they not obvious? If there be any element of failure in it, perhaps that is also obvious. Be this as it may, this system, with its merits and-shall we say?its demerits, produced nearly all the stained glass erected in our churches during the earlier years of the Gothic revival, and still produces large quantities. Doubtless there were some persons, even at this early period of the resuscitation of stained glass, who honestly sought for something better, but the difficulties were great; and it would seem that they were unable to achieve anything capable of separating itself emphatically from the prevailing style. Such efforts appear to have been made only by some of those who were connected with stained-glass works, and they were, on the one hand, too much hampered by the commercial conditions of their work, the necessity of competing with the men who produced cheap windows, the difficulty of obtaining any but the most wretched material, etc.; while, on the other hand, they did not possess the invincible original power which alone could obtain order out of such chaos. Having in the most favourable cases only moderate artistic abilities (the production of pictures to be enclosed in gilt frames being at that time the only recognised sphere of genius), these men barely succeeded in attaining respectability in a style which, having no vitality, was destined soon to become incapable of commanding respect. Their highest ambition was, by careful study of the early work, to reproduce it exactly; and it needed a more penetrating philosophy than theirs to show that what they aimed at was impossible. They might copy it line for line and colour for colour, but to breathe into it the breath of life was beyond their powers. If art is the expression of the artist's mind and affections, it cannot be that the same art should be the natural product of two widely differing ages. Our thoughts are utterly unlike those of the thirteenth century; and until we gather figs from vines and grapes from fig trees, we shall not get thirteenthcentury art from nineteenth-century artists. ments. Some vigorous movement from without was needed to put an end to this hopeless state of things, and of those who were instrumental in effecting such a movement I must mention, by name, Mr. Whinston, the barrister, whose indefatigable exertions give him a right to be considered their leader. He took the material in hand, and, with the co-operation of Messrs. Powell and Sons, analysed specimens of old glass, and succeeded in producing new glass infinitely surpassing in beauty and depth of colour that which was generally in use. Great improvements having been thus effected in the material, it was further resolved to call in the services of an artist; and by an extraordinary piece of good fortune, Mr. Burne Jones was one of the first to whom designs were entrusted. The original windows designed by this artist may be considered as experiThey necessarily were so, but if anyone wishes to see how noble were these experiments, let him visit Waltham Abbey, the east windows of which were designed by Mr. Jones, and executed by Messrs. Powell, of Whitefriars. They are equal to the finest thirteenth-century work, but differ from the glass of the other modern workmen in this respect, that while the glass of the prevailing style preserved none of the beauty of colour or conception of the old work, and imitated only the archaic drawing which they simply caricatured, Mr. Jones affected no archaisms, but reproduced marvellously a splendour of colour which is seen only in the greatest early glass. Since then designs for windows have been made by many other artists, Mr. Poynter, Mr. Maddox Brown, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Albert Moore, Mr. Rosetti, and Mr. William Morris, the last two of whom are better known to the public generally by their literary than their artistic works. The efforts of these artists and others could not but have some effect upon the school generally, and in fact their influence was widely felt. Among those who had before made honest but ineffectual efforts to improve their work, were some who evidently appreciated the excellence of the new glass, and profited by the lessons they learnt from it. Some of the leading stained-glass firm's possess among their members artists of considerable ability, who use every effort to keep the work executed under their superintendence up to a good standard, but the difficulty of avoiding mannerisms where a large quantity of work is constantly being produced appears to be enormous. Many houses, I fear, act on this painfully commercial principle; they have no objection to produce good work-they would rather do so if their clients will pay for it-it would be more to their credit; but if a window is asked for which must be cheap, they do not represent to