The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-14 00:00:00

ING, MAY .14, 1856.

TH4 NATIONAL GALLERY;

THE DEBATE, •Ma STIRLING, M.P., AND
IcAPIIA.ELAt ",,A POLL° AND, MA.RSY.LS ."
TO TA EDITOR OP THE SUN.

Skit,—My friends and Supporters have bean divided as
to the expediency of ivy notici;o. 'a
latter signed "Williani
' Stirling," which, with the air of .a reply to, mine of the
17th inst., entitled'"' The National 'Gallery, the Job, and
the Division," appeared on' the 21st. Some have thought
that inasmuch as that letter does not attempt to invalidate
any statement I have adviinckd affecting the main question
before the nation, it might be consigned to that " oblivion"
from which, in spite of my ite author has deigned
to rescue mine. • They are now unanimously of opinion
that Mr. Stirling's letter containi Matter which, not less
for the advancemeat of, al great cause 'than in justice to
myself, it is imperative on Me not to leave linaol'icel In
this I concur. •
On the 17th instant, I stated that "on the 13th of May,
1853, after my second and rast examination on the cleaning,
the same Mr. William Stirliug wh,e now votes in support
of Eastlakeand Vandalism, Germanism and daubs, accosted
me near the western door of the Rubans-room, and."law
•teerecl the highest cOmplia6nis on my .evidenee ; that ha
went so far as to say hal.inade out my case; and that.
to cap all, he said, 'as for old-Uwini ha's an Ass.'" I added.
that " this was not the only time Mr. Stirling had so
expressed himself."
,quirt', was a charge against, edassiaaal" Trustee Sir C..
Eastlake, and Keepir Mr. trwins, thatduring the pawed-
ing vacation they h I extensively damaged nine
My case, tin to this 'period of the in-
of the public pictures. These " allegel conversations,"
as he calls • them, Mr. saps " Mr. Moore
has thought' it baconfiag to, report to the public without
soy sanction or knowledge.'-' Thies the sum of the ob-
jections which Mr, Stirling, in a letter knocked off in the
vici vein; sets 'skp against my report of those
conversations. By not denying, ha) plinits my accuracy,
and so proclaims as stoutly ae any 'Onb"the.incomPategleY Of,
him is sapo6it-of-whoaer'c'empeteribrhe votes. But we
have also the admission direct. " Mr. Moore has
proved himself to be au unsafe depositary of casual
and careless talk."' "Unsafe " let him say, so long as
that • talk " was faithfully reported. " Depositary," in,
deed! Tius prim personage should consult his John-
son. The violated trust, I have used for the benefit of the
public,land—in spite of hitiiself, au " item" of thatptiblic,-
for his own. Henceforth, Papageno-like, let him wear a
padlock on his mouth, if ha would indulge in "a disintegra-
tion of his iudividuslity," by a snug vote at the expense
of c ,nsJicucts. Will any one, not having a peculiar interest
in the sentiment, maintain that by reporting what was
volii,teered to me on a public question, in such a place,
on such an occasion, and by one with whom I had no in,

inicT, I am guilty of a breach of trust ?

After deteetio;

the "-hon. gentleman" in giving a vote in flat contradie,
tion to his now recorded co iviction, was I to hunt him
under the benches, and in the holes and corners of the
Treasury to ask his "sanction" for divulging that fact ?
Such allegiance to him was to betray the public, and to
sacrifice Until. I can well divine that it would conduce.
to the convenience, and to the perquisites of our "repre-
sentatives," could the public be „ersuaded that this is the
golden ago, or some epoch of like simplicity ; that the
phrase " honourable gentleman", is not a sham ; and that
Germanism and jobbJ,fy, pa•cked c.mninitters and false re-
ports, so flaz,r4ntly false that the Caairineu who preside at
their drawing up for very shame repudiate them, are
myths.* •

