retires. The mode of election now in use is by secret ballot. Two chalices stand on a long table in the Chapel of Sixtus, into which the cardinals deposit their bulletins, containing the name of the individual for whom they vote. One of the scrutators reads it aloud, whilst two others mark the number of votes for each individual, by the side of his name, on the large tablet where all those of the cardinals are inscribed. Whoever obtains twothirds of the votes present is canonically elected. His name is immediately proclaimed aloud, and the cardinals sitting on his right and left rise and quit their places. His consent is asked, and when it is given, the cardinals, beginning by the oldest, perform the first "adoration," that is to say, kiss his foot, and then his hand. The first Cardinal Deacon announces the election to the people, and the artillery of the Castle of St. Angelo and the bells of the city spread the news afar. The people are then allowed to break into the conclave, and to carry off all they can.

There are a multitude of circumstances which promote or prevent the election of such and such a person as Pope. In order to understand this matter, it is necessary to know that the sacred college is divided into factions, and there are as many factions as as there are cardinals of different Papal reigns, of which the cardinal-nephew of each pontificate is the leader.

The Emperor, the Kings of France and Spain, and several other sovereign powers, have also their factions. They are composed of cardinals who are their natural-born subjects. The leaders of those factions are such persons as the king pleases to nominate, in order to accomplish his object.

Generally the leaders of the faction are assured of the votes of those who depend upon them: and it is sufficient that two of three leaders of factions, not very numerous," should agree, in order to be masters of the election, provided they make up two-thirds of the votes. Hence it is that the sovereigns who have been mentioned, and who take a considerable part in the election of a Pope, on account of the vicinity of their states, never fail to exclude

a cardinal who is not agreeable to them; and when once he is excluded from the Pontificate, he never returns to it. There are only three crowns (the Emperor, the Kings of France and Spaín) who have a right to exclude. Thus, the cardinal, who is commissioned to accomplish the secret object of any crown, makes a protest in the name of his master, that he has an objection to such cardinal, on account of being wellinformed that he is not friendly to his dominions; but it is to be observed that each crown can only exclude one person. But it is here that the Roman policy makes use of all its ingenuity. For example, as soon as a faction perceives that such or such a power wishes to exclude an individual, it is sure to propose another person, who it knows is not agreeable to that crown, and whom it is certain that crown will exclude, which generally is the case; after having thus played this trick upon those who are in the interest of that power, it returns to the former individual whom that power cannot exclude, because it has already exercised its privileges. The person who is proposed cannot be in circumstances which are in themselves reasons for exclusion. These reasons, amongst others, are-first to be under fifty-five years of age; secondly, to be a prince by birth, or to be allied to a reigning house, lest such a Pope should dismember the patrimony of St. Peter in order to invest some member of his family with it, and that he should not abandon that neutrality which a common father should observe to all Christian Princes; and finally, that he should not treat the cardinals with too much hauteur; thirdly, his having been promoted to the degree of cardinal, at the nomination of some crown, especially that of France and Spain; or his being a natural-born subject of either of these powers, lest gratitude_or_national attachment should render him too devoted to the interests of one or other of these powers. This is the reason why the cardinals are extremely circumspect, and profoundly dissemble their real intentions, lest they should be suspected of favouring one crown to the prejudice of another.

AFTER this happy revolution a number of the nobility and gentry, who, probably, would have made the attempt many years before but that they despaired of being able to lead the times, met to second those beneficial movements; and, in 1805, amply attoned for past coldness and neglect, and merited the thanks of their country by founding that patriotic body the British Institution, which has since so largely contributed to the advancement of the British school.

