the books of the Conseil of his priority of inscription, and the Conseil de Prud'hommes are judges as to whether the imitation of the "mark is a violation of the property. In case of appeal the tribunals of commerce overrule the decisions of the Conseil de Prud'hommes. With respect to patterns, the law recognises equally, as in the case of patents, the right of property; and the decree of 1826, by which the Conseil de Prud'hommes is established at Lyons, specially invests that tribunal with the preservation of the property of drawings and patterns, and requires that any manufacturer who wishes to obtain security for a pattern, shall deposit his pattern under an envelope, with his seal and his signature, and to this packet shall be attached the seal of the Conseil de Prud'hommes; that a register shall be kept of all such inscriptions or claims to copyright, and that the manufacturer applying shall receive from the Conseil a certificate stating the date when he deposited his patern; that in case of dispute with respect to the copyright of a pattern, the register in the archives of the Conseil shall be taken as sufficient evidence of the priority of date when the pattern is deposited. The manufacturer shall declare for how long he desires the copyright should be possessed by him, whether for one, three, or five years, or in perpetuity. The great hardship and disadvantage of the law of copyright and patent, as it now stands in this country, is manifested in the cases of Mr Henning, the very able and ingenious modeller of the Elgin marbles, and of Mr Martin, the celebrated painter of Belshazzar's Feast, and in the fact that the rediscovery of the most valuable art of metallic relief engraving has been again lost, and a second rediscovery now at the risk of being brought to no purpose. Mr Henning must have bestowed immense time in his drawing and cutting them in intaglio; and yet they are now commonly pirated from casts, and may be had any where for a few shillings, leaving Mr Henning a total loser. They are the twentieth part of the size of the originals-we have seen complete sets at the small cost of ten shillings. An instance occurred of a set being ordered by letter from Mr Henning, and when packed up, and ready to be scut off, it was found that the writer had furnished himself with a pirated set. Mr Martin complains that French copies of his works are brought over, and sold at a cheap rate; and that they are lithographed, and put up in shop-windows, to his ruin; that he has endeavoured in vain to obtain an injunction to prevent the exhibition of a diorama of Belshazzar's Feast; that the plagiarist is not only safe on account of the expenses of the prosecution, but that he is enabled to come into the market with a cheaper production, with all the advantages, not only of Mr Martin's genius, but of his outlay in advertisements, &c. Mr Martin suggests the following remedy:— "I will venture to suggest a method of protection: A committee of gentlemen and artists might be appointed to sit at the Museum about once in the fortnight or month; say in the following towns, namely, for England-London, Bath, Liverpool, Birmingham, Hull, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne; for Scotland-Edinburgh and Glasgow; and for Ireland— Dublin and Cork, for the purpose of receiving and registering impressions of original works, after which the copyright should be considered as fixed, and all false copies found in any part of the United Kingdom, after the copyright has been fixed, should be seized. We should reign copies as smuggled goods, and likewise have the power of seizing all fotreating the possessors accordingly. Thus no print should be protected unless deposited at the Museum, or whatever other place or places might be appointed. I think by that it would be put a stop to. I would have it at the British Museum, certainly; it would be desirable also to have them in each manufacturing town." Surely, if the imitating an artist's to a print, were in law a forgery, and or engraver's stamp, so easily affixed treed accordingly, few would be bold enough to commit it, and fewer printsellers would incur the risk and odium which would fall upon them. Mr Martin's evidence likewise shows what injury the arts suffer under the excise laws. Others have amply shown that the expense of glass (that which costs in France 2s. 9d. being in England L.1, 3s.) prevents the sale of prints; but Mr Martin shows its injury in a still higher department, as a check to genius. He thinks that if encouragement had been given to glass-painting, it "must have surpass ed all other branches of art in splendour, as it is capable of producing the most splendid and beautiful effects, far superior to oil-painting or water-colours, for by the transparency we have the means of bringing in real light, and have the full scale of nature as to light and as to shadow, as well as to the richness of colour, which we have not in oil-painting nor in water-colours."" When you were employed in painting on glass did you find the excise laws present any great obstacle great obstacle to the improvement?" "Yes, that was the greatest obstacle." The heavy duty on plate-glass prevented his pursuing it, although it would most peculiarly be adapted to the display of his powers. We are happy to find that it is quite a mistake that the art of painting on glass is lost that we can produce every colour but one, the ruby, and to that we can come very near; and in all other respects we have greater power than the old painters on glass. What may be the advantages or disadvantages of academies-how far they are schools, and in what they are not schools, &c.