"THE VELAZQUEZ."

A DESCRIPTION OF THE

CELEBRATED

HISTORICAL PICTURE
OF
dtharlcs flic Jfirsi,

BY THE GREAT
VELAZQUEZ, NOW ON" EXHIBITION
AT THE
STUYVESANT INSTITUTE, 659 BROADWAY, NEW YORK;

WITH A SUMMAKY ®F
T HE UN P A R A I, LKLED LITIGATIONS
|n tire tori of .Session, dfcinlwi'glj,
OCCASIONED BY AN ILLEGAL SEIZURE OP THE PICTUEE.

0 6

NEW YORK:
JOHN SNARE, 659 BROADWAY.

"THE VELAZQUEZ."
"A genuine work. The picture abounds with qualities that
make it curious as a painting, and there are many peculiarities in
it which bespeak the master. The pedigree and history of the
picture is certainly more full and plain than we fhould have
imagined it possible to render it."— London Morning Post.
" A splendid historical picture. This single painting is a sterling
treat for the lovers of pure art ; it is worth a whole ' Exhibition' of
yesterday novelties." — Illustrated London News.
"It is a great painting — one of startling force and beauty." — New
York Journal of Commerce.
" It had long been known to historians and to collectors of histor
ical portraits, that Velazquez painted a likeness of Prince Charles,
at Madrid, in 1623, when the Prince and Villiers were paying their
romantic visit to the Court of Spain. But the picture was lost to
public ken during more than two centuries ; and no small surprise
was excited when its discovery was announced, and it was publicly
exhibited in London, in 1847. The critics, with some few excep
tions, judging from internal evidence, pronounced it a genuine
work, and its possessor at the same time published its pedigree
and history, so satisfactorily and circumstantially made out, that he
was congratulated by the general voice of the press as the owner
of a long-lost treasure. Subsequent events show that, in interested
quarters, this pedigree has been deemed incontrovertible. Certain
Scottish gentlemen, known to this day as the Trustees of the Earl
of Fife, whilst the picture was being exhibited in Edinburgh, in
1849, suddenly seized it by a legal process, on the alleged ground
that it had been stolen from Fife House forty years previously. It
would not suit us to detail the variety of actions and cross-actions
in support of and in defence against this charge, which was carried
through the Scottish courts, nor to expose the ingenuity and malig
nity with which Mr. Snare was harrassed and pursued, all the tor
turing machinery of the law being brought to bear upon him. A
good cause, however, and able counsel, pulled him through his
troubles; and though the Trustees, as a forlorn hope, had given no
tice of an Appeal to the House of Lords, they finally, in July, 1852,
abandoned their persecutions, and saddled themselves with the
enormous costs incurred by their outrageous and scandalous litiga
tion. The pertinacity with which the Trustees have endeavored to
obtain possession of the portrait is one of the strongest proofs that
can be adduced in favor of its authenticity. They must have been
well advised of its value ere they undertook a course so unusual, so
vexatious, and so discreditable." — New York Albion.

"THE VELAZQUEZ."

A DESCRIPTION OF THE

CELEBRATED

HISTORICAL PICTURE
OF
€\mlts i\t Jfirsi,

BY THE GREAT

VELAZQUEZ, NOW ON EXHIBITION
AT THE
STUYVESANT INSTITUTE, 659 BROADWAY, NEW YORK ;

WITH A 8UMMAEY OF

THE UNPARALLELED LITIGATIONS
|n i\t tart of Stssimi, fflimfmxffo,
OCCASIONED BY AN ILLEGAL SEIZURE OF THE PICTUEE.

NEW YORK:
JOHN SNARE, 659 BROADWAY.

"THE YELAZQUEZ."

The lovers of Art are well acquainted with the fact that
no productions are more rarely met with than the genuine
works of Velazquez. The very name even of this illus
trious painter has only recently become familiar to the
people of England and America, and yet it is one that has
for more than two centuries commanded the esteem and
admiration of all who have had the good fortune to wit
ness the efforts of his pencil in the Royal Museum of
Madrid. There — in the richest gallery in the world —
"almost his entire work is deposited," and there he
stands pre-eminent before every other artist in truth
of delineation, in versatility of talent, and in power and
richness of effect. He painted ' ' almost exclusively for
the King of Spain," and "left few pictures elsewhere
than at Madrid. In other cities of Spain they are quite
as rare as in every other part of the world."
*
Velazquez cultivated no blandishments of art, no ex
travagance of form or color, no deviation from the har
monious and ever-varying arrangements which Nature
constantly presented to his susceptible and penetrating
mind. He was remarkable for his truthfulness. His
versatility was extraordinary. His hand was not sub
servient to any mode or chained to any manner. He
is not known for doing one thing well, but famed for
having done all things admirably. He was great in every
department, but his chief excellence lay in portraiture,
studying, as he did, Titian, whom, it is said, " he equaled,
(3)

4 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
if not excelled." His pictures, reflecting Nature, address
the modern heart, and though centuries have passed over
his tomb, he is yet a living influence. England and
America, whose schools of painting have been denounced
by certain critics and pedants as being meanly natural,
see in Velazquez the realization of their ideal.
The English writers upon Spanish art, in alluding to
Velazquez, lament "the loss" of that portrait of Prince
Charles, which, on the occasion of the Prince's "famous
love-pilgrimage" to the Court of Spain, in 1623, the artist
was commanded to execute ; and Mr. Ford, the enthusi
astic biographer of Velazquez, whom he describes as " the
Shakspeare of his art," and whose portraits he says " baffle
description and praise," exclaims, " What a loss is the por
trait of Charles himself, which Velazquez began ! It would
have been interesting to have compared the picture by the
Great Spaniard with those which we have by Vandyck."
That the bare idea of the loss of Prince Charles's por
trait was the occasion of deep regret with collectors and
connoisseurs in general cannot be wondered at, seeing,
as they did, how admirably Velazquez had delineated the
sallow visages, with "lack-lustre eyes and sensual lips,"
of the plainest of all the royal houses of Europe. If the
repulsive faces of the family of Philip the Fourth of Spain
could be so vividly portrayed on canvas by " the mighty
Andalusian" as to be raised to the true dignity of history,
surely the missing portrait of Charles, by so great a
painter, could in England be regarded in no other light
than that of an irreparable national loss.
The Spanish writers, however, make no allusion to " the
loss," nor do we find any record, either in the annals of
England or in those of Spain, of the destruction of Prince
Charles's portrait. All therefore that could with truth

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 5
be affirmed was the fact that, by those who had for years
been diligently in search after the picture, it could not
be found; and so ardently indeed have collectors of
historical pictures desired to recover the work, that no
other painting by the great Spaniard has excited such in
tense interest and curiosity in the world of art ; and there
certainly exists no other portrait of Charles which can
ever assume the same rank, or create so high and strong
an interest, as the unique work of Velazquez. The pe
culiarities of the picture correspond with the event that
gave it origin, and it cannot be classed with the ordinary
productions of the artist.
In the spring of the year 1623, Prince Charles, accom
panied by G-eorge Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, quitted
England, and, journeying in disguise through France,
arrived at the Court .of Madrid. Nearly two centuries
and a half have passed away since this romantic expedi
tion. In vain did James the First remonstrate — in vain
did he endeavor to restrain the ardor and impetuosity of
the young wooer. No entreaty could prevail on the
Prince to give up the idea of visiting Spain for the pur
pose of seeing his intended bride. All historians mention
this adventure, and the records of the period are full of
anecdotes connected with the circumstance. We are told
that " the two knight-errants set out on the eleventh
of February, 1623, from Newhall, in Essex, under the
names of John and Thomas Smith, disguised with false
beards." This interesting and truly romantic affair is
described as "the most extraordinary adventure that
ages have produced," and it was considered worthy, ac
cording to King James, of being " put in a- new romanso."
The object which the Prince had in view was to win the
Infanta of Spain. This purpose was openly avowed ; and,
as the acknowledged suitor of the Infanta, Prince Charles-
was welcomed and entertained by Philip the Fourth.

