pursuers’ only poor chance of redemption 45 being miserably staked upon my ruin! What swindling more base, more flagrant, than such abuse of Public Money ? “ Solitary, drained of resources, while k fellows of no mark nor likelihood ’ were, by your favour, battening on the Commonwealth: beset wherever 1 went, and on all sides; armed only with my just quarrel and an invincible resolve to break , rather than bead to iniquity , I have run through Europe, the gauntlet of myrmidons recruited and fed by our Exchequer. “ Thus did you, the ever-ready declaimer on fair play, hold the scales between the man who, by his discovery, and , better still, his vindication of a Raphael against odds unparalleled, not to revert to other services, gave the lie to a witless antick’s pragmatic il sally (a), that the compatr’ots of Shakspea^e and Milton are too brutish to seize the sublimities of Art, and the creature of Patro¬ nage whose nefarious intrigues to colour that rank impertinence are become a scandal for Europe.” Such the image of a Minister of state who, as though tickled with his own echo, somewhat stalely tells us, with pompous repetition and the never-failing spice of sancti¬ mony , that he is “ bound by every tie of honor, as well as of office, to do what in him lies, and to make it the chief object of his life to do what in him lies , to develop the material happiness and prosperity of England; ” that “ he does not the less warmly, but more strongly and fix¬ edly, feel how necessary it is that the wealth which is in such rapid accumulation should be accompanied by the correctives which, from other sources, are necessary to be supplied; ” that “ it should be sanctified by the hallowing influence of religion, and followed by all those results that flow from an onward civilization; ” and that “ among those results none are more radically associated with the true development of human excellence than Art. ” (a) Disraeli Dobate on Education, Science and Art Estimates, House of Commons. 46 In 1851, ostentating a zeal which he then blazed as 44 Con¬ servative ” of purest azure , breathing death to 64 republica¬ nism, ” but now, by chameleon dieting, of a hue to baffle defining, it befell him to anathematize from his Gethsemane, hight Carlton Gardens , 44 the Negation of God erected into a system of Government; ” me, in 1856, here in the Eternal City, to teach him that 44 respect of persons, the Sin so repeatedly, so sternly forbidden by the Sacred Volume, is falsehood; ail falsehood, Negation of God: ” 44 Et comrne je ne vois nul genre de heros Qui soient plus a priser que les parfaits devots, Aucune chose au monae et plus noble et plus belle Que la sainte ferveur d’un veritable z≤ Aussi ne vois-je rien qui soit plus odieux Que le dehors platr£ d'un zele specieux. ” The rest in Tartuffe. An Immortal Englishman indelibly wrote : 44 Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” Similarly, Mr. Bright said : 44 Surely if there be one thing more clear in a free country than another, it is that any one of the People may speak freely to the People.” For claiming that liberty and exercising this right , in defence of invaluable National pro¬ perty, and devoting, with entire unselfishness and unstinted sacrifice of time and money, an experience culled from large opportunity, to the promotion of a branch of Public Ins¬ truction subsidized by annual parliamentary grants, and de¬ clared by men filling our highest places of Trust, essential to touch the goal of human felicity, have I, one of the People, in a country called 44 free,” suffered a worse than Star-Chamber tyranny. My expostulations which no lure could hush, distempered the digestion of Jobbery, the vampire that preys on our vitals and sullies our name ; while by demonstrating 47 the shallow pretensions and the barbarism of a caste that had too long arrogated supremacy on matters of refiniment, I ruffled their vanity and stirred their bile. As was as¬ serted in the House of Commons on the 25th of March, 1859, I 44 incurred , in the perforance of these services to the coun¬ try, the enmity of aristocratic and courtly circles; ” the greater my title to support from my peers, the People. But, in England, for men of my fact, corruption , or perdi¬ tion: thus Sidney Smith, the 44 Times” and my own expe¬ rience. Lip sympathy and the latter alternative were my reward. They purloined my earnings and usurped my Pean. This, then, the matter which I signalized as striking straight home to every freeman: none graver for a Commonwealth. 44 Surrounded by scoundrels of all sizes,” early in 1858, I expatriated, but bearing with me 44 the work«such as one could wish Raphael had painted ; ” argument sufficient to disturb the slumbers of my dastardly and incapable enemies, and their conscienceless Patrons. The Minister who paraded him self as 44 bound by every tie of honor as well as of office , to d > what in him lay,” for the intellectual advancement and fair fame of England; whose 44 bounden duty” it was, as Lord Elcho asserted, with high concurrence, 44 not to suffer so important a work to leave the Country,” nor even 44 to become the ornament of a private Gallery,” betraying at once honor and office , was the very backbone of the con¬ spiracy that drove it from England. The rapture with which Raphael’s 4 4 Apollo and Marsyas” was greeted at Paris by the first French connoisseurs, among whom Ingres, Flandrin, Delacroix, Henri Delaborde, Pro¬ sper Merimee, Henriquel-Dupont, Forster, and Delecluze, the last-named declaring in the 44 Debats ,” that is presence was 44 a veritable event for artists and lovers of Art,” 4S speedily told my London foes that abroad , it might prove more troublesome to them than at home. Under the shadow of our Exchequer, every fetch that baseness could devise was called into requisition to parry the danger. 44 What^- soever malice by slander could invent, rage in hostility attempt, they greedily attempted.” As at Berlin political insinuation was not forgotten. At Paris, capital might be made of an odious opportunity; but my prudence averted a second outrage. I had just arrived from London, then the focus of plots against the French Emperor’s life: all was suspect: Orsini had yet to make expiation: 44 might I not be his accomplice?” Moreover, my resolve to listen to no applicant for the Raphael less than a Nation , had long been notorious. English official knavery therefore knew its cue. Even laced Diplomacy, that Kingcraft against God’s Truth, was 44 officiously” invited to join the sport, sport right Royal —a man the quarry! Many an appeal, and hot, flashed across the Channel to potential Frenchmen 44 de n’appuyer ni Vhommeni le tableau ,”— 44 to back neither man, nor picture. f> Could compliance be refused, at least as regarded the Louvre? Nor was our gold spared. This will be manifest by a se¬ cond extract from my pre-cited Expostulation here to Mr. Gladstone, in 1866 : “ Balked in its projects of violence, 4 the Hell-born Spirit of Re¬ venge ’ turned to other counsels. 44 During my residence at Paris in 1858-9, two individuals si¬ gnalized themselves by a persistent and plainly preconcerted canvass against the 4 Apollo and Marsyas: ’ the one, a man of evil report at home, named Frederic Reiset, an official of the x Louvre, a traf¬ ficker, besides, in works of Art, or in whatever brings lucre: the other, Edmond Beaucousin. u Not long after my arrival at Paris, there appeared in the 49 4 Artiste' a Parisian weekly Art journal, an anonymous article, which’ while pronouncing the 4 Apollo and Marsyas/ 4 one of the most charming and most remarkable works of the Italian Revival, a composition of first-rate importance / gently dropped, though, of course, 6 without the least pretension to decide the question,’ that 4 the name of Francia had been opposed to Raphael’s, with great advantage.’ Here, then, in both eulogy and insinuation , were the very terms of the Rassavant-Waagen-Eastlake watchword: 4 -calunnie adorne in modi Nuovi, che sono accuse e pajon lodi. ’ (a) 44 What had failed at London, might take in Paris ! This ano¬ nymous article, I quickly traced to Reiset. As it contained a knavish mis-statement respecting myself, I wrote a reply, and in " person requested the editor to publish it. But Reiset had sniffed the contingency. I was met by a decided refusal, coupled with the information that the anonymous venom 6 proceeded from the Louvre’-^ a proof that intrigue was not idle there. I may here record that, with this one sorry exception, the French press vied in asserting the authenticity of the 4 Apollo and Marsyas. ’ 44 But Reiset had an eye to the main chance, and goods to sell. This sharpened his wits, for he knew of a customer. He bethought him that, could he inveigle the two chief Classical painters of France to countenance his insinuations against the Raphael, his deserts for procuring two such auxiliaries would be more than trebled, while neither would claim any share in his profits. This was business-like, but he marred his part by overdoing. Thus, the cheat stood stripped to its naked ugliness. The men whom he would have dishonoured, became indignant; Mr. Ingres resenting the frontless attempt to implicate him in 4 an infamy ’— 4 une in¬ famies as, with becoming indignation he worded it to me in my own apartment; Hippolite Flandrin declaring, with emphasis, that this Reiset had acted towards me, 4 as a blackguard’-—‘ en canaille;’ an estimate which he repeated to me in Rome, in 1863. 44 Meanwhile Beaucousin was not idle, for he too had some trifles to dispose of. He accordingly lost no opportunity to decry the (a) “- Slanders in such specious ways Adcrn’d, that they< tho’ censures, pass for praise.”— Tasso. D Raphael : 4 It was a work of no importance, a mere curiosity: nay, it might have been h : s , had he thought it worth having! ’ This impudent falsehood was reported to me by a Mr. Vitet, of the French Academy, with the flattering comment: 4 rent-on etre bdte an point de dire qii on anrait pu avoir un tel chef-d’oeuvre , mais quon. nen a pas voulul ’ What more blind than malice and thirst of gain? When asked whether he had seen Raphael's ‘ Apollo and Marsyas, ’ this Beaucousiu would reply, that, ‘ being a friend of Mr. Eastlake , it would be indecorous in him to visit Mr . Morris Moore. ' Yet time was. when he would speak of the same Eastlake with sufficient contempt But this Beaucousiu is not alone in decrying what he never saw. 44 At the same page 41 of your 4 Estimates , etc ., Civil Services for the year ending 31sf March . 18fi0, ’ about the period of my quitting Paris, thence worried by i the Hell born Spirit of Revenge. 1 we find Eastlake a customer to these two notorious ringleaders in infamy 'against me; to Reiset for £. 880; to Beaucousiu, for £. 9,205 3^. Id. “ Now, Sir, to dip into your own phraseology, would it not be 4 strange indeed, and contrary to- the doctrine of chances , ’ were there no connection, nay, were there not a family likeness to 4 cause and effect, ’• between fiicts such as are here established? Could other than k a depraved logic, ’ as you have it, refuse to perceive that lucre was here the direct consequence of denigration? The French, a race of lively wit and ready inference, plainly said: 4 It is payment for the services rendered 1 — 4 C'est lepayement des ser¬ vices rendus.’ What decent Jury would dispute the verdict? Mr. John Stuart Mill, no mean authority on your 4 doctrine of chances, could sum you the chances for the French inference. ” The same Vehmic rancour tracked me from Paris, through Munich, Dresden, Vienna, Venice, and Milan, to Rome, and, to this hour , lies ambushed. The infamies notoriously practised against me in these Capitals by Eastlake, I recounted in the pre-cited Expostulation as follows; 44 Although the voice of artistic France had loudly confirmed mine, an overpowering secret agency, nevertheless, choked every 51 avenue to the hard-earned fulfilment of my aspirations, a Sanctuary for the recovered Raphael under a Nation's ZEgis, in the interest of all, and as a crowning, tribute to the Sovereign Master. On the 1st of December, 1859, after battling there with English of¬ ficial intrigue for twenty long months, as silently as I had quitted England, I quitted France for Italy, by way of Germany. Thus I had the start of my pursuers. “ At Munich, officially invited to exhibit the Raphael at the Royal Academy there. 1 consented for nine days. The result ap¬ pears in the Letter of Thanks addressed to me by the Committee of the Munich Artists* Benevolent Fund, in aid of which the Ra¬ phael had come: 44 ‘ Munich , December 19, 1859. “ 4 Honoured Sir,^-By the public exhibition of Raphael's original picture of ‘ Apollo and Marsyas, ’ in your possession, you have afforded the Artists and lovers of Art in this city a high enjoyment which will live imperishable among their most cherished reminis¬ cences. Public opinion has pronounced itself with rare unanimity on the enchanting beauty of this picture, which, with evidence undeniable , proclaims as its author, the glorious Urbinate- But, besides the pure intellectual enjoyment which you have procured us, you have placed yourself among the Benefactors of this Insti¬ tution, by allowing the proceeds of the exhibition to be applied to its succour. u 4 Full of esteem, the undersigned Committee do themselves the honour to express most respectfully, the Thanks of the Artists’ Society of this City, for your handsome donation. Your name will be inscribed in the Golden Book dedicated to the memory of those who have deserved well of the Society. ct c Accept the assurance of the very high esteem with which we subscribe ourselves for the Committee of the Artists’ Bene¬ volent Society, 44 4 JOS. BERNHARDT, President 44 4 JUL. ZIMMER MANN, Secretary . 44 4 Mr. Morris Moore , Munich. ’ ” 44 The German press, and the alarm soundel by lo cal scouts .speedily apprised the London conspirators of my whereabout, and -of the new laurels won by 4 the work such as one could wish 52 Raphael had painted . 9 With such a companion, evasion is not easy. A whisper was circulated that it was 4 the picture con¬ demned in London and in Berlin ! ’—not a hint of its triumph in Paris. The manoeuvre was met by the simple advertisement, that- 4 Munich was the only German city that had seen this Raphael. What distinguished men at Berlin thought 'of the tributes paid to it elsewhere in Germany, may be surmised from the following extract of a letter addressed to me shortly after at Dresden, by a Professor of the Berlin Royal Academy and Corresponding Member of the French Institute: (a) 44 4 My best thanks for your letter and the Papers which you, have sent me about your picture by Raphael,, the 4 Apollo and Marsyas. 9 I congratulate you on the reception which this jewel and yourself find everywhere in Germany. That Berlin should be excepted, as regards your coming here, is lamented by every honest thinking man , but you know where to look for the cause of that scandalous transaction which forbids it. I am glad, howev¬ er, that the rest of my Fatherland is making you and your- treasure amends. ’ 44 The scandalous transaction lamented by every honest thinking man. was my midnight arrest in the Prussian Capital on the 21st of November, 1856, upon the false Political denunciation of Waagen , and my subsequent summary expulsion from Prussia, notoriously through High secret influence, from England and the servility of Lord Bloomfield , the English Ambassador, though proved unof¬ fending. 44 But, what even though Raphael’s 4 Apollo and Marsyas ’ had never been to Berlin! Surely, as well swear that it had there- been 4 condemned, 9 it never having been there , as decry it, or indite scurrilous diatribes against it, never having seen it! “ Not until I had quitted Munich did intrigue brave daylight. Ready for the work was an obscure Englishman, one Harold Stanley there long resident: A fellow by the hand of nature mark'd, Quoted, and sign’d to do a deed of shame. Seeing me lionized he had, with true British instinct, thrust himself (a) The distinguished engraver, Mandel. 53 tipon me, and thus over-ruled my resolve, since my enforced expa¬ triation, not to mix with Englishmen. Soon, however, he found that he might otherwise utilize rne. So anxious was he to pro¬ tect a fellow-countryman from foreign treachery , that he strongly •cautioned me 4 to trust none of the Munich Artists, sorry intri¬ guers, one and all! 9 This no doubt by way of throwing into re¬ lief his own rare candour, and saving me from building too much on the ovation the rogues were giving the Raphael. The more 3 befriend him to his face, thought he, the easier to stab him in the back! ‘ After my departure , he went the length of a formal demand to the Artists of Munich, that they would repudiate that same Letter of Thanks spontaneously addressed to me by the Committee of the Artists' Benevolent Fund! “ Upon this villainy, a man of high integrity who worthily fills a distinguished post at Munich, wrote to me, at the time, to .Milan, as follows: , 4 Eastlake and his partizans are greatly incensed at the admi¬ ration manifested by the Artists of Munich for the true Raphael* Stanley is Eastlake s tool. Every effort, however, of Eastlake, has no other effect than to prove the evil conscience of your enemies. The intrigue is sufficient y known. As to Stanley's motive , there is but one opinion—servility to Eastlake. No doubt he expects payment from Eastlake; otherwise, one cannot conceive such 'conduct,’ etc. 44 From Milan, 1 posted the knave in the London press ; while al< Munich branded him as 4 the tool of Eastlake. 9 Are services such as this Stanley's, performed without fee, present or prospec¬ tive? What says your 4 doctrine of chances? 9 what our Exchequer ? u Such, Sir, was that Eastlake of whom, with a smack of Del¬ phic ambignity, you hazarded that 4 his name required no testimony that you could render;’ such the pluralist, who, by two simulta¬ neous appointments, absorbed between thirty and forty thousand pounds of the People's money; yet to whose relict, nicely blending audacity, falsehood, and servility , you sanctioned, in recognition of his 4 services to the Nation, ’ a pension of three hundred pounds! 44 4 But here is another tribute to Raphael’s ‘Apolloand Mar- 51 syas, ’ from the Artists of Munich , not less significant than the other. On the 16th of December, 1859, Mr. Widnmann, Professor of Sculpture at the Royal Academy, wrote to me thus: 444 Most esteemed Sir! — The Artists of Munich wishing to shew you in some way their gratitude for the supreme pleasure which you have afforded them by the exhibition of your sublime picture by Raphael, have commissioned me to t beg of you to d<> them the pleasure of passing to-morrow evening in their company. It will be a meeting at which some new members will be received into the Society, but which will serve, at the same time, to render some slight homage to the magnanimous exhibitor of the Raphael. “ 4 If not otherwise advised, I will call to morrow at eight to- fetch you. 44 4 Pray accept the assurance of my most profound esteem, with which I am your most humble servant. 14 4 MAX WIDNMANN. 44 4 Mr. Morris Moore ; Munich. 44 The 4 Hell-born Spirit of Revenge 4 now shifted to Dresden, but, molelike, to burrow. As at Paris, pressing appeals reached influential men there, with the stereotyped burden: 4 Bach neither man , nor picture! 3 On the 30th of December, the distinguished historical painter Schnorr, Director of the Dresden Gallery and fellow-student of Cornelius and Overbeck, nobly rebuked the con¬ spirators by spontaneously declaring in the Official Journal jointly with Professor Hubner, (a) that the 4 Apollo and Marsyas ’ was undeniably by Raphael. 44 By official invitation exhibited for nine days in aid of the Schiller Fund, in the South Pavilion of the Zwinger, home of the Madonna di S. Sisto , the congenerate masterpiece achieved another signal triumph in Germany. Could it not be marred ? 44 I was about to depart. Southward, when lo! in the same Of¬ ficial Journal, to the indignation and disgust of Dresden, an anonymous article dealing the concerted quantum of sounding eulogy and damning insinuation. By high advice I wrote a reply, (a) At Schnorr's death Hubner, historical painter, and Professor at the Royal Academy of Dresden, succeeded him in the Direction of the Dresden Gallery. 55 presented it myself to the editor, and requested its publication. Peremptory and insolent refusal: ‘ rather than publish a word of mine , renounce the editorship! J I retorted that ‘ I would compel the publication, even at the cost of a year's halt at Dresden; and I took leave ‘ to doubt the anomaly of a knave's ’ renouncing gain from a point of honour.’ I now appealed to a Royal Personage, not indeed for favor, but for justice. Prompt the response, and worthy: I was to present myself on the morrow to Mr. von Beust, then Prime Minister of Saxony, now of Austria. From him I experienced courtesy and fair play. On the evening of that same day, Dresden learned from two columns of the Official Journal, happily without the catastrophe of the editor’s resignation! that the anonymous in¬ famy was the handiwork of Waagen „ Tassavant , and Eastlake ,— already no secret for many. “ From Dresden, Dr. Cams, a man holding a high dignity there, and known throughout Germany, as yet more dignified by character and attainments, President also of the Dresden Schiller-Fund Committee, wrote to me, shortly after at Vienna: ‘Like many excellent things, your beautiful Raphael has a faction against it! ’ So patent on the Continent, even six years ago , the English official conspiracy that benets me round. u My itinerary and plans no longer a secret, ‘ the Hell-born Spirit of Revenge ’ could now forestall me. On my arrival at Vienna, the usual anonymous article , hissing hot from the forge of the notorius firm, had already reached the Official Journal, with urgent request for speedy insertion. But Raphael's 4 star was in its zenith. The fraudulent document fell into the hands of Pro¬ fessor Von Eitelberger, Art-critic for that journal and Art-lecturer at the University. He suppressed it, and substituted a composition worthy the event. An evening assembly, convoked at the Uni¬ versity itself, expressly in honour of Raphael's Apollo and Marsyas;’ by special request transferred thither for the occasion, and a disser¬ tation on its beauty and striking authenticity, with a sketch of my career, and a tribute which in that foreign land, was thought due to my long tried devotion to Art and to my Art-discoveries, the whole addressed to a thronged audience, men of highest social position and yet higher distinction intervening, crowned a triumphant twelve days’ public exhibition at the Imperial and Royal Academy 56 of Fine Arts in aid of the Schiller Fund, and a third triumph in Germany. “ Other testimony of the ovation to Raphael’s 4 Apollo and Marsyas,’ at Vienna, may be seen among the accompanying pub¬ lished Documents, in the three Letters addressed to me by the Committee of the Viennese Schiller Fund, and the Presidents of the Imperial and Royal Academy of Fine Arts and Archaeological Society of that Capital. “ Arrived at Venice, the goal for the fulfilment of a long-cher¬ ished resolve to place once again, side by side, afther three cen¬ turies and a half's divorce, the perfected work and the parent thought—I mean the drawing rescued from Eastlake's suborning , and now, thanks to me, re-adorning its ancient place, I found myself in the midst of Lord Elcho's ‘ thorough gentleman's ’ Ita¬ lian agents and ‘ restorers,’ vermin engendered to do anything for hire. Quickly they displayed their livery, but did little else to earn their wages. The universal admiration of the Raphael exhibited there as at Munich, in succour of the Artist’s Benevolent Fund, countenance from Vienna, and perhaps some shyness to try conclusions with me, whispered prudence. Their names adorn your Estimates cf Services entitled 4 Civil." After my departure but not till then, the game played at Munich, an injurious article in the Gazzetta di Venezia was offered in expiation of an unto¬ ward discretion. “ Simultaneously with me, a Dispatch arrived from Vienna, enjoin¬ ing the Council of the Venetian Academy k to make preparation for a public exhibition of Raphael’s ‘ Apollo and Marsyas 1 in its halls, and to exhibit beside it the original drawing.’ “ When at last I beheld these k : ndred works side by side after so much risk, toil, and loss, and witnessed Art-renowned Venice postponing her own mighty Art, kindle at sight of the yet might¬ ier emanation of her privileged Italian soil; when letter after letter reached*me from Padua, Vicenza, and other illustrious ancillary cities, endeared to us by ‘ sweetest Shakspeare's ’ matchless Muse, telling, how the writers had gone to Venice expressly to view the famous masterpiece, and tendering me warmest thanks for an enjoyment which a generous impulse ascribed to my humble agency’ thus awhile k making my hard way sweet and delectable,’ I felt 57 that such a consummation repaid the cost, and that I could therein discern a Nemesis, the vindicator of truth and the confounder of Perfidy. 4 Raro antecedentem scelestum Deseruit pede Poena claudo.’ 44 An official order from Vienna exempting my effects from examination at the frontiers of the Empire, k in order to pre¬ serve so great'a treasure as an original picture by Raphael, from possible risk through incautious handling,’ nobly complemented the handsome treatment which I had experienced in 1857, and now, from the Austrian Authorities. 44 Contrast this conduct, Sir, with your own, as that particular English Minister intrinsically connected with Art; arbiter of what the Nation disbursed towards the treasuring of what is worthy in Art, not to mention your notorious yearning to rank as an Umpire on Art; contrast such conduct, I repeat, with your own —, I care not to say towards a fellow-citizen who , alone of thousands recognized its divine essence , but towards the masterpiece by yourself pronounced 4 such as one could wish Raphael had painted ; ’ hence, one of* those works which are reckoned among Ihe greatest productions of which mankind has been the author.’ “ Dare you declare upon your Bible, Sir, that your conscience is at ease, as to the measure you have dealt me in this matter ? Does it satisfy the requirements of 4 truth, justice, decency, and fair play ;’ the 4 tie of honour , as well as of office ,’ not to say your mighty profession of self-devotion to 4 the true developm ent of human excellence?’ 44 Schooled by experience, and warned at Venice, I divined what awaited me at Milan, the centre of Eastlake's manoeuvres in Italy. There, many and voracious were the recipients and the expectants of his favours. A common interest may involve a common danger. Every baseness that 4 the Hell-born Spirit of Revenge’ spurred by fear could devise, they forthwith conjured up to prevent a pub¬ lic exhibition of Raphael’s 4 Apollo and Marsyas ’ with the Spo- salizio, and so, the inevitable consequence, a fresh triumph for me: a fresh humiliation for their English hirers. Nor did they forget to whisper into the credulous ear of popular passion the political insinuation, that 4 surely I must be an Auslriacante ’—a sympa- 58 thiser of the still hated Austrian! How else explain so much courtesy at Vienna? “ Able to appreciate Raphael, and not the man to sully an il¬ lustrious name, Count Giberto Borommeo, then President of the Royal Academy and Director of the Brera Gallery, loyally advised me of the intrigues afoot to warp him to my prejudice. In accor¬ dance with his upright nature and love of Art, and the sentiments of many cultivators and distinguished lovers of the Fine Arts who desired an opportunity of admiring a picture which hid won so great a renown in various Capitals of Europe, he requested me, officially by Letter, to allow its public exhibition, and he offered for its reception a saloon in the Institution over which he so worthily presided. “ Exhibited with the Sposalizio, Raphael’s ‘ Apollo and Marsyas’ achieved a second triumph on native soil. u Eastlake's chief satellite at Milan was a certain Giuseppe Molteni, notoriously one of the vilest of characters in that ci y. Where, but in the very sewers , fish like vermin ? He had ready a venal scribbler to undertake the never-failing anonymous article , one Mongeri to whom it was at once brought home. It appeared in the Perseveranza on the 31st of March, 1860, the very morrow of your flight at the Freemasons's Tavern, in glorification of ’ that something which we call a picture." As usual, superlative encomium and slippery insinuation. I had known these worthies in 1857, when 1 was at Milan confidentially commissioned by the Autho¬ rities at Vienna, to examine the Sposalizio , and to report upon its condition—Milan being still, at that time, the Capital of Austrian Lombardy. Both were Austrian officials, and thinking that my good word might avail them at head-quarters, they then paid me abject court. This may serve to further appreciate them. kt Not a journal in Milan would publish my Reply. As at Dresden, this hjd been seen to, and with better success. The Gazzeita di Milano went so far as to set it up in type; I had corrected the proofs; the day for publication was fixed; when, at the eleventh hour, high interference suppressed it. I now turned to the Perseveranza , whose editor, one Allievi had lent himself to the infamy . but with no happier result. Publicity was obsti¬ nately denied me. This was communicated to me by the sub-editor* 59 accompanied, however, with eulogy of my piece, and the significant information, that 4 its suppression had been influenced by certain Personages in England ’— 4 da certiPersonaggi in Inghilterra ! 9 44 Exhorted thereto by leading men in Milan, ashamed and in¬ dignant that English intrigue should so prevail there, I published the Reply on my own account, recorded therein the refusals of the Milanese journals; sketched the history of the conspiracy from its birth, and posted by name , without 4 respect of persons both its local tools, and their baser English suborners. Thus, at Milan, as at Dresden, villainy received a double chastisement.” A further quotation from the same Expostulation will sample the doings at Rome : “Arrived at Rome on the 26th of June, 1860, betimes on the morrow, in the 4 Shrine of all Saints and Temple of all Gods,’ with the 4 Apollo and Marsyas^ at the tomb of Raphael, I discharged a second vow. Never, perhaps, since Fie there slept, certainly never with greater reverence, did creation of the Supreme Artist find itself in such proximity with the creative hand. 44 I had not long to wait for a sign that the 4 Flell-born Spirit of Revenge’ was mustering satellites on the banks of Tiber. The first stab was fitly dealt by a familiar of Eastlake's , an English Royal Academician. * * • *.?. v 44 A fourth tool, in Rome, of the English Official Cabal claims a fourth Nationality. In the early period of my residence here, I was repeatedly advised by divers visitors, strangers to one another, each more than myself amazed at what he told, that one Pietro Gismondi was busy whispering against Raphael’s 4 Apollo and Mar- syas.’ The name was new to me, but experience suggested that possibly it might grace your 4 Estimates Of Civil Services .’ On consulting that repertory of upright stewardship, the mystery va¬ nished. Pietro Gismondi, or 4 Signor Gismondi * as he is therein politely styled, had tasted of our gold to the amount of £ 537 4s. Id. Grateful for past patronage and not indifferent to future , the Si" gnor was not one to refuse so well furnished a customer as Eastlake any little 4 Civil Service ’ the latter might require by way of make¬ weight. 60 “ Being on the spot, you can easily test any statement I make respecting Rome. . This Pietro Gismondi, then, was one of the lowest and most disreputable of his own low class, a coffee-house . picture hawker, a fellow whose malpractices are here notorious. A known swindler, he nevertheless figures in your Civil Estimates , as socially undistinguishable from the Rucellai, the Rinuccini, the Ricasoli. and other notable Italians from whom pictures have oc¬ casionally been obtained for us. This I presume to be illustra¬ tive of your great Eastlakian Compensatory System , so much ad¬ mired by the propounder’s admirers ; namely, to compensate, by an illustrious provenienza, or ‘ pedigree,’ for short-comings in Art. Pedigree! of what virtue the ‘pedigree’ without the Art ? of what virtue not the Art without the 4 pedigree ? * Where the 4 pedigree ’ of the Gladiator; of the Belvedere Trunk; of the Venus of Milo ? Where, but in the Art of each, the only test of authenticity , or, if you will, of 4 pedigree?’ On seeing the above morsel of our public accounts, Romans conversant with the deeds of the caitiff thus by your Patent promoted, were not less edified by the candor , than diverted by the singularity, of the metamorphosis. * 4 And now, Sir, let me ask, would it not again be 4 strange indeed, and contrary to the doctrine of chances ,’ had a character such as your Signor Gismondi, proved by your Estimates to have been sordidly interested in the maintenance of Eastlake’s fortunes, so busied himself, gratis and unprompted , to back his patron’s main stake, to wit, the undermining of the authority of therma l who had annihilated his? 44 I could multiply this enumeration of emissaries let loose upon me at Rome, as elsewhere, by 4 the Hell-Born Spirit of Revenge ’ enthroned by you in London, but the four several Nationalities of those I have quoted, accomplish my immediate object; namely, to demonstrate the proportions , as well as the rancor , of this sur¬ passing conspiracy , or, as you phrase it, of turpitude less base, less indefensible, this 4 incessant, systematic, deliberate violation of moral law.' Still, to humour your genius for ferreting villainy, I refer you for further stuff of the same woof, to the distinguished German painters, Gebhard Flatz, your near neighbour here, at No. 3, Via di Mario del Fiori , and Frederick Overbeck, at No. 72, Via di San Nicola dei Tolentini. The one can tell the provenienza , 61 or 4 pedigree ’ of the letter addressed to him from abroad, with the old infamous burden: Bach neither man, nor picture; ' the other, whence came the several attempts, after the manner of Reiset with Ingres, as above narrated, to gain his opposition, or at least his neutrality , to a masterpiece by all recognized artistic authorities in Europe, as well as by yourself 'reckoned among the greatest productions of which mankind has been the author.” “ In these three lustres of sleepless, crushing persecution, by you fostered, since yours the power, yours 4 the bounden duty ’ by 4 every tie of honor , as well as of office to have summarily re¬ pressed it, have we not the selfsame k incessant,systematic, delib¬ erate violation of moral law,' the selfsame 4 savage and cowardly system of moral torture,' inflicting worldly ruin, which you so cheaply anathematize in your Neapolitan 4 Conservative ’ diatribes ? 44 When I gage you by your ecstacies before 4 the work such as one could wish Raphael had painted/ and by the pledge plainly involved in your 4 regret that it lay not with yourself to give it the authority it deserved,’ a pledge systematically violated during your subsequent two long tenures of the very office giving you that authority;—by your grandiloquence on Art, and on its 4 radical as. sociation with the true development of human excellence,’ while leagued against Art in one of Art's 4 most Godlike * manifestations , and thus, against 4 human excelleuce * itself, in one of its purest pha¬ ses;—by your protestations, as 4 bound by every tie of honor as well of office,' nay, of making it the chief object of your life,’ to elevate England, while debasing her by connivance with turpitudes, such as are here proved; by your clamorous invocation of k truth, justice, decency, and fair play,’ while false to each; —but, above all, when I gage you by your 4 glistering semblances of piety,’ while rebellious to God s sternest injunctions, I am moved to repeat, after Italy’s sovereign Bard: 4 La faccia sua era faccia d'uom giusto; Tanto benigna avea di fuor la pelle,’— (a) in Hell, proem and sequel.” (a) “ Its fUce, the face was of a righteous man; E'en thus benign was outwardly its skin; But of a serpent all its nether span.”— Dante’s “Hell/’ C. xvii 62 Wheresoever I have sojourned during these now well nigh eleven years of enforced expatriation , if apprised of some miscreant undermining me, I have had but to turn to our Civil Service Estimates, to find him a recipient of our gold. Thus a late experience. Proof reached me that one Sano, of No. 9, rue Laval , Paris , a Corsican, or Italian, blazoned on his card, 44 II Cavaliere Emanuele Sano, ” wa? pursuing the prescriptive foul play. I learned, too, that he was confederated and domiciled with our Bavarian ex- travelling-agent to the National Gallery. Herr Otto Miindler, wdiose summary cashiering from that preposterous and fraudcntly devised office, England owes mainly to my vig¬ ilance and to my sense of national dignity. I consulted Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone’s talismanic Estimates, where lo! 44 II Cavaliere Emanuele Sano ” feasting upon our Exchequer, to the merry tune, first, of £. 