In the face. of th 3 rebuke administered to me for the
" politeness" of my sentences, I mast not' again pre-
sume to call a certain vote "discreditable." It is enough
t h ive proved it so ; but I will just observe that a pre-
judice obtains, that " ignoble," and "underhand," and
even • • discreditable," terms au objectionable in my letters,
are as " polite," and tamest as harmonious, if not so
" calm," as " the cap fitted him," " thinsakinned," and
" Washing," with which the Master of the Ceremonies
from Perthshire embellishes his own. And here we have
another specimen of Parliamentary straiehtforwardnese.
Mr. Stirling says ho " shall seek no nuttier intercourse"
with me. Tuis slashing" announcement is an abuse
of victory. My unceremonious treatment of him on the
17th should have spared him such waste of energy. But
the Sacrifice will no -better aPpreeiated by wind fol-
lows. Oa the evening of that same day, strange to
relate ! an appeal reached me frOm Mr. Stirling to
act as umpire in the great Ass controversy which
has been raging in the Times about the skinning and
" cooking" of sundry asses iu the Velazquez "Boar
Hunt," touching whose fate Mr. Stirling, "au authority"
on this subject, has a near interest. That appeal is a
tribute to my trustworthiness, the more precious now that
1 am impugning his. With Mr. Stirling's note was a ,
stamped envelope directed to himself, inclosing a paper
upon which I was to write my "impressions." Reluctant
to appropriate the property of one so often the victim of
his liberality, I was anxious to return his peunyworth
of Queen's heads. Oa the following morning at
the chambers of a barrister in Seige.iiits' Inn, I wrote
across his paper my impressions, as follows.—" Mr. Mor-
ris Moore declines to- hold any cemmauication with Mr.
Stirling ALAI 18, 1816." This I posted at Temple Bar
before half-past one. It must have been delivered by half-
past four 01/ the same afternoon—mark ! the afternoon of
the.lBth. Mr. Stirling's letter is dated the 19th.
I now conic to a subject upon whim) I eater with ex-
treme reluctance, for although one of national imp,rtance
it may, at the first bluso, appear to relate more eApezially
to myself. I hope to remove such misconception. That
subject is the "Apollo and Marsyas." by Raphael. Mr.
Stirling says :—" Iu the Committee of the House of Corn-
moms, on Monday the 7th inst., i said that Mr. Miindler's
alleged mistake in imagining himself the possessor of a
Correggio was a kind of mistake into which collectors were
very apt to fall ; and th et I had known persons so
ported by their imaginations as to believe themselves the
owners of Raffaeiles—or words to that effect. In these
simple words, naturally suggested by the remark to which
I was replying, his (le. Morris Al eora's) fine critical
faculty at once detected a personal and particular attack
upon himself and his property." I must decline the pe.
destal here designed for me. That " tine critical faculty"
which it suits Mr. Stirling to treat as my distinctive at-
tribute, is common to all with whom I have conversed
upon his speech. All detected that he did make a personal
and particular attack upon me and my " property," as he
has it, anti I have yet to hoar any one object to the epithets
by which 1 designated that :Ate*. The Times is the only
journal, as far us I know, which gave the part of Mr. Stir-
ling's speech just quoted. I was present at the debate,
and can vouch for the accuracy of the Times report. After
" nations," " the words to that effect" were, "as to be-
lieve in the possession of a Raphael." Under the pecu-
liar circumstances of the case, the phrases " a Correggio,"
and "a Raphael," have a correlative significance which
is weakeised by gal-bang the latter phrase into
the plural. I claim both the difference and the gar-
bling as additional evidence against the "hon. gentleman."
The remark to which Mr. Stirling was replying, was
made by Mr. Otway. On the vote of 17,6391. for the ex-
penses of the National Gallery during 1856.7 being put,
Mr. Otway, in moving that the vote be redtthed by 6501.,
the sum of the travelling expenses for the travelling agent,
said he "rather thought that Mr. Miindler was not very
favourably known in this country; that by an effort of
imagination that gentleman had persuaded himself to be-
lievesthat he hid discovered a Cortegedo, and had tried to
induce the trustees of the National Army to purchase it;
and that that transaction, he must say, appeared to be
enough to raise some suspicion as to the propriety of the
appointment." In all conscieuce ! both the amendment
and the "remark" were moderate enough for the occasion.
Note the chain of evidence against my opponent.
1. I am the authority, ae Mr. Stirling knew, for the
statement that Herr Miindler did attempt to sell to the
Trustees of the National Gallery, as an original Correggio,
a dingy and bedaubed Bolognese copy. I stated this on
the 27th of last August in a letter to the Morning Adver-
tiser, in which I gave a description of the picture from my
own personal observation, and named its locality.
As a test of my accuracy and of the scandalous cha-
racter of the Milndler job, I defied the owner to pro-
duce his "Correggio." and at the same time proposed that
a council of men of acknowledged connoisseurship and
character should deciste between us." On the very day of
its publication I posted that letter to Herr Miindler. On
the Ist of September, in a second letter to the Morning
Advertiser, I repeated the substance of my previous state-
ment, and informed the public that I had forwarded to
Herr Miindle the naper which contained it. This second
letteralso leant to Herr Miindler. Beth letters werereprinted
in Belt's Matz/ Messenger on the Ist and Bth of September
respectively. The only rep'y I have as yet seen to my
challenge is the "Adoration of the Magi,"and a scraped
and vampod-up " Mantegoa."
2. I am a person, "known" to Mr: Stirling, as "so
transported by his imagination as to believe himself in the
possession of a Raphael." But there is this difference be-
tween the E as,lishman and the German, that evidence upon
evidence has accumulated to confirm my judgment ; that,
instead of fearing to pro lace any picture, I have ever made
it a point of honour to show it to all who have applied to
see it; and that I maintain, defiantly, if need. be, what
from the first I proescimed that picture to be, what that
picture is now renowned throughout Europa as being,
namely, one of the most transcendent Raphaels in Eng-
land.