6 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
The Court strove to do honor to the royal guest, and the
Monarch nobly expressed his sense of the compliment
which the youthful adventurer conferred upon his family
and his nation. Bishop Hacket, in his Life of Archbishop
Williams, speaks of the " Royal Welcome" as an " enter
tainment very pompous and kingly : done like a King — ¦
chiefly like a King of Spain." The windows of the streets
were "glorified with torches three nights together by
proclamation." Costly presents were brought to the
Prince, and he had one of the chief quarters of the King's
house for his lodgings, with "one hundred of the guard
to attend him." King Philip declared that the Prince had
won the Infanta "by his brave adventure," and that he
"deserved to have her thrown into his arms," But the
rigid etiquette of the court, and the universal custom of
the country, forbade any tete-a-tete, or private meeting,
between the Prince and the lady of his love. He was only
allowed frequent opportunities of seeing her in public.
It was during this season of festivity that Velazquez,
then rapidly rising to the pinnacle of fame, returned,
through the invitation of the Duke d'Olivarez, "to the
region of that Court by which it was his ambition to be
distinguished, and now he seized his palette and his pencil
with the confidence of one who is certain of the issue."
He was in his twenty-fourth year, had totally freed him
self from the trammels of his instructors, and had' just
adopted his own natural manner.
Prince Charles honored Velazquez by sitting to him for
his portrait, and this picture has often been alluded to by
the Spanish writers upon Art. Charles was then in the
bloom of manhood. The heir to a throne, and the suitor
of a princess, had assumed the character of a knight-
errant, and the fashion of his day would make him desire
to be depicted as a hero : therefore the artist who was

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 7
commanded to delineate him was necessitated in a great
measure to render the representation in such a manner as
would suggest the imaginary attributes with which the
original was invested. Velazquez could not with indiffer
ence have received the commission ; for Charles, being
much praised for his "singular skill in limning," could
dictate to the art he was so liberal in promoting. The
youthful artist was then ambitious to gain the patronage
of the Court. Once he had tried to win the royal favor,
and had been disappointed. Under brighter auspices he
was about to make another essay to attain his wishes.
Charles, when at Madrid, was " the observed of all ob
servers," and the theme of every tongue. To flatter the
heir to the. English throne was the purpose upon which
all were bent ; and the aspiring artist, just in the hope of
fame, was commanded, not simply to portray the features
of a living face, but to propitiate the caprice and enlarge
the adulation of the Court.
Pacheco, the father-in-law and one of the preceptors of
Velazquez, in his " Art of Painting," informs us that the
portrait of Philip the Fourth, which the artist was com
manded to paint, could not be completed expeditiously,
"in consequence of his Majesty's numerous occupations."
He then states that the Prince of Wales presented Ve
lazquez with "one hundred crowns" for the portrait of
the Prince, which "he also made at the same time."
De Piles, who lived cotemporary with and wrote the
life of Velazquez, and who attended M. Amelot, the am
bassador extraordinary, into Spain, after describing the
large equestrian portrait of Philip, "showing a nobleness
of character which struck all the world," observes that " Ve
lazquez was no less happy in painting the .portrait of
Charles, Prince of Wales, whom he then found at the Cowl
of Spain."

8 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
Hayley, the poet, who. was an excellent Spanish
scholar, and had a fine collection of Spanish books, in
the notes to his " Essay on Painting," mentions that Ve
lazquez "had the honor of painting our Charles the First
during his Visit at Madrid."
Juan Cean Bermudez, writing of his country's art,
expressly declares that Velazquez was commanded to paint
a portrait of the Prince, which he was not able to finish on
account of the haste with which Charles quitted the Span
ish capital. It is however evident that the picture was
highly esteemed by the Prince, from the fact of his pre
senting the painter with "one hundred crowns," which
were fully equivalent to the price given by. Charles to
Vandyck in 1632 for " the picture of his Majesty." The
sum is sufficiently large to characterize the painting, and
establishes it to have been a work of importance.
The portrait of Prince Charles by Velazquez had disap
peared for so many years that no one entertained any se
rious hope it would ever be recovered. English writers
upon Spanish art, as before remarked, had long regarded
it as a lost picture, but it has at length emerged from its
mysterious obscurity, and is indeed a most superb speci
men of the extraordinary powers of the artist. That it is
an unfinished work there can be no doubt. A very slight
attention will discover it has never been completed, al
though it realizes so much and comes so near in its effect
to perfection. A casual visitor might even think the
picture most highly finished, for, in effect, it is so powerful
that the mind feels no deficiency. On inspection only is
the truth perceived, but then it is so clear that it is no
longer to be doubted. The work, so far as the portrait is
concerned, evidently has been done ; for all that could have
been added to the face or the figure would have been
those slight touches which too frequently, in the wish to

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 9
embellish, overlay the simplicity and spirit of the original
design. Omission, however, shows that the artist was not
permitted to complete his labor, for a large portion of the
middle distance is evidently laid in simply with an eye to
effect. A great mass of shadow is so thrown in as to be
suggestive of something, but at the same time is left in
that state which is rather indicative than representative.
These signs do not allow us to misinterpret the state
ments of those writers who affirm that the haste with which
Charles quitted Madrid prevented the completion of his por
trait by Velazquez. The omissions are perfectly imma
terial so far as they affect the general appearance of the
picture, while they give additional value and importance
to it by substantiating the accounts which have come
down to us. What is wanting, a child might point out, and
an ordinary painter might supply ; but what is present,
genius alone can fully appreciate, and none but Velazquez
could possibly have produced.
No one even partially educated to the comprehension
of the art of painting can fail to be struck by those signs
of rapidity of execution which the work in every part
displays. It has been evidently dashed off. Indications
too marked to be mistaken bespeak the speed with which
it has been produced. The handling is free in the ex
treme. The pencil appears to have swept across the can
vas and never to have paused or hesitated. The touch
of a master who knew his power and put forth his energy
is at once recognized. It is one of the most free and
brilliant portraits in existence. The first thought — the
primary idea of a great mind — is, in its purity and fresh
ness, impressed upon' the image. It is one of those
spontaneous declarations which the author probably would
have desired to reconsider, but which the spectator loves
for the spirit it expresses, and does not wish should be
improved'

10 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
There is also reason why Velazquez should thus hastily
have executed the portrait of the Prince, who was much
engaged by Court festivities on the one hand and by po
litical anxieties on the other. Under such circumstances
Charles could not grant the necessary number of sittings.
All must have been done with rapidity, and strictly in
compliance with the fastidious taste of the Prince, when
the rare opportunity occurred ; and, to increase the
speed, the artist was at that time employed in painting
the grand equestrian portrait of Philip the Fourth, his
royal master. To be speedy, therefore, was the necessity
of the occasion, and to it Velazquez has proved himself
fully equal.
The portrait represents the Prince in a brilliant suit
of armor, leaning against a large globe, upon which his
right arm rests, the hand supporting a baton. The left
hand hangs over the hilt of his sword. The face is seen
in a three-quarter view. The armor is relieved by the
long flowing hair and by a plain white frill around the
neck, and the order of St. George is suspended in front by
a massive gold chain. A rich yellow drapery, crossed by
stripes of red (the national colors of Spain) is behind the
figure, and the curtain is made so completely to cover one
half of the globe as to remind the spectator of the mem
orable words addressed to the Prince and Buckingham
by the famous Olivarez. It is stated in the " Memoirs
of the Duke of Buckingham" that, at their first interview,
" Olivarez kneeled at the Prince's feet, kissed his thigh,
and in a speech full of Spanish fustian welcomed him to
Madrid."' He then complimented the Marquis, and told
him, "now the Prince of England was in Spain, their
masters would divide the world betwixt them." The words
were not entirely without political meaning, for ideas of
universal conquest were at that time warmly entertained,
and the expression consequently would not fall unnoticed.

