ome of his pictures under the pseudonym of OZIAS HUMPHRY. What then?
(Terrific sensation.) They had all heard of the SHAKSPEARE-BACON
controversy. The ROMNEY-HUMPHRY controversy might be destined to eclipse
that. (Profound excitement.) He, the speaker, personally was not
prepared to let the matter rest where it did. His honour as an Art
critic was at stake.

An even greater sensation was caused at this juncture by a rush of cold
air in the hall, followed by the appearance of a ghostly shape, which
announced itself to be the shade of OZIAS HUMPHRY himself. If anyone
doubted his identity or suggested that he did not paint his own pictures
he should take very prompt action indeed. The art of haunting was by no
means extinct. (Here the Chairman hurriedly left the room.) The shade,
continuing, caused some consternation by stating that the picture which
had led to litigation the other day was by no means the only supposed
Romney that he had painted. He could name several in collections within
a mile or two of the spot where he was then standing. (At this point Mr.
HUMPHRY WARD swooned and was carried out by Mr. ROBERTS.)

Mr. A.S. TEMPLE remarked that no doubt the shade of OZIAS HUMPHRY
attended that meeting in all good faith, but for his part he thought
that he would have shown better taste had he kept away. In fact everyone
would be happier if OZIAS HUMPHRY had never existed. It was not Art
critics that should be pitched into, but painters whose styles resembled
each other. They were the real nuisance. It was the duty of artists to
be distinctive, and it was the duty of Art critics to keep them so. No
doubt, as SHAKSPEARE knew, there was a certain humour to be extracted
from men who were exactly alike, such as the two _Dromios_, but when
painters painted alike there was no fun in it at all.

Mr. JOHN SMITH testified to the fact that he had no interest in a
picture unless he knew who painted it; and even then he was not
interested unless the name of the painter was a familiar one. If Art
critics provided these names, it was obviously desirable that their
services should be retained; but it was confusing if the Art critics
disagreed among themselves. All he asked was that when they thus
disagreed they should all equally fix on well-known names, even though
they were different ones. Names such as REYNOLDS, GAINSBOROUGH, LEADER
and GOETZE were well known and inspired confidence. Strange names merely
irritated. In visiting the