1,200 for two items respectively labelled, 44 Velazquez ” and 44 Ruysdael; *' secondly of L. 480 for two pedigreeless fragments, modestly but 44 ascribed to Hans Memling; ” pedigree being here condoned. The rigor and integrity proper to British audit are gage that the total one thousand six hundred and eighty pounds figures now where of right; namely, in that most estimable of Estimates and most profitable of investments— 44 Secret Service Money. ” When the other sort jar, honest men, they say, thrive. Our parliamentary displays pleasantly exemplify the former clause of the adage: for the consummation of the latter, the Mil¬ lennium. Edified Europe witnessed the men whom, with their parasites, I here accuse and arraign, beggar Vituperation to bespatter one another;—witnessed the Ichor of the Stanleys and Russells, in the sordid scramble for place and pelf, seethe like Phlegeton, and so at once betray its sanious 63 complexion, and the rank imposture of its Olympian pre¬ tensions; —witnessed the Patrons of Jobbery and of common sponges 44 dish ” one another, united only when 44 dishing 99 the Nation; —heard them roundly bandy the Lie; accuse one another of 44 dodges, duplicity, cross-fishing, legerdemain; ” of 4t vile calumny, stale invective, party acrimony; ” of 44 indecorousness and woeful aberration of judgment; ” of 44 uttering, not only that which was not true , but the exact reverse of truth; ” of 44 fraud and, dissimulation, ” and then, upon a cry of 44 order, ” mock Truth and our reason, by protesting that this was only 44 in a legislative , not in a personal sense; ” as though the minor cheat must pay in person , and the sacrosanct pampered defrauder of a People, escape unscotched ! -heard them accuse one another of 4 ‘charges lightly and recklessly made, ignominious warfare, unsub¬ stantiated and trumpery accusations; 99 of 44 trumping up the most contemptible mares'-nests ; 99 of being 44 loud in professions of Reform, but invariably finding some pretext for refusing to enfranchise their fellow countrymen; ” of 44 making every attempt, and employing every art, to place upon a false issue , the question to be considered; 99 of 44 pompousness and servility ; 99 of 44 sacrificing the Public Thing to parliamentary promotion and notoriety; ” of 44 repeated breach of faith, personal virulence, persevering misrepresentation, ungenerous and insulting observations, and casting imputations without a shadow of pretence; 97 of 44 taking shelter behind ambiguous motions and dilatory pleas; ” of 44 openly professing one thing, and meaning another; 99 of 44 conduct that excited the indignation of all honest men, and rendered contemptible all parliamentary action, *’ with reminder that 44 patience had its limits , and hat there were those (?) who would not tolerate being 64 dragged in the mire, whatever the position of the Ministry; of 44 a course of deception practised which destroyed all trust and reliance on Governments ; ” of conduct, in brief, which brought into disrepute , not only the characters of Ministers, and the character of Parliament, but also the name and office of the Sovereign! ” Alternated by the epithets, 44 buffoon, ” 44 weathercock, ” 44 rabble, ” 44 thimblerigger, ” “ yelping hounds, ” and suite, the pre-cited amenities together with other akin, not mention the unctuous endorsements of the entire press, according to colour, and the antiphonies contemporaneously entuned on public platforms, by members of the same eclectic and symphonious choir, lie embalmed in Hansard's Reports of 44 the legislative labours, ” during the two last sessions, on the Irish Church abomination and on mock reform. Such the estimate entertained of one another by Ministers and ^-Ministers of State, and lesser gear, who, 44 studying the times more than the text, and lifting up their eyes to the hills of the Court, ” obsequiously exalt 4 4 common sponges ” in favour there, 44 to the impoverishing ” of fellow-citizens, who, if human testimonies of surpassing worth and multitude, and, not least, the avoioals wrung from capital enemies , avail, did fair service, not to England alone, but to mankind beyond, without other thought than to earn a humble place among men 44 good and loyal. ” A pleasant comment have we here upon the 44 perfect truth 99 wherewith, Bacchi patiens , amid the fumes of a Mansion-house orgy, our acute ^-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Patentee of those Diplomatic raps, Treaties sans guarantee , was 44 able to say, that, having known the House for nineteen years, the longer and better he knew it, the higher had risen his opinion, not only of its integrity 65 and honesty of purpose —qualities, by the by , ” he waggishly added, “ not so rare in England , as to deserve special commendation—but also of its judgment, sagacity and common sense; ” an appreciation of “ the House ” somewhat remote, as above shewn, from that of “ the House ” itself, in general, and of Lord Milton, for example, in particular, who u went to that Assembly with very exalted notions of what he should see and hear there, but formed of it, before long, a very unfavourable opinion , which had increased, instead of diminishing . ” Quoting that real Englishman, Walter Savage Landor’s denunciation of the ruthless and dastardly conspiracy besetting me, I said that, “ surrounded by scoundrels of all sizes, ” I expatriated in 1858. yearning to finally commit to a People’s keeping, the transcendent creation which, stark hidden to the filmy eyes of brutish officials, even Lord Elcho’s “ pro¬ fessional connoisseurs, ” the best paid of whom Eastlake, “ who had neither the taste, nor the feeling to appreciate so fine a work, nor the critical knowledge which should have led them to discover under a false name, the master-hand of Raphael, ” a life of special study and research had enabled me to snatch from oblivion. Not to be beneath the circum¬ stance, I resolved to make no advances, but to owe success solely to the might of Art and to the fame of the master¬ piece. “ A work such as one could wish Raphael had painted” might well attract wooers : its semblable once saved an illustrious city. But the long arm of English official Revenge was to realize, with the Nation’s gold, the*fell threat: “ Go where he may, we will reach him: victory itself shall be sterile! ” Everywhere environed and circumvented; more than a E 66 decennium of ruinous expense amercing and impoverishing me and mine; our property virtually confiscate through my ever-foiled hope of a National Home for the ensnared Raphael, foiled by the subterraneous plottings of a discomfited creio, that, by this their forgery of a flaw in my Indictment against them, they might slake revenge and veil their shame, I re-appear before my fellow-citizens, my natural and bounden supporters, not indeed, to ask favour , (demeanour ill suited to a claimant), but to demand, in the name of Justice, their speedy and practical condemnation of an inveterate, unparalleled conspiracy , originated and, to this hour , serpentining under their shadow: and, for this solemn and supreme Appeal, I re-appear before them so credentialled, as to defy eclipse, not to say comparison; my own particular interest herein being simply to glean such halt and meagre justice for me and mine, as may yet be corollary to this imperative Justice to themselves. Men of judicial experience and station long since pronounced that 44 never was conspiracy more heinous, more glaring; never case for damages more crying. ” But, as I laboured not for pelf , I am content with indemnity from within. Be here instanced my hunger for gold. On the 29th of March, 1859, the fourth day after Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Disraeli’s truculent reply to the question put to him respecting RaphaeFs famous picture of 44 Apollo and Marsyas, ” and as a rejoinder, was to be read in the 44 Times ” :— 44 THE- MORRIS MOORE FUND. “ In recognition of the public services rendered by Mr. Morris Moore, a subscription has been entered into by several gentlemen and members of Parliament, for the purpose of presenting him with a testimonial. Those who may be desirous of contributing 67 to the Fund are requested to address their communications to William Coningham, Esq., M. P., 2 , Chesham-place. ” Justice, not alms, is the amends for Wrong. I wrote at once from Paris to peremptorily reject the latter, and to enjoin prompt restitution of whatsoever subscriptions. Among the first to subscribe was Mr. Thomas Baring, M. P.— then, and still, a Trustee of the National Gdllery. Fatuity is the basis of Falsehood. His subscription 44 in recognition of the Public Services rendered by Mr. Morris Moore, ” Mr. Baring found not irreconcilable with officious panegyric of 44 the perfect knowledge, taste, and discretion ” of that Eastlake without whose vandalism, waste, and villainy, Mr. Morris Moore’s Public Services had never been 44 rendered ” The Treasurer to 44 The Morris Moore Fund ” urged that it was 44 a most impolitic step to return the money to Mr. Baring; would “pause until a final decision came. Mr. Baring was a member, had a vote &n&]influence , and every voter told in a division. ” As to Mr. Baring’s 44 vote and influence, ” I was at that time expatriate, and otherwise suffering through the slavish prostitution of both, by Mr. Baring and his like, to the most flagitious Jobbery and injustice. Disdaining such auxiliaries, I elected rather to brave 44 the fearful alternative of starvation or suicide, ” advisedly affirmed in the House of Commons on the 25th of March preceding, as then, by every sign, my sole refuge from the 44 total ruin ” visited upon me by 44 the enmity of aristocratic and courtly circles, ” for having trusted to England’s being that 44 free country ” where flourished the 44 one thing more clear than another, that any one of the People may speak freely to the People. ” Thus, my 44 final decision ” was my first ; a decision that best comported with the character which I have yet to belie. 68 When silence favours Wrong, self-assertion is incumbent. Be then here placed in salientest relief, a claim pregnant with interest to Art; hence, as affirmed too by Mr. Gladstone and Lord Clarendon, to England. On the 25th of March, 1859, it was asserted in the House of Commons that I “ had rendered most important services to the Country, and thereby established a claim on National gratitude. ” This was but the echo of our press, daily and periodical, and of prominent Englishmen. LordOnslow, among others, had written: “ You have fought on no inglorious field; for to have snatched from the hands of Vandalism the relics of Ancient Art is surely an enviable feat! You were the very first who, under the name of Verax, entered the lists in the arena of Art, and you boldly took your stand there, as its defender and champion: you flung down the gauntlet to any who might have the temerity to raise it from the floor. You have done yourself the utmost credit, and confer¬ red on the public an infinite amount of service, by your well- poised and pungent strictures at different times in the journals of the day, in exposure of the flagrant misdoings that have been so unblushingly and so intolerably carried on at the National Gal¬ lery, for a length of time that seems almost to sanction them with a prescriptive colouring. I feel convinced that not only the re¬ sults flowing from the Commons's Committee, but that the very appointment of the Committee would never have taken place, had it not been for your powerful and irresistible articles in the 4 Times * and 4 Morning Post ’ . . . You have worked hard and proudly in the Public Vineyard, (I use the word 4 proudly ’ in a flattering sense), for you have stooped to no one, but held on your course with a bold and steady step, and with a sternness of resolve that nothing could ever shake. Unaided throughout the whole of the fray, you have in that unassisted state, born 4 the heat and bur¬ den of the day’, and thereby richly entitled yourself to share the excla¬ mation of the Roman cf old: Ego solus. Youh ad no helpmate, but single-handed dared the Committee to the strife, and they igno - miniously flinched from the challenge ....I honour you from my soul : ” 69 Again: “ I cannot possibly commence my letter withont first expressing my deep regret that you should have heen confined to your bed by a sharp attack of illness, engendered, no doubt, by wear and tear, both of mind and body, consequent upon your labours in the service of the Public, and the unjustifiable treatment you have met with at the hands of those who look upon themselves as the exponents of its wishes. “ Let me dissuade you from carrying out your plan of emigra¬ tion: if persisted in, it will furnish your enemies with a handle of which they will not fail to avail themselves. They will hound themselves on to the cry: ‘ We have done for him; driven him from the country!’ For myself, I can only say, that your departure from these shores will seal the doom of the National Gallery, in the absence of its Argus, its inmates will lapse into their old mis¬ doings , and run riot over its painted Chambers; restoring, washing, scrubbing, scraping, scalding, flaying, rasping, and towelling, every picture that comes in their way, without let or hindrance , uncheck¬ ed and uncontrolled. “ I cannot possibly close my letter without tendering you my warmest admiration of the upright, firm, decided, uncompromising, and manly bearing which has marked your conduct throughout the whole of this affair, 9J And Mr. William Coningham: “ I have all along thought that we ought to present you with a Public Testimonial. Such a step would benefit you in every way, and be a slap in the face for the Committee And, as sampling the press, the u Edinburgh Revieto ” of April, 1854 : “ The Public owe mainly to Mr. Morris Moore’s unwearied re¬ monstrances, an inquiry which can hardly fail in future to protect their interests and property.” Among the “ important services to the Country ” asserted in the House of Commons, on the occasion in question, was my preventing the removal of the National Gallery from 70 its central position in Trafalgar Square to the suburbs; a transfer hostile to its scope, in the ratio of the obstacles to its accessibility . This, then, the Claim I here specially vindicate, and, therefore, as my due, the tribute paid me thereon in Parliament; eminently my due for that arduous, responsible, conscientious, unaided labour, the Protest and. Counter-Statement to the Report of the Select Committee of 1853 on the National Gallery. Of that Committee, consentient every man of honor, Lord Onslow wrote: I am absolutely disgusted wtth the conduct of the Committee , and dare not give vent to the workings of my mind; it raises one’s blood to the boiling point, and summons up a blush which it is impossible to suppress” And of that Committee’s Report: “ The ‘ Report/ even under its mildest phase, is of so disgrace¬ ful a character , as almost to make the very pictures of the Na¬ tional Gallery start from their frames; the wounded crying aloud for vengeance , the yet unscathed, for mercy! Again: “ The suicidal imbecility of Eastake must have cost him many a pang.... A more glaring act of gross dereliction of duty never came forth to the world , than the f Report ’ of the self-committed members of the late Board of Inquiry. The whole affair, indeed, is exquisitely disgusting. The very ink even that I am now using* seems to blush at the ‘Report/ and throwing off its darker tints, borrows a reflected hue from the suffusion on my own cheeks, and traces in crimsoned character: Shame! And Mr. William Coningham: “ I found last night on my return from a journey in the Forest of Ardennes, your note and the Report on the National Gallery. “ I am sorry to find that you are so much depressed. If you now give up the game, there is an end of the matter; but I should have thought that now was just the time to expose the conduct of your adversaries , and enforce the public importance of your ser- 71 vices. The subject deserves careful consideration. What shall be the line of policy for you to adopt with regard to your own as well as the public, interest? for I still hope your 4 never’ is but a fi¬ gure of speech, and not a reality. The Committee deserves to be thrashed.” Again: “ I have read Mr. Evans’ letter containing severe, but well mer¬ ited strictures upon Lord Elcho and the National Gallery Commitee . I remember Charteris urged you very strongly to send in a writ- ten paper upon the Purchases, and that you insisted upon giving evidence, viva voce. I have a distinct recollection of hearing both you and Mr. Evans state that he had made use of the argument, that 4 it would be un-English to strike a man (viz., Eastlake) who was down. 3 You are quite at liberty to quote my authority for the fact. 4£ Lord Elcho's question to you in the Committee lays him open to attack upon public grounds. The Public cares not one damn what Lord Elcho says behind the scenes , although they might hiss him off the stage ’, The Protest and Counter-Statement, a searching Digest of one thousand folio pages of Blue Book, containing upioards of ten thousand questions and answers , besides copious Ap¬ pendices , was the embodiment of no less than fifceen months, sacrifice of existence and income, “ to protect, ” as the Edinburgh Review attests, “ the interests and property of the Public. ” Abetted by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone’s perfidiousness to the Nation, and suppleness of knee, as shown at pages 110 and 111 of the Protest and Counter-State¬ ment, and by the fraudulent Report of a packed Committee, “ the selfish importunity of a gang of sturdy beggars, ” as per Hazlitt, “ who demand public encouragement and support, with a claim of settlement in one hand, and a forged certificate of merit in the other, ” was at length to prevail. The 72 People’s Pictures dislodged, and a hated comparison disposed of by their deportation to a far district , the Home erected for them with the people’s money was to he prostituted in fee-simple to the Royal Academy, 44 a private body usurping the rights , ” as above emphasized by Lord Lytton, 44 and refusing the responsibilities of a public one. ” The Committee of 1853 had 44 recommended the removal of the National Gallery to some more suitable locality, ” the while perforce confessing 44 the present Site to possess in a high degree , the merits of being central and accessible ” indeed, 44 unrivalled as a central position. ” But 44 the Commission appointed, in 1850, to report on the state of the Pictures, had expressed an opinion adverse to the construction of a new Gallery in the same situation , chiefly on account of its exposure to smoke, dust, idle crowds, and other influences unfavour able to the preservation of Pictures. ” Such the pretext for the projected fraud. This Commission of 1850 was schemed by those notorious individuals, Sir C. Eastlake, President of the Royal Academy, and Mr. William Russell, a Trustee of the National Gallery; the one, therefore personally and corporately interested in ousting the People’s Pictures; the other, an oflicial whose titles to his fat sinecure, as Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, a pliant spine and his canonized Patronymic; the virtue of the latter, that breeder of bitterness and dark histories, the unholy institution of Primogeniture , whereby, to our detriment and discredit, at a nod from their majors, potent by hereditary ascendency and monopolized wealth, the scions of the aristocracy become 44 common sponges 99 upon the State :— “---mildew'd ears Blasting their wholesome brothers,” 73 and instruments for enchaining England, in perpetuity, as a fief of that usurping caste , who hector, blackmail, or, in the Homeric, or, if you will, Derby locution of Lord Derby, “ dish ” those 44 sent into this breathing world, ” no worse accoutred, while often better fashioned and better endowed than themselves. Ministers connivant, the twin conspirators figured, by consequence, as members of the Commission they had infanted; but, conscious of their own rankness , they entrapped the eminent Michael Faraday to complete a triumvirate, that they might use him as a stalking-horse , and, under his authoritative presentation, shoot their forgeries. In the Protest and Counter-Statement, from page 78 to 109, I anatomized this Eastlake-Russell Commission, individually and officially; duly commenting the triviality and effrontery of Mr. Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, William Russell, and his false , as saucy as filthy, conceits of 4t animal vapours and perspiration, ” and of 4 4 the combined, ammoniacal exhalations of Russia , Austria, France, Italy, Belgium, and America, condensed upon the pictures,, supervening upon our own National exhalations. ” Nor did I forget the imbecility, prevarication, and hardy menda¬ city, common to this worthy and to his Academic confederate; the Signers of my fifteen months' labour, not to speak of other warranty, my sureties that I had not 44 set down aught in malice. ” 44 How the incriminated parties can hold up their heads, after such an exposure, ” wrote Lord Onslow, 44 is to me marvellous! ” Despite 44 such an exposure; ” despite the meek avowal whereto I constrained him before the Committee, that he 44 had no knowledge of Art he could venture to ask us to 74 rely on; ” despite his consequent faltering announcement there, that, though 14 willing to undertake the office of Trustee, he should not he able , should not have leisure (!) to continue in that character; ” despite all this, Mr. Ac¬ countant-General William Russell still 44 holds up his head, ” as Trustee of the National Gallery, and nods assent to the blear-eyed Boxall’s destruction of Art! 44 Marvellous, ” indeed, but for the dissyllabic synonym for 44 audacity ” wherewith a Dean of St. Pauls has graced our vernacular! My analysis of Mr. Faraday's evidence gave the flat contra¬ dictory of the Commission’s Report. I showed that, although of the most destructive character , his atmospheric experiments on pictures had demonstrated that 44 no danger need be feared from the present Site of the National Gallery; ” that he utterly repudiated being a party to the assertion subdolously fastened upon him by Messieurs Eastlake and Russell, that 44 it had actually been detrimental to the appearance of the Public Pictures; ” that, endorsing, to the letter, my evidence, Sir David Brewster had established , 44 on the principles of harmony of colouring, and, on optical observations, ” the same conclusion; and, therefore, that the Committee of 1853 on the National Gallery had collusively perverted the evidence and betrayed the Nation . As a courtesy due to his worth, I sent Mr. Faraday the proof-sheets of what specially touched himself, and 1 invited unsparing correction of any misconception. Ten days after suitable acknowledgment of their receipt, the following: “ Royal Institution , April 26, 1855. 44 Dear Sir, — I have not the slightest objection to maKe to your understanding of my evidence, but I never thought for a moment of sayiug so, because I think you, and every one, have a right to comment, in any way they please , upon anything that 75 is said and published under such circumstances. If you had thought yourself called upon to remark critically (instead of kindly, as you have done) upon what I had to say, I should have approved of your doing so , being done conscientiously. 44 I am very truly yours, “ M. FARADAY. “ Morris Moore , Esq., 21, Soho Square/’ It is to be regretted that Mr. Faraday should have omitted the obvious duty of complementing his unconditional ap¬ proval of my 44 understanding of his evidence, ” with a public Protest against the flagrant abuse of his authority by his unscrupulous co-Commissioners, Eastlake and Russell, and their yet more scandalous accomplices, the Commons Committee of 1853. An instance here of hardy mendacity from the Blue Book of 1853 on the National Gallery, and from page 102 of the Protest and Counter-Statement. Ab uno disce , etc.: Sir C. Eastlake and Mr. Faraday. 44 4,590. Sir C. Eastlake. When on the Commission with Mr. Wil¬ liam Russell and Mr Faraday, the Aftmmdaft’ 0 n(Claude)was brought to us. Professor Faraday was of opinion that it was covered with dirt and varnish, and an accumu¬ lation of matter which had nothing to do with the original painting.*' 44 5,498; 5,542; 5,552 3. Mr. Fa - rsiday. I do not remember to have found the Annunciation dirty. I can form no judgment with respect to the alteration of color, nor as to whether coloi observable on pic¬ tures is a change of color by time, or ichether it is a color put on by the Artist. I have not the slightest means of knowing whether a tint is of ancient or of modern date. I left matters of that kind tc Sir C. Eastlake and Mr. Russell ” And now, though bvt as specimens, divers judgments upon the entire Protest and Counter-Statement: 76 u Richmond 9 Dec. 29, 1854. “ Sir,—I have read the Protest and Counler-Statement with the greatest pleasure and the most careful attention. On a survey of the whole, it is impossible to arrive at any other verdict than that cf 4 complete success in the compilation: 9 it is more than ably drawn up: it is masterly. A more lucid production, on more ar¬ gumentative and justly severe, it never fell to my lot to peruse, involving, as it does, in many of its pages, the m or allannihilation of the parties so deservedly arraigned. You have condemned a large portion of them, out of their own mouths s which must necessarily have sunk them, even in their own estimation, to a very zero of insignificance, if not to the lowest depths of degradation. Each succeeding page tells upon them with increasing force, vires acquirit eundo , and leaves them in a position from which the noble-minded and upright turn away in utter disgust. “I agree with you completely in everything you have said as to the past , the present , and the future management of the National Gallery, and.in a very particular manner, to that part of it which bears upon the future Directorship. “Very faithfully, “ ONSLOW. “ Morris Moore, Esq., 27, Scho Square, London. Again: “ Richmond, Jan. 11, 1855. “ Sir, —It is with feelings of deep regret that I am debarred the pleasure of congratulating you on the complete re-establish¬ ment of your health. The wear and tear of mind of the last five or six months -must have almost necessarily led to painful results? and I only wonder that you have been able so long to contend against so appalling an undertaking. Men of less nerve would have recoiled from it at the outset; but you determined, from the first? not only to beard the lion in his den, but all the whelps to boot* You have mobiy tackled them, and as nobly conquered them .. .. “Believe me, very faithfully yours, “ ONSLOW. “ Morris Moore , etc. 33 77 And Mr. William Coningham: “ Kemptown, April 15, 1854. “ Dear Moore, —I very highly approve of the Protest and Counter- Statement, and hope you will proceed vigorously with it. “ Yours very faithfully, “ william coningham. “Morris Moore. Esq., 21, Soko Square , London” Again: H Kemptown, Nov. 10, 1855 “ Dear Moore, —I don’t think you have made too much of Morris Moore in the Protest and Counter-Statement; for you have but done him justice, and he cuts a very good figure, in my humble opinion. They, the Ministry, conduct the war as they manage the Na¬ tional Gallery, i. e., infamously. “ Yours faithfully, WILLIAM CONINGHAM. “ Morns Moore, etc.” And Walter Savage Landor: “ Bath , Feb. 28, 1855. “ To Mr. Morris Moore. u Sir,—The Nation is muoh indebted to you, and must continue so, while any picture in our Gallery is left uninjured. It is grie¬ vous to find, not so much ignorance , for that we might have ex¬ pected, but so much disingenuousness and prevarication in the Examiners, as well as in the examined. I must read the admirable Protest and Counter-Statement over again, and will return it as soon as read. I subscribe my name most willingly WALTER SAVAGE LANDOR. “ Morris Moore, Esq , 2l, Soho Square , London.” Again: “ Bath. Aprii , 10, 1355. “ My Dear Sir, —I have been again reading with deep interest and equally deep indignation, your Protest and Counter-Statement. “ To what a depth are we fallen! Shall we never clear our¬ selves of this mire we have imported? “ Ever truly yours, “ WALTER SAVAGE LANDOR. u Morris Moore, etoP Again in 1856 : “ BathRivers St. The vigor of your letter in the Sun proves to me that your health must be vigorous, which gratifies me highly. The Goddess of the Parthenon could not have defended the Arts more nobly and irresistibly. “ Believe me, with high esteem, yours sincerely, “ WALTER SAVAGE LANDOR, Morris , Moore, Esq. etc ” And Chief Justice Sir George Alfred Arney, a distinguished professional interpreter of Evidence, one of the witnesses examined by the Committee of 1853 on the National Gallery: “ Western Circuit , Exeter, March 15, 1855. “ My Dear Moore, —Certainly these fellows are energetic enough? Why, you are as mild as a 4 sucking dove/compared with them! But your style is better than theirs, as it is more moderate, and not the less stunning. Certainly the Protest and Counter-Statement can he characterized by no other terms. Of course my poor name may appear at the foot. “ Yours always very sincerely, “ G. A. ARNEY. Morris Moore. Esq., 27, Soho Square, London .” Again: “ Western Circuit, Exeter , March 17, 1855. u My Dear Moore, —Only just now, I observe that you treated my signature to the Protest and Counter-Statement, in your letter, penultimate date, as matter of doubt, I cannot fancy why, I shall 79 only be too proud to havesmy name appended to a Document which I think contains the most astounding critique I ever read. Believe me, my dear Moore, always yours sincerely, “ G. A. ARNEY. “ Morris Moore etc. ” And Mr. Edward May hew : “ 7, London St., Norfolk Square , March 20, 1855. “ My Dear Moore, —I have read your Protest and Counter-Sta¬ tement with much pleasure, though under great dfficulties. It has instructed, pleased , and delighted me. I especially admire the part where you fix the Lie upon the members of the Committee, because the reasoning is so close that there is no escape left for those who are thrust through and through, kicked and beaten . My name is, of course, very much at your service. More, nor less than this, I cannot say, and my feelings are under command of your judgment. u I remain, yours sincerely, “ EDWARD MAYHEW. a Morris Moore , Esq., 27, Soho Square. ” And Mr. Alfred Stevens, Prize-competitor for the Wellington Monument, one of the witnesses examined by the Committee of 1853 on the National Gallery. “ 7, Canning Place Kensington, March 31, 1855. “ My Dear Moore,—I think the Protest and Counter-Statement just what it ought to be; very short, very strong, and very clear. “ Yours most truly, “ ALFRED STEVENS. “ Morris Moore , Esq., 27, Soho Square. ” And Professor James Taylor : “ Brixton, 11, Grove Place. April 2 and 9, 1855.” “ Sir, —Having read an able Protest and Counter-Statement to the Report of the Select Committee on the National Gallery; I fully concur that the Report is a perversion of the evidence taken before that Conmittee. 80 “ It is much to be regretted that there is not some practical means of dealing with such flagrant abuses. There really needs some Association to follow up Parliamentary inquiries, and lead to the punishment of the perpetrators of the gross Joberry which is from time to time brought to light. I cannot but congratulate you upon the very able manner in which you have done your part’ and trust it will not be without some useful result. “ I shall have much pleasure in appending my name to the Pro¬ test and Counter-Statement, which I trust will be widely circulated. I am indebted to the kindness of our friend A. B. Richards for the perusal of the able Document referred to. u 1 am, Sir, yours truly, JAMES TAYLOR, Ph. D., Professor of Chemistry. “ Morris Moore, Esq., 27, Soho Square. ” And Mr. Roach Smith, F.S.A.: “ 5, Liverpool Street, City , April 7, 1855. “ My Dear Sir, — I thank you for the copy of the Protest and Counter-Statement. It is admirably drawn up, and its perusal must fill the soul of every honest man with indignation. The more I see of the Iustitutions of our Country, the more I become con¬ vinced of the enormous jobbery that pervades them, and of the very low tone of public morals. “ Believe me, my dear Sir, very truly yours, “ ROACH SMITH. Morris Moore , Esq.. 27, Soho Square. ” And Mr. Francis Pulszky, the distinguished Hungarian con¬ noisseur : “ 13, St. Alban's Villas , Highgate Rise , April 21, 1855. “ My Dear Sir,— Your Protest and Counter-Statement is admi¬ rable ; clear and temperate in language , and powerful in argument. Still, what can be done with such men as are now sitting in Par- lament? You preach to blind men about colours. They have not even the energy to blush , when reminded of their nakedness. “ Yours sincerely, “ FRANCIS PULSZKY “ Morris Moore, Esq., 27, Soho Square. 99 81 And Dr. William Hepworth Thompson, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, and Master of Trinity College: ‘ 4 Trinity College , Cambridge. May 11, 1855. 44 My Dear Sir, — Pray accept my thanks for your kindness in sending me your Protest and Counter-Statement in reply to the Report, etc., I always thought you had the best of the argument. It seems to me that in the present Protest you are eminently sue - cessful in exposing the evidence on the other side. 44 Believe me, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, “ W. H. THOMPSON. 44 Morris Moore , Esq., 27, Soho Square., London. ” And Professor George Long: 44 29, St. George's Road, Brighton, August 5, 1855. 44 Dear Sir,—I signed the Protest and Counter-Statement because I was convinced by it. I am never stopped by private considera¬ tions from doing anything, whatever it may be, that I can do, to resist Dishonesty. 44 Yours very truly, “ GEORGE LONG. 44 Morris Moore, Esq., 27, Soho Square , London ” Thus warranted by Englishmen of higlwstscientific, literary, * ^ judicial, artistic, and other social distinction, my title to the tribute echoed in the House of Commons defies cavil. On the 1st of August, 1851, belying, as is native to him, a pledge himself had given, the Right Honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone, in reply to Mr. Danby Seymour’s timely question, 44 whether notice would be given to the Royal Academy, that the apartments hitherto lent them in Trafalgar Square, would be required, for the Public Service, ” unblushingly said : 44 As to giving notice to the Royal Academy to vacate the portion of the building occupied by them, the Government has no intention of giving any such notice, or requiring them to vacate those premises; ”—a breach of F 82 faith with the public, dismasked at pages 110 and 111 of the Protest and Counter-Statement. Are, then, Studies on Homer and HomericAge so sterile ? (a) Soulless the man deaf to the Homeric Anathema: E’en as Hell’s Gates, he hatefui is to me, Who hides one thing in heart, and speaks another/' Notwithstanding the Right Honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone’s truckling to an 44 influence, to which ” the Times , of June the 20th, 1856, attesting, 44 three Chan¬ cellors of the Exchequer had succumbed, ” and w r hich, the same Times still attesting, 44 had been brought to bear upon every member susceptible to influence; ”—notwithstanding the fraudulent Reports of the Eastlake-Russell Commission of 1850, and Mure-Elcho National-Gallery Committee of 1853;—notwithstanding 44 the Government's no intention to give the Royal Academy any such notice , ”—a Government headed by Mr. Gladstone himself , was doomed 44 to give the Royal Academy notice to vacate the premises” so long by them impudently withheld from the Nation. Remains to be achieved, 4t the entire dissociation of the National Gallery frcm the Royal Academy, ” so strenuously urged by Lords Lytton and Onslow, Mr. Dawson Turner, and others, as essential to the preservation of the National Col¬ lection from further Academic havoc; essential even to its very existence. To the Protest an 1 Counter-Statement, then, I formally here claim as due, the revindication of the People’s edifice in Trafalgar Square; to that fifteen months labour formally claim as due, the confounding of the plot to oust the People’s Pictures and surrogate 14 a private Society usurping the (a) “ Studies on Homer and Homeric Age.” By the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. Parker, 1850. 