3. In the Lobate on tha National Gallery Mr. Stirling
starts up as the advocate of his " unfairly" used Miindler,
whom he "had beard montioned by saveral artists in
Paris, two or three years botore," (remarkable creden-
tials !) "as a parson rein trkable"—for his knowledge of
Art? No--"for his honesty and integrity." Are we
English, then, such rognes that we must hire German
"honesty and integrity" to look,after us lest we purloin
our own money ?
Now, to a man who could belie his conscience to don
the wig in a cause so disreputable, so unpatriotic as the
dragging of his fellow-countrymen at the heels of an in-
competent alien, would not my exposure of his client and
his client's "Carreggio " have " naturally suggested" a
stab where, to the apprehension of many of his hearers, I
might, perchance, ba equally vulnerable? However, Mr.
Stirling may attempt to mystify by now calling the
" Apollo and Marsyas" an " interesting and beautiful pie-
ture"--a judgment he presently reverses, by sneering at it
as a "gem," which means that it is not a gem, although
that terns is an accepted metaphor for " beautiful picture;"
so that, according to tha " conclusiveness of his reasoning,"
what is, is no:—no candid and sensible man acquainted
with the merits of the case could fail to consider his vindi-
cation of Herr Miindlor an " underhand. ignoble, and
obvious attack" on myself and Raphael. To have over-
looked the affront put, upon me by Mr. Stirling in the
House of Commons on the 7th inst., with regard to the
" Apollo and Marsyas," would have been to renounce all
pretensions us au authority on art, and so from the con-
victor, to sink into the presumptuous and unscrupulous
calumniator of the men in Trafalgar-square. It concerned
the nation, therefore, no less than myself, that I should
resent that affront.
from a misplaced delicacy I
In my letter of the 17th,
avoided naming the speCial subject of Ur. Stirling's attack-,
and contented myself with the general rebuke that, in this,
as in his vote, he had falsified his expressed convictions.
But Mr. Stirling is less squeamish. The meaning which
he disavows for the 7th, he proclaims on the 21st. He