—we shall be better able to judge of when we have more distinct and certain information than we find either in the report or evidence. But we do consider our own Royal Academy most unfairly treated in this report. Every sort of abuse is raked together against it, repetitions of which are studiously and unnecessarily elicited. And although there is scarcely a fact in the evidence that is not denied, or an adverse opinion that is not directly refuted, yet it is plain that the committee are most desirous to revolutionize their constitution according to the new municipal principles which have done so much towards republicanizing England, and creating and perpetuating eternal dissension and unneighbourly feeling throughout the kingdom. And so would their remodelling the Academy do infinite mischief among artists.* But what does the evidence against the Academy amount to? Some are dissatisfied because their pictures have been badly hung, some twenty or more years ago; some have not received all the honours they deserve in their own estimation; some have received none, because they would not seek them, or because they insulted the body who should confer them; some dislike the patronage the Academicians meet with; some complain of their dinners; some that their place at the table is not where it should be; some are disappointed, and therefore dislike the whole constitution; some enact the fable of the fly on the wheel, and selfconceited, are therefore in perpetual wrath, and think the Academy have been indebted to them for all their Mr Haydon is the most zealous of the opponents of the Royal Academy. It would have been better, perhaps, if the Committee had given him an opportunity of correcting all his mistatements. He is not always correct as to persons and dates. We have seen that gentleman's "Letter to the Editor of Blackwood's Magazine," in the Morning Chronicle of the 30th November, which does him very great credit. It is that of a zealous, and we think of a sincere man, and written (perhaps under some provocation, for we had freely criticised his works) in a gentlemanlike and temperate spirit. We cannot here reply to the particulars, but we beg to assure Mr Haydon that he is quite mistaken with regard to ourselves; we are not, as he conceives, an "old enemy," nor a new, nor any enemy at all. Our suspicion that he did criticise Mr Bird's picture is excused by his on admission, and we think it is a pity that he did not withhold his remarks on the conduct of the Academy, just at the time that he and Mr Bird were competitors; but we acquit him of any ill motive. With Bird we were most intimate, and are quite sure that he knew not, nor would have countenanced any remonstrance with Wilkie from an academician; indeed, we doubt if at that time Bird had one acquaintance among the R.A.'s. He was a single-hearted, honourable man. Whatever may have been our belief upon the subject of the remarks upon Bird, it has never operated with us, for until very recently we never noticed Mr Haydon's works at all, nor did we ever see him to our knowledge. It was by mere chance that we saw Mr Haydon's letters in the Morning Chronicle. We mention this, that Mr Haydon may not think that we purposely avoid a reply to him. It is ten to one if we see any remonstrance so published. If we have criticised his picture, as he may think, severely, we beg to assure him that we sincerely wish him the fullest success--loving the arts, we shall ever criticise works, publicly exhibited, freely, and from our ideas of the principles of art. We may be wrong, but we give our reasoas. show. Varnish is (in imagination) denied; or accidentally was spilt" once upon a time." One informer looked for an Academician some eighteen years ago, and happened to find a bear. Then the Academy, fifty or sixty years ago, was founded in intrigue. "Alas," said the lamb to the wolf, "I was not born then."-" No matter; then it was your father or your grandfather." We have heard of a noble Duke, a patron of arts, much given to sneer at the Academy, laying particular emphasis on the word Royal, and we find that some are of his opinion, that whatever is Royal must be bad. Poor old Lear, who "gave up all," might well lack his Forty Followers. Then, there is the charge which is sure to be popular-" The misapplication of their Funds." But here the evidence, not resting on opinions, but facts, is highly to the honour of the Academicians. We really are at a loss to know how the Royal Academy, founded by the King, located by him in his private palace, and so continued in succession by his present Majesty, is in any way amenable to a Committee of the House of Commons. Has the King delegated his authority over them? We may be wrong, but we have not seen a declaration to that effect. We find, indeed, by the putting of one of the questions, we think indecently, that the King may not be looked to as a judge of the arts. But we see no necessity for taking out of his hands his own Academy. Let the Committee, if they like, establish as many new as they please, and with such regulations as may counteract the pretended evils of the one established. Let his Majesty, an he please, look into the affairs of his own establishment, and consult competent persons that is another matter; but we want here, no Committees, and Commissions of the appointment of his Majesty's meddlers. Mr Howard's reply is admirable to Question 2145"Do you think at the present time, the rules and regulations are susceptible of any important improvement? I imagine that no society can be said to be perfect." 