The public-spirited Institution last-mentioned is adverted to, in the preceding passage, before its due place in these memoirs, according to the date of its formation, to shew in its true light the Anti-British feeling of the preceding period. The time now adverted to commenced many years before the founding of the British Institution, and continued until checked by Sir John Leicester's example. Malone, Burke, Northcote, and Farrington, agree in stating the fact, that Sir Joshua Reynolds was personally known to, and even intimate with, almost all the eminent men of the age. That master of grace and elegance flourished in the midst of the great, and enjoyed as high a patronage and popularity as any painter ever enjoyed in his own country. His knowledge of the world was equal to his professional skill. The nobility and gentry extolled his genius as highly as Burke, Fox, and all the other leading characters who spoke and wrote of Sir Joshua, as the equal of Michael Angelo, Raphael, Titian, Correggio, and their celebrated contemporaries. Yet such was the force of that prejudice, which entrenched the spirit of the age against British historical painting, that the best and bravest men, the most endowed by nature, the most enlightened and invigorated by education, were its slaves. The most distinguished personages in the Church and State; the inspired elect, who shook the pulpit, the senate, and the bar, with Eur. Mag. Sept. 1823.

"

the thunders of their eloquence; and the heroes who bore the British banner over land and sea, victoriously through the world, grew up alike in this one lamentable error. They were ready to lay down their lives for the superiority of Englishmen in every other art and science of war and peace, but, in the art of historical painting, they made it a merit to neglect or decry the genius of their countrymen! Even Burke, Fox, and all the other encomiasts and personal friends of the first President, were, by a strange inconsistency, contented to employ him to paint their portraits or those of their families, without ever dreaming of affording him an opportunity to display his powers in historical or poetical painting, that field in which they were pleased to honour him with a rank as high as the greatest masters of the most re

nowned ages. This inconsistency, which is merely mentioned as a feature of the British character in the eighteenth century, is more worthy of remark, because neither the want of money nor the prices of Sir Joshua's works could have been the cause of so strange a contradiction between the words and actions of his eulogists. Some of his most charming fancy pictures were priced by that great artist at no more than from 100 to 125 or 150 guineas, and for some of his historical efforts he was not paid more than 300 guineas. One or two solitary instances, in forty years, of a commission given to him for a fancy or historical picture do not disprove the general neglect of his great friends. Sir Joshua did not live to finish the whole-length portrait of Sir John Leicester, which he had began, or to gratify the Baronet by undertaking an historical picture for him.

Although the most vigorous and enlightened minds were comparatively cold and clouded on this delicate subject, they were not interested in the continuance of darkness in the country, and were too liberal

2 B

to interfere with the opinions of others but certain persons of a far more numerous class were not contented with endeavouring to shew their taste, by reviling the works of the British artists in the annual exhibitions of the Royal Academy. They also endeavoured to depreciate the taste of any gen tleman who ventured to manifest a more favourable opinion of their countrymen. There are, in every walk of life, numbers who seek to keep their own want of proper feeling and neglect of duty in countenance, by forming an authorita tive and busy sort of combination to discourage the advance of liberality and improvement: the members of these bodies lie in ambush, and make their attacks with slander, scoffing, and ridicule; weapons as contemptible as their motives, but sufficiently powerful, with the aid of fashion, to exercise a mighty influence in society. Sir John Leicester had courage to do what few dare to attempt, that is, to be the first English gentleman of rank and fortune in facing a confederacy of this formidable nature. As an extreme on the right side is sometimes necessary to counteract an extreme against the public interest, he judiciously set up the sound principle of collecting the best works of the British artists exclusively, in opposition to the prevailing bad habit of exclusively collecting the works of the foreign old masters. In this laudable attempt he left other gentlemen to follow their own choice, without any reflection or interfer ence from him. The libels which were uttered upon his good sense, and the satirical efforts to sneer at his taste, only stimulated him to fresh exertions. As his collection increased in number and variety, the correctness of his judgment, and the power of the British pencil, forced an unwilling approbation from those who had, at first, hoped to laugh him out of his public spirit. In a few years the effects of his example was visible, and the public opinion declared loudly in his favour. The press took the right side, and the daily, weekly, and monthly publications bore ample evidence of the general feeling.

