r 
 
 THE GETTY PROVENANCE INDEX 
 

 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 tJ-4* ■ . 
 
 • rt ^ C» * * ■ l* t ^ *\ tA U> ^ >•**- 
 
 
 y~ ( ^V, f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 2 ^ 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/ 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ".aaak : » <& 
 
 .H T 11/ .A .[ V 
 
 J93I/JN HOM -^1 1/. 
 
 T X 1 OSShM HHT l/oX**! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MISS MORTIMER AS “HEBE.” 
 From the Mezzotint by J. R. Smith. 
 
Matthew William 
 Peters, r.a. 
 
 HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 BY 
 
 Lady Victoria Manners 
 
 With a Catalogue of his Pamtings and Engravings 
 
 after his works 
 
 London : 
 
 Published by THE CONNOISSEUR, 35-39, Maddox Street, W. 
 
 1913 
 
PRINTED BY 
 
 BEMROSE & SONS LTD 
 LONDON AND DERBY 
 
 THE GETTY CENTER 
 LIBRARY 
 

 PREFACE 
 
 DESIRE to express my grateful thanks to all those 
 who have so kindly placed at my disposal information 
 relating to the life of the Rev. Matthew William 
 Peters. Among others, I must especially mention 
 Mr. E. R. Turton, of Upsall Castle, and Mr. Samuel Peters, 
 who have supplied me with much hitherto unknown material 
 regarding the painter. I am also indebted to Mr. J. Thorpe 
 and to Mr. Dixon for very many details regarding Peters’s masonic 
 career, especially to the latter’s interesting work, “ History of 
 Freemasonry in Lincolnshire.” 
 
 For particulars of Peters’s life in France I have drawn chiefly 
 
 from Mons. See’s interesting article published in the “ Gazette des 
 
 Beaux Arts” for November, 19 11, and I have also been much 
 aided in compiling the list of pictures by Mr. Algernon Graves’s 
 works on the Royal Academy. I must also express my thanks 
 to Mr. W. P. Courtnay for his notes relative to the literature 
 of the eighteenth century, and to Mr. C. R. Grundy for his 
 
 great interest and advice in compiling this monograph. 
 
 I feel I owe a deep debt of gratitude to all those owners 
 
 of pictures and engravings who have so kindly allowed me to 
 reproduce so many interesting and beautiful examples of Peters’s 
 art, and I trust that this sketch of the artist’s life may lead to 
 a better appreciation of the great merits of this half-forgotten 
 eighteenth-century master, whose work I feel convinced is, in 
 many instances, now attributed to Reynolds and Gainsborough. 
 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface - 
 
 List of Illustrations 
 Chapter I. 
 
 Chapter II. - 
 
 Chapter III. - 
 
 Chapter IV. - 
 
 Chapter V. - - - 
 
 Chapter VI. - 
 
 Chapter VII. - 
 
 Chapter VIII. - 
 
 A List of Pictures - 
 
 A Catalogue of Engravings 
 
 v 
 
 - VIII 
 
 I 
 
 7 
 
 - 14 
 
 - 18 
 
 - 2 5 
 
 - 3 1 
 
 - 37 
 
 - 43 
 
 - 
 
 59 
 
 VII 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 Miss Mortimer as “Hebe.” From the Mezzotint by J. R. Smith. Photogravure Frontispiece 
 
 Portrait of a Lady. Colourplale .........j 
 
 The Charmers. From an Engraving by C. Knight. Colourplate .... 4 
 
 A Cremonese Lady. From the Mezzotint by J. R. Smith. Photogravure .... 8 
 
 A Group. By kind permission of Mrs. Price. Colourplate ------ 12 
 
 Belinda (Miss Bampfylde). From the Mezzotint by IV. Dunbarton. Photogravure - - 16 
 
 Two Children with a Jay in a Cage. By kind permission of His Grace the Duke of Rutland. 
 
 Colourplate - -- -- -- .- ..20 
 
 Lady Charlotte Bertie. From the Mezzotint by W. Dickinson. Photogravure - - - 24 
 
 The Fortune Teller. Colourplate - . - .- -..-28 
 
 A Parmesan Lady. From the Mezzotint by J. R. Smith. Photogravure - - - - 32 
 
 Portrait of a Lady. Colourplate - -- -.....36 
 
 Miss Harriet Powell. From the Mezzotint by J. R. Smith. Photogravure ... 40 
 
 Girl with Fruit. In the Collection of Captain C. E. Stracey Clitherow. Colourplate - - 44 
 
 “Merry Wives of Windsor,” Act III., Scene 3. Engraved by J. P. Simon. Colourplate - 48 
 
 Portrait of a Lady. Colourplate 54 
 
 Chanters. Engraved by J. R. Smith. Colourplate ....... 58 
 
 Tantalizing. Colourplate 62 
 
 Lucretia. Colourplate - - - - - - - - . . 1 . 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Grief. By kind permission of G. Rhodes, Esq. - - - - - . - 1 . 
 
 Morris Robinson and Family. By kind permission of the Hon. Elizabeth Montagu - - n. 
 
 Sketch for “The Spirit of a Child arrived in the Presence of the Almighty.” By kind permis- 
 sion of Dr. Williamson - - - - - - . . . - 111 . 
 
 Sketch for “ Resurrection of a Pious Family. By kind permission of Dr. Williamson - - m. 
 
 "Much Ado about Nothing,” Act III., Scene 1. Hero, Ursula, and Beatrice. From the 
 
 Engraving by P. Simon. By permission of Messrs. James Rimell &■ Sons - - iv. 
 
 Saint John. Engraved by Richard Read ........ v . 
 
 Miss Eliza H. Phelps. By kind permission of Mons. H. Meyer Ste - - - - vi. 
 
 “ Antony and Cleopatra,” Act I., Scene 2. Charmian and the Soothsayer. By kind permission of 
 
 Ernest Leggatt, Esq. - - - - - - - - - -vn. 
 
 Edward Wortley Montagu. From the Mezzotint by J. R. Smith. Reproduced from an Engraving 
 
 in the possession of Messrs. James Rimell <&■ Sons ...... viu. 
 
 PACINO PAGE 
 
 Mrs. Page and Mrs. Ford reading Falstaff’s Love-letters. Colourplate - - - vm. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Lydia. Reproduced by permission of Messrs. Vicars Brothers ----- ix. 
 
 Mary Isabella, Duchess of Rutland. By kind permission of His Grace the Duke of Rutland - x. 
 
 Mrs. Jordan. “ Love in her eyes sits playing.” From the picture in the Collection of the late 
 
 J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq. ........ xi. 
 
 Miss Smith. By kind permission of Paul Moglia, Esq. - .... xii. 
 
 Charles, Fourth Duke of Rutland. By kind permission of His Grace the Duke of Rutland - xii. 
 
 Sylvia - xm. 
 
 The Rev. Matthew William Peters, R.A. From the Engraving by William S. Leney - - xm. 
 
 An Angel carrying the Spirit of a Child to Paradise. From the Stipple Engraving by 
 
 Wm. Dickinson, By permission of Messrs. Henry Graves <£> Co., Ltd. - - - xiv. 
 
 Portrait of a Lady. By permission of Messrs. Thomas Agnew S- Sons .... xiv. 
 
 “Henry VIII.,” Act III., Scene 1. Queen Catherine and Cardinals Wolsey and Campeius. 
 
 From the Engraving by R. Thew - - - - - - - - xv. 
 
 “Henry VIII.,” Act V., Scene 4. The Christening of Princess Elizabeth. From the Engraving 
 
 by J. Collier ........... xv, 
 
 “Merry Wives of Windsor,” Act II., Scene 1 ....... xvi. 
 
 Mary Isabella, Duchess of Rutland. From an Engraving by C. W. White, in the Collection of 
 
 the Author ........... xvi. 
 
 VIII 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • . 
 
PORTRAIT OF 
 
 A LADY 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 HE present generation chiefly remembers Matthew William Peters as the only 
 clergyman of the Church of England who achieved the distinction of 
 becoming a Royal Academician; it would be more correct, however, to speak 
 of him as the only Academician who ever became a clergyman, for he was 
 elected into the ranks of the forty several years before he took holy orders. 
 Peters, indeed, would have gained a far higher reputation as an artist if he had never 
 assumed the cloth, for it has caused him to be regarded as an amateur, whereas he was a 
 professional painter of great ability, highly trained for the time in which he lived, 
 and not inferior to any of his contemporaries, with the exception of a few of the 
 highest rank. Peters’s work has of late years hardly received the consideration it 
 deserves, and yet few artists of the Early English school merit more attention than 
 this clever and resourceful artist. Perhaps this ill-deserved neglect may be traced to 
 several causes. Peters has been judged more by his historical, religious, and allegorical 
 pictures than by his fine series of portraits and charming “genre” pictures, which have 
 in many cases remained “perdu” to the world, hidden in remote country houses; and, 
 in fact, to this generation he is chiefly known through the medium of the many fine 
 mezzotints, coloured and stipple engravings of his works, than by the originals. 
 
 Another cause which has perhaps contributed to the neglect of Peters’s work may 
 be the fact that he was somewhat overshadowed by the overwhelming genius of his 
 three great contemporaries, Reynolds, Gainsborough, and Romney, and also to the ill- 
 natured and ill-deserved attacks of the satirists, Peter Pindar (Dr. Wolcot) and Anthony 
 Pasquin (John Williams), the former comparing Peters to “ Luke the Saint,” a “ man 
 of Gospel, art, and paint.” But Peters in his owti day achieved a great reputation, 
 and his erratic career and wayward genius is typical of the period in which the English 
 painting first definitely established its right to a place with the other great European 
 schools. Hogarth was the only English artist of first rank who possessed an estab- 
 lished reputation in 1742 (the date of Peters’s birth), and he had not yet completed the 
 series of “ The Marriage a la Mode”; Richard Wilson was engaged in painting second- 
 rate portraits; Reynolds was still a pupil of Hudson; and Gainsborough similarly 
 engaged with either Gravelot or Hayman. Peters survived these artists, and lived to 
 see Lawrence and Hoppner in the height of their reputation, Wilkie elected a member 
 of the Royal Academy, and Turner and Constable produce some of their finest pictures. 
 
 Before attempting to place before the public this sketch of Peters’s life, I must 
 crave their indulgence — the artist has now been dead nearly a hundred years, and 
 it has been a work of the greatest difficulty to collect much personal information about 
 his life or his pictures, notwithstanding the great kindness of those of his descendants 
 with whom I have been able to get in touch ; but, with my somewhat inadequate material, 
 
2 
 
 MATTHEW 
 
 WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 I have endeavoured to present a study of this artist, whose genius, if unequal, was 
 undoubted, and whose character, if not free from the grave faults of the age in which 
 he lived, was generous, gifted, and warm-hearted. 
 
 Matthew William Peters was born at Freshwater, in the Isle of Wight, in 1742. 
 An Englishman by birth, he was descended on both sides from families which had for 
 some time been settled in Ireland Matthew Peters, his father — a great-grandson of 
 a captain in the Royal Navy, killed in the Dutch war during the reign of Charles II. — 
 was born at Belfast in 1711, and married Elizabeth, eldest daughter of George Younge, 
 of Dublin. Matthew Peters was a man of some distinction; he was educated as a 
 civil engineer, in which profession he attained considerable eminence; he also wrote 
 several excellent treatises upon agriculture, and is said to have laid out the gardens 
 and grounds at Stowe. He is described as “ of the Isle of Wight, Gent.,” but shortly 
 after the birth of William he removed to Ireland, and lived at Dublin, where he held 
 a post in the Customs, and is said to have been connected with the Irish Government 
 in improving the navigation of the loughs and rivers. Three children appear to have 
 been the issue of his marriage — two daughters, Margaret and Hannah, and the boy 
 Matthew William. The latter, however, never used his first name, being always styled 
 William throughout his career. He was placed at school under the care of the famous 
 Dr. Sheridan, the friend of Dean Swift He was quick and intelligent, and his educa- 
 tion was directed chiefly with a view to his taking orders in the Church, but, showing 
 marked artistic aptitude, he was sent to the School of Design, of which Robert West was 
 then master. West, who must not be confounded with his better-known son, Francis 
 Robert West, who succeeded him in the head-mastership of the Royal Dublin Society’s 
 School, was an artist of some talent. He had studied under Van Loo in Paris, where he 
 gained the first medal in the Academy. His portrait of Lawrence Richardson, painted 
 in 1748, was engraved by Richard Purcell before the latter quitted Dublin for London. 
 After remaining at the school some time, Peters was sent to London to become a pupil 
 of Thomas Hudson. This artist, until his reputation was overshadowed by that of 
 his former scholar, Sir Joshua Reynolds, long reigned at the head of his profession 
 as the most fashionable portrait painter of his day. Despite Northcote’s ill-natured 
 saying that, “ after having painted the head, Hudson’s genius failed him, and he was 
 obliged to employ Van Achen to put it on the shoulders, and to finish the drapery, 
 of both which he was himself incapable,” Hudson was an artist of no mean ability. 
 Some of his male portraits reveal both character and spirited execution, while his 
 technique was thoroughly sound. That he was a capable master may be inferred from 
 the number of distinguished artists who emanated from his studio. Reynolds, 
 Mortimer, Wright of Derby, Cosway, and Peters were among them ; and though in 
 after years it was asserted that Reynolds learnt nothing from his master, it must be 
 remembered that the former’s apprenticeship was terminated by Hudson himself 
 against Reynolds’s wishes. Reynolds probably learnt far more from him than he 
 acknowledged. His ante-Italian portraits, of which the one of himself, shading his 
 face with his hand, in the National Portrait Gallery, and one of Commodore Keppel, 
 shown some time back in Shepherd’s Gallery, are noteworthy examples, give proof of 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 3 
 
 sound technical training, and will hold their own in sincerity, directness, and force 
 with any pictures that he subsequently painted. Wright of Derby thought so much 
 of Hudson’s tuition that, after finishing the full term of his apprenticeship, he went 
 back to his old master’s studio for further lessons. 
 
 There is, unfortunately, no direct evidence to show the date when young Peters 
 went to Hudson, or how long he remained under him. Reynolds had been bound 
 for four years, instead of the usual term of seven, his father paying £120 with him. 
 That was in 1740, when Hudson was at the height of his reputation. He remained 
 without a serious rival until the return of Reynolds from Italy in 1752. Walpole 
 tells us that the older painter, finding that the genius of his quondam pupil was 
 putting an end to his reign, retired from the contest to a small villa he had built at 
 Twickenham soon after he had finished his large “ family piece of Charles, Duke 
 of Marlborough.” This was painted in 1756, and his retirement then would make it 
 appear that Peters either joined him in the earlier part of the year or anterior to it. 
 Thai it might have been the actual year would seem to be confirmed by the lad being 
 then fourteen, which would allow him to complete the usual seven years’ apprenticeship 
 before he came of age. One cannot, however, make any definite statement on the 
 matter. Hudson, if he virtually retired from the profession in 1756, did not give up 
 his studio in King Street, Covent Garden, or altogether cease to practise, for we find 
 him contributing to the exhibitions of the Society of Artists from this address both 
 in 1761 and 1766. It is highly probable that Richard Cosway, who was only two 
 years the senior of Peters, was a fellow-pupil with him at Hudson’s. 
 
 The only event recorded in the artistic career of Peters before he paid his first 
 visit to Italy is that he obtained a premium from the Society of Arts in 1759. 
 
 During the latter half of the eighteenth century, Italy was the goal of nearly 
 every art student who aspired to distinction in his profession. The associations of a 
 great tradition still hung about its schools, and its galleries contained the large majority 
 of what were then considered the world’s masterpieces, for the works of the northern 
 schools had scarcely been recognised as belonging to the highest plane of art. Ramsay, 
 Wilson, Reynolds, and Romney, among a number of less distinguished English artists, 
 had all studied in Italy; and even Hudson, who does not appear to have believed in 
 the fashion, had so far conformed with it as to pay a visit to Rome in 1752 — a visit 
 of such short duration, however, that he can scarcely have had time to do more than 
 walk through the galleries. Peters, unlike his master, seems to have entertained no 
 doubt as to the advantage of study in Italy, for he went early, and paid long and 
 frequent visits. The date of his first arrival there is not recorded, but that he had 
 visited Florence by 1763 is shown by the fact that, according to the Freemasons' 
 Magazine , he was elected a member of the Imperial Academy in that year. As Peters 
 was then only twenty-one, he must have displayed considerable talent for so young 
 an artist. The records of the painter’s life for this period are practically non-existent, 
 but it is known that while residing at Florence he copied several pictures, among them 
 being the portrait group by Rubens of “ The Artist, his brother Philip Rubens, and 
 the philosophers Lipsius and Grotius” at the Pitti Palace. 
 
4 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 Peters probably returned to England at the beginning of 1766. It is said that 
 he first attempted to set up in Dublin as a portrait painter. His mother belonged to 
 a well-known family in the city, and probably his father still occupied his post under 
 the Irish Government there, so he may have hoped that their influence would procure 
 him patrons. In this he appears to have been disappointed. There is no record of 
 what he painted there or how long he stayed in the city — then hardly inferior to any 
 British provincial town, except Bath, as a centre of society — but through the kindness 
 of Mr. W. G. Strickland, of the Dublin National Gallery, I have been given the 
 following verse, unearthed from the Freeman's Journal, June 7th, 1766, which, if it 
 throws little light on the artist’s performances, conclusively fixes the date of his visit : — 
 
 "Ye British fair, impose your kind command, 
 
 And live from Peters’s as from Titian’s hand; 
 
 Let Ancaster, let Pembroke, ages hence, 
 
 Attract the soul and charm the ravish’d sense.” 
 
 The Ancaster referred to in the verse is evidently Mary, Duchess of Ancaster, 
 whom Peters painted more than once, while the “Pembroke” probably stands for 
 Elizabeth, wife of Henry, tenth Earl of Pembroke. 
 
 Peters’s name appears in the list of members of the Society of Artists issued in 
 1765. This, indeed, was hardly a proof of distinguished merit, for though the Society 
 included practically all the distinguished English artists of the period — among 
 others, Gainsborough, Ramsay, Reynolds, Romney, and Wilson — it also comprised 
 among its two hundred and eleven members a number of men whose work is now 
 wholly forgotten. In the Catalogue of the Society for 1766, the first year in which 
 Peters was represented, his address is given as Tavistock Row, Covent Garden. His 
 subjects afford evidence of his recent Italian visit, for among them we find " A 
 Florentine Lady in a Tuscan dress” and "A Lady in a Pisan dress,” the remaining 
 contribution being a portrait of "A Young Gentleman: three-quarters,” whose identity 
 has not been discovered. During the next few years Peters r ppears to have practised 
 almost wholly in portraiture, his twelve examples during the years 1766-8 all belonging 
 to this phase of art. Quite half the number were in pastel. The solitary contribution 
 for 1767 was, however, an oil painting, catalogued as “Portrait of a Lady: whole 
 length,” which, Mr. Algernon Graves tells us, Horace Walpole sets down in his catalogue 
 for that year as (Mary) Duchess of Ancaster. The painting of this picture shows that 
 Peters was beginning to number some of the leaders of society among his sitters, for the 
 Duchess was emphatically one of the great ladies of her time. She had already sat to 
 Hudson and Reynolds, and, though no longer young, still possessed a considerable 
 portion of those charms which had secured for her one of the greatest matches in the 
 kingdom. Horace Walpole tries to deny this when, in 1763, he complains that the French 
 preferred her before either the Duchess of Hamilton — one of the beautiful Gunnings — 
 or the Duchess of Richmond. “ The Duchess of Ancaster,” he writes, “ who is not 
 young, was at best but a pretty figure, is now repaired by very evident art, and is a 
 heap of minauderies and affectations, which have not even the stamp of a woman of 
 

 FROM AN ENGRAVING BY C. KNIGHT 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ • - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 5 
 
 quality ; ” but then Walpole, with his pronounced aristocratic leanings, never forgave 
 her for being only the daughter of Tom Panton, the racing trainer. The portrait — the 
 present whereabouts of which is altogether unknown — must have been a success, for in 
 1 769 Peters was again entrusted with the perpetuation of the charms of the Duchess, his 
 second picture of her appearing at the Academy of that year. Walpole criticised it in 
 his catalogue as “ too faint.” About the time that Peters first painted her, or even 
 earlier, he also painted the portrait of her eldest daughter, Lady Mary Catherine 
 Bertie, who died on the 13th April, 1767. The picture is well known by the fine 
 mezzotint executed from it by John Dixon. Peters was also destined to paint the 
 portrait of the Duchess’s other daughter, Lady Charlotte Bertie — then a child of 
 three — when she had grown into a beautiful young woman. 
 
 During the three years 1707-9 Peters successively changed his address — from 
 Tavistock Row to Bond Street in 1767, Suffolk Street in 1768, and Welbeck Street, 
 Cavendish Square, in 1769. In the last-named year he was also an exhibitor in the 
 “Free Society of Artists,” sending in two pictures of an estate, a testimony more to 
 the versatility of his talents than to his artistic powers. 
 
 In 1769 there occurred an important event in the life of Peters, for on February 
 27th of that year he became a P'reemason, being initiated in the Somerset House Lodge 
 No. 2. The lodge was founded by the famous Thomas Dunckerley, who, according 
 to Sadler — quoted by Mr. W. Dixon in his Freemasonry in Lincolnshire — was a friend 
 of the artist, and most probably induced him to join the Masonic fraternity. This 
 was the means of bringing Peters into touch with the Duke of Manchester, Lord Petre, 
 and other distinguished Masons, whose friendship greatly furthered his career, whilst 
 he himself subsequently occupied a distinguished position in the fraternity. 
 
 In the meanwhile the artist, like the majority of his brethren of the brush, found 
 himself confronted with the problem of deciding whether to continue his membership 
 of the Society of Artists or link his fortunes with those of the newly-founded Royal 
 Academy. Owing to the dissensions in the Society, in 1768 most of its principal 
 members seceded, and, aided by the support of George III., succeeded in establishing 
 the Academy, which held its first exhibition in the following year. Peters did not 
 resign his membership of the older institution, but appears to have striven to make 
 his position secure by contributing to both exhibitions, sending in eight crayon portraits 
 to the last-named, and the oil portrait of the “ Duchess of Ancaster,” already mentioned, 
 to the Academy. 
 
 It is rather interesting to know that the number of pictures exhibited at this first 
 exhibition of the Royal Academy was one hundred and thirty-six — about as many 
 as are contained in the first two rooms of the present exhibition ; but what the exhibition 
 lacked in quantity it made up for in quality. Sir Joshua was represented by four 
 works, including the picture of “ Mrs. Bouverie and Mrs. Crewe,” shown in the exhibition 
 of old masters at the Grafton Gallery in 1910, and his well-known “Miss Morris as 
 Hope nursing Love”; Gainsborough by his portraits of “Isabella, Lady Molyneux,” 
 and “George Pitt, son of Lord Rivers”; Wilson by three landscapes; while other 
 well-known works were Angelica Kauffmann’s “ Hector and Andromache,” Cotes’s 
 “ Hebe,” and Cipriani’s “ Annunciation.” 
 
6 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 Peters’s dalliance with the Incorporated Society of Artists in all probability 
 prevented him from becoming one of the foundation members of the Academy. The 
 rules of the last-named body were ingeniously framed to secure for it a monopoly 
 of contemporary art. Artists who belonged to any other London society were debarred 
 from membership, and it was further enacted that “ whoever exhibits with any other 
 society at the time that his works are exhibited in the exhibition of the Royal Academy, 
 shall neither be admitted as a candidate for an associate nor his performances be 
 received the following year.” The last clause appears to have been suspended in 
 favour of Peters, for in 1770 he was permitted to exhibit “A Girl making Lace” — 
 his only contribution — and in the following year he sent “ A Portrait of a Gentleman,” 
 described by Walpole as an “ Imitation of Reynolds.” In the meanwhile he had 
 entirely severed his connection with both the Incorporated and the Free Societies of 
 Artists, and was thus eligible for election as Associate of the Royal Academy, an 
 honour which was promptly granted him. The limitation of the artist’s exhibits to a 
 single unimportant example during each of the two years leads to the inference that he 
 was assured of his election as soon as he chose to qualify himself for it. 
 
 Almost immediately after becoming A.R.A., Peters appears to have gone abroad. 
 He was not represented at the Academy of 1772. In the catalogues of 1773 and 1774 
 his address is given as Venice; and in a copy of that of 1776, where his address is 
 recorded as Great Newport Street, Walpole makes the note, “ Just returned from Rome.” 
 Peters had contributed nothing to the exhibition of 1775, but to that of 1776 he sent 
 four pictures, including the “ Portrait of Mr. (Edward) Wortley Montague (sic) in his 
 dress as an Arabian prince” — engraved by J. R. Smith the same year— and a picture 
 of “ A Lady in an undress, in crayons.” This last-named work, and “ A Woman in 
 Bed,” which was hung in the Academy of the following year, probably belonged to 
 those subjects of a somewhat risque and indecorous nature which Peters was in the 
 habit of painting for some of his wealthy patrons. The artist’s taste for such work 
 was no doubt fostered by his long residence abroad. Like Etty, who in a later genera- " 
 tion was to shock the susceptibilities of the Mrs. Grundys of his day by his too realistic 
 presentments of the nude, Peters was inspired to paint in a similar metier wholly by 
 his artistic feeling. His work never oversteps the borders of propriety, but it is 
 incongruous as emanating from a man who subsequently took holy orders. Contem- 
 porary literature has a certain amount to say on the subjecc. Doran, in his Saints and 
 Sinners, remarks : “ In his clerical capacity Mr. Peters painted an infant soul borne by 
 angels to heaven, but in his purely artistic capacity he painted Venuses, and gained 
 thereby the name of the English Titian. His recumbent Lydia was covered with a 
 gauze, which the ‘ wits’ called episcopal lawn.” 
 
 There seems to be good evidence that Peters in after years regretted the choice 
 of such subjects, and we find John Taylor writing, “ I have often heard Peters deeply 
 lament that he ever devoted his talents to such subjects, not only because they were 
 degrading to his character, but, as far as I could judge, from sincere moral regret.” 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 N 1773 and 1774 the address of Peters is given in the current catalogues 
 of the Royal Academy as Venice. He exhibited nothing in 1775, 
 and apparently was not back in England until the summer of the 
 following year, when his residence is set down as Great Newport Street, 
 and Horace Walpole, in a note in his catalogue, writes after Peters’s 
 name, “ Just returned from Rome.” While in Italy he appears to have stayed some 
 time at Parma, where he copied Correggio’s famous altar-piece, “ The Madonna with 
 St. Jerome and the Magdalen,” his version of it being now in the church of Saffron 
 Walden, Essex. This magnificent example of Correggio seems to have been an 
 attraction to nearly all the English artists resident in Italy at the time. Romney, who 
 had been there since the summer of 1773, when he travelled from England in company 
 with the gifted though ill-starred Ozias Humphry, went to Parma in 1775. Through 
 the solicitations of his friend, he was furnished with letters of introduction from 
 Peters. The latter throughout his life was devoid of the small jealousies which so 
 often beset artists, and he seems to have exerted himself to make Romney’s residence 
 at Parma pleasant, for in a letter dated January, 1775, we find Humphry writing to 
 Romney from Rome: — 
 
 “Dear Romney, 
 
 “ I am flattering myself that this morning you got safe to Florence after an agree- 
 able journey. 
 
 “ I made it my business to see Mr. Peters, in order to get him to furnish you with 
 a letter or two for Parma, which he complied with most cheerfully, and I have accord- 
 ingly forwarded them to you; they are wrote (sic) in English, and, of course, are 
 addressed to people who speak a little of our own language, which will afford you 
 no small consolation, I believe.” 
 
 In the following letter, Peters gives some good advice as to lodgings, etc., to 
 Romney. He writes ; — 
 
 “ Dear Sir, 
 
 “ I have given to Mr. Humphry two letters for Parma, which he intends inclosing 
 to you, and I hope you will find by their means two agreeable friends and acquaintance. 
 I should be very happy on any occasion of doing you what little acceptable services 
 •may chance to be in my power, should ever such happen. I beg you will with the 
 utmost freedom command me. When you go to Bologna, if you mean to stay there 
 above two days, I would recommend you to a private house, where I and other English 
 artists have lodged formerly ; you eat with the family, and may probably meet some 
 
 7 
 
8 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 merchants of our country at the same place. I have therefore, on the other side, given 
 you a line to the mistress of the house, as also one to Mr. Edwards at Venice, whom 
 you will find a valuable acquaintance. When you go to Parma, it will be necessary 
 to stay a day or two at the inn till you look about you. I was lodged for that time 
 at the Gambara, either that or the Pavone are good houses; but should you choose to 
 live in a private house, my hairdresser (whom I recommend to you) will find you one, 
 and him you will find by sending any one to the Marchese Venturi’s, to know where 
 the man lives who dresses the Signore Marchese; this is the man, but I forget his 
 name. And for dining, the best place to go to is chez Monsieur Raymond traiteur 
 Francois , where you will find at a certain hour a good ordinary and the best company; 
 the dinner is very reasonable, not exceeding two or three Pauls ; and be so good to 
 make my compliments to him. 
 
 “Pray my compliments to Mrs. Vanini. I shall certainly see you at Parma the 
 end of April, and always, 
 
 “ Dear Sir, 
 
 “ Your very humble and obedient Servant, 
 
 “ Rome, Saturday night.” “ WM. PETERS. 
 
 The result of Romney’s visit is recorded in a letter from Joseph Wright of Derby, 
 mentioned in Mr. W. Bemrose’s life of that artist, and dated from Parma, July 24th, 
 1775, and written in reply to a query from Ozias Humphry, who was still at Rome, 
 as to what the former artist thought of the Correggio, about which there were evidently 
 divergent opinions expressed. Wright states : “ Romney only painted the Magdalen’s 
 head : the picture answered not his expectations ; and Mr. Parry left his quite unfinished, 
 as the picture did not appear to him so fine a second time as it did the first. Mr. 
 Copley has been hard at work at it five weeks, and says he will spend twice that time 
 more over it, but he will get it like the original. It is with infinite labour he produces 
 what he does, but that is entre nous. I have left my outline, with two English three- 
 quarter cloths, which you seemed to admire, with the Custodio of the Academy, directed 
 for you.” 
 
