work of art. It is unlike the paintings of most other painters. Two hundred guineas was the full value of the picture, but it is worth it.

Mr. Albert Moore, an artist, who had studied in Rome and in London, said he had exhibited at the Academy and the Grosvenor Gallery. In his opinion all Mr. Whistler's works were marked by a large aim. In the qualities he had cultivated he had succeeded, and no living artist had succeeded in the same way. The pictures were works of art. Mr. Whistler had succeeded in painting the atmosphere, and in a remarkable manner. He did not think 200 guineas was an unreasonable price for one of the pictures. Mr. William Wills, a dramatic author and artist, said he was a great admirer of Mr. Whistler's pictures. The two blue-and-gold pictures he had seen. Mr. Whistler looked at nature in a poetical light. There was an apparent facility about the pictures which betrayed a great knowledge of art. Mr. Whistler had a native feeling for colour. The pictures were like the works of a conscientious artist and a man of genius. He called them original.

This finished the case for the plaintiff, and the Attorney-General, in addressing the jury for the defence, said that in consequence of the plaintiff's pictures having been described as works of art and as beautiful and exquisite productions, he should have to call witnesses who were competent to give evidence as to their merit, if they had any. The question, however, was whether Mr. Ruskin had criticised the plaintiff's pictures fairly and honestly. When pictures were publicly exhibited they were liable to criticism, and a critic was perfectly at liberty to use strong language, and even to resort to ridicule, and if he acted bona fide and did not overstep the bounds of moderation he would not be held responsible in an action like this. He regretted he was not able to call Mr. Ruskin, as he was far too ill to come. In the present mania for art it had become a kind of fashion among some people to admire the incomprehensible, to look upon the fantastic conceits of an artist like Mr. Whistler, his "nocturnes," "symphonies," "arrangements," and "harmonies" with delight and admiration; but the fact was that such productions were not worthy the name of great works of art. This was not a mania that should be encouraged; and if that was the view of Mr. Ruskin, he had a right, as an art critic, to fearlessly express it to the public. It was said that Mr. Ruskin had ridiculed Mr. Whistler's pictures ; but if he disliked criticism, he should not have rendered himself open to it. Quoting from Fors Clavigera, the Attorney-General showed that Mr. Ruskin was neither a partial nor a stern and hard critic, and that while he aimed his trenchant criticisms right and left, he ungrudgingly gave high praise where it was due. The whole article complained of was a sweeping condemnation of the modern school, and, as regarded Mr. Whistler, pointed out that his conceits and extravagances did not redound to his credit, and that he was careless of his name and fame when he offered such things for sale. It was objected that Mr. Ruskin had said he was "ill-educated ; ' but if that was Mr. Ruskin's opinion, judging from his productions, was it libellous to say so? It was also complained he had written, “I never expected to hear a coxcomb ask 200 guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face," but the term "coxcomb" was applied to him as an artist, and not as a man. What was a 66 coxcomb"? He had looked out for the word, and found that it came from the old idea of the licensed jester, who wore a cap and bells with a cock's comb in it, and went about making jests for

the amusement of his master and family. If that were the true definition, Mr. Whistler should not complain, because his pictures were capital jests, which had afforded much amusement to the public. Mr. Ruskin had lived a long life without being attacked. No one could say that he had purchased his praise, and no one had attempted to restrain his pen through the medium of a jury. Mr. Ruskin did not retract one syllable of his criticism upon Mr. Whistler's pictures. He believed he was right. For nearly all his life he had devoted himself to criticism for the sake of the art he loved, and he asked the jury not now to paralyse his hand.

Mr. Edward Burne Jones said he had been a painter for twenty years, and during the last two or three years his works had become known to the public. Complete finish ought to be the standard of painting, and artists ought not to fall short of what has for ages been acknowledged as essential to a perfect work. The "nocturne" in blue and silver representing Battersea Reach was a work of art, but very incomplete. It was an admirable beginning-simply a sketch. In no sense whatever did it show the finish of a complete work of art. It was masterly in colour, but deficient in form, which was as essential as colour. Its merit lay only in colour. Neither in composition, nor in detail, nor in form had it any quality whatever. The 'nocturne" in black and gold, representing the fireworks at Cremorne, had not the merit of the other. It was not a work of art; it was one of thousands of failures to represent night. It was not worth 200 guineas.

Mr. Frith, R. A., said he did not consider the pictures of Mr. Whistler which had been produced in court were serious works of art. There was beautiful colour, but it was no more than could be had on a wall-paper or a piece of silk. To him they did not represent either moonlight or water. The one in black and gold was not worth 200 guineas. In cross-examination he said one of Turner's pictures-"The Snowstorm "-had been properly described by Mr. Ruskin as a mass of soap-suds and whitewash." Turner was an idol of Mr. Ruskin's, and should be of all painters; but that applied to his early works. His latest pictures were as insane as the people who admired them.

66

Mr. Tom Taylor, as an art-critic, also expressed an unfavourable view of the pictures exhibited by Mr. Whistler at the Grosvenor Gallery in 1877. In cross-examination he admitted Mr. Whistler had high merit as an artist, but all his work was unfinished.

The learned counsel on each side having addressed the jury, Baron Huddleston, in summing up, said that if a man committed to paper language disparaging to another and holding him up to hatred, contumely, and contempt, he was guilty of a libel. The law presumed malice, but that might be rebutted by the author of the language proving that it was a fair and bona fide criticism. Therefore, the question in the present case for the jury was whether Mr. Ruskin's pamphlet was a fair and bonâ fide criticism upon the plaintiff's works; and it was for the defendant to make that out. It was of the last importance that a critic should have full latitude to express the judgments he honestly formed, and for that purpose there was no reason why he should not use ridicule as a weapon; but a critic must confine himself to criticism, and not make it the veil for personal censure, nor allow himself to run into reckless and unfair attacks merely for the love of exercising his power of denunciation.

The jury, after being absent for an hour, came into court for an explanation from the learned judge of the words "wilful imposture" in the alleged libel, and, again retiring, came back shortly afterwards and gave a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages, one farthing. Upon which the learned judge gave judgment for the plaintiff, but without costs.

APPENDIX.

STATE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS.

TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, GERMANY, AUSTRIA, FRANCE, ITALY, RUSSIA, AND TURKEY, FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF AFFAIRS IN THE EAST.

Signed at Berlin, July 13, 1878. Ratifications exchanged at Berlin,
August 3, 1878.