I extract the following passage from a tract published more than twenty years ago. "Sir John Leicester is the only English gentleman who has the manliness and public spirit to bear up against the bad taste and Anti-British feeling of the amateurs in this country, by forming a collection of paintings exclusively produced by English artists. The circumstance is altogether so full in the teeth of fashion and established practice, that one hears this Baronet's name mentioned with as much surprise and opposition as if he was about to effect a mighty revolution in the moral world. He has done much for the living painters by having made a beginning, and his example will do more, when it is followed. At present I know of no one nobleman or gentleman who has adopted the same truly British principle. Sir John has the honour of being the first Englishman of rank who has attempted to lead his contemporaries from the disgraceful prejudice against native genius, and to create a national spirit in England for the encouragement of the British school." (Page 21. " Thoughts on the best means of checking the prejudices against British works of art. Respectfully addressed to the Hon. and Rev. Richard Byron, Houghton, Durham: by William Carey, for gratuitous distribution." York, 1801.)

In the Life of Opie, published by his widow in 1807, the following passage throws a light upon the state of Anti-British prejudices among those who were then collecting pictures. Mrs. Opie, with a warm and delicate sense of Sir John's patriotism, refers to the head of " Miranda," painted by her husband, and purchased by the Baronet. "I should regret that it was the property of any one but myself, did I not know that Mr. Opie rejoiced in its destination, and were I not assured of its being placed in that rarest of situations, a gallery consisting chiefly of modern art, doing honour to the genius who painted, and the amateur who admired it."-The patriotic example of Sir John Leicester had so far produced a good effect as to ob

tain admission for a few English pictures into some established collections of paintings by the old foreign masters but "a gallery consisting chiefly of modern art" was still, in 1807, the "rarest of situations" in which a picture by a popular British artist could be placed. Mrs. Opie, herself, had probably not then seen Sir John's collec tion, or she would have known that it was unique, composed not chiefly but altogether of modern art, that is, exclusively of select pictures by the best English artists.

Courage, perseverance, and good taste have wrought wonders. Sir John, by a munificent expenditure from year to year, has succeeded in drawing together in one view the flower of the British school, that superb collection, which has been for some years a boasted ornament of the British capital, and has contributed so largely to spread the fame of the British pencil on the Continent. His gallery contains splendid specimens by three succes sive Presidents of the Royal Aca demy, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Benja min West, and Sir Thomas Lawrence. The other pictures are as judiciously selected from the best works of the respective artists.Turner, the giant of modern landscape-painting, is there seen in his glory. Wilson never painted a finer picture than his magnificent "View on the Arno." Collins's "Fisher Boys on the Sea-shore at sun rise," in truth of local colouring and fine sentiment of nature, vies with any production of the most celebrated Flemish painters. Loutherbourgh's "Avalanche" is a scene of sublimity and terror represented with great poetical power. Although that artist was a foreigner by birth he had been naturalised by a residence of fifty years in England, and by his admission to the honourable rank of a Royal Academician in London. Romney's playful composition of "Titania, Puck, and the Changeling," is one of the most delightful effusions of his fancy. Fuseli's "Puck, or Robin Good Fellow," is also one of the most happy flights of that artist's fearless imagination. To have a picture in this select collection is esteemed a mark of pro

fessional distinction and a public recommendation. The restricted li

mits of this publication forbid a merited notice of the several pictures the names of the painters will shew that particular remarks would occupy a volume. There are performances by Northcote, Hoppner, Calcott, Shee, Owen, Sir Wm. Beechy, Collins, Howard, Gainsborough, Devis, Hilton, Vincent, Atkinson, B. Barker, Coates, Barret, Sir Francis Bourgeois, Garrard, Ibbetson, Harlow, and some other artists. The narrow principle of selecting only one specimen by each master has been avoided. There are five pictures by Sir Joshua Rey nolds, six by Turner, ten by Northcote, and two or three each by many more of the artists, in this collection. The number of paintings being far too many to be hung up in the Hill-street Gallery, a portion of them are displayed in the superb mansion at Tabley. Engravings have been executed, by able artists, from so many of the subjects, and they have been all so frequently the theme of critical description in the periodical journals, that their merits are well known in every part of England.