 This extract is interesting as bringing in the names of several artists who were 
 resident in Italy at the same time as Peters, and with whom he probably came into 
 contact there. Joseph Wright, like him, had been a pupil with Hudson, returning in 
 1756 for a second period of tuition of fifteen months, so it is not unlikely that they 
 may have been for a short time resident together. Peters and Romney, if they did 
 not actually meet in Italy, had mutual friends, and were employed by some of the 
 same patrons. One of these was that clever but most eccentric individual, Edward 
 Wortley Montagu, the son of Lady Mary, the famous letter-writer. Before leaving 
 Venice for Parma, Romney painted his portrait in Turkish dress. This picture was 
 sold by Romney on his return to England for fifty guineas to Lord Warwick, but the 
 unfortunate Wortley Montagu was not destined to follow his portrait back to England, 
 for while Romney was still with him “ he choked on the bone of a small bird, which 
 pierced his throat and brought about his death.” 
 

 
 
 
 
 A CREMONESE LADY. 
 
 From the Mezzotint by J. R. Smith. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Vcn ir c 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 .YCTA-J M H/OI‘/3HO A . “ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .HTii/'i . tl i'/; "M'/ fitT i /dx^l 
 
 # 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 9 
 
 Peters also painted Wortley Montagu probably about this time, as he exhibited 
 the picture at the Royal Academy in 1776; it was entitled “Mr. Wortley Montagu 
 in his dress as an Arabian Prince.” I have with some difficulty discovered the where- 
 abouts of this picture; it is now in the possession of Lord Bute, and was most probably 
 left by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu to her only daughter, Mary, the wife of John, 
 third Earl of Bute, to whom many of her most interesting letters were written. It is 
 probably a sketch for a larger picture, as it differs in some respects from the mezzotint; 
 but it is undoubtedly by Peters, and is a fine piece of work. 
 
 It is not unlikely that Peters returned to England with the Mr. Parry mentioned 
 in the letter, for both artists got back in the summer of 1776 in time for the Academy. 
 This Parry, whose Christian name was William, was a pupil of Reynolds, and probably 
 owed his election to A.R.A., which took place in 1776, to his former connection with 
 the President of the Royal Academy. He may have introduced Peters to him, for 
 from some notes given me by a descendant of Peters, it appears that the latter com- 
 menced studying under the great portrait painter about this time, and continued the 
 practice for some years. He could not have been a pupil in the ordinary sense, for 
 he took a studio of his own in Great Newport Street, and his name is not mentioned 
 by any of Reynolds’s biographers. Yet that Peters must have closely studied the 
 works of the President is evident both from his colour and fine impasto, in which he 
 attains more nearly the standard of the master than any of his known pupils. 
 
 Besides the portrait of “ Edward Wortley Montagu,” which was bought by 
 Lord Courtenay, Peters exhibited at the Royal Academy of 1776 a “Portrait of 
 a Gentleman” and two subjects in crayons — “A Young Lady” and “A Lady in an 
 undress.” The latter may have been a version of “ Belinda,” a partially undraped 
 portrait of Miss Bampfylde, engraved by Robert Dunkarton in the following year, 
 and which, judging from the number of similar subjects from the brush of Peters 
 which were engraved about this time, must have attained considerable success. The 
 most audacious of these risque themes was “ Lydia,” painted for Lord Grosvenor, and 
 engraved by W. Dickinson in 1776. It was popularly stated that the owner kept 
 it veiled; if so, the susceptibilities of the eighteenth-century English society must 
 have been far more delicate than those of present-day people. “ Sylvia,” mezzo- 
 tinted by J. R. Smith in 1778, may possibly be identified with the crayon picture of 
 “ A Woman in Bed,” which Peters exhibited at the Academy of the preceding year. 
 On the plate it is stated that the original picture was in the possession of the Rt. 
 Hon. Lord Melbourne. The companion mezzotint, “ Love in her eyes sits playing,” 
 is also by J. R. Smith, and is one of his most beautiful works. It was published in 
 May, 1778, which points to the original having been painted either in that or the 
 preceding year. Mr. W. Roberts has identified the lady as being Mrs. Jordan, the 
 celebrated actress. 
 
 At this time Peters had evidently gathered an artistic and influential clientele about 
 him. The names of Lords Courtenay, Grosvenor, and Melbourne have already been 
 given. To these should be added that of Charles, fourth Duke of Rutland, then 
 Marquess of Granby, who remained, until his death, a consistent patron of the artist. 
 
io 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 He probably bought two of the works — “ St. John ” and “ A Country Girl ” — exhibited 
 by Peters at the Academy of 1777, for both pictures are recorded by Eller as having 
 been destroyed in the disastrous fire at Bel voir Castle in 1816. The “St. John” was 
 the first religious work contributed by the painter to the exhibition, and probably 
 marked the change in his views which led him to adopt the Church as a profession. 
 The charms of Mary Dickinson, the sister of William Dickinson, are immortalised — 
 not, indeed, in the picture of “ The Country Girl,” but in the delightful plate which 
 the brother made from it, and which shows that the original must have been one of 
 Peters’s finest efforts. 
 
 The acquaintanceship of artist and engraver was not restricted to professional 
 intercourse; both men were Masons — Peters having been initiated in the Somerset 
 House Lodge No. 2 in 1769 — and the large number of plates which Dickinson engraved 
 after him about this period would point to the relations of the two men being of a 
 fairly intimate character. 
 
 The fourth picture, which Peters contributed to the Academy of 1777, catalogued as 
 “ Portrait of a Gentleman in masquerade dress,” was of Colonel George Pochin, a 
 younger brother of William Pochin, of Barkley, and an officer in the Leicestershire 
 Militia; he served in the American War, and subsequently entered Parliament. The 
 present whereabouts of the picture, which was engraved by John Dean, is unknown. 
 
 The year 1778 may be said to have marked the zenith of the painter’s artistic 
 career; the letters R.A. appeared after his name for the first time in the Academy 
 catalogue, for he had been elected a full member since the last exhibition. His 
 diploma picture of two “ Children,” which is well known from the reproductions, marks 
 the best period of his art ; and though this was not in the exhibition, he sent five portraits, 
 only one of which, that of “ Sir John Fielding, as Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of 
 the City of Westminster,” is titled in the catalogue. Sir John, the half-brother of 
 Henry Fielding, the novelist, and successor of the latter as magistrate, was blind, a fact 
 which rendered him a rather difficult subject for portraiture. Peters, however, produced 
 one of Ins best works, a strong, manly likeness, which Horace Walpole described as 
 “an excellent portrait.” From the same source one obtains the identification of the 
 anonymous portrait, No. 234, which the owner of Strawberry Hill noted in his catalogue 
 as being that of Colonel Rainsford. On the identity of the other three portraits shown 
 this year — a “ Young Nobleman,” one of a gentleman, and one of “ a lady, in crayons ” — 
 no light can be thrown. 
 
 To the exhibition of 1779 Peters contributed nothing. He was engaged that year 
 in studying at Oxford for the Church, an event of his career which can be more 
 conveniently dealt with in a separate chapter. In that of the following year he 
 showed a portrait composition, which Walpole describes as being of “ Lord Courtenay 
 with a group of children,” and a “ View of Liverpool.” In 1781 he was unrepresented. 
 In 1782, when his name appears in the catalogue as the Rev. William Peters, R.A., 
 of Exeter College, Oxford, his sole contribution was the well-known “ An Angel 
 carrying the spirit of a child to Paradise,” which was secured by the Earl of Exeter 
 for his collection at Burghley. The work anticipated in its popularity the religious 
 
^HIS LIFE AND WORK s 
 
 1 1 
 
 pictures of Noel Paton, Gustave Dore, and Herbert Schmalz. Like them, it was 
 engraved ; and, to quote a writer in the Freemasons' Magazine , “ the prints from this 
 beautiful and interesting work were soon dispersed throughout Europe, and no print, 
 we believe, from any picture of whatever master had so rapid and universal a sale.” 
 
 Its success may be described as a disguised misfortune for the artist, as it led him 
 
 to attempt themes which were beyond his powers, and so diverted his genius from its 
 
 true bent. At this time Peters, who had apparently finished his course at Oxford, 
 
 came into closer connection with Charles, fourth Duke of Rutland, a lover of the arts, 
 who, through the few remaining years of his life, was to remain the artist’s friend and 
 patron. He subsequently presented Peters with several livings, and frequently 
 employed him to paint portraits of himself and members of his family — a high compli- 
 ment, when it is remembered that he was a friend of Sir Joshua Reynolds. His first 
 commission was to send Peters to Paris to copy Le Brun’s masterpiece, “ Madam de 
 la Valliere,” hanging in the Carmelite Church. This copy was burnt in the fire at 
 Belvoir Castle. 
 
 Peters remained in Paris for a lengthy period, a fact which accounts for his being 
 unrepresented at the Royal Academy in 1783 and 1784. His visit exercised a powerful 
 and beneficial influence on his art, his style being much improved by his close associa- 
 tion with Louis Leopold Boilly and Antoine Vestier. Mons. R. See, in his interesting 
 article in the Gazette des Beaux Arts for November, 1911, has thrown much light on 
 this period of Peters’s life, and on his friendship with the two French artists. Vestier 
 was an old friend of the Englishman, whom he had met when travelling in Great 
 Britain, a country he visited as well as Holland. Both men were about the same age, 
 and appear to have been congenial companions, for Vestier mentioned in his letters, 
 which are still in the possession of the Dumont family — Madame Dumont being a 
 grandchild of the artist — what a delightful companion he found Peters, and the rapid 
 progress that the latter made after winning the prize of the Society of Arts in 1759. 
 Vestier’s work is not well known to the English public, but visitors to the Louvre will 
 remember his delightful portrait of his wife and child playing with a dog. 
 
 Mons. See writes thus of the friendship between the artists: “ Nul doute que les 
 deux amis eprouverent a se retrouver a Paris un plaisir tres vif. Ce fut avec Vestier que 
 Peters connut le grand homme de loi Monsieur D’Outremont, dont le salon etait le 
 rendezvous de beaucoup de jeunes artistes de valeur et oil, pour la premiere fois, ils 
 recontrerent Boilly, presente a l’avocat par son protecteur le comte d’Ablaing, pro- 
 fesseur a l’Ecole de Medecine. Tous trois se li&rent vite d’une amitie qui dura de 
 longs mois. C’etait un gai trio. Ils frequentaient assidument les tavernes, tout 
 en poursuivant leurs etudes a travers les nombreux ateliers de la capitale. Vestier 
 etait naturellement comme le chef da la bande. Ne en 1740 il avait deux ans de 
 plus que Peters and exposait deja avec succes au Salon de la Correspondance, tandis 
 que Boilly etait encore presque un adolescent, de vingt ans plus veune qu’eux.” Mons. 
 See then goes on to trace the great influence that Vestier and the French school had 
 upon Peters. He says : “ Les sujets, la facture, la couleur, tout denote 1 ’influence 
 profonde de l’ecole frangaise, de l’esprit fran$ais. Prenons, par exemple le fameux 
 
12 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 portrait d’une de ses jolies amies intitule par le graveur J. R. Smith, selon le gout 
 de l’epoque ‘ L’ Amour se joue dans ses yeux ’ (Portrait de Mrs. Jordan). Le femme 
 a les epaules nues; elle porte un de ces fichus de linon affectionnes par Vestier; la pose 
 est inspiree de Nattier et le coloris de Vanloo.” 
 
 With Boilly — “the delightful Boilly,” as Miss Kingsley calls him— Peters con- 
 tracted a warm friendship. The young artist, who was then residing at Arras, 
 persuaded his friend Dinaux to invite Peters there. Mons. See states that Boilly and 
 Peters subsequently had a coolness over a love-affair, Mile. Marie Deligne, who after- 
 wards married Boilly, being the cause of the disagreement between the two friends. 
 Despite this rupture of their intimacy, the influence of Boilly’s art on that of Peters 
 was considerable. The Frenchman was an accomplished painter, as can be seen by 
 the three delightful examples of him — quite among his finest works — in the Wallace 
 collection, or his well-known “Arrivee D’une Diligence ” in the Louvre. 
 
 Peters’s style to the end of his life retained traces of French inspiration and 
 influence. We see this especially in some of his studies of female portraiture, as, for 
 instance, the charming “ Mrs. Gibson,” in which the free and elusive treatment and light 
 and subtle combination of tones of mauve and pink recall distinctly the work of the 
 later eighteenth-century French school; while the “Lady in a white dress,” sold at 
 Christie’s in 1910, is suggestive of Fragonard, whose pictures Peters had probably seen 
 and studied in Paris. 
 
 I must close this chapter with a curious anecdote from the Freemasons' Magazine 
 for 1794 relative to Peters’s sojourn in France. It is as follows: “A circumstance 
 happened while Mr. Peters was at Paris on this occasion which deserves to be mentioned, 
 as it shows what a surprising change has since taken place in that country. The Duke of 
 Manchester was at this period Ambassador from England to the Court of France, and 
 an acquaintance commenced between his Grace and Mr. Peters, which only ended with 
 the life of the former. While the Duke was in Paris he asked permission of the Queen 
 of France for Mr. Peters to paint a portrait of the Dauphin. Trifling as this request 
 seemed to be, it occasioned a Council to be held, in which it was debated whether the 
 health of the Dauphin might be affected by the smell of even the small quantity of 
 paint which would necessarily lie upon the pallet while the picture was proceeding. 
 This important point was decided in the affirmative, notice of which was sent in a 
 complimentary card from Madame de Polignac to the Duke of Manchester in the name 
 of the Queen. What a dreadful proof of the vicissitudes of life and the instability 
 of fortune has been seen in the fate of that Queen and her family within the space 
 of twelve years ! ” 
 
 A further result of the friendship of Peters with the Duke of Manchester was 
 shown in the portrait of the latter which the artist contributed to the Royal Academy 
 of 1785. It was a full-length portrait, representing the Duke as Grand Master of 
 the Masons in full robes and holding a compass. It was engraved by Leney. Both 
 this and the portrait of “ Lord Petre ” — also as Grand Master — which hung in the 
 same exhibition, were painted by Peters for presentation to the Freemasons’ Hall, 
 where they were ultimately destroyed in the fire of 1883. His third picture at the 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 13 
 
 Academy was his charming “ Fortune Teller,” which was engraved by J. R. Smith. 
 In this picture Peters essayed a theme which had been previously treated by Reynolds, 
 and in this instance at least showed himself the superior of that artist. The latter’s 
 version of the subject — by no means one of his best works — was forced and theatrical, 
 while that of Peters was charmingly natural. A contemporary criticism of the three 
 pictures by Peters, taken from the Artists' Magazine of 1785, states : “ The Rev. William 
 Peters, R.A., still possesses his former merits; the ripeness of this master’s colouring 
 is heightened (which it does not require) by the coldness of most of the pictures in the 
 room. We are glad to see the spirit of his works, but should still more admire them 
 had his portraits less pomposity.” 
 
 These were the last pictures Peters sent to the Academy, though he did not wholly 
 cease to exhibit, for in 1807 he was represented on the walls of the British Institution 
 by a smaller version of “ The Fortune Teller,” 2 ft. 6 in. by 3 ft. 10 in., the measure- 
 ment including the dimensions of the frame. By that time, however, he had long 
 given up his standing as a professional artist, for he resigned his membership of the 
 Royal Academy in 1788. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 HE motives which led Peters to relinquish his artistic ambitions at the 
 zenith of his career to become a clergyman appear to have been prudential 
 rather than religious. Yet one must suppose that he had always possessed 
 a strong inclination for the Church, otherwise they scarcely appear to be 
 adequate. The time he selected for his retirement must have synchronised 
 with the receipt of many profitable commissions. That Peters evidently intended to 
 take his new duties seriously is shown by the fact that after 1778 he practically ceased 
 exhibiting, showing only six pictures at the Academy between that date and his 
 resignation of the Academy membership in 1790. It is hardly to be supposed that 
 an artist of his talents could relinquish the active pursuit of his profession and lay 
 aside his hardly-won honours without being inspired by some loftier motive than that 
 of mere pecuniary gain. Contemporary literature has something to say on this strange 
 change of career. A writer of a notice on Peters in the Freemasons' Magazine for 1795 
 remarks : “ On his second return to this country he (Peters) was soon admitted in the Royal 
 Academy as a Royal Academician. By this time it would seem that Mr. Peters had 
 satisfied his enthusiasm for painting, for even the academical honour, the highest 
 that an artist of Britain or any other country can attain, had not charms enough to 
 induce him to continue in that respectable fraternity, and he evidently felt a sense of 
 the more important station to which his parents first intended to devote him.” 
 
 John Taylor, one of Peters’s friends, and later on, as we shall see, his marriage 
 witness, has much to say on this curious change. After stating that Peters, when he 
 became a clergyman, resigned his situation as a Royal Academician, conceiving that 
 it would be unsuitable to his clerical function, and that on his resignation Reynolds 
 and the Council appointed him chaplain of that institution as a mark of respect and 
 consideration, Taylor goes on to relate: “ Mr. Peters told me that besides the propriety 
 of resigning his academical honour, he was induced to relinquish his profession of 
 an artist by the following circumstance. A lady of quality having requested he 
 would recommend her to a good landscape painter, as she wanted a couple of pictures 
 of that description, he replied that, considering Richard Wilson as the best painter 
 of landscapes, he recommended him. The lady then desired that he would accompany 
 her to the painter’s house. He accordingly went with her, and found the artist at 
 home. The lady desired to see some specimens of his skill, and Wilson had luckily 
 not sent home two pictures which he had just finished, and brought them to her. Peters 
 said he was afraid that Wilson’s bold style and rough colouring would not be suitable 
 to female taste, and that the lady would not be duly impressed with the grandeur 
 of his conceptions, that he therefore placed them at some distance, in order to make 
 them appear to more advantage. The lady, however, happened to be struck with 
 
 14 
 
MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 i5 
 
 them, and gave him a commission to paint two landscapes at a liberal price on subjects 
 chosen by himself. As Peters was going to hand the lady into her carriage, not 
 intending to return with her, Wilson whispered that he wanted to speak to him. Peters, 
 of course, returned with him. Wilson, after thanking him warmly for his kind recom- 
 mendation, told him he was so distressed that if Peters would not lend him ten guineas 
 he could not fulfil the order, as he had no money to buy colours or canvas. Peters 
 promised he would send the money to him as soon as he reached home. Peters assured 
 me that the distress of this great artist produced a strong effect upon his mind, for 
 if Wilson, who was decidedly the best painter in his province of art, was so reduced, 
 what must he expect, who had so many rivals of distinguished talent in the line of 
 portrait ? ” 
 
 Allan Cunningham tells the same story, not giving Peters’s name, but describing 
 him, not wholly accurately, as a " student in art,” and subsequently speaking of him 
 as a “ youth,” a term scarcely adequate for a man who was nearing forty. After 
 relating how Wilson detained him, Cunningham goes on to relate that the great land- 
 scape painter looked feelingly in the youth’s face and said, “Your kindness is all in 
 vain. I am wholly destitute. I cannot even purchase proper canvas and colour for 
 these paintings.” The young man gave him twenty pounds — for he was related to 
 rich people — then went home, and said to himself, “When Wilson, with all his genius, 
 starves, what will become of me?” He laid palette and pencil aside, pursued his 
 studies at College, and rose high in the Church. Cunningham lays the scene of the 
 episode in Wilson’s lodgings, “ a small room somewhere about Tottenham Court Road.” 
 
 It must have been during his residence at Oxford that the artist made the acquaintance 
 of Joseph White, the great Orientalist and theologian. Peters seems to have studied 
 White’s works and to have much admired his friend’s abilities, for he painted the great 
 scholar’s portrait, and there is an interesting entry in the “ Catalogue of Portraits in the 
 Picture Gallery in the Bodleian Library ” made by John Gutch, and published in 1796 in 
 his edition of Wood’s History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford. The entry 
 runs : “ This portrait of the Rev. Joseph White, B.D., Archbishop Laud’s Professor of 
 Arabic, is painted and presented by the Rev. Wm. Peters, R.A., as a mark of his respect 
 to the University and of the singular regard he has for so great and able an advocate 
 for Christianity, 1785.” No doubt this inscription was on the back of the portrait, 
 which was applied for by the relatives of the Professor and returned to them. 
 
 Another great scholar, in the person of the celebrated Richard Porson, also crossed 
 Peters’s path at this time, for that curious individual was at Oxford in 1782, and in 
 John Taylor’s Records of My Life there is a curious account of a supper party given 
 by Peters to these two eminent men. 
 
 Porson, on this occasion, seems to have been anything but a pleasant guest, for 
 Taylor says: “The first time I met this literary Leviathan (Porson) was at the house 
 of the Rev. Mr. Peters one evening, when He was accompanied by Dr. White, the author 
 of the celebrated Bampton Lectures. . . . Whether Porson was drunk when I met 
 
 him on this occasion, or whether he intentionally showed his contempt for the doctor, 
 Mr. Peters, and myself, I know not, but he did not once join in conversation, and kept 
 
i6 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 playing with a little dog all the time he was present, except when oysters and brandy 
 and water were introduced ; then the dog was deserted, and the oysters came into play. 
 When he had finished with these, he resorted to the brandy, and resumed his attention 
 to the dog. For myself, I did not mind his indifference, but was shocked to see such 
 contemptuous negligence towards his host, Mr. Peters, and Dr. White, his friend. The 
 dog and the brandy and water wholly engrossed his attention. He did not quit the 
 house till a late hour. Dr. White seemed to view the conduct of his friend with 
 composure, as if it was nothing extraordinary, but ‘ his custom ever of an afternoon.’ 
 Mr. Peters, on the contrary, justly considered it as rude, contemptuous, and insolent.” * 
 It was at Oxford that Peters encountered Gifford, the future founder and editor of 
 the Quarterly Review, whose translations of Juvenal and Persius showed both scholar- 
 ship and poetical vigour. The artist is said to have “ improved his classical knowledge 
 and prepared himself for the sacred calling” by aid of Gifford’s assistance. The 
 intimacy of the two men continued for some time, but was broken up by a fierce quarrel, 
 which aroused considerable comment at the time, and was the occasion of several 
 scurrilous paragraphs in the biography of the artist, which appeared in No. 12 of 
 The Arts. It appears to have arisen over the friendship of Earl Grosvenor, with whom 
 Peters — before he went to college — held a close acquaintanceship. The artist is said 
 to have painted several pictures of a risquf nature for the Earl, and, according to the 
 Dictionary of National Biography , after he had taken holy orders, became his 
 chaplain. Of this latter fact, however, I have not been able to obtain any con- 
 firmation, though the Duke of Westminster very kindly had the records searched 
 at Eaton to see if there was any entry bearing on the alleged appointment. Peters, 
 when at Oxford, acted as governor to Lord Belgrave, Lord Grosvenor’s eldest son. 
 According to the friends of Peters, the reverend artist introduced the young noble- 
 man to Gifford, and the latter repaid his kindness by ousting Peters from his post 
 and procuring it for himself. John Taylor’s account of the matter is: “When Peters 
 quitted Oxford he continued to correspond with Gifford, who remained there; and, 
 to save the expense of postage, Peters obtained franks from Lord Grosvenor for his 
 letters to Gifford, and his Lordship permitted the letters of Gifford to Peters to pass 
 under cover to his Lordship. On one occasion Gifford forgot to seal his letter to 
 Peters, and Lord Grosvenor frankly confessed that he had the curiosity to read it. 
 His Lordship was so struck by the literary merit of this letter that he thought the 
 author would be a proper travelling tutor for his son, the present Lord Grosvenor. 
 He therefore desired Peters to invite Gifford to London, where he soon received an 
 invitation to reside at his Lordship’s house in Grosvenor Square. Gifford was shortly 
 appointed tutor to Lord Belgrave, and afterwards accompanied his noble pupil abroad.” 
 Taylor then goes on to say that while Peters and Gifford were friends, the former 
 considered the unsealed letter as an accident, but when they quarrelled, Peters repre- 
 sented it as an artifice by which Gifford had tempted the curiosity of Lord Grosvenor, 
 for Gifford “ had taken, it seems, uncommon pains with the letter, in order,” as Peters 
 alleged, “to make a forcible impression on his Lordship, and his plan succeeded.” 
 
 * Records of my Life, vol. i., p. 239. 
 
BELINDA (Miss Bampfylde). 
 
 From the Mezzotint by W. Dunkarton. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 .(aajYiq^AM sbhyi; ^ i ' 1KKlu 
 
 i , - • «-•*. ’ w .5 - . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 17 
 
 Gifford, in fact, ousted Peters from his post and procured it for himself. “ Pasquin 
 damns both parties with strict impartiality, not to say scurrility; while Dr. John 
 Wolcot, better known to posterity as Peter Pindar, paints Gifford in the blacker 
 colours.” * 
 
 What followed can best be told in the words of Taylor, who is a mine of infor- 
 mation on this somewhat sordid affair : “ Gifford had become acquainted with Mr. 
 Hoppner, the painter, and had introduced him at Grosvenor House. This circum- 
 stance, no doubt, must have displeased Peters, who knew that Hoppner was of a very 
 satirical turn, and spared nobody. What hastened the extinction of the friendship 
 between Peters and Gifford I know not, except that Gifford and Hoppner, as Peters 
 said, had undermined him in the estimation of Lord Grosvenor, and forced him to 
 relinquish his connection with his Lordship. At length there was an open rupture 
 between the former friends. 
 
 “Gifford was accused by Peters of having, in a public newspaper, ridiculed his 
 pictures in the Royal Academy exhibition, assisted by the professional suggestions of 
 Hoppner. I remember to have read a critique of this description on a picture of 
 Adam and Eve in Paradise, which was remarkably humorous and severe. Mr. Combe, 
 who was a friend to both parties, at length interfered to prevent further hostilities, 
 but failing, he signified that unless Lord Grosvenor put a stop to this persecution of 
 his old friend Peters, he would write an heroic epistle to Lord Grosvenor from his 
 repudiated lady. As Mr. Combe was known to possess a powerful pen, and was a 
 zealous friend to Peters, this intimation was conveyed to his Lordship, who then inter- 
 posed, and requested that all this literary warfare should end, and from that time they 
 were content to abuse each other in private. 
 
 “ By this time I had become very well acquainted with Gifford, and frequently 
 heard the complaints of both parties. It was curious to find that their accusations 
 against each other were exactly the same. They each charged the other with mean 
 and disgraceful subserviency to the vices of Lord Grosvenor. It is certain that Peters, 
 before he took holy orders, and probably while he was not in a very prosperous state, 
 painted some subjects for the noble lord which were far from being of a decorous 
 nature.” (This statement probably refers to the picture of “ Lydia,” already men- 
 tioned.) “ But who is to blame, the rich man who suggested such subjects, or the poor 
 one who stood in need of his patronage? . . . On the other hand, Peters charged 
 
 Gifford with a pliant subserviency to those vices of his patron which had dictated 
 the subjects in question. ... I have often, though with caution, sounded both as 
 to the possibility of effecting a reconciliation, but found it a hopeless matter, and 
 therefore never acknowledged to either that I had seen the other, and avoided a subject 
 which was mournful and disgusting.” 
 
 * Skipton’s Life of Hoppner. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 the period that Peters took holy orders, the Church of England was in a 
 state of profound spiritual torpor. John Wesley, who had been excluded 
 from its pulpits forty years earlier, had just taken the decisive step of 
 legally constituting the Wesleyan organization a separate and independent 
 church, and by so doing had closed the last avenue of its reunion with 
 the Church of England. When it is remembered how strongly he had been attached 
 to the latter body, and how reluctant to weaken his connection with it, the fact is of 
 great significance. More significant still is the apathy of the Church in permitting 
 many thousands of zealous and God-fearing Christians to form an independent com- 
 munion without making an effort to retain or attract them within its fold. The Church, 
 indeed, for the time being had sunk to the level of a respectable profession, whose 
 ministers hardly followed a higher standard of morality than that current at the Bar. 
 Its richest benefices were generally awarded from considerations of friendship or 
 politics, while the cure of souls was more or less practised by deputy, incumbents often 
 holding several livings and employing ill-paid curates to do their parochial work. 
 Judged by the standard of his day, Peters possessed all the necessary qualifications 
 for a clerical life. In that age of laxity his personal morality appears to have been 
 unimpugned; his religious beliefs were sincere; he was well educated and talented, 
 and, so far as can be judged, fully qualified to preach a good sermon or write a religious 
 treatise; while, though doubtlessly he had been influenced by monetary considerations 
 in adopting the Church, his disposition appears to have been far from mercenary, 
 and there can be no doubt but that, in his new vocation, he endeavoured to do his duty 
 according to his lights. Unfortunately, the gap between clericalism and art was far 
 wider than that existing at the present time. The Church, while discarding much of 
 the devoutness and spiritual earnestness of the old puritanism, still retained its narrow- 
 ness, and more especially its distaste for ornate ritual and the beautification of the 
 interiors of religious edifices. A few years before, Bishop Terrick had declined, on 
 purely Protestant grounds, the offer of Sir Joshua Reynolds and other members of the 
 Royal Academy to adorn St. Paul’s Cathedral with religious pictures. To the bulk of 
 the ministry of the Church of England, religious art of all descriptions savoured of 
 Popery and profane art as frivolity ; and thus Peters, in becoming a clergyman, had 
 placed a formidable barrier against the exercise of his own special talents. 
 
 In the Dictionary of "National Biography , 1783 is given as the date of Peters’s 
 ordination, but Mr. Claude Jenkins, the librarian at Lambeth Palace, who very kindly 
 looked up the matter in the archives under his care, found it recorded in them that 
 Peters was ordained deacon by the Bishop of Lincoln (Dr. Thomas Thurlow) on 
 June loth, 1781, and ordained priest by the same prelate on May 6th, 1782. 
 
 18 
 
MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 i9 
 
 As far as we know, he seems to have wished, after his ordination, to turn his 
 artistic talents to good account, and he now began to produce those religious pictures 
 which, judging from the number of engravings which exist of them, must have enjoyed 
 an enormous contemporary popularity. The first of these was “ An Angel carrying 
 the Spirit of a Child to Paradise.” It was painted in 1782— after his ordination — for 
 Lord Exeter, and is still at Burghley, a fine replica of the picture which the artist 
 subsequently painted being now in the possession of Lord Newlands. The angel is 
 a portrait of Mary Isabella, wife of Charles, fourth Duke of Rutland, and the child 
 represents Charlotte, daughter of Sir Thomas Dundas, subsequently Lord Dundas. 
 
 Peter Pindar (Dr. Wolcot) wrote the following verses concerning it, in which the 
 satirist did not do the work much less than justice: — 
 
 “ Dear Peters ! who, like Luke the Saint, 
 
 A man of Gospel, art, and paint, 
 
 Thy pencil flames not with poetic fury ; 
 
 If Heav’n’s fair angels are like thine, 
 
 Our bucks, I think, O grave Divine, 
 
 May meet in t’other world the nymphs of Drury. 
 