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 11
Importance was attached to it, for- in the first volume of
the " Journals of the House of Commons," at page 270,
it is found repeated. In Rushworth's "Historical Col
lections," vol. i., page 120, we find it again alluded to in
the Duke of Buckingham's "Narrative of all the Trans
actions in Spain," which was accompanied with the
Prince's attestation. The frequent repetition of the
words shows the weight which had been attached to
them. They were not unheeded at the time nor after
wards forgotten. The spectator therefore cannot fail to
perceive the intention of the globe, one half of which
is possessed by the arm of the figure, and the other
portion covered by the national colors of Spain.
The attitude of the figure is remarkably graceful. The
head is painted in a powerful light and in its full pro
portion. The calm intelligence and liquid clearness
of the eyes, the blooming carnation on the cheeks, the
well-formed mouth, the full oval countenance, and the
cheerful look and undisturbed serenity of the features,
bespeak at once the very flower and prime of life. The
rich auburn hair, tastefully disposed in luxuriant tresses,
the carefully cultivated moustache and light flowing beard,
are characteristic of refined attention to the prevailing
fashion of the time.
' Considered simply as a piece of painting, without any
reference to the individual for whom it was intended, the
head is very beautiful. Being delineated in full propor
tion, it gives dignity and weight to the figure of him
whose youth might be opposed to abstract ideas of
Majesty. The intellectual aspect was thereby increased,
and by this an opportunity was created for enlarging
other attributes. The face is painted with a force which
overpowers every other object. The colors are peculiarly
brilliant, rendering conspicuous that " unparalleled beauty"

12 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
of countenance, for which, we are told', in the "Annals
of King James and King Charles the First," the Prince
was "universally esteemed in Spain;" but the influence of
a warm climate, and the effect of continued diversion, may
have lent a glow to the complexion which, under ordinary
circumstances, it did not exhibit. None of the portraits
of Charles by Vandyck corroborate the treatment which
is here seen ; but when the Monarch sat to Sir Anthony,
"the troubles in England" had commenced — youth had
departed — and anxiety, with increasing years, may be
supposed to have destroyed the freshness which accom
panied the flush of manhood. History would account for
the face of a King, whose throne was a stool of contention
and whose reign was a wrangle, growing pale and sallow.
Yet, in addition to political reasons, there was a natural
cause, which alone would have produced such a change.
Before the King sat to Vandyck he was visited with the
disease of the small-pox, and however gentle may have
been its character (for the "usual spots" are said not
to have remained), the disorder could not but have pro
duced some effect.
For. depth, harmony, richness, and conception, the por
trait is certainly a wonderful performance ; and it seems
a1 most impossible that these important qualities should
be present in a work which occupied the author so short
a time. There, however, they exist, and no one having
•sight can deny their reality. The liquid nature of the
¦color, which, though used in body, was so thin as to ap
proach in some measure to glazing, permits us to conjec
ture whence the force was gained. The richness and life
like brilliancy of the flesh cannot fail to be remarked.
The carnations are so powerful, that there are few works
in which they have been equaled ; yet it seems strange
that, while they have this effect, the eye in vain attempts
.to discover any peculiarity in the colors, or in the manner

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 13
in which they have been employed. Ordinary pigments,
by some subtle contrast too delicate to explain, are made
to realize a most extraordinary effect. When at a little
distance from the picture, the spectator concludes the face
is highly glazed and elaborately stippled-. So ripe and
vivid are its tints, so clear and soft its shadows, that we
cannot attribute the result to simple color and ordinary
handling. Yet, drawing near, the supposition ends. Solid
color, never pure but always toned, has been employed,
with great breadth of pencil ; and little glazing, save in
the latest touches, can be discovered. The colors have
evidently been used in a very liquid state. Softness has
thereby been gained without the expenditure of much
time or labor. The face, indeed, is the most rapidly
painted portion of the whole picture. The tints have
been blended while they were yet moist, and hence they
melt into one" another with that exquisite idea of finish
which they suggest. The manner in which the counte
nance is produced shows that it must have been a work
of speed, since, had the colors been permitted to dry, the
process would of necessity have been changed. The face
appears to have been completed at a single .sitting, for the
method adopted would display any emendations, had they
been made, and none can be discovered.
The armor is remarkable for its depth, richness, and'
clearness, and the minutest details of all the parts are
wrought out with the greatest precision. The artist, how
ever, has not permitted the lustre of the armor to detract
from the head of the figure, which, in spite of the vivid
ness of all about it, is so treated that the eye of the spec
tator is insensibly led to and fixed upon the face.
The background imparts "interest, reality, and gran
deur" to the composition, and seems prophetically as
it were to illustrate the scenes in which Charles took

U "THE VELAZQUEZ."
a prominent part in after life. To the left, a strongly
fortified citadel rears its massive round towers on the
summit of a rock, washed at its base by a river. In the
distance is a bridge, with long and narrow arches, span
ning the deep valley in which fierce bands of armed
soldiers are engaged in deadly conflict. The admirable
impasto of this masterly sketch defies description. It is
the perfection of lineal and aerial perspective, and evinces
the utmost facility of execution, with astonishing firmness
and mastery of touch.
In the battle may be traced the evidence of the pic
ture's authenticity. The spirit — the certainty of touch —
the directness and singleness of purpose which it dis
covers — point to the artist who alone could have pro
duced it. More thickly painted than the nearer objects,
the eye can in it follow the brush. We see how freely
all has been created; and can study the much which so
little labor has called into existence. Dashed off rather
than painted in1 — expressed rather than defined — it ad
dresses the mind more than it charms the eye, and takes
its place as a suggestion that gives dignity to the image,
to which it is entirely subordinate. The repose which is
impressed upon the figure and imparted to every object
that surrounds it, tells how accurately Velazquez read the
mind and in the features saw the indications of the soul.
The Prince would be a hero, and so in every outward
attribute has the artist represented him ; but over all he
threw the ideal, that charm of truth, which, in its influ
ence, declared more than shape could signify.
There is no other portrait of Charles which presents so
favorable and at the same time so decided an ideal. In
the countenance is expressed the virtue and the failings
of the Monarch. A physiognomist, by studying the face,
might write the character of the man and prognosticate

