as big as a soup-plate, is the last straw that breaks
the camel's back. Even supposing that this
small picture was acquired at a trifling expense,
which witness has his suspicions was not the
case, an accumulation of trilling expenses makes
a large sum, and if this picture cost only a
fourpenny-piece (which would be threepence-
halfpenny too much), that fourpenny was a public
fourpenny, and the Committee, or by whatever
name the Public Enemy was called, had no right
to waste it.

Sir George Beaumont is understood to mutter
that the Caraccis occupied a high place in the
schools; and

Professor Waghorn requests that the evidence
may be continued, and that Mr. Fudge will
inform the Jury what may be his opinion of the
purchases since the year '53 inclusive, down
to which period the evidence has now been
brought.

Professor Fudge, in turn, wishes to make a
preliminary inquiry before answering the learned
doctor's question. He wishes to know for whom
the National Gallery is intended: whether for
the English public generally, or for connoisseurs
like the learned doctor, and enlightened Ghosts
like his colleague on the bench?

Dr. Waghorn, after a prolonged consultation
with Sir George Beaumont, replies, that he
thinks that question is not evidence, and declines
to answer it, as irregular.

Professor Fudge then begs to know whether
it is also irregular for him to ask whether the
pictures in the National Gallery are purchased
with the public money, or with that of the
connoisseurs and ghosts?

Dr. Waghorn replies, that this question is also
irregular, and Sir George Beaumont is heard to
add that it is even " highly " irregular.

The only conclusion Professor Fudge can
come to is, that a National Gallery is intended
for the delight of the nation, and is paid for with
the nation's money. "Under these assumed
circumstances, he is of opinion that no person can
glance down the list of the purchases made since
the year 1852, and not be much struck by two
things — their great number, and the unknown
character, for the most part, of the names of
those masters to whom they are attributed. He
himself having had, as he must beg to remind
the Jury, a careful Art-education, had, in looking
through the catalogue of the National Gallery,
found the names of above fifty masters of whom
In- had never heard. He concluded that they
were eminent, from finding their names in that
catalogue. How was it he (witness) had never
heard of them?

Professor Waghorn begs to remind Mr. Fudge
that if these masters are unknown in this country,
that is the very reason why their works
should be secured in order that they might
remain unknown no longer. (A feeble chuckle
from the ghost of Sir George Beaumont.)

Witness is ready to agree to this remark,
on condition that he is able to prove that the
works of these masters are worthy of being
known. Is the reputation of the great
PACCHIAUOTTO worthy of promulgation? Is that of
NICCOLO ALUNNO, of LUDGERZUM RING? In one
word—- for it is impossible to give all the names
of these unknown masters—- what is the meaning
of these very numerous purchases of pictures
which are not by men of great renown, and which
are not of themselves intrinsically excellent; and
of the collecting in such vast numbers of works of
the pre-Raphaelite period? The National Gallery
is half full of them. They have oozed out of the
rooms especially assigned to them, and meet one
at every turn in all parts of the Gallery, on the
staircases, the passages, the hall. Those
pictures cannot, in most instances, be regarded in
any other light than as curiosities; many —- nay,
most of them —- are scarcely works of Art at ail.
(Sir George Beaumont is understood to murmur
that they are certainly wanting in " tone.")
Now, is the National Gallery a place for curiosities
or for works of Art?

Dr. Waghorn is of opinion that it is desirable
that there should be some means of tracing the
Chronological History of Art, and that it is
therefore necessary that the earlier schools of
painting should be represented in a national
collection, as well as those in which the art of
painting is developed in its more mature and
cultivated phases.

Professor Fudge is ready to grant that postulate,
but he wishes to know whether this may
not be done on a less exorbitant scale; whether,
in short, considering the extraordinary likeness
of one of these pictures to another, two or three
of them would not be enough? The fifteenth
century, from about the year 1410 to 1490,
is represented by the works of thirty-four
painters; of these —- all bought within the last
six years—- only about a dozen names are known ,
to fame. It cannot be said in justification of
the purchase of these pictures, that they are
all wanted chronologically, as links in the
collection, seeing that many of them are of
precisely the same date.

Doctor Waghorn is of opinion that it is
desirable, in a great collection, to represent each
artist of each period, whether known or otherwise.

Witness would beg to inquire what then will
be the course adopted by the Art Committees of
future ages with regard to the thousands of
modern painters?

Doctor Waghorn begs to state that he can
have nothing to say on a subject so futile, vain,
and frivolous as Modern Art.

At this point in the proceedings a messenger
comes into court, and whispering a few words
to the Eye-witness, delivers to him a sealed
paper and withdraws. It is nothing less than
an authentic Report of the different moneys
expended in pictures for the national collection,
from the commencement of the year 1844 down
to the present time, together with the names of
the persons from whom those pictures were
purchased, and other particulars calculated to
explain much that was otherwise lost in obscurity.

Dr. Waghorn wishes to know how witness
became possessed of the paper in question?