 “The infant soul I do not much admire: 
 
 It boasteth somewhat more of flesh than fire; 
 
 The picture, Peters, cannot much adorn ye. 
 
 I’m glad, though, that the little red -fac’d sinner, 
 
 Poor soul ! hath made a hearty dinner 
 Before it ventur’d on so long a journey.” 
 
 Despite adverse criticism, the picture was a great popular success. Peters produced 
 a companion work, “ The Spirit of a Child arriving in the Presence of the Almighty,” 
 and, as a centre-piece, “The Resurrection of a Pious Family at the Last Day.” The 
 latter work, after many vicissitudes, was won in a raffle by Cardinal Manning’s father 
 at the cost of a sovereign, and by him presented to Totteridge Church, Hants, where 
 it still is. 
 
 These pictures not only enhanced Peters’s reputation as an artist with the public, 
 but probably paved his way to ecclesiastical preferment. It will be remembered that, 
 in 1782, Charles, Duke of Rutland, had commissioned Peters to copy Le Brun’s master- 
 piece of “ Madam de la Valliere.” The Duchess, as already mentioned, had sat to the 
 artist for the angel in the picture of “ The Spirit of a Child.” The Duke now returned 
 these attentions of the artist by presenting him in 1784 to the living of Seal ford, in 
 Leicestershire, one of his last benefactions to the painter, for his short but brilliant 
 career was cut short by his death in 1787. His widow, Mary Isabella, who so often 
 furnished a theme for Peters’s pictures, appeared as much interested in furthering 
 the artist’s clerical career as her late husband, for in 1788 she presented him to the 
 Rectory of Knipton, a richer benefice than that of Seal ford, its estimated yearly 
 value being about one hundred and thirty pounds. The two places are within 
 
20 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 a few miles of each other, and quite near to Belvoir Castle, the home of the 
 Manners family. Peters’s clerical preferment did not escape the attention of the wits 
 of the time, whose barbs were accentuated by the artist’s connection with the Prince 
 of Wales, then the target of most of the lampoons of the day, for whom he had 
 painted the ceilings of Carlton House. It was then unkindly prophesied that Peters 
 would fail at the sky, because it was so long since he had looked towards heaven. 
 Now it was stated in the Press that the reverend gentleman was collecting all the 
 “luxurious wanderings” of his pencil, and destroying them as fast as they came into 
 his possession. “ Such virtuous conduct,” adds a writer in one of the papers, “ is highly 
 meritorious, and furnishes an admirable example to many dissipated sprigs of divinity 
 at the present day.” Whether for setting such an example, or because of merits less 
 patent to the world in general, is not known, but the Duke of Rutland nominated 
 the reverend painter of Venuses to a living, and the Bishop of Lincoln conferred a 
 prebendal stall on the artist who had executed so audacious a “ Lydia in Bed ” that 
 it had to be covered with a transparent material that is generally appropriated to the 
 sleeves of episcopal dignitaries. 
 
 The prebend alluded to was that of St. Mary Crackpool in Lincoln Cathedral, 
 which he subsequently exchanged for the more valuable one of Langford. This, 
 however, is anticipating matters. In extenuation of Peters’s lax views concerning 
 pluralities, it may be urged that they were the rule rather than the exception among 
 the clergymen of the day. Crabbe, the poet, was a notorious offender in this respect, 
 and it is practically certain that he and Peters came frequently into contact. The 
 former was chaplain at Belvoir Castle in 1783, from where he brought out his poem 
 of “ The Village”; and, later on, was instituted to the vicarage of Stathern, a village 
 not far from Knipton. No record of the acquaintanceship of poet and painter has 
 been handed down, and it probably was not intimate, Crabbe, who has been aptly 
 styled “ nature’s sternest painter,” having probably little in common with the more 
 romantically inclined artist. It is, moreover, not unlikely that they regarded each 
 other as rivals for the valuable ecclesiastical patronage of the Manners family. 
 
 While Crabbe was chaplain at Belvoir, the widowed Duchess of Rutland appointed 
 Peters curator of the fine collection of pictures at the Castle, of which he wrote an 
 account for the History of Leicestershire by John Nichols, published in 1795. It is 
 too greatly influenced by the then prevailing taste for the pictures of the later Italian 
 schools to be of value at the present time, but the artist’s criticism of Reynolds is worth 
 quoting, both as showing Peters’s whole-hearted admiration of him, and the opinion 
 which was entertained of the works of the first President of the Academy by his 
 contemporaries. 
 
 Peters writes : “ Reynolds, the first, and as yet chief, of the British school, holds 
 a distinguished rank among his brethren of the pencil ; and by the classic arrange- 
 ment of his figures, the grouping of his angels, the beauty of his colouring, and the 
 distribution of his light and shade in his picture of ‘ The Nativity,’ takes the palm 
 of victory from one of the best pictures Rubens ever painted, which hangs opposite to 
 it, in seeming competition with this unrivalled work of our British artist.” 
 
TWO CHILDREN WITH A JAY IN A CAGE 
 
 Front the collection at Belvoir Castle 
 
 By kind permission of llis Grace The Duke of Rutland 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 21 
 
 The same year, 1784, that Peters was presented to the Rectory of Seal ford, he was 
 appointed Chaplain to the Royal Academy, an honour that may have been influenced 
 by the fact that he already held a similar appointment to the Prince of Wales. He 
 held the office, which then carried with it an annual salary of £30, until 1788. Peter 
 Pindar, in his Farewell Odes for ry86, mentions the artist as being present at the 
 Academy banquet in this year. He describes how, at the greedy behaviour of the 
 Academicians, 
 
 “ Peters most justly rais’d his eyes of wonder, 
 
 And wanted decently to give them grace; 
 
 But, bent on ven’son and turbot plunder, 
 
 A clattering peal of knives and forks took place; 
 
 Spoons, plates, and dishes rattling round the table, 
 
 Produc’d a new edition of Old Babel. 
 
 They had no stomach o’er a grace to nod, 
 
 Nor time enough to offer thanks to God.” 
 
 Peters, however, was severing his connection with the Academy. His last pictures 
 exhibited there were the portraits of the Duke of Manchester and Lord Petre, 
 each as Grand Master of the Freemasons. As already mentioned, these works were 
 painted for presentation to the Grand Lodge. On the recommendation of the Duke 
 of Manchester, Deputy Grand Master, the title of Grand Portrait Painter was conferred 
 on the artist for his generous donation. Brother Gould, in his great history, as quoted 
 by Mr. William Dixon in his History of Freemasonry in Lincolnshire, says: “The 
 Grand Portrait Painter ranked after the Grand Architect and before the Grand Sword 
 Bearer. The office was regarded as a purely personal one, to be held by Peters 
 quamdiu se bene gesserit, and though his name is not included in the list of annual 
 appointments declared on the Grand Feast Day, it duly appears among those of the 
 Grand Officers of the Society published in successive editions of the Freemasons' 
 Calendar from 1787 to 1814.” 
 
 The portraits of the Duke of Manchester and Lord Petre apparently were much 
 admired, and a proposition was made that they should Be engraved, and the plates 
 sold for the benefit of Masonic charities. This occurred during the exhibition of 
 the pictures at the Royal Academy. Peters, whose generous disposition always placed 
 him in the best light where charity was concerned, warmly took up the idea. In a 
 letter to Mr. Grand Secretary White, dated from Welbeck Street, June 26th, 1785, 
 he wrote : — 
 
 “ Dear Sir, 
 
 “ The more I consider the proposition you threw out to me (the portraits of the 
 Grand Officers to be engraved on account of the Society, and the plates to remain 
 their property, and be printed off for the use and benefit of the charity), the more 
 pleased I am with the idea, and a new pleasure presents itself to me, that I have not 
 only been the means of setting on foot a scheme for ornamenting the hall, but through 
 that channel open’d a flattering prospect of future comfort to brethren in distress. 
 
22 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 “ I do request, therefore, Sir, that you do me the honour to present my respectful 
 compliments to the gentlemen of the Committee of the Grand Lodge, and to assure 
 them that with a heart such as a Mason should have, I joyfully unite in every measure 
 that tends to promote that good to our fellow-creature which exalts the man and does 
 so much honour to them. 
 
 “ Should the Committee wish for any professional information or assistance in 
 carrying on this work wherein I could be of the least service, their commands shall 
 be obeyed with the same pleasure by me which they themselves feel when charity calls 
 out to them for relief, and they have it in their power to give. 
 
 “ I am, with the greatest esteem, 
 
 “ Dear Sir, 
 
 “ Your sincerely affectionate Brother and Servant, 
 
 “ Wm. Peters.” 
 
 The project of making the engravings was apparently not carried out, as the only 
 engraving I have come across of either of the pictures is the small one by Leney of 
 the “ Duke of Manchester,” which was used as a book illustration. 
 
 In 1787 the Prince of Wales was initiated into Masonry, and, shortly afterwards, 
 the well-known lodge (No. 238) called after his name was founded by several of his 
 friends and admirers. Membership of this was at first restricted to those who were 
 either in the service of the Prince or warmly attached to his person and interests. 
 Peters, who was appointed secretary of the lodge, and was in all probability one of the 
 original founders, may be said to have come under both descriptions, for he was 
 Chaplain to the Prince — an office to which he had been appointed through the influence 
 of the Duke of Manchester — and always showed the most devoted loyalty to his person. 
 As secretary he sent the first list of members to Grand Lodge. It is dated May 10th, 
 1788, and the remarks columns contain some amusing comments on various of the 
 members. The ubiquitous Thomas Dunckerley, who is said to have originally induced 
 Peters to join the fraternity, is described as : “ 63, gentleman, Hampton Court ; some- 
 thing royal about him.” This last allusion is to Dunckerley’s paternal origin, for he 
 was acknowledged as an illegitimate son of George II., and greatly resembled his 
 father in appearance. More than any man of his day he was responsible for the spread 
 of Masonry, not only in England, but in the British Colonies; and he was then acting 
 as Provincial Grand Master for eight or ten different districts. The artistic element was 
 fairly well represented, for besides Peters himself there was John Hickey, the sculptor, 
 then engaged in modelling a figure of “Time” to support a clock at Carlton House, 
 and described as a “very genteel young man”; Henry Holland, architect, “a comely 
 man ”; and Peters’s old friend, William Dickinson, the engraver, set down as “a well- 
 looking dark man.” Another member with whom Peters was previously acquainted 
 was William Addington, whom he had painted several years back. The artist records 
 him on his list as “Justice of the Peace,” with the appended warning, “Visit him not 
 in Bow Street.” He sets down his age as 50, but this is either a mistake or a piece of 
 delicate flattery, for the magistrate — who was subsequently knighted — was then 59. 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 23 
 
 During this year Peters’s activity in the Masonic world was by no means confined 
 to his labours in connection with the Prince of Wales Lodge. Not content with 
 painting the portraits of the Duke of Manchester and Lord Petre for presentation 
 to the Grand Lodge, he appears to have offered to make one of George III. to hang 
 in front of the organ at the Freemasons’ Tavern, and so save the authorities the expense 
 of decorating it. The following minute of the Hall Committee, dated Thursday, 
 June 7th, 1787, shows that this offer was gratefully accepted : “ The Committee, recon- 
 sidering the design made by Mr. Green for the front of the organ, were of opinion that 
 it would be too expensive to be adopted at present, and upon an idea suggested by 
 the Rev. Mr. Peters for finishing the organ in an elegant manner at a little expense, 
 and this very obliging offer to present the Society with a portrait of His Majesty to 
 place over the centre of it, it was thereupon ‘ resolved unanimously ’ that the thanks 
 of the Committee be given to the Rev. Mr. Peters for his very kind offer of His Majesty’s 
 portrait, and that the finishing of the front of the organ be left to his direction.” 
 
 This picture is the only survivor of the several portraits which Peters presented 
 to Grand Lodge, the remainder having been burnt in the fire which devastated the 
 Hall in 1883. 
 
 The artist for some years did not allow his clerical duties to interfere unduly 
 with his painting, and one suspects, from the number and importance of the pictures 
 he produced for Boydell’s Shakespeare, that he performed them almost wholly by 
 deputy. It may be remembered that in 1786 Alderman John Boy dell started a scheme 
 for a splendid edition of Shakespeare , to be illustrated by all the chief exponents of 
 English art. In Bemrose’s Life of Wright of Derby, an interesting correspondence 
 is given between that artist and Boydell, which throws an instructive light on the prices 
 which the publisher paid for the pictures, and the difficulties he had to contend with 
 arising from the jealousy of the various artists — difficulties which, it must be pointed 
 out, in fairness to Peters, who was one of the most enthusiastic and successful con- 
 tributors to the work, he had no share in originating. Wright painted two pictures 
 for the book, his “ Ferdinand and Miranda,” 12 ft. by 8 ft. 6 in., for which he received 
 300 guineas, and a smaller work, “ The Storm in the Winter’s Tale,” for which 140 guineas 
 was paid. The scheme was discussed at a meeting held at Boydell’s Gallery in 
 November, 1786, when it was apparently arranged that the artists employed were to 
 be divided into classes, and paid according to their precedence; those of the first class, 
 according to Wright, consisting of Sir Joshua, Mr. West, Mr. Romney, etc., and Wright 
 himself. The latter was much aggrieved to find that Sir Joshua had been given 
 “ 5°° guineas for his small picture, and a very considerable fee besides,” and that 
 Mr. West had also received “ 500 guineas,” and pleaded for similar terms, which 
 Boydell flatly refused to give. In the correspondence it is mentioned that Northcote 
 received 250 guineas for one of his pictures. 
 
 Peters’s contribution to the work consisted of no less than five pictures, which 
 were regarded as among his finest productions. These were two scenes from The 
 Merry Wives of Windsor — “Mrs. Page reading a letter” and “Falstaff in the buck- 
 basket”; “Hero, Ursula, and Beatrice,” from Much Ado About Nothing; and two 
 
24 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 scenes from Henry VIII . — “ Queen Catherine with some of her women at work” and 
 the “ Christening of Princess Elizabeth.” It is not known what Boydell paid for them. 
 In June, 1786, he had given the artist one hundred and fifty guineas for his picture 
 of “ The Three Holy Children,” but this was a more simple and probably a smaller 
 work than any of the Shakespearian themes. One may hazard the guess that Peters 
 was paid for the latter at about the same rate as Wright of Derby .for his large 
 picture, which was similar in size to them, viz., £315. Northcote, who had been 
 content with fifty guineas less, was only newly elected to the Royal Academy, and had 
 hardly attained the same rank in art. A confirmation of this idea may be found in 
 the fact that Macklin, when he brought out his Milton in emulation of Boydell’s 
 Shakespeare , commissioned Peters to paint “ Adam’s first sight of Eve,” for which he 
 paid a like amount. For another work by the artist, “ The Death-bed of the Just,” 
 to illustrate Young’s Night Thoughts , he raised the price to £420. 
 
 Peters appears to have drawn upon himself the censure of the Church authorities 
 for painting his Shakespearian subjects, for in a letter dated 1790, written to George 
 Nichol, Esq., Pall Mall, respecting an application from Mr. Boydell to paint another 
 picture for the gallery, he expresses his willingness to do so “ if it would not give 
 offence to the heads of his profession, who had already expressed some displeasure 
 on the subject.” Peters, with some justice, goes on to say: “For my own part, I can 
 see no more harm in painting from that author (Shakespeare) than Bishop Warburton 
 did in commenting, nor ought I to be more subject to the censures of my superiors 
 for amusing myself with such painting than as good a man and divine as lives (the 
 Bishop of Llandaff) has been in the pursuit of his chemical researches.” 
 
 It is to Peters’s credit that his relations with Boydell appear to have been always 
 of the most friendly character, for few artists whom the great publisher employed 
 but at one time or another quarrelled with him. In later life it is said that their 
 constitutional infirmities rarely permitted them to meet. Boydell, suffering from a 
 weakness of the chest, dare not expose himself to the cold winds of Leicestershire; 
 whilst Peters, who was subject to asthma, could only occasionally venture into the 
 confined atmosphere of London. 
 
LADY CHARLOTTE BERTIE. 
 
 From the . Mezzotint by W. Dickinson. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .'dixH&H TOjMf.no ru/-,j 
 
 ...... . ^ . ( 1 /,/ v i »i'v i 'rnvt 1 ! / M WT l/OM '1 
 
 
 
 
 
 .rm/m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f oni i/i'p 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 T was not until 1790 that Peters may be said to have relinquished his art 
 as a profession and definitely taken up his clerical career. He retired 
 from the active pursuit of painting when he was at the height of his 
 reputation, which his Shakespearian pictures had much enhanced. That 
 they were evidently regarded as among the chief attractions of the 
 Shakespeare Gallery is shown by Wheatley’s water-colour drawing of the exhibition 
 room at the South Kensington Museum, in which two of them, “ Mrs. Ford and Mrs. 
 Page reading Falstaff’s Love Letters” and the scene from Much Ado About Nothing, 
 are shown conspicuously in the background; the works by other artists depicted being 
 so sketchily treated that it is almost impossible to identify them. 
 
 Peters’s first step towards severing his active connection with the arts was his 
 resignation of his membership of the Royal Academy, which took place in 1788. In 
 the same year he accepted a third benefice — that of Woolsthorpe, in Lincolnshire, a 
 couple of miles north-east of his parish of Knipton, and still nearer to Belvoir Castle. 
 The estimated value of the living was £140 a year, so that probably his net income 
 from his three benefices would be only slightly over three hundred pounds, out of which 
 he paid the salary of at least one curate. As a proof that the holding of pluralities was 
 not then considered reprehensible, it may be mentioned that Bishop Watson, of Llandaff, 
 whom Peters considered “ as good a man and divine as lives,” was the holder of sixteen 
 livings, worth £2,000 a year, and during his episcopacy of thirty-four years, lasting from 
 1782 to 1816, he never once resided in his diocese, because he said there was no suitable 
 house for him. If, then, Peters considered such a clergyman as a model, he was living 
 up to his ideals in following his example on a much smaller scale. Peters’s marriage 
 synchronized with his retirement from the Academy, and doubtlessly influenced his 
 desire to change his role of a distinguished London artist for that of a country clergy- 
 man. He married when he was forty-eight, his bride being Miss Margaret Susannah 
 Knowsley, daughter and co-heiress of the Rev. John Fleming, of Burton Fleming, 
 co. York. Contemporary literature states that this lady was a niece of the distinguished 
 physician, Dr. Turton, who attended Goldsmith on his death-bed, and was supposed to 
 have a romantic attachment for the Duchess of Gloucester; he was physician to 
 George III. and his family. Peters and Miss Knowsley were married at St. James’s, 
 Piccadilly, on the 28th of April, 1790. The Bishop of Peterborough (Dr. Hinchcliffe) 
 performed the rite, and the witnesses were Richard Penneck and John Taylor. The 
 former gentleman is mentioned by John Taylor, who tells us that he was “chaplain 
 to the Earl of Godolphin and one of the officers of the British Museum. He was an 
 irritable but an honourable man.” John Taylor was one of Peters’s greatest friends, 
 while Peters had recently painted a fine portrait of the Bishop of Peterborough, which 
 perhaps accounts for the latter performing the ceremony. 
 
 25 
 
26 MATTHEW WILLIAM; PETERS, R.A. 
 
 The married couple took up their residence at Woolsthorpe Rectory, probably in 
 
 1791, for until that year the entries in the parish books continued to be made by the 
 Rev. W. Bissell, the curate. Peters at once began to show activity in his new sphere. 
 His first care appears to have been to provide a suitable church for his congregation. 
 The then existing building, known as the Chapel of St. Mary, was only a small edifice, 
 which had been erected in the parish after the destruction of the ancient building by 
 Cromwell’s soldiers upon the surrender of Belvoir Castle in the Civil Wars. This 
 Peters proceeded to replace by a larger building. The demolition of the chapel was 
 commenced on the 1 8th of March, 1791, and the interior of the new church was 
 sufficiently finished to allow divine worship to be performed on the 1 8th of August, 
 
 1792. A subsequent addition was the gallery, added during Peters’s regime, and 
 finished in May, 1806. 
 
 He practised painting at his rectory, and there is what appears to be a well- 
 founded tradition that on one occasion he officiated at divine service in the parish 
 church absent-mindedly holding a palette in his hand ! ! 
 
 The reverend artist, however, did not remain long in the country. Several letters 
 which are extant show that in the early part of 1792 he was in town engaged in painting 
 for the Freemasons’ Hall a posthumous portrait of the Duke of Cumberland, the late 
 Grand Master, who died in 1790. 
 
 The following, to Mr. James Gallway, is interesting as showing that Peters thought 
 that Reynolds’s portrait of the Duke was superior to that by Gainsborough. He 
 writes : — 
 
 “ When I waited upon you to see the Portrait of His Royal Highness the late 
 Duke of Cumberland, which Her Royal Highness the Duchess was graciously pleased 
 to permit me to copy, I did not know of any other picture of the Duke (which I could 
 obtain) that would have answered my purpose as well as the one at Cumberland 
 House . . . but I have lately seen a whole-length at Carleton House by Sir 
 Joshua Reynolds, which will have a much greater effect in Freemasons’ Hall than the 
 Picture painted by Gainsborough. 
 
 “ Persuaded as I am that her royal highness’s condescension in granting me leave 
 to paint from her Picture was solely to coincide with the wishes of the Brethren, there 
 can be little doubt of her goodness in permitting me to relinquish the picture by 
 Gainsborough, and giving me leave to take my Copy from that Picture, which will 
 appear best in the great room where it is intended to be placed . . . may I beg 
 
 you will take an opportunity of mentioning this circumstance to her royal highness, 
 and with my humble duty to express my grateful acknowledgments for the permission 
 she was pleased to grant me on that occasion. 
 
 “ W. P.” 
 
 From subsequent correspondence it appears that Peters had his wish granted, 
 for on the 7th of February, 1792, he wrote from Great Newport Street to Mr. William 
 White, the Grand Secretary: — 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 27 
 
 “ Sir, 
 
 “ I have the pleasure to acquaint you that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, 
 ever happy in doing acts of kindness and benevolence, most graciously permitted me 
 (in consequence of the commands which I received from the Hall Committee) to copy 
 the only good picture extant of our late most lamented Grand Master. 
 
 “ The Prince has seen this Copy, and was pleased to approve of it. I have now 
 the honour of submitting it to the inspection of the Committee. 
 
 “ Many Gentlemen of the Society wished for a Portrait to have been taken 
 immediately from the life of a Prince to whom Masonry was so much indebted as it 
 was to the late Duke of Cumberland, and I can never cease lamenting the cause which 
 prevented that very desirable object from being carried into execution, for it was to 
 him Masonry owes those honours which it never knew before his day . . . and it 
 
 was under his Patronage and Protection it arose to such dignity that at his decease 
 a Prince of Wales condescended to fill the vacant Chair. That the Society may long 
 enjoy the great blessing of such a Prince at their head is the sincere wish and prayer 
 of their very humble and affectionate Brother, 
 
 “William Peters.” 
 
 The terms of adulation used by the artist when speaking of the Prince of Wales, 
 though to our present-day ideas savouring of hyperbole, are characteristic of the period, 
 and may be matched in the letters of many of his distinguished contemporaries. 
 The portrait appears to have been a success, for on the 16th of April the artist writes to 
 Mr. White : — 
 
 “ I have received the Letter which, by desire of the Hall Committee, you did me 
 the honour to write to me on the 14th inst., and am happy that the Copy which I sent 
 to them from the Portrait of our late most excellent and sincerely lamented Grand 
 Master has met with their approbation. 
 
 “ From the first moment of my initiation into the Mysteries of Masonry, it has 
 been my constant wish and endeavour to promote on every occasion the Honour and 
 Prosperity of the Craft . . . happy when my feeble efforts were crown’d with 
 
 Success, and happier still when fresh opportunities of being useful presented themselves 
 to me. 
 
 “ You say that the Committee desire to know what they are indebted to me for 
 that Picture . . . permit me, Sir, to request that you would present my most 
 
 affectionate Compliments to them, and to assure them that the pleasure I feel in show- 
 ing my respectful Gratitude to the memory of his late Royal Highness the Duke of 
 Cumberland, and the duty I owe to my Master, the Prince of Wales, and present Grand 
 Master of Masons, is far more grateful to my feelings than any pecuniary return 
 could possibly be. I beg, then, the Society would continue their kind indulgence by 
 accepting of this Picture as a memorial of my attachment to men whose doctrine and 
 principles are Universal Charity, Brotherly Love, and Peace. 
 
 “William Peters.” 
 
28 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 v 
 
 The fervid sentiment of the letter is characteristic of the artist. Whatever Peters’s 
 faults, he appears to have possessed a high character for sincerity and straightforward- 
 ness, whilst he was generous to a fault. His gift of the picture to the Masonic Hall was 
 equivalent to one of eighty guineas, the amount he charged at this period for a full- 
 length portrait. This was a respectable price for a full-length. Northcote, one of the 
 most prominent Academicians of the time, charged the same; Wright of Derby, who con- 
 sidered himself the equal of Reynolds, had had to content himself with fifty guineas 
 from his provincial sitters; and though Reynolds and Romney during the latter part 
 of their careers charged two hundred and one hundred and forty guineas respectively, 
 their terms were wholly exceptional. The great majority of the portrait painters of 
 the period regulated their prices on a fixed scale, according to the sizes of the works 
 produced ; and if Peters — as he probably did — followed this procedure, he would 
 obtain forty guineas for a half-length — i.e., a canvas 50 inches by 40 inches — and 
 twenty guineas for what was termed a three-quarter portrait — that is, for one about 
 30 inches by 25 inches, the term three-quarter meaning three-quarters the size of a 
 kit-cat portrait. 
 
 The information concerning the artist’s charge for a full-length is contained in 
 another letter from him to Mr. White, having reference to the portrait of the Prince 
 of Wales he had painted for the Masonic Hall. It is dated 1794, and was apparently 
 written soon after the picture had been hung. 
 
 Altogether Peters painted and presented to the Grand Lodge four or five pictures, 
 the works comprising the portraits of Lord Petre, the Duke of Manchester, and 
 the Duke of Cumberland, already mentioned, one of the Prince of Wales, painted 
 about this time, and the one of George III. The last-named picture is the only 
 one of the quintette still in existence, the others having been unfortunately destroyed 
 in the fire which gutted the Hall in 1883. 
 
 These gifts, and the various services which Peters rendered to the cause of Free- 
 masonry, were acknowledged the same year (1792) by his appointment as first Provincial 
 Grand Master of Lincolnshire. The Prince of Wales was probably largely responsible 
 for the bestowal of this distinguished honour on his chaplain, but Peters’s high 
 character, liberality, and great professional reputation made the appointment no 
 less of a compliment to the province than to its recipient. His installation took place 
 in June, the preliminary announcement of the event being advertised in the Lincoln , 
 Rutland , and Stamford Mercury. Between this announcement, which was made on 
 the 1st of the month, and the actual ceremony, which took place on the 21st, Peters 
 sustained a domestic bereavement in the death of his second child — an infant daughter 
 Elizabeth. According to an entry in the Woolsthorpe Registry, the burial took place 
 on the 1 2th, “ in the inner south-east angle of the old ruined church of this parish.” 
 
 This sad event must have considerably marred Peters’s pleasure in receiving his 
 well-deserved honour. The ceremony took place at the George Inn, Grantham, and 
 was preceded by a religious service at the parish church. The lodges taking part 
 comprised the St. Matthew’s Lodge, B arton-on-H umber ; the Prince of Wales Lodge, 
 Gainsborough; and the Doric Lodge, Grantham. Peters was installed by John 
 
THE FORTUNE TELLER 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 29 
 
 Dodsworth, of the Doric Lodge. It was eminently characteristic of the newly appointed 
 Provincial Grand Master that his first official action should be the drafting of a loyal 
 address to the Prince of Wales from the brethren then assembled. He himself took 
 this to London for presentation, his stay in the country being obviously of short 
 duration. He was not able to effect his purpose until about a month had elapsed, for 
 on the 2nd of August he writes to his friend, the Rev. Matthew Barnett, of St. Matthew’s 
 Lodge, that owing to the Prince’s absence from town he had only been able to see him 
 a few days previously. He goes on to say that “the Prince was much flattered by 
 the attention of the brethren, and we have very much credit and honour in being the 
 first who paid that very necessary and proper compliment to His Royal Highness.” 
 
 The kudos resulting from this affair may have caused Peters’s further appointment 
 as Deputy to Thomas Boothby Parkyns, Grand Master of Notts., Derby, Leicester, 
 and Rutland, which took place about the end of the year, and appears to have caused 
 much gratification to brethren concerned. The St. John’s Lodge, Leicester — the only 
 one in Leicestershire then affiliated to the Grand Lodge — wrote to Peters expressing 
 their satisfaction and their hopes that he would frequently honour them with his 
 attendance and assistance. The letter is dated the 3rd of January, 1793, but it was 
 not until the 1 8th of June of that year that Peters presided over a meeting of the 
 lodge, and this appears to have been his only attendance. One would surmise that 
 Peters, who was now turned fifty, found in his parochial duties, social engagements, 
 and the pursuit of his art sufficient occupation to engross most of his time without 
 undertaking the numerous and prolonged journeys which in those pre-railroad days 
 would have been necessitated by his paying frequent visits to the lodges in the large 
 provinces under his control. Nevertheless, he appears to have performed the duties 
 of his office with commendable zeal. 
 
 The meagre records of the next few years of the reverend artist’s life do not 
 contain any events of particular interest. Things “went very well then” with him. 
 Other children came to replace the one who had died — George Augustus, born in April, 
 1793; Edmund, born 27th April, 1796; and, later on, a daughter, who, like the first, 
 was christened Elizabeth. His ecclesiastical preferments were multiplied with the 
 needs of his extending family. On the 8th of July, 1791, he had, while retaining his 
 previous appointments, accepted the Prebend of St. Mary Crackpool in Lincoln 
 Cathedral, which on the nth of June, 1795, he exchanged for the far richer Prebend of 
 Langford Ecclesia, also attached to Lincoln; while on the iothof September of the same 
 year George III. gave him the living of Eaton, a village a couple of miles south of 
 Knipton. The Prebend of Langford was apparently charged with various outgoings, 
 and more or less subjected to the control of several patrons. It was not until the 
 death of these that he came into full possession of the estate attached to the Prebend. 
 This was apparently about 1807 or 1808, for in a letter written to John Boydell in the 
 latter year, he speaks of the prebendal estate of Langford having fallen into his hands, 
 the rental of which was then £1,100 a year, but which he expected would advance. 
 A vicarage worth £400 was attached, of which he was patron, and which he proposed, 
 on the death of the then vicar, to give to his son Tom, should the latter survive. 
 