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 15
the fortune of the future King. In the largeness of its
truth the likeness is more than historic — it is biographical.
The complaisance of the features and the fullness of the
complexion denote the too sanguine temperament — that
fatal trait which induced the Monarch to listen to every
hope — blinded him to prudence — and, being himself by it
deceived, led him to betray his dearest friends. The
ease and softness of the countenance bespeak the love
of leisure and the refinement by which the unhappy
Sovereign was distinguished. The full and liquid eyes,
calmly resting beneath the high and expanded forehead,
indicate the contemplative and theoretical disposition of
the man who was always quick to conceive and ever
ready to suggest. We see the mind that never was with
out a plan, and, even on the scaffold, bowed the neck in
hope. The inward strength which lent lustre to the
death, and in misfortune towered more than in success,
is plainly to be read in those full and gleaming eyes
which the artist, to enforce the grandest trait in Charles's
character, has designedly deepened. The bushy brow
portrays the spirit which, conjoined to the other indi
cations, would explain the temper that, rarely breaking
forth in acts of severity, yet, in its approach to stern
ness, often showed its power in pride, and frequently
in obstinacy. Capable of resolution — ready to plot — ¦
quick to hope and inwardly supported — we see the
brightest side of Charles's character. His failings are
excused, his errors palliated, and even the guilt of his
inconstancy is pleaded for. He looks the image which
might walk to martyrdom, and suggests the being who
could court the doom. Something to love, and much
to admire, is in this view presented ; but over all pre
dominates that fatal inactivity and incapacity for action
which ultimately lost a kingdom and brought a monarch
to the block.

16 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
The costume is correct. The Prince, when at Madrid
was possessed of the suit of mail which the artist has
depicted ; and it is the only garb which, after reading the
letters of the King, we can imagine the youthful lover
would select.
In Nicholls's " Progresses, Processions, and Magnificent
Festivities of King James the First," is contained a letter
by the King, written to the Prince. The letter is dated
"Windsor, April 18th, 1623."
" My Babie shall ressave his tilting-stnffe, now bravelie sette
foorth, and fitte for a wooer, but in goode faith the wether will he
so hoatte thaire before ye can use it, that I wolde wishe you rather
to forbeare it, for I feare my Babie may catehe a fever by it."
In Aikin's " Court of James the First" we find a letter
from the King to the Prince and Buckingham, commenc
ing with " My sweet boys and dear venturous knights ;"
and, speaking of Spain, the writer observes :
" Kirke and Gabriel will carry Georges and garters to you both
with speed."
The very articles,-v-the " tilting-stuffe now bravelie
sette foorth," — the "Georges and garters," — were spe
cially sent to Spain to give Charles an appearance "fitte
for a wooer." These things, consequently, constitute
the dress in which the Prince would have desired to be
painted.

«T

THE VELAZQUEZ."

COURT OF SESSION, EDINBURGH,— 1849-52.
Abstract of Proceedings in a SUMMONS OF DAMAGES, at the
instance of John Snare against The Trustees op the Earl op
Fipe, with a Summary of the various litigations occasioned by
an illegal seizure of the celebrated Velazquez Portrait op
Charles the First.
The Velazquez Portrait of Charles the First was
purchased by the pursuer at an open sale in the year 1845.
It was sold by auction in England, at Radley Hall, Oxford
shire, by order of the assignees of Mr. Benjamin Kent,
and great publicity was given to it. The picture was par
ticularized both in the catalogues and in the newspaper
advertisements of the' sale, and it was thus described :
"Half-length of Charles 1st, supposed Vandyck."
The pursuer had known the picture for some time, and
he felt assured that it was not one of Vandyck's numerous
portraits of Charles, but a work of great historical interest
which had been lost to the world for upwards of two cen
turies — the famous production of the most distinguished
painter of the Spanish school — the unique portrait of
Charles the First by Velazquez ; — he applied himself
therefore to the task of tracing its history and pedigree,
and spent much time and money in his researches.
The portrait had belonged to Mr. Kent for several years.
It became his property after the decease of his father-in-
law, Mr. Archer, of Oxford, who possessed it more than
twenty years. Mr. Archer bought it of a Mr. Charles
Spackman, of London, a reputable dealer in pictures, and
Spackman purchased it of a Mr. John Marshall, a very
wealthy and highly respectable tradesman, in Gerrard Street,
Soho, whose property it was in 1805.
The pursuer persevered in his inquiries concerning the
pedigree until he succeeded in getting possession of Mr.
(11)

18 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
Marshall's private books, and he found, by an entry in one
of them, that there had been dealings between Marshall and
James Earl of Fife,- and that in the year 1805 there was
a balance paid to the Earl, by Mar-shall, for certain trans
actions concerning pictures. He at length ascertained
that " The Velazquez" was in the Earl of Fife's possession
about the commencement of the present century, and in
the catalogue of that nobleman's collection of paintings in
Fife House, Whitehall, London, printed (privately) in 1798,
he found the identical picture described as the portrait of
Charles the First, when Prince of Wales, "painted at
Madrid," by Velazquez.
The Earl of Fife's mansion (Fife House) was erected on
a portion of the space formerly occupied by York House,
the princely residence of George Villiers, Duke of Buck
ingham, the "magnificent favorite" of the Court, who
went out to Madrid with Charles in the spring of the year
1623 :- — they returned together, the same year, on the 5th
of October, landed at Portsmouth, proceeded at once to
London, and arrived at York House on the following
morning. The Duke of Buckingham had a taste for pictures, and
he amassed together in York House one of the finest col
lections ever possessed by a private individual in England.
He was the favored recipient of several works of Art be
longing to the Court, and among the gifts bestowed on
him by royalty, was the "Cain and Abel" by John of
Bologna, which Philip of Spain had presented to Charles
during his stay at Madrid. This was placed in the gar
den of York House.
A note is appended to the description of the Velazquez
Portrait of Charles in the Earl of Fife's catalogue, in which
it is stated that "this picture belonged to the Duke of
Buckingham ;" the pursuer, therefore, after he had traced
the portrait to Fife House, made it known to the defend
ers, in the hope that some of them would condescend to
identify it, and with the view of learning whether any
other document relating to its pedigree was in their pos
session ; but he was unsuccessful in obtaining any infor
mation from the Fife Trustees. Having, however, clearly
traced the picture back so far, the pursuer submitted it to
public inspection, when it was soon recognized and iden-

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 19
tified by several disinterested persons who had previously
seen it in Fife House.
In 1847 the picture was exhibited by the pursuer, for
upwards of nine months, at No. 21 Old Bond Street, Lon
don. The exhibition was advertised in all the leading
newspapers of the metropolis ; and the announcement of
the recovery of " the lost Velazquez" naturally gave rise
to considerable disputation. The whole world of art, and
all the critics, took up the question of its genuineness. It
was not only minutely criticised by the gentlemen of the
press, but it was also closely scrutinized by many cele
brated connoisseurs and artists ; and of the hundreds who
came to criticise, the many who disputed, and the some
who were anxious to disprove, not one was able to attribute
the picture to any other author. The genuine character
of the work rested on evidence so broad and palpable —
so direct and strong — that the portrait, of itself, declared
its date and origin. It was its own interpreter.
After it had been pronounced authentic by competent
judges, who declared themselves satisfied with the internal
evidence afforded by the work itself, the pursuer published
a pamphlet, wherein he openly and unreservedly detailed
the manner in which he acquired possession of the picture,
and also recorded the facts and stated the reasons which
had induced him to declare it to be the veritable portrait
of Charles by Velazquez. The pamphlet was entitled
" The History and Pedigree of the Portrait of Prince
Charles (afterwards Charles the First), painted by Velaz
quez in 1623 ¦" it was very widely circulated ; and it was
reviewed by the press throughout England and Scotland.
Towards the close of the year 1848 the picture was
again exhibited in London for more than two months, and
the pursuer at the same time published a pamphlet enti
tled " Proofs of the Authenticity of the Portrait of Prince
Charles (afterwards Charles the First), painted at Madrid
in 1623, by Velazquez, — contained in Observations on the
Remarks of Sir Edmund Head, Bart., and William Ster
ling, Esq., MA." This pamphlet was so liberally noticed,
and so favorably reviewed by the press, that a second
edition was issued.
The portrait, however, by this time was beyond the
sway of doubts and suspicions ; — it was fairly out of the

