Academy received its legal constitution by a deed or "Instrument," as it is designated, which was signed by the King on the 10th of December, 1768. By this Instrument it was directed that the "Royal Academy of Arts," of which "His Majesty graciously declares himself the patron, protector, and supporter," shall "consist of forty members only, who shall be called Academicians of the Royal Academy;" who are to be "artists by profession at the time of their admission, that is to say, painters, sculptors, or architects, men of fair moral characters; of high reputation in their several professions; at least five-and-twenty years of age; resident in Great Britain; and not members of any other society of artists established in London." The Instrument then declares that "it is his Majesty's pleasure that the following forty persons shall be the original members of the said Society," but only names thirty-six; and in point of fact the number was not made up to forty till ten years later.* The great object of the Royal Academy is declared to be "the promoting the Arts of Design," the means being schools of design and an annual exhibition of works of art. The schools are to be under the direction of visitors selected for their qualifications from among the Academicians, a keeper, professors of anatomy, architecture, painting, and perspective. Provision is also made for a library and librarian. The exhibition is to be an annual one of "Paintings, Sculpture, and Designs," and is to be open to all artists of distinguished merit." Of the profits arising from it, "two hundred pounds shall be given to indigent artists, or their families, and the remainder shall be employed in the support of the Institution."

It will have been noticed that no mention is made of Associates. This class was in fact created in 1769, the year after the foundation of the Academy. In the Instrument it is directed that "all vacancies of Academicians shall be filled by election from amongst the exhibitors." The class of Associates was formed as an intermediate body, and from them the Academicians have ever since been elected. This, the addition of two Academician Engravers in 1855, and the formation of a class of Retired Academicians in 1862, are the only essential changes which have been made with regard to the members since the foundation. The addition of a class of five Honorary Members a chaplain, secretary for foreign correspondence, professors of ancient history and ancient literature, and an antiquary-is hardly worth adverting to, since they are merely ornamental appendages to the institution, the only duty performed by any of them being that of the chaplain, who says grace at the annual dinner. The assistance rendered to indigent artists, so modestly mentioned in the Instrument, has been considerably extended, and many minor alterations have been made in the internal government of the body, but essentially the Academy remains as it was constituted by the Instrument of foundation.

Mr. Sandby, with his customary inaccuracy, says that only "thirty-four artists were at first nominated by the King" (Hist. of Royal Acad. i. 55, and again in note), though he has printed at length the names of the thirty-six only five pages earlier (i. 50). He also says in the same note that "the whole number of forty was not completed for five years afterwards," whilst the official list printed as Appendix i., at the end of his second volume, shows that the number forty was not completed till 1768, or ten years after the foundation.

It was hardly to be expected that a society which is the only arbiter of professional dignity, and which has continued for nearly a century without extension, and almost without modification, should escape attack from without, even if it was preserved from dissension within. We almost marvel, therefore, to hear one R.A. (Sir Edwin Landseer, 1342) complain to the Commission that "every generation of twenty years there is an inquiry of this sort;" and another (Mr. Maclise, 1411) declare it to be "a curious circumstance," that "there is always a wretched suspicion in regard to the Academy;" and "often wonder why these inquiries are being constantly made. During the whole of my career," he continued, "there has been a series of inquisitions as to its proceedings, which appear rather extraordinary to me, and the same thing happens over and over again." But he very fairly admits, when Lord Elcho suggests that this "succession of inquirers and constant series of inquiries " may "lead to the conclusion that there is something in the public mind uneasy and dissatisfied with regard to the present constitution of the Academy," that it is certainly so, though "whether the public has just cause or not is another question."