* Colonel Mure, the Chairman of tho Committee on the
National Gallery of 1853, in a letter, to the Morning Post,
December 15th,1853, repudiated the Report of that committee

says, "Improbable as it may appear to Mr. Moore,
I 'uttered those words in total forcetfuluess that,
he, too, was subject to like hailucination; and' had'
been the purchaser, and possibly the vendor, pf ,a
dolibted or doubtful Raffaelle." Mr. Stirling there-
fore 7•entembers that I was the purchaser, and have.pbssi-
bly been the vendor of a doubted or doubtful Riphaol.
Irpon_his knowletlye of the one, he builds his sarteiJo of the
other. See the superstructure disappear,! " The A pelf° and
Marsyas" is still mine. 'I may yet shake the fouudation.
Mr. Stirling then, is as unsornoelone in his Linsirmations
as he WAS abject in his vote. ITpin reading Air:Stirling's
list sallY a friend remarked, " that srestence might have
been indite I by a costermonger." My fit iewl, whose notions
are obsolete, was at a loss to understand how any one re-
ceived among gentlemen could mike loch an imputatioh
unless he had proof of what he was stating; and he ne-
tarally inquired whether I had ever ,p traded or sold as
panicle a spurious Icaoliael. It was easy to reply in the
negative. I appreciated the poychological affinity which
had 'Mizell upon my friend's imagivation ; but I impressed
upon him the superior dignity, socially, of an hen. gentle-
man who barters his conscience and the good of the Corn-
monwealthTor the smile of a Min'ster, and wise, a stranger
alike to good manners and to good feeling, halts at no in-
sult, however coarse and reckless, to men who, it is mo lera-
Lion to say, are his inferiors in nothing save their share
of that dross of which even the mightiest among U 3 can
boast hitt a transient loan. I will not dwell upon the
modesty of the man who characterises as "hallucinations" tha
juigneent of one who, not without Baal) dis inction, h Ls.
made art the study e life, while he hiniself, though pos-
sessing atnp:e means to become the owner Of mater pieces,
is, nevertheless, content to groYel among the cheap and
murky refuse of a degenerate age;- but I this oppor-
tanity to mark another difference between myself and fir.
Stirling's client, that whereas that German would not
hesitate ta fasten upon us hi ,spnriOne and dam Lged Cot.-
reggio, I, on the contrary, as friends have often heard-me
say, would rather present my Raphael as a gift to the
meanest of foreign public galleries, than sell it at any price
that could be named to the National Gallery 'of 'England
as now conducted; and this, not, as Lord Palmerston
dared to insinuate, because "personal resentmeets have
greater influence with me than_ the interests -of truth or
the Welfaie orthe-community," but because I can make
sacridces for both. To consign to the clutches of an East-
lake, a Wornum, and a Altintiler, and their disingenu me
patrons, so sublime a work as the "Apollo and Marsyas,"
would be to lend them support, unreal if you will, bat
sufficient to stamp me as accessory to one of the most
barefaced frauds ever practised upon a nation.
Mr. Stirling further says :—" By ne uuscrupulmis foe
or foolish friend did the pretensions of the picture ever
seem to me so likely to be seriously dsmaged, as by the
admission of the happy, though thin-skinned owner, that
he cannot bear a casual allusion to the possible existence
of a spurious Raffaelle without holing and proclaiming
that such allusion is ' an ignoble and u aderh in 1, yet ob-
vious attack' upon him anti his gem." Mr. Stirling has
given me a hint. In return, leaving it to him to deter-
mine the value of each, I will bring him face to face firs,
with a "foolish friend" or two of the "Apollo an.
Marsyas," and then with an " unscrupulous foe."
" THE FOOLISH FRIENDS."