30 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 In extenuation of Peters’s pluralism, it should be stated that his livings were more or less 
 contiguous to each other, Scalford, the furthest from his residence at Knipton, being only 
 about five miles distant, so that it was quite possible for a single man, assisted by curates, 
 to faithfully supervise them all. Moreover, in all probability some of them, like 
 numerous livings at the period, were miserably poor. The amount of income derived 
 from Knipton and Woolsthorpe has already been stated; that the other livings were not 
 so valuable can be gauged by the methods he took to obey the law then nominally in 
 force prohibiting the holder of a living from accepting a poorer one, though allowing 
 him to hold as many richer ones as he liked. This law was universally broken in the 
 spirit, though observed in the letter, by the holder of a living, when accepting a poorer 
 one, resigning his first cure, and then taking it up again after he had been installed in 
 the new one. Thus Peters had to resign Woolsthorpe for the time being when he 
 accepted Knipton, and both Woolsthorpe and Knipton when he accepted Eaton, while 
 he enjoyed Scalford without any interregnums. It thus follows that Knipton was 
 nominally the most valuable of his livings, followed by Woolsthorpe and Eaton, while 
 Scalford was the poorest. 
 
 That Peters, if he did perform a portion of his clerical duties by deputy, saw 
 that they were done with care and efficiency can be gleaned from the fact that the 
 parish registers of Woolsthorpe and Knipton were beautifully kept during his incum- 
 bency — a somewhat rare thing in those days. The entries in them between 1790 and 
 1808 are almost invariably signed by W. Peters — he dropped the Matthew from his 
 name early on in life — which shows that his absences in town and elsewhere were either 
 not so frequent as might be supposed, or that his parishioners delayed the celebration 
 of their baptisms and weddings until their vicar was there to perform them. Burials, 
 of course, could not be delayed, but the populations of Knipton and Woolsthorpe at 
 that time appear to have been singularly healthy, for an entry in the books records in 
 naive language : — 
 
 “ 1799, June 17th. — Here sixteen months passed without a single burial in the 
 churchyard of this Parish, viz., from June 17th, 1799, to October, 1800, and then 
 Stafford, who was buried, came from Grantham, where he died, and Robert Greenwood, 
 buried the 6th December, got drunk, fell asleep in the pasture, and was frozen to 
 death.” Mrs. Turner, the next on the dead list, died at Barrowby, so that it was not 
 till the 7th day of October, 1801, that there was a burial of one who died a natural 
 death in the parish, viz., from June 7th, 1799, to October 7th, 1801 — two years and 
 four months without a natural death in the parish. 
 
 Besides rebuilding Woolsthorpe Church, Peters added various embellishments 
 to the Church property in his parishes. In 1794 we find him improving the Parsonage 
 house and gardens at Knipton. He also, in 1796, planted twelve Lombardy poplars 
 and aspens round the house, many of which remain to this day, and are a distinct 
 feature in the landscape; and in 1797 the books record the putting up of a "great 
 gate to the entrance and divers others improvements made in the house and grounds.” 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 
 permanent 
 
 |N the last chapter the record of Peters’s art fell to an almost negligible 
 
 quantity, and in the present it will be little more conspicuous. When 
 
 Peters entered the portals of the Church he was practically closing the 
 door of his studio. The attempts he made to keep in both places at 
 once practically resulted in his loosing his hold on art without attaining 
 distinction in the ecclesiastical world. He has left no mark in the 
 Church, and the pictures he painted after he endeavoured to conform with the 
 views of his clerical superiors only resulted in his weakening the impression 
 he had already made on the world of art. One of these later pictures was 
 “The Annunciation” he painted for an altar-piece in Lincoln Cathedral. In the 
 Dictionary of "National Biography this work is recorded as having been given to 
 Exeter, but the statement is obviously a mistake, originating from the name of one 
 cathedral having been substituted instead of the other, for of the Exeter picture there 
 
 is no trace or record, and as Peters had no connection with the western diocese, no 
 
 reason can be adduced for his presenting a work to the Exeter authorities. According 
 to the unpublished diary of Lady Elizabeth Norman, the picture was painted in 1799. 
 Under the date of Sunday, 23rd February (when she was staying at Belvoir Castle), 
 she writes: “We went to Chapel and then to Knipton, and called on the Peters. 
 Went to his painting-room, where I saw ‘ The Annunciation of the Virgin,’ which he 
 is painting for Lincoln Minster — a fine picture, intended to be placed very high, and 
 consequently too large to be seen close.” The actual size of the canvas is about ten 
 feet by five feet. The Lincoln Chapter records state that in the same year Peters 
 wrote to the Dean and Chapter informing them that he had painted an altar-piece 
 for their acceptance, and that the work was sent and placed in the position intended. 
 It was made the subject of some coarse raillery by Paley. Some years ago it was 
 moved to the eastern transept up in the triforium, where it now hangs. The picture 
 is an example of misplaced endeavour, but if Peters sinned artistically in trying to 
 produce work for which his talents were unfitted, he sinned in good company. It is 
 not more of a failure than the majority of the religious pictures by Benjamin West — 
 then President of the Royal Academy — and less so than some of the historical works 
 of Reynolds. 
 
 The diary of Lady Elizabeth Norman — the Lady Elizabeth Manners who sat to 
 Peters when a child — records that a few weeks earlier than the entry already quoted 
 she again sat to Peters. The earlier entries are dated from Melton Mowbray, February, 
 x 799 ) so that the portrait was painted six months after her marriage with Mr. Henry 
 Norman. They run as follows: — 
 
 3 * 
 
32 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 “Tuesday, 4th February. — Mr. Peters came to draw my picture for Mr. Thoroton 
 (a great family friend). He had given me one of Mamma and Papa and our house 
 at Breakfast. Richard (Mr. Norman, her husband) said he thought the only return 
 I could make him was mine, so he took him at his word, and I was drawn in to sit.” 
 
 Lady Elizabeth, in the following entry naively records the peculiar treatment of 
 the local dentist, whose performances rival that of our modern practitioners: — 
 
 “Wednesday, 5th. — Mr. Bott, the dentist, came and took out my tooth, after 
 which he put it in again ! I sat for my picture the rest of the day. 
 
 “Friday, 7th. — I sat for the last time, and think the picture very like, which does 
 not seem to be the general opinion.” 
 
 This portrait appears to have been a presentation one, but that the artist 
 did not disdain to accept payment for his work during his clerical career is 
 shown by an entry in an old day book of Lady Welby, of whom Peters 
 painted a full-length portrait, with a companion one of her husband and half- 
 lengths of their two daughters. The entry is dated “ye 9th of January, 1803,” 
 and records, “Paid Mr. Peters for Miss Welby’s pictures, £7 17s. 6d.” The amount 
 is rather puzzling, and probably refers to only a part-payment for one of the pictures. 
 Reynolds introduced the custom of making his sitters pay a sum down before he 
 commenced their portraits, and other amounts later; and Peters, who borrowed some 
 of his craftsmanship from Sir Joshua, may also have borrowed some of his business 
 methods. 
 
 One of Peters’s best characteristics was his willingness to help or encourage those 
 who were in need of assistance, either in literary or artistic work, and in September, 
 1800, we find him writing from Knipton to a neighbour, Mrs. Welby, of Denton House, 
 warmly recommending the artist, William Fowler, to her notice. Fowler was a 
 Lincolnshire man, who, though now practically forgotten, was a man of some distinction 
 in his day. He was an archaeologist as well as an artist, and published several 
 engravings of Roman pavements. Peters’s letter, which is given in the Correspondence 
 of W. Fowler , has reference to one of these. Its quaint and rather pompous 
 phraseology, so typical of the formal letter-writing of the time, will excuse its quota- 
 tion in full. It runs as follows: — 
 
 “Dear Madam, 
 
 “The bearer, Mr. Fowler, whose works are of very superior merit, is desirous of 
 getting information of a Mosaic floor of Roman Workmanship in Denton field. I 
 know that your love for the arts will excuse the liberty I take in giving him this 
 introduction to you. The works he carries with him will, I trust, be a sufficient 
 apology. I know not whether Dr. Jackson is still at Denton House. Were I sure 
 he was, I should have requested him to take this Man of Genius under the shadow 
 of his wing. His own w’orks, indeed, speak more forcibly in his praise, and must gain 
 him more friends than any words or recommendation from, 
 
 “ Dear Madam, 
 
 “ Your most humble and obedient servant, 
 
 “Wm. Peters.” 
 
From the Mezzotint by J. R. Smith. 
 
 
 
1 
 
 
 ' r h ‘ v irk during his clensaf career is. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 * ' v 1 1 — ^ / ~£' r ‘ 1 i /- or en, ot !.t.,e those 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m . THtshs.* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 33 
 
 A month or two later he wrote a letter of introduction for the same artist to 
 Dr. Herbert, the chaplain at Belvoir Castle, asking that his works might be shown 
 to the Duke and Duchess of Rutland. There are probably many others of a similar 
 nature which have not been recorded. These letters tend to show that Peters still 
 retained the kindliness which in his earlier days had induced him to make his friends 
 buy Wilson’s landscapes. 
 
 Soon after these letters were written Peters migrated from Knipton to Langford, 
 in Oxfordshire. The reasons for this move are given in a letter from the artist, dated 
 1800, to the Rev. Matthew Barnett, his deputy for the Provincial Grand Mastership 
 of Lincolnshire. Peters says: — 
 
 “ Since I had the pleasure of writing last to you, a circumstance will remove my 
 residence from this part of the country, but my affection to the brethren and attentive 
 care to all their concerns will not be diminished by the distance I shall be at. You 
 know I am a Prebendary of the Church of Lincoln. My Prebend lies on the Borders 
 of Gloucestershire, within three miles of the Post-Town of Lechlade, in the village of 
 Langford, and is commonly called Langford Abbey. The three lives which were in 
 the lease of the Estate on my being collated into it are dead, and as we could not 
 agree about a renewal as the lives fell in, the whole of it is now mine, and it being a 
 peculiar, which gives me all ecclesiastical Power and a Vicarage, of which I am the 
 Patron, it enables me to live there and hold all my preferments.” 
 
 Peters, however, did not wholly desert Knipton for Langford, and for some years 
 at all events must have continued to spend a large portion of his time in the former 
 place. Until the end of 1806 the entries in the Woolsthorpe register are signed by 
 him, and in the preceding year he concluded his improvements to the parish church 
 by the addition of the gallery. After 1806 his only signature in the register is 
 appended to the record of a marriage which he solemnized in 1808, so that the former 
 year may be taken as the date when he finally ceased to reside at Knipton. 
 
 One may surmise that among his reasons for quitting the neighbourhood was a 
 quarrel between the Modern and Ancient Masons, in which he took a leading part. 
 Peters belonged to the former body, which was the elder and more powerful, and the 
 members of whom regarded those of the rival association in much the same way as 
 the Churchmen of the time regarded Nonconformists. The Grand Master of the 
 Modern Masons was the Prince of Wales, that of the Ancient Masons the Duke of 
 Athol, hence the latter were often termed Athol Masons. One of the Athol lodges — 
 the Good Intent Lodge, Stamford — appears to have been very active in 1806, and 
 the presence of this schismatic body in his own province and within a few miles of 
 his residence proved a thorn in the flesh to Peters. In July, 1806, it was advertised 
 in the Lincoln, Rutland, and Stamford Mercury that on the 28th of the month the 
 Good Intent Lodge would walk in procession to the church of St. Mary, Stamford, 
 where a sermon would be preached by the Rev. Robert Lascelles Carr. In 1799 an 
 Act of Parliament had been passed prohibiting secret societies, from the operations 
 of which, however, Freemasons’ lodges were specially exempt. Peters apparently 
 regarded schismatic lodges as coming within the scope of the Act, and in the next 
 3 
 
34 
 
 MATTHEW 
 
 R.A. 
 
 WILLIAM PETERS, 
 
 issue of the Mercury he issued a counterblast, giving the names of the constitutional 
 lodges in Lincolnshire, and adding, “ For the information of the Magistrates and 
 Clerks of the Peace in and for the said County, and whosoever else it may concern, 
 that these above are the only regular Lodges of free and accepted Masons within 
 their respective districts known to or protected by the Grand Lodge of England.” 
 The inference was obvious, and the magistrates seem to have acted on the hint. The 
 meeting of the Good Intent Lodge had to be postponed, apparently in order to give 
 time for its officers to convince the magistrates of its legal status. In the announce- 
 ment of the postponement of the meeting, Peters is alluded to in the following severe 
 terms : “ It is with pity, mingled with contempt, that the Lodge 87 have viewed the 
 late efforts of impotent malice in a certain Reverend Divine, pretending to high 
 Masonic authority, who has taken so much fruitless pains to vilify and defame them.” 
 And it is added : “ Deliberately to investigate and completely to expose the proceedings 
 of the Reverend Gentleman in question, they avow to be the purport of thus delaying 
 their intended meeting. In the meantime, they cannot help advising him to pursue 
 a line of conduct and making use of language more becoming his character as a 
 Clergyman and more consistent with his obligations as a Mason.” 
 
 On this occasion Peters’s zeal had undoubtedly outrun his discretion. He had 
 in all probability supplemented his public announcement in the Press and his 
 exhortations to the orthodox lodges with direct communications to the justices, in 
 which he had severely assailed the character of the “ vagabonds at Stamford,” as he 
 subsequently termed the members of the Good Intent Lodge. He had been influenced 
 by the highest motives in doing this, but his hot temper had led him to assume a 
 position he could not sustain and exposed him to the charge of fomenting discord, 
 whereas he should have acted as a peacemaker. The only direct result of his action 
 was to establish the Good Intent Lodge in a stronger position. The service was held 
 and attended by an influential company, while a few months later an incident happened 
 which must have given Peters far greater annoyance. The Provincial Grand Secretary 
 of Lincolnshire was the Rev. William Gray, a friend of Peters’s, whom he himself 
 had introduced into the craft, and in whose name, as secretary, the advertisement 
 which had roused the ire of the Good Intent Lodge had been issued. To quote .the 
 letter of Peters to the Rev. M. Barnett on the subject: “Mr. Gray . . . had the 
 
 audacity of (sic) forming and promoting a Procession of Athol Masons who are at 
 Lincoln, Soldiers in Colonel Monson’s Regiment, and preaching a sermon to them in the 
 very Cathedral, and afterwards attempted to introduce them into the Witham Lodge.” 
 Peters’s action against the Good Intent Lodge appears to have been among his 
 last active proceedings in his capacity as Provincial Grand Master. He subsequently 
 directed the affairs of his province through the agency of Mr. Barnett, his deputy. 
 In his correspondence he warns the latter against allowing admittance to the lodges 
 under his charge of any degrees beyond those sanctioned at the time by the Grand 
 Lodge of England, which recognised only those of “ Enter’d Apprentice, Fellow 
 Craft, and Master Mason.” In one of his last letters he solemnly protests against the 
 higher degrees, as containing something devilish in their doctrines ! 
 

 HIS LIFE AND WORK 35 
 
 Of Peters’s life at Langford there seems to be no record, and he probably divided 
 his time between Knipton, Langford, and London. Mr. Hodgson, in his brief notice 
 on Peters in The Royal Academy and Us Members , says of these later years of Peters’s 
 life, 1810-1811, that the painter had “continued practising his art, probably only as 
 an amusement, when a certain sketch, and the incident connected with it, aroused the 
 indignation of the British matrons of this Parish.” As we gather, the storm was so 
 violent that he had to fly before it, taking refuge at Brasted Place, in Kent, where he 
 lived his troubles down, supported and encouraged by a good wife, who had, in 1811, 
 been his partner for twenty-one years, and “who probably understood all about the 
 customs of studios, and thought nothing of them.” Mr. Hodgson does not give his 
 authority or source of information for this statement, which may or may not be true, 
 but I have not been able to discover anything in my researches relating to this episode. 
 All we know is that Peters went to Brasted Place, in Kent, for the benefit of his health, 
 and died there, March 20th, 1814. In his will he is described as “The Rev. William 
 Peters, Clerk, Rector of Knipton, in the County of Leicester, but now residing at 
 Brasted Place, near Sevenoaks, in the County of Kent." He leaves “ His dear wife, 
 Margaret Susannah Peters, executrix, and a life interest in all his property, except 
 his estate at Quornom, which was bought for his son Edmund, and which was to go 
 to him conditional on his paying off the mortgage of £3,000 now held upon it by 
 Edmund’s trustees. He was not to assume control of this until twenty-five. And to 
 his son John William Peters, the next presentation of the Vicarage of Langford or 
 Langford Ecclesia, in the County of Berks, or Oxford, provided he presents it to 
 himself. Leaves him and his other two children, Elizabeth Anne and George Augustus, 
 to be provided for by his wife, and each to have a share in the estate settled upon 
 her after her death. Should she marry again she forfeits her life interest in the 
 estate.” In a codicil Peters says that as the two boys may expect too much from their 
 mother, “she is not to provide more than £150 a year each for them.” 
 
 Peters seems to have acquired a considerable fortune. His large and valuable 
 library is mentioned in the will, which was witnessed by three men-servants and his 
 son, George Augustus Peters. Peters’s widow married again ; her husband was 
 Mr. Gibbons, Rector of Brasted Place. The artist’s second son, Edmund Henry, 
 was made the heir of Mrs. Turton, the widow of his grand-uncle, Dr. John Turton, 
 who had died in 1806, bequeathing to her £9,000 per annum in landed estates and 
 nearly £60,000 in the funds. The young man assumed in 1817 the name of Turton. 
 He married in April, 1822, Marianne, only child and heiress of Robert Bell Livesey, 
 and his descendants are now living at Upsall Castle, Thirsk. 
 
 To the student of the Early English School, Peters’s work will always have an 
 abiding interest and charm, for if his productions are frequently unequal and his 
 drawing sometimes faulty, these defects are outweighed by his fresh and beautiful 
 colour, and by his often brilliant execution and rich impasto and his simple and direct 
 method of painting. His pictures remain in most cases as fresh and brilliant in tone 
 as when they were first painted ; neither do his canvases crack or fade — in striking 
 contrast to the work of his great contemporaries, Reynolds and -Gainsborough. 
 
36 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 Peters’s sense of beauty and grace is displayed in his portraits of the many fair 
 and gracious women who sat to him, while the virile strength of some of his masculine 
 presentments should assure him a permanent niche in England’s roll of portrait 
 painters. 
 
 In conclusion, we must remark that to the writer it is a matter of regret that Peters 
 is so poorly represented in our galleries and museums, for with the exception of the 
 brilliant “ Boy and Girl ’’ of the Diploma Gallery and two drawings in the British 
 Museum, the student will seek in vain for the artist’s work in our public collections. 
 Is it too much to hope that the National Gallery, so complete in its collection of Early 
 Italian and Flemish painters, will one day contain in its splendid new rooms an 
 example of the art of this painter of the golden era of British art, and that the South 
 Kensington Museum will add to its magnificent collection of drawings some work 
 not unworthy of this many-sided “ painter-priest,” which would be easily accessible 
 to the lover of English eighteenth-century art at its most brilliant epoch ? 
 
PORTRAIT OF A LADY 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 HE position of Peters in English art is not to be easily determined. At 
 his best he was not greatly inferior to any artist of his period, but his best 
 is too seldom seen, whilst the worst is set against his name in sale-room 
 catalogues with monotonous iteration. For much of the bad work ascribed 
 to him, however, Peters is not responsible. His marked variety of style 
 and the unequal quality of his known work make his name a safe nom-de-guerre for 
 the inferior pictures of his period, which could not be ascribed to more consistent 
 artists with any chance of general acceptance, whilst the alleged replicas of many of 
 his more popular themes must for the most part be set down as contemporary copies. 
 Still, even eliminating from Peters’s record the dubious productions at present fathered 
 on him, the quality of some of the remainder is far from inspiring. 
 
 This may be attributed to his divided ambitions. All his life he appears to 
 have been hesitating between art and the Church, and though in his youth he gave 
 up for a time his idea of the latter, the renunciation was never wholly complete. Like 
 Lot’s wife, hankering after the rich plains of Sodom, Peters, in his toilsome progress 
 towards the higher reaches of art, must have often regretted the affluent ease and 
 dignity of clerical life. Like her, he Anally looked round, and his talents, so far 
 as his art was concerned, were petrified. Nearly all Peters’s best work was painted 
 either before he took holy orders or within a year or so of his taking them. With 
 the assumption of a clergyman’s cassock, his work deteriorated. 
 
 This was the more to be regretted because it would seem that Peters, after many false 
 starts, was at last finding his own individuality. It was not a very great individuality. 
 He had no new message to deliver in art. Everything he said had been previously 
 uttered, yet not quite in the same way, for Peters, who in his earlier works imitated 
 various artists, producing as it were parodies of their productions, gradually absorbed 
 such of their influence as was congenial, and formed a style of his own. In such a 
 way is the style of every artist formed, his personality being as it were the cement 
 which binds the various ingredients together and unites them into a homogeneous 
 whole. Sometimes the personality is so overpowering that the other components are 
 almost lost to sight, but such was not the case with Peters. Reynolds’s influence is 
 clearly marked in most of his best pictures, though some of what we put down to 
 Reynolds may have been derived from Hudson, who was master of both Reynolds 
 and himself, and from the Italian painters whom they studied in common. Another 
 influence which is clearly marked is that of contemporary French art, from which 
 Peters gained vivacity and lightness of touch. The outcome of these varying influences 
 was that Peters created a style of his own, neither strikingly marked nor strikingly 
 individual, but yet so distinct that the absence of his best pictures would create a 
 small hiatus in British art. 
 
 37 
 
38 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 To find out the relative importance of Peters’s work one must compare it with 
 that of his contemporaries, and see how it holds its own with theirs. His portraits 
 were among his best productions, but the age was strong in portraiture. He cannot 
 be classed as in the first rank in this metier with Reynolds, Gainsborough, and Romney. 
 He had not the profound grip of character or the graceful elegance of the second 
 or Romney’s eye for feminine beauty, and he ranked below any of the trio in brush- 
 manship and in his feeling for colour. Colour, however, was one of his strong points, 
 and his pictures show a sufficient power of harmonising and contrasting rich and varied 
 pigments to excuse — if not to justify — his contemporary appellation of the “ English 
 Titian.” His power of characterisation was by no means insignificant. Many of his 
 male portraits are virile and solidly painted, and in some of them he closely rivals 
 Reynolds, not only in his grip of masculine character, but in the impasto of the brush- 
 work and the richness of the colour, but such rivalry is most marked when the treatment 
 is most reminiscent of the greater master. A good Peters painted in this manner may 
 be easily mistaken for a by no means indifferent Reynolds. There is every possibility, 
 indeed, that some of the best pictures by the minor artist are masquerading under the 
 name of the master. Several such instances have been brought to my notice, and there 
 are probably many others. Peters left no record of his sitters. Few of his portraits 
 have come to light, with the exception of those the origin of which can be conclusively 
 proved from engravings and other contemporary sources. Yet, as Peters was a rapid 
 painter and in full practice for nearly a quarter of a century, he must have produced 
 many other works. If these have not gone to swell the records of more distinguished 
 artists, it is difficult to account for their absence. 
 
 Portraiture, however, was not the line in which Peters showed most individuality. 
 One might say that even in his religious pictures he showed a greater departure from 
 established tradition, but the merits of the best of these is not sufficient to entitle him 
 to the gratitude of posterity. Unfortunately for his posthumous fame, they were 
 the productions which most gratified contemporary taste, and Peters’s reputation has 
 fallen under the burden of the numerous engravings which have perpetuated the 
 memory of these mistaken fatuities. Bad as they are, however, they are not worse 
 than contemporary essays on similar themes, and hardly inferior to the majority of 
 those which have been produced since. West’s huge canvases, which gained for him 
 election to the Presidential chair at the Academy, are more ambitious and infinitely 
 more pompous, and yet, if there is a choice between them and those of Peters’s, the 
 latter are preferable. For one thing, as a rule he does not attempt to reconstruct 
 history and picture for us Biblical personages whose names are hallowed by reverential 
 associations and memories. His spirit-forms may be endowed with terrestrial bodily 
 substance and his angels may be merely pretty women disguised with wings, but 
 there is nothing in their appearance which offends one’s sensibilities, while the naivete 
 of the conceptions endows them with a certain quaint charm. One might not greatly 
 desire to hang a print of Bartolozzi’s rendering of the “ Spirit of a Child,” but it 
 would be more attractive than the majority of prints after Eastlake, Dobson, and 
 some of the later Victorian religious artists. 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 39 
 
 Where Peters may be said to have permanently established himself in the hierarchy 
 of art is in his renderings of those themes which border between genre and portraiture. 
 No one save Morland touched upon such themes with less affectation, and Morland’s 
 pictures are more purely genre, the setting of his figures being as interesting as the 
 figures themselves, while in Peters’s works the setting is merely subsidiary and the 
 figures all-important. “The Fortune Teller” may be cited as an example of this 
 class of painting. The technique is a little suggestive of Reynolds, but it may be 
 questioned whether Reynolds could have produced a work — not a portrait — so 
 thoroughly light and joyous in its sentiment. As a matter of fact, he had painted 
 the same theme long before Peters had attempted it, a version, too, that seems trite 
 and artificial beside that of the younger painter. The “ Gipsy Fortune Teller ” 
 of Sir Joshua, though containing one admirably conceived figure — that of the lady 
 having her fortune told — is marred by the exaggerated dramatic expression of her 
 lover. 
 
 Peters’s version of the same theme is pure comedy. The fortune-teller is a 
 charming rogue, whose seriousness is palpably assumed for the occasion. Before her 
 are a happy young couple, the young man standing behind the girl with his finger 
 on his lips, evidently by his presence suggesting to the gipsy the pleasant things she 
 is saying, which the young lady accepts as the truth only because she wants to believe 
 them. It is not too much to say that no English contemporary of Peters could have 
 put such a charming comedy on canvas, nor has it been bettered since, for our artists 
 of literary tendencies are apt to divide their attention between tragedy and farce or 
 else to content themselves with realizations of life and manners that are coldly neutral. 
 
 It was in this region of pure comedy that Peters found most complete expression 
 of his own individuality. His technique, feeling, and partial French training all 
 contributed to his success in this metier , and his best works conceived in this vein are 
 in their way unique. Of all the painters who contributed to the Boydell Shakespeare, 
 his pictures are among the most plausible. They may not render Shakespeare exactly 
 as one would like to have him rendered, they may not realize the subtler idiosyncrasies 
 of the various characters as a greater brush would have done, but, for all that, they 
 possess so much of an air of reality that one feels it is quite possible the scenes depicted 
 should have happened so. 
 
 Peters’s success in the Boydell Shakespeare was only comparative. His best 
 picture in the series was perhaps the one showing Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page reading 
 Falstaff’s love-letters. Here his fine sense of colour and the vivacity with which he 
 has endowed the two figures have helped to produce a highly attractive picture. 
 Another work almost equally pleasing is Lord Northbrook’s “ Hero, Ursula, and 
 Beatrice” in Much Ado About 'Nothing, though in this the introduction of a third 
 figure has made demands upon the artist’s powers of composition which he has not 
 been able to satisfy. 
 
 Like that of most of his contemporaries, Peters’s draughtsmanship was far from 
 certain, and so it is that he is seen at his best in themes where it was unnecessary to 
 introduce full-length figures. “ The Fortune Teller,” which fulfils these conditions, 
 
40 
 
 — 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 has already been cited as one of his most successful works. “ The Gamesters ” is 
 another, and in the same category must be placed some of those single half-length 
 figure subjects like “ Love in her eyes sits playing,” which comes within the domain 
 of comedy. For these attractive ladies, whose light costumes enhance rather than 
 conceal their charms, whose eyes dart out provocative glances, and whose languishing 
 airs seem to suggest a passion more superficial than real, are thorough comedians, 
 delightful and fascinating — the more so, perhaps, because we know that their emotion 
 is only artificial. 
 
 From a general survey of Peters’s art one naturally turns to a more extended 
 examination of the pictures which exemplify its most salient characteristics. The 
 early examples which he exhibited in the Society of Artists and the Free Society of 
 Artists, 1766-1769, appear either to have disappeared or to be now chronicled under 
 names which do not allow them to be identified with those under which they appeared 
 at the exhibition. I have thus not been able to discover either of the portraits of 
 the Duchess of Ancaster, painted in 1767 and 1769, but Lord Ancaster owns a 
 picture of two of the Duchess’s daughters — the ladies Priscilla Barbara and 
 Georgiana Charlotte Bertie — as children, which must have been painted about this 
 time, whilst the charming portrait of their sister, Lady Mary Bertie, is perpetuated 
 in the fine mezzotint made by John Dixon in 1767. Another picture which shows 
 Peters’s early style is the “ Portrait of Maria, Wife of Sir George Armytage,” which 
 evoked praise for its sincerity and sound handling when shown in the exhibition at 
 the Graves Galleries in 1910. This picture, according to an account book in the 
 possession of its owner, Sir George Armytage, was painted in 1769, the entries 
 referring to it reading: “ May 2, 1769. — To Mr. Peters for Maria’s picture, £5 5s. od. 
 May 4. — For the picture frame and glass, £4 4s. od.” The first entry does not 
 necessarily determine the price that the artist was receiving for his work, for, as has 
 already been suggested in a similar case, it may only refer to the final payment. The 
 other portraits of the Armytage family shown at the same exhibition belong to a later 
 date, having been painted about 1781-1783. 
 
 Between 1769 and 1776 Peters was generally abroad, which accounts both for 
 the small number of examples he exhibited in England during the period and the 
 few reproductions made from his pictures, the engraving of “ The Lacemaker ” made 
 by P. Dawe in 1772 from a canvas exhibited at the Academy two years earlier being 
 the only identified subject which can be definitely placed to the intervening years. 
 In 1776, however, Peters appears to have been highly industrious, or, what is more 
 probable, he brought with him to England the accumulations of his labours abroad. 
 One of the works he painted in Italy and showed in the Academy of this year was 
 the portrait of the eccentric Edward Wortley Montagu, which, when lent by Lord 
 Bute to the Graves Gallery exhibition, proved to be a well-characterised and soundly 
 painted picture. The series of plates published by Boydell of the “ Cremonese,” 
 
 “ Parmesan,” “ Sclavonian,” and “ Venetian ” ladies were probably from pictures or 
 drawings also painted in Italy, and may not improbably have been executed several 
 years previously, for Peters’s earliest contributions to the Society of Artists included 
 one or two similar themes. In this year, too, there was published W. Dunkarton’s 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 -h i t .>1 .{ r* i snoxv'il/; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
■ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 4i 
 
 mezzotint entitled “ Belinda,” after a work by Peters. The original may not im- 
 probably have been the crayon drawing catalogued as “ A Lady in an undress ” in the 
 Academy of the same year. 
 