their customer that if it be cheap must also be of modest pretensions, that he must be content with a single subject or figure in the centre, and must allow the upper and lower parts to be filled with white glass, treated in a simple and inexpensive manner. They know their customer well; when he asks for a cheap window he does not want to forego anything but quality; he will have the space filled with subjects and colours, and cares nothing whether one or the other be artistic. To insist that they will only do good work, and that if he wishes to give less money he must have less of it, might risk the loss of their customer; so they reject this unbusinesslike and quixotic course of action, and proceed to execute a window marvellously cheap and marvellously hideous. Such firms, when they receive an important order with instructions that no expense is to be spared, place the designs in the hands of a professional artist, employ their most able glass painters in the execution of the work, and allow none but the best glass to be used. In works of secondary importance, but where they desire to do themselves credit, the design will be given to a draughtsman engaged on the premises, who, having a facility in sketching a subject, has been educated to produce more or less successful imitations of the early styles; and, as much expense is avoided by this means, probably the firm can afford good glass, and the result is a window wholly uninteresting, but not violently offensive. But in the many cases where cheapness is the only condition insisted on, the cartoon will be produced by some lad apprenticed to the trade of drawing distorted limbs, whose ideas about art are on a par with those of the average crossing-sweeper, and the dreadful thing which he calls his cartoon is made still more terrible in the process of execution by the employment of all the coarsest and crudest colours kept in stock. Not only is this system common, but I doubt not that those who act upon it believe that they are honestly doing their duty in that state of life to which it has pleased God to call them. Probably any effort to show such men that the deliberate production of bad art, knowing it to be bad, is immoral, would be simply thrown away. They would consider it quite sufficient to urge that if their clients liked it, and were willing to pay for it, how could it be dishonest to supply them with it? There are also houses where no good work is even attempted, where the entire staff of draughtsmen and painters are engaged in manufacturing the kind of window which I last described; "but these," you will say, "are surely employed only on obscure churches in provincial towns." Not at all; it is in our cathedrals that you must look for their productions. Some of the largest windows in Westminster Abbey are of this kind. They abound also in fashionable churches, and will abound so long as the public cannot discern between good work and bad. This being the case, it is not surprising that many persons, whose common sense enables them to see the folly of filling a window with caricatures of archaic drawing, should be carried away by the contrast presented by the Munich glass. There they find excellent drawing, and the colour, though not fine, is not so offensive as that of most of the glass produced here. Probably those who have been concerned in filling some of the windows of St. Paul's with Munich glass felt in this way, and one of the lamentable results of the reckless production of worthless art here is, that in flying from one error there seems a strong likelihood that many persons will only run into another. Seeing that cheap windows designed here by young apprentices are worthless, and that, by spending large sums of money in securing the services of the first artists in Munich, something much better can be obtained, they naturally adopt the latter course, where good work is wanted and funds are abundant-naturally, that is, if there is no other course open; but they seem to forget that another course may be open-that, perhaps, if designs by our best artists were compared with those by the Munich apprentices, the difference might be in our favour. But, when taste has once been vitiated, it is much easier to accept a fallacy than a truth, and it is this very vice in the style, this fatal hankering after the effects of an oil painting, which destroys the vitality of the Munich school, and renders its progress to anything good impossible; it is this very error which causes it to be so popular with persons of imperfect artistic education. This resemblance to a picture pleases them, and they neither perceive the beauties in good glass which are sacrificed for its attainment, nor do they see that it is only the coarsest and most vulgar kind of oil painting which is imitable by such means. I have never been in Cologne