On Saturday, March the 2d, 1850, the "Apollo and
Marsyas" was purchased for me loya a friend at Messrs.
Christie and Manson's, at the sale of Mr. Duroveray, de-
ceased. It was catalogued as an Andrea M oategna, and
had been on view for an lintiro :we.-ck. The name of
Andrea Mantegna was an obvious misnomer. As at that
period some cordiality existed between Lord Elcho awl
myself, he was among tho earliest whom I invited tcf see
what I knew to be a Raphael This was on the 4th. On
the fith he called, and such was the imp •ession its " sur-
passing beauty" made upon him, that for some time he
repeated his visit almost daily, atoning for intermissions
by as many as even three visits on the same day. It is
due to Lord Elcho to state, that from the first he-accepted
the " Apollo and Marsyas "as a Raphael. Within a few
days of its purchase he begged of me as a f 'your to take
it to Lord Ellesmere, a Trustee of the National
Gallery, who, as he informed me, had expressed
great desire to sae it. I declined. I saw no rea-
son to think so meanly of myself, or so highly of any
one else, as to run after him, especiar.y with a Raphael,
unless indeed some valid reason ware given for such un-
usual exercise. For once the mountain might come to
Mahomet. But Lord Elcho perseve-ed. At length on the
,14th of March, he called to armourlC3 that h had actually
made an appointment with Lord E leemere for me to call
with the Raphael on the following morning, ut his resi
dance in Balgrave-square. I still demurred. Feeling for
Lord Elcho's disappointment, and pleased with his ea thu-
slam, satisfied, moreover, by his assurance that Lord El-
lesmere would have called upon me, but for his being an
invalid, I consented, and kept the appointment. After a
few words, Lord Ellesmere asked me to allow the pic turn
to remain with him for an hour. I agrael. Oa' my re-
turn he declare emphatically that he entirely concurre 1
with me respecting the "Apollo and M,rsytas," and that he
hoped Mr. Chart orris (Lord Elcho) woali lose no time in
bringing it under the notice of Parliament.
On the 21st of March, 1850, under thehead,"NationalGal-
lery," thepublic journals speak thus : —" Mr. Charteris( Lord
Elchoj has given notice that, after Easter, he will call the
attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to the recent
sale, by public auction, at Messrs. Christie's, of .a picture
which is confidently believed by many p,,isons to be a work
of Ralfaelle." This notice was given without my sanction,
but with the approval, as Lord Elcho informed me, of Lord
Ellesmere. When Lord Elch,e announce i his intention of
giving his notice I discouraged him from it. It would,
I thought, place me in an invidious light, awl, if not
followed up, might retard the establishment of the au-
thenticity of the picture. I said this both at the time and
afterwards. But Lord Elcho was ambitious of the honour,
as ho sail. of having his name associated with such a work,
by formally introducing it to the public. Oa the 10th of
June, 1330, appeared the following letter in the Morning
Post :

"ma. MOORE'S RAPHAEL.