83 rights and refusing the responsibilities of a public one; ” to that 44 appalling undertaking, ” as Lord Onslow, a close witness to its progress, estimated my searching Digest of one thousand folio pages of Blue Booh , containing upwards of ten thousand Questions and Ansivers , besides copious Appendices , I formally claim as due, that 44 most important service to the Country ” and to Art, the prevention of the removal of the National Gallery to the suburbs, from 44 its present central, accessible, unrivalled Site. ” My decennial silent endurance of the English official con¬ spiracy pursuing me, and conculcating Raphael and Right, tells of longanimity. But Mr. Gladstone’s arrival at Rome in the autumn of 1866, within only a few weeks .of my detecting the Sano whisperings and their connection with our Exchequer, when under Mr. Gladstone's auspices, roused another spirit. His presence here came upon me as provi¬ dential. It spurred me to enliven his Romanizing lucubra¬ tions, old crockery researches , and other dilettanteism, with a mirror starkly reflecting his inward uncomeliness, and to show him that at least one Englishman appreciated his 44 depraved logic ” and windy declamation. Hence my Expostulation. But, without the enunciation of a practical object, it had been inchoate. Grace in him, I prognosti¬ cated none. I knew the man; knew his 44 manner of wrenching the true cause the false way; ” therefore, how to read the device, fide et virtute, wherewith he crests himself. Solely to exhaust my'task, I thus concluded : 44 But, if to me no longer, you can still atone to the Nation in this matter. With the sterling evidence herewith added to your prior information and conviction , to justify your repeated loud virtual recognition of its universal import , upon you specially de¬ volves, both in duty to the English Nation and in honor, to chal- 84 lenge the attention of Parliament to what, once more to quote Cornelius, ‘ only the grossly ignorant of Art, or those having a sinister motive , would dare impugn;' I mean to the fact notorious to Europe, that the exquisite picture of 4 Apollo and Marsyas ’ whose authenticity I promptly discerned and announced, while the highly salaried Art-official Eastlake, as shewn by Lord Elcho in the 4 Morning Post ' of June 10th, 1850, “ had neither the taste nor the feeling to appreciate so fine a work, nor the critical knowledge which should have led him to discover under a false name the master hand of Raphael, ’ nor could perceive in it more than an obsolete 4 curiosity, ’ is not only an undoubted Raphael, but eminent in beauty, even among the creations of the unrivalled Author. “ Expedient is it, moreover, that you further advise Parliament that, besides the universally acknowledged excellence of this Raphael, its rescue from oblivion by an Englishman, after a bi-centenary abode with us, and. full six days' public exhibition at the chief Art empo¬ rium of the vastest metropolis in the world , to the greedy gaze of strangers thither expressly come to snatch from us such of our Pictorial Treasures as their wit could penetrate, invests it with peculiar significance for England; the tributes everywhere paid to its rescuer by the most prominent men of Art, by Academies of Art, and by cognate authoritative Societies abroad, but notaHy at Rome, the held of Raphael’s mightiest achievements, sufficing for the induction, that Englishmen need no alien to pioneer them to the heights of Parnassus, but can attain them by their own unaided English vigor. “ As an Englishman, and, therefore, as one of that constituent body whence springs your representative being, I now formally summon you to make atonement in this matter to the English Nation, and so, such as you yet can, to 4 truth, justice, decency, and Fair play, 4 too long by you systematically and vindictively outraged in my person. 4 * If 4 sweet religion ’ be with you other than 4 a rhapsody of words , 9 the perusal of these pages must inspire you to discharge this imperative duty. Thus will you have reason to bless the Power that impelled you to Rome. 44 Remember, Sir. that 4 respect of persons,’ the Sin so repeatedly, 85 so sternly forbidden by the Sacred Volume, is falsehood ; all false¬ hood, ‘ Negation of God.’ “ MORRIS MOORE. “ Rome, Christmas Bay , 1866. Characteristic the response:— u 51, Piazza di Spagna , Dec. 29, 1866; u Sir, —I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the letter you ad¬ dressed to me under date of Christmas Day, and to express my regret that I am unable to take any part in the matter to which it refers, or to carry on any correspondence in relation to it. u I must beg to be understood as not admitting the conclusion .at which you arrive with regard to my conduct and duty. “ I return the Documents; and I have the honor to be, Sir, “ Your obedient servant, i4 W. E. GLADSTONE. u Morris Moore , Esq. ” Already have we seen the inditer of this epistle ecstatic before 44 the work such as one could wish Raphael had painted; ” heard him 44 regret that it lay not with himself to give it the authority it deserved. ” Sixteen years later, his 44 admiration, ” ever superlative, Lord Clarendon certi¬ fying, and twice meanwhile long Ms, the coveted 4 ‘ authority, ” but basely bartered to extinguish its lustre and silence its eloquence, he still 44 regrets that he is unable to take any part in the matter, ”—nay, dreads (and dread he well may!) its very mention;— he , the trumpeter,'that 44 that something which we call a picture, be it ever so slight in fabric and diminutive, is yet reckoned'among the greatest productions of which mankind has been the author; ”— he, the declaimer on 44 the radical association of Art with the true development of human excellence; ”— he, a National Delegate self-pro¬ claimed, 44 bound by every tie of honor as well as of office, to make it the chief object of his life to do what in him lies to develop the material happiness and prosperity of England ! ” His loud deification of Art, and tri-lustral superlative “ admiration of a Raphael, the very elixir of “an Art which shares with great creating Nature, ” yet brutishly refusing it his bounden aid against a Cabal banded to strangle it—nay, himself the Chief Mute —betray, at once, his deafness to duty and to honor , his servility , and the hypocrisy of his “ regret, ” and stamp his condemnation. But, to my conclusion with regard to his conduct and duty. ” On the 21st of February, 1837, that is, within two months of his receipt of my Expostulation, thus Hansard: “ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Disraeli) moved a vote of forty-fiv'e thousand seven hundred and twenty-one pounds for the purchase of the famed Blacas collection of coins and antiquities for the British Museum. This collection, the Rt. Hon. gentleman observed, had been obtained upon exceedingly reasonable terms, notwithstanding the fact that several other Governments were competing for its acquisition. Amongst the gems comprised in it were the celebrated cameo of the Emperor Augustus, which was absolutely matchless, and an extraordinary casket of metal, con¬ taining an entire toilette of a Roman lady. “ Mr. Gladstone warmly approved of the purchase and congra¬ tulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having been the instru¬ ment of acquiring for the country such a collection, Unfashioned to detraction, whatever the provocation, I dismiss the inflated announcement and “ exceedingly reaso¬ nable ” forty-five thousand seven hundred and twenty-one pounds of the Minister, by Mr. Bright epitheted “ pompous and servile, offensive and impudent , ” w T ho, to catch the smile from on high, impudently mimicking with vulgar, imbecile, and lying emphasis, a question put to him on the 25th of March, 1859, in the House of Commons, jeered 87 44 the famous picture of 4 Apollo and Marsyas/ by Raphael, now in the possession of Morris Moore, Esquire ”—with lying emphasis, for he well knew it the while to be, throughout Europe, really famous; I dismiss that flourish, I say, with the one truth , that, not his filtered essence of the 44 famed Blacas Collection, ” even his gems, 44 an extraordinary casket of metal containing the entire toilette of a Roman lady, ” and 44 the celebrated cameo of the Emperor Augustus, ” upon his (!) authority, forsooth, 44 absolutely matchless, ” could electrify eight European Capitals, among which Rome herself, not to mention an unebbing tide of visitors of every Nation, as has electrified them, 44 the work such as one could wish Raphael had painted; ” the Raphael hailed by all, a cynosure 44 of such an orient lustre as no diamond can equal. ” But my issue is with an actual , not with a cashiered Premier. Mr. Gladstone’s 44 warm approval ” then, of the 44 excee¬ dingly reasonable ” Blacas purchase, and his congratulation thereon with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, fix this 44 instrument’s ’’ absolute responsibility for the People's money so invested; necessarily, therefore, this 44 instrument’s ” absolute responsibility for the wilful neglect of kindred investments of Imperial moment. Absolute, consequently, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone"s own responsi¬ bility for his wilful neglect to secure for England, a Raphael such as the 44 Apollo and Marsyas; ” an offence aggravated by his often recorded conviction of its authenticity and his unquenched superlative admiration of its supreme excellence. By his maudlin sally, therefore, of February the 21st, 1867, he gave himself the lie , and thus, amply 44 admitted the „ conclusion at lohich I arrived with regard to his conduct and duty;'" his bounden duty to the Nation, 44 by every tie of honor as well as of office ” respecting Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas: ” 44 To lapse in fulness Is sorer than to lie in need; and falsehood Is worse in Kings than beggars. ” Commenting 44 the Clique who rule the destinies of Trafalgar Square, ” and 44 those in the loftier regions of place who patronize and uphold the misdoings of their underling minions in office, ” a Peer wrote: 44 It does not often happen that the culprit becomes his own executioner. ” Lo ! further exemplified in the Hero of 44 A Chapter of Autobiography, ” so rare and racy an Expiation. But Mr. Gladstone and Lord Clarendon are not the only members of the Gladstone Cabinet who have here received documentary testimony to render 44 doubt, indefensible; 5 ’ therefore, not the only ones conscious that Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” is eminently one of those 44 somethings reckoned among the greatest productions of which mankind has been the author; ” hence, 44 radically associated with the true development of human excellence; ” and so, of “ great National importance. ” Simultaneously at Rome, in the autumn of 1866, with the present First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, were the Duke of Argyll and Mr. Cardwell: the one, now Secretary of State for India; the other, for War. To the former, with the same documentary testimony, I sent, mut at is mutandis, a duplicate of my letter to Lord Clarendon. That documentary testimony is epitomized in my subjoined communication to Mr. Gregory, M. P., a /Trustee of the National Gallery. The letter ran thus: 44 Mr. Morris Moore avails himself of the Duke of Argyll’s pre¬ sence in Pvome, to formally invite his Grace's attention to the 89 accompanying printed Documents relating to a Masterpiece long since pronounced by the recognized artistic authorities of Europe a work of Raphael, singular for its beauty even among the crea¬ tions of the incomparable Master. “ Superfluous were it for Mr. Morris Moore to dwell upon the fact accepted by all of any pretension to culture that Rome, the arena of Raphael’s greatest achievements, must ever remain Um¬ pire on what concerns Raphael; a fact the more conspicuous from Rome's being the Centre to which all artistic authority inevitably gravitates; whence Rome’s voice that of the artistic intelligence of the World. “ Mr. Morris Moore desires it to be distinctly understood that e invites the Duke of Argyll’s consideration of these printed Do¬ cuments as Matter of National Importance, and solely inreference to his Grace's position as a member of the English Parliament , bound to give his earnest attention to whatever may touch the interest and dignity of his country. “ Rome , Thursday , Dec. 6, 1866, 44 P. S.—In further elucidation of his subject. Mr. Morris Moore incloses copies of letters to the 4 Examiner ’ of March 23rd, and 1 Morning Post 9 of June the 10th, 1850, from Mr. Janies Sped- ding and Lord Elcho. 44 His Grace the Duke of Argyll? In addressing Mr. Cardwell, a member of that body of the State to which exclusively we confide the Supplies, I suited my matter to his function. Retaining the two first para¬ graphs and the postscript of my letter to his colleague, I varied the third and added a fourth, as follows : 44 1 desire it to be distinctly understod that I challenge your at¬ tention to these printed Documents , as matter of National impor¬ tance, and solely, in view of your capacity as member of an As¬ sembly to which the English Commons, of whom I am a compo¬ nent and hence one of your constituents , intrust the honest and provident expenditure of the money jointly by them contributed for the machinery of good governement in every Department of the Commonwealth. 90 “ I must not desist without directing your attention to a fact long throughout Europe severely commented; namely, that while our highly-salaried Art-of/icials have been scouring the Continent, there lavishing thousands upon thousands of our money on me¬ diocrity and on worse , a consummate masterpiece by Raphael, a work 4 universally acknowledged to be a first-rate specimen of the finest period of Italian Art, 3 and rescued from oblivion by an Englishman , has to the detriment and discredit of England, been systematically and perversely passed by through the notorious personal hostility of those incapable and unscrupulous men to its rescuer and possessor. “ I am, Sir, your obediently, “ MORRIS MOORE. ci Rome, Sunday, Nov. 18, 1866. “ The Rt. Horn. Edward Cardwell , M. V. 33 Mr. Bright has told us of obscure men , by accident or party, raised for a few months into the position of Ministers of the Crown ” (a). Although the same that I addressed with fairer result to Lord Clarendon, the Marquis of Sligo, the Duke of Northumberland, and other members of our Legislature, neither the Duke of Argyll, nor his 64 Right Honorable ” colleague of the Commons, so much as noticed the receipt of my communications. But basely-inspired evasion of public duty , and disregard of common civility to one whose widely-enrolled title to other usage overtops their utmost likelihood, (speed me these pages !), leave the twin Secretaries of State whom Mr. Bright's definement so nicely fits (for, who beyond our Island ever heard of themV) r none the less witnesses to the National import of my matter; none the less witnesses that u doubt is indefensible; ” none the less witnesses, then, to the English official conspiracy which drove from England, a u universally pronounced first-rate specimen of the finest period of Italian Art; and, (a) Speech at Rochdale, Friday, Jan. 25. 1867. 91 therefore, make them endorsers of 44 the conclusion at which I arrived with regard to- the conduct and duty ” of that instrument of Public Expenditure in Art, as in all else, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone. Be it understood that I neither sought, nor anticipated visits from the members of our Legislature here named. Unprofessional men, their estimate of the masterpiece itself had naught affected my issue. Their knowledge of the documentary testimony sufficed me. This explanation is due to those members of our Legislature who felt it unworthy their position to neglect inspection of so highly asserted a Raphael. 44 Perseverance keeps honor bright. ” Resolute not to halt in my vindication of Raphael and of Right, I addres¬ sed, in the ensuing May and June, two members of the lately expelled Cabinet, by Mr. Bright well christened 44 a shuffling and offensive Cabinet; ” namely, the Earl of Derby, Prime Minister, and Lord Stanley, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. To each I transmitted the same documents as to Lord Clarendon, Mr. Gladstone, the Duke of Argyll, and Mr. Cardwell. Each, therefore, no less than these, is a witness for my indictment. My original business with Lord Stanley was a complaint provoked by the gross and collusive insolence of an official reply from another responsible English witness to Rome’s acclamatory reception of Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas,” namely, one Joseph Severn, his immediate subaltern, to whom also I sent the Documents; a scurvy knave foisted by High Favor into the English Consulship here, whose uniformly ignominious demeanour besmirches to its utmost stretch,the virtue of his function, as has, to our taint, too long been a theme both for Romans and strangers. 92 Lord Stanley’s reply combined the prescriptive stolidity and chicanery of office with the arrogance of his breed. The pith of my complaint he stupidly and coarsely eluded. But the 14 promising young Statesman ” of the Luxembourg Treaty and of the Alabama Convention, a monarchial mean¬ ness condignly spurned by a magnanimous Republic, 'was not to escape rejoinder. On our respective views of official duty, as told in my exordium, he staked our issue: a If I rejoin, it is not for pastime, but to deny categorically, in justice to myself and in the name of common sense and of good government, your astounding proposition, that a question of Art recognized by civilized Society to be of universal significance, is c a question in no way connected with the duties * of a public servant whose appointment as English Consul at Rome, the Ca¬ pital of Art, was announced to have been made on the specifie ground of k his w el -known (!) knowledge of Art, and the interest he took in matters concerning it. In direct and peremptory contradiction of so false , so 'perni¬ cious an assertion, I maintain that a public servant, whatever his rank, sciently failing to notify any conceivable matter by univer¬ sal consent of moment to his Constituent Community, stands, by such default, guilty of untrustiness, breach of bounden duty and of contract, delinquencies demanding forfeiture of office: a judge¬ ment to which those only will demur whose wits, or whose notions of honesty, are enmeshed in red tape. Pushed to its last conse-. quences, your doctrine would unhinge and undo all government • a consummation to which our experience of 4 the insolence of ofdce ’ might perchance speedily reconcile usT “ A fool layeth open his folly. ” In the Session of 1867, a Committee of the House of Commons resolved that, for having failed to report to the Home Government the projected dispersion of “ the valuable Woodhouse Collection of Anti¬ quities, ” the English Consul-General at Corfu was guilty of “a breach of duty. ” 93 In appealing to Lord Derby, I endeavoured to tire him with a spirit worthy England’s Prime Minister. Suspend¬ ing my contempt for his 44 base surrenders and ignoble compliances, ” a right patrician lection of his motto, 44 Sans changer, ” and for the swoln pride that affects procreation by God’s special patent, maybe by Jupiter himself, I dreamed for an instant, from his attempt as an Expounder of Homer, that a congenial theme might awaken a congenial chord. Suffice here my peroration: 44 If I have dwelt upon the utterances of unprofessional , and therefore imperfect authority, I have not failed to support them by the highest. But Mr. Gladstone^ were no new undigested specu¬ lations. Immemorially consecrated truths, they became, when adopted and proclaimed by so important a functionary as a Chan¬ cellor of the Exchequer , a formal recognition by the Government with which he acted, of the paramount utility of Art; a recogni¬ tion that can ill be disowned by a Government marshalled by an Expounder of Homer. 44 A master-spirit has bequeathed, that 4 a Parliament is no more than the Supreme and General Council of a Nation, consisting of whomsoever chosen and assembled for the Public Good/ This condition, to which each and all its components are pledged, espe¬ cially points to yourself, now the most prominent and most res¬ ponsible member of the English Parliament. 44 In the performance of a duty , and in the exercise of my right , as an Englishman, abstraction made of all private consi¬ deration; as an owner, therefore, of the Estate whereof you are actually Chief Administrator, I claim from you full investigation of a matter, by the unanimous verdict of the intellectual world and by high official assertion, 4 radically associated ’ with the loftiest conception of Public Good, the end to which every office and function of Public Trust, every preferment and distinction, hereditary or other, owes its origin. 44 No one presiding over the destinies of England can slight a work of Art such as the 4 Apollo and Marsyas,’ a Raphael' hailed as in some wise unique, and of peculiar interest to England, by 94 its affordirg further and no mean opportunity for proving us ‘ not beneath the reach of any point the highest that human capacity can soar to,’ without stamping himself ungifted with those aspi¬ rations which should be 4 the first head and spring ’ of his every thought and action. His it is to gather up each Sibylline leaf as he may find it; his to garner it in our Capitol. 44 Scarcely a fortnight since, with the grave accent of highest authority delegated by the Nation , you urged that 4 we all have our duties to perform, and are bound to perform them to the best of our ability, in the service of our country.’ “ To doubt that you will here perceive a duty to perform, were a sorry estimate of your sagacity; to doubt that you will perform this duty 4 to the best of your ability,’ an impeachment of your honor. 44 From you, then, this matter awaits the one solution, by upright, refined, and patriotic men, declared imperative, and too long deferred. 44 Your pursuits; the dignities and the privileges which you derive from our collective significance; yonr recent avowal of bounden subjection to your Country’s service; your very escutcheon , unless the glib phrase, Noblesse oblige , be other than a sterile pleasantry; each and ik/bid'and obhge you, as well for the honor as 4 in the service of your Countryf to not remain insensible to a creation of truly Homeric savor, the illustrious parentage of which efiulges by' inherent worth , and is proclaimed by an accu¬ mulation of testimony unparagoned. Lord Derby still owes acknowledgment of this Appeal. 44 What foolish master taught him these manners? ” The debt smacks of the 44 indecorousness and woful aberration of judgement ” fastened upon him on the 30th of April, 1867, by Mr. Gladstone. 44 Let a beast be lord of beasts, ” and the sagest of Sages has said where 44 his crib shall stand. ” 44 Spacious in the possession of dirt, ” little in all else, his, Lordship disdains what some deem the decencies of life. Yet w r hat could Raphael on a soul steeped in 44 ' 'trick and contrivance ” to 44 dish the Whigs!”— 95 14 Ma perch6 frode 6 delFuom proprio male, Piu spiace a Dio; e perd stan di sutto Gli frodolenti, e piu dolor gli assale.” (a) His Hippocrenian draughts inspire him but the slang of the Turf; while our quaintly dubbed “ Lords Spiritual, ” as quaintly, also 14 Right Reverend Fathers in God, ” docile to the lofty teaching, catch an itch for Derby diction, and crave 44 a fair start for the Church of Christ, ” to wit, that 44 house of merchandize, ” that 44 Right Reverend ” fraud upon God, our pious Premier’s latest Dido , 44 the Established Church of Ireland: ” 44 Hauriat hunc oculis ignem crudelis ab alto Dardanus, et nostrae secum ferat omina mortis.” Such the men who bestride us! 44 The working-classes of England, ” says Lord Derby, instancing their superior sagacity, 44 have a deep respect ” for his caste , and 44 no desire to curtail its hereditary rights (!) and privileges: ” 44 1 had as lief not be, as live to be In awe of such a thing as I myself.” But, in Rome, no valider responsible English witness to the fame and irrefragable authenticity of Raphael's 44 Apollo and Marsyas,” than Mr. Odo Russell, our permissive di¬ plomatic Agent here. As far back as the 12th of February, 1861, the Secretary Perpetual of St. Luke’s Academy wrote: 44 There is not, I believe, an artist in Rome among the cele¬ brated ones here of every Nation, who does not repute the picture of ‘Apollo and Marsyas’ a magnificent work of Raphael.” The same could Mr. Odo Russell long since have testified (a) “ But whereas fraud is man’s peculiar stain, God hates it most, and hence the fraudulent Are placed below and rack’d by greater pain.” Dante's “Hell/ 3 C. xi. 96 to our Government. Nor lack there who opine, that, in return for the thousands wherewith we have fed this favored younger scion , this 44 mildew'd ear, ” during his decennial dolce far nientc in the Capital of Art, few feats could he have added to his miming , and capering , and sol-fa-ing greater than a faithful endeavor to enrich England with a gem of Art, vouched by Frederick Overbeck to have been 44 recognized by all Europe as a Raphael,” and by our actual Prime Minister, hailed the very “ work one co s uld wish Raphael had painted. ” Although of little enhancement to his prior knowledge, I nevertheless, on the 9th of April, 1858, sent him, as matter of highly asserted 44 National importance, ” and therefore linked with his honor as well as with his office , the wonted Documents; and I accompanied them with a letter, reminding him that, 44 from his long residence in Rome, and the constant mention of Raphael's 4 Apollo and Marsyas ’ in all classes of Roman Society, and in the various local journals , official and other, it was a necessary inference that the subject could not but have long been ( familiar to him; ” an infe¬ rence too obvious to be denied in his reply. It has been seen that, in the preceding November, these Documents had sufficed to elicit from Lord Clarendon, that doubt was indefensible ” Eight years of residential expe¬ rience, in addition, that, with ever increasing rapture, Rome had affirmed the 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” to be, not only by Raphael, but the most exquisite obtainable work of Art seen here within the present generation , could scarcely have left Mr. Odo Russell more sceptical than his immediate chief, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Vigilance, moreover, of salient passing events is the very argument of his function. Consequently, an honor without 97 precedent paid to the critical acumen of a fellow-citizen not altogether obscure, an honor become the artistic event and topic of the day, was not likely to escape his notice. As remotely, then, as the 13th of February, 1863, the Osserva - tore Romano , the Roman journal of widest circulation, had announced, and on the 14th repeated, not to speak of ite¬ ration in other Roman publications, that the tributes won from so many European Art-centres, by “ the magnificent picture of Sanzio, the ‘ Contest between Apollo and Marsyas, ’ discovered a few years since in London by the Englishman Morris Moore, and by him owned, ” had just been crested by Rome, with the following exhaustive ratification: “ Rome , December 20, 1862. “ Sir, —The Commission of the Pontifical Chalcographic Depart¬ ment, composed of Professors, The Commendatore Tommaso Mi¬ nardi, (1) Pietro Folo, (2) the Commendatore Pietro Tenerani, (3) the Commendatore Antonio Sarti, (4; the Cavaliere Paolo Mercuri, (5) Director of the Pontifical Chalcographic Department, the Cavaliere Alessandro Capalti. (6) Niccola Consoni, (7) Giuseppe Marcucci, (8) acting coadjutor to the Director of the Pontifical Chalcographic Department—at a meeting held on the 15th of the present De¬ cember, charged me to signify to you that the said Commission, ever bent on enriching the collection of the Establishment to the advantage of Art and unanimous upon the utility of the choice , earnestly desires that you would allow a drawing to be made from the famous picture by Raphael Sanzio, representing ‘ Apollo and Marsyas,’ whereof you are possessor, that it may then be faithfully reproduced in an engraving and published at the charge of the Chalcographic Department itself, a homage due to so illu¬ strious a work, and to its immortal author. “ Professor Consoni will undertake to superintend the drawing assuming its entire responsibility, and, in order to further insure success, the Commission would suggest that the same Professor should take a tracing of the picture with his own hand. a Having fulfilled the superior command, nothing more now Gr 93 remains for me than to subscribe myself with the most profound re¬ spect, Sir. “ Your most devoted obedient servant, “ GIAMBATTISTA BORANI, “ The Secretary to the Commission “ of the Pontifical Chalcographic Department. u Mr. Morris Moore , Rome. What more required to render “ doubt indefensible?” what more to prove clear and indefeasible , the title of the 6 Apollo and Marsyas ’ to a place in our National Col - lection ? ” what more to convict the Trustees of the National Gallery, indeed the Government, but especially those suc¬ cessive 64 instruments ” of Public Expenditure, Messieurs Chancellors of the Exchequer Disraeli, Lewis, and Gladstone, of betraying a 44 bounden duty in suffering so important a work to leave the Country? ” After the 44 unjustifiable treatment ” which I have met with, 44 at the hands of those who look upon themselves as the exponents of the Public's ivishes, ” as Lord Onslow above attests, what interpretation, save the most sinister, remains for the persistent neglect of so famous a Raphael, while in England, and for the preference since given to the Boxall seven-thousand-pounds vamped-up counterfeit Rembrandt, and to the obscure mediocrities labelled 44 Fra Carnovale, Giovanni Oriolo, Bono Ferrarese, Tura, Yander Goes, Dierich Bouts, ” and the like, collusively purchased by the same Boxall , for three thousand five hundred pounds from Eastlake's relict , to falten a fraudulently bestoioed pension ? what interpretation, save—conspiracy? For 4C startling facts, ” says Mr. Gladstone, 44 strongest language ” (a). And one scarcely inferior: 4t All words (a) Letter No. 1 to Lord Aberdeen on the Neapolitan Govarnment. Mnr- ray, 1851. 99 -excellent in their place—even foul ones. ” Thus, on my title-page, Quintilian. Nor is this argument without other authority, ancient and modern, highest and infinite. To my facts, then, by special license from our Premier , the care of my language. Embezzlement of public money;—garbling of evidence;— a false and calumnious Report by a Parliamentary Committee, a Report publicly repudiated by the very Chairman; —suborna¬ tion;—re-instatement of an ignominiously tauce-expelled, self- avowed incompetent official, even with quintupled, emoluments, an infamy pronounced by a high University dignitary, “ a gross Job perpetrated icith unexampled levity and sang¬ froid, ” and by Lord Onslow, “ a gross and pointed insult to the People, out-Heroding Herod in unreachable impudence, and beyond all credence /”—prostituted pensions; —Jobbery- rampant in every Department of the Public Service;— political denouncement , with unprovoked invasion of an Englishman's liberty, abroad, not only unsalved by apology, but, at a hint from London, capped by invasion of International Laiv, namely, summary expulsion from the arbitrary State, the double outrage being hushed up, hence, countenanced , by our Foreign Office; — official conspiracy, at home, “ to starve out, literally to starve out, ” the man whose loudly-recorded “ performance of most important services to the Country.” (a) had marked him for “ the enmity of aristocratic and courtly circles ”— “ Tanto a fortuna chi ben fa dispiace!” (b) — barter of the Public Thing for the Royal smile, and other ministerial perfidy; —England’s interest and honor, a holo¬ caust to the “ Hell-born Spirit of Revenge;”—high secret (a) W. Coningham. M. P. for Brighton, House of Commons, March 25, 1859. ( b) “ So much who rightly acts, displeaseth Fortune.”— Maeehiavclli. 100 influence busy with a “ free press, ” to stifle the utterarice once keenly solicited and unstintingly encouraged, and thu§ stifle the “ one thing in a free country more clear than another, that any one of the People may speak freely to the People —“duty, honor, the character of the Country , truth, justice, decency, and fair play, ” sanctimoniously invoked, the better to trample on them; —yesterday, at the helm of the State, Cynicism now “ servile and pompous,” now “shuffling and impudent; ” to-day, Hypocrisy incar¬ nate; in brief, the scum ever surging;— what facts mora “ startling? ” inhere, more urgent, “the strongest language?” where , “ foul words ” more “ in their place? ” Eternity's chill breath already fanning me, I lack the time, still more the vein , for miring my soul with the hypocrisy of treating as “ noblemen and gentlemen, ” such as have proved them¬ selves neither noble, nor gentle. My discretion gaged by my facts, even let my thrice- convicted, thrice- branded, cowardly, ambushed , ensnarers hug what balance in their favor they can snatch. Though worried, though bled, to exhaustion, by the “ scoun¬ drels of all sizes surrounding me, ” still, naught will I abate of language so authoritatively and multitudinously sanctio¬ ned ; so legitimate an issue of my facts. This endless ordeaL but nerves me to not compound with villainy; to not forfeit my one solace, the golden opinions won at home and abroad , from “ good and loyal men. ” Grant me again the op¬ portunity notoriously once mine in our press, but, despite the panegyrics so often showered upon me by the latter— despite, too, my brave fresh titles to its support, long since fdched from me by secret pressure; grant me, I say, only fair play, formerly an Englishman’s no idle boast, though now so illegible on our escutcheon, and, tv we to my antecedents. 101 I impawn myself to give, without “respect of persons, ” whatever the number or the quality of the pack, such an account of the bloodhounds fanging me, and of “ those in the loftier regions of place who patronize and uphold i\e misdoings of their underling minions in office, ” as shall convince the most sceptical how potent, even in hands the feeblest, is Truth, whosoever the champions of Falsehood. By driving me to hay, my pursuers have crowned their infamies by an insult to all Englishmen not of their alloy. They hereby rate them as too pusillanimous and slavish to vindicate their own interests and honor against men abusing a power from themselves derived; too pusillanimous and slavish to stand by a fellow-citizen hounded to ruin by those unworthy stewards, for exercising in matter by universal consent of highest moment to the People, that “ clearest of all things in a free country, that any one of the People may speak freely to the People. ” For the interest, then, and honor of England, be that insult now met by signal proof that this diuturnal wrong, this dastardly conspiracy , this European Scandal, when plainly set before them, can rouse Englishmen to convince the world that “ truth, justice, decency, and fair play,” are still of English growth; still something more substantial than the jingle of a “ verbose ” and “ sanctimonious rhetoric. ” Here stands in unseemly relief, the broad, intelligible fact, that while wddest range was given by Messieurs Chancellors of the Exchequer Gladstone, Lewis, and Disraeli, for accu¬ mulating at insane prices, secondary and yet inferior pictures, not to mention spurious; —while Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone, in particular, was declaiming that those “ somethings which toe call pictures are reckoned among the greatest productions of which mankind has been author y ” 102 and that 44 nothing is more radically associated with the jrue development of human excellence than Art, ” a prede¬ termination, offspring of basest interests and passions, and abetted by those Ministers of State , was plotting, at the risk of its ultimate loss, to defraud England of a masterpiece, more than eighteen years since loudly asserted by Lord Elcho (I quote his testimony , not his judgment), to have already then been in England, 4 4 universally pronounced a first-rate specimen of the finest period of Italian Art , a ivork of Art of great National importance; —a masterpiece hailed by Mr. Gladstone himself, 4 the work one could wish Raphael had painted; ’ ” hence, a work consummately il¬ lustrating the Premier’s former above-cited propositions,, and inseparable from the meaning and scope of the latter;— a masterpiece, officially, corporately, and by highest artistic authority, individually, acclaimed in the chief Art-centres of the World, a Raphael unique rather than rare;—a mas¬ terpiece which, confronted with congeneric creations, mightiest here in Rome, the Empyrean of Raphael's splendor, so bravely held its own, that by 44 earnest desire” of a Commission chosen from among the most eminent artists, 44 unanimous as to utility of the choice , ” it is now engraving here at the public charge, 44 for the advantage of Art, ” and as 4 4 a homage due to so illustrious a work, and to its immortal author;”—a masterpiece, finally, whose resounding fame but yesterday drew from the Executive Committee of the Leeds National Exhibition of Works of Art, the spontaneous , emphatic solicitation and assurance, that I, 44 would render the important service to the Exhibition of contributing to it the famous Picture of 4 Apollo and Marsyas, ’ by Raphael; 99 and that 44 the great interest which attached to it would command for 103 it a first-rate place in that Exhibition, or indeed in any other. ” Compliance had been insensate. My refusal, as expressed in the subjoined letter to Mr. William Beckett Denison, Chairman of the Executive Committee, I shaped by the prompt, unanimous, and peremptory dissuasion of various authori¬ tative men here, personally cognizant of the English official conspiracy so invetarately rankling to my ruin. The two following letters from Italians, men of literary distinction and established character, and, like Chief Justice Sir George Alfred Arney, professional sifters of Evidence, sum the counsel given me: “ Rome, April 10, 1868. “ Most esteemed and dear Friend,— After the unheard of warfare since many years waging against Raphael’s marvellous picture of 'Apollo and Marsyas,’ which you had the high fortune to discover in Great Britain, and the tenebrous intrigues of those who envy you the possession of that divine work, continuing unabated, it shall never be my advice that you yield to the invitation to send it to the Leeds Exhibition. “ I am willing to believe in the upright intentions of those who promoted the invitation; yet I cannot but see danger in the return of the picture to that country where, for the sole object of injuring the possessor, attempts were made with such impudence and inve¬ teracy to undermine it. “ The 6 Apollo and Marsyas’ is by your means, in Rome; in Rome which may be called Raphael’s royal mansion, and here recognized and reverenced by as many as have eyes to see, and love to comprehend , the heavenly ray of the Beautiful. Here all to whom is dear this Home of Art, desire that the 'Apollo and Marsyas,’ a work which marks an epoch in Raphael's history , may perpetually signalize it to the studious, by entering, as though its paternal dwelling, the Vatican Museum. “ To send the 'Apollo and Marsyas^ to the Leeds Exhibition, as regards achieving for it further reputation, were useless : it. 104 might be damaging to yourself, by offering fresh opportunity for the evil arts and subdolous insinuations of your remorseless enemies; and, doubtless, its return from Italy to England would cause us to run the risk of again losing it. “ I therefore beg of you, as well as I know and can, to not yield to this solicitation , be it even sincerest, and .thus, to not bereave Italy (which from your long residence here is to you a new home) of this 'precious gem , which renders her crown more adorned and more noble. “ Preserve me your valued friendship, and believe me “ Your most affectionate friend, “ ORLANDO GARBARINI, Barrister. “ Mr. Morris Moore, Rome” Rome, May 6, 1868. “ Most esteemed and dear Mr. Morris Moore,— Whoever has in reverence the name and the works of Raphael Sanzio would have wished that, responding to the invitation addressed to you, you had sent to the Exhibition at Leeds, the 4 Apollo and Marsyas ’ of which you are the envied possessor, and which, by the judgment of the most intelligent , must be considered one of the wondrous works of the immortal artist. By so doing, you would have con¬ tributed, not so much te your own interest, as to the advantage of Art. “ But as you have honored me with your confidence by inter¬ rogating me on this subject, I am bound in candor to not dissemble my opinion. “ After what has befallen you of iniquitous and bestial, through your ill-wishers, who, with all the expedients of warfare, now open , r ow occult, and with the craftiest insinuations of envy, have made it their study to compromise the signal importance of your treasure', after all this , would you hazard its fate at a Public Exhibition whither not a few of those same malevolent individuals will repair, since thither invited, and where would be renewed, even with aggravation, examples of their treachery? I well know how ill these have succeeded here in Rome, which, being at once the Major arena of Pictorial Art and the great theatre of Raphael's 105 glory, could not be led astray, nor seduced from the rectitude of its judgment. But where, as regards our subject, the public mind is not fortified by such exceptional guarantees, could you rely on a happy issue for your Picture? Do not forget that always, but especially in the present times, the arts of tricksters sway the gross sense of the masses, and that, in certain cases, a single word artfully dropped, a subdolous interrogation, nay, even a cunning reticence, is sufficient to delude and mystify a Public which likes to doubt, even where inclined to admire. No one can contest you the Glory of possessing one of the ori¬ ginal masterpieces of Sanzio. Endeavour to maintain this glory, and reserve the exhibition of your ‘Apollo and Marsyas,’ for those better occasions in which the tooth of sottish malevolence will fang in vain . “ I have spoken with all sincerity, and with equal sincerity I profess myself, “ Your most affectionate servant and friend, “ANTONIO STEFANUCCI ALA, Barrister . “ Mr. Morris Moore, Rome On the 29th of March in this same year, 1869, commenting before the famous masterpiece, 44 the testimony to its au¬ thenticity from high authority, as a work of Raphael, ’’ Lord Taunton emphatically said: if it came to a verdict, you would carry your point before any tribunal. ” What graver endorsement of my indictment against 44 the scoundrels of all sizes surrounding me ? ” what more damning rebuke to 44 those in the loftier regions of place who patronize and uphold the misdoings of their underling minions in office?” what more thorough admission of 44 the unjusti¬ fiable treatment 99 which I have met with 44 at the hands of those who look upon themselves as the exponents of the People's wishes? what plainer approval of 44 the conclusion at which I arrived with regard to the conduct and duty 99 of the Right Honorable William Ewart Gladstone, England’s actual Prime Minister. 