116 
pretenfions of merit, or to tempt an en- 
ereafe of the summer of performances by 
pecuntlary reward. 
From a confideratian of the whole of 
thefe circumftances, ts not the fpecies cf 
honours, requifite for the advance of the™ 
arts my England, clearly pointed out to 
us? Cant be denied that painting, in, 
the prefent view of the nation, denrands 
bave its place aflizned to 1t amougit 
voilar liberal ftudies of our Univer hties, 
aa its progretfive fteps of cultivation re- 
warded with iimilar honours ? 
Jn what manner fuch an arrangement 
cauld take place in our colleges, may ad- 
mt of doubt. ‘The arts would run a rilk 
of being regarded as imovation, by the 
fettled enitivation of other lons eftablil ied 
modes of learning. But if an opportunity 
fhould ever prelent itfelt, propitious to 
the wilhes of the artilt, if the firucture of 
a new college fhould Re planned, open to 
aby mould of inftitution which the defire 
of the founder, and the laws of the coun- 
try may unite to fanétion, within the 
walls of fuch an edifice wo uld it be extra- 
vagant to hope that every latter advance- 
ment of focral ilwonn vation may aflume 
its juit {tate and privHeves ? 
To frate the whole refult of the quef- 
tion: m congeuial cultivation, watchful 
encouragement, and juft, publte diftinc- 
tious, will be found the true fupports of 
geuns. Such is the real channel of ho- 
nour, # which the graphic artift, under 
the philofophie guidance of Enghth patri- 
otifin, may hope to rival 
¢ What eer of Latian or of Grecian fame 
Sounds in the ear of of Tinie “kp 
and fuch are the defirable means of per- 
fecting the ultimate proipects of the Arts 
yn. Engkand. 
P.S. The writer of this paper has juf heard 
with aftoniikment, and ket him be pardoned if 
be adds, not without fcntimeats ef indigna- 
tion, that the Univerfity of Cambridge has 
fent 2 commiffion to a foreign artift, for th 
execution of a ftatue, voted in grateful re- 
membrance of William Pitt. 
most would perhaps be beit received with dif 
belief; 5 but, ii it muft be credited, let an En: 
guiser be ailowed to afk, on what ground of 
public or private duty to our country, is fuch 
a commifion founded? Let him afk of the 
Duseeters of the learned Colleges, whether, 
if they were drfirous to celebrate the late il- 
luGricvus ftatcfman of Britain in a funeral 
Eulogy, they would propofe to feek an enco- 
miait, properly aecomplifhed forthe national 
taf, in the ichools of a foreign land? Yet 
the orators of F:ance and Germany are-ex- 
a@lv as far fuperior to the Englith crator, as 
Afr. Loft, on the Consistency of Mr. For, and 
Such a ru- 
[March 1, 
the {culptors of Italy, or any other modern 
country, are te the Englith feulptor 
Grant, if you will, that fome nice advan- 
tage of tilents lay on the fide of the foreign 
artit, would it be, in that cafe, the fpirit of 
patriotifm, which fhould confent to forteit the 
{plendid opportunity of adding ardour to native 
genius > Would it be her voice, which fhouid 
invite the attention of the univerfe to our 
inferiority 7—-to our inferiority during 2 
period when the exalted faculties of England 
were directed by the man, to whofe glory the 
monument is raifed ? Or would it add to that 
glory, to perpetuate, in the very means by 
which the monument exifts, the record of an 
infufficient culture. of the arts under his ad-_ 
miniitration ?—infuffictent even to the exhi- 
bition of a form, or a feature? Alas! poor 
England ° 
But are the learned members of the Uni- 
verfity of Cambridge yet unapprized that there 
exift fcalptors in our own country, who fear 
no living competitors ? 
The fource of the error, into which a well- 
intentioned zeal has been led on this uccafion, 
lies in the want of proper acquaintance with 
the arts, and the whole circumflance contri- 
butes to ftrengthen what has been already 
propofed in this paper, with refpect to a Na- 
tional Eftablifhment for Painting and Sculp= 
ture. Had thofe arts been matriculated in 
the colleges of England, fuch an opprobrium 
could not have fallen, in the prefent day, on 
our Arts, and on our Univerfities. 
ee 
0 the Editor of the Monthly Magazine 
SIR, 
CANNOT refiftt fome obfervations on 
what is faid by the author of the 
Memotrs of the Duke of Richmond: 
which I admit in general, to he refpect- 
ably written. 
The firft obje¢tton which firikes me, 
relates to the remark on Mr. Fox. 
‘Phat excellent man, the bettandgreateft 
and mof diiisteretted of our ftatefmen, 
was in office omty from the beginning on 
February, till his death on the 18th of 
Supesibitte following. Comming into a 
at fuch an arduous ¢ crifis 5 what more, 
fo thert a time, could he be expected ‘ 
do than he performed? What pledge 
has he deferted? And how has he at- 
chieved httle as a practical ftarefman? 
Hiad he carried nothing but the R efulve 
for the Abolriisn of the Slave-tr ade, that 
in itfel¥ would have been an aclieye- 
ment, efpecially aif the difcouraging and 
Impeding circumftances confidered, fut- 
ficient to fil! the thort career of his ane 
niftration with a glory worthy of his pre- 
ceding life; fufiicient to have proved the 
fiacerity of his other pledges; 3 if, mdeed, 
. iy 