20 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
region of surmise ; — and the peculiar history with which
it was connected threw around it a certain charm. ' ' The
long-lost Velazquez" became an object of considerable
interest in the first circles of society. It was visited by
.many thousands of persons : and so great, indeed, was its
celebrity, that the pursuer made arrangements for its
public exhibition in the principal cities of the kingdom.
For the purpose of commencing this, the picture was taken
to Edinburgh.
The exhibition in Edinburgh was opened at Tait's Hotel,
Prince's Street, in the month of January, 1849 ; here,
however, it had only been seen a few days, ere it was sud
denly seized, taken out of the pursuer's hands, and con
veyed to the Sheriff's office in the County Buildings, under
an ex parte warrant, granted by the Sheriff-Substitute, at
the suit of Richard Wharton Duff, Esq., General the Hon
orable Sir Alexander Duff, James Souter, Esq., James Duff,
Esq., Major Alexander Francis Tayler, and Alexander
Thomas Wharton Duff, Esq., Trustees of the late Earl of
Fife, who had presented a petition to the Sheriff, in which
they stated that the "picture had been stolen or surrep
titiously abstracted" from their possession "by some party
or parties unknown, during or subsequent to the month
of February, 1809."
Throughout the whole time of the exhibition of the
picture in London, the Trustees of the Earl of Fife set up
no claim whatever to the property, though, in a " State
ment" appended to their petition to the Sheriff, they ac
knowledged that they had obtained "a trace" of it "about
a year ago, when it was publicly exhibited in London, or
at Reading, or elsewhere, by Mr. Snare."
The warrant which the Sheriff-Substitute had granted,
upon the vague allegation of the Fife Trustees, interdicted
and prohibited the pursuer from intermeddling with or
removing the picture beyond the jurisdiction of the Court,
until he found security ' ' to the extent of five hundred
pounds sterling ;" and it gave power to the Sheriff-Clerk
•to take possession of the picture, and to retain it in his
custody and keeping until the right of property was deter
mined. But these harsh and summary proceedings were
immediately brought, by appeal, under the review of the
Sheriff-Principal, who, having heard parties, was of opin-

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 21
ion that the warrant ought not to have been granted. The
Sheriff, indeed, expressed a very decided opinion that the
interlocutor of his Substitute was wrong, and the proceed
ings of the Trustees improper ; and, on the 26th of Feb
ruary, he pronounced judgment, ordaining the Clerk of.
Court to deliver the picture bach into the hands of the pur
suer. The Sheriff also appended a note to his judgment,
in which he stated he was " satisfied that, under the prin
ciples of the law of Scotland, applicable to the averments
of the petitioners," there was " nothing to justify any in
terference with" the pursuer's custody of his picture.
" If," said the Sheriff, " the petitioners' argument is good,
then there is nobody whose property is not liable to be
taken out of his house, without any warning, on a naked
allegation that it is stolen property. In fact, the theft is
a mere conjecture on the part of the petitioners. This
conjecture of a theft cannot be the foundation for any such
summary procedure as is here attempted. The petition
ers are probably convinced that good luck has brought
within their grasp what, for forty years, they did not think
it worth their while to make search for or inquiry about.
It is difficult to believe that the theft of any such picture
would have been acquiesced in with such meek indiffer
ence." And the Sheriff added that he "was " clearly of
opinion" there were " no grounds" for placing the pursuer
"under any restraint or obligation whatever, as to the
custody or use of his property." The pursuer therefore
applied to the Sheriff-Clerk for the restoration of the pic
ture ; the Sheriff-Clerk, however, refused his request, on
the ground that the judgment of the Sheriff was not final.
On the 28th of February, the Trustees presented another
petition to the Sheriff, craving leave to advocate to the
Supreme Court his judgment of the 26th as an interlocu
tory judgment ; but after another hearing of the parties,
on the 2d of March, the Sheriff refused leave to advocate,
and again ordained the picture to be delivered to the
pursuer. At a late hour on the night of the 2d of March, the
Trustees presented a note of suspension and interdict to
the Lord Ordinary, containing a repetition of their state
ment in the petitions to the Sheriff ; and although they
Icnew and had heard the Sheriff's decision — refusing leave

22 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
to advocate — they alleged, contrary to the fact, that his Lord
ship had granted interim execution pending the advocation,
and they prayed for an interdict to prohibit the Sheriff-
Clerk from delivering up the picture. The Trustees con
cealed the fact that they had applied to the Sheriff for leave
to advocate, and that he had refused. — therefore the Lord
Ordinary, ex parte (a caveat lodged by the pursuer having
been overlooked by the Bill-Chamber Clerk), granted
interdict to a limited extent.
The pursuer entered appearance, and lodged answers,
and parties were heard by counsel on the 7th of March,
when the Lord Ordinary (Lord Robertson) finding "that
the alleged theft or surreptitious abstraction of the pic
ture was stated in a very vague and unsatisfactory manner,
and that no circumstances were alleged with regard to the
supposed thief or thieves — that no inquiry had been made
by the Trustees with respect to the said picture, or any
steps taken for the recovery thereof — that they admitted
they were aware of the advertisements in the newspapers
of the exhibition of the picture in London and elsewhere
by the pursuer about a year ago, and that they then took no
measures for asserting any'right thereto, or intimated any
claim to the pursuer — that no statement was made either
of any knowledge on the part of the pursuer of the alleged
abstraction of the picture, or of any impropriety or irreg
ularity on his part in acquiring the same, and that it was
not disputed he did acquire it at a public sale, in the year
1845, and had openly acted as the bona fide possessor of
the said picture, which had been the subject of pamphlets
and other publications, and that no challenge of his right
was made until the summary application presented to the
Sheriff," — recalled the interdict, refused the note of sus
pension, and found the Trustees liable in expenses. His
Lordship at the same time characterized the conduct of
the Trustees as " illegal and harsh" and as " the most out
rageous" he had " ever heard of."
The interdict having been thus recalled, the pursuer
applied to the Bill-Chamber Clerk for a certificate of the
Lord Ordinary's refusal of the note of suspension ; upon
which, with the view of frustrating the pursuer's efforts
to obtain possession of his picture, the Trustees presented
a note, craving that, as they intended to put in a reclaim-