106 My fate frowns on every Englishman who, like myself unvizored , may responsibly and unflinchingly devote expe¬ rience and fortunes to combat royal encroachment, ministe¬ rial servility , and the arrogatiou of a caste who, belying the meaning, usurp the name of 44 aristocracy.” If these be indeed our best, then are we at extreme unction ! To the echo I reiterate, that this matter strikes straight home to every englishman not stealing to preferment and profit by 44 the stinking purlieus of the Court,” or by the cloaca of Downing Street. It is matter that wounds the Heart itself of Freedom. Apart from discussing our hybrid 44 Constitution,” by¬ knaves and their tools ycleped 44 glorious, ” a skulking Des¬ potism with its irresponsible Monarch; 44 hedged,” not by 44 divinity,” but by cringing Ministers ; its titled 44 arrogan- cies and flatteries,” and inhuman Primogeniture, their con¬ genial spawn; its crazy anomaly, a Senate of born Legis¬ lators , and a 44 House of* Commons ” so stuffed with the azure caste as to render its title a brazen mockery; apart, I say, from probing this triple imposture which has sunk England to one huge Balaklava (behold ! our Foreign Office , our National Gallery , as shewn in my subjoined letter to Mr. Trustee Gregory, or whichsoever Department of the Public Service) it is to the Septennial Act, that aristocratic and courtly juggle to cheat us of our vaunted conquest of self-government, that we must turn for no slight cause of our leprosy. The Septennial Act existing , mention of real Reform is derisory, and the aspirant to lead in a Reform movement who makes not its repeal, with substitution of triennial parliaments at longest his fulcrum , either a traitor or beneath his assumption. Essential , moreover, until En¬ glishmen dare vote manfully with sun-lit brow, the ballot; 107 an expedient to which our Protean Premier abjuring on the altar of his 44 dirty Gods 4 ’ in Downing Street, yet an ar¬ ticle of his once boisterously boasted creed, as 44 a member of the Conservative party in one of the great families of European nations /’ will happily, after forty years' oppo¬ sition , soon be 44 educated.” Upon the septennial juggle , hear an authoritative writer : “ With regard to any influence of the constituent over the con¬ duct of the representative, there is little difference between a seat in Parliament for seven years and a seat for life. The prospect of your resentment is too remote; and although the last session of a Septennial Parliament be usually employed in courting the favor of the people, consider that, at this rate, your representa¬ tives have six years for offence , and but one for atonement. A death-bed repentance seldom reaches to restitution. Reflect that though other reliefs, or improvements, have been held forth to the People, yet that no man in office has ever promoted, or encoura¬ ged, a bill for shortening the duration of parliaments , but that, whoever was Minister, the opposition to this measure, ever since the Septennial Act passed, has been constant and uniform on the part of the Government. All Ministers have a general interest in adhering to a system which, of itself, is sufficient to support them in office, without any assistance from personal virtue, popu¬ larity, labor, abilities, or experience. It promises every gratification to avarice and ambition , and secures impunity Golden words these, and never more opportune than now, that, resorting to a stale fetch to mask their delinquencies, the Jobbers-in-chief loudest in the clamor against Jobbery, stentoriously voice that they , forsooth! must say, with re¬ gard to the whole of our great spending Departments , that they can express nothing that approaches to satisfaction , or approvalSpending Departments! What “ spending De¬ partments ” greater , what costlier, when jobbed than the educational ? for here, a single disbursement settles not the 108 scot, but each false step bodes either perennial loss, mate¬ rial and moral, or sacrifice infinite to retrace it. With septennial parliaments, Bribery and sham bribery Inquests must remain our principle of government. With regard to these Inquests, not longer ago than the 5th of last March, Mr. Harcourt declared in the House of Com¬ mon., that “the effect of some of the recent decisions de¬ livered by the judges appointed to try election petitions would be, that, if a general election took place to-morrow it would be the most corrupt that had ever occurred in En¬ gland He added, that “ the provisions for preventing the collusive withdrawal of election petitions had completely broken down” So much for our bribery inquests and for the judges who preside at them ? Brilliant prospects, ve¬ rily, for to-morrow s contingency ? But what of the eve* now the question paramount? Has it not begotten a House of Commons by the self-same machinery that must beget its successor? Bid no “collusive withdrawal of election peti¬ tions, ” no still vaster corruption incident to the last general election, escape detection ? No black sheep now in the West¬ minster fold ! Has the fifth labor of Hercules been re¬ newed ! Short reckonings, then, and protection for the voter: op¬ portunity offering, “we are arrant knaves, all:" “ There^s nothing level in our cursed natures, But direct villainy. ” The vituperation so discriminatively reciprocated by our “ grave wrinkled Senate,’' as well as by the other “ rabble,” for the nonce unanimously and bountifully liberal , illustrates the apophthegm of the Supreme Englishman; while it affords admiring Europe no untimely demonstration, that truth has not quite forsaken St. Stephen’s. 109 Responsability is the soul of order; frequent audit , the soul of responsibility: in inverse ratio, therefore, to the duration of parliaments, the responsibility of the represen¬ tative to the constituent. Retribution ever in the slips, the least scrupulous of Ministers equally with the most abject of parliamentary self-seekers, would each hesitate, the one, to throw, the other, to swallow the sop. Bribery become of ill presage, our General Elections, now Bacchanalia wherein, alimented alike by frontless men and unseated wo¬ men , Corruption, casting oif the last shred of decency, reels shameless through the land, would shine by sober canvass and patriotic voting. England would then cease to mark the culmination of the sovereign Florentine’s blasting Re¬ proach : 44 Ogni uom barattier, fuor che Bonturo : Del No, per li denar, vi s| fa Ita; ” (a) while “ the Liberty ” fervently invoked by the Author of Areopagitica, “ above all liberties,” and the Right claimed by Mr. Bright, for “any one of the People,” now realities, our wealth would cease to u flow into the graceless and injurious hands of common sponges to the impoverishing of good and loyal men,” who might devote their unbought services to the Commonwealth, eager to contribute their mite, in what form soever, towards “ the true development of human excellence.” When those violators of u truth, justice, decency, and fair play,” our “ Statesmen ” whose statesmanship periodi- (a) Equivalently Englished: “ There every man's a jobber, except Gladstone; Of 4 No !' for money’s greed there make they 4 Yes. ’ ”— Dante's ri Hell/' C. xxi. The annotator tells us that Bonturo was “ the foulest of Lucchese job¬ bers, and that (like Gladstone) he at last sold his party/' no cally explodes with ignominious avowals of misrule and rabid recriminations of 44 fraud and dissimulation,” 44 trick and contrivance,” 44 personal ambition, 44 servility,” 44 breach of faith,” and cognate obliquity, a tribe that 44 gives of man,” avers Mr. Bright 44 an inferior notion • ” (a) — when those violators of 44 truth, justice, decency, and fair play,” I say, had else long been swept into the oblivion of congeneric dirt , the pure and immortal name of Him who: u -----vies With all we know of Heaven, or can desire. In what he hath bequeath'd us; ”— of Him whose hallowed relics, inurned in the 44 Sanctuary and Home of Art and Piety,” inspired the noble Epitaph : 44 llle hie est Raphael timuit quo sospite vinci, Rerum magna Parens, et moriente mori,” (b) may still quicken these pages with virtue to infamize them for every true worshipper of Genius, as its sordid and sacrilegious assailants. MORRIS MOORE, Senior. Rome , 1869. (a) Bright’s Speech at the Welsh Reform Association in Liverpool, June, 1868 . (b) “ Here lies that Raphael by whom the Great Parent of all Things dreaded defeat, and, He dying, feared to die.”— Cardinal Bembo. TO WILLIAM HENRY GREGORY, ESQ., M.P. A TRUSTEE OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY. TO William Henry Gregory, Esq. M., P., A TRUSTEE OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY. It is better to be undiscerning than to be disingenuous, which several of your adversaries have proved themselves to be. Somewhat more than either ignorance, or disingenuousness r has been shown bg them toward You. Could they not creep to the footstool of a High Patron by a path less slippery and tortuous ? —Letter from W. S. Landor to Morris Moore, “ You deserve the thanks of all who take an interest in Art, for bringing before the Public the conduct of the guardians (sic) of our Collection.”— Letter from Lord Eleho to Morris Moore. “ I know that intrHgue and debasing influences have been, and are likely to contiuue, at work for the degradation of Art."—Letter from Lieut.-Gen _ Sir William Napier to Morris Moore. “ Of your Apollo I can only say, Serus in coelum redeat. You have been to him a true Admetus; a most staunch and indomitable protector from the insults of the boors among whom he has stooped to dwell Letter from the Rev. Dr. W. H. Thompson to Morris Moore. “ No attestation, nor monogram, nor sketch, nor study of any kind is needed to certify that this precious picture, ‘ Apollo and Marsyas, ’ is by Raphael's own hand. In this his work, the youthful Master proclaims himself to the world in accents unmistakable. It is a picture of which 1 am truly enamoured."—From Frederick Overbeck to Morris Moore. “ Have you no wit, manners, nor honesty? "—Shakespeare. Sir, On the 30th of last May, now almost a year ago, addressing you in your twofold capacity, as Trustee of our National Gallery and member of our Parliament, hence both specially and generally bound to safeguard our interests and honor, I forwarded you a communication respecting the Raphael in my possession, representing the Contest between “ Apollo and Marsyas,” everywhere acknowledged to be the most transcendent work of Pictorial Art alienable in our generation. The renown of this Raphael throughout Europe, even before mv expatriation in »858, enforced, as was truly averred in the House of Commons on the 25th of March, 1859, by H 114 a notorious conspiracy; the tributes since paid to it in the first Art-centres of the Continent, as Paris, Munich, Dresden, Vienna, Venice, Milan, but with culminating significance in Rome, the palaestra of Raphael's might; in most of them, officially, in all , by the chief artistic authorities individually, the leading organs of European opinion fervidly iterating; my own particular prominence, moreover, in relation to Art in England, as substantiated in the superlative encomiums time after time awarded me by authoritative fellow-citizens and by our entire press, be it directly, or by verdict against my adversaries, combined to justify th3 inference, that a man of your parliamentary seniority, a Trustee , besides , of our National Gallery, the most ambitious- and responsible amateur function in England, demanding therefore in its incumbent, conversance with kindred contemporary matter of moment, must already be familiar with my subject, and not beneath the comprehension of its paramount bearing upon his duties. Nevertheless, as an incentive to action, I accompanied my communication with two publications respectively entitled: 4 4 Declarations respecting Raphael’s 4 Apollo and Marsyas , 1 by the Professors of the Classes of Painting and Sculpture of the Illustrious and Pontifical Roman Academy of Fine Arts , styled of St. Luke , and by other distinguished Painters , with Appendix and, 44 Sundry Documents relating to Raphael’s 4 Apollo and Marsyas ’ ” The former, as it comprised more copious official and local matter, was au¬ thenticated, on its title-page, by the name of the principal Roman official typographic establishment; each on its last, by the official Imprimatur. These publications contained: 1. Testimonies to the authenticity and special beauty of Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” from the Fine-Art Academies and cognate Bodies at Munich, Dresden, Vienna, Venice, and Milan. 2. Official articles from Official Journals in the said Capitals, 115 attesting the public exhibition of Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsias ” by official request, and with triumphant issue in all; the individual, corporate, and official honors tributed to it in each ; and the unanimity of acknowledged authorities, as to its genuineness and exceptional loveliness; unanimity which, in a Letter of Thanks from the Artists of Munich, found expression, as follows: 44 By the public exhibition of Raphael’s original pieture of 4 Apollo and Marshas,’ in your possession, you have afforded the artists and lovers of Art in this city, a bigh enjoyment which will live imperishable among their most cherished reminiscences. Public opinion has pronounced itself with rare unanimity on the enchanting beauty of this picture , which , with evidence undeniable, proclaims as its author, the glorious Urbinate. ” 3. Indexes to articles and essays upon Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marshas, ’ by distinguished Art-critics in leading conti¬ nental journals and periodicals; as, in the 44 Journal des Debats ” of March the 13th, 1858, by Mr. Delecluze; in the 44 Siecle ” of August the 20th, 1858, by Mr. Leon Batte; in the 44 Revue des Deux Mondes ” of July the 15th, 1858, by Viscount Henri Delaborde, Conservator of the Chalcographic Department at the Imperial Library ; in the v4 Const it utionneV 1 of December the 11th and 12th, 1858, by Mr. Tardieu; in the 44 Gazette des Beaux-Arts 99 of July the 1st, 1859; etc. 4. A Declaration in the Official Journal of Dresden by the eminent historical painter Schnorr, Director of the Dresden Gallery, Home of the Madonna di S. Sisto , announcing his 44 conviction that the 4 Apollo and Marsyas, ’ is the work of Raphael’s own hand. ” 5. A Letter of TJaanks from the President of the Archaeolo¬ gical Society of Vienna, for contributing Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas, ” to the public evening assembly convened by the Society in its honor, at the University of that Capital; in which Letter it is stated that 44 the members of the Society had been enabled to convince themselves, in the 116 most absolute manner , of the importance and authenticity of this great work of Art. ” 6. An official Letter from the Governor of Venetia, then an Austrian Province, whence the following: 44 Further, the Supreme Ministry of Instruction and Worship (at Vienna), in order to preserve so great a treasure as an original picture by Raphael from possible risk through incautious handling, has instructed the Presidency of this Vicegerency to take proper measures that no seal be affixed to it, and that, on your departure from Venice, the usual Custom-House ope¬ rations relating to the case , but particularly the opening of it at the frontiers, be dispensed with, and any other operation that might endanger its contents. ” 7. An emphatic Declaration of the patent authenticity and rare perfection of Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsvas, ” b 7 each of the twenty-four resident Professors of St. Luke’s Academy at Rome, painters and sculptors, including those holding the Chairs of Painting and Sculpture, the celebrated historical painters, Cornelius and Overbeck, with the not less celebrated sculptor, Tenerani, President of St. Luke’s Academy and Director General of the Pontifical Museums; some of them, as, for instance, Overbeck and Minardi, having deemed their admiration insufficiently recorded with less than three distinct Declarations, written at years of interval, and each more emphatic than its antecedent. 8. A letter from the Perpetual Secretary of St. Luke’s Academy, in which, after speaking for him.se f f 9 of “ Raphael’s incomparable picture of 4 Apollo and Marsyas, ” he testifies thus: 44 There is not, I believe, an artist in Rome, among the celebrated ones here of every nation, who does not repute the 4 Apollo and Marsyas’ a magnificent work of Raphael. ” 9. A Letter from the Roman Authorities, requesting me, 44 at the earnest desire ” of a Commission composed of leading artists, 44 unanimous as to the utility of the choice , to allow J17 a drawing to be made of the famous picture by Raphael Sanzio, representing 4 Apollo and Marsyas, ’ in order to faithfully reproduce it in an engraving to be published at the Government’s cost, for the advantage of Art, and as a homage due to so illustrious a work, and to its immortal Author; ” a Letter which has appeared in most of the European languages. To these publications, the contents of which I have but skimmed, I added letters from Mr. James Spedding and Lord Elcho, in the 44 Examiner of March the 23rd and 44 Morning Post ” of June the 10th, 1850, severally; in which each attests the great fame of Rapnael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” in England, even at that distant date, and the unanimity of the competent , as to its manifest authenticity and trans¬ cendent worth. On the 5th of June, with a promptness which augured well, and which I willingly recognize, you favoured me with the following: 44 House of Commons , June 5, 1867. 44 Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, and to thank you for the information you have forwarded me on the subject of the picture, w Apollo and Marsyas.’ I will send the Statements to Mr Boxall, the Director of the National Gallery. As a Trustee, it is not my function to urge or dissuade the Di¬ rector in the purchase of pictures. He is alone responsible to the Nation for the selection, and acts on his own judgment. “ I remain, your obedient Servant, t 4 W.H. GREGORY. 44 Morris Moore. Esq., Rome.'’ By the canons of decorum, as well as of duty, this involved your apprising me of Mr. Director Boxall’s reply to the Statements transmitted. I might here instance the sharp strictures passed upon your curtly designating, as 44 the picture, ” a Raphael ushered to you by circumstance so great; circumstance, I 118 insist, that enchained you to conviction of its authenticity circumstance potent to have ever elicited from the candid, and notably from Lord Clarendon, in November, 1866, here before the masterpiece itself, that 44 doubt teas indefen¬ sible. ” Or, I might cite the amenities of some upon the impavid dilettante , restive to a name so emulously and emphatically asserted by the most eminent professional authorities of Europe, yet, pleasant contrast! only a few weeks later, docile to the crazy nomenclature of a twice-disseized and self-confessed incompetent official, the purchaser simulta¬ neously of a sham Holbein and rejecter of a real Michael Angelo, at less than half the price of the counterfeit ; incompetent, save with four pair of subsidiary eyes, to recognize Raphael, even in our Vision of a Knight; —of whose 44 purchases and restorative operations, ” Mr. Arthur Otway averred in the House of Commons, on the 6th of April, 1856, that 44 every magazine of character, every newspaper worth anything, persons holding high positions in the profession and distinguished amateurs had commented them with severity, ” while of him, personally, that 44 the notions he had expressed were really so absurd, that any one having the slightest knowledge of Art, must have seen that they were entirely false; ” that, 44 the whole current o£ evidence was condemnatory of his management; ” and that 44 he stood condemned out of his own mouth;” —.of whom, on the same occasion, Mr. Harcourt Vernon, a member of the Committee of 1853 on the National Gallery, declared it 44 impossible that anyone who had heard his evidence before the Committee, could wish to see him Director of the National Gallery; 99 against whose re-appointment to the Directorship of the National Gallery, Lord Elcho likewise, then found it his 44 duty to the Public 99 to protest;—of whom, in brief, on the 6th of the following June, the same Lord Elcho, in the same place, testified: 44 Now, although he is President 119 of the Royal Academy and Director of the National Gallery,. his opinion has no weight xoith the artistic world. ” Strange! exclaimed your gayer commenters, profanely hinting at certain 44 blind guides, ” strange! to strain at the sweet name of Raphael, so irresistibly vouched, yet swallow at a gulp, grim 4 - Fra Carnovale, ” cowl and cassock, and 44 0riolo, ” and 44 Bono, ” and 44 Turawith 44 ditto,'* too! and 44 Vander Goes, ” the uncouth labels to as many of the ten camels foisted upon us wholesale, last August, for a. round two thousand pounds , 44 in conformity with the regulations,” as per 44 Report for 1867, 99 from what Mr. Director Boxall intrepidly styles, 44 The Collection of the late Sir Charles Eastlake. ” Or, resuming the graver sort, I might recall the censure of men of mark, that the suppression of Raphael's name was an indecorous and unwarrantable disallowance of the; very ergo of my communication; while ,its transcription, practically insignificant from an unprofessional, and therefore zvithout responsibility , was but a civility due to the meanest; a fortiori , then, to one who, on matters touching the Great Masters, whether their conservation, or selection, had won in England itself, higher eulogies than any other living Englishman; who had respited and rc-respited them from, what Lord Elcho aptly terms, 44 scrubbing and excoriation ”— expelled and rc-expelled the scrubbers and excori at or s; whose single indictment against the delinquents had sufficed to summon into existence a parliamentary Inquest; whose public judgments on Art, you well knew to have met with unqualified!, acceptance from the flower of European authority. A sage has bequeathed that 44 Prudence is the sum of alL Virtue. 99 How enviable, then, the prudence which baffled my plot to make you an umpire on Raphael! Although the name of Raphael was the very key-note of my theme, yet fain would I have seen in its omission, only an obliviousness addirig grace to the speed of your- 120 response to a golden opportunity. But the sequel little favored this interpretation. On the 20th of July, that is, at an interval of six weeks, left in ignorance of what followed your sending the Documents to the Director of the National Gallery, I addressed you a second letter, containing further valuable information on the same subject, and I forwarded you, at the same time, two additional publications connected with it, severally entitled: i4 Protest and Counter-Statement against the Report of the Select Committee on the National Gallery of 1853; ” and 44 Le Raphael de Mr. Morris Moore, Apollon et Marsyas: Documents , etc.;" the latter published at Paris, in 1859, by M. Leon Batte, in English, French, and Italian; the former, in London, in 1855, at the charge of the Earl ef Onslow, and signed, among others, by Chief Justice Sir George Alfred Arney, Professor George Long, of Brighton, Dr. Robert Barnes, M.D., Mr. Hyde Clarke, Mr. Alfred B. Richards and Mr. Philip Barnes, barristers, Mr. Frederick Hurlstone, President of the Society of British Artists, Mr. Alfred Stevens, prize competitor for the Wellington Monu¬ ment, Mr. Thomas Wakley, the well-known former Member for Finsbury, Mr. William Coningham, ex-Member for Brighton, and Mr. Walter Savage Landor; who therein •denounce the unworthy conduct of that packed Committee towards myself, andprotest against its Report, 44 as a Document unworthy of confidence, as inimical to Art, and as a fraud upon the Nation ” On this occasion, I judged it expedient to plainly warn you of what was to be expected in this matter from Mr. Director Boxall, a man whose advancement to this office, despite the loud declamation about 44 Administrative Reform” and 44 competitive examination, ’"rests on no sounder founda¬ tion than 44 a natural and prompt alacrity ” to — “ Crook the pregnant hinges of the knee. Where thrift may follow fawning;” 121 a warning which, on the 9th of August, only nineteen days later , was to find in the House of Commons, a vindicator in Lord Elcho. No notice was taken, either of letter or publications. Nevertheless, on the 8th of August, namely, two months and nine days after my first transmission, I wrote to you a third time. I now announced that since the last, an ap¬ plication for the loan of Raphael's “Apollo and Marsyas ’’ had reached me from the Executive Committee of the National Exhibition of Works of Art, at Leeds, and I enclosed you a copy of the Official Letter addressed to me by Mr. Waring, General-Manager, wherein occurs: “I beg to request, on behalf of the Committee, that you would render the important service to the Exhibition of contri¬ buting your famous picture of Apollo and Marsyas, ” by Raphael You may rest assured that the great interest which attaches to it, will command a first-rate place in the Leeds Exhibition, or indeed in any other." In the fact and termsof this invitation, entirely spontaneous and by me unanticipated , is there not sufficient to justify the inference in my first letter that you were already familiar with my subject? sufficient to justify the censure that your suppression of Raphael’s name was “ indecorous and unwarrantable? ” sufficient to give a sinister hue to your silence? Since I apprised you of this fresh and signal English tribute to the commanding fame of Raphael's “ Apollo and Marsyas, ” I have forwarded you three other publications, seven in all; each attesting the irrefragable authenticity of this masterpiece, its world-wide renown, and the conspiracy against its discoverer and possessor; a conspiracy now countenanced by your demeanor. But my painstaking was to prove sterile. My third and fourth transmissions have shared the fate of the second. I ■am still your creditor for the Director of the National 122 Gallery’s answer to the paramount matter which your lines- of the 5th of last August pledged you to impart to him. The debt comments itself. Singular return for that 44 informa¬ tion on the subject of the picture, 4 Apollo and Marshas, ’ ” as you so decorously word it, which had received, and, let me add, deserved your thanks! Singular accomplishment of the Horoscope drawn on your nomination to the 44 Board of Taste:” “ The vacant Trusteeship of the National Gallery has been filled by the appointment thereto, of Mr. W. H. Gregory, M. P., whose enlightened interest in Art will render his selection highly popular, and no doubt advantageous!” You are not the first Trustee of the National Gallery whom it has befallen me to address on a subject vital to his Trust. How the Earl of Ellesmere, owner of the Bridgewater Gallery, a Trustee possibly not less 4 ‘enlightened ” on Art, nor otherwise less conspicuous than yourself, dealt- with a kindred communication of mine, may serve at once as lesson and rebuke. And yet, the press, English and foreign, had not then, as now, for various lustres, periodically sounded my praises; no. member of an English Government had then uttered: 44 We know that Mr. Morris Moore is the most competent man for the Directorship of the National Gallery, but we are determined not to appoint him, because he has given Us great offence ” (a) (as though Cromwell's England were sunk to an Eastern Satrapy!); nor had my judgments on Art, then as now , received from artistic your self my witness, & truly Amphictyonic sanction. At page 11 of the Minutes of the Trustees of the National Gallery, during 1845-6, may be read: “ At a meeting of the Trustees of the National Gallery, held on Monday, the 25th of January, 1847: Present, The Right Hon. Lord Monteagle in the Chair, The Right Hon. Sir James R. G. Graham, Bart., William Wells, Esq., Samuel Rogers, Esq.: “ Read, a note from the Earl of Ellesmere to the Secretary,. (a) Lord Elcho. 123 requesting him to lay before the Trustees a letter he had recei¬ ved from Mr. Morris Moore, of the 10th of December last, enclo¬ sed with his Lordship's communication ; in which letter Mr. Moore states his opinion that three pictures, the 4 Bacchus and Ariadne / by Titian; the 4 Peace and War / by Rubens, and the newly purcha¬ sed picture by Velazquez, have been injured in the cleaning they have recently undergone. 44 4 Resolved: That this letter be referred to Mr. Eastlake, in order that he may report to the Trustees at their next meeting, to be specially summoned to receive this Report, the steps he has taken, in pursuance of the minute of the Trustees of the 21th of August last, and his opinion on the present state of the pic¬ tures, and the proceedings resorted to in cleaning them, and their results; and that a copy cf this minute be forwarded to the Earl of Ellesmere.’ ” On the next page, my letter ; that letter which, backed by others of mine in the 44 Times, ” under the signature of 44 Verax, ” soon relieved the National Gallery of Mr. Eastlake’s presence, and thus respited our masterpiece until the vacation of 1852, when, become President of the Royal Academy, and thereby re slipped into the former, as 'profes¬ sional Trustee, ex-officio, he 44 cleaned, scrubbed, and excoriated , ” together with his subaltern, that 44 old ass Uwins, (a) " R.A.,ifwemay echo our betters, as reported in the 44 Daily News, ” 44 Sun," and 44 Morning Herald, ” of May the 14th and 16th, 1858, and again, in these and other daily ^papers of August the 10th, 1857, two hundred and sixteen square feet of Claude, Canaletto, Rubens, Paul Ve¬ ronese, Guercino, and Nicholas Poussin, in less than as many hours; a feat my impeachment of which in the 44 Times ” of November the 29th, 1852, earned me rich approval from our press and from conspicuous lovers of Art, both by letter and loudly in the broad light of day, at the National Gallery itself; begot the National Gallery Committee of 1853; compelled the hero-in-chief of that dismal industry to confess his own incompetency, and, with five fellow-academicians, for seven (a) M. W. Stirling. 124 months previously his tacit abetters, to endorse my charges*, re-disseized him, together with his subaltern; forced him to indite the unqualified pledge printed at page 16 of the Minutes of the Trustees of 1853-5: “ 1 wish it to be clearly understood that it is my intention not to interfere in any way in future with the concerns of the National Gallery a pledge two years later brazenly violated, by re-usurpation of the Directorship with quintupled salary , supplemented by large opportunity for embezzlement;—a feat, my impeachment of which, in fine, inspired Lord Elcho the dainty tribute, but daintier testimony: “ You deserve the Thanks of all who take an interest in Art, for bringing before the Public the conduct of the guardians (sic) of our Collection. Your opinionasto the damage done to the pictures is corroborated by many of my friends who have seen them since their excoriation. ” When the vote of £ 11,895 was moved on the 9th of last August, for the year’s expenses of the National Gallery, Lord Elcho brought to public notice, that “the cleaning and scrubbing of the pictures, which, since 1852, until the death of Sir Charles Eastlake, was discontinued , had been recom¬ menced with the wonted result, by his creature and no¬ minee, Mr. Director Boxall. He averred, on authority , that, besides damage done to other pictures, the splendid land¬ scape by Rubens, the gift of Sir George Beaumont, which “ previously had attracted general admiration/’ had been “ reduced ” by this— Royal Academician (not to re-dip into the Elcho vocabulary), “ from a mellow, glowing Rubens, to a hard, cold, blue picture; ” so mauled, “ as to be no longer recognizable as a work of the master! ” He also stated, on authority, that “ a picture called a Rembrandt,” as he jeeringly designated it, “ for which Mr Director Box- all had given seven thousand pounds was spurious, and by competent appraisement, “ worth literally nothing; ” sta¬ tements confirmed to me here during the last winter, by various Englishmen. 