 The “ Belinda ” is the first of Peters’s engraved essays in the depiction of partially 
 draped figures, the representations of which obtained for him an undesirable notoriety 
 in his lifetime, but have been the means of greatly exalting his posthumous reputation 
 as a painter. The model for “ Belinda ” is supposed — from an inscription in the 
 engraver’s handwriting on one of the early proofs — to have been Miss Bampfylde. 
 If so, it is probable that she was a sister of Copplestone Warre Bampfylde, a landscape 
 painter, who contributed to various London exhibitions between 1763 and 1783. 
 
 The engraving from this picture is generally used as a centre to the pair of mezzo- 
 tints, “Love in her eyes sits playing” and “Sylvia.” Both of the latter were 
 published in 1778, which fixes the production of the original paintings as being either 
 in or before that year. This is somewhat important in view of the fact that one of 
 the pictures, “ Love in her eyes sits playing,” has been identified as a portrait of 
 Mrs. Jordan, the celebrated actress, who subsequently became mistress of the Duke 
 of Clarence. The earliest date to which attribution can be traced is 1865, when a 
 fine version of the subject and a companion picture were exhibited at the Dublin 
 International Exhibition by Mr. Cockburn as portraits of Mrs. Jordan and Miss 
 Kitty Fisher. The attribution given to these two works, dating as it does at least 
 fifty years back, when neither Peters’s works nor portraits of actresses were specially 
 prized, is one not to be lightly set aside. Mr. W. Roberts, in his catalogue 
 of the Pierpont Morgan collection, and in an article on the latter in The 
 Connoisseur , vol. xvii., page 74, substantially accepts it. A propos of the pair 
 of portraits, he writes : “ Two portraits by this artist (Peters) recently acquired by 
 Mr. Pierpont Morgan reveal a genius which few students of English art would credit 
 Peters with possessing. The companion pair of portraits of Kitty Fisher, who sat 
 to Sir Joshua so many times, and who died in 1771 at the early age of about twenty- 
 six, ‘ a victim to cosmetics,’ and of Mrs. Jordan, whose fresh and buoyant personality 
 has been handed down to us by Romney — these two portraits, we say, are worthy to 
 rank with either Hoppner or Romney. They prove, so far as such tilings can prove, 
 that, had Peters devoted his great talents to portrait painting instead of wasting his 
 time on historical subjects, he would to-day rank among the great masters of the 
 Early English school. Although they now form a companion pair of portraits, some 
 years must have intervened between the portrait of Kitty Fisher and that of Mrs. 
 Jordan, for the former died when the latter was only about nine years of age. 
 Probably Peters kept the ‘Kitty Fisher’ in his studio for many years, and when 
 Dorothy Jordan sat to him he made her portrait a companion one to that of Reynolds’s 
 famous model.” 
 
 One cordially agrees with Mr. Roberts’s eulogy of the two pictures, which are 
 among the best Peters painted, but whether the identity of the subjects is determined 
 is another matter. Dorothy Jordan was born about 1762, so that at the time 
 J. R. Smith made his beautiful mezzotint of “Love in her eyes sits playing” 
 she can have been scarcely more than sixteen, while the lady represented looks 
 
42 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 older. Girls of precocious development, however, frequently attain an appearance 
 of maturity when still in their teens, so that this objection is not insurmountable. 
 Another and perhaps more serious one is that Mrs. Jordan did not go on the stage 
 until 1779, the year after the mezzotint was engraved, so that it is difficult to see how 
 Peters would be likely to come in touch with her to paint her portrait. Moreover, 
 the technique of the two pictures is so similar that the natural inference is that they 
 were painted about the same time, instead of being separated by an interval of at 
 least seven years, Kitty Fisher dying in 1771. A second fine version of “Love in 
 her eyes sits playing” was shown at the Graves Exhibition, 1910. 
 
 To the same period as these pictures belongs the " Lydia ” bought on February 
 28th, 1913, at Christie’s for £1,522 10s. by Messrs. Agnew. This is the highest price 
 hitherto realized by a Peters in open auction. The picture may probably be identified 
 with the “Woman in Bed” shown at the Academy of 1777. The engraving of the 
 subject by W. Dickinson was published a year earlier. A spirited finished study of 
 the same figure — bearing every evidence of having been painted direct from life — 
 belongs to Messrs. Vicars, and there are several other versions in existence. In 1778 
 Peters produced some of his best portraits, among them the fine “Sir John Fielding,” 
 which was exhibited at the Graves Gallery, 1910. It is a virile and sound production, 
 and displays the artist’s power of characterisation. One of the most charming of 
 Peters’s semi-fancy, semi-portrait pictures, the representation of Miss Mortimer (sister 
 of John H. Mortimer, the historical painter) in the character of “Hebe,” belongs to 
 the same year. This work was sold at Christie’s in 1907 for 500 guineas, and is now 
 in the possession of Lady Suffolk at Charlton Park. 
 
 Mention should be made of Peters’s beautiful work in pastel, of which, though 
 only a few specimens now apparently survive, he must have produced a large quantity. 
 Up to 1776 half of his exhibits at the Society of Artists and Royal Academy belong 
 to this medium, but owing to these examples being shown under such vague titles as 
 “ Portrait of a Lady ” or “ Portrait of a Gentleman,” it has been impossible to identify 
 them. One of the finest of the surviving pastels is the beautiful “ Miss Eliza 
 H. Phelps,” the miniaturist, shown at the Exhibition of English Pastels in Paris, 
 1911. The catalogue of the exhibition, compiled by Mons. See, states that this was 
 exhibited by Peters at the Royal Academy of 1778, the same year that Miss Phelps, 
 who was a miniature artist, showed a small portrait of Henry Green, the linguist. 
 If so, it must be identified with the item No. 233 in the catalogue, “ Portrait of a 
 Lady, in crayons.” The work is in pure pastel, and in pose and general treatment 
 is very suggestive of the girl in the artist’s contribution to the Diploma Gallery at 
 Burlington House, which was painted in the following year. At the Paris Exhibition 
 there was also shown a portrait of a lady of the Hadden-Brown family, touched in 
 with delightful crispness and charm, which, though chronologically belonging to a 
 later period, may as well be mentioned here. The catalogue states that this pastel 
 was painted by Peters while he was Prebendary at Lincoln Cathedral during a visit 
 to a friend’s country house, which would show that he continued practising with 
 crayons until the close of his career. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OM 1 779 and onwards Peters’s exhibits at public galleries are few and 
 far between, and one has largely to trace the sequence of his works by 
 the engravings made from them and information gleaned from contem- 
 porary chronicles. The virile portrait of William Addington, engraved 
 by J. R. Smith in 1781 (which was shown at Burlington House in 1906, 
 and again at the Graves Galleries, 1910), may have been painted a year or so earlier, 
 for in 1781 Peters was studying at Oxford for the Church. His adoption of the 
 clerical profession effectually checked the exuberance of his fancies, or rather turned 
 them in the direction of religious art. One of the best known of his examples in 
 this phase is “ The Angel carrying the Spirit of a Child to Paradise.” The picture 
 of the subject at Burghley is said to have been painted for Lord Exeter after the 
 artist was ordained in 1783. Another and equally fine version belongs to Lord 
 Newlands, and is probably the one from which the engravings were made. It 
 was engraved by William Dickinson in stipple, and the print at once had an 
 enormous success. Gillray also caricatured this picture, and the drawing has 
 some interest for the student of eighteenth-century politics and scandals. The 
 caricature is said to have been intended as a satire on a rumoured attempt of Mrs. 
 Fitzherbert to convert the Princess Charlotte to the Roman Catholic faith. It depicts 
 Mrs. Fitzherbert as the angel and the Princess Charlotte as the child. The latter 
 is being conducted to an altar in the sky, around which are cherubs’ heads, supposed 
 to represent Sheridan, Stanhope, Burdett, Fox, and Norfolk. The position given to 
 the members of the celebrated “All the Talents” administration alludes to their 
 efforts in favour of Catholic emancipation. At the bottom of the print the Brighton 
 Pavilion is seen. 
 
 During the next few years Peters produced a series of religious works, most of 
 which depicted the souls of the departed clothed in forms of most material solidity. 
 They are generally marked by nice colour and a certain amount of facility and grace, 
 but display no depth of religious feeling. Of these, the “ Resurrection of a Pious 
 Family” may be seen in Totteridge Church, where it is deposited through the bene- 
 ficence of Cardinal Manning’s father, who won it in a raffle, and another example — 
 the altar-piece of “ The Annunciation” — hangs in the triforium of Lincoln Cathedral. 
 One does not, however, wish to linger on these unsatisfactory works, and it is a relief 
 to turn from them to the Shakespearian themes produced for Boydell. The first of 
 these was the scene in Much Ado About Nothing, in which Hero and Ursula let Beatrice 
 overhear them talking of Benedict’s love for her. The picture at present belongs 
 to Lord Northbrook, and, judging by Heath’s engraving, it appears to have been one of 
 the artist’s greatest successes, though not so well composed as the picture of “ Mrs. Ford 
 
 43 
 
44 
 
 R.A. 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, 
 
 and Mrs. Page” in the Merry Wives of Windsor , belonging to Mr. Max Michaelis, 
 which was shown at the Graves Exhibition of 1910, though, not being included until 
 after the catalogue was printed, its name does not appear in the latter. This picture 
 is, perhaps, the best of Peters’s Shakespearian subjects, well coloured and drawn and 
 vivacious in feeling. The figures of Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page are said to be portraits 
 of Mrs. Abington and Mrs. Pope, but this may be doubted. Mrs. Abington was 
 about sixty when the picture was painted, and since 1790 had retired from the stage, 
 whilst her last appearance as Mrs. Ford was over twenty years earlier. 
 
 With the exception of his two pictures of “The Fortune Teller” and “The 
 Gamesters,” the best work that Peters produced after entering the Church was 
 undoubtedly in portraiture. Even the two pictures mentioned may be said to come 
 within that metier , for they are both said to be portrait groups, and even if the 
 identification of the individual figures of which they are composed are not so explicit as 
 one might wish, they are too well characterised to have been painted from the imagina- 
 tion or even from orthodox models. There is a tradition that the three figures are 
 those of the Duke of York, General Carpenter, and Major Thornton, the names being 
 so written on the back of an old print. There are, however, several reasons against 
 this identification. Peters was too firmly attached to the Royal family and had 
 received too many distinctions and emoluments from them to be likely to risk incurring 
 their displeasure by holding up one of their number to opprobrium. The fact that 
 the Duke of York and the two other gentlemen named were all notorious gamblers, 
 and bulked largely in the public eye, would readily induce the public to identify the 
 trio as the figures in the picture, and the dealers at the time would readily promote 
 the delusion to help the sale of the plate. 
 
 What may be accepted as the correct attribution of two of the portraits is that 
 set down on a proof of the mezzotint in the British Museum. The engraving is by 
 William Ward, and he has written on the margin of the impression, underneath the 
 central and left-hand figures, the names “ Lord Courtenay ” and “ Mr. Rowlandson,” 
 and there can be hardly any doubt that Peters has represented these personages in 
 his picture. “ Mr. Rowlandson ” is, of course, the great caricaturist, and an examina- 
 tion of his portraits, especially the drawing after J. R. Smith, leaves no doubt as to 
 his identity with the right-hand figure, for the somewhat peculiar profile is exactly 
 the same in both cases. As already mentioned, we know that Peters had painted a 
 large group of Lord Courtenay and his family, which was exhibited at the Royal 
 Academy, 1780. The young man in “The Gamesters” would be William, third 
 Viscount Courtenay (son of the Lord Courtenay of the group). William Ward 
 published his engraving of “The Gamesters” in 1786, and the picture was probably 
 painted the preceding year. Lord Courtenay was born in 1768, and would therefore 
 have been eighteen in 1786, just the right age of the foolish youth in the picture. He 
 did not succeed to the family honours till 1788, but probably sat to Peters as Mr. 
 Courtenay, and Ward wrote the name on the engraving after he had succeeded to the 
 title. This Lord Courtenay established his right to the Earldom of Devon. He was, 
 however, somewhat of a “ne’er-do-well,” lived abroad, and died in Paris unmarried. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HIS LIFE AND 
 
 WORK 
 
 45 
 
 In the companion picture to “ The Gamesters” — “ The Fortune Teller” — the lady 
 is said to be a portrait of a member of the Manners family, while for the girl and 
 boy the same models were used who had already posed for the figures in “ Peasants 
 with Fruit and Flowers,” now representing Peters in the Diploma Gallery at the Royal 
 Academy. The artist painted at least two versions of the subject, one being his last 
 contribution to the Royal Academy in 1785, while the other was exhibited at the 
 British Institution in 1807. The dimensions of this latter work are given as 2 ft. 6 in. 
 by 3 ft. 10 in., so that it cannot be identified with the version painted on a panel and 
 exhibited by Mr. Turton at the Graves Exhibition. Very beautiful in tone and 
 composition is this picture, and we can well understand the praise that has always 
 been accorded to it from Reynolds down to the “ man in the street” of to-day. Lady 
 Burton possesses another version. 
 
 Peters, as already mentioned, enjoyed the consistent patronage of the Manners 
 family. Though many of his works were burnt in the fire at Belvoir, there are several, 
 which escaped, still hanging there. Among them is a portrait of the fourth Duke, 
 very fine in its mellow colour and dignity of pose; one of his wife, pleasing in its 
 simplicity of costume and design; and the beautiful picture of “ The Birdcage.” The 
 charming portrait of the Duke’s little daughter, Lady Elizabeth Manners, is painted 
 in the same dress as the one she wore when she sat for the fine picture by Reynolds, 
 in which she is depicted with her brother, the Marquis of Granby. Peters’s portrait is 
 one of the finest pictures of happy childhood that he ever produced. 
 
 One of the best known of Peters’s male portraits is the very fine representation 
 of Dr. Hinchcliffe, Bishop of Peterborough, now at Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 Dr. Hinchcliffe in his earlier days was assistant-master at Westminster School, where 
 he met John Crewe, afterwards first Lord Crewe, who became one of his pupils. Mr. 
 Crewe asked his tutor to dissuade his sister Elizabeth from receiving the attentions 
 of an officer who was distasteful to him, and Dr. Hinchcliffe effectually accomplished 
 his task and married the young lady himself. Hinchcliffe was a man of great 
 abilities. He was appointed Master of Trinity College, and in 1769 Bishop of 
 Peterborough. 
 
 As we have seen in another chapter, this divine performed the Rev. Academician’s 
 marriage ceremony, and Peters has certainly put forth all his powers in this portrait 
 of his Bishop (the artist’s rectory, Knipton, was in the latter’s diocese); and he also 
 painted a very charming picture of Dr. Hinchcliffe’s two daughters, Emma and Frances, 
 which was exhibited at the Graves Exhibition. This work is now, we believe, in the 
 possession of Mr. Asher Wertheimer, and is certainly one of Peters’s happiest efforts, 
 for the grouping of the two figures is especially clever. There is a fine mezzotint 
 of this work, engraved and published by H. Hudson in 1786, with the title “ Musick ” 
 added to the names of the sitters 
 
 One of the best known of Peters’s portraits of “ fair women ” is the radiant and 
 beautiful half-length of Lady Elizabeth Compton, afterwards Lady Burlington. 
 Lady Elizabeth was the niece of the Duchess of Rutland, who commissioned Peters 
 to paint this portrait, which she presented to Lady Elizabeth. The sitter was then 
 
4 6 
 
 R.A. 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, 
 
 in her nineteenth year, and Peters has well caught the bloom of youth and happiness, 
 while the colour is as fresh as if painted yesterday. Reynolds also painted a full- 
 length of this lady, which is very well known through Valentine Green’s mezzotint, 
 while J. R. Smith, as already stated, engraved Peters’s picture. 
 
 What has become, we wonder, of the portrait of Elizabeth Stephenson, after- 
 wards Countess of Mexborough, which, alas ! now we only know from W. Dickinson’s 
 mezzotint, but which is unique among Peters’s portraits of English girlhood in its 
 sweetness of feeling and purity of expression ? 
 
 Very charming is the oval “ Chanters ” (in the possession of Mr. Lawrence Currie), 
 so well known from J. R. Smith’s coloured engraving. This picture was purchased 
 from the great Strawberry Hill sale, and must be regarded as one of Peters’s happiest 
 efforts, both as regards composition and technique. 
 
 Peters was fond of painting large family groups. One of the best of these is 
 his important canvas of Mr. and Mrs. Morris Robinson and their two sons, Matthew 
 and Morris, both of whom in turn succeeded to the title of Lord Rokeby, the youngest 
 subsequently assuming the surname of Montagu. The picture appears to have been 
 painted for the first Lord Rokeby (better known as Sir William Robinson, Archbishop 
 of Armagh), for Mrs. Morris Robinson, in a letter to her sister-in-law, the famous 
 bluestocking, Mrs. Montagu, writes : “ The picture grows apace, but I hope when you 
 see it you will not think I am in the habit of wearing a headgear like this, but the 
 Primate, whom you know loves to have his own way, insists on my being painted 
 in the height of the fashion.” We must be grateful for the Primate’s firmness, for 
 Mrs. Morris Robinson’s headgear is charming, and she is delightfully attired in a 
 dress of a rose-red colour, beautifully embroidered all over, and the colouring is as 
 fresh and brilliant as if painted yesterday. The Primate’s bust is seen in a niche in 
 the background. This picture is now in the possession of the Hon. Elizabeth Montagu, 
 to whose kindness we are indebted for the reproduction. Peters also painted a portrait 
 of Sir William Robinson, which was mezzotinted by James Watson. 
 
 Lord Zetland possesses a large group of Sir Thomas and Lady Dundas and 
 their large family of six sons and five daughters, who are all arrayed in semi-Van 
 Dyck costume. The difficulties of the composition have been surmounted very cleverly. 
 
 Mention also must be made of the pleasing small pastels — portraits of the artist’s 
 wife and child, and portrait of a son and daughter of the artist — exhibited at the 
 Graves Exhibition in 1911, sketches probably for the larger pictures. 
 
 Peters’s pastels are light and transparent. Occasionally the drawing is some- 
 what faulty, but this is atoned for by the grace of his composition and freshness. 
 The British Museum possesses a charming tinted drawing by Peters of the Misses 
 Maria and Charlotte Fortescue. The composition of the two girls’ heads is very 
 clever. This study is in crayon and chalk on tinted paper. It is most unfortunate 
 that so few of Peters’s drawings and studies have been preserved for us, and the 
 delicate eighteenth-century charm of this work makes us regret the loss the more. 
 
 It is no detraction to Peters to say that he largely owes his posthumous reputation 
 to his engravers. As far as is known, he never signed his pictures, and had not the 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 47 
 
 plates from some of his best productions afforded positive evidence of the authorship of 
 the latter, it is certain that a large proportion of them would have been attributed to his 
 greater contemporaries. His pictures became popular as themes for engraving after his 
 return to England in 1776. Before then only one or two of them had been reproduced, 
 such as “ Lady Mary Bertie” by John Dixon in 1767, and “ The Lacemaker” by P. Dawe 
 in 1772 — both of them good plates, but neither of them exemplifying the full strength 
 of the artist or engravers. 
 
 The finest period of Peters’s engraving commenced in 1 776, after the return of 
 the artist to England, when Boydell, the greatest printseller of his time, commenced 
 issuing plates after him with a prodigality which would astonish present-day pub- 
 lishers. The earliest of these Boydell issues were all engraved by J. R. Smith, whose 
 sentient scraper translated Peters’s work with a sympathetic insight and technical 
 dexterity hardly equalled, and certainly not excelled, by any other engraver. His 
 greatest plates after Peters, however, do not belong to this year, though his output 
 then included the charming series of miniature plates of the “ Cremonese,” “ Parmesan,” 
 “ Sclavonian,” and “Venetian” ladies, and “Miss Harriet Powell” and the portrait of 
 Edward Wortley Montagu. To this year also belongs the beautiful “Miss Eliza- 
 beth Stephenson — afterwards Countess of Mexborough,” by W. Dickinson, one of the 
 most refined and charming of his plates, and his piquant “Lvdia,” while W. Dunkarton 
 produced his fine “Belinda” (Miss Bampfylde). The last two plates are surpassed 
 by the exquisite quality and irresistible charm of J. R. Smith’s “Love in her eyes 
 sits playing” — perhaps the most beautiful mezzotint of its kind ever issued — which 
 was published in the following year. This plate, the “Hon. Mrs. O’Niel,” and the 
 " Sylvia ” — often attributed to J. Walker, but which the British Museum authorities 
 have established as the work of Smith — all published in 1778, the “Miss Mortimer 
 as ‘ Hebe ’ ” of 1779, the “ Lady Elizabeth Compton ” of 1780, and “ The Fortune Teller ” 
 of 1786, constitute some of the greatest prizes that can be secured by the mezzotint 
 collector. 
 
 After Smith, W. Dickinson — whose plates of “ Miss Stephenson,” “ Lydia,” and 
 “ Belinda ” have already been mentioned— was the most industrious translator of Peters. 
 His charming mezzotint of “ The Country Girl ” — supposed to be a portrait of his 
 sister Mary — is the only record we possess of the picture, which was destroyed in 
 the fire at Belvoir, while he was also responsible for several stipple plates after the 
 artist. Other mezzotinters who worked from Peters included William Ward, the 
 excellence of his single examples of “ The Gamesters ” making one regret that he 
 did not exercise his talent on his pictures more frequently; Henry Hudson, also 
 represented by a single plate — the portrait of the Misses Hinchcliffe, one of his 
 most attractive works — and James Watson. 
 
 Though the mezzotints after Peters include the majority of the reproductions 
 from his work especially treasured by connoisseurs, some of the stipple plates are 
 eagerly sought after, impressions in colour coming in for the greater share of attention. 
 James Hogg’s print of “Sophia” was so popular when published that it is said to 
 have reached the largest sale of any plate published at the time. “ The Charmers ” 
 
48 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 and “ Tantalizing,” by C. F. Knight, are an effective pair, and command high prices 
 when printed in colour, while “ The Chanters,” by J. R. Smith, constitutes one of his 
 greatest triumphs in stipple. Another charming plate is “ Peasants with Fruit and 
 Flowers,” by J. B. Michel, a translation of Peters’s diploma picture at the Royal 
 Academy, which has lately been extraordinarily well reproduced in colours by the 
 Medici Society. It is interesting to note that Michel’s plate, which is made in reverse 
 to the original pictures, contains details which are not included in the latter, a fact 
 which suggests the possibility of another version of the picture being in existence. 
 
 Peters’s religious pictures and his works for the Boydell Shakespeare were almost 
 wholly translated in stipple and line, and occupied the attention of some of the best 
 engravers of the day in these mediums, among them being Bartolozzi, Heath, Simon, 
 Saunders, B. Smith, Collyer, and Thew. The contemporary popularity of these 
 works, which tended to flood the market with impressions, as well as the less attractive 
 character of the themes depicted, have relatively lowered the present value of the 
 impressions, yet for proofs in choice states, especially when printed in colours, high 
 prices are obtained, a proof in colours of the scene in Much Ado About Nothing 
 where Hero, Ursula, and Beatrice are in the orchard, being priced in the catalogue 
 of a leading printseller at 100 guineas. 
 
 

 “MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR.” 
 Act III., Scene 3. 
 
 Engraved by J. P. Simon. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MAT PHI 
 
 : F THJRSi R.A. 
 
 
 
 * - niUhitrt one of Hit 
 
 ■*£ pk** UF * ?< J with Fruit and 
 
 
 
 v«M repr idwi ~d , > *h“ 
 
 ‘ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 .M08UHIW 30 83 V I W Y>1>13 1/ " 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
A LIST OF PICTURES 
 
 AND A 
 
 CATALOGUE OF ENGRAVINGS 
 

A LIST OF PICTURES 
 
 BY THE REV. M. W. PETERS, R.A. 
 
 In the following list, R.A. stands for Royal Academy; G.G. for Graves Gallery (where the only 
 exhibition of Peters’s works yet held took place in 1910); S.A. for Society of Artists; b. for born; 
 d. for died ; m. for married ; ex. for exhibited ; and en. for engraved. In the descriptions of the 
 pictures W.L. stands for whole length ; H.L. for half length ; and T.Q.L. for three-quarter length. When 
 a portrait is engraved the particulars of the subject will be found recorded under the title in the list 
 of engravings, and in every instance the date given of an engraving is that of its earliest recorded 
 publication. The list is by no means exhaustive, but includes all the artist’s work exhibited in London, 
 the majority of his engraved pictures, and other examples which have been seen by or described to 
 the author. 
 
 Many of the particulars of the pictures described have been taken from the Dictionaries of the 
 Royal Academy and Society of Artists, and "A Century of Loan Exhibitions,” by Mr. Algernon 
 Graves, F.S.A. 
 
 Addington, William, J.P. — (29 by 23 £). Ex. R.A. 
 1906, No. 12 ; owner. Colonel Frank Shuttle- 
 worth ; G.G. 1910, No. 30 ; same owner. 
 En. by J. R. Smith, May 1st, 1781. 
 
 All for Love. — En. by A. Smith for Bell’s 
 British Theatre, March 31st, 1792. 
 
 Aneaster and Kesteven, Mary Duchess of. — M. 
 
 Peregrine, 3rd Duke of Aneaster, Nov. 27th, 
 1750 ; d. October, 1793. Ex. S.A. 1 767, 
 No. 126, “ Portrait of a Lady, whole length ” 
 (Duchess of Aneaster. — Walpole). 
 
 Ditto. — Ex. R.A. 1769, No. 88, “Portrait of a 
 Lady.” (Duchess of Aneaster, too faint. — 
 Walpole.) 
 
 An Angel carrying the Spirit of a Child to Paradise. 
 
 — “ Of such is the Kingdom of God.” — St. 
 Luke xviii. 10. (Companion to “Spirit of a 
 Child arrived in the Presence of the Almighty.”) 
 The angel is a portrait of Mary Isabella, 
 Duchess of Rutland, and the child of Miss 
 Charlotte Dundas, 2nd daughter of Sir 
 Thomas, subsequently Lord Dundas. Ex. 
 R.A. 1782, No. 31. En. by W. Dickinson 
 1784, and in a smaller size by B. Smith. The 
 artist painted several versions of this subject ; 
 the following entries therefore do not all 
 refer to the same picture. Ex. G.G. 1910, 
 No. 3 (68 by 55) ; owner. Lord Newlands. 
 Sold at Christie’s, March 25th, 1908 (66 by 50), 
 ^105. A fine version of the picture belongs 
 to the Marquis of Exeter, and is at Burghley. 
 
 Angelic Child. — En. by F. Bartolozzi, January 
 10th, 1801. 
 
 4 
 
 Annunciation, The. — Presented to Lincoln Cathe- 
 dral 1799 (about 10 ft. by 5 ft., arched top). 
 Now in the north wing of the eastern transept, 
 up in the triforium. 
 
 “Antony and Cleopatra,” Act I., Scene 2. — Five 
 figures. En. by John Hall, January, 1817. 
 An important picture of this subject is in the 
 possession of Ernest Leggatt, Esq. 
 
 Apotheosis of a Beautiful Female. — En. by F. 
 
 Bartolozzi (Tuer, 1039). 
 
 Armytage, Sir George, of Kirklees, Co. York. — 
 
 Third Bart., d. 1783 ; seated in landscape, 
 plan in right hand, wearing dark blue coat 
 with red collar (38 by 31J). Ex. G.G. 1910, 
 No. 55 ; owner, Sir George Armytage, Bart. 
 
 Armytage, Lady, nee Anna Maria Wentworth. — 
 
 M. Sir George, 3rd Bart., 1760 ; d. 1788. In 
 yellow satin gown, white fichu, open book 
 in right hand (38 by 32). The picture was 
 painted in 1768. Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 57 ; 
 owner. Sir George Armytage, Bart. Painted 
 1769. An entry in the account book of Sir 
 George Armytage, 3rd Bart., reads : “ May 2, 
 1769 — To Mr. Peters, for Maria’s picture, 
 1 5 5s. May 4 — To picture frame and glass. 
 La 4 s -” 
 
 Armytage, Anna Maria, eldest daughter of Sir 
 George, 3rd Bart. — M. 1787, to William 
 Egerton, of Tatton Park, and d. 1799. H.L. 
 In blue gown, standing by white lilies (38 by 
 32). The picture was painted about 1783. 
 Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 48 ; owner, Sir George 
 Armytage, Bart. 
 
52 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 Armytage, Charlotte, third daughter of Sir George, 
 3rd Bart. — B. 1767 ; m. Rev. John (after- 
 wards Archdeacon) Eyre. In white gown 
 with blue sash, seated by open window, 
 book in hand, and bedroom candlestick by 
 her side. The picture was painted about 
 1783 (38 by 32). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 53 ; 
 owner. Sir George Armytage, Bart. 
 
 Armytage, Henrietta, second daughter of Sir 
 George, 3rd Bart. — M. (first) Thos. Grady, 
 (second) Joseph Bosanquet ; d. 1797. (38 by 
 
 32). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 52 ; owner, Sir 
 George Armytage, Bart. 
 
 Bampfylde, Miss. — En. by R. Dunkarton ; pub. 
 February 15th, 1777, under titleof “ Belinda.” 
 
 Barrow, John Henry. — (30 by 23). Ex. G.G. 
 1910, No. 47 ; owner, Dr. A. V. Peatling. 
 
 Bate, Miss. — W.L. Standing on edge of rock. 
 Owner, the Earl of Yarborough. 
 
 Beatrice in the Arbour (see "Much Ado about 
 Nothing ”). 
 
 Beauty ( see Lydia). 
 
 Belinda ( see Miss Bampfylde). 
 
 Berkeley, George Monck, LL.B., F.S.S.A. — En. by 
 
 William Skelton, August 30th, 1776. The 
 picture appears to have been a posthumous 
 likeness painted after the subject’s death, 
 January 26th, 1793. Peters presented the 
 work to Berkeley’s mother. It is said to 
 have been such an excellent likeness that an 
 old servant, upon seeing it, went into a fit, 
 thinking that her dead master was come to 
 life again. 
 