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 23
ing note against Lord Robertson's judgment, the Bill-
Chamber Clerk should be prohibited from issuing a certifi
cate, — but his Lordship refused their request.
The same day on which the Lord Ordinary recalled the
interdict (March 7), the Trustees complicated matters still
farther, and harassed the pursuer by raising a Summons
of Multiplepoinding in the name of the Sheriff-Clerk, as
holder of the picture. This was executed against the
pursuer, $nd intimated to the Sheriff-Clerk — the nominal
raiser. The Sheriff-Clerk, in consequence of the interdict hav
ing been intimated, would not part with the picture until
the certificate of refusal could be shown to him.
By act of sederunt, forty-eight hours must elapse (in
the case of refusing a note of suspension and recalling an
interdict) between the time of signing the interlocutor and
issuing the certificate. Shortly before the expiry of the
forty-eight hours, the Trustees, as already stated, applied
to the Lord Ordinary to prohibit the issuing of the certifi
cate of refusal ; but as this was not granted, the pursuer,
after business hours on the 10th of March (Saturday) at
length obtained the certificate. This was intimated to the
Sheriff-Clerk, who still declined parting with the picture,
on account of his having been served with a notice of
advocation. On the 12th of March the Trustees lodged a note of ad
vocation of the Sheriff's two judgments of the 26th of
February and the 3d of March. These judgments were
interlocutory judgments, and, as such, could not be advocated
without leave of the Sheriff. Such leave had been asked
and refused, therefore it occurred to the pursuer that the
Sheriff-Clerk was not entitled to recognize any such irreg
ular proceeding, and was bound to restore the picture, in
terms of the two several orders issued by the Sheriff ; but
as the She riff- Clerk was of a different opinion, the pursuer
(without admitting the competency of the advocation) ap
plied to the Sheriff for possession of the' picture pending
the advocation.
Counsel were appointed to be heard on this subject on
the 16th of March, but the counsel for the Fife Trustees
failed to attend at the time fixed for the discussion. Mat
ters were in a curious position ; for the Trustees made no

24 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
objection to the application, and the Sheriff required no
farther statement from the pursuer, nor did his Lordship
see anything to alter the opinion which he originally ex
pressed — that the warrant granted by his substitute ought
not to have been granted. That opinion, or rather that deci
sion, had been twice pronounced by the Sheriff after hear
ing all parties fully. The same view, after hearing parties,
had been adopted and enforced by the Lord Ordinary.
The Trustees had certainly intimated that all the judg
ments which had been pronounced from the beginning
were to be brought under the review of the Supreme
Court, but the Sheriff was empowered, by act of sederunt,
upon the application of either party, to regulate interim
possession. The picture was not a production in the process
— it was not an exhibit — it was merely the subject-matter of
a dispute — a question raised by the Trustees themselves by
means of their unsupported statement — and though they
might discuss that question, they could have no right to
seize and detain the picture, and interfere with the exhi
bition. According to the views of the Sheriff and the
Lord Ordinary, the property must continue in the hands
of the pursuer — the bona fide purchaser — and, on looking
at the Trustees' vague statement, that at some time or other
the picture was stolen, though they knew not when, where,
how, or by whom, and finding that they did not appear on
this occasion to support any right to the property which
they might imagine they had, the Sheriff issued an inter
locutor ordaining the Clerk of Court to deliver the prop
erty back into the hands of the pursuer at twelve o'clock
at noon the following day.
Early the next morning, the Fife Trustees lodged a note,
objecting to the competency of the Sheriff's order, and
craving to be heard by counsel, but the Sheriff refused to
listen to this, and the picture was at length restored to the
pursuer on the 17th of March.
The pursuer having all along entertained an opinion
that the seizure of the picture was not only unjustifiable
but illegal, deemed it proper, before the Sheriff pronounced
any judgment, to serve a "protest" on the Trustees of
the Earl of Fife, in which he stated that he was, "the
sole, undoubted, and lawful proprietor of the portrait of
Charles the First, by Velazquez, which had for upwards

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 25
of three years been in his unchallenged possession," and
that as no grounds existed for the Fife Trustees making
the application to the Sheriff that he should be dispos
sessed of his lawful property, he held them "liable to
him in damages for their illegal and oppressive proceed
ings, as well as for reimbursement for all expenses, losses,
and charges, he had then incurred and suffered, or might
incur and suffer, by being deprived of the picture." •
The Fife Trustees replied to the "protest," denying
that the pursuer was the lawful proprietor of the portrait,
or that they had unwarrantably deprived him of posses
sion thereof. They also stated that they had not subjected
him to loss or damage — that he was " a foreigner, without
any fixed place of abode in Scotland, to whom it would
have been easy, had the picture remained in his uncon
trolled possession, to carry it off beyond the Sheriff's juris
diction, or even beyond seas, and thus defeat the claim of
the Trustees.
The pursuer did not instantly leave the country and
carry the picture with him, as the Trustees in their answer
to the protest so positively declared he would, for, on the
second day after the portrait was delivered into his hands
by the Sheriff-Clerk, the Exhibition was again re-opened
at Tait's Hotel. But a week had scarcely elapsed before
the following letter was addressed to the pursuer's agent
by the agents of the Fife Trustees : —
" Edinburgh, 16 Queen Street, 28th March, 1849.
" The Velazquez. — Dear Sir : — We would beg to caution your
client, Mr. Snare, against making uncalled-for remarks in advertise
ments in the public newspapers, or other ways, upon the recent pro
ceedings of the Fife Trustees for the recovery of their picture. Such
remarks are most improper while the proceedings are still pending in
Court, and can only lead to farther litigation if persisted in, to have
them put a stop to. We are, dear sir, yours faithfully,
"Inglis & Burns."
"James Lamond, Esq., S. S. C, 140 Prince's Street."
FOUR SEVERAL ACTIONS relating to the picture
were at this time pending, all of which had been unjustly
raised against the pursuer by the Fife Trustees, for they
were all groundless ; and amidst the losses, distractions, and
vexations arising out of these proceedings, " farther liti
gation" was threatened by this letter, to avoid which, the
pursuer was necessitated to close the Exhibition of the
picture on the 6th of April, 1849.

26 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
The RECLAIMING NOTE put in by the Trustees
against the Lord Ordinary's judgment was discussed in the
First Division of the Court of Session on the 9th of June.
The Trustees on that occasion maintained that the inter
locutor of the Sheriff of the 3d of March was " irregular,"
as it was an attempt to regulate interim possession of the
picture, while "advocation of his former judgment was
under discussion ;" but Lord Jeffrey inquired how the
Trustees could make out "an advocation" from a mere
" petition for leave" to advocate ? — and his Lordship em
phatically declared that it was a " mere dream of an advo
cation." The Trustees then stated that there could be no
doubt the picture was identical with the one named in the
catalogue of those in Fife House. How it had been ob
tained by those from whom the pursuer got it, ' ' could
not yet be proved," but its identity was not denied by
him, and as it must originally have' been stolen, or sur
reptitiously obtained, "the onus lay with him to show its
history in the interim." They desired it to be kept within
the jurisdiction of the Court until the question should be
ultimately decided. If not, it might be sold or carried
abroad at a moment's notice.
Lord Jeffrey then inquired how the Trustees could in
terfere with the picture on such an allegation — a vague
statement of having had the property forty years ago? —
and his Lordship observed that the pursuer was not bound
to take the least notice of the Trustees' affirmation, nor
could any Judge be required to act upon it, for there was
"no summary power to seize goods in innocent pos
session." The Lord President, on delivering his opinion, said
that "the whole proceeding was most prejudicial to the
property and interest of the pursuer," and that "it
would be a most hazardous doctrine indeed" to hold that
there could be any such right as that contended for by the
Trustees. His Lordship remarked that " before the Trus
tees were entitled to seize upon the picture and drag it
through the public streets," they were " at least" bound
to show that the pursuer was in meditatione fugcn—" there
was no proper specification of time, or place, as to when or
where the picture was lost — it might have been given by
Lord Fife himself to some person in London," — and his