" Sir,—l trust that you will be able to .find a place in your
columns for a fe willies in explanation of the circumstances which
have provented my publicly calling the attention of the First
Lord of the Treasury to Mr. Morris Moore's Raphael, in pur-
suance of a notice to that effect which I gave in the early part
of the session. In giving that notice I had two objects in
view; I was anxious, in the first place, publicly to call the
attention of the Trustees of the National Gallery to the exist-
ence, or, rather to the discovery of a% work of art, which I,
in common with most of those who have he,,l the good fo: tune
to see it, believe to be of great national importance ; and,
in the second place, I wished to give expression to the uni-
versal feeling of dissatisfaction which prevails with regard to
the management of the concerns of the National Gallery.
But, inasmuch as I felt that an unseasonable discussion of
these subjects would create little interest in the House of
Commons, I thought it advisable to wait until- the grant was
moved for the current expenses of the National Gallery, which
would have offered a fitting opportunity for bringing ou my
notice. Time has, however, run on ; the session is far advanced ;
and I am obliged to leave England before this branch of the
miscellaneous estimates has been brought under consider•
ation.; I must, therefore, postpone the subject to another
session. Public attention has been alreadyse fatly drawn to Mr.
Morris Moore's Raphael, and public opinion ha; been so
strongly expressed in its favour, through the medium of the
press, that I would fain hope the Trustees will make a point
of securing it for the National Gallery. I have no fears as to
the result of their deliberations upon it, provided they do not
allow their better judgments to be influenced by the criticisms
of a foreign gentleman (Herr Passavant) who, on a Friday, an-
nounces, ex cathedrd, that this picture, which he admits to
be a first-rate specimen of the finest period of Italian art,
is the work of Francia ; and who, on the Monday f )110 wing,
with equal confidence, ascribes it to Timoteo della Vite, two
painters who cannot by any possibility be confounded, pro-
vided likewise that they are not guided by the opinions of
those professional connoisseurs who had neither the taste nor
the feeling to appreciate so fine a work, nor the critical know-
ledge which should have led theta to discover, under a false
name, the master-hand of Raphael, My own conviction is
that this picture isnot only a Raphael, but, perhaps, the
purest and most beautiful specimen of the master in this
country ; but I care not, as regards its claims upon the Na-
tional Gallery, whether it be by him or not, for when a pic-
ture is universally pronounced to be a first-rate specimen of
the finest period of Italian art, its title to a place in our Na-
tional Collection is clear and indefeasible, and it then be-
comes the bounden duty of the Trustees not to suffer so im-
portant a work to leave the country, or become the ornament
of a private Gallery. " F. CIIARTERB (Lord Mello).
" 27, Chesham-street, June 8."
Did Lord Echo redeem his pledge ? His "other session "
is still due. Yet, from June the Bth, 1350, to July the sth,
1853, the perio,l at which our acquaintance ceased, he
often repeated., and with increased emphasis, if possible, his
admiration of my picture, and his faith in it as a Raphael.
That infirmity of purpose which has marked his conduct
throughout the National Gallery question—for this is still
that question—was foreshadowed in the abandonment of his
notice. With regard to the "Apollo and Marsyas," he advo-
cates only to desert. So, for my denouncement of East-
lake's Vandalisms and waste of public, money on daubs,
first, I "deserve the thanks of all ;" then he again deserts,
and, to cover his apostacy, discharges his share of the debt
by undermining me in a Parliamentary R-port, and by
private slander. Lord Elcho's abandonment of his notice
has boon distorted into a reproach from which I have had to
defend both myself and the Raphael. Bat here are more
"foolish friends" of that Raphael.
1. Private Colleeters.—Messrs. Walter Savage Landor,
William Coningham, Fuller Maitland, and Alexander
Barker. These gentlemen, who are or have been the pos-
sessors of first-class pictures of the Italian school, have I
pronounced the "Apollo and Marysas " one of the finest
Raphaels in England. As agreeing with these 1 may men-
tion Mr. Francis Palsky, an amateur who has given no
ordinary attention to art.
2. Artists.— Messrs. Alfred Stevens, Hurlstone, and
Samuel Laurence —all well known to have had every op-
portunity for studying the best works of Raphael. They
agree with the collectors above named, With these I may
class the late Mr. Brockv, an artist of talent and an ardent
admirer of Raphael. He often declared the "Apollo and
Marsyas" to be the finest Raphael he had seen in England.
3 Collectors deceased„—Messrs. the Rev. John Sanford,
Chambers Hall, James Dannistoun, and Samuel Wood-
burn. These likewise accepted the " Apollo and Marsyas"
as a Raphael.

4. Collectors of Marc-Antonio Engravings.— The three
most celebrated professional collectors of Marc-Antonio
engravings in England concur with the preceding.
To the gentlemen, already, named, I a•ld Mr. Holford,
Sir John Hippisley, and Mr. Sackville Bale, who virtually,
if not literally, a lmit my nomenclature. All have re-
peatedly seen the picture. From the first they pronounced
it admirable, and each succeeding visit snore than con-
firms I the former imp' ession. Raphael alone, of all the
Umbrian school, to which only the Apollo and Marsyas"
can be ascribed, is entitled to the prais 38 they have lavished
upon it. The first is one of our most liberal collectors, in
every branch of art. The two last are well-known cultiva-
tors of Raphael, and the possessors of Raphael drawings
and fine Marc-Antonio prints. I will now quote two gen-
tlemen of a different category, who, if not the possessors of
masterpieces, at least avoid the cheap and tenebrous "gems"
which mark the apogeum of Mr. Stirling's aspirations.
Thesa gentlemen are Mr. Alfred Tennyson and Mr. James
Spedding. To name the first is enough. Both are fami-
liar with the "Apollo and Marsyas." Men of culti-
vated minds, and having access to the finest creations of
art, their impressions must be valuable ; but, as painting
has not been their leading occupation, they have too much
good sense to dogmatise upon a name. I regret that I am un
able to recall the phrases of the former, but I have seen him
wrapt in admiration at the beauty of my picture, Mr. Sped-