125 On the other hand, we find you on the 16th of last May r flouting the Vice-President of the Committee of Council for the Paris Exhibition, about, the exploits ” of the Depart¬ ment of Science and Art; hectoring him with iteration, as to 44 the meaning of those exploits; ” as to whether 44 like exploits ,” which presently, with shrill crescendo diapasoned by 44 laughter and cries of order, order ! ” surge to 44 tom¬ fooleries,” werej 44 not calculated to bring the whole Depart¬ ment into disrepute? ” Again, as recently as the 27th of last March, we have you dealing your 44 swashing blows ” at the Trustees of the British Museum,and then, with a flash from your lantern, dazzling us, as by sequel: “ Mr, Gregory brought under the notice of the House the con¬ dition of the British Museum, and made various suggestions which had for their object , the improved administration and management of that Institution. In the teeth of 44 administration and management ” of your own Trust, impotent, as yourself avow; mischievous , as that lately by Lord Elcho authoritatively denounced;— of the still reeking two-thousand-pounds job for an Eastlake’s posthumous lumber, perpetrated under your immediate aus¬ pices, and with my letters and accompanying publications of May, July, and August last, fronting you;—of the no¬ torious conspiracy festering in your shadow, to sacrifice to- private rancor, to the Manes of a thrice-sentenced minion of Patronage, and to the collusive gratitude of his nominee^ the interest, the honor, and the intellectual repute of En¬ gland, by barring the doors of our Chief Fane of Pictorial Art against a superlatively authenticated, consummate, and famous Raphael, wafted to us pure from Art's Empyrean, and this while Chancellors of the Exchequer are declaiming about 4 4 nothing being more radically associated with the true development of liuman excellence than art;” in the teeth, I say, of administration and management such as your own, beside which, the 44 tomfooleries,” as you have it, of 126 Lord Robert Montagu were the very top, the height, the crest, or crest unto the crest ” of administrative sagacity and propriety, to carp at the “ exploits *' of others, unless, a stroke to divert scrutiny from home , must proceed from that nice microscopy so highly relished by Matthew and Luke, whereby we so clearly behold the mote in our brother’s eye, but consider not the beam in our own. Might not the Vice-President of the Committee of Council for the Paris Exhibition retort with usury , by asking “ the meaning ” of your oivn “ exploits ?” the Trustees of the. British Museum, by “bringing under the notice of the House, the condition of the National Gallery , and by making va¬ rious suggestions having for their object the improved ad¬ ministration and management of that Institution,*’ as, to wit, the abolition of a Board that can neither “ urge nor dissuade,” and the immediate ignominious expulsion of Mes¬ sieurs Director Boxall and Secretary Wornum, who, by squan¬ dering our money and mangling our masterpieces, blazon us as equally stupid and barbarous? It was written by an Englishman, now worthily clothed with supreme University function: “ Of your ‘ Apollo, ’ I can only say: Serus in coelum redeat! You have been to him a true Admetus ; a most staunch and indomitable pro¬ tector from the insults of the boors among whom he has stooped to dwell.” I will study to not undeserve the graceful compliment. Too long a European scandal, this matter shall not be smothered by an un-English Cabal compounded of knaves whose names beyond their own cribbed and mephitic zone, are blank, or known only by association with turpitude against myself and against a consummate masterpiece. Is other Home testimony reqnired? Without attaint, then, to the high and teeming testimony already adduced; without conceit of your better instruction^ for this were now impos¬ sible, but rather to surfeit you with evidence, and throw into yet grosser relief an odious and unpatriotic premedi- 127 tation , let the same 44 Daily News,” “ Sun” and “ Mor¬ ning Herald ” above quoted, certify how, Messieurs Fuller Maitland, William Coningham, and Alexander Barker, known English collectors of Ancient Art, ever affirmed the 44 A - pollo and Marsyas ” to be unsurpassed by any other Ra¬ phael in England ;—how, Lord Elcho, 44 in common with most of those who had had the good fortune to see it, believed it to be a work of Art of great National importance; ” decla¬ red his 44 own conviction that it was not only a Raphael^ but perhaps the purest and most beautiful specimen of the Master in England ; ” maintained that 44 its title to a place in our National Collection was clear and indefeasible; ” and protested that it was 44 the bounden duty of the Trustees not to •suffer so important a work to leave the country, or become the ornament of a private gallery; ”—how, one member of the Legislature exclaimed that, 44 had he fifty votes, he would give them all to place it in the National Gallery; ” another^ that 4 ’ for sparing England the disgrace of its being snatched from us by the foreigner, and for hus proving to the world that Englishmen can savor such works, I deserved a Vote of Thanks; ” —how, the late Sir James Graham, a Trustee of the National Gallery , pronounced it, 44 the most God-like creation he had ever seen; ”—how, Mr. Alfred Tennyson stood enrapt by its beauty; ”—how, Mr. James Spedding, a right trusty witness, 44 judging, not by his own impressions, but by the opinions of persons whom be knew to be competent, could not doubt that, ere long, it would be acknowledged and esta¬ blished, not only as an unquestionable Raphael, but as an unusually fine specimen, in unusually good preservation, and not less remarkable for the beauty of the subject and the treat¬ ment, than for the painting and drawing;”—how, Mr. Tho¬ mas Baring, your colleague in Parliament and in the Trus¬ teeship) of the National Gallery , at each inspection ever more fascinated, declared that 44 it was always a treat to see it again; ”—how, even that ^-indispensable Mentor, our Ger- 128 man ^-travelling agent, attested its obvious authenticity and: sovereign beauty—even Herr Otto Mundler, said by Lord Elcho, in July, 1857, to have been the late 44 accomplished ” Director’s sine-qua-non for his own retention of the Direc¬ torship, an ultimatum happily forgotten on the German's expulsion from his fraudulently devised and preposterous of¬ fice ,—lastly how Mr. Gladstone, who mellifluously tells us that, 46 slight as they are in fabric, and even when of di¬ mensions most modest, yet that those somethings which we call pictures , are considered among the greatest productions of which mankind has been the author,” hailed this Raphael, as his Eureka of Art, as 44 the very icork one could ivish Raphael had painted; ” and, not then in office, 4 ‘regretted that it lay not with himself to give it the authority it deserved. I might enumerate Englishmen, both peers and common¬ ers, who during the last seven years, could have testified with the Secretary of St. Luke’s Academy, that 44 there was not an artist in Rome among the celebrated ones here of every Nation, who did not repute tha picture of 4 Apollo and Mar- syas,’ a magnificent work of Raphael. ” So familiar is 44 the incomparable picture ” to all classes in Rome, so firmly esta¬ blished is its authenticity, that, although we have never met, I yet make bold to say, and hereon impawn my issue, that whenever thereto challenged, Mr. Odo Russell, since many years our diplomatic resident here, will join, and I trust, as a cheerful duty 9 his testimony to the truth of that deposi¬ tion. Needless were it to discuss here the truism, though in a recent correspondence sturdily outfaced me by that 44 pro¬ mising young statesman,” Lord Stanley, that every public servant , not to say every citizen, is bound to advise the Ex¬ ecutive of ichatsoever to his knowledge may regard the in¬ terests, or the honor, of the Nation. But I must not omit to record that less evidence than that wherewith it has been my care to furnish Mr. Odo Russell, sufficed to elicit from Lord Clarendon that 44 doubt teas indefensible .” 129 Any marvel, then, little prone as we English are to put our candle under a bushel, any marvel to hear Englishmen worthy the name, cry “Shame!” upon a “ Board of Taste, ”—“ Shame! ” upon a Government that libels a polite and wealthy People by driving from their shores so gracious an achievement of Genius? Not to take remoter examples of responsible Englishmen, I will instance four members of our Legislature, namely, the Puke of Northumberland, the Marquis of Sligo, Lord Dunsany, and Lord Houghton, who within the last few weeks, have had the opportunity to examine the matchless testimony to the authenticity of Raphael’s “Apollo and Marsyas, ” and have deemed it incumbent not to neglect inspection of a masterpiece so manifestly affecting the dignity of the Nation whence they derive their own*. So fair an interpretation of their spontaneous visits, can, I think, displease none. The three first alone saw it. On a paramount professional question, and in the presence of so vast an accumulation of highest professional testimony, to subordinate the judgment of an amateur , is a tribute to his understanding, rather than disparagement of his taste. Neither impugning their more special proficiency in Art, nor overstraining my instances, I simply attest that all, as their very visits presume, were e]ual to what was to be expected from cultivated men. Each named the National Gallery as the Home most congenial to a true Englishman’s feelings for such a masterpiece: each evinced hisjamazement that such a masterpiece had been suffered to leave England. Were you Pyrrho himself, or even St. Thomas, how now parry acknowledgment of conviction? Still, to forestall or abash protervity itself, appended hereto, though but as samples, you shall touch letters directly, or virtually, bearing upon this matter, from the Earls of Ellesmere, Onslow, and Southesk, Sir John Stuart Hippisley, Mr. Stephen Spring i 130 Rice, Mr. Sackville Bale, Mr. J. P. Davis, Professor George Long, Mr. Walter Savage Landor, and others; men whom you can ill afford to slight. The first will further teach you how its author treated my communications, and that, a lthough a Trustee of the National Gallery , and writing after my indictment which drove Eastlake the first time from office, with grave impeachment of his own Trusteeship , it was not to sleek National Gallery officials only , that he turned for counsel on questions of moment to Art; the others, how their authors judged me and my adversaries. You say that, 44 as a Trustee, it is not your function to urge or dissuade the Director in the purchase of pictures; ” that, 44 he is alone responsible to the Nation for the selection, and acts on his own judgment. ” The statement has the sparkle of novelty, hut it ill chimes with received notions of a Trustee. The theories of your Board politely keep pace with the practices it sanctions. Confessedly impotent to check the wasting of our money, or so much as even to urge wise expenditure; impotent to prevent the 44 scrubbing” of our masterpieces, he it to 44 excoriation impotent, in sum, to stay the dilapidation of the Estate confided to you for safe-keeping and increment, what then is your 44 function?”. Might not Mr. Layard, once the energumenous exterminator of Trustees in general, and of National Gallery Trustees in p articular , hut now, as your fellow Mute in that band elect, an exterminator of the Great Masters, renew with racy revision of pronoun, his question: 44 How' far are We Trustees .deserving of the trust and confidence which the Public is recommended to place in Us? ” Is our National Gallery now in better plight than in August, i860, when this lusty 44 Administrative Reformer ” clamored in the 44 Times, ” 44 spare us the incubus of Trustees!! /” ? Is it not in a worse? for then, thanks to my discipline, as Lord Elcho can witness, nor he alone, 44 the cleaning and scrubbing of the pictures recommenced, by the new Director, ” with fatal 131 result to the Beaumont Rubens especially, no one, not even Mr. National Gallery Trustee William Russell, who, callous to the disgrace heaped upon him in 1853, ghoul-like still haunts our Gallery, had, as yet, had the effrontery to re¬ counsel. Is not the time ripe then, ripe even to rottenness , for repeating after Mr. Layard, less his servile and mendacious beslavering of a twice-disseized official , unanimously condem¬ ned by the upright and intelligent; condemned, even by his reluctant mates of the Royal Academy; 44 condemned out of his own mouth,” as Mr. Otway demonstrated; an official of whom the 44 Times ” caustically said: We think him rather unfortunately selected as a representative of Pictorial Art; ” and Lord Elcho: 44 Now, although he is President of the Royal Academy and Director of the National Gallery, his opinion has no weight with the artistic world; ”—an official whom, at the House of Commons, present divers witnesses, Colonel Mure, the Chairman, virtually, and Lord Elcho, literally , begged and re-begged me, on behalf of the Com¬ mittee of 1853 on the National Gallery, 44 not to kick, since he lay prostrate at my feet, because not English-like to kick a man when down, ” a pretty notion we sometimes mar in practice! —is not the time ripe, I ask, for repeating with Mr. National Gallery Trustee Layard, that w< in the National Gallery, we still see confusion”— 44 pell-mell havoc and confusion? ” that, despite the somerset which so felicitously dropped him there, the National Gallery is still exposed to the blighting influence of the Trustee system ? ” still exposed to the dissipation of its subsidies and to the blighting of its treasures, as denounced by Lord Elcho, and too sadly confirmed? Might we not here ask, with improved lection of your own text: 44 Are not exploits such as these, calcu¬ lated to bring into disrepute, ” not alone your ‘ 4 whole Department, ” but the wole Nation? But, it is time to again remind yon, that if there is a Mr. Gregory blandly reclining as a cipher at a 44 Board of 132 Taste,” there is also a Mr. Gregory, a member of our Legisla¬ ture, at once, therefore, an epitome and a Trustee of the Nation itself, and thus invested with that supreme authority to which 44 alone, ” you declare the Director of the National Gallery 44 responsible, ” and by his stewardship bound to exact from the recipients of public money, the rigorous observance of their engagements. The moment invites! Save from the 44 caterpillars that eat our leaves away, 99 the cry resounds that never was profligacy greater in the fingering of the People’s money, than now. Let then Mr. Gregory, the Nation s delegate, so specially qualified for the duty, by his participation in the sesthetical mysteries, at which, as a Trustee of the National Gallery, he so meekly intervenes, forthwith honor his Imperial mandate, by sum¬ moning from his place in the House of Commons, Mr. Direc tor Boxall, to the uttermost responsibility of his collusive pottering for an Eastlake’s posthumous lumber, even to giving four hundred per cent profit to his defunct patron’s fraudulently - pensioned relict, while abetting a conspiracy involving, not. only ruin to an English citizen, as truly stated in Parliament on the 25th of March, 1859, but the further flagrant de¬ linquency of defrauding the Nation, actually and prospectively, of a thrice-famous, Raphael, which, in England some two centuries and long missing, when at length redeemed to mankind by an Englishman, instead of hereby adding a leaf to our laurels, and shining in our midst, as a perennial beacon from the crest of Parnassus, to cheer our toilers on its steeps, is, through that conspiracy, become to us, wherever Art is cherished, a by-word and a 44 Shame ! ” But this matter shall not be ^mothered. Mark against whom ye contend : Raphael Urbinas, exemplum naturae donis pro- digae, corpore formosus, mente pulchrior, societate corn is, penecilloadmirandus,industria indefessus, gloria perennis! Who can here hope to prevail? As easily suppress Homer, Virgil, Alighieri, our English Milton, or the world’s 133 Shakspeare! 1 say this matter shall not he smothered. My f ellcw-countrymen failing me, but so, themselves still more , I will perpetuate it on a vaster arena, and there prove to the reflecting, that apathy to intellectual dignity, to the legacies of Genius, and to Justice, is less remote, than some may imagine, from the temper that can submit, though but for an instant, to what Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone have fitly stigmatized as a Government of servility, dissimulation, and fraud! By your self-avowed nullity as a Trustee, your silence of all but a year upon Mr. Director Boxall’s reception of the conclusive testimony which, in that capacity, we may assume you sent him respecting the authenticity of Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas, ” is a mere question of manners , now merged in a graver. If this matter so long known in England and bruited throughout Europe, as the three letters and seven publications which I forwarded you , attest , was miraculously withheld from so “enlightened" and lively a dilettante as yourself, the exception has ceased. Ever since last August, at least, you have been aware that a gross violation of duty, prompted by the basest passions, disgraces and obstructs a most important educational Department of the Public Service. From the printing of divers of the said publications in foreign parts and in foreign languages , and from their contents being guaranteed by official endorse¬ ment and by the signatures of distinguished and responsible men, you have, ever since that date, been also aware that this matter,' not only impeaches our intellectual standing and damages our interests, but that it smears and mires our honor. On highest Imperial grounds, therefore, and as an Englishman performing a duty and exercising a right , I now •distinctly call upon you, as one of our representatives most idoneous to the emergency, to vindicate your title to public confidence, by summoning the Director of the National Gallery to a strict account of his proceedings, and thus bring 134 your bounden aid towards cleansing, at speediest, the Nation your constituent, from the taint of sanctioning a European Scandal. I am, yours obediently, MORRIS MOORE, Senior. Rome , May the Yoth, 1868. TO WILLIAM BECKETT DENISON, ESQ,, CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL EXHIBITION OF WORKS OF ART AT LEEDS. TO William Beckett Denison, Esq., CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL EXHIBITION OF WORKS OF ART AT LEEDS. Sir, Notwithstanding the prompt, unanimous, and peremptory dissuasion of authoritative men, attestors of the English bureaucratic conspiracy which, to shake my credit and so revenge my ejection of that judicially convicted and self- branded vandal, the late Eastlake, from the conduct of our National Gallery, twice mainly by me effected, wages, since eighteen years to this moment, a subdolous warfare against the long-missing Raphael it befell me to rescue from oblivion and to possess, it was not until the eleventh hour, nor then without regret, that I realized the necessity of renouncing my desire to yield to the solicitation, with such laudable zeal for Art, fitness of expression, and a perspicacity worthy the circumstance, addressed to me last July by the Execu¬ tive Committee of the Leeds National Exhibition of Works of Art; namely, that I “would render the important ser¬ vice to the Exhibition of contributing to it the famous picture of 'Apollo and Marsyas ’ by Raphael; ” the Raphael so inveterately and malignantly beset. My regret to disappoint so honorable a solicitation needs no better vouch than the facility which, notoriously, in En- gland and elsewhere, applicants have ever found to view this Raphael ; or, again, than the readiness with which I have repeatedly acceded to requisitions from foreign Go¬ vernments, to allow them to exhibit it in their respective Capitals, for the advantage of Art, for general instruction, and for their own honor; my only condition, in the one case, that visitors should leave their names ; in the other, that the requisition should be made officially by letter; a suitable State Edifice destined for the reception of the mas¬ terpiece ; and a moderate entrance-fee charged for the be¬ nefit of a Charitable Fund, artistic or literary, according to expediency; conditions cordially accepted at Munich, Dresden, Vienna, and Venice; and by none thought obtru¬ sive, nor otherwise objectionable. It is demonstrable that, by the obsequious connivance of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and of the pre¬ sumptuous and mischievous Cabal at the National Gallery, who periodically “Resolve” and decree, “entirely satisfac¬ tory,” what, in phrase too long familiar, Lord Elcho terms the “ scrubbing and excoriating of our Pictures,” more public money was embezzled by the said minion of Favor, Eastlake, to hire in England and tcheresoever I have sojourned abroad , congenial tools, now to spread whispers against this Ra¬ phael, now to dog me, its owner, with machinations nefa¬ rious not spared even that perilous and dastardliest, or as we English fondly or pharisaically boast, “ un- English” one, political delation , than might have enshrined the famous masterpiece in that edifice which, erected at the People’s cost to be their Chief Temple of Pictorial Art, is become instead, thanks to the Iconoclasts who riot there, a very shambles for Art; whence, dismally mated with former vic¬ tims of Academic prowess, that Boxall trophy, the Beau¬ mont Rubens, once a glory of Flemish landscapes and “the object of general admiration,” but now, as Lord Elcho ad¬ visedly added, on the 9th of last August in the House of 139 Commons, so mauled as 4< not to be recognized as a work of the master ,” piteously moans in unison: 44 Abandon every hope, 0 ye that enter! ” (a) Willing though I was to incur the sacrifice of remo¬ ving awhile this Raphael from Rome, the vastest field of Pictorial Art, and Raphael's special arena , compared with which, in this respect, not alone an English provincial town, oven when attractive as is Leeds at present, but our over¬ grown Babylon itself with all its pictorial wealth, were but of mediocre account, you will not fail to perceive that, so ensnared, its removal to a remote unauthoritative locality, where, divorced from those transcendent congenerate sur¬ roundings which render it here unassailable , the utteran¬ ces blurted by self-sufficient ignorance, or spit from the unrinsed mouths of a discomfited consorted crew , might for the time outvoice the native eloquence of its authenticity and comeliness, had been a bait for villainy, hence for Art, a sorow rather than a joy. Such my general grounds for not contributing to the Leeds Exhibition, Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas.” But 1 have a special one. It was remarked to me that, on your Prospectus, the Executive Committee was “ strongly advised to secure the assistance of Mr. R. N. Wornum, Keeper and Secretary of the National Gallery , for t the pr opef and careful arrange¬ ment of the works of the Old Masters in their respective galleries The functionary here preconized as an Umpire on Art, owes his preferment at the National Gallery, to servility 7 , incompetency, and unscrupulousness, staple credentials of English Bureaucracy. Not to dwell on lesser meanness, as his intriguing against me while pilfering my criticisms in the 44 Times” to clip (a) “ Lasciate ogni speranza, voi che entrat e”—Dante, “Hell” C. Hi. no and patch his “Enlarged Authorized Catalogue of the Na¬ tional Galiery,” as he parades it, a meanness dismasked by the “ Spectator /’ he was convicted in the “ Morning Post" of January the 14th, 1853, by Mr. Coningham, ex-member for Brighton, Mr., now Chief Justice Sir George Alfred Arney, and others, of brazen mendacity; and he was ever the parasitical approver of the vandalisms and waste fasten¬ ed upon his patron and appointer, the late Eastlake ; first, by me , before the Committee of 1853 on the National Gal¬ lery, and again by Mr. Otway, Lord Elcho, and Mr. Harcourt Vernon, on the 5th of July, 1856, in the House of Commons, as actually he is of like delinquencies established by Lord Elcho, last August, against that sorry individual's sorry successor, Mr. Director Boxall. Moreover, he was accessory to the frauds and other turpitude sleeplessly practised against me by his said patron, among which, two expeditions to Venice; the first, in 1852, to suborn the Secretary of the Venetian Academy to subtract from the collection of Raphael drawings there , and secrete , Raphael’s original drawing for the “Apollo and Marsyas, ” preserved among them; the second, in 1854, to secure the permanence of that ini¬ quity, frustrated only by my proceeding to Vienna, in 1857, and appealing against it to the Austrian Ministry of Public Instruction; facts partly divulged in the “ Morning Advertiser" and in “ Bell's Weekly Messenger ” of August, the 27th and September the 1st, 1855; more largely, in the “ Daily Netcs, ” “Sun , ” and “ Morning Herald ,” of May the 14th and 16th, 1* 55; but notably in the “ Corriere Italiano ” of Vienna and “ Monitore Toscano ” of May the 13th and June the 4th, 1857, where, in the vernacular, and under the eyes of the suborned Secretary , struck mute by the detection of his compliciiy , they stood stripped in all their ugliness, to become, in the “ Revue des Deux Mondes ” of July the 15th, 1858, for Viscount Henri Delaborde, Conservator of the Chaleo* graphic Department at the Imperial Library in Paris, not 141 ivithout soil to the character of Englishmen , the subject of withering animadversion. Raphael’s * 4 Apollo and Marsyas, ” at the mercy of an accessory to like intrigues against it, what might not be appre¬ hended ? Thousands of public money embezzled to plan the gantlets it had run, so fair an investment must not be forfeited. Our Exchequer was not as yet so crippled by light taxation, nor Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Disraeli so squeamish, but that the sport might proceed. Subornation , as our bribery inquests hint, still obtains, and scribes may still be found to season with poisonous inuendo , vapid panegyric; or this unsafe, ichat wore marketable than silence? Then again, “ accidents” have happened to unwelcome witnesses! In sum, it was absolute with this Mr. Secretary R. N. Wornum, to prevent, or dim, by means whatsoever , a triumph at once damning to himself; to the late and present Directors of the National Gallery; and to that half-dozen self-dubbed Areopa- gites of “Taste,” Lord Overstone, the notorious Mr. William Russell, Mr. Thomas Baring, the Marquis of Northampton, Mr. Administrative Reformer Layard (yesterday bawling in the “ Times , ” “ spare us the Iucubus of Trustees— the Incubus of National Gallery Trustees , ” in particular; to-day an Incubus in particular himself,) and Mr. Gregory; Trustees trustless , since forbidden, as Mr. Gregory so meekly assures me, “ to urge or dissuade; ”—a triumph damning, in fine, to a Government which subsidizes a conspiracy to defraud Englishmen, present and future, of a famous Raphael, while it promptly disburses forty-seven thousand pounds at a single outlay , for a collection of curiosities, and squanders seven thousand upon that Boxall gem, a so-called Rembrandt, thus derided by Lord Elcho, on the 9th of last August, with the pleasant climax, that, competently appraised , it was “ worth literally nothing.” As far back as the 10th of June, 1850, with high and numerous concurrence, none hazarding contradiction, Lord 142 Elcho protested in the 44 Morning Post, ” that 44 to suffer so important a work as the 4 Apollo and Marsyas, ’’ to leave the country, or even to become the ornament of a private gallery, ” would be flagrant breach of 44 bounden duty 99 by all public servants concerned. He stated, at the same time, that “public attention had been already fully drawn to it, and that public opinion strongly expressed in its favor, through the medium of the Press, 19 had forestalled that judgment. It is, therefore, demonstrated that, even at that remote date, Raphael's 44 Apollo and Marsyas,’^ was famous throughout England. Since I expatriated in 1858, compelled thereto by baseness infinite, that judgment was unanimously ratified by the Chief Art-centres of the Continent, and it has met with special approval from every Englishman, peer or commoner, who, during the last eight years , has seen this Raphael in Rome, amid its twin creations, with its aureola of fervid testimonies to its authenticity and perfection from the most eminent contemporary artistic authorities. The exportation of such a masterpiece from so wealthy a country as England, betokens of itself, for every man of perspicacity and refinement, either foul play, or brutish insensibility in our Executive to the manifestations of Genius; in either case, it equally injures and discredits us; alterna¬ tives corroborated by Mr. Director Boxall’s last k4 Report, ” wherefrom we learn that, by his collusive gratitude for the unearned office bequeathed him by his predecessor, and the connivance of the Trustees and of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Disraeli, four hundred per cent upon cost was filched from us last August, 44 in conformity with the re¬ gulations, ” as we are frontlessly told, to relieve Eastlake’s fraudulently pensioned relict of that notorious official’s posthumous pictorial lumber. That the conspirators at the National Gallery would not have lacked Mr. Disraeli’s abetment, whether as Chancellor 143 of the Exchequer, or as Premier, by the prostitution of his influence and by plunder of the public purse, to avert a common confounding, may safely be argued from the low and unprincipled nature of the man , and from his former opprobrious demeanor with respect to this same Raphael. On the 25th of March, 1859, Mr. Coningham asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Disraeli: “ Whether, as the authorities at the National Gallery were reported to have expressed their willingness to give a large sum for a picture by Raphael, it would not, be desirable that the Go- vernement should secure for the Nation, the famous picture of 'Apollo and Marsyas ’ now in the possession of Morris Moore, Esquire, the original drawing for which was in the Academy at Venice. He then announced, with scathing accuracy, that, 44 by the performance of most important services to the Country, in protecting the pictures in the National Gallery from destruction, through the process of cleaning adopted there; in checking the purchase of worthless pictures; and in preventing the removal of the National Gallery from its central position in Trafalgar Square to the suburbs, I had incurred the enmity of aristocratic and courtly circles; had been totally ruined; and hounded to the verge of starvation, or suicide; while Eastlake, the incompetent official whose removal from office I had twice succeeded in effecting , had been subsequently reinstated with quintupled salary . ” With the lubricity proverbial of his Levantine blood , Mr. Benjamin Disraeli, 44 the Right Honorable, ” a prefix never more bemired, would fain have slipped the question, but Mr. Bright detected the manoeuvre, and challenged instant reply. Thus rebuked and constrained, 44 shuffling, offensive and impudent, ” 44 servile and pompous, ” as the same Mr. Bright rightly styles him;— 44 fraudulent and dissimulating,” as Mr. Gladstone avers;— 44 profligate, valet-souled , calumnious, and deceptive,” as Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Mr. Goldwin Smithy 144 Sir C. O’Loghlen, Lord Elcho, and Earl Russell, with others not few, attest, and as all know; —a very thimblerig ger, as Lord Cranborne portrayed him*—he truculently scoffed at adversity more enviable than a Premiership into which having crept by the vilest intrigues, by conspiracy, by apostacy , by work proper to the soul of a menial; “ leaving the fear of Heaven on the left hand, and hiding his honor in his necessity, ” he clings to it with a baseness incredible but in him; —sneeringly parroted with iteration, hence as often denied , the epithet “famous,” given to a Raphael which he toell knew to be famous, a denial whose brief and blasting title, did it need suggesting, is involved in the pre-cited passage from Lord Elcho’s letter to the “ Morning Post — declared that he, the Corypheus of Art, indeed! “ had never seen the famous picture now in the possession of Morris Moore, Esquire, ” echoing with impudent emphasis and imbecile vulgarity , and so contesting me, how fitly, let others judge, the paltry English affix prescriptively given to men of average culture: —protested with ostentatious jantiness and grotesque affectation of embarass^ment, antics suited to the fool at a circus, not to a Minister of State dealing with a famous Raphael “crowned the nompareil of beauty; ” with an Apollo “ shewing all the beauty of the Sun,” an Apollo “ undoing description ,” that “ a person filling the position which he had the honor to hold, must be naturally alarmed. whenever he heard of large sums and famous pictures, " though not “alarmed” to lie and job; —and then, with one of those flashes so bedazzling to that obsolescent young statesman, Lord Stanley, in the inflated jargon of a dys¬ peptic saucy tyro over-crammed with fine words appeal¬ ed to the House, how “the honorable member had called upon him to deal, at the same time, with a hy-po-the-sis and a con-tin-gen-cy, which, as honorable members knew,” added he with mock gravity cadenced by obsequious “ laugh- 145 ter” from expectant rabble , 44 were two of'the most awkward things in the world to deal with! ” 44 For there be of them, that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too; though, in the mean time, some necessary question of the play be then to be considered: that’s villanous; and shews a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it. ” Such the welcome this valet-souled Minister, whose motto, 44 The more dirt, the less hurt,” gave to a Raphael, then since nine years famous in England, as above demonstrated ,, and, at the time the insults were flung, already famous throughout Europe; —to a Raphael whose arrival at Paris, a year previously , had been hailed by the French press echoing the first French connoisseurs , 44 a veritable event for artists and earnest lovers of Art, ” its authenticity affirmed 44 uncontested;” — to that same 44 famous picture of 4 Apollo and Marsyas, ’ by Raphael, ’ whose presence, as your Committee rightly judged, 44 would render to the Leeds National Exhibition of Works of Art, an important service. ” Such the measure dealt by this tawdry, ephemeral, scribbler, ever 44 servile and pompous,” a very prostitutor of Letters ;— by this pilloried pilferer of Gallic frippery to bedizen British worthies;—by this utterer of sentiments spurned by Mr. Roebuck, as of impossible birth in an English breast; —by this drawling, pedantic word-monger, who, signally exempli¬ fying that fundamental maxim of true oratory, 44 Non posse oratorem esse nisi virum bonum, 99 k4 gives a vomit to God himself, ” by sacrificing to 44 his own personal aggrandizement and ambition , 99 as said by Mr. Bright, and to ivliat other thrifty falsehood soever , God’s gracious special gifts to man for the enthronement of Truth;—such, I say, the measure dealt by this 44 distilled quintessence and pure elixir of mischief,” by this alien in name, race , and feature, by this reek of Verona’s Ghetto, alien in all, save the hap of being j 116 whelped on our soil,—to a real Englishman, who, apart from the example of fortitude set by his single-handed inch-by-inch twenty-two years battle against English official , aristocratic , and courtly infamy , rank in the nostrils of all, though basely endured, has, not only in the supreme domain of Art-criticism won from our press and from notable fellow-citizens, more numerous and higher tributes than any other living English¬ man, the proofs multitudinous, but, solitary, in the teeth of such odds, maintained, besides, throughout the length and breadth of Europe, and at no secondary height, England's fair repute for savoring the sublimities of Genius, a repute so sorely compromised by the vandalism, folly, and turpitude, of the knee-crooking creatures of Patronage. 44 Magnanimity,” said Mr. Gladstone recently, 44 has gone out of fashion. ” An illustration is here (himself is his own illustration). 44 Roguery, ” wrote Walter Savage Landor, in 1856, 44 is countenanced and protected in the highest places. I do not wonder at it; but I do wonder that English gentlemen and noblemen should fail in their consistency, and inte¬ grity, as you have proved they do. Impressed with the invidiousness of not responding to the solicitation of your Committee, I have found it imperative to plainly state the reasons for this seeming deviation from my professed and practised principles. I trust that you will now see in this my decision, only a further proof of unfeigned and provident zeal for Art, not unmixed with a desire to spare my solicitors the contingent pain and obloquy o f being made to figure as abetters of a European Scandal. In support # of the assertion in my exordium, that from all whom I had interrogated in Rome, upon contributing Raphael's 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” to the Leeds Exhi¬ bition, the reply was 4 4 dissuasion, prompt, unanimous , and peremptory , ” 1 subjoin, though merely as specimens, two letters from Italians of high character and attainments, men •eminently qualified by personal knowledge of this iniquitous 147 history, and by professional experience in sifting evidence to counsel me wisely at this juncture. To these I add letters from Chief Justice Sir George Alfred Arney, the Earls of Ellesmere and Onslow, 8ir John Stuart Hippisley, Mr. Stephen Spring Rice, Mr. Walter Savage Landor, and others (a). The first strikingly foreshows the attitude of the vandals and intriguers whom I had convicted and disseized , towards the Raphael which, at once by me discerned and -purchased before their vacant eyes, was to become argument of fresh disgrace to them ; of fresh honor to me. The others express the writers’ estimate of this masterpiece, and of the treatment meted me by 44 English gentlemen and noblemen , ” in guerdon of my long and self- denying services to our Common Country, to Art, and to Truth. Keenly alive to the gravity of my charges, and, equally to the duty of substantiating them, I forward herewith two publications. One of them, entitled, 44 Le Raphael de Mr. Morris Moore , etc , exhibits, at its third page, the above- mentioned article from the 44 Corriere Italiano ” of Vienna and 4 ‘ Monitore Toscano , ” in three languages, thus shewing the Europeannotorietyofthis Englishbureaucratic conspiracy. You will therein find incontrovertibly particularized, the two errands of the late Eastlake to Venice, to suborn for the subtraction , and, to perpetuate the concealment , of Raphael’s original drawing for the 44 Apollo and Marsyas. ” The other, entitled 44 English Official Knavery gives at its fourth page, under the head Remarks , an example of the corruption practised, with Ministerial connivance, 44 to starve me out. ” I have the honor to be, Sir, Yours obediently, Rome , June 10, 1868. MORRIS MOORE, Senior. (h) N.B.