 Bertie, Lady Georgiana Charlotte, second daughter 
 of Peregrine, 3rd Duke of Ancaster. — En. by 
 
 William Dickinson, March 1st, 1778. 
 
 Bertie, Lady Mary Catherine, eldest daughter of 
 Peregrine, 3rd Duke of Ancaster. — En. by 
 
 John Dixon, 1767. 
 
 Bertie, The Ladies Priscilla Barbara Elizabeth 
 and Georgiana Charlotte, the second and 
 third daughters of Peregrine, 3rd Duke of 
 Ancaster. — (40 by 30). Full-length figures as 
 young children. Priscilla in red dress and 
 cap trimmed with lace, seated and holding a 
 dove ; behind her, to right, the kneeling 
 figure of Georgiana. Background of a 
 column and red curtain ; on the right two 
 doves ; owner, Earl of Ancaster. 
 
 Birdcage, The. — Ex. R.A. 1906, No. 44, under 
 the title of " Girl with a Birdcage ” (36 by 
 27J) ; owner, Duke of Rutland. 
 
 Bowles Children, The. — Presumed to be Jane and 
 Mary, the two eldest daughters of Oldfield 
 Bowles, Esq. The former married Richard 
 Palmer, and the latter Sir George Armytage, 
 Bart. En. by J. R. Smith, under the title 
 of “ The Cherubs,” and published April 17th, 
 1780. 
 
 Boy, Drawing of a. — Ex. S.A. 1768, No. 270. 
 
 Boydell, Lady. — Oval, H.L. (26J by 22), full face 
 turned to right. In white hat, pink ribbon 
 frill round neck, black scarf, and pink waist- 
 band ; hair in curls. Owner, Mr. Frank 
 Sabin. 
 
 Browne, Anne, as Clara in Sheridan’s “ Duenna,” 
 
 a part she created. Actress ; b. 1748 ; d. 
 1784. En.by J. R. Smith, January 1st, 1 777. 
 
 Calm — Child of the Artist. — (50 by 38I). Ex. 
 G.G. 1910 ; owner, E. R. Turton, Esq. 
 
 Cephalus and Procris, Reconciliation of. — (39 by 
 
 33). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 41 ; owner, the 
 Earl of Plymouth. 
 
 Chanters, The. — En. by C. Knight (oval, 25I by 
 20J) ; owner, L. Currie, Minley Manor. Pur- 
 chased from the Strawberry Hill Collection, 
 in which it was sold as by Angelica Kauflmann. 
 
 (14 by 12I). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 6 ; 
 
 owner, Rev. J. Howard. 
 
 Charmers, The. — (33 by 39J.) Ex. R.A. 1873, 
 No. 45 ; owner, J. Prior, Esq. En. by C. 
 Knight. 
 
 Children, Two (see Peasants with Fruit and 
 Flowers). 
 
 Children in Adoration. — (78 by 57). Sold at 
 Christie's, November 28th, 1903, £110 5s. 
 (See Three Holy Children.) 
 
 Compton, Lady Elizabeth, only daughter of Charles, 
 7th Earl of Northampton. — (29J by 24J). Ex. 
 Grosvenor Gallery 1889 ; owner, Hon. F. C. 
 Cavendish ; and G.G. 1910 ; owner, Henry- 
 Cavendish, Esq. At the back of the picture, 
 on a very old label, is written : “ Lady Eliza- 
 beth Compton, married to Lord George 
 Cavendish at the age of 19. Given to her 
 by her aunt, Mary- Isabella, Duchess of Rut- 
 land.” En. by J. R. Smith, and published 
 February 24th, 1780. 
 
 Coquette, The. — (24 by 20). A finished sketch 
 for the figure of the girl in “ Peasants with 
 Fruit and Flowers,” formerly in the possession 
 of Messrs. Ernest Brown and Phillips. En. 
 by G. H. Every’, 1906. 
 
 Country Girl, A (see Mary Dickinson). 
 
 Courtenay, Lord, and Family. — Ex. R.A. 1780, 
 “ Portraits of a Nobleman and his family ” 
 [Lord Courteney (sic) with group of children. — 
 Graves]. William, 2nd Viscount Courtenay, 
 b. August 30th, 1742 ; d. December 14th, 
 1788. 
 
 Cremonese Lady, A. — En. by J. R. Smith, July 
 
 30th, 1 776. 
 
 Death-bed of the Just. — En. by F. Bartolozzi 
 
 (Tuer, 1084). 
 
 Dickinson, Mary, as the Country Girl. — Ex. R.A. 
 1777. No. 272, as “ A Country Girl.” En. by 
 William Dickinson, March 1st, 1778. Bought 
 by Charles, 4th Duke of Rutland, when 
 Marquis of Granby, and burnt at Belvoir, 
 1816. 
 
53 
 
 HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 Dundas Family, The. — The central figure is Sir 
 Lawrence Dundas, rst Bart., with Lady 
 Dundas on his left ; on his right stands his 
 son Thomas and his wife — afterwards Lord 
 and Lady Dundas ; the children of the latter 
 couple are grouped round, Lawrence, the 
 eldest son, afterwards ist Earl of Zetland, 
 being on the extreme right. The other figures 
 comprise William Lawrence, afterwards Lt.- 
 Colonel in Army ; Charles Lawrence ; Thomas 
 Lawrence ; George Heneage Lawrence, after- 
 wards Rear-Admiral ; and Robert Lawrence, 
 afterwards Lt.-General in Army, and K.C.B. 
 All are dressed in Van Dyck costume (hi} 
 by 142). In the collection of the Marquis 
 of Zetland, Aske, Richmond, Yorks. 
 
 Estcourt, Mrs. H. L. — Owner, Miss Trelawney, 
 Bedford Court Mansions. 
 
 Fancy Subject. — A lady painting and two other 
 figures (oval, 27 by 35). Sold at Christie’s, 
 November 28th, 1903, £162 15s. Ex. G.G. 
 1910 ; owner, Mrs. Ralph Price. 
 
 Fielding, Sir John, as Chairman of the Quarter 
 Sessions for the City of Westminster. — Ex. 
 R.A. 1778, No. 231. (An excellent portrait. — 
 Horace Walpole.) En. by W. Dickinson, 
 November 12th, 1778 (oval, 15 by 12). Ex. 
 
 G. G. 1910, No. 7 ; owner, F. Pollard, Esq. 
 This picture has since become the property 
 of John Lane, Esq. 
 
 Fisher, Kitty. — Well known from her portraits 
 by Sir Joshua Reynolds. M. November 9th, 
 1766, Mr. John Norris, of Benedeu ; d. 
 March, 1767, “ aged about twenty-six, a 
 victim to cosmetics." Panel (24 by 29J). 
 Ex. Dublin International Exhibition, 1865, 
 No. 59, as “ Kitty Fisher.” In the collection 
 of the late J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq. The 
 foregoing particulars have been kindly given 
 by Mr. William Roberts, who compiled the 
 monumental Catalogue Raisonne of the 
 Pictures in the Collection. (The portrait, 
 from the assured style of the brushwork, 
 w'ould appear to have been painted several 
 years after Kitty Fisher’s death, and the 
 resemblance to her known portraits is not 
 striking.) 
 
 Florentine Lady in a Tuscan Dress. — Ex. S.A. 
 1766, No. 120. 
 
 Fortescue, Maria and Charlotte, daughters of the 
 Rt. Hon. James Fortescue, of Ravensdale Park, 
 and nieces of the 1st Earl of Clermont. — Maria, 
 b. 1763 ; m. 1787, Capt. G. F. Barlow, and 
 d. 1853. Charlotte, b. 1766 ; m. 1796, Sir 
 
 H. Goodricke, of Ribston, and d. 1842. Tinted 
 crayon drawing. Owner, British Museum. 
 
 Fortune Teller, The. — Several versions of this 
 picture are in existence. Peters exhibited 
 two during his lifetime, viz. at R.A. 1785, 
 No. 30 ; and British Institution 1807, No 120. 
 (30 by 46). The subject was engraved by 
 J. R. Smith, 1786. An important picture of 
 
 the subject — probably the one exhibited at 
 the R.A. — belongs to Lady Burton, Chester- 
 field House ; a second (38 by 34) was ex. 
 
 G. G. 1910, No. 26 ; owner, E. R. Turton, 
 Esq. ; and a third (61 by 45 J) sold at Christie’s, 
 February 7th, 1913, for ^136 10s. 
 
 Four Philosophers (see Rubens). 
 
 Gamesters, The. — En. by William Ward, and 
 published May 22nd, 1786. Ex. Guildhall 
 1902, No. 54, under the title of “ The Card 
 Sharpers ” (33 by 48) ; owner, Leopold 
 Hirsch ; and G.G. 1910, No. 17; owner, 
 
 H. Hirsch, Esq. 
 
 Gentlemen, Portraits of. — (See Portraits, Anony- 
 mous). Ex. S.A. 1766, No. 122 ; 1768, No. 
 122 ; and 1769, Nos. 131 and 131X. Ex. R.A. 
 1771, No. 153 ; 1773, No. 223 ; 1776, No. 223 ; 
 1778, No. 234 ; 1 777, No. 271 ; 1778, No. 232. 
 
 Gibson, Portrait of Mrs. — (26 by 21 1 ). Sold at 
 Christie’s, March 13th, 1905, £52 10s. Ex. 
 G.G. 1910, No. 27 ; owner, E. R. Turton, Esq. 
 
 Girl with Fruit. — Owner, Captain C. E. Stracey, 
 Clitheroe. 
 
 Girl in a White Dress, with a white scarf and 
 veil over her hair. — The face is in profile, 
 and the body turned to the left, holding a 
 bunch of roses in her hands (circular, 31 J in. 
 diam.). Owner, Mrs. Gray, Catherine Lodge, 
 Trafalgar Square, Chelsea. 
 
 Girl making Lace, A. — Ex. R.A. 1770, No. 143. 
 En. by P. Dawe, 1772, under the title of 
 " The Lacemaker.” 
 
 Girl in White Dress holding a Rose. — (Oval, 32 by 
 24J). Sold at Christie’s, July 20th, 1908, 
 £68 5s. 
 
 Girl, Portrait of a. — (20J by 16J). Owner, Mons. 
 Oscar Bondy, Vienna ; formerly the property 
 of Sir George Donaldson. 
 
 Girl, Head of a. — (Panel, nj by 9). Ex. G.G. 
 1910, No. 54 ; owner, Mrs. E. Edmonstone. 
 
 Girl, Head of a. — (16 by 12). Ex. G.G. 1910, 
 No. 58 ; owner, Mrs. Aubrey G. B. Stewart. 
 
 Good and Evil. — A large picture, in which an 
 angel and a pretty child portrayed Good, 
 and a devil and an ugly child Evil. The 
 figure of the pretty child is said to have 
 been cut out of the canvas and sold by 
 itself ; its present whereabouts is not 
 known. 
 
 Greenaway, Rev. Stephen, M.A. — En. by J. 
 
 Basire, 1794. 
 
 Grief. — Owner, G. Rhodes, Esq., 37, Pont Street. 
 
 Hadder-Brown, Master. — Owner, Mme. I.egrand. 
 Illustrated in the Gazette dcs Beaux-Arts, 
 Vol. VI., page 400. 
 
 Hadder-Brown, Mrs. — Painted by Peters when 
 Prebendary of Lincoln Cathedral, while on a 
 visit to a friend’s country house. Owner, 
 M. Wittonck. Reproduced in English Pastels, 
 by R. M. See. 
 
54 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 Harborough, Philip, 4th Earl of, in peer’s robes 
 with powdered wig. — (23 by i/i). Sold at 
 Christie’s, May 10th, 1912, ^47 5s. 
 
 “Hebe ” {see Miss Mortimer as). 
 
 “Henry VIII.,” Act III., Scene 2. Queen 
 Catherine, Wolsey, and Campeius.— Painted 
 for the Boyd ell Shakespeare. En. by Robert 
 Thew, June 4th, 1796. Sold at sale of 
 Shakespeare Gallery, May 17th, 1805, £12 12s. 
 Purchaser, — Gladstane, Esq. 
 
 “Henry VIII.,” Act V., Scene 4. The Baptism 
 of the Princess Elizabeth. — Painted for the 
 Boydell Shakespeare. En. by J. Collier, 
 December, 1803. Sold at sale of Shakespeare 
 Gallery (second day), March 18th, 1805, 
 
 £23 2s. Purchaser, H. Tresham, R.A. 
 
 Hinchcliffe, John, Bishop of Peterborough. — 
 
 T.Q.I.. Hangs in the dining-room of the 
 Master’s Lodge, Trinity College. En. by J. 
 Young, and published May 15th, 1788. 
 
 Hinchcliffe, Emma and Frances, daughters of Dr. 
 John Hinchcliffe, Bishop of Peterborough. — 
 
 (33 by 21). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 37; owner. 
 Miss Garvock, and subsequently in the 
 possession of the late Charles Wertheimer, 
 Esq. En. by Henry Hudson, and published 
 November 6th, 1786, under the title of 
 “ Music.” 
 
 Jordan, Mrs. {see ‘‘Love in her eyes sits playing ”). 
 
 Judgment of Paris. — Copied from the painting 
 by Rubens, and now in the collection of the 
 Duke of Westminster at Eaton, Chester. 
 
 Lacemaker, The ( see A Girl making Lace). 
 
 Ladies, Portraits of. — {See Portraits, Anonymous). 
 Ex. S.A. 1768, No. 123 ; 1769, Nos. 127, 
 
 128. 129, and 130. Ex. R.A. 1769, No. 360 ; 
 1774, No. 208 ; 1776, No. 224 ; fand 1778, 
 No. 233. 
 
 Lady, Portrait of a. — (24J by 26). Sold at 
 Christie’s, December 6th, 1902, ^31 10s. 
 
 Lady painting, A {see Fancy Subject). 
 
 Lady, Portrait of a, in white dress, powdered 
 hair, white hat with feathers. — (23 by 19). 
 
 Sold at Christie’s, March 14th, 1903, £35 7. 
 Subsequently in the possession of Barnet 
 Lewis, Esq. 
 
 Lady, Portrait of a, in white dress with pink sash, 
 red ribbon in her hair, holding a book. — (29* 
 by 24 J). Sold at Christie’s, May 19th, 1911, 
 ^861. 
 
 Lady, Portrait of a, head. — (24^ by 20J). Sold 
 at Christie’s, July 21st, 1905, £81 18s. 
 
 Lady, A, In an undress.— In crayons. Ex. R.A. 
 1776, No. 225. 
 
 Lady in a Pisan Dress. — Ex. S.A. 1766, No. 211. 
 
 Lady and Child, Portrait of. — (30 by 25). Ex. 
 G.G. 1910, No. 43 ; owner, Chas. H. Woolford, 
 Esq. 
 
 Landscape, Water-colour. — (13 by 9). Ex. G.G. 
 1910, No. 42 ; owner, Jos. Walker, Esq. 
 
 Liverpool, View of. — Ex. R.A. 1780, No. 302. 
 
 Love. — En. by C. White, 1781. 
 
 “ Love in her eyes sits playing.” — E11. by J. R. 
 Smith ; published May 1st, 1778 (panel, 24 
 by 29I). Ex. Dublin International Exhibition 
 1865, No. 54, as "Mrs. Jordan.” Owner, 
 Mr. Cockbum. In collection of Mr. J. Pier- 
 pont Morgan, catalogued as “Mrs. Jordan.” 
 The latter, however, could only have been 
 sixteen when the picture was painted. Another 
 version (25 by 30), ex. G.G. 1910, No. 10 ; 
 owner, Messrs. Wallis & Son. Another 
 version (24 J by 29 \), sold with a print of 
 the mezzotint by J. R. Smith at Christie’s, 
 April 25th, 1913, for £262 10s. 
 
 Lucrece. — En. by W. Dickinson 1781. 
 
 Lydia. — En. by W. Dickinson, and published 
 December 1st, 1776. The original picture 
 was painted for Earl Grosvenor, but does 
 not now appear to be in the possession of his 
 descendants. A version of it (24 J by 29J), 
 described as " A Young Girl in Bed ” in the 
 catalogue, is in the collection of the Marquis 
 of Lansdowne at Bowood. A second version 
 sold at Christie’s, February 28th, 1913, lot 90, 
 for /i , 5 22 10s. A third version (12 by 13) was 
 ex. G.G. 1910, No. 12 ; owner, E. Layton ; 
 and another version (10 by 12) at the Guild- 
 hall 1902, No. 74 ; owner, J. P. Heseltine. 
 
 A finished study of this picture (30 by 
 
 25), obviously painted from life, with the 
 figure in an upright position, is in the pos- 
 session of Messrs. Vicars Brothers. 
 
 Macdonald, Sir Archibald, in judge’s robes and 
 hood. — (50 by 40). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 45 ; 
 owner, George H. Shepherd, Esq. 
 
 Manchester, George Montagu, 4th Duke of, as 
 Grand Master of Masons. — D. September 2nd, 
 1788. W.L., in robes, holding a compass in 
 
 hand. Painted for the Freemasons’ Hall. 
 Ex. R.A. 1785, No. 70. En. by Leney. Burnt 
 at the Freemasons’ Tavern. 
 
 Manners, Lady Elizabeth Isabella, eldest daughter 
 of Charles, 4th Duke of Rutland. — M. August 
 2 1st, 1798, Richard Norman ; d. October 5th, 
 1853. The picture was painted shortly after 
 the lady’s marriage. Its present whereabouts 
 is not known. 
 
 Ditto. — Painted as a child in the same costume 
 as she sat to Reynolds (48 by 50). Ex. G.G. 
 1910, No. 33 ; owner, John F. C. Norman, 
 and was subsequently in the possession of 
 Charles Davis. 
 
 Manners. — Portrait of a daughter of Charles, 
 4th Duke of Rutland ; head (18J by 17). 
 
 Manners. — Portrait of another child of same 
 family ; companion to above. 
 
 Mathew, ^Miss. — En. by J. Saunders. 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 55 
 
 “Merry Wives of Windsor,” Act III., Scene 3. 
 Falstafl in the Buck Basket. — (ioo by 72.) 
 Painted for Alderman John Boydell, and 
 engraved by J. P. Simon for the Boydell 
 Shakespeare ; published Dec. 24th, 1793- Sold 
 at the sale of the Shakespeare Gallery, 
 May 20th, 1805 (No. 43), £43 is. Purchaser, 
 G. Stainforth, for Sir Francis Baring. Now 
 in the collection of the Earl of Northbrook. 
 
 Ditto, Act II., Scene 1. Mrs. Page and Mrs. 
 Ford reading Faistaff’s Love-letters. — (100 by 
 
 72.) Another of the Boydell pictures. En. by 
 Robert Thew, December 24th, 1793, and 
 sold at the first day of the sale of the Shake- 
 speare Gallery, May 17th, 1805, for £24 3s. Pur- 
 chaser, A. Paxton. Ex. G.G. 1910 (received 
 too late to be catalogued). Owner, Max 
 Michaelis, Esq. Ex. Grafton Galleries 1899, 
 No. 101. 
 
 Ditto. — Falstafl dressed as Herne the Hunter, 
 with stags’ horns on his head, standing 
 between Mrs. Page and Mrs. Ford. Sir Hugh 
 Evans, Anne Page, and children dressed as 
 fairies behind. Drawing in pen-and-ink and 
 water-colour (13! by 17$). British Museum. 
 
 Mexborough, Countess of (see Stephenson, Eliza- 
 beth). 
 
 Miss Mortimer as “Hebe.” — Ex. at the Society' for 
 Promoting Painting and Design, in Liverpool, 
 1787, No. 90. En. by J. R. Smith, and 
 published June 10th, 1779. A picture, pro- 
 bably the original, of the subject (30 by 25), 
 sold at Christie’s, December 14th, 1907, for 
 £525, and a second version (35 by 27$), also 
 at Christie’s on April 15th, 1912, for ^30 9s. 
 The former of the two is in the collection of 
 the Countess of Suffolk at Charlton Park. 
 
 Montagu, Edward Wortley, only son of Edward 
 and Lady Mary Wortley-Montagu. — B. 1713 ; 
 d. at Padua, May, 1 776. Ex. R.A. 1776, 
 No. 222, as “ Mr. Wortley Montague (sic) 
 in his dress as an Arabian Prince.” Ex. by 
 J. R. Smith, and published August 15th, 
 1776. Probably the same picture (12 by 10). 
 Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 15 ; owner, the Marquis 
 of Bute. 
 
 “Much Ado about Nothing,” Act III., Scene 1. Hero, 
 Ursula, and Beatrice listening in the Garden. — 
 
 (100 by 72.) Painted for Alderman John 
 Boydell, and en. by P. Simon for the Boydell 
 Shakespeare, published 1790. Sold at the 
 sale of the Shakespeare Gallery, May 20th, 
 1805 (No. 44), for £57 15s. Purchaser, G. 
 Stainforth, for Sir Francis Baring. Now in 
 the collection of the Earl of Northbrook. 
 
 Music (see Hinchcliffe, Frances and Emma). 
 
 Norman, Lady Elizabeth Isabella (see Lady E. I. 
 Manners). 
 
 “Of such is the Kingdom of God ” (see An Angel 
 carrying the Spirit of a Child to Paradise). 
 
 O’Neill, Hon. Mrs. — En. by J. R. Smith ; pub- 
 lished August 6th, 1778. 
 
 Parmesan Lady, A. — En. by J. R. Smith ; pub- 
 lished July 1st, 1776. 
 
 Pearson, John, F.R.S. — An eminent Surgeon and 
 Physician ; b. 1758 ; d. 1826 (30 by 25). H.L. 
 Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 21 ; owner, Norman 
 Pearson, Esq. 
 
 Peasants with Fruit and Flowers. — (25 by 30.) 
 Given by Peters as his Diploma picture to 
 the R.A. En. by J. B. Michel, and published 
 1786. Ex. R.A. 1890, No. 127, under the 
 title of “ Children.” Owner, The Royal 
 Academy. A finished oil sketch of the girl 
 in the picture has been engraved under the 
 title of “ The Coquette,” which see. 
 
 Pembroke, Elizabeth, wife of Henry, 10th Earl 
 
 of. — From an allusion in the Freeman's 
 Journal, June 7th, 1766, it would seem that 
 Peters painted a portrait of this lady a little 
 before this date. 
 
 Peters, Matthew, father of the Artist. — En. by 
 
 John Murphy, November 1st, 1778 (panel, 
 28 by 24J). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 44 ; owner, 
 E. R. Turton, Esq. 
 
 Peters, Rev. Matthew William, R.A. — (24 by 18). 
 Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 4 ; owner, E. R. Turton, 
 Esq. 
 
 Ditto. — (24 by 18). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 40 ; 
 owner, S. Peters, Esq. 
 
 Ditto. — En. by Leney. 
 
 Peters, Mrs. Matthew William, n^e Knowsley 
 (the wife of the Artist), (24 by 18) ; owner, 
 S. Peters, Esq. ; and her son (24 by 18J). 
 Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 23 ; owner, E. R. Turton, 
 Esq. 
 
 Ditto, and Child. — (9 by 7J), pastel. Ex. G.G. 
 1910, No. 18 ; owner, S. Peters, Esq. 
 
 Ditto, and her two sons. — (n^ by 8}), pastel. 
 Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 16 ; owner, S. Peters, Esq. 
 
 Ditto, and a Peasant Girl. — (11 by 8J), pastel. 
 Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 19 ; owner, S. Peters, Esq. 
 
 Ditto, and two children. — (46^ by 33J.) Ex. 
 G.G. 1910, No. 1 ; owner, Mrs. Binney. 
 
 Peters Family Group (the boy looking over the 
 girl’s shoulder is a son of the Artist). — (22J 
 by 17.) Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 29 ; owner, 
 General F. Fagan. 
 
 Ditto, containing Portraits of one of the sons 
 and Elizabeth Anne, daughter of M. W. Peters, 
 R.A. — (44 by 29J). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 36 ; 
 owner. General F. Fagan. 
 
 Peters, Rev. Matthew William, R.A., Portrait of 
 
 a son of. — (24 by 18). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 22 ; 
 owner, E. R. Turton, Esq. 
 
 Ditto, Portrait of a son and Elizabeth Anne, 
 daughter of.— (9 by 6$), pastel. Ex. G.G. 
 1910, No. 20 ; owner, S. Peters, Esq. 
 
 Peters, John William, eldest son of the Artist. — 
 
 B. 1791 (24 by 18). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 28 ; 
 owner, S. Peters, Esq. 
 
56 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 Petre, Lord, as Grand Master of Masons. — Painted 
 for Freemasons’ Hall. W.L. Ex. R.A. 1785, 
 No. 87. Destroyed in fire at Freemasons’ 
 Tavern. 
 
 Phelps, Miss Elizabeth. — (Pastel, in an oval). 
 Ex. R.A. 1778, No. 233, “ Portrait of a 
 Lady, crayons.” 
 
 Plan of an Estate, A. — Ex. Free Society of Artists 
 1769, No. 235. 
 
 Ditto. — Ex. Free Society of Artists 1769, No. 256. 
 
 Pochin, Col. George. — Ex. R.A. 1777, No. 271, 
 " Portrait of a Gentleman in masquerade 
 dress.” En. by J. Dean, August 6th, 1777. 
 
 Portraits, Anonymous. 
 
 Ex. Society of Artists. 
 
 1 766, No. 122. — A Young Gentleman. — T.Q.L. 
 
 1 767, No. 126. — Portrait of a Lady. — W.L. 
 
 ( See Ancaster, Duchess of.) 
 
 1768, No. 122. — A Young Gentleman. — T.Q.L. 
 No. 123. — Two Portraits of Ladies. 
 
 No. 270. — Drawing of a Boy. 
 
 1769, No. 127. — Portrait, in Chalks, of a Young 
 
 Lady. 
 
 No. 128. — Ditto. 
 
 No. 129. — Ditto. 
 
 No. 130. — Ditto. 
 
 No. 131. — Ditto of a Gentleman. 
 
 No. 13 if- — Ditto, in Crayons. 
 
 No. 360. — A Drawing, in Chalks, of a 
 Lady. 
 
 Ex. Royal Academy. 
 
 1769, No. 88. — A Portrait of a Lady. — (See 
 Ancaster, Duchess of.) 
 
 1771, No. 153. — A Portrait of a Gentleman. — 
 
 (Imitation of Reynolds. — Walpole.) 
 
 1 773, No. 223. — Two Portraits in Crayons. — 
 
 T.Q.L. 
 
 1774, No. 208. — A Portrait of a Lady, in 
 
 Crayons. 
 
 1 776, No. 223. — Portrait of a Gentleman. 
 
 No. 224.— A Young Lady, in Crayons. 
 
 •No. 225. — A Lady in an Undress, in 
 Crayons. — (Possibly " Miss Barnp- 
 fylde,” which see.) 
 
 1777, No. 270. — A Woman in Bed. — (Possibly 
 
 “ Lydia,” which see.) 
 
 No. 271. — Portrait of a Gentleman in a 
 Masquerade Dress. — ( See Pochin, 
 Colonel George.) 
 
 No. 272. — A Country Girl. — (See Dickin- 
 son, Mary.) 
 
 Portraits, Anonymous — continued- 
 
 1778, No. 232. — Portrait of a Young Noble- 
 man. 
 
 No. 233. — Portrait of a Lady, in 
 Crayons. — (See Phelps, Miss Eliza- 
 beth.) 
 
 No. 234. — Portrait of a Gentleman. 
 
 No. 234. — Ditto ditto. — (See Rains- 
 
 ford, Colonel.) 
 
 1780, No. 67. — Portraits of a Nobleman and 
 his Family. — (See Courtenay, Lord.) 
 1785, No. 70. — A Nobleman, whole length. 
 Grand Master of Masons, for Free- 
 masons’ Hall. — (See Manchester, 
 Duke of.) 
 
 No. 87. — A Nobleman, Grand Master of 
 Masons, for Freemasons’ Hall. — (See 
 Petre, Lord.) 
 
 Ex. Loan Exhibitions. 
 
 E.A.1890, No. 127. — Children. — (See Peasants 
 with Fruit and Flowers.) 
 
 Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1906, No. 15. — 
 A Gentleman. — Owner, F. Leverton Harris, 
 Esq. 
 
 Agnew’s Exhibition, 1907, No. 13. — A Lady 
 
 of Quality. — G.G. 1910. 
 
 Graves Galleries, 1910. 
 
 No. 25. — Head of a Woman. — Pastel (24 by 
 17J). Owner, Tankerville Chamberlayne, 
 Esq. 
 
 No. 43. — Portrait of a Lady and Child (30 by 
 
 25). Owner, Charles H. Woolford, Esq. 
 
 No. 54. — Head of a Girl. — (ioJby9*). Owner, 
 Mrs. E. Edmonstone. 
 
 No. 56. — Head of a Girl. — (10J by 9$). Owner, 
 Mrs. E. Edmonstone. 
 
 No. 58. — Head of a Girl. — (10J by 9*). Owner 
 Mrs. Aubrey G. B. Stewart. 
 
 Sold at Christie’s. 
 
 Dec. 6th, 1902. — Portrait of a Lady. — (24 J by 
 
 26*). £31 ios. 
 
 March 14th, 1903. — Ditto. — (23 by 19). £337. 
 
 Nov. 28th, 1903. — A Lady Painting. — (Oval, 
 2 7 by 35). (See Fancy Subject.) 
 
 July 2 1st, 1905.— Head of a Lady. — (244 by 
 2°J). £81 1 8s. 
 
 July 20th, 1908. — A Girl in a White Dress, 
 holding a rose. — (Oval, 32 by 24J). £68 5s. 
 
 May 19th, 1911.— Lady In White Dress with 
 pink sash, and pink ribbon in her hair, 
 holding a book. — (Oval, 32 by 24J). £861. 
 
 Dec. 13th, 1912.— A Lady with two Children.— 
 
 (See Grief.) 
 
 April 25th, 1913. — A Lady in White Muslin 
 Dress with blue sash, seated on a sofa, 
 holding a letter. — (20 by 24J). £44 2s. 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 57 
 
 Powell, Harriet, afterwards Countess of Seaforth. — 
 
 En. by J. R. Smith, October 23rd, 1776. 
 
 Rainsford, Colonel. — Ex. R.A. 1778, No. 234, 
 “ Portrait of a Gentleman.” 
 
 Repose. 
 
 Resurrection. — (38 by 36.) Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 
 38 ; owner, S. Peters, Esq. 
 