2147." The Committee would be glad to hear from you any suggestion for the improvement of the laws and regulations of the Society, to which they seem susceptible, from your experience. If I were VOL. XLI. NO. CCLVI. aware that the Academy was susceptible of any improvement on those points, I should of course lay it before the Council." The Committee here dropped the subject. The scholarlike, gentlemanlike, masterly, and clear evidences of Sir M. A. Shee and Mr Howard, are strikingly opposed to those of some of their heedless opponents. There is one thing for which we blame the Academy extremely. They have suffered themselves to be entrapped; they have given up an established right (and his Majesty's consent does not appear either to have been asked or given) for a mere sufferance tenure; and great pains are taken to show them and the public that they are liable to be turned out of the New National Gallery at any time. We copy from the appendix the statement upon this subject of their old tenure, in the return given in by the Secretary :— "Statement of the Conditions, if any, on which the Apartments at Somerset House were originally bestowed on the Royal Academy; and of the period for which they were granted, whether unlimited, or terminable at the pleasure of the Crown, or otherwise. "There are no expressed conditions on which the apartments at Somerset House were originally bestowed on the Royal Academy. The Royal Academy of Arts took possession of the apartments which they occupy in Somerset House, in April 1780, by virtue of a letter from the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to the Surveyor-General, directing him to deliver over to the Treasurer of the Royal Academy, all the apartments allotted to His Majesty's said Academy in the new buildings at Somerset House, which are to be appropriated to the uses specified in the several plans of the settled.' same heretofore "The Royal Academy received these apartments as a gift from their munificent founder, George the Third; and it has been always understood by the members, that His Majesty, when he gave up to the Government his Palace of Old Somerset House (where the Royal Academy was originally established), stipulated that apartments should be erected for that establishment in the new building. The Royal Academy remained in the old Palace till those rooms were completed, which had been destined for their occupation; plans of which had been submitted to their approval, and signed by the President, Council, and Officers." N They had been in possession of Somerset House for fifty years. Their apartments became the property of the King by exchange, and he gave them to the Academy. We think it not honest now to make an exchange with them upon the understanding of their right, and when they find themselves entrapped in their new building, to turn round to them, and say it is no bargain; you have, it is true, given up your old rooms to us, but you are only here upon sufferance. Doubtless the Academy did not look to the possibility of the adoption of such national morality-but they should have been more provident, We leave this part of our subject for the present, upon which we may touch at a future time, when we consider the case of the Engravers, and their condition in the Royal Academy, as we intend to make some remarks upon their recently published pamphlets. There is no part of the report so deserving of the public attention as that which relates to the National Gallery. But if we blame the Royal Academy for accepting, in exchange for a most respectable and solid tenure, an acknowledged liability to removal, and perhaps extinction for there appears to be no mention of a future transfer to any other location-what terms can sufficiently express the folly, ignorance, or carelessness, or all toge ther, of the parties, whoever they may be, who have perpetrated a scheme of a National Gallery so entirely inadequate to its purpose. It is seen by a plan annexed to the report, and by the evidence, that one half of the whole building is given up to the Royal Academy, who are, for the present, magnificently lodged, and that which should have been entirely open to the public, as built at the public expense, is devoted to the advantage and gain of a private society. So that one half of the country's magnificent promise terminates contemptibly in a Shilling Gallery-a paid Exhibition. Thus the space, the whole of which would scarcely have been sufficient for a great National Gallery, is ab initio hampered with the condition of giving up one half to the Royal Academicians. Sir M. A. Shee goes to Lord Grey-the business is settled-a committee appointed by the Treasury, who, without due competition being proposed, adopt Mr Wilkins' plan; have no communication with him (but on one occasion for a trifling explanation of his plan)-do not lay before the architect plans of other galleries, though the most important have been erected in different parts of Europe; have no extended view of the subject, but with unpardonable carelessness, sanction a mere temporary depository for our present very small collection, as if it never was intended it should vie with the great galleries of infinitely less important states in Europe, yet presume to call their abortive scheme a National Gallery! They do not appear even to have taken the trouble to consider the additional pictures that may be now at the nation's command, to have calculated their number or dimensions. They have not even sufficiently provided against fire, for only one half of the building is fireproof, and by allowing the other half to the Academy, in which is the keeper's residence, they have rendered fire probable, and that particular portion is not fire-proof. The subject of rooms for ancient sculpture has not been contemplated at all-consequently, there are none. Mr Wilkins the architect, being asked who are the committee appointed by the Treasury, notices only seven, we are to suppose that they are the most