—See Letters of Orlando Garbarini and Antonio Stefanucci Ala, distinguished Barristers and men of Letters, pp. 104,105, of the first piece in this volume: “To the Nation.? 148 P.S.—Having received no acknowledgment of the receipt of the photographs of Raphael’s “Apollo and Marsyas, ” which I forwarded to your Committee, by special request , and hence conceiving the possibility of a change in its members, I have deemed it advisable, as a precaution against delay, or miscarriage, to address this directly to yourself,, the Chairman. REPLY. Exhibition Offices , Leeds , July 3rd , 1868. Sir, I am requested to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th ult. addressed to Mr. Denison, and to thank you for the photographs which safely arrived. The Committee were under the impression that their arrival had been pre¬ viously acknowledged. They regret the decision you have -come to with regard to your picture by Raphael. I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, RICHARD H. BRAITHWAITE, Secretary. Morris Moore , Esq., Rome. EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM Mr. James Spedding, PUBLISHED ON THE 23RD OF MARCH, 1850. To the Editor of the Examiner. ” U A very beautiful picture supposed by the late possessor to- be an Andrea Mantegna, was put up for public auction in London a few weeks ago. Mr. Morris Moore as soon as he saw it, knew what it was, in fact a remarkably fine Ra¬ phael. Fortunately for him, nobody else durst think so. I say knevj, because judging not by my own impressions, but by the opinions of persons zohom I knoio to be competent, I have no doubt myself that the picture will, ere long, be generally acknowledged and established, not only as an un¬ questionable Raphael, but as an unusually fine specimen, in unusually good preservation, and not less remarkable for the beauty of the subject and the treatment than for the paint¬ ing and drawing/’ LETTER OF LORD ELOHO, PUBLISHED IN THE “ MORNING POST,” JUNE THE xoTH, 1850, Letter of Lord Elcho, PUBLISHED IN THE <• MORNING POST,” JUNE THE 10TH, 1850. MR. MORRIS MOORE’S RAPHAEL. To the Editor of the “Morning Post." Sir, I trust that you will be able to find a place in your col¬ umns for a few lines in explanation of the circumstances which have prevented my publicly calling the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to Mr. Morris Moore’s Raphael, in pursuance of a notice to that effect which I gave in the early part of the Session. In giving that notice I had two objects in view. I was anxious, in the first place, publicly to call the attention of the Trustees of the National Gallery to the existence, or, rather, to the discovery of a work of Art, which I, in common with most of those toho have had the good fortune to see it , believe to be of great National im¬ portance; and, in the second place, I wished to give expres¬ sion to the universal feeling of dissatisfaction which prevails with regard to the management of the concerns of the Na¬ tional Gallery. But, inasmuch as I felt that an unseasonable discussion of these subjects would create little interest in the House of Commons, I thought it advisable to wait until the grant was moved for the current expenses of the National Gallery, which w T ould have offered a fitting opportunity for bringing on my notice. Time has however run on; the Ses¬ sion is far advanced ; and I am obliged to leave England be- 154 fore this branch of the Miscellaneous Estimates has been brought under consideration; I must, therefore, postpone the subject to another Session. Public attention has been already so fully drawn to Mr. Morris Moore’s Raphael, and public opinion has been so strongly expressed in its favor, through the medium of the press, that I would fain hope the Trustees will make a point of securing it for the National Gallery. I have no fear as to the result of their deliberations upon it, provided they do not allow their better judgments to be influenced by the crit¬ icisms of a foreign gentleman (Herr Passavant) who, on a Friday, announces, ex cathedra , that this picture, which he admits to be a first-rate specimen of the finest period of Ital - ian Art , is the work of Francia, and who, on the Monday following, with equal confidence, ascribes it to Timoteo della Vite, two painters who cannot by any possibility be confoun¬ ded; provided likewise that they are not guided by the opin¬ ions of those professional connoisseurs who had neither the taste, nor the feeling, to appreciate so fine a work, nor the critical knowledge which should have led them to discover, under a false name, the master-hanl of Raphael. My own conviction is, that this picture is not only a Raphael , but, perhaps, the purest and, most beautiful specimen of the mas¬ ter in this country. But I care not, as regards its claims upon the National Gallery, whether it be by him or not; for when a picture is universally pronounced to be a first-rate speci¬ men of the finest period of Italian Art, its title to a place in our National (Collection is clear and indefeasible , and it then becomes the bound,en duty of the Trustees not to suf¬ fer so important a work to leave the country, or become the ornament of a private gallery. F. CHARTERIS (LORD ELCHO). 27, Chesliam Street , June , 1850. MR.FREDERIOK WILLIAM BURTON, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY. A STATEMENT BY MORRIS MOORE, Jun. PROFESSOR AT THE ROMAN UNIVERSITY X Mr. Frederick William Barton, 'DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY. A STATEMENT BY MORRIS MOORE, Jun., PROFESSOR AT THE ROMAN UNIVERSITY. “ Sureley if there be one thing in a free country more clear thnn another, it is, that any one of the people may speak freely to the poople .”—The Rt. lion. John Bright. “ Better a penurious kingdom, than where excessive wealth flows into the hands cf common sponges, to the impoverishing of good and loyal men. ” — Milton. The following Statement of strictest veracity was addressed to Mr. Arthur Otway, M. P. (since Sir A rthur), (a) on the 8 Ai of December last, now ("23rd June) more than six months ago. No notice having been taken of it, although from the postal receipt proved to have been delivered in London on the 4th day after leaving Rome, I feel it a duty to Truth to make it public. My reason for addressing Sir Arthur Otway is shewn in his spontaneous scathing commentary on the numerous Extracts from the Press, read by him in the House of Commons on the 7th of April, 1855, upon Eastlake; (a) The servile fledgling Baronet took no notice of this appeal to his honor and duty. Possibly he was busy concocting a brand new escutcheon ! 158 therefore unanimous with Morris Moore, and Public Opi¬ nion :— Mr. Arthur^Ot way: “ Every magazine of character, every newspaper worth anything commented with severity on the operations and purchases of Sir C. Eastlake, and the opinion of the press has been confirmed by that of persons holding high positions in the profession and by distinguished ama¬ teurs. Sir C. Eastlake’s evidence on the subject of cleaning proves that he is by no means qualified for such a position as that of Director of the National Gallery. The notions expressed by him are really so absurd, that any person having the slightest knowledge of Art, must have seen that they are entirely false. The whole current of evidence is condemnatory of his management. Sir C. Eastlake stands condemned out of liis own mouth. 9 ' Rome , December the 8th, 1881. No 32, Via Cavour. u Dear Sir, Although I have not the advantage of your personal acquaintance, I have long known your name as that of one who appreciated my Father’s public demeanor, and regretted the shameful manner in which he has been treated. These rea¬ sons prompt me to inform you, as briefly as possible, of a matter which occurred here in Rome on the 2nd of last December, and which will, no doubt, be looked upon by yourself, as it is by all who have heard of it, as one of the most dastardly pieces cf rascality they ever knew. About a year ago, and precisely on the date just men¬ tioned, at about three o’clock in the afternoon, whilst my mother and myself were attending at the bedside of my Father, since a month struck by paralysis (a second attack of that fatal malady), the visit was announced of one Dr. Gason, who begged to introduce “a friend/’ to whom he gave the name of “ Johnstone /’ desirous of seeing the 159 masterpiece of Raphael, ‘‘Apollo and Marsyas,” before Rome (a). The visitors were admitted. After examining everything in the house, they took leave of my Father, both shaking his hand , as he lay impotent upon his bed, scarcely able to articulate a few words of greeting, the so-called Mr. Johnstone “ hoping that he would soon be better.” About two months later, my Father had so far recovered as to be able to take airing, and thus it was that in the Via Mariodei Fiori he met the said Dr. Gason, who began* “Well, Mr. Morris Moore, will you make me your agent for the sale of your pictures, but you must give it ire in writing ;” words he repeated several times, mentioning the name of the Director of the National Gallery, Mr. Burton, the scoundrel still usurping an office w T hich he better than all knows to belong by right to my Father, as emphatically stated in the “ Opinions of. the Press ” by yourself read before the House of Commons, on the 7th April, 1856. At the name of “ Burton,” my Father replied, “ I don’t know Burton.”—“ But you do know him I ” w T as the reply. —“ I tell you I don’t.”—“ But you do.”—“ I repeat that I do not.”—“Yes, you do\ why, it was only lately you shook hands with him.”—“ What! “ Why, yes! don’t you remember my coming to see you one day with a friend; that teas Burton /” After this revelation, which he made with a grin, he seemed conscious from my Father’s suddenly altered appear¬ ance, that the knowledge of having been so vilely betrayed by the man most interested in decrying his property, might (a) On the anr] of May, 18S3, this masterpiece became the propeidif of France. Conditions of cession dictated by myself; Instalment in the Salon Carre of the Louvre, and signalized in the Official Catalogue Le Ra¬ phael de Morris Moore/ 3 More than a trental Iliad outlawed by a brutish an d fraudulent English Executive from Public Instruction in England, thus English taxpar/ers swindled of an exquisite factor of Civilization , it now glorifies the Salon Carre of the Louvre. 160 bring on a third and fatal attack of hi s fearful malady, therefore leaving my mother to attend to him as best she* could, Dr. Gason took to his heels loith all possible speeds The consequence of this imfamy was a relapse in the ma¬ lady as can be testified by my Father’s medical attendant, l)r. Aitken, who was astounded, and exclaimed: 44 This is indeed atrocious ! ” So that Mr. Burton, Director of the National Gallery, had perpetrated the crime of obtaining admittance to my Father’s house, under a false name , and had availed himself of his being unknown to the other members of the family to pry into our private affairs, and decry our property. This infamy has not been without a sequel, for on the 2nd of December, 1881, precisely a year since the above- mentioned burglarious visit, I, who have no sort of acquain¬ tance with Burton, except from my having seen him in the character of 44 Johnstone ” at my Father’s house, received the following note : — • 4 Private (a). 44 Albergo D'Alemagna, Via Condotti ,. 44 Friday Morning. 44 Dear Sir, 44 If you could find time to do me the favor of calling 44 upon me here, I should feel very much obliged to you. 4t If convenient to you to come to-morrow (Saturday) 44 morning at eleven o’clock, I should be ready to receive 44 you. But at any other hour you may name , I should make 44 it my business to be here. 4 <■ I should not detain you long, but it is important to me 44 to say a few words to you before leaving Rome . 44 Yours faithfully, 44 Professor Morris Moore , junior. ” 44 F. W. BURTON. (a) The Italics are copied from the underlining in the text. 161 Anxious to reproach him with his villainy, and knowing it was no use to tell him he might call at my Father's if he wanted to see me, I went to him on Sunday, December the 4th, when he attempted to deny, not his visit, but his having given a false name , saying, he was 44 not responsible for what his friend, Dr. Gason ” (an old friend also of my Father’s, he declared.) 44 might have said or done. ” To this, I replied that Dr. Gason was but a passing acquaintance of my Father’s, on account of his being generally considered one of the greatest rascals in Rome , and I pronounced his behaviour, as well as Mr. Burton's, to admit of no excuse, declaring my amazement at Mr. Burton’s effrontery in now adding the lie of his not having given a false name , at the same time informing him that his friend, Dr. Gason, had had the audacity to joke my Father upon the vile deceit practised upon him. This base attempt to palliate his infamy, shows that Burton, alias 44 Johnstone , ” is not easy in his conscience, but this is not enough. In the opinion of every honest man cognizant of the facts stated, which, I am sure, will be shared by yourself, this Burton should be publicly denounced as unfit to occupy the important post he has too long disgraced, being as ignorant of Art, as devoid, of every other virtue . An instance of his ignorance of Art, was his insensibility (when at my Father's under the false name of 44 Johnstone to the consummate beauties of an easel picture by the hand of Michelangelo, (a) once possessed by the ancient Family of the Counts Meniconi of Perugia, and described in the Meniconi Catalogue of 1651! Burton stood before this picture, which had ecstasized Sir Frederick Leighton only two months previously, with no more idea of what it might be, than a cat might have had. (a) ‘* The Virgin-of the Lectern,’ 3 siuce Dec., 1882, at Vienna, in the nailery of His Most Serene Highness the reigning Prince of Liechtenstein (the only Michelangelo in Germany,see London “ Globe," 27th Nov., 1882). K 1C2 Sir* Frederick Leighton was equally struck with the loveliness of Raphael’s famous picture of 44 Apollo and Mars^&s,” signed with Raphael's monogram, R. V., the picture which the fraudulent 4 4 Johnston e-Barton ” has been for years constantly decrying, and to approach which once again for the same venal object, he had effected the treachery here related. With regard to the picture by Michelangelo, 44 77 te Virgin of the Lectern , ” possessed by my Father (one of the only four existing by the Master), I may add that this picture, and the one in the 44 Tribuna” of the Uffizi Gallery of Florence, are the only two which have an indisputable derivation, and are completed, and that the finer of the two nowin the National Gallery, known as the Bonar-Michelangelo, like the Fescli picture, is of derivation unknown, while both are unfinished. Tne former is mentioned in the following manner in the authoritative French Periodicals, 44 Gazette des Beaux-Arts/' and the “Revue des Deux Mondes. ” “ Cette admirable Sainte Famille de Michelange qui figurait recemment a l’Exposition de Manchester, Mr. Morins Moore a egalementsignalee le premier.”— “Revue des Deux Mondes/ 15 Juillet, 1858. 14 L’honneur d’avoir restitute a Michel-Ange la Vierge attribute & Ghirlandajo revient sans conteste a Mr. Morris Moore." — 44 Gazette des Beaux-Arts, ” 1 Mars, 1859. Antecedent proof of my Father's having been the first to declare this beautiful unfinished work to be by the hand of Michelangelo, may be found in the 44 Blue Booh ” on the National Galleiy, July 22nd, 1853.— Morris Moore s evidence, question 9953. I enclose two documents; one, a letter of Lord Elcho to the Editor of the ‘‘ Morning Post ” of June 10 th, 1850, the other a letter addressed to my Father by the eminent French writer on Art, Viscount Henri Belaborde. Between the dates of these two documents a space of thirty-one years 163 has elapsed, which I could easily dll with some hundreds of similar testimonies from the first authorities to my Father’s integrity, artistic knowledge, and to the infamous manner in which he has been treated. You, will no doubt remember that it was my Father who, in April, 1873, rescued Raphael 9 s Natal House in Urbino from private hands, causing it to become national, and devoting it to Public Instruction by the title: The Raphael Museum; for which he received the collective thanks of the Jtalian Government, and heard it repeatedly declared, that it was an honor to England that an Englishman should have accomplished so memorable an action. A gold, medal was struck in my Father’s honor, his bust, and a marble tablet recording Ihe event were placed in the central room, an apartment in the Natal House was voted him by the Mu¬ nicipality, and he was named Honorary Citizen of Urbino. The Thanks of the Italian Government:— “ Rome, April 9th, 1873. 4; I rejoice at the rare liberality of Mr. Morris Moore for 4 'the purchase of Raphael's House, and I authorize you to 44 express in my name to that distinguished gentleman the 44 sentiments of admiration and gratitude, which the Govern - 44 ment professes towards him for this noble and generous act. (Signed) 44 SCIALOJA, Minister of Public Instruction. 44 To the President of the Royal Academy in Urbino. 93 It is highly expedient not to omit adding that during my Father s long exile from his country, enforced by venal envy and ceaseless intrigue, he has never remotely sought to repair his consequent material losses by cooperation of any Director or Trustee, or other distributor of the funds voted by Par¬ liament for the National Gallery, or by other public English functionary through the disposal of any masterpiece notoriously in his possession, although more than one of these unanimously by highest authorities rated superlatively 164 important to Public Instruction. Therefore excluded all- imputation of self-seeking ! With respect to this ineffable vizored scoundrel Burton , in particular, my Father's reputation incontestably second to that of none living on supreme questions of classical Art, would have forbidden his descending to hold converse, whether personally or by correspondence, with an obscure individual such as the actual unscrupulous pseudo- director of our National Gallery, noted abroad for his official ignorance. Emphatically, I hold myself strictly responsible for all herein written, as virtually uttered to the English Public,, although formally addressed to yourself, worthily chosen by your constituents to redress individual wrong when of universal concern, as well as aggregately to safeguard national interests and honor. Trusting that you wull deem this matter worthy of the most serious attention, I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully, MORRIS MOORE, Junior. Professor at the Royal University of Rome, etc., etc . Note.— No answer from this Arthur Otway, M. P., Deputy-Speaker of the House and fledgling Baronet, creation of W. E. Gladstone., Rt. Honorable,, hence one of the “ scoundrels of all sizes,” who, on the 2nd of June, 1883. as representative of England had connivently slandered Raphael in the House of Commons; one of the same clique that, on the 251h of March, 1859, hooted and idiosyncratically brayed (brayed, I repeat; in the same place at the bare mention of Raphasl’s “Apollo and Marsyas.” EXTRACT FROM THE WILL OF THE RIGHT HONORABLE ARTHUR GEORGE, EARL OF 0WSL0W, (deceased in 1870). THE CODICIL I EXTRACT FROM THE WILL OF THF RIGHT HONORABLE Arthur George, Earl of Onslow (deceased in 1870). THE CODICIL “ Richmond, November 28th, 1853 “ The accompanying Codicil which bears the date of'the- twenty—second day of December one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, now stands as part of m? last Will, which was executed this 'day—the twenty-eighth of November one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six. It was dictated by me, line for line , ivord for word , letter for letter; an exact copy of which, in my own handwriting , I left with my Solicitor, Mr. E. Partington of Davies Street, Grosvenor Square, for the purpose of being engrossed, nearly two years ago. (a) “ONSLOW.” “ I give to Morris Moore, Esquire, now living at No. 27, Soho Square, London, 200 Guineas, in token of the high, opinion I entertain of him as a consummate Judge of Pictorial Art in all its various branches, and of the manly bearing which so strikingly marked his conduct throughout the tedious labors of the Committee of the House of Commons (1853) on the National Gallery question. (a) The above paragraph preceding, the Codicil was inadvertently omitte d in the first edition of A European Scandal.” the om'ssion is here supplied, as giving with surpassing vigor the testator's conviction of his subject. 168 “In opposition to the entreaties, the supplications, nay, the very threats , of that “ Select ” and importunate body, he stood firm and rivetted to his duty to the Public, whom he had so unremuneratively served; despised the coaxing of its Members, and boldly confronted them in every attempt to shake his integrity of purpose. “If the Picture Cleaners and their Abettors in the National Gallery are allowed to run riot, as they have done , and deface the noblest Works of Art in the Institution, we must bid adieu to the Treasures it contains and make up our minds to the nominal possession of a Repertory of Art without any one constituent Element to entitle it to the name it so pompously bears; if, on the contrary, it be the National wish that this Country should possess a Gallery worthy of its name, it must be entrusted to other hands than those which for the last few years have so destructively misused their powers, and I know r of no one to whom the Charge could be so satisfactorily delegated as to him who unquestionably now stands without a Rival in this Country as a Judge of Painting. “ I desire that Mr. Morris Moore may have an Extract from this my Will containing the above Bequest, and my reason for giving him the same. ” Note—This Codicil is dated the 22dd of December. 1851; and was Execu¬ ted Novtmber the 2Sth, 1856. The Testator died in October, 1870. There¬ fore, in an interval of sixteen years, he could have found nothing- to change his estimate of me. '1 he Earl’s Will may be seen at Doctors' Commons, or at Somerset House, on payment of one shilling. In 1882 I wrote to Lady Augusta Onslow, daughter of the late EarL asking her to favor me with a likeness of her father. She met my desire thus:— “ January 24. 1883. #t Lady Augusta Onslow presents her compliments to Mr. Morris Moore, and begs to enclose the only likeness of the late Earl of Onslow which she had at her disposal. The original photograph was taken about the year 1861.” MORRIS MOORE ESQ. Senior. Rome. THE MENIOONI MICHELANGELO BELOMGING TO MR. MORRIS MOORE. The Meniconi Michelangelo (a) BELONGING TO MR. MORRIS MOORE. The 44 Virgin of the Lectern, ” authenticated as the painting by Michelangelo, formerly possessed by the eminent collector, Count Cesare Meniconi of Perugia, is precisely described in the “ Meniconi Catalogue” of 1651, as follows:— t4 Un tondo di Michelangelo Bona Rota di diametro circa duoi piedi con festone a torno tutto dorato, la Yergine col Putto in collo che dorme, S. Giovanni a piedi sedendo, figure intiere non molto grande. ” The manuscript of this Catalogue is preserved at Modena in the Estense State Archive , and was published in 1870 by the Marchese Giuseppe Campori of Modena, in his splendid 44 Raccolta di Cataloghi ed Inventarii inediti , etc.” For artistic excellence, illustrious derivation, and as the sole painting of Michelangelo private^ owned, it is of surpassing interest. Justly appreciated or not, there still remains the puissant fact of its emanation from the long canonized 44 Angel Divino.” the Master-Spirit that deified Art in the Chapel Unique! No Gallery, private or public, can boast a painting by the Supreme Florentine Master, except only the “Uffizi” at Florence in the 44 Tribuna, ” and the National in London. Hence, the 44 Virgin of the Lectern ” is undeniably the rarest pictorial work extant obtainable by the rarest of Masters. Of the two paintings by Michelangelo in London, the more beautiful and imposing, hitherto ignorantly ascribed to (a) Now in the Liechtenstein Gallery in Vienna. 172 Domenico Ghirlandajo, was at the House of Commons on the 22nd of July, 1853, before a Committee of seventeen members, by Mr. Morris Moore revendicated to Michelangelo; revendication promptly ratified by the concurrent umpirage of artistic Europe. Michelangelo’s 4 * Sacra Famiglia ” in the “ Tribuna ” of the Uffizi, commissioned by Agnolo Doni and the Meniconi Michelangelo are both finished; both of historical and il¬ lustrious derivation. Neither of the paintings by Buonarroti in London are finished; neither of known derivation. The 44 Virgin of the Lectern ” is a compend of various sculptured and painted w r orks by Michelangelo. The Virgin herself, a counterpart of the one in the sculptured Pieta in St. Peter’s, but by the sister art rendered yet more life¬ like , recalls also the unfinished 44 Virgin and Child ” in the sad Medicean Chapel at Florence; moreover, no faint reminder of the Sibylla Delphica, and of other marvels in the Sixtine Chapel. The ascetic Herald of Redemption, sitting at the Virgin's feet, while absorbed in the symbol of Baptism held in his left hand; in the right, and resting upon his shoulder, that of the Passion, sorrowfully foreseen!—matchless conception of the 44 Precursor! ”—is eloquently the germ of the 44 Pen- siero ! ”—the divinized Marble re-incarnating Duke Lorenzo immortally musing amid his spectral kin in the solemn final Home of the departed Medici! Further, the 44 St. John” suggests the masterly distant group of nude figures in the 4 * Sacra Famiglia ” of the 44 Tribuna; ” the comely, youthful figure in profile, intent upon a scroll on the left of the Bonar-Taunton Michelangelo the 44 Virgin , Child , St. John , and Angels , ” in London, before mentioned. 44 The Lectern distinctive of the Meniconi Michelangelo, its base, with grim arabesque monsters interlaced, mutatis mutandis , similar in design to the famed Candelabrum adorning the Altar of the sepulchral Medicean Chapel. 173 Superlative in conception of subject and linear harmony, Michelangelo’s 44 Virgin of the Lectern , ” is equally superla¬ tive in coloring; each color, each tint, complemented with art to the concealment of art itself, and with unerring science so apportioned by the stupendous idiosyncrasy of Michelangelo, as to confound the beholder by its gorgeous Unity; the secret of its achievement reserved for the chosen only ! Brief; the coloring of the Sixtine Chapel is epitomized in the 44 Virgin of the Lectern. ” MORRIS MOORE, Senior. m PORTRAIT OF DANTE El RAPHAEL (in the possession of MORRIS MOORE, senior IN ROME). t The Portrait of Dante by Raphael. (in the possession of MORRIS MOORE, senior , IN ROME). The Portrait of Dante by Raphael, painted, as there is fair ground to conjecture, for his friend Cardinal Bembo, author of the famous distich for the sovereign Painter s Tomb in the Pantheon (a), is in Raphael’s 44 Florentine manner,” not without reason by many preferred as the most 'purely and most emphatically “ Raphaelesque Of this 44 manner” are the 44 Entombment ” in the Borghese Gallery, the “Ma¬ donna del Cardellino” in the 44 Tribuna” at Florence, the 44 Madonna ” of the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna, and other among the most celebrated works of the Italian Apelles , as, for instance, his 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” (b). Like all Raphael’s paintings, that are incontestable , only one excepted, namely, the 44 Madonna di S. Sisto ” at Dres¬ den, and, of course, his frescoes , Raphael’s Portrait of Dante is on panel . The panel is 17 2 / 3 inches high, 127 2 inches wide. All but in profile and turned to the right , the features are manifestly borrowed from the sole authentic effigy of the Poet extant , the one ( also in profile , but turned to the left) (a) Hie hie est Raphael timuit quo sospite vinci Rerum Magna Parens et moriente mori. Questi 6 quel Raffael che vivo, vinta Esser credea Natura, e morto, estinta. ( b ) Since May 1883, in thje Salon Carre of the Louvre. painted in fresco by his friend Giotto, in the Chapel of the Palazzo del Podestd (now Museo Nazionale), at Florence; the only comtemporary one representing* him in the prime of manhood, — 44 nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita,” as sung in the first line of the Divine Comedy. Melancholy and thoughtful — 44 malinconico e pensoso ” the countenance,(as described by Boccaccio, Dante’s great vo¬ tary and Biographer), deep on the brow are already gra¬ ved the traditional furrows, and salient on the temple rise the veins, signs visible of fathomless musings. The cap, in hue dark purple, is enwreathed with Apollo 9 s bays, undying record of sweet Daphne; whereas, the Portrait by Giotto is uncrowned. Beneath the purple cap is one of ivhite linen, through the one seen lappet of which, exqui¬ sitely peer the graceful contours of the ear. The doublet, twice fastened with green bows, to match and thus balance (as, by analogy, wfith the harmonies in Mu¬ sic) tlie\color of the bays above, is red; this complementing the green, its optical antagonist , as the deep orange hue of the face complements the purple of the cap. At its foot, the picture is terminated by a sill, an incn and three-quarters high, representing variegated wood-work, as in a very precious picture in the Salon Carre of the Louvre. Upon this sill, and real as the curtain which duped Zeuxis, is depicted a scrap of ichite paper, three inches by 1 3 / 4 , once sextuply folded, but now horizontally displayed. It could have served for a monogram, or a larger inscription, s^ r , a distich from Dante himself, but no trace is there of any. Its main object was pictorial, and this was accomplished by its balancing the white of the lappet, as the green bows of the doublet balance the bays. The background is of a warm blackish uniform tint, the very counterpart of the background to the 44 Madonna del Granducaby Raphael, in the Pitti Gallery at Florence. 179 Nothing can exceed the scientific distribution and balance of tones in this work. Its harmony is surpassing . Besides its necessary superiority, as a work of Art , in¬ cident to the Master and to Art's achieved maturity , the Portrait by Raphael possesses a further matchless advan¬ tage over its Prototype; namely, its having been inspired by the latter, when as yet unmangled by vandalism and undxfiled by “ restoration On reflecting that here is portrayed, by Italy’s sovereign Limner, the effigy of Italy’s imperial Homeric Bard— the effigy of Him whose name is a very synonym for Italy's , the likeness morally and materially vouched by authority above all question , one cannot withhold conviction that such a work may well claim to be without rival. The Colors.—The green bays encircling the cap, the white lappet underlying it, and the red doublet form the ancient Ghi - belline Tricolor , hence appropriate to “ the Great Ghibel- line,” as antagonistic to the Papal colors. The same colors figure on Giotto’s effigy of the Poet in fresco from Life in the Chapel of the Prsetorium (Palace of the Podesta) at Flo¬ rence* They are the origin of the actual national Tricolor of United Italy. — MORRIS MOORE, Senior. THE ARREST OF MR. MORRIS MOORE IN BERLIN. FROM THE r TIMES” FRIDAY, NOV. 28, 1856. The Arrest of Mr. Morris Moore in Berlin. FROM THE “ TIMES,” FRIDAY, NOV. 28, 1856. To the Editor of the 44 Times.” Sir I forward for publication a correspondence, from which England will learn the leading details of a daring and unpro¬ voked outrage committed by the Prussian Government on an English citizen. I pledge myself to their accuracy. That outrage has astounded the Prussian capital, and is the topic of the day. It is, I am assured, considering all its circumstances, both for its summary and violent character without precedent. The members of the bar and of the press at Berlin are of opinion that it must have originated, not with the police, but with the Minister of the Interior, and that, behind him, there must lurk a high and extraordinary influence . They are right. The puppets are here; the manipulators in England. I am, Sir, Yours obediently, MORRIS MOORE Senior. Berlin , 23, Tauben-strasse , Monday, Nov. 24. 184 “ Berlin, Sunday , Nov. 23, 1856, “23, Tauben-strasse. *• Lord Blomfield, “At ten o'clock on Friday evening, Nov. 21, five emissaries of the Berlin police took forcible possession of my apartments, at 23, Tauben-strasse, and, scorning or ignoring even the semblance of civility, proceeded forthwith to overhaul my papers, seized the whole of my effects, and subjected my person to gross indignity; and, that nothing should be wanting to complete the burglarious character of the outrage, I was ordered to deliver my purse, from which they sub¬ tracted two papers. I requested leave to communicate with the English Ambassador. The title was parroted with a scoff; a contemptuous chuckle followed, and then the somewhat superfluous information that I was in Prussia , not in England. I here declare most emphatically that I offered no resistance whatever to this violence, and that in the quietest manner I simply asked leave to communicate with the English Ambassador. I made no threat either of his title or of his interposition. I mention this to forestall misinterpretation, for I know that inexperienced Englishmen have occasionally committed this indiscretion. A sense of propriety, to say nothing of a long-standing conviction that an Englishman may be kicked from one end of the continent to the other w r ith scarcely a chance of apology, still less of redress, would have deterred me from wielding so pointless a weapon. At twenty minutes to eleven, utterly ignorant of the nature of the crime imputed to me, I was consigned to the criminal division of the Presidency of Police. I now oome to what more directly concerns yourself. “ As early as half-past three o’clock on the afternoon of the 21st, I was accidentally apprised that emissaries of the police had been observed to enter the house in which my apartments are situated, and that their presence had J 85 created a sensation throughout the neighbourhood. I had already received strange intimations in which Dr. Waagen’s name was coupled with the police, and I have reason to believe that man to be as unscrupulous as he is incompetent. Moreover, a letter commenting upon him, and bearing my signature, had appeared in the 4 National Zeitung ’ on that very morning of the 21st. I felt perfectly indifferent about meeting the police, save for that instinctive repugnance which an Englishman must feel to foreigners of that class. But I had business on hand out of doors for the rest of the day, and I thought it better to despatch it at once. I was prepared, therefore, to find the police on my return home. They waited for me nearly seven hours. Previous to my return I addressed a note to you, in which I informed you that my arrest was projected for that same evening. This note was delivered into your own hands at eleven o’clock, and you received at the same time oral assurance that the emissaries of the police had been seen to enter my dwelling immediately after me, and that consequently there could scarcely be a doubt that my arrest had been effected. You replied that you wished to be still more positively assured of the fact. I cannot but admire your fidelity to routine. Nevertheless, the occasion demanded some slackening of the official ‘stock’ (a). I contend, Lord Blomfield, that, with such information as you now possessed, exclusive of my note, it was the- duty of an English Minister to master for himself that airy distinction which you appear to have considered essential to action. But you were content with making the peculiar request that your visitor would return at nine o’clock 4 on the following morning,’ and let you know whether I w^as 4 still ’ a prisoner. Thus you reconciled your¬ self to allowing strangers to perform your duty, and to aban¬ doning an English citizen to the mercies of an irresponsi- ( a ) About this period, the tight stocks worn by our soldiers had suffoca¬ ted several of them, and the snbjeGt was the topic of the day. 186 ble foreign police for a period of at least nine hours! But others watched^wkile you slumbered. Your repose was not disturbed. It was not until a quarter past nine o'clock 4 on the following morning,’ and I trust not until after you had breakfasted, that a note certifying that I was 4 still ’ a pris¬ oner reached you. It ran as follows .— 4 The gentleman who had the honor to wait upon your Excellency last night on the affair of Mr. Morris Moore hereby informs your Excel¬ lency that Mr. Morris Moore is actually under arrest.’ 