During the long continuance of the late war the printsellers being shut out from the markets on the continent, the British line-engravers laboured under great discouragements. Sir John Leicester, to prevent the utter depression of that important branch of the arts, employed his influence in founding the Calcographic Society. His application to the Duke of Gloucester was successful, and he introduced a deputation of able engravers to his Royal Highness, who, with his usual graciousness and zeal for the promotion of every proposal for the public good, warmly co-operated with him in forming a plan for that Institution, and on the 16th of May, 1810, the regulations, which formed its constitution, were adopted at the Clarendon Hotel. A committee of managers was appointed, consisting of the Duke of Gloucester, the Marquis of Stafford, the Marquis of Douglas and Clydesdale, the Earl of Dartmouth, Sir John Fleming Leicester, Bart., Sir Mark

Sykes, Bart., Sir Abraham Hume, Bart., M.P., Sir T. Barnard, Wm. Smith, Esq. M.P., S. Whitbread, Esq. M.P., J. P. Anderdon, Esq. and Thomas Hope, Esq. The first projector, Sir John Leicester, was appointed Treasurer, and several thousand pounds were collected, but when the fairest prospects of benefit opened on the Society a difference among the professional members took place, which produced violent heats. Sir John Leicester had several meetings with his Royal Highness to terminate those jealousies, but, unfortunately, their mediation was fruitless, a reunion was not to be effected; the money was returned to the subscribers, and the Society was dissolved.

A few years after the founding of the British Institution, in 1805, the Marquess of Stafford and the Earl of Grosvenor, to contribute in diffusing a taste for fine works of art, had publicly exhibited their pictures by the old masters, on free tickets of admission to their respective Galleries. This public-spirited idea was first suggested by Mr. Shee, the Royal Academician, in one of his very valuable publications. The British Institution, by having exhibited the works of a few deceased British artists, had contributed to dissipate prejudice; but still the principle of exclusively collecting the best works of the English mas ters, to correct the long-established bad practice of exclusively collect ing old foreign pictures, required to be enforced by some additional support: no English gentleman honoured the artists of his own country with a public exhibition in his mansion, and this neglect produced an unfavourable impression of their inferiority upon the minds of many. It was clear that so long as the modern English masters were excluded from an equal display, they must be sufferers by that disadvantageous notion. Sir John Leicester here again took the lead, and opened his Gallery, in Hill-street, to the public, on tickets of free admission, one day in each week, in April and May, 1818. When he first mentioned his intention it was ridiculed as an invitation which few

would accept of, and censured as an injudicious competition with the ancients, which could not but be prejudicial to the English artists. The trial proved that he was correct. His Gallery was thronged by the rank, fashion, and talents of the country, and the view of the pictures excited an enthusiasm of which it is impossible to form a conception from report. The force and splendour of the British school flashed conviction on the public mind, and that truly British Exhibition opened an era of triumph to native genius, which caused much astonishment upon the continent, and will ever be remembered with gratitude by the British artists.

When Sir John was making these powerful and efficacious exertions, artists, literary men, and the press, were warm in applauding his public spirit. Northcote, the Royal Academician, the pupil and biographer of Sir Joshua Reynolds, in a letter to the writer of these memoirs mentioned the good effect produced by the opening of the Hill-street Gallery, in very strong terms, and added these remarks:"Long as I have had the honour of knowing Sir John Leicester I have every year had new reasons to admire the excellence of his taste, and his sincere desire to bring the works of the English artists into favour and popularity. Having had bitter experience of the prejudices against English painting, I own I never expected to see an Exhibition of English pictures, opened for the free admission of the public, in the house of an English gentlemen. He has never spared his word, his influence or his fortune, to produce a revolution in our favour. There is no mark of public honour and gratitude to which he is not entitled. I would say more, but that I know your opinion of his merits is as high as my own." One of the late President West's letters to the writer of these memoirs, in 1819, contains the following observations:-" No English gentleman ever did so much for modern art as Sir John Leicester. He has left nothing undone that he could do to encourage and serve the English artists, and I could name many others who have only just