saint with a bow and arrows, an argumentative
and disagreeable, saint, a saint who advances
his opinions politely and insinuatingly, a
stupid saint, and a female saint violently frightened
at something she is holding in her hand,
and which hears a distant resemblance to a
feather, but is equally like (or unlike) the drumstick
of a fowl. All these saints are in one picture,
by the same token that this composition is
in the school of ANDREA DEL CASTAGNO, of whom
we are told in the catalogue that he was called
"the Infamous," though whether from the
infamy of his art, or of his private career, does
not come out. Being quite sure of his professional
infamy, however, we will suppose that to
be the subject of allusion, and leave his moral
career alone. But what a purchase was this! a
picture not even by the "Infamous" himself,
but in the school of his infamy. We are not
only to buy the works of unknown (and infamous)
masters, but even those of their more
unknown (and more infamous) disciples.

Dr. Waghorn was of opinion that too much
was being said about the picture. It only
occupied a position in the Hall.

That Hall, witness continued, was certainly
the best place for such works. It was not
adorned with an exhilarating collection of gems.
There was an Apostle of awful size, and very
horrible to contemplate, who presided over one
of the doorways, and was the handiwork of one
PORDENONE. [ Another of those illustrious
masters whom witness had never had the
advantage of hearing about.]

Professor Waghorn begged to remind Professor
Fudge  that the work in question was a
gift, and not a purchase. It was the gift of
Cavaliere Vallati.

Witness begged the Cavaliere's pardon. It
was very liberal of that nobleman. Witness was
glad to find that on a subsequent occasion, in
1859, a "deal" had been effected with the Cavaliere
by which he became possessed of £303
sterling. How was if, that the liberal donor of
the invaluable PORDENONE had been induced
to accept that sum?

Professor Vaghorn submitted that this question
was irregular. There was no connexion between
the two transactions—how could there be?

A Juryman remarked that there could be, in
this way. " This same Cavaleerairy might want
to come round the country in order to make 'em
buy some of his pictures, or what not?"

Professor Wagnorn begged he might not hear
any such insinuations, and that the evidence of
Professor Fudge might be resumed.

While on the subject of gifts, and that of bequests,
which naturally suggested itself at the
same time, witness thought that the terribly
cynical but true proverb, which suggested the
impropriety of examining the dental arrangements
of eleemosynary horses, was sometimes applicable
to pictures. Was it judicious to accept such
gift-pictures as some of those that adorned the
walls of the National Gallery? How liberal
people had been with the works of BENJAMIN
WEST, R.A., for instance.

Sir G. Beaumont begged to observe that he
had himself presented the country with a picture
by that artist.

Dr. Waghorn remarked that few men had
ever been more deeply imbued with a feeling for
the works of the masters, and more reverently
a student of those works (bringing no audacious
novelties of his own into play), than MR. WEST,
P.R.A.

Witness quite agreed with Dr. Waghorn on
that point. He submitted, however, that
perhaps the pictures of the deceased President
would have been more interesting if he had put
something more of his own into them. Be that
as it might, witness had meant no allusion to
the gift of Sir George Beaumont, which was the
best specimen of the artist in the collection, but
to subsequent donations of inferior works. The
Saints, by TADDIO GADDI, given by Mr. Coningham,
might have sufficed as specimens of the school
to which TADDIO GADDI belonged, and might have
exonerated us from purchasing any more: though
this gift had a different effect. The especially
vile picture by RAZZI might be quoted as a gift
horse whose mouth had by all means better
remain unexamined; and so might the villanous
Assumption of the Magdalen, surrounded by red-
faced furies, of JULIO ROMANO. In the name of
the Prophet, what is to be said of this JULIO
ROMANO? Is he not artistically a miscreant of
the vilest order? It is time he was exposed once
for all, as an impostor. Does he ever fail to
outrage every good principle in art? Did he
ever paint a good picture?

Dr. Waghorn begged that witness would give
his evidence more calmly; and

Sir G. Beaumont took the liberty of reminding
Professor Fudge that the name of GIULIO
ROMANO was dear to fame, and was not to be
handled thus lightly.

If we turned from gifts to bequests, the
witness resumed, we should find that it was
often inexpedient to look a bequeathed as well
as a gift horse in the mouth. The Rev. Carr
had left some nasty bequests.

Sir G. Beaumont could not allow that expres-
sion.

Witness threw himself upon the Jury; what
did the Jury think of The Holy Family, by
ANDREA DEL SARTO? The Jury knew nothing
about it, did they? What did they think of The
Dream, by MICHEL ANGELO? What a specimen
of that name! Referring to the body of the
catalogue, however, witness found that though
this picture was put down under the name of
MICHEL ANGELO, it was stated in its description
that it was "from a design only of MICHEL
ANGELO." Truly, BUONAROTTI must have been
in a bad way when he did that design, and called
it A Dream of Human Life. It must have been
done after an early dinner. At no other time
would Human Life wear such an aspect. This
picture is thus described in the catalogue: "A
naked figure seated. Beneath his seat is a
collection of masks illustrating the insincerity or
duplicity of human dealings, and around him are
visions of the many vices and depravities of