44 I have been informed that some time between the re¬ ceipt of the last-mentioned note and eleven o’clock you went to M. Manteuffel. I was not released until one. I had been compelled to pass the night in the Criminal-Abtheilung (criminal division) of the Presidency of Police, dressed as I was at the time of my arrest, and without a bed. In a truculent tone the intimation, 4 II est per mis de dormir, si vous pouvez,’ was indeed conveyed to me, and also that I might lie down on a dirty-looking couch in an adjoining room, but I had no stomach to repose where delators and bloodhounds might have stretched their lengths. I passed the night without sleep, partly seated on a chair and partly in pacing my prison. In the morning no opportunity was af¬ forded me of arranging my apparel, or of performing my ablutions, and during the whole fifteen hours of my deten¬ tion I was without refreshment of any kind, unless, indeed, I had felt disposed to become the boon companion, over the same glass of water, of the two armed sgherri who guard¬ ed me during the night, and who would infallibly have cut me down had I attempted to break my arrest. Mark how cheap the personal liberty of an Englishman is held here ! It was not until half-past ten—that is, not until I had been a prisoner for upwards of twelve hours—that I was sum¬ moned before my judge. This functionary announced him¬ self to be the 4 Procureur du Roi.’ I took leave to initiate the conference by demanding to be informed upon w T hat grounds 187 this outrage had been perpetrated—by what authority an English citizen had been forced through the streets of Ber¬ lin, and, like a felon, locked up during a whole night in the criminal division of the Presidency of Police. He inter¬ rupted me to say that the police rendered no account of their proceedings, and that I must speak to him like a gen¬ tleman. I retorted that that was speaking to him like a man, and that I had yet to learn that what became a man was unbecoming a gentleman. The conference lasted until a quar¬ ter past eleven. It resulted in the admission by the Procu- reur du Roi that there was no case whatver against me, and in a voluntary promise that in a quarter of an hour I should have my liberty; and then to show the solidity of his understanding and his estimate of personal freedom, he attempted to persuade me that I had not been in prison. As though even a palace—let alone a dirty police-room - were other than a gaol, if to have one’s throat cut must be the penalty of the exit! In spite of the promise that I should be free 4 in a quarter of an hour ’ volunteered by this 4 gentle¬ man,’ who, by the-bye, gave me to understand that he had ex¬ perienced similar treatment from the police of London, I repeat that I remained a prisoner until one o’clock. Not a word of regret escaped this 4 gentleman’s ’ lips at my unjust arrest. My effects are still detained. 44 It is now six o’clock, Sunday evening, November the 23rd. All but tw T o days have elapsed since you received my note informing you that I was to be arrested on Friday evening, and it is upwards of a day since my release; but I have .yet to see even so much as an acknowledgment of the receipt of that note. This may be strictly according to the canons of diplomacy, but does it harmonize with what is usual among gentlemen ? 44 I now T formally, as I myself am concerned, repudiate your further interference, and I disdain your assistance. Bet¬ ter to take one’s chance with a violent and irresponsible 188 foreign police than trust to an English Minister. Had we a Government jealous of our national character, your next despatch from England, Lord Blomfield, might teach you that an English Minister should he something more than the tinsel appendage of a foreign Court; that he is not there to sleep while his fellow-citizens are outraged to allay the fears of a timid Government; but that he is there as the representative of collective might, to protect our interests and guard our honor. 44 MORRIS MOORE. 41 Lord Blomfield , English Ambassador to the Court of Prussia ” (a). 44 Berlin Nov. 21.— Friday Evening.. “ My Lord, 44 I have been informed that on my return to my apart¬ ments at 23, Tauben-strasse, I shall be molested by the Ber¬ lin police. This will be entirely without provocation, as 1 scrupulously abstain from speaking of politics. 44 As a British citizen, I request the protection of the British Embassy, 44 I am, your obedient servant. 44 MORRIS MOORE. 44 To the Right Hon. Lord Blomfield." The following letter was received at seven o’clock on Sun¬ day evening, November the 23rd. Two gentlemen were pres¬ ent when it was delivered, and they read it: 44 Berlin Nov. 23. “ Sir, 44 I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter writ¬ ten on the evening of the 21st inst., informing me that you (a) At Berlin the noble Lord had earned the title of Ambassador of not to the Court of Prussia. N.B.—Walter Savage Landor was pleased to say of this Letter that he woul have given Jive hundred guineas to have been the author of such a Letti r. Born in l r /75, he died at Florence in Via della Nunziatina the YIth o* September, 1864. 189 expected to be molested by the police. At an interview which I had with Baron Manteuffel early yesterday, I endeavour¬ ed to learn the nature of the suspicions existing against you. His Excellency was at that time ignorant of the proceed¬ ings of the police, but I heard subsequently with satisfac¬ tion that you had been set at liberty after ah interrogatory before the authorities. 66 1 am, Sir, 44 Your obedient, humble servant, 44 BLOMFIELD. u To Morris Moore , Esq .” Monday , Nov . 24 . P:S.—At twelve o’clock to-day two soldiers entered my room and deposited my effects; that is, two days after my release. My papers are shamefully crumpled, and my books dirtied. I have not had time to ascertain whether any of my papers are missing. William Ooningdiam ON Morris Moore’s Letter to Lord Blomfield UPON MORRIS MOORE’S ARREST IN BERLIN, Nov. 21, 1856. (See Note (b) on Page 196/' Kempt own , Brighton , Nov. 29, 1856. Dear Mrs Moore, Your husband’s letter is excellent , in my opinion ! As you might anticipate, many object to the mention, or allusion to Albert: I don’t, however. The <4 Post ” prints the letter entire with Albert's name in full. Altogether I make out four papers as publishing it. There is but one opinion about Blom¬ field. “ Jacob omnium ” (Higgins) says he behaved as ill as possible. On Sunday afternoon, I mean to go up to town to see the Editors of the Monday papers, if the road is pas¬ sable; for it is now snowing tremendously. It was in the 44 Times ” of Tuesday instead of Monday , that the suppression must have taken place in the Berlin cor¬ respondence. 1 hope your husband may be able to take Darm¬ stadt in his way home, if indeed he is coming home. I have not heard from him for more than a week. With best wishes for his triumph and success, Believe me yours, W. CONINGHAM Mrs. Morris Moore , 27 Soho Square , London. ARTICLE FROM THE CORRIEREITAIIANO” OF VIENNA WEDNESDAY, MAY THE 13TH, 1857. Republished by the « M ONI TO RE TOSCANO” THURSDAY, JUNE THE 4TH OF THE SAME YEAR. “APOLLO AND MARSYAS:” A PAINTHING AND A DRAWING RY RAPHAEL. ( TRANSLATION.) ARTICLE FROM THE “Oorriere Italiano” of Vienna, WEDNESDAY, MAY THE I3TH, 1 8^7. Republished by the “ MONITORE TOSCANO THURSDAY, JUNE THE 4TH OF THE SAME YEAR. “APOLLO AND MARSYAS: ” A PAINTING AND A DRAWING BY RAPHAEL. (TRANSLATION.) Mr. Morris Moore, a man well known in the Fine Arts, and who has passed a great part of his life in visiting Museums, Galleries, and cities rich in monuments of Art, discovered some years ago an exquisite painting by Raphael, repre senting 44 Apollo andMarsyas Not long after he heard that among the drawings formerly belonging to the painter Bossi, since acquired by Royal munificence and presented to our Academy, there existed an'original drawing of the very same composition by Raphael, under which had been written by the hand of Cicognara, Benedetto Montagna , that accomplished man having perhaps been led into error by Benedetto , and not Bartolommeo, as wm, subse¬ quently said, having engraved the same subject; although the style and the school, entirely different, revealed it to be a transcendent work of Raphael. To compare then the painting with the drawing, Mr. Morris Moore, as early as March, 1854, sought means to obtain a photograph of the latter-, aud he accordingly, through Mr. Edward Cheney, got Mr. Rawdon Browne, who for many years has resided in Venice, to procure it for him. In spite, however, of the pains taken by Mr. Browne, it was impossible for him to obtain it, the secretary of the I. R. Academy, the Marchese Selvatico, having refused it him, and this for reasons unknown. M 194 Two months afterwards, that is, in May, 1854, Baron Marocchetti, a sculptor established in London, wrote at the instance of Mr. Morris Moore himself to an English friend resident at Venice, perhaps Mr. Leeves, to renew the request to the Marchese Selvatico, who this time replied that he could allow no photograph of that drawing to be taken until the Director of the English National Gallery, Mr. Eastlake, “to whom he stood thus pledged ” had first received one ; but that soon after he should have a copy. But the execution of the photograph was never realized, and con¬ sequently, neither was the 'promise. It appears, therefore, that the impediment to obtaining it derived from Eastlake. A few days after this last occurrence, Mr. Joseph D. Bohm, Director of the I. R. Academy of the Medallists of the Mint, and I. R. Medallist in Ordinary at Vienna, a most able connoisseur and formerly possessor of original drawings by Raphael, having come to Italy by command of the Im¬ perial Government in order to examine the condition of the “ Cenacolo ” by Leonardo, and of other celebrated paintings, seized that opportunity to see the drawing in question, he being already acquainted by fame with the painting in Mr. Morris Moore’s possession; but that drawing had been removed from its frame,, and it had to be fetched from the private room of the Secretary (Selvatico) before he oould see it. Mr. Bolim then asked the Marchese Selvatico to send him a potograph ef it; “ in spite of his (Selvatico^ most positive promises , he could never get it” as he himself, in these same words, wrote to Mr. Morris Moore, on the 22nd of July, 1855, in a letter which was published on the 1st of the September following in the English journals. Nor •was the drawing in question merely taken from its frame, but various foreigners were prevented even from seeing it, as can testify Messers. William Smith, late printseller, of London , and William Carpentee, keeper of the Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, who, having come to 195 Venice in the autumn of 1854, and remained here four days, found it impossible, notwithstanding all their efforts, to see that drawing, access to it having been denied them on one pretext or another. Mr. Smith also heard in Venice, as he himself on his return to London informed Mr. Morris Moore, that it would be useless to think of the photograph , and that the impediment derived from the above-named Eastlake (a). It is necessary to observe here that it was of great con¬ sequence to Eastlake that this drawing by Raphael should remain unknown. On account of his vandalism in the treatment of Ancient Paintings and his ignorant purchases, Mr. Morris Moore had twice, by means of Parliament, effected his removal from the Directorship of the English National Gallery (in 1847 and in 1854), subsequently again occupied by him through those intrigues which are notorious to all Eugland. By the concealment therefore of the -drawing, he hoped to prevent Mr. Morris Mcore from acqui¬ ring greater authority in matters of Art. Eastlake made two journeys in person from London to Venice, namely, in 1852 and 1854, expressly to gain over Selvatico, as above mentioned. With regard to the ignorant purchases made by Eastlake for the English National Gallery, it is enough to record that some made within the two last years in Italy by him and one Mundler, a Bavarian (b), were resold on the 14th of last February (1857), by public auction, and that the sum realized for them was less than half their cost. {a) “ These facts published by the English and Italian Press,” says Vis¬ count Hemi Delaborde of the Imperial Library at Paris, in his Essay on Raphael’s ‘Apollo and Marsyas,’ in the Revue des Deux Mondes 33 ofJnly the 15th, 1858, “ demanded an inquiry.” (b) Upon an amendment by Lord Elcho, seconded by Mr. Coningham, this Mundler vr as cashiered by a vote of Parliament on the 13th of July, 1858. ,‘Mr. Morris Moore’s opinion of his capacity as a judge of pictures has at last been fully justified.” '‘Bell’s Weekly Mess./ 3 July 17, 1858. See also. “Sun. 33 “D.News. 33 “Athenccum/ 3 “Times/’ etc., July 14. 15,17. 19. etc., 1858. 196 Last January (1857) Mr. Alexander Barker having arrived at Venice from London, and wishing to obtain a photograph of the drawing in question, to this solicited by Mr. Morris Moore, he found it impossible to accomplish his desire, and precisely on account of the refusal which he met with from the Marchese Selvatico. All which comes to confirm still further the things above set forth, and shews the de¬ liberate intention to conceal, for some motive , that drawing. Before this last occurrence, however, that is, in 1856, Mr. Morris Moore having, in order to obtain the desired photograph, interposed by means of Messieur Higgins ( a) and Dawkins of London, Mr. Harris, the English Consul- General in Venice, the latter so managed that this time it could not be refused. But it now befell, that the photo¬ grapher engaged (by Selvatico^, being either ignorant or so instructed , could not, or said he could not, produce the required photograph; and thus the Marchese Selvatico pro¬ posed to Mr. Harris to have executed, in its stead, a copy in drawing by a young student of the Academy, and this copy was forwarded to the possessor cf the picture in England (b). All the particulars above recorded, besides very many others, were published in several journals, and it seeming unaccountable that no photograph could be produced from that drawing, Mr. Passavant, the Director of the Gallery of Frankfort-on-the-Maine, undertook to inquire at Venice the cause. He heard in reply, that the impossibility arose from the fact that the original drtiwing is executed on paper of a reddish tint: a tint which to the photographer corresponds, as it was sought to make believe, to perfect darkness. That inquiry and the answer which followed it, were published (a) Jacob Omnium” of the Time*/’ See W. Coningham's Letter. Nov. 29, 1S56. page 190. (b) It is worthy of note that the photograph was still perversely withheld, because this alone could give the lines oj Raphael . and these alone were wanted. 197 by Passavant himself on the 1st of November, 1855, in the Berlinese Art-journal entitled, 44 Deutsches Kunstblatt . ” It were needless to tell how r great was now Mr. Morris Moore’s indignation on discovering so many contradictions, so many blunders, so many subterfuges and base intrigues, in order to cloak the malignant artifices employed against him; and he therefore in August, 1855, and May, 1856, published in various English journals, three articles in w r hich he complained of all those w-ho, at first, had attempted to conceal, as it were, that drawing; and then, not being able to succeed in this, had prevented its being made knowm by .means of photography (a). In consequence of a reply to those articles in the 44 Exa¬ miner” newspaper on the 7th of June, 1856, distorting, or rather, fa'sifyng the facts by him made public, in a way to make them appear calumnies, although those facts w r ere backed by irrefragable evidence (b), Mr. Morris Moore bent himself to unmask those falsehoods in an article published in the 44 Koniglich priviligirte Berlinische Zeitung ,” called also the 44 Vossische Zeitung of the 13th of last February (1857); and to see the matter settled once for all, he went himself to Vienna, in order to obtain from the Supreme Ministry of Public Instruction, a regular permission to take from the beset drawing, the photograph declared impossible . And indeed he obtained it speedily; and it was granted him w r ith the liberality characteristic of the Austrian Government which loves and takes pains to foster study, to diffuse public Institutions, to promote w r hat is good, and to reward genius; and hence Mr. Morris Moore w r as furnished with an ample •decree which placed him in a position to obtain freely the (a) fr M. Advertiser/' Aug. 27 and Sept. 1, and Bell's Weekly Mess./’ Sept. 1855; also, D. News/' and “ Sun," May 14, and rr M. Herald/' May 16, 1356. ( b ) The stupid elaboration of falsohood in the rr Examiner/' well handled in the tr M. Advertiser ” of June 19, 1856, t was the offspring of oue John Fors¬ ter, a notoriustime-server. He has, not inaptly, crept into some sinecure in 4he Sewers, 198 coveted'photograph, and to take others also, had he thought- fit, from such drawings belonging to the Venetian Academy as might come in aid of his studies. Arrived at Venice, Mr. Morris Moore found the I. R. Academy made accessible to all his desires, by Signor Andrea Taglia- pietra, the Marchese Selvatico being absent; and having brought there with him the skilful photographer Signor Perini, the latter quickly obtained, and with complete success, the photograph previously announced as impossible; and, in: like manner, lie took also another photograph from another drawing by Raphael, in which one perceives that the incompa¬ rable master had traced the first idea, or rather the forms of the Apollo, of which he availed himself for the painting of 44 Apollo and Marsyas in the possession of Mr. Morris Moore. These things we wished to make public for many reasons;, as, for instance, to give the lie to the fables promulgated, by certain foreign journals; to unmask the artifices practised by those who, to serve their own ends , wished that drawing to remain unknown; to demonstrate the ignorance of some who would pass themselves off as Masters in Art, when of' Art they know not even the. rudiments; to make more widely known the truly exquisite drawing of Raphael belonging to the Venetian Academy, which to the studies and researches of Mr. Morris Moore owes its recognition: lastly, to offer a tribute of deserved and solemn thanks to the illustrious Ministry which with liberal mind was pleased to consent that that photograph should be taken, without which, neither had it been possible to give the lie to menda¬ cious journalists, nor to the ignorant; nor to the advantage of history and of the polite Arts had been spread the knowledge of a most precious original, the photograph of which together with one from the picture, already deposited by Mr. Morris Moore in the I. R. Academy of Venice, can there be seen. FROM THE “ RAFFAELLO,” JOURNAL FOR THE OFFICIAL ACTS OE THE ROYAL RAPHAEL ACADEMY OF URBINO. ( Urbino, 20th April , 1873). From the “Rafaello” JOURNAL FOR THE OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE ROYAL RBPHAEL ACADEMY OF URBINO. (TJrhino, 20th April iS73). An extraordinary and solemn event took place on the 6th of April, the- Birthday of the supreme Painter—an event that will he for ever memorable' in the civic annals, and in the fasti of the Royal Academy. Our well-deserving colleague, Mr. Morris Moore, of London, came to Urbino, and, with unsurpassed generosity, placed at the disposal of the Academy the necessary sum (£. 5,000) for the completion of the much-desired purchase of Raphael's Natal House. After this event, as joyful as it was unhoped for, at half-past four p.m. of the same day, in the room itself where the divine Painter drew his first breath, amidst shouts of joy, and a crowed of people deeply moved, in presence of the whole Directing Council of the Academy, of many resident Academicians, of the first Governing and Municipal Autho¬ rities, the solemn deed of purchase was stipulated, signed by the vendor, .Sig. Pier Giuseppe Albini, by the President of the Academy, Count Cavaliere Pompeo Gherardi, by the Mayor, Cav. Ing. Ercole Salmi, by the witnesses, Doctor F. Yecchiotti Antaldi and Sig. Benedetto Cesarini Romaldi, by Mr. Morris Moore, by the components of the said Council, and by other gentlemen present, amongst whom the Sub- Prefect, Sig. Eugenio Ravizza. The deed was drawn up by Doctor Ladislao Regini, notary and public archivist. And here must be tendered great thanks to Doctor Professor Giovanni Yenturini, resident Academician, who, with exem- 202 plary earnestness and indefatigable zeal, took care that all should be done regularly, and in the short space of two days. The rest shall be told minutely in the following article:— THE FESTIVAL OF THE 6th APRIL. In writing this article, I would I had the pen of my dear friend, Aleardi, the Poet, who described, w T ith raphaellesque colors, the stupendous festival given by Urbino to her Great One, in April, 1870. Were he with us, he would have retold with fresh eloquence the popular enthusiasm and the great emotions of this truly heavenly day. At half-past ten a.m. the Hall of the Angels in our Ducal Palace was crowded with people of all classes and all degrees, who flocked to hear the praises of their Raphael. The President of the Academy, before the learned discourse of Prof, Alberto Rondani, pronounced a few words relative to the solemnity celebrating in honor of Him whose genius makes this spot of Italy and Urbino to be thought of and spoken of by every country throughout the civilized world. And here it was thought becoming to pay a tribute to the noble English Nation, and to Mr. Morris Moore, who was present, and seated beside the cast of Raphael’s skull garlanded with flowers, and placed under the likeness of the Divine Painter. The noble guest listened to his well-deserved praise, evidently much moved when the loud and prolonged applause of the people hailed the illustrious benefactor—the man truly enamoured of Raphael. Prof. Avo. Luigi D’Apel having read two sonnets by Prof. Alberto Rondani, in honor of the Divine Painter, the President communicated the generous donation of Mr. Morris Moore, who offered to the Academy the money that was still wanting to complete the purchase of the historical house. And here the applause was redoubled, and the general commotion increased. 203 Then came the announcement that, at half-past four p.m., the deed would he stipulated in Raphael’s own house, and that by this deed the subscription opened in 1871 for such object would he closed. At the same time it was announced that, by advice of the illustrious Mr. Morris Moore, another public and general one would be opened, in order to devote the offerings to the restoration of this monument possessed by Urbino, which is not only Italian, but universal; and that, re-modelled in the architectural style of the period, it may become an Artistic Museum dedicated to the Great Painter. And here Mr. Morris Moore made known that, through his endeavours, many offerings had been already received. And, lastly, the same President informed the public that the Academy had, in honor of its well-deserving colleague, decreed the three following Acts:—1. A Diploma of Special Merit, accompanied by a Gold Medal; 2. To place in Raphael’s House a Commemorative Tablet to record his most generous act; 3. To offer to Mr. Morris Moore and to his family an apartment in the House itself, whenever he should visit Urbino. The following inscription might be read to the left on .entering the Hall of the Angels:— “ TO THE ILLUSTRIOUS MORRIS MOORE OF LONDON THE ENVIED POSSESSOR OF TWO PAINTINGS BY RAPHAEL SUPREME JUDGE OF PICTORIAL ART A VERY GREAT FRIEND OF OUR ITALY HONORED FOR MORAL AND CIVIL VIRTUES THE GRATEFUL CITIZENS OF URBINO OFFER A TRIBUTE OF ESTEEM THAT WITH A GENEROUS SPONTANEOUS ACT OFFERING A CONSIDERABLE SUM OF MONEY HE AFFORDED MEANS TO 1 HE ACADEMY WHICH TAKES ITS TITLE FROM THE GREAT PAINTER TO ACQUIRE THE HOUSE WHERE IN 1483 RAPHAEL WAS BORN.” ki The 6th April\ 1873." 204 At two o’clock p.m. began the social banquet, which went off with that spirit of gay and fraternal concord for which those hours of life may be called truly happy. Toasts were not wanting in honor of Raphael, in honor of Morris Moore. The first was in verse by Gherardi, who wished to express the idea that Raphael must certainly enjoy from Paradise the sight of the Festival given by Urbino in his honor, and in seeing a stranger contribute so greatly to offer him homage together with his fellow-citizens. Prof. Dott. Luigi D’Apel pronounced a short discourse full of most noble ideas, which we cannot refrain from quoting in part. He said: — “Gentlemen, when we honor the memory of our great men, we perform an act of filial duty, and at the same time flatter our self-love. When we celebrate the glory of Raphael, Michelangelo, Dante, we almost fancy we are praising ourselves. It is, therefore, no virtuous act in us to offer such homage, if it be true that disinterested virtue is the only virtue deserving of the name. But, when strangers come as generous guests to surround with wreaths the tombs of our mighty Italians, they are actuated by a sentiment much more generous and pure than the love of self or the love of country. We behold this day an illustrious pilgrim from noble England, Mr. Morris Moore, coming piously to Urbino bearing splendid tokens of his munificence to form of the house that cradled Raphael the most -sacred and imperishable monument of his greatness, etc., etc. At the end, Mr. Morris Moore proposed the first toast, “ To Italy, Mother of Raphael, Dante, and Michelangelo; to United Italy, whose glories are too many to be numbered/’ He therefore stops, summing them all in the historic house of Sanzio. His second toast was gracefully addressed to the Founder and President of the Academy, “whose affection for Raphael, and whose indefatigable diligence, had revived the worship of the admirable Painter. ” 2C5 At half-past four, the salvoes from the Fort announced to the people the stipulation of the solemn act told by us in the beginning. When the signatures were appended to the document, the Mayor, in the name of the honorable municipality, presented to the illustrious guest, the Diploma of Citizen of Urbino. The City Concert performed several pieces, and streams of people invaded the whole apartment—an invasion that lasted until half-past nine at night. It was a holy, tranquil, universal joy, and all hearts beat in unison for Raphael. From the window, as symbol of national fraternity, waved the united flags of England and Italy. A great concourse of citizens visited the honored guest on the 7th, 8th, and 9th of April, thus offering him fresh testimony of the lively gratitude of the whole country. On the 8th, Mr. Morris Moore was again invited to another banquet given by the Academy, where he heard other toasts given—amongst them one by Gherardi in honor of Raphael’s Painting of “Apollo and Marsyas, ” possessed by the dis¬ tinguished guest. The Minister of Public Instruction, upon being informed of Mr. Morris Moore’s generous act, wrote as follows to the President of the Royal Academy :— u Rome ( 9th April , 1813. I rejoice at the rare liberality, of Mr. Morris Moore in the purchase of Raphael’s House: and I authorize you to express, in my name, to that distinguished gentleman the sentiments of ad¬ miration and gratitude which the government professes towards him for this act of his, so generous and noble. (Signed) “ The Minister , SCIALOJA.” ENGLISH OFFICIAL KNAVERY. English Official Knavery. I. LORD ELCHO. Extract, of a Letter from LORD ELCHO TO THE 44 MORNING POST/ 9 June the 10 th, 1850. 44 .Public attention has been already so fully drawn to Mr. Morris Moore’s Raphael, a work of Art which I, in common with most of those who have had the good fortune to see it, believe to be of great National importance; and public opinion has been so strongly expressed in its favour, through the medium of the press, that I would fain hope the Trustees will make a point of securing it for the National Gallery. . . . My own conviction is, that this picture is not only a Raphael, but, perhaps, the purest and most beautiful specimen of the master in this country. 99 Extract of a Letter from LORD ELCHO TO MR. MORRIS MOORE, Dated the 1 6th of December , 1852. 44 You deserve the thanks of all who take an interest in Art, for bringing before the Public, the conduct of the guardians (sic) of our Collection. Your opinion as to the 210 damage done to the pictures is corroborated by many of my friends who have seen them since their excoriation. ” II. THE ARREST OF MR. MORRIS MOORE IN BERLIN. From the “Daily Neivs” of December the 1$£, 1856. “ Sir,— As a friend of Mr. Morris Moore’s, and as an Englishman, permit me to thank you for the spirited manner in which you have taken up the subject of his arrest and incarceration by a secret and irresponsible authority at Berlin, while the British Ambassador, although forewarned of the intended outrage, was sleeping, doubtless, to his own entire, ‘satisfaction.’” (a) “Mr. Moore is accused of using ‘ intemperate’ language. It should be remembered that he has been exposed to a degree of provocation almost beyond the power of human endurance. It should be remembered that a systematic attempt has been made by his incapable and unscrupulous opponents to starve out (I use the word literally) a man icith no private fortune of his own, ard with a large family locking to him for support. “ The attempt, however, has failed; for if Mr. Moore has had bitter and relentless enemies to contend against, he has also had staunch and unflinching friends and supporters, who are resolved to bear him harmless through the contest (b). “Truth must ultimately prevail over ignorance, intrigue , and corruption. “I am, ecc. “ WILLIAM CONINGHAM. ” (a) See Morris Moore’s Letter to I.ord Blomfield, “ Times," etc. Nov. 20 1856. ( b) Mr. Coningham's “ staunch and unflinching friends and supporters-who are resolved.” etc., must have been a bold rhetorical figure. 211 III. From ther London Journals of March the 2(kh, 1859. Mr, MORRIS MOORE and the NATIONAL GALLERY RAPHAEL’S 44 APOLLO AND MARSYAS. ” In the House of Commons, on Friday, March the 25th, 1859, 44 Mr. Coningham asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer 44 whether, as the authorities at the National Gallery were reported to have expressed their willingness to give a large sum for a picture by Raphael, it would not be desirable that the Government should secure for the Nation the famous picture of 4 Apollo and Marsyas, ’ now in the possession of Morris Moore, Esquire, the original drawing for which is in the Academy at Venice. ? His question, he said, involved a name and a picture: the name was that of a man w r ho had earned for himself a European reputation as an eminent connoisseur , and who had rendered most important services to the country, by protecting the pictures in the National Gallery from destruction through the process of picture-cleaning adopted there; by checking the purchase of worthless pictures; and by preventing the removal of the Gallery from its central position in Trafalgar Square to the suburbs; services whereby he had established a claim on National gratitude, which he hoped the Government would recognize. The hon. gentleman said that Sydney Smith once observed that no man in this country could afford to entertain an independent opinion on less than £. 1,009 a year, and his friend, Mr. Morris Moore, was now experiencing the truth of that remark; for by his exertions to reform the administration of the National Gallery, he had been totally ruined. In the performance of these services Mr. Moore had incurred the enmity of aristocratic and courtly circles, 212 and this had brought him into the position which he (Mr. Coningham) had described to the House; to the fearful alternative of starvation or suicide; while an incompetent official (Eastlake) whose removal from the Gallery Mr. Moore- had formerly succeeded in procuring, had been subsequently- restored to office with quintupled salary. It so happened, that while a German agent of the National Gallery was travelling on the Continent, at a large salary, purchasing third and fourth-rate pictures, acres of indifferent canvas, which Mr. Morris Moore had denounced, the collection of a private gentleman was brought to the hammer at Christie’s Auction-Rooms, in King Street, Mr. Moore there saw and purchased the ‘Apollo and Marsyas, ’ which he at once^ recognized as a genuine work of ‘the divine Master;’ and it was, in fact, a gem of the purest water, and of the finest period of Italian Art, the authenticity of which was undis¬ puted. By a singular coincidence, about the same time- was discovered in the Gallery at Venice, the original drawing for the picture, which Mr. Moore had been to see and had had photographed; and one of the photographs was now in his (Mr. Coningham’s) possession. Considering the debt of’ public gratitude due to Mr. Moore, which he hoped the- Government would recognize, he believed they would not only be rendering service to the cause of Art, but performing; an act of great popularity by purchasing the picture. Now,, when they saw the number of inferior pictures which were constantly purchased for the Nation —(cries of ‘ Question, ’ 1 Time, ’ and ‘ Oh, oh ’)—he did not care for those interruptions. He was there determined to do justice to a man to whom the. country ow6d a debt of gratitude—and no courtly flunkeyisrrr —( ‘ Oh, oh, oh ’)—which was so prevalent in this country, should prevent him from being heard. (Ironical cheers and laughter). Hon. gentlemen opposite might laugh when he^ brought forward such a question as one of Justice, but he hoped that the country would soon have an opportunity of 213 •expressing its opinion whether Preform was needed or not, and that the people would be represented in that House. (The hon. gentleman was repeatedly interrupted by cries •of 4 Oh, oh, ’ etc., in the midst of which he protested against the conduct of hon. members.) 44 The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Disraeli), in replying to the question put to him by the hon. member for Brighton, said he found great difficulty in dealing with the question of the hon. member on this subject. He had never heard of 4 the report that the authorities of the National Gallery had expressed their willingness to give a large sum for a picture by Raphael,’ and he had never seen 4 the famous picture now in the possession of Morris Moore, Esquire alluded to. (A laugh). The hon. member called upon him to deal at the same time with a hypothesis and a contingency which, as all hon. members knew, were two of the most awkward things in the world to deal with. (Laughter). Though a person filling the position he had then the honor to hold, must be naturally alarmed whenever he heard of 4 large sums ’ and 4 famous pictures ’ (hear, hear, and a laugh), he would at least express the opinion of the Government, that when the Trustees of the National Gallery did purchase pictures, it was desirable that those pictures should be of the highest class; and that if the Trustees did not purchase such works, they would incur a very grave responsibility. (Laughter and ironical cheers.”) REMARKS. At the time of the above-recorded scene, a House-of- •Commons exemplification of what Lord Stanley would call 44 honesty and integrity of purpose, ” I had finally quitted England since upwards of thirteen months; compelled to this, on the one hand, by cowardice and apostacy; on the other, by intrigues proceeding from what, by an inversion of terms, we style 44 the higher regions. ” But it was not 214 expedient that, even at a distance, I .shculd live unmolested. An event which might have its rebound in England, was not impossible. Villainy triumphant at home, must make all safe, too, abroad. The arrival of Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas, ’ at Paris had been hailed in the 44 Debats, ” of March the 13th, 1858, by M. Deldcluze, a leading Parisian Art-critic, 44 un veritable evenement; ” an estimate which his friend and fellow student, the celebrated French classical painter Ingres r unanimously with the latter’s most eminent pupil, Hippolyte Flandrin, and every other recognized French artistic autho¬ rity, promptly and largely ratified. A Nemesis more dire than even the enshrinement of the masterpiece in our National Gallery, lowered upon the London Cabal. Its enshrinement in the Salon Carre of the Louvre was imminent. My resolve to listen to no customer less, than a Nation, had long been notorious. English intrigue, therefore, knew its cue. Evea laced Diplomacy was 44 officiously, 99 invited to join in the* sport, —sport right Royal: a man the quarry. Many an appeal, and hot, flashed across the Channel to potential Frenchmen, 44 c?e n f appuyer ni Vhomme ni le tableau. ” Could compliance be refused, at least as regarded the Louvre ? One Frederic Reiset, a Louvre official saw his opportunity, and offered himself as tool-of-all-work to the English Cabal. Among his various knaveries against me was an anonymous- article, as senseless as insidious, in the 44 Artiste 99 of April the 7th, 1858. It was quickly traced to him. I wrote a reply, and presented it myself to the Editor; but Reiset had sniffed the contingency. Justice was doggedly denied me, on the ground that the anonymous article came from the Louvre. The 44 Revue des Deux Mondes ” of July the 15th, 1858, commented on it w T ith merited contempt. But Reiset’s main efforts Avere exerted to suborn to my prejudice, Ingres, and Hippolyte Flandrin. Revolted at his perfidy, and resenting the affront thus offered to themselves, the 215 former declared to me orally, that this man's conduct towards me was 44 une infamie the latter, that he had acted towards me 44 en canaille a sentence which he repeated to me with equal emphasis, here in Rome, in 1853. Reiset was rewarded by Eastlake’s purchasing of him for the National Gallery, at no less a price than £. 