Chapter VI

WRIGHT’S SECESSION FROM THE ROYAL ACADEMY.--J. L.
PHILIPS.--THE MESSRS. REDGRAVE’S CRITICISMS ON THE
SECESSION AND UPON WRIGHT’S WORKS.--HAYLEY’S POEM.--ANTHONY
PASQUIN.--LETTERS FROM WRIGHT TO J. L. PHILIPS.--THE “AIR
PUMP” PICTURE.

I now propose to deal with the uncommon instance of an artist who, after having accepted the Associateship, refused the full honours of the Royal Academy. In November of 1781, Wright was elected an Associate, and in February, 1784, a full member of the Academy, but for some reason or other he declined to become an Academician. Much has been written upon this subject, and very different conclusions have been arrived at.

One of his most intimate friends, J. Leigh Philips, who possessed considerable artistic judgment, wrote in 1797--the year after Wright’s death--the following account of Wright’s treatment by the Royal Academy, and there is no doubt but that he was well acquainted with all the circumstances of the case:--

“His portraits are mostly confined to the immediate neighbourhood of Derby; this remark may likewise in a great degree extend to the generality of his works, as but few of his late pictures have been publicly exhibited, owing to their being frequently disposed of even before finished, and to a repugnance which he felt at sending his works to an exhibition where he had too much cause to complain of their being improperly placed, and sometimes even upon the ground, that, if possible, they might escape the public eye. As a proof of the truth of this remark, the last pictures he exhibited were _placed upon the ground_. In consequence of which they were so much injured by the feet of the company, as to render it necessary to have the frames repaired and re-gilded. This narrow jealousy, added to the circumstance of his being rejected as an R.A. at the time Mr. Garvey was a successful candidate, did not tend to increase his opinion of the liberality of his brethren in the profession. The Academy, however, being afterwards made aware of the impropriety of thus insulting a man of his abilities, deputed their Secretary, Newton, to Derby, to solicit his acceptance of a diploma, which he indignantly rejected, knowing how little the institution could serve him, and feeling perhaps a satisfaction that his friend Mortimer and himself were both deemed equally unqualified to enjoy the honours attached to that Royal establishment.”

The Messrs. Redgrave, in their “Century of Painters,” “take exception to this account of the treatment of Wright by the Academy,” and say, “We are inclined to discount the whole of the tale” upon the grounds that “we have searched the records of the Academy to learn the facts connected with Wright’s retirement.” It was a safe place to search for what was sure not to be found, if Mr. Philips’ account were true.

Against the authors of the “Century of Painters” are arrayed the writers and poets of the day, who took up the case when the circumstances were well known. If Wright felt aggrieved, he had a perfect right to decline the honour; and it appears to me that the story as told by Mr. Philips has more claim to credence than the opinions of writers a century later, founded upon such purely negative evidence.

The Messrs. Redgrave also state that “he then (when offered the full diploma) refused to comply with the law of the Academy, which requires a member to present one of his works to the Academy before receiving his diploma, and required his name to be removed from the list of Associates.” As Wright declined the proffered honour, it was not necessary for him to “comply with the law of the Academy, and present one of his works.” The refusal was consequent upon his retirement, but there is nothing to show that it caused it.

Again, Mr. S. Redgrave, in his “Dictionary of Artists,” states--“On the foundation of the Academy he had entered as a student, and in 1781 he was elected an Associate; his election as a full member followed in 1784. But we are told that, annoyed by another having been elected before him, he retired altogether from the Academy. The facts, however, do not bear out this statement, and it appears more probable that the nervous, irritable, ailing painter, settled quietly so far from the Metropolis, was afraid of the duties and responsibilities which his membership would entail.” It will be seen that Mr. S. Redgrave omits to state the “facts” to which he refers.

The retirement of Wright from the Academy induced Hayley, the Poet, to write the following Ode, with a view to “Guard him from meek depression’s chill controul”:--

ODE TO JOSEPH WRIGHT, ESQ., OF DERBY.[30]

“Away! ye sweet, but trivial forms,
That from the placid pencil rise,
When playful Art the Landscape warms
With Italy’s unclouded skies!
Stay, vanity! nor yet demand
Thy portrait from the painter’s hand!
Nor ask thou, Indolence, to aid thy dream,
The soft illusion of the mimic stream,
That twinkles to thy sight with Cynthia’s[31] trembling beam!

