the EARL OF DERBY comes forward with a
proposal of gathering together all the known
English portraits, it is impossible not to see
that we are in presence of an original scheme
with unique features of its own, apart and
distinct from any exhibition that has been
given before. The feeling, on entering the
monster collections of pictures that have hitherto
been brought together at the grand cosmopolitan
festivals, has been one of curious comparison
of the style and treatment in favour with the
different painters of the world. But here, will
be altogether a new sensation. We shall feel,
as it were, in the company of mighty ghosts.
We shall be inclined to drop our eyes in
confusion or reverence before those counterfeit
presentments looking down in rows, for we
shall know that most of those canvases rested
on easels not a yard away from the great
sitters, and might be said to reflect their faces
like a looking-glass.

I think of the huge company gathered under
Lord Derby's invitation—the great princes,
captains, prelates, writers, divines, lawyers, and
statesmen, all gloomily resenting the visitor's
gaze and giving him back stare for stare—that
a more piquant treat cannot be conceived than
a visit to such a Walhalla. We shall have our
pet historical character our writer, divine,
soldier, or sailor to a sketch of whose
appearance pages of graphic description could not
help us, in the flesh. The danger is, that there
is sure to arise an embarrassment of wealth. The
land overflows with portraits. Not a squire's
house in the country but has its " ancestor" of
more or less merit and interest. The difficulty
will be in the selection. To regulate this, it is
obvious that there must be two principles.
Where the subject is rare, workmanship need
not be very much looked to; and where the
workmanship is singularly excellent, the
celebrity of the subject need not be so much
regarded. Offers will pour in, sufficient to absorb
double the space available, and we shall gasp at
the mob of famous persons who have
distinguished our country.

There is one point in Lord Derby's
programme that should be reconsidered. It is
proposed to make the order purely chronological.
That is to say, to enable us to begin at the
beginning of English history, public and private,
and walk down to the day of Victoria; to
start, say, from Holbein at eleven, and end
with Boxall and Watts, at four. We would
pass by and make our bows to the captains,
writers, politicians, and priests of Henry the
Eighth, through those of Elizabeth, Charles,
George, and the rest. Nothing could be
better than this notion. It is far more proper
than herding together, as was proposed, all the
soldiers, all the priests, all the politicians, so
that the soldiers of Henry should be in the
same room with the soldiers of Victoria. There
would be a frightful monotony in such a course.
Never would there be so fatal an illustration of
the toujours perdrix principle. We should tire
of soldiers, long before we reached the last
Victoria captain, and should yawn our way into
the next room, which would be left under pretty
much the same conditions.

But, owing to the calculated extent of the
collection, Lord Derby proposes to halt half way,
say at the year of the Revolution, 1688, the
allowance of portraits up to that date being
sufficient for a single year's digestion; in the
following year the series would be taken up again,
down to our own time. Now, this scheme is open
to the objection of a certain monotony of tone
and character in the gathering. The first year's
collection would have an ancient old-fashioned
air, and not the interest which a mixed though
incomplete chronological series would offer. We
should be cut off from all modern sympathies.
In the main, too, the works would scarcely be of
the excellence which a broader class of years
would secure, and although we should have
Vandyke and Holbein, still others would not be
of the same merit and interest. It would be far
better to have the chronological series for the
first year tolerably complete, and to begin again
during the second with another collection. Or,
supposing some such arrangement as this were
made: Divide all into classes, such as divines,
statesmen, soldiers, literary men, &c., and have
only the divines, soldiers, and statesmen during
the first year's exhibition, and take the rest in
the following year. Still, this would leave ugly
blanks, and perhaps the first course would be the
better: that of an incomplete chronological order,
in which the statesmen, soldiers, &c., would be
partially represented during both years. All
courses have many difficulties, for here it may
be asked what principle is to guide the selection
of worthies for the first year, and the postponement
of other worthies to the second. It must
therefore be confessed that Lord Derby's own
proposal, if not the most attractive, is at least
the most logical.

Again, if done at all, the thing should be
done thoroughly. The kingdom should be
thoroughly " thrashed—winnowed" for portraits.
There should be explorers sent out to beat all
the pictorial jungles. Ireland, specially, is
dotted over with fine portraits, notably with Sir
Joshua's, whom the mutabilities of social changes
and Encumbered Estates Courts have left in
cupboards and corners without owners or trustees.
Again, there should be no coyness or scruples
about palaces or public buildings giving up their
pictures for fear of stripping their walls. This
faithful and generous nation, which has paid
directly and indirectly for such things over and
over again, has a right to expect on this
occasion the most generous treatment in return.
It is to be hoped that all royal collections, and
pictures belonging to public boards, will be sent
handsomely and with a full graciousness. It has
been a little too much of a habit to make a favour
of permitting the nation to take a walk in its own
grounds, or step up into its own galleries, and see
its own pictures.

Yet another suggestion for Lord Derby and
his committee. In the catalogue should be a short
sketch of the original of each portrait; not in the