 Resurrection of a Pious Family. — En. by F. 
 
 Bartolozzi 1790, and Benjamin Smith. The 
 father of the family is said to be the artist’s 
 portrait. The following are among the 
 versions of this work: — 
 
 Ditto. — (98 by 72). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 34 : 
 owner, the Rev. A. E. Smith, as Vicar of 
 Totteridge. This picture was won in a shil- 
 ling raffle by the father of Cardinal Manning, 
 and presented to Totteridge Church. 
 
 Ditto. — Sketch (oval, 39 by 31J). Ex. G.G. 
 1910, No. 59 ; ow-ner. Sir Julius Wemher. 
 “ His (Peters’s) picture of a family bursting 
 from a sepulchre at the I.ast Day, like a 
 vigorous potatoe (sic) through the encumber- 
 ing sod, is ludicrously wonderful.” — The Arts, 
 No. XII. Another sketch in water-colour is 
 in the possession of Dr. Williamson. 
 
 Robinson, Morris, and Family. — Representing his 
 wife (n&e Jane Greenland, of Lovelace) and 
 their two sons, Morris, subsequently 3rd 
 Baron Rokeby, and Matthew, who assumed 
 the surname of Montagu and succeeded his 
 brother as 4th Baron Rokeby. Morris Robin- 
 son died 1777, soon after the picture was 
 painted. Morris, his son, succeeded to the 
 Barony of Rokeby November 30th, 1800, 
 and died unmarried in 1829 ; his brother 
 Matthew, born 1762, assumed the surname 
 and arms of Montagu in 1776, and died 1831. 
 The picture measures 115 by 90 ; owner, the 
 Honble. Elizabeth Montagu. 
 
 Copy of a letter of Mrs. Morris Robinson, 
 to her second son, Matthew Robinson Montagu, 
 M.P., dated December 2nd, 1807 : — 
 
 “ My Very' Dear Son, 
 
 “ The large family picture must be 
 considered valuable, as it bears the por- 
 traits of three very justly represented. As 
 to that done of me, I should be glad to run 
 a brush over the whole head ; thank God, 
 I was never like that. 
 
 “ The Primate, who was always dicta- 
 torial, insisted upon it that 1 should be 
 painted in the fashion of the times. The 
 head-dress at that time was very ugly. 
 Your dear father’s picture is graceful in 
 his figure, but his countenance is not equal 
 to what it would have been if he had been 
 drawn before the Primate embarrassed him 
 about his visit to Ireland, which he was 
 very' averse to, and his anxiety' at having 
 his affairs so much unsettled brought on 
 a bilious attack, which terminated his life. 
 Mr. Peters was extremely mortified at not 
 having been allowed to group the figures 
 
 round the table, by which means there 
 would not have been half the canvas to 
 cover, and the picture would have been so 
 much lessened that it would have been 
 more easy to place it properly, but the 
 Primate thought you both had good legs 
 and agreeable figures, and insisted upon 
 Peters placing you in the situation you 
 are in.” 
 
 Robinson, Morris. — ( See above.) H.L. Owner, 
 Honble. Elizabeth Montagu. 
 
 Robinson, Sir William, Bart. — En. by J. Watson. 
 
 “Romeo and Juliet ” in Crypt of Church, Act V., 
 Scene 4. — En. by R. Rhodes, January 1st, 
 1817. 
 
 Rooks and Pigeons (24 by 20J). Ex. G.G. 1910, 
 No. 39 ; owner, Alf . E. Robbins, Esq. 
 
 Rubens, his brother Philip, and the Philosophers 
 Lipsius and Grotius. — Copied in 1763 from 
 the picture by Rubens, sometimes known as 
 “ The Four Philosophers,” at the Pitti Palace, 
 Florence. Owner, Marquis of Zetland. 
 
 Rutland, Charles, 4th Duke of. — B. March 15th, 
 1754 ; m. December 26th, 1775, Mary Isabella, 
 youngest daughter of Charles, 4th Duke of 
 Beaufort ; was made Lord Lieutenant of 
 Ireland in 1784, and died while holding that 
 office, October 24th, 1787. (50 by 40.) Life- 
 
 size standing to knees ; in the background 
 a bust of his father, the Marquis of Granby, 
 the celebrated cavalry commander. In the 
 collection of the Duke of Rutland, Belvoir 
 Castle. 
 
 Rutland, Isabella, Duchess of, wife of the 
 above. — D. September 2nd, 1831. Companion 
 work. On oak panel, standing in a landscape, 
 life-size, in a white dress, holding a garland 
 of flowers. In the collection of the Duke 
 of Rutland, Belvoir Castle. This picture and 
 the companion are probably the pair of 
 portraits of her father and mother mentioned 
 by Lady Elizabeth Norman as having been 
 given her by Peters. They were purchased 
 from the sale of Mr. George Norman, the 
 son of this lady. 
 
 Ditto. — (24 by' 18.) Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 2; 
 owner, Herbert A. Sutton, Esq. 
 
 Ditto.— -En. by C. W. White, 1781. 
 
 One at least of the pictures of the Duchess 
 of Rutland was painted when she was 
 Marchioness of Granby. In the Belvoir MSS. 
 there is a set of verses commencing : — 
 
 “ I grant you, Peters, that yon form divine 
 Thy glowing pencil hath from Lady 
 Granby traced. 
 
 To distant ages w r ill thy name consign,” 
 etc. 
 
 The verses are even more flattering to the 
 sitter than the picture. 
 
 St. Jerome. — Copied from Correggio’s picture at 
 Parma, and now at the Church of Saffron 
 Walden, Essex. 
 
58 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 Saint John. — Ex. R.A. 1777, No. 273. En. by 
 Richard Read, and published 1781. Bought 
 by Charles, 4th Duke of Rutland, and burnt 
 at Belvoir 1816. 
 
 Salvator Mundi. — Copy of the picture by Carlo 
 Dolci, painted by Peters when staying with 
 Lord Exeter at Burghley. 
 
 Sclavonian Lady. — En. by J. R. Smith, and 
 published July 1st, 1776. 
 
 Seaforth, Countess of (see Powell, Harriet). 
 
 Smith, Miss. — H. L. Owner, Paul Moglia, Esq. 
 
 Somerset, Mary Isabella, Duchess of. — Mentioned 
 by Bromley, f 426, as being engraved by C. W. 
 White. This is probably a mistake for Mary' 
 Isabella, Duchess of Rutland, as, though two 
 Duchesses of Somerset living during Peters’s 
 career were named Mary, neither were named 
 Isabella. 
 
 Sophia. — En. by J. Hogg. 
 
 Spirit of a Child arriv’d in the Presence of the 
 Almighty. — The child, as in the companion 
 work of “ An Angel carrying the Spirit of a 
 Child,” etc., is a portrait of Miss Charlotte 
 Dundas. The work was engraved by F. Barto- 
 lozzi 1787, and by B. Smith. At the G.G. 1910 
 the following two versions were shown : No. 
 50 (60 by 36) ; owner, Lord Newlands ; and 
 No. 11, sketch on panel (12 J by 12 J) ; owner, 
 J. Glen, Esq. A water-colour sketch of the 
 subject is in the possession of Dr. Williamson. 
 
 Stephenson, Elizabeth, afterwards Countess of 
 Mexborough. — En. by W. Dickinson, Septem- 
 ber 30th, 1776. 
 
 Storm-Portrait of a Child of the Artist. — (50 by 
 
 38J). Ex. G.G. 1910 ; owner, E. R. Turton, 
 Esq. 
 
 Sylvia. — Picture bought by Lord Melbourne from 
 the artist. En. by J. Walker, December 28th, 
 1778. 
 
 Tantalizing. — En. by C. Knight. 
 
 “Tempest,” Act I., Scene 2. Prospero, Miranda, 
 and Caliban. — En. by Bromley, August 1st, 
 1794 - 
 
 Thorold, Jane, daughter of Sir John Thorold, 9th 
 Bart. — M. in 1812 to Charles Thorold Wood, 
 and d. 1861. (25 by 20). Owner, Sir J. H. 
 
 Thorold, Bart., Syston Park, Grantham. 
 
 Three Holy Children, The. — En. by Peter Simon, 
 and published Sept. 29th, 1788. Boydell paid 
 150 guineas for the original picture. A pastel 
 (40 by 28) was ex. G.G. 1910, No. 5 ; owner, 
 Tankerville Chamberlayne, Esq. In all pro- 
 bability ‘‘Children in Adoration ” (78 by 57), 
 sold at Christie’s, November 28th, 1903, 
 
 for £ no 5s., was a version of the subject. 
 
 Triumph of Virtue. — En. by F. Bartolozzi. A 
 picture under this title (120 by 87) sold at 
 Christie’s, April 19th, 1912, for £7 7s. 
 
 Turner, The Rev. Noel Baptiste, M.A. — B. 1739 ; 
 d. 1826. (24 by 18). Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 32 ; 
 owner. Major Harlow Turner. 
 
 Valliere, Madam de la. — Copied from the picture 
 by I.e Brun at the Carmelite Church, Paris, 
 for the Duke of Rutland. Burnt at the fire 
 at Belvoir. 
 
 Vane, Miss Henrietta, afterwards Lady Langham. 
 
 — (66 by 39) ; owner. Colonel Sanford. Ex. 
 Burlington House 1910, No. 108, and con- 
 sidered by Sir Walter Armstrong to be the 
 work of Peters. W.L. of a little girl standing 
 in landscape. 
 
 Venetian Lady, in Crayons. — Ex. R.A. 1776, 
 No. 226. En. by J. R. Smith, and published 
 July 30th, 1776. 
 
 Virgin and Child. — Copied from a picture by 
 Titian, belonging to Lord Burghley. 
 
 Welby, Lady Katherine, daughter of J. Cope, 
 of Spondon ; became second wife of Sir 
 William Earle Welby, 2nd Bart. W.L. 
 Owner, Mrs. Welby, Alington Hall, Grantham. 
 
 Welby, Eleanora Charlotte, daughter of above. — 
 
 D. unmarried January 19th, 1855. (24J by 
 
 18). Owner, Mrs. Welby. 
 
 Welby, Maria Rebecca, younger sister of Eleanora. 
 — (24J by 18). Owner, Mrs. Welby. In an 
 old account book of Sir William Earle Welby 
 is the following entry under Jan. 9th, 1803 : 
 “ Paid Mr. Peters for Miss Welby’s pictures 
 £7 17s. 6d.” This may refer only to the 
 final payment for the two works. 
 
 White, Rev. Joseph, B.D. — En. by Jos. Thomson 
 1796. Catalogued in John Gutch’s edition 
 of Wood’s History and Antiquities of the 
 University of Oxford. The entry runs: 
 “ This portrait of the Rev. Joseph White, 
 B.D., Archbishop Laud’s Professor of Arabic, 
 is painted and presented by the Rev. Wm. 
 Peters, R.A., as a mark of his respect to the 
 University and of the singular regard he has for 
 so great and able an advocate of Christianity, 
 1785. Three-quarters.” The portrait was 
 subsequently applied for by the relatives of 
 Dr. White, and returned to them. 
 
 Winchilsea, George William, 9th Earl of, when 
 a boy. — B. May, 1791 ; d. January 8th, 1858. 
 In crimson velvet. The picture is painted 
 very much in the style of Reynolds, for whose 
 work it is sometimes mistaken. Owner, Alan 
 G. Finch, Esq., Burley-on-the-Hill, Rutland. 
 
 Woman in Bed, A. — Ex. R.A. 1 777, No. 220. 
 (See Lydia.) 
 
 Woman, Head of a. — Pastel (oval, 24 by 17J). 
 Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 25 ; owner, Tankerville 
 Chamberlayne, Esq. 
 
 Woolsthorpe, Ruins of, — En. in Nichols’s History 
 of Leicestershire, Plate XX., page 83. 
 
 Wrench, The Rev. T. R., when a child, and his 
 brother. — Ex. G.G. 1910, No. 46 ; owner, 
 
 E. M. Wrench, Esq. 
 
 Young Lady, A, in Crayons. — Ex. R.A. 1776, 
 No. 224. 
 
 Young Gentleman. — T.Q.L. Ex. S.A. 1766, No. 
 122. 
 
CATALOGUE OF ENGRAVINGS 
 
 MADE FROM PICTURES BY M. W. PETERS, R.A., 
 
 WITH PARTICULARS OF THE DIFFERENT STATES. 
 
 The List is not exhaustive, but will be found to contain most of the important plates after 
 the artist arranged in alphabetical order according to the titles. 
 
 William Addington. — (Mezzotint). J. R. Smith. 
 H.L., in oval frame. In uniform of West- 
 minster Volunteers. H. 15, Sub. 14, W. n. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Painted by Wm. 
 Peters, R.A. Engrav'd by J. R. Smith. 
 William Addington, Esqr. Publish’d May 1, 
 1781, by J. Birchall, No. 473, Strand, London. 
 
 II. — Same engraved. 
 
 B. 1728 ; educated at Cambridge ; J.P. 
 Middlesex ; thirty years magistrate at Bow 
 Street; d. April 7, 1811. 
 
 Priced in Boyd ell's Catalogue for 1803 at 
 7 / 6 . 
 
 All for Love. — (Book Illustration). A. Smith. 
 Her Nymphs like Nereids round her couch 
 were placed 
 
 Where she another Sea-born Venus lay. 
 
 Bell’s British Library, Strand, March 31st, 
 1792 . 
 
 Angel carrying Spirit of a Child. — W. Dickinson. 
 H. 23, Sub. 19}! ; W. 17, Sub. 14J. 
 
 Painted by the Revd. Wm. Peters, of Exeter 
 College, Oxford, &• R.A. Engraved by W. 
 Dickinson. Of such is the Kingdom of God. 
 From an Original Painting of an Angel 
 carrying the Spirit of a Child to Paradise 
 in the Collection of the Right Honble. the Earl 
 of Exeter at Burleigh, to whom this Plate is 
 most humbly Inscrib'd by his Lordships (sic) 
 most obedient &■ humble servant W. Dickinson. 
 (In centre a coat of arms.) London, Publish'd 
 May 1.0th, 1784, by W. Dickinson, Engraver 6- 
 Printseller, No. 158, Bond Street. 
 
 Priced in Boydell’s Catalogue, 1803, at 15/- ; 
 in that of Moon, Boys and Graves, 1829 : 
 prints, 10/6 ; colours, £i/i/-. 
 
 Smaller size (stipple). Benjamin Smith. 
 
 H. 17I, Sub. 13I; W. I2f, Sub. 9J. 
 
 Painted by the Revd. Wm. Peters, R.A. 
 Engraved by Benjm. Smith. An A ngel carrying 
 the Spirit of a Child to Paradise. Of such is 
 the Kingdom of God. — St. Luke, Chap, xviii., 
 Vcr. 16. London, Published by Boydell &■ Co., 
 No. 90, Cheapside. 
 
 Priced in Catalogue of Moon, Boys and 
 Graves, 1829 : prints, 5/- ; proofs, 7/6 ; 
 
 colours, 10/6. 
 
 The Angelic Child. — (Stipple). F. Bartolozzi. 
 
 Full H.L. Boy with long curls, in white robe, 
 hands extended in attitude of supplication. 
 Oval, bordered by two lines. H. 6|-, Sub. 2f ; 
 W. 5}, Sub. 2. 
 
 Under : Rev. Mr. Peters pinct. F. Barto- 
 
 lozzi, R.A., sculpt. The Angelic Child. Lon- 
 don, Published June 10 th, 1801, by Anthy. 
 Molteno, No. 29, Pall Mall. 
 
 Reprint, South Kensington Museum. The 
 inscription may be a forgery. 
 
 “ Antony and Cleopatra.” — (Line). John Hall. 
 
 Charmian, standing in loose robes with right 
 breast exposed, holds out her hand to the 
 soothsayer, in tasselled cap and robes, seated ; 
 behind her a woman is looking over her left 
 shoulder ; a soldier and a boy stand in right 
 background. H. 9f, W. 7$. 
 
 Rev. W. Peters, pinxit. John Hall, sculp. 
 Antony and Cleopatra, Act /., Scene II. 
 Charmian — Good Sir, give me good fortune. 
 Published Jany. 1817, by John Murray, 
 Albemarle Street, London. 
 
 (Miss Bampfylde) Belinda. — (Mezzotint). J. R. 
 Smith. In oval frame. H. 14J, Sub. I2f; 
 W. i of 
 
 I. Painted by W. Peters. Engraved by W. 
 Dunkarton, London. Publish'd Deer. 1st, 1 776, 
 by W. Dickinson. Fritz Reiss, Esq. 
 
 II. Painted by W. Peters. Engrav'd by 
 R. Dunkarton. Belinda. London, Publish'd 
 February the 15 th, 1 777, by Willm. Dickinson, 
 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. 
 
 A print in the British Museum has Miss 
 Bampfylde written on it in penciL 
 
 George-Monck Berkeley, Esqre., LL.B., F.S.S.A. — 
 
 OvaL H. 10, Sub. 4; W. 8, Sub. 3. 
 
 Revd. Willm. Peters, R.A., Pinxt. Pub- 
 lished as the Act Directs, Augt. 30, 1 776. 
 Willm. Skelton Sculpsit. George-Monck Berke- 
 ley, Esqre., LL.B., F.S.S.A., Gentn. Comr. 
 of Magdalene Hall, Oxford, and Student of 
 the Inner Temple, London, Who during the 
 last eighteen years was the only Child of the 
 Revd. George Berkeley, LL.D., Prebendary of 
 Canterbury, Chancellor of Brecknock, &c. The 
 only grandchild of the Right Revd. George 
 Berkeley, D.D., the illustrious late Lord Bishop 
 
 59 
 
6o 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 of Cloyne in Ireland, and the only great-grand- 
 child of the eminently pious and learned Francis 
 Cherry, Esqre., of Sholtesbrook House, in the 
 County of Berks. Died a Bachelor on the 
 26 th of January, 1793, Aged 29. Mr. Berke- 
 ley's Death was an unspeakable grief to his 
 Parents. Doer. Berkeley survived the loss of his 
 excellent accomplished Son not two years. 
 
 Lady Charlotte Bertie. — (Mezzotint). W. Dickin- 
 son. H.L., in oval border. H. 15, Sub. 13J, 
 W. 11. 
 
 I. Painted by W. Peters, R.A. Engraved 
 by W. Dickinson. London, Publish'd March 
 1st,, 1778, by IV. Dickinson, No. 20 Henrietta 
 Street Covent Garden &■ T. Watson No. 142 
 New Bond Street. 
 
 II. With, in addition, The Right Hon. 
 Lady Charlotte Bertie, and commas inserted 
 after “ 20,” “ Street,” and “ 142.” 
 
 Daughter of Peregrine, Duke of Ancaster ; 
 b. August 7th, 1764 ; m. 1791, George, 4th 
 Earl Cholmondeley ; and d. 23rd June, 1838. 
 
 The Bowles Children. — (Mezzotint). J. R. Smith. 
 
 H.L.’s, in oval frame, the elder on left facing 
 right, and looking at a scroll ; the younger 
 towards right, looking at her sister. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Guls Peter, R.A. et 
 Coll. Exon. Sup. Com. Pinxit J. R. Smith 
 sculp sit. The Cherubs. London, Publish'd 
 as the Act directs, April 17th, 1780, by J. R. 
 Smith, No. 10, Bateman's Buildings, Soho 
 Square. 
 
 Said to be two of the daughters of Oldfield 
 Bowles, Esq., of North Aston, Oxfordshire. 
 
 Miss Anne Brown. — (Stipple). By J. Walker. 
 
 Miss Anne Brown (actress), 1748-1784, as 
 Clara in Sheridan’s “ Duenna,” a part she 
 created. Head and shoulders, face in profile 
 turned to left, wearing high cap covered with 
 a veil. Oval in border. Plate 10J by 8. 
 Border 7ft by 5JJ. Sub. 6$ by sj. 
 
 Under : W. Peters, R.A., pinxt. J. Walker 
 Excudt. Clara. From an Original Picture in 
 the Collection of John Taylor, Esq. Pubd. 
 13 Deer., 1 777, by J. Walker, No. 13, Par- 
 liament Street. 
 
 (Mezzotint). By J. R. Smith. H. 14}, 
 
 Sub. 12J, W. 11. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Engraved from a 
 painting of Wm. Peters in the collection of 
 John Taylor, Esquire, by J. R. Smith, pub- 
 lish'd 3 decern 1776. 
 
 II. Painted by W. Peters, R.A. Engrav'd 
 by J. R. Smith. Clara vide Sherridans Duenna. 
 In the Collection of Jno. Taylor, Esqr. Pub- 
 lish'd Jan. 1, 1777, by J. Walker, No. 13, 
 Parliament Street. 
 
 The Chanters. — J. R. Smith. H.L.’s. Two figures 
 standing, in circle, holding a piece of music. 
 Figure on left full face ; that on right in profile, 
 with right hand held up and figure extended. 
 
 Inscribed : Painted by Revd. W. Peters, 
 
 R.A. Engraved by J. R. Smith. 
 
 The Charmers.— (Stipple). C. Knight. Sub. W. 
 i 5 i H. nj, 
 
 tinder. — Painted by the Revd. Mr. Peters. 
 Engraved by C. Knight. The Charmers. 
 Music can soften pain to ease. 
 
 And make despair and madness please. 
 
 Lady Elizabeth Compton. — (Mezzotint). J. R. 
 Smith. Only daughter of Charles, 7th Earl 
 of Northampton, and niece of Mary Isabella, 
 Duchess of Rutland ; m., in 1782, Lord 
 Augustus Henry Cavendish, afterwards Earl 
 of Burlington. 
 
 (See reproduction of original picture.) H. 15, 
 Sub. 13k, W. 11. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Painted by W. 
 Peters, R.A. The Right Honble. Lady Eliza- 
 beth Compton. Engraved &• Publish'd by 
 J. R. Smith, No. 10, Bateman's Buildings, 
 Soho Square, Feby. 24th, 1780, & at No. 171, 
 Strand. 
 
 II. Painted by Wm. Peters, R.A. The 
 Rt. Honble. Lady Elizabeth Compton. En- 
 graved by J. R. Smith. London, Publish'd by 
 
 J. R. Smith, No. 10, Bateman’s Buildings, 
 Soho Square, d* at No. 17 1, Strand. The date, 
 Feby. 24 th, 1780, added in MS. 
 
 III. “ London ” erased, Feby. 24 th, 1780, 
 substituted, and London added at end ol 
 address. 
 
 IV. Address erased; instead, Pubd. 24 th 
 Feby., 1780, by H. Humphrey, No. 18, New 
 Bond Street. 
 
 The Coquette. — (Mezzotint in Colours). G. H. 
 Every. H. 16J, W. 12$. Published by 
 Messrs. Ernest Brown and Phillips, 1906. 
 The engraving was made from a finished 
 study of the figure of the girl in the picture 
 of “ Peasants with Fruit and Flowers ” at 
 the Royal Academy. 
 
 A Cremonese Lady. — (Mezzotint). J. R. Smith. 
 In oval frame. H. 10J, Sub. 8$, W. 7J. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Published 30 of 
 July, 1 776, by J. Boydell, Engraver in Cheap- 
 side, London. A Cremonese Lady. Engraved 
 from a painting of Mr. Peters in the collection 
 of J. Taylor, Esqr., by J. R. Smith. Fritz 
 Reiss, Esq. 
 
 II. Painted by Wm. Peters. Engraved by 
 J. R. Smith. A Cremonese Lady. In the 
 collection of John Taylor, Esq. Published 
 July 30th, 1776, by John Boydell, Engraver 
 in Cheapside, London. 
 
 In the first state J. C. Smith gives the 
 reading “ Jno. Taylor ” instead of “ J. 
 Taylor.” This may mark another state. 
 
 Mary Dickinson — The Country Girl. — (Mezzotint). 
 W. Dickinson. In oval border. H. ioj, 
 Sub. 8ft. W. 7$. 
 
 I. Painted by W. Peters, R.A. Engrav'd 
 by W. Dickinson. London, Publish'd Mar. 1 st„ 
 
 1 778 . 
 
 II. With title, and added : — The Country 
 Girl. How happy is the harmless Country 
 Maid, Who, rich by Nature, scorns superfluous 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 61 
 
 aid. No Care but Love can discompose her 
 Breast. Love of all Cares, the sweetest and the 
 best / Roscommon. From an Original Pic- 
 ture in the Collection of the Marquis of Granby. 
 Publication line reads : London, Publish’d 
 
 March ist, 1778, by IV. Dickinson, No. 20, 
 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. And T: 
 Watson, 142, New Bond Street. 
 
 Bromley calls her sister of the engraver. 
 The portrait is sometimes called the Marquis 
 of Granby’s mistress, probably from the fact 
 that he owned the original picture. 
 
 Sir John Fielding. — (Mezzotint). W. Dickinson. 
 T.Q.L. Seated on high- backed chair and 
 facing to front ; three-cornered hat, with 
 bandage over eyes, and wearing collar and 
 badge. H. 19}, Sub. 17, W. ijf. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Painted by W. 
 Peters. Engrav’d by W. Dickinson, London. 
 Publish'd Novr. 12/A, 1778. 
 
 II. Painted by W. Peters, R.A. Engraved 
 by W. Dickinson. Sir John Fielding, As 
 Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the City 
 of Westminster. London, Published Novr. 12/A, 
 1778, by W. Dickinson &■ T. Watson, No. 158, 
 New Bond Street. 
 
 III. Reprint inscription re-engraved, with 
 the addition : — Republished from the Original 
 Plate in the possession of Henry Pownall, Esqr., 
 by Barclay, Gerrard St. 
 
 Falf-brother of Henry Fielding, the novelist. 
 Knighted Oct. ist, 1761, and died Sept. 4th, 
 1780. 
 
 The Fortune Teller. — (Mezzotint). J. R. Smith. 
 W. 19J, Sub. 1 7i; H. 17}, Sub. 14}. 
 
 I. Painted by the Revd. Mr. Peters, R.A. 
 Engrav'd by J. R. Smith, Mezzotinto Engraver 
 to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. The 
 Fortune Teller. To his Grace Charles Duke of 
 Rutland, 6-e., <S -c., & -c., a Lover and Patron of 
 the Arts, this Plate is most humbly Inscribed 
 by his most devoted and obedt servant J. R. 
 Smith, No. 83, Oxford Street. 
 
 II. Same inscription, plate retouched, the 
 eyes of the young lady turned down, and the 
 expression of the face quite altered. 
 
 Companion to "The Gamesters.” 
 
 The Gamesters. — (Mezzotint). William Ward. 
 
 Full H.L.’s. Three figures — a young man 
 seated at table holding cards, an elderly man 
 leaning over his shoulder and signalling to his 
 opponent. H. 18, Sub. 14 j ; W. 19I, Sub. 17. 
 
 I. Painted by the Rev. Mr. Peters, R.A. 
 Engraved by W. Ward. The Gamesters. Vice, 
 whatever sex or form it may assume, leadeth to 
 destruction, — woe unto the unwary youth who 
 hath been seduced into the acquaintance. Peter. 
 To the young Nobility of England this Plate is 
 most humbly Inscribed by their devoted < 5 - 
 obedient servant J. R. Smith. London, Pub- 
 lish'd May 22nd. 1786, by J. R. Smith, 
 No. 83, Oxford Street. 
 
 II. Publication line altered to London, 
 Pubd. xst June, 1802, at I. Ackermann's 
 Repository of Arts, 101, Strand. 
 
 The players have been named after various 
 personages, including the Prince of Wales 
 and the Duke of York. On a print in the 
 British Museum, however, the titles are writ- 
 ten as Lord Courtenay (the young man who 
 is being fleeced) and Thomas Rowlandson. 
 That this attribution is probably correct is 
 shown by the strong likeness which the 
 figure of the second player bears to the por- 
 traits of this artist. 
 
 Companion to "The Fortune Teller.” 
 
 Rev. Stephen Greenaway, M. A. — (Line Engraving). 
 J. Basire. Published by J. Nichols, 1794. 
 Rector of Netherhaughton and Minister of 
 Dalby-on-the-Wolds. 
 
 “King Henry VIII.,” Act V., Scene 4. The 
 Christening of Princess Elizabeth.— (Line). 
 J. Collyer. W. 25 J, Sub. 23J; H. 20J, Sub. 
 1 Ik- 
 
 Painted by the Revd. W. Peters. Engraved 
 by J. Collyer. Shakspeare. King Henry the 
 Eighth, Act V., Scene IV. The Palace. 
 Alderman Lord Mayor, Garter, Cranmer, 
 Duke of Norfolk with his marshal's Staff, 
 Duke of Suffolk, Dutchess (sic) of Norfolk 
 <S- Marchioness of Dorset, God Mothers S-c. 
 (and five lines of quotation on either side 
 of title). Pub. Deer. 4, 1803, by J. < 5 - J. 
 Boydell, at the Shakspeare Gallery, Pall 
 Mall, &• No. 90, Cheapside, London. 
 
 “King Henry VIII.,” Act III., Scene 1. — (Stipple). 
 Robert Thew. W. 25, Sub. 23 J; H. 19}, 
 Sub. 17L 
 
 Painted by the Rev. Willm. Peters. Engraved 
 by Robert Thew, Historical Engraver to H.R.H. 
 the Prince of Wales. Shakspeare. King Henry 
 the Eighth, Act III., Scene I. A Room in 
 the Queen’s Apartments. The Queen and some 
 of her Women at Work — Cardinals Wolsey 
 and Campeius. Published June 4, 1796, by 
 J. and J. Boydell, at the Shakspeare Gallery, 
 Pall Mall, and at No. 90, Cheapside, London. 
 
 Frances and Emma HinchcliCe. — (Mezzotint). 
 Henry Hudson. H.L.S., in oval frame; the 
 elder, on right, holding a lyre, dark hat ; her 
 sister standing behind in light hat. H. 15, 
 Sub. 13J, W. 10J. 
 
 Painted by the Revd. W. Peters. Engrav’d 
 by Henry Hudson. Musick. Publish’d Nov. 
 6th, 1 786, by H. Hudson, No. 13, Great Russell 
 Street, Bloomsbury. 
 
 John Hincheliffe, Bishop of Peterborough. — 
 
 (Mezzotint). John Young. T.Q.L. , standing 
 in pulpit in Episcopal robes. H. 20, Sub. 
 i8£, W. 143. 
 
 Painted by the Rev. Wm. Peters. Engraved 
 by Jno. Young. The Right Reverend Father 
 in God John Lord Bishop of Peterborough. 
 London, Publish'd 15 May, 1788, by J. Young, 
 No. 28, Newman Street, Oxford Street. 
 
