The Sun.
London, England, 1869-07-31 00:00:00

LOADON, SATURDAY, JULY 31, 1869,

The greatest of all our National Painters, WILLIAM
HOGARTH, had offered to his memory, yesterday, in
the House of Commons, a tribute of magnanimity.
And this tribute, it should be said at once, was all
the more remarkable for inasmuch as it arose out of
a contest for the acquisition of one of his produc-
tions —the competitors for the particular work in
question being a princely firm of Picture Dealers and
the Nation itself, as represented by the Trustees of
the National Portrait Gallery. Mr. DISRAELI it was
who had the privilege of explaining to the House of
Commons yesterday the really charming particulars
of this most graceful competition. It had re-
ference to a contest of purses for the acquisition of
a HOGARTH of surpassing interest—the portrait of
HOGARTH at his easel, painted by HOGARTH himself
—the rival purses being held, the one by the eminent
firm of the Messrs. AGNEW and Sons, of Manchester,
the other by her MAJESTY'S Government.
Curiously enough, just at the very time when the
incident related last night by the ex-Premier has come
to light, has been brought thus distinctly to the know-
ledge of Parliament, and of the whole country, the
story of WILLIAM HOGARTII'S life has been related afresh
and very strikingly in the current number of Maga
for August, as the twelf th of the " Historical Sketches
of the Reign of GEORGE IL—The Painter." There,
among other circumstances, illustrating the success
and failure of the great National Painter's career—
of its success as a means of winning him fame, even in
his own life time, of its failure as a means of gaining
for him anything like adequate remuneration, even
for his noblest masterpieces—there has been vividly
recalled to remembrance the fact that.for nineteen of,
we had nearly said, the most wonderful productions of
his hand,certainly for nineteen among his most wonder-
ful productions, HOGARTH received merelythe sum of
£427 sterling. The nineteen pictures for which he re-
ceived, on the 25th of January, 1745, that paltry sum
of £427, being the Six pictures of " The Harlot's
Progress," the Eight of " The R tke's Progress,"
" The Four Times of the Day," and " The Strolling
Actresses." Since that date nearly a century and a
quarter had run out. And, now, for a single
picture of HOGARTH'S—not for Nineteen of his Mas-
terpieces, but for one single picture of HOGARTH'S--
certainly, a portrait of himself painted by himself,
there is an eager competition for the privilege of
being purchasers of it for three hundred and fifty
guineas. And a contest, too, not between JOHN
NOAKES and Ton STYLES, but between the Govern-
ment itself and a firm of picture dealers as eminent
as the Messrs. AGNEW and SONS, of Manchester.
Reference, as Mr. DIsnaELI reminded the House of
Commons yesterday, had been made only the other
evening, in Committee of Supply, to the recen

sale of the particular picture referred to,
the portrait of IIoGARTir, painted by him-
self, an imputation being then cast upon
the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, for
insamuch as it was thought they had not fulfilled
their duty and, that in consequence of a want of

'ands, a precious picture was lost to the Country

From this charge Mr. DISRAELI at the time
vindicated the trustees. In doing so, he ex-
explained that the trustees had offered 350 guineas,
but that they had been outbid by a gentleman from
Manchester. Consequent upon the discussion which
then arose, Mr. DISRAELI explained last night that

" he had received from the trustees of the National
Portrait Gallery a communication which had been sent
to them the other day, from which it appeared that the

picture was purchased, not by a private gentleman,
but by the well-known firm of Messrs. AGNEwand Sons,
of Manchester." In this communication the Messrs.
AGNEW and SONS wrote to the trustees of the National
Portrait Gallery—" We bought the picture for our
stock, and without reference to any particular pur-
chaser, and at a sum we consider much below the

value of a work by lIOGARTH of unsurpassed irate

rest." And they further said, "We shall not stand

41 the way of the country acquiring this importan

picture, which every lover of art must desire i
should possess. From the debate in the House we re.

ceived the first intimation that it was sought to pur
chase the picture for the national collection. We con.

alder it to be our duty, as it is no less our pleasure,

to offer the picture to the trustees for the Barn bidden
by their agent." The House of Commons cheered

Mr. DISRAELI'S announcement of the spontaneou3 and

gracious magnimity with which the Messrs. AGNEW

thus waived their claim to the painting, allowing it
to pass into the possession of the Nation, and to be
stored up among the treasures of the National

Portrait Gallery. The ex-Premier justly eulo-
gised the conduct of the Messrs. AGNEW, as
indicative of great public spirit, observing
that it " was so rare a thing for dealers in pictures to

waive their right to valuable works of art that he
thought it due to the Messrs. AGNEW and SONS that

the fact of their readiness to give up the picture to the
nation should be known." It was not the first time,

as Mr. DISRAELI'S added, that the House of Cora

mons or the Country had had knowledge of the pub-

lie spirit of Manchester. But the incident imme-
diately under consideration certainly constitutes a

new and very striking illustration of the generous
and magnanimous spirit animating the Merchant

Princes of Lancashire.

IN their annual report to the Lords of the Treasury
her Majesty's Commissionersof Customs have deigned
to give some account of their remarkable dealings
with dock property. Such explanation was much
needed. The doings of the Commissioners have excited
widespread discontent and—it is not too much to
say—inflicted material injury on commercial interests.
In an evil hour they were entrusted with an impor-
tant administrative function, of which they have
made a most unsatisfactory use. It was given to
them to decide to what parties the right of landing
and warehousing goods should be conceded; and as,
of course, no foreign commerce can be carried on
without landing powers, the Commissioners
virtually decide where such commerce shall
be allowed, and where it shall be prohibited.
It is more than doubtful whether this great and
increasing responsibility should not be vested in a
higher authority, But it is clear that if this power