Be thine, my Friend, a nobler task!
Beside thy vacant Easel see
Guests, who, with claims superior, ask
New miracles of art from thee:
Valour, who mocks unequal strife,
And Clemency, whose smile is life!
‘_Wright!_ let thy skill (this radiant pair exclaim)
Give to our view our favourite scene of Fame,
Where Britain’s genius blazed in glory’s brightest Flame.’

Cœlestial ministers! ye speak
To no dull agent sloth opprest;
Who coldly hears, in spirit weak,
Heroic Virtue’s high behest:
Behold, tho’ envy strives to foil
The Artist bent on public toil,
Behold! his Flames terrific lustre shed;
His naval Blaze mounts from his billowy bed;
And Calpe[32] proudly rears his war illumined head.

In gorgeous Pomp for ever shine
Bright monument of Britain’s force!
Though doomed to feel her fame decline
In ill-starr’d war’s o’erwhelming course;
Though Europe’s envious realms unite
To crush her in unequal Fight,
Her Genius, deeply stung with generous shame,
On this exalting Rock arrayed in flame,
Equals her ancient feats, and vindicates her name.

How fiercely British valour pours
The deluge of destructive Fire,
Which o’er that watery Babel roars,
Bidding the baffled Host retire,
And leave their fallen, to yield their breath
In different pangs of double death!
Ye shall not perish: No! ye hapless brave,
Reckless of peril thro’ the fiery wave.
See! British Mercy steers, each prostrate foe to save.

Ye gallant chiefs whose deeds proclaim
The genuine Hero’s feeling soul,
Elliott[33] and Curtis,[34] with whose name
Honour enriched his radiant roll:
Blest is your fate! nor blest alone,
That rescued Foes your virtues own,
That Britain triumphs in your filial worth;
Blest in the period of your glory’s birth,
When Art can bid it live to decorate the Earth!

Alas! what deeds, where virtue reign’d,
Have in oblivion’s darkness died,
When Painting, by the Goths enchain’d,
No life-securing tints supplied!
Of all thy powers, enchanting Art,
Thou deemest this the dearest part,
To guard the rights of valour, and afford
Surviving lustre to the Hero’s sword:
For this, heroic Greece thy martial charms adored.

Rival of Greece, in arms, in arts,
Tho’ deemed in her declining days,
Britain yet boasts unnumbered Hearts,
Who keenly pant for public praise:
Her Battles yet are firmly fought
By Chiefs with Spartan courage fraught:
Her Artists, with Athenian zeal, unite
To trace the glories of the prosp’rous fight,
And gild th’ embattl’d scene with Art’s immortal light.

Tho’ many a hand may well portray,
The rushing War’s infuriate shock,
Proud Calpe bids thee, WRIGHT, display
The Terrors of her blazing Rock;
The burning hulks of baffled Spain,
From thee she claims, nor claims in vain,
Thou mighty master of the mimic Flame,
Whose Peerless Pencil, with peculiar aim,
Has formed of lasting Fire the basis of thy Fame.

Just is thy praise, thy Country’s voice
Loudly asserts thy signal power;
In this reward may’st thou rejoice,
In modest Labour’s silent hour,
Far from those seats, where envious leagues,
And dark cabals, and base intrigues
Exclude meek merit from its proper Home;
Where Art, whom _Royalty_ forbade to roam,
Against thy Talents closed her self-dishonour’d Dome.

When partial pride, or mean neglect,
The nerves of injur’d Genius gall,
What kindly spells of keen effect
His energy of Heart recall?
Perchance there is no spell so strong
As friendship’s sympathetic song:
By fancy link’d in a fraternal band,
Artist and Bard in sweet alliance stand;
They suffer equal wounds, and mutual aid demand.

Go then, to slighted worth devote
Thy willing verse, my fearless Muse;
Haply thy free and friendly note
Some joyous ardour may infuse
In fibres, that severely smart,
From potent envy’s poison’d dart;
Thro’ WRIGHT’S warm breast bid tides of vigour roll,
Guard him from meek depression’s chill controul,
And rouse him to exert each sinew of his Soul.”

The first nine verses allude to Wright’s picture of the Siege of Gibraltar.

The last three refer to his having been rejected as an R.A.