Cathedral, but I hear that if one wishes to estimate at its proper value Munich glass, one should go there, where there is much of it, and where, being side by side with the glorious jewellery of the old glass, it looks like painted window blinds. In St. Paul's we have not the advantage of being able to compare one style with another; but it is hardly necessary to any one who can remember the effects of an old cathedral window. The dull-coloured, heavy mass of architecture, flat blue skies, and lifeless effect of the whole, without sparkle and glitter, suggests a painting on calico rather than stained glass, and this result is obtained at an enormous expense. It is not too much to say that a window by Mr. Rosetti or Mr. Burne Jones would as far excel those at St. Paul's as they excel the kaleidoscope work produced by our apprentices. Having, then, the various ancient styles to study and choose from, which shall we adopt, admitting them all to be good? If you ask this question of most persons who have the management of stained-glass works, they will tell you the answer is obvious. Your style must depend on your architecture. If you are working in a church built in the thirteenth century, or in a modern church in the same style, your glass must be like that of the thirteenth century. If your building is later, your glass must be later; no rule could be simpler. But let us consider again the fourteenth century style grew naturally and gradually out of that which preceded it. If this was the case when the transition was complete, all artists of the later period worked in harmony, so that those who study these things can tell at a glance within a few years when any particular window was made. This would certainly be admitted :-A fourteenth-century artist, then, always worked in the style of his own age, wherever his window was to be fixed? Certainly." And did not, probably could not, design in the manner of an artist of the preceding century? "No." Still less could a fifteenth-century artist have forced himself into the style of two hundred years earlier? "Doubtless." Then how can you ask a nineteenth century artist to take up, at will, all three styles? The answer is, most likely, a shrug of the shoulders, and "What would you do?" Thus, the difficulty is always shirked, not faced ; and men are wasting their time in tracing the particular lines and patterns of the early glass, not for their beauty, but in order to be able to imitate the glass of any age at will. 66 Once more let me say it: we cannot put on thirteenth-century sentiment as we do a morning coat, and change it for that of a later age, as we change our dress for dinner. The styles, when they existed, were the spontaneous growth of the age, and were fraught with intense meaning; let us not degrade ourselves by caricaturing them, it must all be false and hollow if we do. Their drawing is not natural to us; their ideas are not ours; that which is impressive in them would be foolish in us. MEMORANDA FOR APRIL. I SATURDAY-Institution of Naval Architects at 12.-Royal Institution at 3: Mr. O'Neil 4 TUESDAY-Civil Engineers at 8.-Pathological Society at 8.-Zoological Society at 9. 5 WEDNESDAY-London Institution: Audit Committee at 2; Special Board at 2.30; Joint Meeting of Managers and Visitors at 3; Class for Analytical Chemistry at 6.-Royal Society of Literature at 4.15.-Geological Society at 8.-Pharmaceutical Society at 8: Papers by Prof. Attfield and Mr. C. A. Staples.-Obstetrical Society at 8. 6 THURSDAY-London Institution: Prof. Bentley's Third Lecture On Economic Botany, with reference to Vegetable Substances used for Food, at 7.30.-Linnean Society at 8.Chemical Society at 8: Papers by W. M. Williams and Prof. Armstrong. 7 FRIDAY-Good Friday: Institution closed. 8 SATURDAY-Royal Botanic Society at 3.45. 10 MONDAY-Easter Monday. II TUESDAY-Civil Engineers at 8.-Photographic Society at 8: Mr. Dunmore On large Photographs; Mr. Jabez Hughes On Carbon Printing.-Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society at 8.30. 12 WEDNESDAY-London Institution: Audit Committee at 2; Board of Management at 2.30; Conversazione at 6.30, Mr. Tom Hood's Lecture, Edmund Waller, M.P., Poet, Courtier, Wit, Lover, and Sinner, at 7.30.-Royal Literary Fund at 3.-Society of Arts at 8-Graphic Society at 8.-Microscopical Society at 8.—Archæological Associa tion at 8. 13 THURSDAY-Mathematical Society at 8. 14 FRIDAY-London Institution Class for Analytical Chemistry at 6.-Archæological Institute at 4.---Royal Astronomical Society at 8.-Quekett Microscopical Club at 8. 17 MONDAY-London Institution: Mr. Proctor's Sixth Lecture On Astronomy at 4; Class for Analytical Chemistry at 6.-Asiatic Society at 8.-British Architects at 8.Medical Society at 8.-Anthropological Institute at 8.