 B. Westminster, 1731 ; Headmaster of 
 Westminster School, 1764 ; Master of Trinity 
 College, Cambridge, 1768 ; Bishop 1769 ; d. 
 1794 - 
 
62 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 “ Love.” — (Stipple). C. VV. White. In circle, 
 
 H.L. ; young lady, large hat with feathers, 
 bosom partly exposed. Published 1781. 
 
 “ Love In her eyes sits playing.” — (Mezzotint). 
 J. R. Smith. W. 15$, H. 14, Sub. 13*. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Painted by XV. 
 Peters, R.A. Engraved by J. R. Smith. 
 Published May 1st, 1 778, by J. Boydell, No. 90, 
 Cheapside, London. 
 
 II. Painted by W. Peters, R.A. Engraved 
 by J. R. Smith. Love in her eyes sits playing. 
 Published May 1st, 1778, by I. Boydell, 
 Engraver in Cheapside, London. 
 
 Priced in the Catalogue of Boys, Moon and 
 Graves, 1829, at prints, 4/-. These would 
 in all probability be reprints. 
 
 Lucrece. — (Stipple). W. Dickinson. 
 
 Under. — Engraved by W. Dickinson. Lucrece. 
 London, Publish'd Janry. 1st, 1780, by Watson 
 &- Dickinson, No. 158, New Bond Street. 
 
 Lydia. — (Mezzotint). W r . Dickinson. In frame, 
 on which is inscribed Lydia. H. 12, Sub. io£, 
 W. 13*. 
 
 I. Painted by W. Peters. Engrav'd by XV. 
 Dickinson. From an Original Picture in the 
 Collection of the Right Honble. Lord Grosvenor. 
 This is the Mould of which I made the Sex. 
 I gave them but one tongue to say its nay. 
 A nd two Kind Eyes to grant. Dryden. London, 
 Publish'd Deer. 1st, 1 776, by XV. Dickinson, 
 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. 
 
 II. Plate cut down to H. n*. Sub. 9, W. 
 
 13*. Face retouched, cap altered, and curtain 
 introduced on left, hiding portion of it and 
 pillow. The inscription reads : Painted by 
 
 W. Peters, R.A. Engraved by XV. Dickinson. 
 Lydia. The verse follows as above, with the 
 exception that “ eyes ” is printed without a 
 capital E. The publication line reads : 
 London, Published July 10 th, 1824, by Z. 
 Sweet, 38, Chancery Lane. 
 
 III. Again retouched, and lettering 
 strengthened. J. C. Smith. 
 
 Miss Mathew. — (Mezzotint). J. Saunders. II. L., 
 in square border, hair blowing loose, right 
 hand raised, left holding circlet. II. 14*, 
 Sub. 10* ; W. 10J, Sub. 8|. 
 
 The Revd. W. Peters. J. Saunders. Miss 
 Mathew. Published as the Act directs by I. 
 Hurst, London. 
 
 George Montagu, Duke of Manchester. — Leney. 
 4th Duke, Master of the Horse in 1780 ; d. 
 June 26th, 1832. In robes as Grand Master 
 of Masons, holding a compass. 
 
 Mentioned in Evans’s Catalogue, where it 
 is described as 8vo, and priced at 1/-. 
 
 “Merry Wives of Windsor.”— (Stipple). J. P. Simon. 
 Falstaff being covered in the buck basket. 
 H. 2SJ, Sub. 21*; W. 18*, Sub. 15*. 
 
 Painted by the Revd. IV. Peters. Engrav'd 
 by I. P. Simon. Shakspeare. Merry Wives 
 of X Vindsor, Act III. Scene III. (four lines of 
 
 quotation on each side of title). Publi/h'd 
 Deer. 24, 1793, by John S- Josiah Boydell 
 at the Shakspeare Gallery, Pall Mall < 5 - Cheap- 
 side. 
 
 Priced at £1/1/- in Boyd ell’s Catalogue, 
 1803 ; in Boys, Moon and Graves’ Catalogue, 
 1829: prints, 10/6 ; colours, £1/1/-. 
 
 “ Merry Wives of Windsor.” — Mrs. Ford and Mrs. 
 Page comparing letters. — (Stipple). Robert 
 
 Thew. H. 25*, Sub. 22§ ; W. 18J, Sub. 15*. 
 
 Painted by the Revd. XV m. Peters. Engrav'd 
 by Robt. Thew, Histl. Engraver to his R.H. 
 the Prince of Wales. Shakspeare, Merry 
 XVives of Windsor, Act II., Scene I. (quotation 
 on each side of title). Publish'd Deer. 24, 
 1793, by John &■ Josiah Boydell at the Shak- 
 speare, Pall Mall, < 5 - No. 90, Cheapside. 
 
 Priced at £1/1/- in Boyd ell’s 1803 Catalogue, 
 and in the Catalogue of Moon, Boys and 
 Graves, 1829, at prints, 10/6; proofs, 21/-; 
 and colours, 21/-. 
 
 (Stipple). J. Saunders. Subject and title 
 
 bordered by a double line and a single one. 
 H. iof, Sub. 8| ; W. 6 }, Sub. 6|. 
 
 Painted by XV m. Peters. Engraved by I. 
 Saunders. Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 2, 
 Scene 1. Airs. Page and Mrs. Ford com- 
 paring letters. Pubd. June 4 th, 1800, by 
 
 J. S- J. Boydell, at the Shakspeare Gallery, 
 Pall Mall, S- No. 90, Cheapside. 
 
 Priced in Moon, Boys A Graves’ Catalogue, 
 1829 : prints, 4/- ; proofs, 7/6. 
 
 Edward Wortley Montagu. — (Mezzotint). J. R. 
 
 Smith. H. 20, Sub. 18*, W. 14. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Painted by W. 
 Peters. Engraved by J. R. Smith. Edward 
 XVortley Montagu, Esqe., in his dress as an 
 Arabian Prince. Publish'd 18 August, 1 776, 
 by John Boydell, Engraver in Cheapside, 
 London. 
 
 II. Painted by XV m. Peters. Engraved by 
 J. R. Smith. Edward Wortley Montagu, Esqre. 
 From the Original Painting, In the collection 
 of the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Courte- 
 nay. Published Augl. 15 th, 1 776, by John 
 Boydell, Engraver in Cheapside, London. 
 
 Priced in Boydell’s Catalogue for 1803 at 
 prints, 7/6. 
 
 Miss Mortimer as “ Hebe.” — (Mezzotint). J. R. 
 
 Smith. Sister of John Mortimer, R.A. H. 
 18*, Sub. 16J, W. 13. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Painted by XV m. 
 Peters, R.A. Engraved by J. R. Smith. 
 London. Hebe. Publish'd June 10 th, 1779, 
 by J. R. Smith, No. 10, Bateman's Buildings, 
 Soho, S- Torre, Printseller, Alarket lane, St. 
 James's. 
 
 II. In engraved letters. Same as al>ove. 
 
 “ Much Ado about Nothing.” — Beatrioe Listening. 
 
 — (Stipple). Peter Simon. H. 25*, Sub. 22 J ; 
 W. 1 8*, Sub. 16J. 
 
 Painted by the Revd. I Vm. Peters. Engraved 
 by Peter Simon. Shakspeare. Much ado 
 
» "'V yyttoty ,it r >*H *UL 
 

 - ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 
 
 63 
 
 about nothing. Act III., Scene I. (quotation 
 on each side of title). Published June 4 th, 
 1790, by John &■ Josiah Boy dell, at the Shak- 
 speare Gallery, Pall Mall, 6- at No. 90, Cheap- 
 side. 
 
 Priced in Boydell’s Catalogue, 1803, at 
 £1/1/-, and in that of Moon, Boys and Graves, 
 1829, at prints, 10/6 ; proofs, £1/11/6; 
 and colours, £1/1/-. 
 
 Music (see Frances and Emma Hinchcliffe). 
 
 Hon. Mrs. O’Neill. — (Mezzotint). J. R. Smith. 
 
 Henrietta Boyle, only child of Charles, Lord 
 Dungarvan, eldest son of 5th Earl of Cork ; 
 m. Oct. 15th, 1 777, John O’Neill, subsequently 
 created Viscount O’Neill ; d. 1793, aged 37. 
 Full H.L., seated, head leaning to right, 
 supported on left arm ; hair dressed high, 
 with veil, cape loosely round shoulders, right 
 hand in lap. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Painted by W. 
 Peters, R.A. Engraved by J. R. Smith. 
 London, Pv.bd. Augt. 6, 1778, by J. R. Smith, 
 No. 10, Bateman's Buildings, Soho Square. 
 
 II. In addition. — The Honble. Mrs. O'Neill. 
 
 A Parmesan Lady. — (Mezzotint). J. R. Smith. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — W. Peters pinxit. 
 J. R. Smith fecit. A Parmesan Lady. Pub- 
 lished 30 June, 1776, by John Boy dell. En- 
 graver in Cheapside, London. Fritz Reiss, 
 Esq. 
 
 II. Same as above, with the alterations 
 "Wm." for “W.,” a capital “P” to pub- 
 lished substituted for a small one, and the 
 date altered to July 1st, 1776. 
 
 III. — In the Collection of John Taylor, Esqr., 
 added under title. 
 
 Peasants with Fruit and Flowers. — (Stipple),. J. B. 
 Michel. Oval bordered by double line. H. 
 10J, W. nf. 
 
 Painted by the Revd. Wm. Peters, R.A. 
 Engraved by J. B. Michel. John &■ Josiah 
 Boy dell, exct. 1786. Peasants with Fruit and 
 Flowers. To the Right Honble. Lady Caroline 
 Montague, — this Print from a Painting in the 
 Royal Academy is humbly dedicated by her 
 Ladyships most Obedient &■ devoted Servant, 
 John Boydell. Publish'd May 1st, 1786, by 
 John < 5 - Josiah Boydell. 
 
 Priced in Boyd ell’s Catalogue, 1803, at 5/-. 
 
 Medici Society. Medici process in colours. 
 
 W. 22, H. 17I. Published by the Medici 
 Society, 1910, 21/-. This is a reproduction 
 from the picture by Peters in the Diploma 
 Gallery at the Royal Academy, and does not 
 contain so much detail as the engraving, 
 which was either made from a version of 
 the subject somewhat larger in scope, or else 
 was added to by the engraver. 
 
 Matthew Peters. — (Mezzotint). John Murphy. 
 
 H.L., in square border. T.Q. face to left. 
 Powdered hair, leaning on his arm resting on 
 table, and holding book in his hand. H. 14 J, 
 Sub. 12 J, W. 11. 
 
 I. W. Peters, R.A., Pinxit. J. Murphy 
 Sculpsit. London, Publish’d Novr. 1778, by 
 J. Murphy, at No. 4, Air Street, Piccadilly. 
 
 II. "W.” altered to Wm., and " J.” to Jn., 
 and in addition, Matthew Peters, Of Fresh Water, 
 Isle of Wight, Member of the Dublin Society 
 &■ Author of several Treatises on Tillage and 
 Agriculture. 
 
 Father of the artist. 
 
 Rev. Matthew William Peters, R.A. — Small plate 
 by Leney. 
 
 Miss Eliza H. Phelps. — (Mezzotint). H. Scott 
 Bridgwater. H. isf, W. 13. Published by 
 Messrs. P. & D. Colnaghi and Obach, 1913 ; 
 200 artist’s proofs only, issued at £6/6/-. 
 
 Smaller size (Mezzotint in Colours). H. 
 
 1 if, W. 9J. Same engraver and publishers ; 
 150 artist’s proofs only, issued at £6/6/-. 
 
 George Pochin. — (Mezzotint). John Dean. Full 
 ILL. T.Q. face turned to right. In masquerade 
 costume, holding plumed hat in hand. Pillar 
 and curtain in background. H. 15J, Sub. 
 1 3b W. io H- 
 
 I. Margin only partially cleaned. In 
 scratched letters. — Publish’d the 6th of A ugust, 
 1777, by I. Dean, Church Street, Soho. Iohn 
 Dean Fecit. 
 
 II. Published August 6th, 1 777, by I. Dean, 
 Church Street, Soho. W. Peters, R.A., Pinxit. 
 I : Dean, Fecit. 
 
 The original picture was exhibited at the 
 R.A., No. 271, under the title of “ Portrait 
 of a Gentleman in Masquerade Dress.” 
 Chaloner Smith states that the subject was a 
 younger brother of William Pochin, of 
 Barkley. He was a Colonel of the Leicester 
 Militia, served in the American War, and 
 died of gout, May 13th, 1798, in his 67th year. 
 
 Harriet Powell. — (Mezzotint). J. R. Smith. H.L., 
 in oval frame. H. 10J, Sub. 8f, W. 7 f. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Miss Harriet Powell. 
 Engraved from a Painting of Mr. Peters in 
 the Collection of John Taylor, Esqr., by J. R. 
 Smith. Publish’d October 23, 1776, by J. 
 Boydell, Engraver in Cheapside, London. 
 Fritz Reiss, Esq. 
 
 II. The second “ 1 ” in “ Powell ” erased, 
 and a capital " O ” substituted for the small 
 “ o ” in October. Chaloner Smith. 
 
 III. Painted by Wm. Peters. Engraved by 
 
 J. R. Smith. Miss Harriet Powel. In the 
 Collection of John Taylor, Esqr. Published 
 Octr. 2 id, 1776, by John Boydell, Engraver 
 in Cheapside, London. 
 
 The Resurrection of a Pious Family. — (Stipple). 
 F. Bartolozzi, R.A. Seven figures rising from 
 the midst of shattered columns and tombs. 
 The figure of the father is said to be a portrait 
 of the artist. H. 28J, Sub. 24$ ; W. 20J, 
 Sub. 18. 
 
 Painted by the Revd. Wm. Peters, LL.B., 
 of Exeter College, Oxford. Engrav'd by 
 
6 4 
 
 MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 F. Bartolozzi. The Resurrection of a Pious 
 Family from their Tomb at the Last Day. 
 O Death ! where is thy Sting. O Grave ! where 
 is thy Victory. Corinthians i st Epistle, XV. 
 Chap., 55 Verse. To His Royal Highness George, 
 Prince of Wales, &-c., &-c., & -c. This Print, 
 from an Original Painting by the Rev. W. 
 Peters, Chaplain to His Royal Highness, is 
 most humbly inscribed by His Royal Highness's 
 most Dutiful and Devoted Servant, Wm. 
 Dickinson. (Royal Arms with Prince of 
 Wales’s feathers underneath.) London, Pub- 
 lish'd Feby. i st, 1790, by W. Dickinson, 
 Engraver, Bond Street. 
 
 Centre-piece between " Spirit of a Child ” 
 and " Of such is the Kingdom of God.” 
 
 Priced in Boydell’s Catalogue, 1803, at 
 £1/11/6, and in Boys, Moon and Graves’ 
 Catalogue, 1829, at prints, £1/1/- ; colours, 
 £2/2/-. 
 
 The Resurrection of a Pious Family. — (Stipple). 
 Benjamin Smith. Seven figures rising from 
 the midst of shattered columns and masonry. 
 The figure of the father is said to be a portrait 
 of the artist. H. 21J, Sub. 17; W. 15J, Sub. 
 12J. 
 
 The Resurrection of a Pious Family from 
 their Tomb at the Last Day. O Death, where 
 is thy Sting ! O Grave ! where is thy Victory. 
 Corinthians, 1st Epistle, Chap. XV., Ver. 55. 
 London, Published by Boydell < 5 - Co., No. 90, 
 Cheapside. 
 
 Priced in Catalogue of Boys, Moon and 
 Graves, 1829: prints, 7/6; proofs, 10/6; 
 colours, £1/1/-. 
 
 William Robinson. — (Mezzotint). James Watson. 
 Elder brother of Richard Robinson, Arch- 
 bishop of Armagh, and 1st Lord Rokeby ; 
 b. 1703; succeeded his brother Thomas as 2nd 
 Bart. ; d. unm. in 1785. Full H.L., in square 
 border; seated, with arm on table, his left 
 hand on knee; powdered hair, ruffles, dark 
 velvet coat, and pilaster in background. 
 
 H. 14I, Sub. 1 3 1 , W. 10J. 
 
 I. Before inscription. 
 
 II. Wm. Peters, R.A., pinxt. James Wat- 
 son, Fecit. Sir William Robinson, Bart. From 
 an Original Painting by Mr. Peters in the 
 possession of His Grace the Lord Primate of 
 all Ireland and Baron Rokeby of Ireland. 
 
 “Romeo and Juliet.” — (Line). R. Rhodes. In crypt 
 of church, Romeo, with eyes closed, sinks 
 on the ground, the poisoned cup just escaped 
 from Iris grasp. Juliet, partly supporting 
 him on her knee with one hand, holds the 
 dagger to her breast with the other. H. 9|, 
 W. 7b 
 
 Revd. W. Peters pinxt. R. Rhodes sculp. 
 Romeo and Juliet, Act 5, Scene 4. Jul. — O 
 happy dagger I This is thy sheath, there rust 
 and let me die. Published Jany. 1, 1S17, by 
 lohn Murray, Albemarle Street, London. 
 
 Mary Isabella, Duchess of Rutland. — (Stipple). 
 C. W. White. Oval. 
 
 W. Peters, R.A., Pinxit. C. W. While. 
 Sculpt. Mary Isabella Duchess of Rutland. 
 Publish'd September 14 th, 1781, by C. W. 
 White, Kemps Row, Chelsea. 
 
 St. John. — (Stipple). Richard Read. As a 
 
 boy carrying a lamb in his arms, and a cross 
 with a ribbon tied to it ; with long hair in 
 curls, and robe fallen low, leaving neck and 
 shoulders bare. In oval, with bonier. H. 8}. 
 Sub. 8jg; W. 9|, Sub. 7ft. 
 
 Under. — I. Painted by the Revd. Wm. Peters, 
 of Exeter College, Oxford. R.A. Engrav'd by 
 Richd. Read. Pubd. Augst. 25 th, 1781, by Jas. 
 Gamble, Printseller 6- Inventor of Printing in 
 colours. No. 127, Pall Mall, &• I. Harris, 
 Sweetings Alley, Cornhill. 
 
 II. With additional . — Saint John. Engrav'd 
 from the Original Picture, in the possession of 
 his Grace the Duke of Rutland, to whom this 
 Plate is most humbly Dedicated by his Grace's 
 most Obliged &■ Obedient Servant Jas. Gamble. 
 (Coat of arms inserted in centre.) 
 
 A second plate, 10 by 10, was engraved 
 by Picot and published by Boydell. Price 
 in Boyd ell’s 1803 Catalogue, 2/6. 
 
 Sclavonian Lady. — (Mezzotint). J. R. Smith. 
 Short ILL., in oval frame. Looking towards 
 right ; turban, veil falling on right shoulder, 
 hair on left. H. 10J, Sub. 8f, W. 7$. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Wm. Peters pinxit. 
 
 J. R. Smith fecit. A Sclavonian Lady. 
 Publish'd 30 June, 1776, by John Boydell, 
 Engraver in Cheapside, London. 
 
 II. Wm. Peters pinxit. J. R. Smith fecit. 
 A Parmesan Lady. Published July 1st, 1776, 
 by John Boydell, Engraver in Cheapside, 
 London. 
 
 Sophia.— (Stipple). J. Hogg. 
 
 The Spirit of a Child arriv’d in the Presence of 
 
 the Almighty. — (Stipple). F. Bartolozzi. 
 H. 23, Sub. 19! ; W. 17$, Sub. 15. 
 
 Painted by the Rev. W. Peters, of Exeter Col- 
 lege, Oxford. (S' R.A. Engraved by F. Bartolozzi. 
 The Spirit of a Child arriv'd in the presence 
 of the Almighty. And the Lamb which is in 
 the midst of the Throne shall feed them, and 
 shall lead them into living fountains of water ; 
 and God shall wipe away all Tears from their 
 Eyes. To Her Grace Mary Isabella Dutchess 
 (sic) of Rutland, &-c., 6-e. This Print, from 
 a Picture by Mr. Peters, is humbly Inscrib'd 
 by Her Graces (sic) most humble and Oblig'd 
 Servant W. Dickinson. (In centre, coat of 
 arms surmounted by a ducal coronet.) London, 
 Publish'd May 21 st, 1787, by W. Dickinson. 
 Engraver and Printseller, No. 156, Bond 
 Street. 
 
 Priced in Bovdell’s Catalogue, 1803, at 
 IS/*- 
 
HIS LIFE AND WORK 65 
 
 Smaller size (stipple). Benjamin Smith. 
 
 H. 17, Sub. 13I; W. 12J, Sub. 9J. 
 
 I. Before any inscription. 
 
 II. Painted by the Revd. Wm. Peters, R.A. 
 Engraved by Benjn. Smith. The Spirit of a 
 Child arrived in the presence of the Almighty. 
 And the Lamb which is in the midst of the 
 Throne shall feed them, and shall lead them 
 unto living fountains of waters. Rev., Chap. 
 VII., Ver. 17. London, Publish'd (sic) by 
 Boy dell &■ Co., No. go, Cheap side. 
 
 Companion to “ Of such is the Kingdom 
 of God.” 
 
 Elizabeth Stephenson. — (Mezzotint). W. Dickin- 
 son. Daughter and heiress of Henry 
 Stephenson, of East Burnham, Bucks. ; m. 
 25th Sept., 1782, John, 2nd Earl of Mex- 
 borough, and d. June 7th, 1821. In oval 
 border. H. 15, Sub. 13, W. 13. 
 
 I. In etched letters. — Painted by IV. Peters. 
 Engrav'd by XV. Dickinson. Publish'd Sep- 
 tember 30/A, 1776. 
 
 II. Painted by XV. Peters. Engraved by 
 IV. Dickinson. Miss Stephenson. Published 
 Septr. 30/A, 1776, by XV. Dickinson, Henrietta 
 Street, Covent Garden, &■ T. Watson, No. 142, 
 New Bond Street. 
 
 Sylvia. — (Mezzotint). J. R. Smith. H. Sub. 13, 
 Plate 13$, W. 15J. 
 
 I. In scratched lettering. — Engraved from 
 an original painting of XV. Peters, R.A., in the 
 collection of the Right Honble. Lord Melbourne 
 by J. R. Smith. O Woman lovely woman, 
 Nature made you to temper man we had been 
 brutes without you. Published Decemr. 28, 
 1778, by J. R. Smith, No. 10, Bateman's 
 Buildings, Soho Square. J. Platt, Esq. 
 
 II. Sylvia (in Roman letters shaded). 0 
 Woman ! lovely Woman ! Nature made you 
 to temper Man : We had been Brutes without 
 you. Engraved from an Original Picture of 
 W. Peters, R,, A,, in the Collection of the Rt. 
 Honble. Lord Melbourne. London, Pubd. 
 Deer. 28, 1778, by J. Walker, No. 13, Parlia- 
 ment Street. 
 
 Tantalizing. — (Stipple). C. Knight. H. iif, 
 
 W. 15. 
 
 The Revd. Mr. Peters, R.A., Pinxt. C. 
 Knight, Sculpt. Tantalizing. He that denies 
 what Beauty has beseech'd, Shou’d like the 
 little churl be overreach'd. 
 
 “The Tempest,” Act I., Scene 2. — (Line). Brom- 
 ley. Prospero, to left, in dark robes, holding 
 a wand ; Miranda, in centre, in light robes, 
 with bosom partially bared ; Caliban kneeling 
 to right. H. 16, Sub. 9} ; W. nf, Sub. 8. 
 
 Painted by the Revd. W. Peters. Engrav'd 
 by Mr. Bromley. Tempest, Act I., Scene II. 
 Publish’d Augt. 1, 1794, by Mr. Woodmason, 
 Leadenhall Street, London. 
 
 The Three Holy Children. — (Stipple). Peter Simon. 
 Tall girl, full face, standing upright holding a 
 long roll of music ; two others kneel, one 
 on either side, all supported by clouds, and 
 an angel is dimly seen in background. 
 H. 14*. W. 19). 
 
 Painted by the Revd. Wm. Peters, of Exeter 
 College, Oxford. Engraved by Peter Simon. 
 The Three Holy Children. Then the three, as 
 out of one Mouth praised, glorified &■ blessed 
 God, saying, Blessed art thou, O Lord God of 
 our Fathers : & to be praised < 5 - exalted above 
 all for ever. Vide Apocrypha : Song of the 
 three Holy Children, Ver. 28, 29. (In centre, 
 coat of arms.) To the Right Reverend Father 
 in God, John Lord Bishop of Peterborough, 
 This Print is humbly inscribed by his Lordships 
 most obliged < 5 - obedt Servt John Boydell. 
 Publish’d Sepr. 29/A, 1788, by John 6- Josiah 
 Boydell, No. 93, Cheapside, London. 
 
 Priced in Boydell’s Catalogue, 1803, at 10/6. 
 
 Triumph of Virtue. — (Stipple). F. Bartolozzi. 
 
 H. 24J, W. i8*. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Peters Pinxt. F. Bartolozzi, R.A., 
 Sculpt. The Triumph of Virtue (imperfect). 
 
 Venetian Lady. — (Mezzotint). J. R. Smith. Short 
 H.L., in oval frame. Black veil over head 
 and shoulders, earring, pearl necklace, with 
 which fingers of left hand are playing, elbow 
 on frame of subject. 
 
 I. In scratched letters. — Publish'd 30 July, 
 1 776, by J. Boydell, Engraver in Cheapside, 
 London. J : R : Smith Fecit. The Venetian 
 dress of the Sindall. Engraved from a painting 
 of Mr. Peters in the Collection of John Taylor, 
 Esque. 
 
 II. Painted by XVm. Peters. Engraved by 
 
 J. R. Smith. A Venetian Lady in the Sindall 
 Dress. In the Collection of John Taylor, Esqr. 
 Published July 30/A, 1776, by John Boydell, 
 Engraver in Cheapside, London. 
 
 Revd. Joseph White, D.D., Prebend of Gloucester. 
 
 — (Book Illustration). Jos. Thomson. 
 
 Jos. Thomson Sculp. This portrait of The 
 Revd. Joseph White, D.D., Prebend of Gloucester, 
 A rchbishop Laud's Professor of A rabic. Painted 
 and presented by the Revd. William Peters, 
 R.A., as a mark of his respect to the University, 
 and of the singular regard he has for so great 
 <S- able an Advocate for Christianity, 1785. 
 Published by J. Sewell, 32, Cornhill, 1 Octr . , 
 1796. Issued in the ‘‘European Magazine." 
 
LUCRETIA 
 

GRIEF. 
 
 By kind permission of G. Rhodes, Esq. 
 
II 
 
 Morris Robinson, Jun. Morris Robinson. Mrs. Morris Robinson. Matthew Montagu. 
 
 Afterwards 3rd Baron Rokeby. Afterwards 4tli Baron Rokeby. 
 
 MORRIS ROBINSON AND FAMILY. liy kind Permission of the Hon. Elizabeth Montagu. 
 
Ill 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 u* 
 
 C/3 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 S 3 
 
 o . 
 
 H 
 
 w 
 
 a; 
 
 K 
 
 L> 
 
 C/3 
 
 U 
 
 a 
 
 ■s- 
 
 !* 
 ■>* 
 I 5 
 u .* 
 H ^ 
 X 
 
 — 3 
 
 c/5 CQ 
 
 w 
 
 = 
 
 H 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 x 
 
 u 
 
 X 
 
 C/3 
 
 u 
 
 fl5 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 H 
 
 Z 
 
 
 2! 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 o 
 
 J 
 
 
 CO 
 
 5 
 
 u 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 -< 
 
 
 
 u. 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 V 
 
 2 
 
 
 Q 
 
 2 
 
 C/5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 £ 
 
 CO 
 
 >* 
 
 
 ’ ^ 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 2! 
 
 OS 
 
 
 c 
 
 O 
 
 u. 
 
 > 
 
 CJ 
 
 I 
 
 H 
 
 I 
 
 **3 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 . ^ 
 
 H 
 
 ~ 
 
 -ae 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 J 
 
 
 C/5 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
“MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.” Act III., Scene 1. Hero, Ursula, and Beatrice. 
 
 FROM THE ENGRAVING BY P. SIMON IN THE ‘‘BOYDELL SHAKESPEARE.” 
 
 By permission of Messrs. James Rimell and Sons. 
 
 

VIII. 
 
 > 
 
 EDWARD WORTLEY MONTAGU. 
 
 FROM THH MEZZOTINT BY J. R. SMITH. 
 
 Reproduced from an engraving in the possession oj Messrs . Janies Rimell and Sons. 
 
IX 
 
 LYDIA. 
 
 Reproduced by permission of Messrs. Vicars Brothers. 
 
X. 
 
 MARY ISABELLA, DUCHESS OF RUTLAND. 
 
 FROM THE COLLECTION AT BELVOIR CASTLE. 
 
 By kind permission of His Grace the Duke of Rutland. 
 
MRS. JORDAN “Love in her eyes sits playing.” 
 
 FROM THE PICTURE IN THE COLLECTION OF THE LATE J. PIERPONT MORGAN, ESQ. 
 
 
 
 
 
THE REV. MATTHEW WILLIAM PETERS, R.A. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 SYLVIA. 
 
 FROM THE ENGRAVING BY WILLIAM S. LENEY 
 

 XIV. 
 
 vj 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 sV 
 
 So 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 X ^ 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 X 
 
 u 
 
 ti. 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 5 
 
 A 
 
 w 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 O 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 J 
 
 f r' J- 
 ^ C/> 
 
 y. E 
 < < 
 Qj 
 
 z < 
 < c~ 
 
 O *> 
 V. ^ 
 
 as 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 J 
 
 & 
 
 a. 
 
 H 
 
 C/3 
 
 I r 
 
 *■ w 
 
 C 
 
 as 
 
x\ 
 
 “ Henry VIII.” Act III., Scene 1. Queen Catherine and Cardinals Wolsey»and Campeius. 
 
 FROM THE ENGRAVING BY. R.- THEW. 
 
 “Henry VIII.” Act V., Scene 4. The Christening of Princess Elizabeth. 
 
 FROM THE ENGRAVING BY J. COLLIER. 
 
XVI. 
 
 “MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR.” Act II., Scene 1. 
 
 “BOYDELL SHAKESPEARE.” 
 
 MARY ISABELLA, DUCHESS OF RUTLAND. 
 
 FROM AN ENGRAVING BY C. W. WHITE, IN THE COLLECTION OF THE AUTHOR