This “Ode” is referred to by Wright in the following interesting letter to his friend Hayley; and from what we learn of Wright’s character from those who knew him, it is very certain that he would not have accepted as a “very ingenious and very friendly ode” a poem which contained such severe animadversions upon the treatment he had been subjected to by the Royal Academy, unless he had thought them justified by the facts:--

“Derby, Aug. 31st, 1783.
“MY DEAR SIR,

“It is recommended to the painters who wish to become eminent,
to let no day pass without a line. How contrary, alas! has
been my practice; a series of ill-health for these sixteen
years past (the core of my life) has subjected me to many idle
days, and bowed down my attempts towards fame and fortune.
I have laboured under an annual malady some years, four and
five months at a time; under the influence of which I have
now dragged over four months, without feeling a wish to take
up my pencil, till roused by your very ingenious and very
friendly Ode, in which are many beautiful parts, and some
sublime. Perhaps, had I then been furnished with proper
materials for the action off Gibraltar, I should have begun my
fire; but for want of such instructions, I soon sunk into my
wonted torpor again, from which, as the weather grows cooler,
I hope to awaken. Mr. Wedgwood approves of your subject of
Penelope, as a companion to the Maid of Corinth. You mention
the boy Telemachus being pale and feverish; pray, is there any
authority in history for it? or have you mentioned it to give
more character and expression to his mother? When I know this
I shall make a sketch of it, and consult you further about it.
Some little time ago, I received one hundred copies of your
charming Ode (would I deserved what your warm friendship has
lavished on me), some of which I distributed among my friends;
but would it not be more advantageous to me to spread abroad
the rest when my picture is finished--especially if I make an
exhibition of it with some others?

“I am, dear Sir, with the greatest esteem,
“Your much obliged Friend,
“J. WRIGHT.”

Another writer, Anthony Pasquin,[35] in his “The Royal Academicians: A Farce, 1786,” gives this account of Wright’s secession from the Academy, which he puts into the mouth of Truth:--

“The inimitable Wright, of Derby, once expressed an ardent desire to be admitted a member of the Academy, but from what unaccountable reason his wishes were frustrated remains as yet a secret to the world; but the sagacious, or, rather, the envious brethren of the brush thought proper to thrust so eminent an artist on one side to make way for so contemptible an animal as Edmund Garbage (Garvey). They had scarcely invested this insignificant mushroom with diplomatic honours before they discovered that they had been committing a most atrocious, diabolical, and bloody murder upon two gentlemen of great respectability and character, ycleped Genius and Justice; and the pangs of their wounded consciences became so very troublesome, that it was resolved, in a full divan, instantly to despatch Secretary Prig to Derby with the diploma, and force these august privileges and distinctions upon the disappointed painter, that he had before solicited in vain. But, alas! the expedition was inauspicious and unfortunate; the diploma was rejected with the most evident marks of contempt, and the Secretary kicked as a recompense for his presumption.”

This account is, no doubt, a caricature of what actually took place, but it to a certain extent corroborates both Mr. Philips’ statement and the Poet Hayley’s allusions to the same event in his ode; and we must remember that the poet was also one of Wright’s intimate friends.

Mr. F. G. Stephens has kindly called my attention to the following extract from “Number 1: A Liberal Critique on the Exhibition for 1794,” by “Anthony Pasquin” (Williams), p. 15:--

J. WRIGHT, DERBY.

No. 107, “_An Eruption of Vesuvius_.”

No. 232, “_A Lake at Dunkeld, in Scotland, Evening_,” _by the
same Author_.

No. 233, “_A Village on Fire_,” _by ditto_.

“This truly celebrated Artist has honoured the Institution
by condescending to mingle his choice labours with the _Harp
Alley_[36] excellence of a majority of the Royal Academicians.
Feeling their importance so inordinately, it moves my wonder
that these uplifted gentlemen do not eagerly contribute,
by their own efforts, to the support of that order from
whence they derive such prodigious importance, and not give
the cavilling world occasion to remark that they have been
honoured without desert, and retain the mummeries of the
institution without gratitude. When I was in Paris, in 1787,
they managed those affairs much better; the Royal Academy of
Polite Arts there was conducted more nobly: every person was
admitted to view _gratis_, what was meant as a free display
of national genius, for national admiration. With us the
motive seems cupidity, and the end deception. With the richest
Monarch in Europe for their patron, the arts of England are
literally kept from destruction by the votive shillings of
a motley public, who pay the salaries of the professors,
and find _oil_ for the lamps in the _plaister_ and _living_
schools, though the King arrogates the character of being the
high supporter of the system. But it is a provident assumption
of dignity, unaccompanied with either risk, anxiety, or
expense! He seems to possess the _furor_ of patronage as
highly as the tenth Leo, but I have as yet to learn that he is
equally munificent.”