800, treble its value, an insignificant picture ascribed to Lorenzo Costa. (Estimates, etc., Civil Services, etc., for the year ending March, 1851, p. 41) The same tactics,—underground insinuation, venal anony¬ mous articles, political delation, not even halting at slanders provocative of assassination itself , as Mr. Gladstone well knows, to say nothing of brutal violation of my personal liberty and summary expulsion from Prussia through instiga¬ tion from London , though proved unoffending, have tracked me everywhere, and are, to this hour, in permanence with unabated malignity. This should suffice, or at any rate, help, to explain an apparent flaw in my indictment; namely, that notwithstanding the triumphant progress of the 44 Apollo and Marsyas ” through the chief Art-centres of Europe, and its unanimous acclamation as 44 the work of Raphael/’ no Government should as yet have secured it. The expla¬ nation, then, lies in the fiendish propaganda waged against me by an incompetent and unscrupulous English crew, having for coryphaei, an Eastlake, a Wornum, and a Boxall, well supplied from our Exchequer with the means for corruption, and shielded and set on by highest functionaries of State. IV. From the 44 Times ” of Tuesday, March the 29th, 1859. THE MORRIS MOORE FUND. 44 In recognition of the 44 Public Services rendered by Mr. Morris Moore, a subscription has been entered into 216 by several gentlemen and members of Parliament/for the purpose of presenting him with a Testimonial. Those who may be desirous of contributing to the Fund are requested to address their communications to William Coningham, Esq., M.P., 2, Chesham Place.” REMARKS. Among the earliest to “ contribute, ” was Mr. Thomas Baring, a member of Parliament and a Trustee of the National Gallery. This was plainly, in both capacities , an endorse¬ ment of the ‘ 4 Times' ” announcement. Upon being informed by letter, of what was afoot, I at once peremptorily rejected any Testimonial, but more especially one supported by men whose votes and language in Parliament were in proved contradiction with their convictions. Recovered from the infatuation that fair play might still be of English growth, I had, w r hen quitting England, renounced all aspiration beyond obtaining for mine in a foreign land, those means of subsistence, of which I had been defrauded in my own, but which not a fewjndged me to have dearly earned. I insisted that Mr. Thomas Baring's £. 10 should be forthwith returned. Thereupon Mr. Coningham wrote five days after the “ Times' 9 ' announcement: 44 1 think it a most impolitic step to return the money to Mr. Baring, and shall pause until a final decision comes. Mr. Baring is a member and has a vote and influence, and every voter tells in a division. ” As for Mr. Baring's “vote and influence,” I was then suffering from the servile prostitution of both to the most nefarious jobbery and injustice. Moreover, Mr. Baring must needs deliver a fulsome panegyric npon “ the knowledge, taste and discretion” of that selfsame Eastlake who, not only had been compelled before the Parliamentary Committee of the National Gallery of 1853, to avow himself destitute of those 217 qualities, but who had been detected in the basest acts of ♦which “our cursed natures’’ are capable. (“D. News' 9 and “Sun,” May 14, and “ M. Herald” May 16, 1856). My final decision therefore, was my first : the decision that best comported with the character which I have yet to belie. V. Republished in the “ Morning Star” of Monday, July the Ath, from the “Spectator” of Saturday, July the 2nd, 1859. THE NATIONAL GALLERY DISGRACE. 44 Mr. Moore rescued the National Gallery from two at¬ tempts at spoiling the pictures in the name of cleaning . We remember the wife of a man tolerably 4 well off ’ who had a portrait of her husband executed by a talented sculptor, which she displayed with great exultation to her guests. They were surprised by its very antique appearance; since within a few years, the features had been more effaced than those of the Assyrian sculptures in thousands of years. When she was asked the reason, outraged at the tone of complaint in the question, she triumphantly told how indus¬ trious she had been in 4 cleaning the bust every day with a scrubbing-brush.’ It was that process, as it had been carried on under the direction of Sir Charles Eastlake and his colleagues, from which Mr. Moore rescued the pictures in the National Gallery. The Government of the day found it necessary to remove Sir Charles and to discontinue the cleaning. But by a dodge, Sir Charles is replaced amongst the curators of the National Gallery, and Mr. Moore has been effectually bowed away. Nearly at the same time Mr. Moore discovered in this country a beautiful picture which had been ascribed to 218 Mantegna, but in which he detected the hand of Raphael. Since some benefit might have accrued to Mr. Moore himself, those whose cleaning propensities he had exposed and thwarted, combined to prevent the acquisition of this beautiful pro¬ duction. Every kind of authority was raked up in the hope of its turning out adverse. M. Passavant w^as brought forward as a witness to prove that the painting was by the hand of Francia , and three days later, by Timoteo della Vite. This dodge was exposed by Lord Elcho, who, in a letter to the 44 Post says most justly, the picture 4 ‘ is not only a Raphael, but perhaps the purest and most beautiful specimen of the master in this country. ” It is indeed. The authorship which Mr. Moore detected, we will scarcely say at a glance, since he must have studied the picture closely,—can be brought forward in the evidence of every touch. The subject, our readers will remember, is the 44 Contest of Apollo and Marsyas.” We leave aside expres¬ sion, composition, colouring, and every part of the work which is less capable of express and tangible identification, Suffiee it to note the drawing of the whole figure, the handling of the muscles, the marking of the internal outlines of the muscles and joints, the lines of the hair, the model of the features, even the details of the cheeks, the arrangement of the mechanical accessories, the character of the landscape, the putting in of details in the foreground—traits in which the handwriting of the master may be seen as plainly as the handwriting of Petrarch, or of Southey, brought forward in a court of law. And, unlike the common autograph, here is an autograph multiplied in a hundred different manners, yet every one bearing all the striking positiveness combined with freedom and delicacy w T hich such a master could alone attain. In corroboration there is the style of the whole picture, precisely at the transition period between the adolescence and manhood of Raphael. There is the history of the picture, and the person for whom it was painted as 219 a gift of grace; there are studies for the chief figure in the composition, amongst Raphael’s drawings, and there is a drawing for the picture itself by Raphael s own hand, at¬ tested, in the Imperial Gallery at Venice. This last fact became known to Mr. Moore, and he sought a photograph of the drawing; but our readers already know that, incre¬ dible as it may seem, the authorities in Venice at first refused the photograph, and subsequently represented that they did so at the request of an English official (Eastlake ), Mr. Moore's chief opponent . ( ‘ Corriere Italiano ”) of Vienna , May 3, and 44 Monitore Toscano June 4, 1857). This was a combination which effectually stepped in between Mr. Moore and the Nation, prevented the Government from buying the picture; the Government being at the mercy of any gossip that 46 competent persons ” could put afloat, and Mr. Moore from selling to any one who would vouch for a permanent and National custody of the picture. He took it to France, and there the Raphael —officially unknown or ignored in England, though recognized by scores of men whose influence was based upon positive comparison—has been at once welcomed as a chef cToeuvre, by Ingres and many others whose judgment is of the highest value. All the artists and literary men—Guizot, Thiers, Merimee, and others—have flocked to Mr. Moore’s studio, and the picture has been ably described in most of the principal newspapers in Paris. Described !—the artists and cognoscenti dwell upon it with a fond reiteration which proves the admiration it has excited. M. Batte’s book is full of these admiring reiterations. The 44 Constitutionnel ” and other Paris papers, point to its indubitable authenticity. This controversy all on one side— for the denials have sunk into desparing silence—has extend¬ ed even to Germany, where the subject has excited great interest. The external evidences are brought together by the writers of Paris in a manner which shows how they appreciate the question of historic art. The “Constitutionnel" 220 points to the existence of 44 the authentic drawing by Sanzio,” in the Gallery at Venice, where the official Catalogue thus describes the w T ork :— 4 Raffaello: 4 Apollo e Marsia ’ Opera di rara perfezione, in cui Raffaello mostra tutta la sua eleganza. Questo di¬ segno fu riconosciuto essere indubbiamente di Raffaello. ” 44 Raphael: 4 Apollo and Marsyas. ’ A work of rare perfection, in which Raphael shows all his elegance. This drawing has been recognised as indubitably by Raphael.” 4 *In truth, this painting, so peculiarly interesting, as il¬ lustrating the transition period of Raphael's life, while containing in its elaborate grace, the most masterly beauty of his perfect works, is among the most valuable of the productions that he has left. ” VI WALTER SAVAGE LANDOR. Extract of a Letter from WALTER SAVAGE LANDOR TO MORRIS MOORE. 44 Siena , Sept. 3, 1859. Dear Sir, 44 It is now about three weeks since I received the favour of your two very valuable publications in regard to your Raphael (a). I should have acknowledged it earlier had I not w r aited to hear the opinion of two intelligent friends. This opinion, I think , must be entertained by every honest man , scientific or not. It is better to be undiscerning than to be disingenuous, which several of your adversaries have (u) Le Raphael de Mr. Morris Moore, ‘‘Apollon et Marsyas.” etc., par Lean Batte.’ Publishers: Paris. A. Taride ; London, W. Jeffs, 1859; also, “A Statement/' etc., by Morris Moore. Paris, Renou et Maulde. and reprinted in the “Spectator/' Ju[y the 16th and in the “Daily Telegraph/' Aug. the 1st. 1859. 221 proved themselves to be. Somewhat more than either ignorance or disingenuousness has been shewn by them toward you. Could they not creep to the footstool of a High Patron by a path less slippery and tortuous? .... 44 Perhaps you may remember what I thought of the picture. It appeared to me, not only by Raphael, hut the most delicate and the most poetical of his works. The work of no artist ever gave me such delight. 44 Believe me, my Bear Sir, “Yours obliged, 44 W. S. LaNDOR. ” VII. BR. CARUS (a). Extract of a Letter from BR. CARUS TO MR. MORRIS MOORE. 44 Dresden , February 19, 1860. 44 Your beautiful picture by Raphael, like many excellent things, has a faction against it: but, at all events, when the authorities and notabilities have once pronounced for the Truth, the matter remains settled; and with regard to your Raphael, one cannot but rejoice that this object has here been fully attained. ” (a) Privy Councillor to the King of Saxony and President of the Acade¬ my of Sciences at Dresden. RAPHAEL, MICHELANGELO, AND A PRESIDENT OF THE ENGLISH ROYAL ACADEMY. AND A President of the English Royal Academy In Autumn 1879, Sir Frederick Leighton was in Rome, and had enquired what salient painting was to be seen here, privately. My informant notified, 44 Morris Moore’s Raphael, 4 Apollo and Marsyas. —“But if I asked to see it, Mr. Moore would be rude, to me.” Thus he stood self-judged. — 44 Lu Calomnie, monsieur! Tax vu les plus honnetes gens pres d*en etre accables! ” (Beaumarchais.) Sir F. Leighton and myself were reciprocally strangers. Whence this incipient slander, this doubt of due courtesy from an unknown under his own roof? An echo from the 44 scoundrels of all sizes ” fanging me since 1850, when it was my mishap to prove not less discerning of Ihe Beautiful than the privileged 44 Forty” official connoisseurs of “an Academy with Ihe little addition ” (Hogarth’s bequeathing) 44 of a Royad name. A word on my 4 4 rudeness. ” The 17th of February, 1877, the Revd. John H. Thom of Liverpool, wrote: — 44 My Dear Sir, 44 1 can offer my most grateful thanks for the great favour 44 you have done me, in giving me photographs of two of 64 your celebrated pictures. My friend, Colonel Chambers, 44 is enthusiastic about what he saw with you yesterday , and 44 charmed by the courtesy of his reception. 44 1 am deeply indebted for your kindness, and am, with 44 much respect, 44 Faithfully, your obliged Servant, 44 Morris Moore, Esq., Rome 44 JOHN H. THOM. o 226 Such my reception to all during twenty-four years! The subsequent year, the 20th of October, 1880, I received a note from Signor Alessandro Oastellani intimating that his 44 friend, Sir F. Leighton, desired to see Raphael s 4 Apollo and Marsyas.’” I replied forthwith, announcing my readiness to receive himself and “friend” on the morrow, at half-past three. They came accordingly. Having seen the 44 Apollo and Marsyas, ” Signor Castellani then asked me to shew his 44 friend” Michelangelo’s 44 Virgin of the Lectern. ” 1 assented. I speak within bounds in saying that it appeared to ecstasize him, possibly from its not being Raphael’s 44 Apollo and Marsyas.”^ The 15th of Feb¬ ruary, 1882, “ Forbes'Tourist,” a Roman Fortnightly, published a description written by myself, of Michelangelo s 44 Virgin of the Lectern.” Arguing from the satisfaction he had appeared to manifest at the sight of the Michelangelo, I enclosed, with the following letter to Sir F. Leighton, a copy of the journal: — TO SIR FREDERICK LEIGHTON. Sir, 44 Solicited for a Description of the 4 Virgin of the Lectern 44 one of the only two known finished easel paintings by 44 Michelangelo, the other, the 4 Sacra Famiglia ’ in the 4 4 4 Tribuna’ of the Uffizi Gallery at Florence, M. Morris 44 Moore begs to enclose a published copy to Sir Frederick 44 Leighton (see page 171k 44 Conscious that words are but feeble to convey an adequate 44 idea of 4 cette noble scene ’ (apt utterance of Viscount Henri 44 Delaborde, the competent French Art-critic), to one who 44 has stood face to face with the masterpiece itself transported 44 by its splendour, Mr. Morris Moore invokes Sir Frederick 44 Leighton’s memory of the Painting. 44 Sir Frederick Leighton can claim the honour of just 44 appreciation of this rare work solely from its inherent 227 44 artistic excellence. Now he has, moreover, the satis¬ faction to learn that it is of illustrious and venerable 44 derivation, having been owned by the eminent collector, 44 Count Cesare Meniconi of Perugia , and is described in 44 the '‘Meniconi Catalogue^ of 1651. (Ibid.) “ It must further gratify Sir Frederick Leighton to know 44 that in his independent estimate of the 4 Virgin of the 44 Lectern / he was unanimous with Cornelius, Overbeck , ‘ ( Schnorr, Furich, Ingres, Flandrin, the Roman Minardi, 44 Ary Scheffer and Engene Delacroix, (the last ecstasized 44 at the coloring not less than by the conception), and Henri 44 Delaborde, etc., etc. 44 The enclosed Description appeared here on the 15th of 44 February (1882), but in a journal of limited circulation, 44 consequently it is virtually unknown. A conception by one 44 of the greatest of Thinkers belongs of right to all Mankind. 44 In this judgment Sir Frederick Leighton’s fervid eulogy 44 of this manifestation of Genius proves his unconditional 44 concurrence. Therefore, he must require little urging to 44 exert his influence, by his position obviously great, in 44 causing the Description to be widely spread through the 44 English press, not only as a benefit to Art, but as a duty 44 to an august Memory . 44 I remain, 4% Faithfully, 44 MORRIS MOORE, Senior. '‘'‘Rome, 25 th of March, 1882, 44 No. 32, Via Cavour, 44 Sir Frederick Leighton, P.R.A. Although near two years old, this letter still awaits response. Hence my request therein shelved. Rudest and unworthiest of refusals from a President of an English Royal Academy, to impart knowledge of Michelangelo, thus proving him exotic, not to art merely, but to the elementary ame- 228 nities of civilized life; a boor ungifted with sense of what due to his mission. Bedizened but uninspired by a Reynold's presidential insignia, it was not in him to demean himself otherwise. Not so, had the first President of the Royal Academy met such a request. Speed me his own words: — “ I should desire that the last words which I should 4 ‘pronounce in this Academy, and in this place, might be “the name of Michelangelo! ” The unhesitating complaisance of shewing this Leighton, at his own solicitation, literally two of the rarest paintings privately owned in our generation, fell dead upon the suc¬ cessor of Reynolds, though capped withal by the letter above quoted. He lacked generosity and intellect to appreciate my ready response. No sign to augur consistency of his ecstatic admiration, before, one, at least, of the masterpieces, that by his honorable co-operation it might yet have graced England. Cheated by his grimace, I here retract , as far as in me lies, the sincere eulogy which, for an instant, I had imagined he merited. Since some time before his visit, it had been whispered that this Leighton had busied himself with denigrating me and Raphael’s “Apollo and Marsyas,” though not having seen the picture till the 21st of October, 1880, when visiting me with Signor Castellani. In the following year, I was further made aware that he had expressed approval of the felon Burton’s unheard-of crawling to my sick room in December, 1880, m uffled under the forged name of 4 4 Johnstone,” with purport for his own base interests to slander the surpas¬ sing masterpiece. This from 44 respect of persons. ” I resisted credence of any one having gone the length of approving so heinous a fraud, hence, expost facto, its accomplice, until compelled to yield conviction to scrupulous witnesses present who had heard him. MORRIS MOORE, Senior. Rome, 1884. SUPPLEMENT. The history of Raphael’s "Apollo and Mars y as 5 is too humiliating to be set forth.”—“ The Times / 9 Thursday, May 31 st, 1883 . This history was virtually closed the 2nd of the same month, as far as England was concerned, by the Conservator of the Paintings in the Louvre, despatched to Rome by the President of the French Council solely to offer for the masterpiece, “unique rather than rare, ” little less than half privately offered in 1874, (the limit at the disposal of the Louvre), not to cite the Duke of Leuchtenberg’s offer of three hundred thousand francs in 1875, Rome widely cognizant, and elsewhere in Europe and in the United States. Advised of the French Government’s offer, I had had leisure to weigh it; 1 accepted. Terms of cession dictated by me. I here again vehemently retort upon the First Lord of the Treasury and his conscience-proof valet, Leonard H. Courtney, M.P , plundering the people of two thousand pounds a year for promiscuous secret service to his Rt. Hon. patron, the Lie , blushlessly mouthed in fnll House of Commons, the 1st of June, 1883, that “ the owner of Raphael's ‘ Apollo and Marsjas ’ had vainly offered it at several national museums in Europe.” Not a member present familiar with the “hu¬ miliating story” but could, without moving from his seat, have conscientiously given Gladstone and his servile proxy the Lie direct. Yet no member stirred to vindicate the personal and professional affront flung at me by this First Lord of the Treasury and his pliant mouthpiece. 230 We have unimpeachable guarantee of Sir William Vernon Harcourt, Gladstone’s Principal Secretary of State for Home Affairs, for 44 The Morality of Public Men ” in England. The 25thof March, 1859, it befell Mr. William Coningham, M.P. for Brighton, and this very picture, to give striking saliency to Sir William Vernon Harcourt’s momentous theme. On that date, Mr. Coningham asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer “whether it would not be desirable that the Government should secure for the Nation the famous picture by Raphael, 4 Apollo and Marsyas, ’ now in the possession of Morris Moore, Eshuire, for which the original drawing is in the Academy at Venice. ” He insisted on the undisputed authenticity of the picture, and its exceptional beauty, declaring it 44 a gem of the purest water, and of the finest period of Italian Art.” He, moreover, eulogized my services to Art. In the House above six hundred gentlemen, ex-officio honor¬ able, impatiently awaiting the Question; present, the Rt. Honorables Messrs. Gladstone and Bright, the latter active in the scene that ensued. The title of the masterpiece coupled with my name, the name of the man whose perspicacity had snatched it from oblivion, under the noses of Royal Acade¬ micians, Associates, and other 44 professional connoisseurs ,” (speed me the Earl of Wemyss and March), evoked a hur¬ ricane of ribaldry; antiphony, cock-crowing, hooting, ironical cheers, hisses, idiosyncratic braying not forgot, with other polite ebullitions indigenous to the House of Commons; cue, borrowed from the presiding Right. Hon. Chancellor’s scoffs, grotesque as insolent, at my expense, Raphael’s, and— his own. Mr Coningham was repeatedly interrupted by cries of 44 Oh, oh,” &c., in the midst of which he protested against the conduct of hon. members and— 44 courtly flunkeyism.”— 44 The Times,' 1 March 23th, 1859, and 44 Hansard's Parlia¬ mentary Debates .” 231 Cited above, the constitutional greeting dealt to a Raphael “ unique rather than rare.” Lo! in inverse ratio, by the House of Commons manifest, “The Morality of Public Men in England! ” MORRIS MOORE, Senior . POSTSCRIPT. Yet a word upon this “sanctimonious” ex-First Lord of England’s Treasury, the scathful epithet scornfully flung at him by Disraeli in the Commons, (Hansard) to blaze his Satanic hypocrisy even to the throne of the Most High, as to man. Not lust of The Beautiful, fornication exotic to his idio- syncracy, but ungovernable lust of Revenge and unconsti¬ tutional “respect of persons” alone moved him to lavish 70,000 £ of the people’s taxes on that aristocratic Job, the “ Ansidei Virgin,” because large and cost unprecedented, thus rated by the foot or ignorance, to gloss the Job, (um¬ pirage of a crockery-ware (a) fancier);—a work defecting in lofty conception of subject and its consummate illustration, whereof Raphael, eminent above all, was vouchsafed the sublime secret. At first sight of the “ Ansidei Virgin,” Horn its strictly peruginesque conventionality, the beholder might be forgiven a doubt of its origin. This after ostracizing from England Raphael’s “ Apollo and Marsvas,” a masterpiece “ unique rather than rare,” — after subsidizing for a trental Iliad, “ scoundrels of all sizes” to slander it, a House of Commons not disdaining to join in the sport ;—slander a Raphael, the like “ once lost to a Nation can never be re¬ covered—still less can it be replaced by anything else.” The Victorian Era will have witnessed the Lie Incarnate, (a) See p. 2. 232 personated in a First Lord of the Treasury;—The House of Commons will have heard unrebuked his heartless rhetoric on the Hero, himself had doomed to the shambles; — witnessed him virtually stained with Arab and— English blood, which he had caused in rivers to flow;—the former, shed heroically battling in defence of Home, Freedom, and Arab — Deserts ; the latter, at a shilling a day per man , for no intelligible object whatsoever, save to maintain indefinitely in place i perquisites , and pay , a Minister and his valets, long the grim sport and contempt of the World. In these pages, albeit not spared startling denunciation, yet not “set down aught in malice,” nor the word unsuited to the deed; needless, then, to invoke Quintilian, canonizer of all utterance in its place, the best, though foul, while through the length and breadth of the Earth is thundered, not at Faraz Pasha’s door, but at Gladstone’s own, lies the sacred blood of the heroic Gordon, whose like must be sought foremost among the deathless ones of Sparta or Rome; whose magnanimous soul hated “ the slime that sticks on filthy deeds;” a soul as remote from comprehension of such as Gladstone’s, as Truth from Fraud. The perfunctory cynicism 0 native to him, with which Glad¬ stone spoke in the House of Commons (February 23rd) of his illustrious victim, was severely commented in “ The Times," and since scathingly denounced at the meeting in Knightsbridge , the Duke of Norfolk , Chairman , Mr. E Stanhope, Sir R. Peel, and other members present. MORRIS MOORE, Senior. Member Emeritus of the Royal Academy of Urhino and Honorary Citizen of the City. Rome , July 1885. MR. FREDERICK WILLIAM BURTON DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY. A STATEMENT BY MORRIS MOORE, jun. PROFESSOR AT THE ROMAN UNIVERSITY. « Surely if there be one thing in a free country more clear than another, it is, that any one of the people may speak freely to the people ». The Rt. Hon. John Bright. « Better a penurious kingdom, thau where excessive wealth flows into the hands of com¬ mon sponges, to the impoverishing of good and loyal men. » Milton. E. Smith, London 1882 . A STATEMENT -- The following Statement of strictest veracity was addressed to Mr. Arthur Otway, M. P. (since Sir Arthur), on the 8th of Decem¬ ber last, now (23 June) more thau six months ago. No notice having been taken of it, although from the postal receipt proved to have been delivered in London on the 4th day after leaving Rome, I feel it a duty to Truth to make it public. My reason for addressing Sir Arthur Otway is shewn in his spontaneous scathing commen¬ tary on the numerous Extracts from the Press, read by him in the House of Commons on the 7th of April 1856, upon Eastlake; therefore unanimous with Morris Moore , and Public Opinion: — Mr. Arthur Otway : « Every magazine of character, every « newspaper worth anything has commented ivith severity on the « operations and purchases of sir 0. Eastlake, and the opinion « of the press has been confirmed by that of persons holding « high positions in the profession and by distinguished amateurs. « Sir C. Eastake’s evidence on the subject of cleaning proves « that he is by no means qualified for such a position as that « of Director of the National Gallery. The notions expressed by « him are really so absurd, that any person having the slightest « knowledge of Art, must have seen that they are entirely false. « The whole current of evidence is condemnatory of his mana- « gement. Sir C. Eastlake stands condemned out of his own « mouth. » Dear Sir, Rome, December the 8th, 1881. No. 32, Via Cavour. Although I have not the advantage of jour personal acquain¬ tance, I have long known jour name as that of one who appre¬ ciated mj Father’s public demeanor, and regretted the shameful manner in which he has been treated. These reasons prompt me to inform jou, as briefly as possible, of a matter which occurred here in Rome on the 2nd of last December, and which will, no doubt, be looked upon bj jourself, as it is bj all who have heard of it, as one of the most dastardlj pieces of rascality thej ever knew. About a jear ago, and preciselj on the date just mentioned, at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, whilst mj mother and mj- self were attending at the bedside of mj Father, since a month struck bj paraljsis (a second attack of that fatal maladj), the visit was announced of one Dr. Gason, who begged to introduce « a friend », to whom he gave the name of « Johnstone », desi¬ rous of seeing the masterpiece of Raphael, « Apollo and Marsjas », before leaving Rome. The visitors were admitted. After exami¬ ning everjthing in the house, thej took leave of mj Father, both shaking his hand , as he laj impotent upon his bed, scarcelj able to articulate a few words of greeting, the so called Mr. Johnstone « hoping that he would soon be better ». About two months later, mj Father had so far recovered as to be able to take airing, and thus it was that in the Via Mario dei Fiori he met the said Dr. Gason, who began;« Well, Mr Morris Moore, will jou make me jour agent for the sale of jour pic¬ tures, but jou must give it me in writing', » words he repeated several times, mentioning the name of the Director of the Na¬ tional Gallerj, Mr Burton, the scoundrel still usurping an office which he better than all knows to belong by right to my Father, as emphatically stated in the « Opinions of the Press » by yourself read before the House of Commons, on the 7th April 1856. At the name of « Burton », my Father replied « I don’t know Burton » — « But you do know him ! » was the reply. — « I tell you I don’t. » — « But you do ». — « I repeat that I do not » — « Yes, you do! why, it was only lately you shook hands with him ». — « What! » — « Why yes! don’t you remember my coming to see you one day with a friend; that was Burton! » — 5 — After this revelation, which he made with a grin, he seemed conscious from my Father’s suddenly altered appearance, that the knowledge of having been so vilely betrayed by the man most interested in decrying his property, might bring on a third and fatal attack of his fearful malady, therefore leaving my mother to attend to him as best she could, Dr. Gason took to his heels with all possible speed. The consequence of this infamy was a relapse in the malady, as can be testified by my Father’s medical attendant, Dr Aitken, who was astounded, and exclaimed: « This is indeed atrocious !» So that Mr Burton, Director of the National Gallery, had perpetrated the crime of obtaining admittance to my Father’s house, under a false name , and had availed himself of his being unknown to the other members of the family to pry into our private affairs, and decry our property. This infamy has not been without a sequel, for on the 2nd of December 1881, precisely a year since the above-mentioned burglarious visit, I, who have no sort of acquaintance with Bur¬ ton, except from my having seen him in the character of« John¬ stone » at my Father’s house, received the following note: — « Private * Alhergo d’Alemagna, Via Condotti Friday morning « Dear Sir, « If you could find time to do me the favour of calling upon « me here, I should feel very much obliged to you. « If convenient to you to come tomorrow (Saturday) morn- « ing at eleven o’clock, I should be ready to receive you. But « at any other hour you may name, I should make it my bu- « siness to be here. « I should not detain you long, but it is important to me « to say a few words to you before leaving Rome. « Yours faithfully, « F. W. Burton. « Professor Morris Moore, junior ». *) The italics are copied from the underlining in the text. — 6 — Anxious to reproach him with his villainy , and knowing was no use to tell him he might call at my Father’s if he wanted to see me, I went to him on Sunday, December the 4th, when lie attempted to deny, not his visit, hut his having given a false name , saying, he was « not responsible for what his friend, Dr. Gason (an old friend also of my Father’s, he declared), « might have said or done ». To this, I replied that Dr. Gason was but a passing acquaintance of my Father’s, on account of his being ge¬ nerally considered one of the greatest rascals in Rome, and I pronounced his behaviour, as well as Mr Burton’s, to admit of no excuse, declaring my amazement at Mr Burton’s effrontery in now adding the lie of his not having given a false name , at. the same time informing him that liis friend, Dr Gason, had had the audacity to joke my Father upon the vile deceit practised upon him. This base altempt to palliate his infamy, shews that Burton, alias « Johnstone », is not easy in his conscience, but this is not enough. In the opinion of every honest man cognizant of the facts stated, which, I am sure, will be shared by yourself, this Burton should be publicly denounced as unfit to occupy the im¬ portant post he has too long disgraced, being as ignorant of art, as devoid of every other virtue. An instance of his ignorance of Art, was his insensibility (when at my Father’s under the false name of « Johnstone ») to the consummate beauties of an easel picture by the hand of .Michelangelo, once possessed by the ancient Family of the Counts Meniconi of Perugia, and described in the Meniconi Catalogue of 1651! Burton stood before this picture, which had ecstasized Sir Frederick Leighton only two months previously, with no more idea of what it might be, than a cat might have had. Sir Frederick Leighton was equally struck with the loveli¬ ness of Raphael’s famous picture of Apollo and Marsyas, signed with Raphael’s monogram R.V., the picture which the fraudulent « Johnstone- Burton » has been for years constantly decrying, and to approach which once again for the same venal object, he had effected the treachery here related. With regard to the picture by Michelangelo, « The Virgin of the Lectern », possessed by my Father (one of the only four existing by the Master), I may add that this picture and the one in the « Tribuna » of the Uffizi Gallery of Florence are the only two which have an indisputable derivation, and are completed, and that the finer of the two now in the National Gallery, known as the Bonar-Michelangelo, like theFesch picture, is of derivation unknown, while both are unfinished. The former is mentioned in the following manner in the authoritative French Periodicals, Gazette des Beaux-Arts and in the Revue des Deux-Mondes: « Cette admirable Sainte Famille de Michelange qui figurait « recemment a 1’Exposition de Manchester, Mr Morris Moore a « egalement signalee le premier ». Revue des Deux-Mondes , 15 juillet, 1858. « L’honneur d’ avoir restitue a Michel Ange la Vierge at- «tribuee a Ghirlandajo revient sans conteste a Mr Morris Moore ». Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1 mars, 1859. Antecedent proof of my Father’s having been the first to declare this beautiful unfinished work to be by the hand of Mi¬ chelangelo ', may be found in the Blue Book on the National Gal¬ lery, July 22nd 1853. - Morris Moore's evidence question 9953. I enclose two documents; one, a letter of Lord Elcho to the Editor of the Morning Post of June 10th , 1850 , the other a let¬ ter addressed to my Father by the eminent French writer on Art, Viscount Henri Delaborde. Between the dates of these two documents a space of thirty-one years has elapsed, which I could easily fill with some hundreds of similar testimonies from the first authorities to my Father’s integrity, artistic knowledge and to the infamous manner in which he has been treated. You, will no doubt remember that it was my Father who, in April 1873, rescued Raphael's Natal House in JJrbino from private hands, causing it to become national , and devoting it to Public Instruction by the title: The Raphael Museum ; for which he received the collective thanks of the Italian government and heard it repeatedly declared, that it was an honor to England that an Englishman should have accomplished so memorable an action. A gold medal was struck in my Father’s honor, his bust and a marble tablet recording the event were placed in the cen¬ tral room, an apartment in the Natal House was voted him by the Municipality, and he was named Honorary Citizen of JJrbino. The Thanks of the Italian Government: — \ « Rome , April 9. ih 1873. 1 rejoice at the*, rare liberality of M. Morris Moore for the purchase of Raphael's House , and I authorize you to express in my name to that distinguished gentleman the sentiments of ad- miration and gratitude which the Government professes towards him for this noble and generous act. Signed - The Minister Scialoja. To the President of the Royal Academy in Urbino. » It is highly expedient not to omit adding that during my Father’s long exile from his country, enforced by venal envy and ceaseless intrigue, he has never remotely sought to repair his consequent material losses by cooperation of any Director or Trustee, or other distributor of the funds voted by Parliament for the National Gallery, or by other public English functionary through the disposal of any masterpiece notoriously in his pos¬ session, although more than one of these unanimously by highest authorities rated superlatively important to Public Instruction. Therefore excluded all imputation of self-seeking! With respect to this ineffable vizored scoundrel Burton, in particular, my Father’s reputation incontestably second to that of none living on supreme questions of classical Art, wonld have forbidden his descending to hold converse, whether personally or by correspondence, with an obscure individual such as the actual unscrupulous pseudo-director of our National Gallery, noted abroad for his official ignorance. Emphatically, I hold myself strictly responsible for all herein written, as virtually uttered to the English Public, although for¬ mally addressed to yourself, worthily chosen by your constituents to redress individual wrong when of universal concern, as w r ell as aggregately to safeguard national interests and honor. Trusting that yon will deem this matter worthy of the most serious attention, I remain, dear Sir, Yours faithfully, Morris Moore, junior . Professor at the Royal University of Rome, etc. etc. . % 'V ►, : - / V' ;■ V;-] - ' 'T' ■ , k - ' :