such reverence. The modern artist had, at any
rate, the power of interesting us more than the
ancient.

Professor Waghorn wished to know what witness
meant? Did he conceive that people were
not interested in the works which had been the
subject of the present examination? Had witness
observed any symptoms of indifference
to the works of the old masters, among the visitors
to the Gallery?

The Eye-witness had observed some very
remarkable symptoms among those visitors, He
had noticed that the most essentially modern
picture in the collection was that most crowded
about. It was a small picture, but it certainly
was the great favourite.

Dr. Waghorn begged to inquire what that
picture was?

Witness replied that it was the work of one
DYCKMANS; that it represented a Blind Beggar
and his Child, and was bequeathed to the country
by—of all people in the world— the late
Jane Clarke, a milliner in Regent-street,
and the inventor of the prettiest form of bonnet
that ever was perched upon the female head.
"Witness did not like that picture, but he was of
opinion that the public did, and that a perceptible
difference was observable in the demeanour
of those who turned from the contemplation of,
say the allegory of Angelica Kauffmann, to a
consideration of this picture. They lost for a
time that jaded and listless appearance which
had characterised them while engaged in the
study of the old masters.

Dr. Waghorn concluded, from the nature of
the witness's remarks, that at any rate he did
not consider the collection which had been
presented to the nation by Robert Vernon, Esq.,
an inconsiderable or trifling gift?

Witness replied, that indeed he did not. He
wished, however, to ask a question with regard
to those pictures. He wished to know whether
a commission had not been appointed to decide
whether it was desirable to remove those pictures
to South Kensington, or to keep them as
parts of the National Collection?

Professor Waghorn believed that such a
cornmission had been appointed.

Witness begged next to inquire what was the
result of the inquiries of that commission, and
what the conclusion arrived at by them?

Professor Waghorn believed that the conclusion
arrived at was that the pictures in question
should not be removed to Kensington.

Witness—- And yet that removal was effected;
could the learned Doctor explain that circumstance?

The learned Doctor was not in a position to
explain that circumstance. Possibly it had
appeared to higher authorities than that commission,
or than any commission, that such a removal
would be an agreeable portion of a plan
in which those high authorities were interested
If so, the removal of those pictures was one of
the most gratifying things that had ever come
under his notice, and ought to be so to the country
generally.

A Juryman did not see, under those circumstances,
the good of having a commission at all.

Another Juryman remarked that he didn't
know as commissions ever was much good.
This observation being, however, considered to
be irregular, and to have no connexion with the
matter in hand:

Witness went on to say that he considered
such neglect, on the part of Government, of the
conclusions arrived at by a commission of the
Government's own appointing, was most
extraordinary, and that it required explanation.
Witness was of opinion, that if any pictures were to
be removed to a distance from the centre of the
town, the works of the old masters should have
been selected, as the modern pictures would
certainly have afforded more delight to the
public, and, consequently, should be within easy
reach.

Dr. Waghorn considered that the public was
not justified in expecting to have what it likes,
but rather what is thought good for it. If the
public liked modern art better than ancient—
which the learned Doctor could hardly believe
possible— but if it did, he could only say that it
deserved no consideration at the hands of
Government. The learned Doctor then went on
to say that he thought it was time for the present
inquiry to draw to a close; was his accomplished
colleague (Sir G. Beaumont) of the same
opinion?

Sir G. Beaumont was of the same opinion.
He had been much shocked and outraged by the
things he had heard in that court, and it would
be a relief to him to be released from so painful
an ordeal. In addition to this, the accomplished
Ghost felt that the evening was drawing on, and
that he would be wanted elsewhere as soon as—
as—in short, as soon as it was dark enough.

Dr. Waghorn requested the Eye-witness to
bring his evidence to an immediate close, and,
in doing so, to state exactly what the object of
that evidence was, and what it was that he was
endeavouring to establish by the very revolutionary
and unpleasant sentiments to which he
had given utterance in that court.

The Eye-witness, in conclusion, begged to
add, that the whole intention and purpose of
the evidence he had given, was, he had hoped,
made sufficiently clear by the nature of that
evidence. He had gone through— not, indeed,
completely, but he believed completely enough
for the present purpose— the pictures of which
our National Collection was composed, and more
especially those works which had been recently
added to it. He had endeavoured to show that
many of those purchases had been characterised
by a mingled timidity and rashness which would
sometimes strangely enough go together, but
always in most unhappy union. He had shown
that pictures had been purchased in lots, at
prices which forbade the possibility of their
being fit works for the National Gallery of England,
and that the money thus spent in small
sums might, by being allowed to accumulate, have
tempted the possessors of some one or two fine
pictures to part with them; and witness contended