My own opinion is, that the facts as recorded by these writers were in the main correct. There seems no reason to doubt that Wright’s contributions to the annual Exhibitions at the Academy had been systematically placed in bad positions, and that he felt his abilities deserved recognition before those of Mr. E. Garvey, his competitor at the time, whose works consisted principally of small pictures of gentlemen’s seats. At this period, the Elections at the Royal Academy were contested, and interest was all-powerful; and nothing would have been more repugnant to the sensitive and honourable nature of Wright, than having to pass through the ordeal of canvassing for an election, where merit alone should have been the test.

It is to be regretted that no letters or other memoranda are to be found amongst Wright’s papers which throw any light upon his refusal of the diploma in 1784.

I am, however, able to give, in Wright’s own words, his version of his treatment by the Royal Academy during the years 1790, 1791, and 1794. From these letters we learn that Wright had again become an exhibitor in the Academy, but that his pictures were badly hung. This treatment calls forth these words from him:--“’Tis not the first instance of their base conduct. I have been driven from their Exhibition before, and must again withdraw myself, unless I could brook such abuse.”

Again, in writing to Mr. Philips, in 1794, he says:--“Your picture of Vesuvius and one at Dunkeld which would have been at Manchester before now, had not the frames of the pictures which I exhibited been materially damaged at the Academy. Mr. Milbourne has orders to put them into good condition and send them to you when done.”

This is alone sufficient to prove his retirement had some deeper ground than a disinclination to present a diploma picture.

“Derby, 11th June, 1790.
“TO JOHN LEIGH PHILIPS,

“My good friend, for so I have reason to call you, is ever
prompt and eager to redress as much as may be my wrongs. I
have lately sustained a real injury from the _most illiberal_
behaviour of the Royal Academicians, with which my dear friend
Tate has made you acquainted. ’Tis not the first instance of
their base conduct. I have been driven from their Exhibition
before, and must again withdraw myself--unless I could brook
such abuse--for it is better not to exhibit at all than under
such disadvantageous circumstances. To put my pictures in
places they could not be seen, and then to decry them is rank
villany, and what an artist should sink under the reflection
of. I wish the Town had held together longer; I should have
been very glad to have their behaviour publickly known, while
it is recent, that if I should exhibit no more with them, the
true reason may be known. I was prophet enough to foretell
what would happen to me. I think I communicated it to Tate,
indeed it required no divination, to know the miscreants and
their dependency on the Alderman,[37] was to know the result
of all. I am sorry the business is protracted from time to
time. The Editors stand much in awe of this great man. I heard
the other day from a Relation of the Alderman’s, that the
editor of the Morning Herald had a violent quarrel with him
for rejecting the performance of a relation of his as unworthy
of his gallery. There is an odd paragraph in the Leicester
papers. ‘The _Prince_ of pick-pockets has given instruction
to his attorney to prosecute a printer for a libel on his
_character_.’ Can you guess who it is? I wonder Vasari has
not yet come out with his statement of facts, sure he has not
plugged with gold the touch hole of his great guns. At present
I can but thank you for your very friendly services to me; I
feel the weight of such _solid obligations_.

“My best remembrances to Mrs. Philips, my Friend Tate, Mrs.
Hardman, &c., &c., and believe me very sincerely and with much
esteem your Friend,

“JO^{SH} WRIGHT.

“P.S.--Tate says you have so high an opinion of my two
pictures that if I will join you, Heath shall be applied
to, to engrave them. I hardly know how to reply, unless I
knew something of the expense, and the likelihood of saving
ourselves in such an engagement. Independent of these
considerations I should like it of all things, as it would be
pushing the matter with the Alderman still further. Perhaps
you will indulge me with a line soon.”