In point of fact, we believe that there had only been one systematic inquiry by order of Parliament before the present, and that was by the Committee on the Arts of Design appointed by the House of Commons in 1836; but from the foundation of the Academy there has always been an active body of opponents among the artists, and their animosity-and memorably that of Haydon and Martin-has served to stimulate certain members of Parliament to make occasional attacks on the Academy in the House of Commons. Sir Charles Eastlake (197) somewhat curtly disposes of the complaints of the artists: he says, "I do not believe that when any question is raised about the schools, or lectures, or finances, the artists care one straw about such matters; what they want is to have their pictures well exhibited, and to be admitted into the Academy. Whatever may be the alleged ground of objection to the Royal Academy, those two points are the real causes of dissatisfaction." The artists would probably deny this to be a fair statement of their objections; but even if their dissatisfaction took no higher ground, it is certain that among that portion of the general public which has given much attention to art there has long been a growing feeling that the Academy very inadequately represents the art of the country. Whether justly or not, they considered it to be at least doubtful whether the sole fountain of honour in art should be a semi-private institution, depending for its income on its annual exhibition, and the members a small, self-elected, inexpansive, and irresponsible body. The system of instruction and the arrangements connected with the exhibition also seemed to them capable of great improvement. In a word, they considered that the Royal Academy had fallen behind the state of art knowledge and culture, and that the time had arrived when it might with propriety be so far remodelled as to assume a more national and comprehensive form, and be made to have a more direct and active bearing on the artistic instruction of the country. And when, in addition to this, we have

so distinguished an Academician as Mr. Roberts saying of the Academy, we are in such a sleepy state that it would be desirable to have recourse to anything to awake us," and other Academicians making almost as strong admissions, it must be allowed that there was ample justification for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry.

The Commission on the Royal Academy was appointed by a warrant from the Crown, dated February 2, 1863. The Commissioners were Earl Stanhope, who acted as Chairman, Viscount Hardinge, Lord Elcho, Sir Edmund W. Head, and Messrs. W. Stirling, M.P., H. D. Seymour, M.P., and Henry Reeve: all gentlemen known for their general acquaintance with the subject of English art, and some as having devoted to it much time and study. One alone, the chairman, had even the slightest connection with the Academy, and his connection-that of antiquary-was strictly nominal and honorary, though sufficient to satisfy the Academy that the inquiry would not be, and was not intended to be, conducted in an unfriendly spirit. Altogether, the composition of the Commission -supposing that it was considered undesirable or impracticable that an artist should be a member of it-was such as to insure the confidence of the Academy and of the public in its intelligence and impartiality. The Commissioners held their first meeting for the hearing of evidence on the 13th of February, and their last on the 8th of June. In all, they met twenty-four times, and examined forty-six witnesses. Of the witnesses, nineteen were Royal Academicians (including the president, treasurer, secretary, keeper, and leading members), and two Associates; thirteen artists, not being members of the Academy, of whom nine were painters, two sculptors, and two architects; three officials connected with the British and South Kensington Museums; and nine amateurs and writers on Art, among them being Lord Taunton, Mr. Ruskin, Mr. A. J. B. B. Hope, Mr. Layard, and Mr. Tom Taylor.

The evidence, which fills 557 pages of a closely-printed blue-book, covers the whole ground of the recent and present state of the Royal Academy, and contains much valuable information, and some suggestive opinions on the actual condition and prospects of art, art-teaching, and artistic knowledge and culture in this country. It is only right to state broadly at the outset, as the result of a careful examination of the evidence, that the inquiry was conducted with great intelligence and consideration, and with an evident desire to obtain such information as would enable the Commissioners to comprehend the problem proposed to them in all its bearings. On the other hand, it must be said of the witnesses, whether Academicians, untitled artists, or laymen, that with scarcely an exception their evidence was given with the utmost frankness, often with a pregnant brevity of expression which only thorough knowledge of the subject, and the habit of reflecting upon it, could impart. That of the President of the Academy, Sir Charles Eastlake, to which very properly the Commissioners make particular reference, is almost exhaustive of the subject-looking at it of course from the Academic point of view: it was continued over four days, and comprised answers to above nine hundred questions.