-Society of Arts at 8: Cantor Lecture, Dr. Cobbold On our Food-producing Ruminants and the Parasites which reside in them. 18 TUESDAY-Royal Institution at 3: Prof. J. J. Sylvester On Immanuel Kant.—Statistical Soc. at 7.45.-Civil Engineers at 8.-Pathological Soc. at 8.-Zoological Soc. at 9. 19 WEDNESDAY-London Institution; Class for Analytical Chemistry at 6.- Royal Society of Literature at 4.30: Anniversary.-Meteorological Society at 7.-Society of Arts at 8. 20 THURSDAY-London Institution: Prof. Bentley's Fourth Lecture On Economic Botany at 7.30.-Numismatic Society at 7.-Linnean Society at 8.-Chemical Society at 8.Royal Society at 8.30.-Antiquaries at 8.30. 21 FRIDAY-London Institution: Class for Analytical Chemistry at 6.-Philological Soc. at 8.15.-Royal Institution at 9. 22 SATURDAY-Royal Botanic Society at 3.45. 24 MONDAY-London Institution: Mr. Proctor's Seventh Lecture On Astronomy at 4; Class for Analytical Chemistry at 6.-Antiquaries at 2: Anniversary-Institute of Actuaries at 7.-Medical Society at 8.-Society of Arts at 8: Dr. Cobbold.-Royal Geographical Society at 8.30. 25 TUESDAY-Royal Institution at 3: Prof. J. J. Sylvester.-Civil Engineers at 8.-Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society at 8.30. 26 WEDNESDAY-London Institution: Special Board at 11.30; ANNUAL MEETING OF PROPRIETORS at 12; Class for Analytical Chemistry at 6.-Hunterian Society at 8.Society of Arts at 8.-Geological Society at 8.-Archæological Association at 8.- Royal Society of Literature at 8.30. 27 THURSDAY-London Institution: Prof. Bentley's Fifth Lecture On Economic Botany at 7.30.-Royal Society at 8.30. 28 FRIDAY-London Institution: Class for Analytical Chemistry at 6.-Quekett Microscopical Club at 8.-Royal Institution at 9. 29 SATURDAY-Zoological Society at 1; Anniversary. *** Secretaries of Learned Bodies are requested to communicate the subjects of promised Papers or Lectures, with any other information that may be profitably employed in the compilation of our Memoranda." 66 To Correspondents.-Communications intended for publication in the Journal, Queries, Books for review, etc., should be addressed to the Principal Librarian. A Catalogue of the Books acquired for the Permanent Circulating Library, to the end of 1871, was printed in No. 1, page 8. UNWIN BROTHERS; MAGAZINE AND GENERAL PRINTERS, OXFORD COURT, CANNON STREET, E.C. of the London Enstitution A Programme and Record of Proceedings. No. 5. TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1871. VOL. I. N° ANNUAL MEETING OF PROPRIETORS. OTICE is hereby given that the ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of the Proprietors of the London Institution will be held in the Theatre, on Wednesday, April 26. The Chair will be taken at Twelve o'clock, noon, precisely. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGE I. MENT, 1871. THE 'HE first and most important duty undertaken by the Board of Management in the past year was the appointment of a Principal Librarian in the place of the late E. W. BRAYLEY, F.R.S., whose lamented decease formed the subject of the opening paragraph in the Report for 1870. Applications for the vacant office were received from many gentlemen of literary and scientific eminence, and the Board, after careful consideration of the respective claims of no fewer than thirty-two candidates, elected Mr. JOHN CARGILL BROUGH, F.C.S., who was highly recommended by many of the leading scientific men of the day. When the apartments allotted to the Librarian were ready for occupation, Mr. BROUGH entered them, and the domestic superintendence of the establishment advocated in paragraph 16 of the last Report has thus been obtained. The Managers feel that their choice has been a happy one, for although Mr. BROUGH's physical powers have been impaired by illhealth, his energy and organising talent have been manifested in many ways. He has voluntarily extended the sphere of his duties by editing the Journal of the London Institution, which was started at his suggestion in January, and the Proprietors generally will doubtless admit that this valuable record and programme of proceedings affords significant evidence of Mr. BROUGH's anxiety to promote the useful work now being done by the Institution. During the period that intervened between the death of Mr. BRAYLEY and the appointment of his successor, much additional labour was thrown upon the Hon. Secretary, and the Board feel that special thanks are due to Mr. PIPER for the generous way in which he devoted his time and energy to maintain the regular and efficient working of the Institution. 2. The vacant Chair of Chemistry has been filled by the election of Dr. HENRY E. ARMSTRONG, F. C. S., and the Managers confidently expect that the reputation of the Laboratory of the London Institution will be satisfactorily maintained by the new Professor. A class for Practical Chemistry, conducted |