“15th April, 1791.
“TO JOHN LEIGH PHILIPS,

“MY DEAR SIR,

“I have just received a letter from the Sect^y of the
incorporated Society of Artists, assuring me they will be
happy to receive any pictures from me, but they wish to
avoid inserting anything in the catalogue, that may appear
like altercation with the R Academy, and they conceive it
sufficient to mention in the catalogue, that the two pictures
from Shakespeare were exhibited last year at Somerset house,
timely notice not having been sent of the Exhibition of this
Society, but the subjects having received alterations, Mr.
Wright wishes them to be exhibited here. However in this
respect the Committee will be wholly guided by me. I think
nothing had better be said than the above. My wish was to have
had something mentioned in the catalogue expressive of the
slight & injustice shewn to my pictures last year by the R
Academy, by the obscure places they put them in, which I hope
will be an apology to the publick for their 2^{nd} appearance.
Pray suggest something proper if you and my friend Tate think
some observation of the kind should be made.

“Heath & Martin will have an opportunity of seeing these
pictures; whether they will approve of them is uncertain, nor
do I know whether the two pictures of Romeo & Juliet and the
Storm are to be marked in the Catalogue to be sold. It would
gratify my pride and resentment to the Alderman to have ’em
engraved by Heath--as the Companion of the Storm would become
more universal. The Society wish to have any single picture
besides the two from Shakespeare, which would preclude any
unpleasant suggestions that might be started to the prejudice
of the Society. Pray give me your thoughts by return of post,
as I must write as soon as possible.

“I am still unwell--no work going on. Adieu my good friend,
and believe me yours very sincerely,

“JOS^H WRIGHT.
“St Ellens,
“15 Apl, 1791.”

The note in the catalogue of 1791, the last exhibition of the Society, thus reads:--“N.B.--The above pictures were exhibited last year in the Royal Academy; but having been placed in an unfortunate situation, owing (as Mr. Wright supposes) to their having arrived too late in London, and having since received alterations, he is desirous they should again meet the public eye.”

“St Ellens, Apl 23^{rd} 1791.
“TO JOHN LEIGH PHILIPS,

“MY DEAR SIR,

“As I have a very high opinion of your judgment, integrity,
and friendship for me, I have the greatest satisfaction
in asking your advice & regulating my conduct by it. I
have implicitly followed your instructions relative to the
Incorporated Society, who I believe would do anything in
reason to accommodate me. They approve of the N.B., as it now
stands, it entirely removes every ground of cavil between them
and the R.A., yet for my own sake, they wish me to reconsider
it, as in their opinion it sets me in perhaps too pointed a
view of opposition to the R.A., but I don’t see that. They
have repeatedly used me ill, and the public ought to know
it, or my changing the place of exhibition might be deemed
whimsicalness. The terms it is couched in are delicate, and
the supposition of delay, being ye cause of the pictures being
disadvantageously placed, is a very sufficient apology for the
Academy, better indeed than my heart is inclined to make them.

“I consider the Exhibition as my mart, and I have sent three
small pictures. I wish they may make good head against the
Royalists this year, against another I hope to be better
prepared. I like the Spring Gardens Room very much. I am glad
you like the addition to your Grotto, in my opinion ’tis much
improved by it; there is a better balance of light and shadow.
I would advise you to get it painted on the backside with a
greyish colour which will preserve it much. I mention grey
because the paint works thro’ like pin heads in any of the
porus parts. That tint will be the least seen and where they
are seen, our dear friend Tate will touch ’em with the point
of a pencil. The Moonlight is 30^{gs.}

“I thank you very kindly for a quantity of most excellent
rags, you were resolved I should never want again. I do not
understand when you say, “if we can see ye 2^d No. of Boydell
we shall all be satisfied.” Pray is the 1^{st} out. I am glad
you are recovered.

“JO^S WRIGHT.”

“20th May, 1791.
“TO JOHN LEIGH PHILIPS,

“MY DEAR SIR,

“Your Account of the base situation of my friend Tate’s
pictures in the R.A. hurts me much, tho’ from repeated
instances of this sort of behaviour both to myself and Pupil
I am not much surprised. ’Tis their duty to form the best
exhibition in their power, by giving every picture the
place its merit claims, but partiality pervades the whole,
and I have frequently seen pictures unworthy of public
exhibition possessing the most advantageous places. Who it is
that misconducts this matter, I know not, but I have heard
Farrington has much sway in the Academy.

“As you have given up the concern which Tate mentioned to me
sometime ago, I must also give up the flattering idea which I
had entertained of having my picture engraved by Heath. Martin
& he wished again to see them. Have you heard anything from
Heath about them, because the time of closing will be drawing
nigh and I must determine what to do with ’em. I think they
will be the last pictures I shall exhibit.