active-Lord Farnborough, Lord Ripon, Sir Robert Peel, Mr Ridly Colborne, Mr Hume, Lord Lansdowne, and Mr Rogers. The only directions he seems to have received from these "Seven sleepers," were to make the rooms appropriated to the Academy a part of the plan. But the Royal Academy appointed likewise a committee, who did communicate with the architect, and doubtless they thought themselves, for their skill in architectural carving, "The seven wise men," but we would remind them "to look to the end," before they conclude themselves happy. The difficulty the committee have in extracting from Mr Wilkins the simple fact, that but for the condition of the large accommodation to the Academy, the gallery would have exhibited more pictures, is very striking. Throughout the whole of Mr Wilkins' evidence we are quite astonished at his own inadequate views, both as to the future and even present probable wants of such an institution, and at the indifference of the Committee and the Government who appoint ed them, and sanctioned a mutilated and lamentable plan. However, ill as we think of the whole scheme, of some of its errors we must partly acquit the architect (we say partly, for we think he should, with professional pride, have thrown up his employment rather than have risked his reputation upon an erection certain of being condemned). The Ministry, it appears, had been previously "pledged" to Lord Salisbury on behalf of the inhabitants of Castle Street and the neighbourhood-they having always had a private approach through the Mews; in consequence of which "pledging" there are two passages through this important building. Surely this might have been otherwise settled. Then it appears that some "amateur architects," as Mr Wilkins calls them, took it into their heads that by throwing back the building about 50 feet, they should get a sight of the whole extent of St Martin's portico from Pall Mall east, which, they were told, they would not obtain, and which they have not obtained. But they have nearly annexed the National Gallery to the parish workhouse, which is ruinous to a proper lighting of a great part of the building. Perhaps it may be a practical and significant hint to the Royal Academicians to what they are to look if they do not behave themselves reverently to their betters. "Question 1197. But is there not sufficient light, at all events, in the front? Certainly, and there would have been in the rear, only certain gentlemen amateurs chose to thrust us up in a corner where we could get no light; they made a great fuss about the change of position, and I verily believe nobody regrets more having given way to that popular clamour than the then premier. But we are now thrust back, so as to be nearly in contact with the workhouse building, obscuring the lights of the lower rooms of the east wing." The impotence of the premier, and his regret at yielding to popular clamour, is amusing enough. It has been shown that no provision is made for ancient statues--nor is there any copying room, surely a very great oversight. Mr Wilkins thinks that as the national pictures are now hung (that is, crowded together), the walls might contain three times the number, and will suffice for 50 years to come-by which it appears that, in the calculation of the committee and architect of a National Gallery, 50 years hence the British public are only to have 378 pictures, their present number being 126. The number of pictures in the National Gallery at Berlin is above 7 or 800. At Munich the new collection is not arranged, but the total number in the different palaces at Munich may be 7000. A selection, according to the room, of these, it is expected, will be about 1000. At Petersburg, in the different Imperial palaces, there are between 4 and 5000; but the Russian Government commenced their collection about the year 1822 ours in 1824. Have the architect and committee thus calculated upon our past progress? Even then they would be in error. But certainly, to bring them right again, we are now doing nothing towards an enlargement. We may make a few extracts from the Evidence, lest our extraordinary statement might appear incredible. It is, however, borne out by facts. "Question 1600, to Mr Wm. Seguier. Has there been no provision in the plan of the National Gallery for the historical arrangement of pictures according to schools, and for making distinction between the great schools of Italy, and the different national schools? I should doubt whether But has there there is room for that. been no arrangement made with a view to that? Certainly not. Then is this building, which ought to be on a great and comprehensive plan, to be an eternal monu . ment of the arts in this country, to be merely a gallery where pictures are to be placed without due distribution, and not a gallery worthy of this nation? I should be afraid not; but Mr Wilkins is better able to speak to that point than I am. (To Mr Wilkins). Have you, in arranging the National Gallery, contemplated such an historical distribution of pictures as I have suggested? To a certain extent certainly, as far as our space would allow. Question 1641. (To Mr Seguier.) Is the National Gallery constructed in such a way as to be capable of taking in any picture that might come into possession of the public? I do not myself know the height of the walls. What may be the height of the Sebastian del Piombo? That is 18 fect. And what height do you consider it ought to be raised from the floor in order to be pro perly seen? It ought to be at least 3 feet, that would be the very lowest. Would not 3 feet be very much below the proper height? I think it would, but I should like to ask Mr Wilkins what is the height of the walls of the gallery? (Mr Wilkins) The |