The Report of the Commissioners commences by giving credit to the Academy for the great service it has rendered to the country "in assisting to keep up and to cultivate a taste for art;" recognises the merits of the eminent men it has numbered in its ranks, and states that "many of its members have at every period, and often at a great pecuniary sacrifice to themselves, given time to the superintendence of the schools;" points out that the teaching has always been gratuitous; and that the funds of the Academy have not only been liberally applied to the relief of aged and indigent members and their widows, but also largely in assisting in their hour of need artists who have been wholly unconnected with the institution except as exhibitors. But it does not seem to the Commission inconsistent with this general commendation that they "should now have to state some serious defects and propose some considerable changes." They have examined carefully the Royal Instrument of foundation, and have obtained the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. They are satisfied of its legal sufficiency; but they believe it "has none of the characteristics or incidents of a charter." The position of the Academy, it seems to them, "would be far better defined and far more satisfactory, if, instead of the present Instrument of 1768, it rested on a Royal Charter to be granted by the Crown." The Academy would then have "a clear and definite public character instead of the anomalous and ambiguous position" it now occupies. But it is most desirable that the personal relation which exists between the Sovereign and the Academy "in the appointment or confirmation of various officers, and in several other points on which the royal consent is required," should be continued. To that relation, however, they would add the grant of visitatorial power to the Crown, similar in principle to that which exists in the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.

Thus far probably there will be little difference of opinion as to the recommendations of the Commissioners, since the inconvenience of the present ambiguous condition of the Academy was as readily admitted by the Academicians as it was asserted by the other witnesses; and it seemed to be the general opinion that if the Academy were to be placed on a different footing it would be best done by a royal charter. "Supposing a charter to be given," the Commissioners proceed to set forth "the manner in which the Academy should be reconstituted:" and here of course will be the real battlefield. For greater clearness the Commissioners divided their inquiry, and now arrange their recommendations, under "five classes or heads," and under these same five heads it will perhaps be most convenient for us to give a short summary of the more important of the recommendations. Such as call for remark we shall examine as we proceed. 1. Constitution of the Academy.-According to their view, constitution of the Academy should rest on a wider and more liberal basis, and should be made more useful than it is at present in promoting art, and in aiding the development of public taste:" it should in fact be viewed as a great national institution for the promotion of art," and its public character and duties should be distinctly recognised and defined.

E

"the

The Academy as at present constituted comprises forty Academicians and two Academician-engravers. The Commissioners consider that the number might be advantageously extended to fifty: the distinction between Academicians and Academician-engravers, even now merely nominal, being abrogated, and the "additional eight members being chosen in the first instance from the classes of architects and sculptors."

On the extension of membership, the question of the reconstitution of the Academy, as regards professional artists, mainly turns. Assuming that a limited aristocracy of artists is to be maintained, if any alteration is made in their number, eight would seem to be the smallest addition that could be proposed, consideration being given to the number of artists now practising their respective professions in Great Britain. For it must be remembered that the artists eligible for election include painters of every kind, sculptors, architects, and engravers. If regard were had to the proportionate numbers at the foundation of the Academy and now, the addition would be something very different. The number of practising artists of these several classes at the present time reckons by thousands where hundreds could with difficulty be counted in 1768. Though forty was the number fixed, the original members of the Academy, as we have seen, were only thirty-six, in number. And these appear to have been brought together with some trouble: for among them were coach and sign painters, enamellers, watch-case chasers, drawingmasters, and makers of what the catalogues term "washed drawings;" moreover, eight of the thirty-six were foreigners, and-worst of all according to present Academic notions-two were ladies. There were great names among them, but it is not too much to say that from the untitled artists of the present day hundreds might be readily selected superior to the majority of the original members. The magical number of forty was, in truth, borrowed from the French Academy. But the French had no such anomaly as an exclusive order of forty titled artists only. Men of letters and science were similarly distinguished. The three Academies-to say nothing of la Petite Académie, “des Inscriptions"-subsisted side by side. We used to laugh with Johnson at an Academy of Literature. Of late a hankering after titular distinctions seems to have been gaining ground among our literary men; but we can hardly conceive of it extending so far that an Academy of Literature would be tolerated which should have the power to confer a special dignity, if that dignity were to be rigidly confined to forty or fifty chosen from the entire body of poets, historians, novelists, essayists, and literary men of every class. So of men of science. The Royal Society, which as regards professional honours approaches nearest to the Royal Academy, has no definite limit to its members, though it maintains the value of the distinction conferred by membership by confining the new admissions to fifteen annually. Had the Royal Academy at its foundation been constituted on the principle, analogous to that of the Royal Society, of admitting as eligible for membership all professional artists (or exhibitors) of recognised standing, and only elected such as in the judgment of the members were likely to sustain the charac