“I am happy you like your pictures, and am obliged to you for
the remittance of £31. 10. 0. I could have wished for the ease
of my own feelings to have excused the payment (for I stand
much indebted to you) but I durst not offer it you, for fear
of wounding yours at this time. However, anon, I will place a
center picture between the two, to show how sincerely I think
myself,

“Dr Sir, your obliged Friend,
“JO^{SH} WRIGHT.

“St Ellens,
“May 20, 1791.”

In a biography of Wright, I am compelled to notice the unwarrantable attack made by the Messrs. Redgrave, in their “Century of Painters,” upon the reputation of Wright as a painter. Whether this arose from Wright’s seceding from the Academy, and so committing an unpardonable offence in the eyes of the Messrs. Redgrave, or from the fact that they judged Wright by unimportant works, as I shall presently show, or from both combined, I must leave the reader to decide.

Messrs. Redgrave state:--“Having made a journey into the County especially to see some of the works of this Derbyshire artist, we were shown many, both portraits, landscapes, and figure subjects, reported to be amongst his best, but always disappointing to our expectations.” Soon after the publication of the “Century of Painters,” I was at the trouble to make enquiries as to what pictures had been seen by the Messrs. Redgrave on the occasion of this visit, and found that they had not seen his best pictures at all, but only a few which were either left unfinished at his death or had been tampered with by others, together with some unimportant works. They did not see “The Orrery,” “The Gladiator,” “The Alchymist,” nor any of his important portraits or “conversation” pictures. The “Air Pump” picture was apparently not seen by them until later, when a portion of their criticisms had been written, and it then received encomium from them, which I now place in juxtaposition with what they had written a few pages before. The italics are mine.

MESSRS. REDGRAVE _v._ MESSRS. REDGRAVE.

JOS. WRIGHT, OF DERBY.

“As a portrait painter, judged by his best works, he was
merely respectable. There is a painful solidity of execution,
_a want of quality and texture both in the flesh and
draperies_, so that when placed beside the works of Reynolds
or Gainsboro’ his portraits remind us of the labours of the
_house painter_; they show little variety of handling; _flesh,
drapery, sky, trees, all being executed in the same painty
manner_.”--“Century of Painters,” vol. 1, p. 258.

CRITICISMS ON THE PICTURE CALLED “AN EXPERIMENT WITH AN AIR PUMP.”

“We certainly should have placed Wright of Derby _much lower
as an artist_ had we not seen this _very clever work_.... The
drawing and composition is satisfactory, and there is a great
contrast in the expression and the varied attitudes of the
several heads. _The flesh of the faces is good in colour, and
most carefully modelled_; indeed the young woman on the right,
in blue, and the lad drawing down a curtain to shut out the
moonlight on the left, are worth special observation for this
quality. _The draperies are all carefully painted from nature
(a merit apparent also in most of Wright’s portraits)_, and
are in this respect very different from the sloppy negligence
of some of the followers of Reynolds. There is a pretty
little incident rendered with feeling and true expression,
in the group of two young girls touched with childish sorrow
and dread of what they are told is to be the result of ‘the
experiment’--the death of the bird confined in the glass
receiver of the machine.

“The colour of the whole is pleasant, the execution firm
and _solid_, and the brown shadows, although dark, are
sufficiently rich and luminous, the picture very agreeable in
general tone.”--“Century of Painters,” vol. 1, p. 264.

Mr. R. Redgrave, R.A., in a letter to the writer, dated Nov. 30, 1861, wrote:--“I have seen on my journey and since, _very many fine Wrights_, and have reported to the Commissioners (International Exhibition) on six or eight, which they intend to ask or have asked for.” It is a difficult task to reconcile this statement with the “house painter” theory. Yet the “Century of Painters” was not published until 1866.

Of the picture of “An Experiment with an Air Pump,” which called forth such praise from the Messrs. Redgrave, I am enabled, through the courtesy of the Proprietors of the “Art Journal,” to give an illustration. It was presented to the National Gallery, a few years ago, by Mr. Walter Tyrrell.

FROM DR. BEATTIE’S “MINSTREL.” ETCHED BY MR. F. SEYMOUR HADEN.

MR. THOMAS HADEN, OF DERBY, SAT FOR THIS PICTURE.

_Original picture in the possession of the Right Honourable Lord
Houghton._]