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 27
Lordship saw "no grounds whatever for altering the de
cision of the Lord Ordinary."
Lord Mackenzie said, " You may not summarily seize
any man's property merely because you know that at a
distant time it belonged to you or your author."
Lord Fullerton entirely concurred.
,The Court, therefore, adhered to the Lord Ordinary's
judgment in favor of the pursuer, and found the Trustees
liable in expenses.
The SUMMONS OF MULTIPLEPOINDING raised
against the pursuer by the Fife Trustees, in the name of
the Sheriff-Clerk, came on for discussion before Lord
Wood, on the 12th of June, when the Trustees contended
that as the picture was claimed by two parties (themselves
and the pursuer), and the Sheriff-Clerk was custodier of the
picture when the summons of multiplepoinding was raised,
it was competent to try the proceedings in that shape, and
that under a multiplepoinding "a congeries of actions"
might be tried. But his Lordship, after hearing parties,
dismissed the multiplepoinding, and found the Trustees
liable in expenses.
The SUMMONS OF DAMAGES which the pursuer
raised against the Fife Trustees was dated and signeted
the 8th of May, and executed thereafter, and when the
inducim had expired, the pursuer called his summons.
This was done on the 5th of July, and appearance was
entered on behalf of the Trustees, but no defences were
lodged ; therefore the decree for payment of damages,
expenses, and dues of- extracting the decree, together
amounting to £5029, 19s. 4d., was pronounced, by default,
by Lord Wood on the 20th of July, 1849.
After a lapse of more than six months, during which
time the Trustees had resorted to extraordinary modes of
proceeding — to no purpose, except to create expense and
cause unnecessary delay — the pursuer extracted the de
cree, and a charge of payment was given to the defenders.
A Note of Suspension was now obtained by the Trus
tees, and after it was enrolled, the Lord Ordinary, on
the 14th of March, 1850, appointed defences to be given
in on the following Tuesday ; but, at a subsequent calling
of the case, the agents of the defenders requested proro
gation until the first box-day in the vacation. Both first

28 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
and second box-days passed — no defences were lodged,
and no explanation was given by the Fife Trustees.
The pursuer, considering himself ill-treated throughout
the whole of these proceedings, and finding that so many
pretexts had been resorted to by the defenders to impede
the action for damages, obtained Letters of Arrestment,
and, on the 10th of May, a messenger-at-arms arrested
the rents of various parties who were tenants of the Fife
Trustees. To release themselves from these arrestments,
the defenders were compelled to give security for the
damages. More than twelve months' having at this time expired
since the summons of damages was raised, the case was
enrolled for final decree and judgment on the 21st of May,
when, on being called before Lord Wood, the Trustees
applied for farther prorogation ; but his Lordship stated
that, unless the defences were lodged within three days,
he should pronounce decree. The case was therefore en
rolled again ; and on Friday, the 24th of May, the Trus
tees presented the following preliminary defences :; — "1.
The summons having been called before the expiry of the
legal inducice, the present action must be dismissed as
irregularly brought into Court. 2. The pursuer is not
properly designed or described in the summons, and must
give a more special statement of his residence, or sist a
mandatory. 3. The pursuer is bound to find caution for
expenses, before further procedure in the action."
The defenders knew quite well that their defences were
groundless ; but, acting on the principle which regulated
their proceedings throughout, they stated them to cause
delay, annoyance, and expense to the pursuer.
These defences were duly argued, and on the 28th and
29th of May the Lord Ordinary pronounced the following
interlocutors : —
"Edinburgh, 28th May, 1850. — The Lord Ordinary having heard
parties' procurators, repels the first preliminary defence, that the sum
mons has heen prematurely called in Court : Repels also the second
preliminary defence, in respect it is stated that the pursuer is now
resident at 41 Lothian Street, Edinburgh, and proposes to remain in
Scotland during the dependence of this action : Farther, repels the
third preliminary defence, and continues the cause, that the defenders
may state whether or not they mean to acquiesce in this interlocutor.
(Signed) "A.Wood."

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 29
"Edinburgh, 29th May, 1850. — In respect the defenders now state
that they are to acquiesce in the interlocutor disposing of their pre
liminary defences, remits the cause to the Issue Clerks.
(Signed) "A. Wood."
The Issues having been returned by the Issue Clerks,
the case was enrolled before Lord Wood on the 1st of
November, but no appearance was made on behalf of the
Fife Trustees, and his Lordship therefore intimated that
he would either approve of the Issues, or he should report
them to the First Division of the Court.
On the 5th of November the case was again called be
fore Lord Wood, when the defenders contended that they
should be allowed a counter Issue as to whether the pro
ceedings taken by them in removing the picture, by virtue
of the warrant obtained from the Sheriff, were done
" maliciously and without probable cause."
The pursuer contended that such a counter Issue should
not be allowed, as, even if the proceedings had not been
dictated by malice, that was no answer to their case. The
Sheriff- Substitute's warrant had been obtained at the de
fenders' peril, and^pxecuted at their peril, and the picture
detained for a long time. Malice and want of probable
cause needed only to be proved in privileged cases (to
which the present did not belong), and they always went
together. A simple issue of the facts had been returned
by the Issue Clerks, under which, on the one hand, the
pursuer would be obliged to prove that the diligence had
been applied for and executed rashly, while it would be
quite open to the defenders to prove in defence that they
had not applied for or executed it rashly.
Lord Wood was of opinion that it was unnecessary and
improper to allow a counter Issue. His Lordship, there
fore, approved of the pursuer's Issues, and pronounced
the following interlocutor : —
"November 5th, 1850. — The Lord Ordinary having heard parties'
procurators, holds the Issues, No. 18 of process, as adjusted and
settled, and approves of the same as now authenticated accordingly.
(Signed) " A. Wood."
The Fife Trustees refused to acquiesce in this Interloc
utor, and enrolled the process on Lord Wood's motion roll
for the following Tuesday, for the purpose of moving his
Lordship to report the pursuer's Issues to the Inner House.

30 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
On the 12th of November, Lord Wood pronounced an
other Interlocutor, and reported the case to the First
Division, appointing the pursuer to print and box the
draft of the Issue proposed by the Fife Trustees, and allow
ing both parties to print and box at the same time such
other parts of the proceedings as they might deem neces
sary for the information of the Court. ¦
The final discussion on the Issues came before the First
Division of the Court of Session on the 10th of Decem
ber, when the Fife Trustees again moved to be allowed
to put in a counter Issue as to whether they had acted
"without malice, and with probable cause," and this, of
course, was again opposed on the part of the pursuer ;
but after some discussion, and after the Court had indi
cated a clear opinion that no ground existed for the de
fenders craving such an Issue, the Trustees withdrew the
counter Issue.
The Issues to try the Action of Damages raised against
the Fife Trustees were therefore at length adjusted in the
form originally proposed by the pursuer, and the follow
ing Interlocutor was pronounced : —
" 10th December, 1850. — The Lords, on report of Lord Wood, and
having heard counsel, close the record upon the summons and defen
ces, ISTos. 1 and 13 of process, approve of the two first Issues as now
adjusted, allow the defenders to withdraw the counter Issue proposed
by them, and hold the same withdrawn accordingly.
(Signed) " D. Botle, I. P. D."
" THE VELAZQUEZ CAUSE,"— John S^are versus
James Earl of Fife's Trustees, — was tried in the Jury
Court, Edinburgh, on Saturday the 26th and Monday the
28th of July, 1851, before the Hon. Lord Cowan.
The case went to trial on the following Issues :—
"Whether on or about the 31st of January, 1849, the defenders
wrongfully applied for and obtained from the Sheriff-Substitute of the
county of Edinburgh the warrant set forth in the schedule hereunto
annexed, and wrongfully caused the same to be executed, and the
picture therein referred to, to be seized and removed from the custody
or possession of the pursuer, in virtue or under color of said warrant,
to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer ?"
" Whether the defenders wrongfully detained and withheld the said
picture, or caused the same to be detained and withheld from the
pursuer, from on or about the said 31st day of January, 1849, till on
or about the lYth day of March following, to the loss, injury, and
damage of the pursuer ?"

"THE VELAZQUEZ." 31
Various witnesses were examined, and counsel having
been heard, Lord Cowan charged the Jury at consider
able length.
His Lordship, in the course of his observations, said :
" The general feature of this case is a simple one. Some of the
facts are indisputable. It is clear that this picture was once in the
possession of the Earl of Fife, and I do not see any evidence that it
was wrongfully taken out of the hands of the Earl of Fife or his
Trustees. The picture was exposed to public sale in 1845, at the
sale of a collection of paintings that had come lawfully into the pos^
session of Mr. Kent, whose respectability is beyond all suspicion.
We have the pursuer attending the sale. As regards the property
of the picture, you will therefore presume it is lawfully in the posses
sion of the pursuer. What the Court says is this : this picture being
in the lawful possession of the pursuer, you are to say whether he
was improperly deprived of it, and whether the defenders are liable
in damages for that act.
" Then comes the important question, whether or not, now that the
whole facts and circumstances are in evidence before you, these de
fenders did exceed their rightful privilege of applying for that war
rant, and had justifiable grounds for applying for it. For my part, I
have never seen an application of this kind before, and certainly it
strikes me as a novelty. Now we have it fixed by the Sheriff, alter
ing the judgment of his Substitute, and we have it fixed by the Lord
Ordinary, and fixed by the Judges of the Inner-House, that that war
rant should not have been granted, and, of course, should not have
been executed. It is important to keep steadily in view that we
have the warrant recalled, as having been obtained without sufficient
ground ; and, if so, you will consider whether it does not follow — ¦
there being no ground for the application — that it was a wrongous
exercise of the defenders' powers.
" In regard to the circumstances under which the picture was
seized, it' is important that I should bring before you the evidence of
Mr. James West, who says that a suggestion was made by Mr. Snare
that the picture should remain on the premises, and that, to prevent
damage' being done to it, he wished that a sheriff-officer should have
the full charge of it. You have also the evidence of Mr. Campbell,
the sheriff-clerk, who says that he offered his services at the time of
the seizure, to endeavor to effect some arrangement, in order that the
exhibition might not be interfered with through the removal of the
picture. Mr. Campbell, it appears, sent to Messrs. Inglis and Burns,
the agents of Lord Fife's Trustees, requesting that they would come
to him at the exhibition-room, but neither of them came, and the an-

32 "THE VELAZQUEZ."
swer returned to Mr. Campbell's message was, that the warrant was
to be executed forthwith. Then you have the evidence of M'CulIoch,
who was employed by Mr. Campbell to deliver the message to Messrs.
Inglis and Burns, and who tells you that one part of Mr. Campbell's
message to those gentlemen was, that he had become convinced there
was something wrong about the warrant.- M'CulIoch says : ' I men
tioned to them that Mr. Campbell sent me relative to the picture ;
that he declined doing anything farther in the matter. Mr. Inglis
was angry, and said, ' By God, if he lets the picture go, I will hold
him answerable.' You will consider this evidence carefully in mak
ing up your minds upon this part of the case.
" If you are of opinion that there was a wrongous use of that dili
gence, and a wrong done to Mr. Snare, on such an allegation — if you
think that there was here a wrongful application, and a wrongful
carrying out of the proceedings, and wrongfully insisting on them,
then you will give your verdict in favor of the pursuer."
The Jury retired for a short time, and, on their return,
announced the verdict as follows :
"We find for the pursuer on both Issues. Damages £1,000."
The defenders took exception to a part of Lord Cowan's
charge, and another year of harassing litigation en
sued. The BILL OF EXCEPTIONS was not sustained in
the Court of Session, but was followed by a formidable
APPEAL CASE TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS, which
the Fife Trustees ultimately abandoned. In the mean
time, NOTICE OF MOTION for a NEW TRIAL was
given : matters, however, were finally brought to a close
on the 9th of July, 1852, by a tender of £530 to the
pursuer. The Court authorized the acceptance of this,
and found the Fife Trustees liable in expenses.
Thus ended "THE VELAZQUEZ CAUSE," which had
embraced in its progress every form of process that legal
ingenuity could devise. The " one continuous aggrava
tion of the original act of wrong" on the part of the Fife
Trustees, and " the vexatious, oppressive, and cruel use
of legal proceedings" in this extraordinary case, were
characterized by the Lord Advocate of Scotland as " un
paralleled IN THE HISTORY OF LITIGATION."

a

THE VELAZQUEZ."

"It is a work of surpassing excellence in an artistic point of view,
and, for its intrinsic merits, ought to be studied by all lovers of art.
Mr. Snare deserves the utmost praise for the energy and skill which
he has shown in substantiating the origin and value of the work.
His pamphlets on the subject are exceedingly interesting, and prove
him to be well qualified to express a just and enlightened opinion
upon a question of art as well as evidence." — Edinburgh Eve'g Post.
" Mr. Snare, a bookseller of Reading, having a natural taste for
art, and finding a neglected picture of startling excellence in the
collection of a private gentleman, became the purchaser of it at a
public auction, and forthwith commenced the prosecution of an in
quiry into its pedigree, which resulted in a tract of 228 octavo pages,
containing, according to Chambers' Journal, ' one of the most strik
ing and interesting cases of circumstantial evidence that could be
found in regard to the pejiiff'-^e of any other portrait whatever.' It
is not to be expected that we could here detail all the consecutive
incidents of Mr. Snare's exciting narralive, suffice it that many of
the most competent critics of the public press proclaimed it the
long-lost picture of Velazquez, and affirmed that a splendid work of
art had been recovered by the author, printer, and publisher of this
spirited pamphlet. Innumerable were the difficulties with which
Mr. Snare had, however, to cope. He had to commence with the
the historical episode of the projected Spanish marriage, developing
the circumstances under which the portrait of Prince Charles was
painted at Madrid by Velazquez in 1623, during the Prince's roman
tic visit to the Spanish capital in company with Buckingham. He
had to connect the characteristic features of the picture with these
events ; and here, indeed, the work was more than half done to his
hand — the impersonifieation of Charles being just such a likeness as
the young and chivalrous wooer of the Spanish Infanta would have
appeared, and the immortal painter would have represented; whilst
the accessories, all in keeping with the occasion, suggested power
ful trains of corroborative proof. These points of peculiar interest
the author handled so adroitly, that along with the details of what
we may term personal adventure in pursuit of the facts, his pam
phlet was likened by Douglas Jerrold's Newspaper to some of De Foe's,
and by another paper ranked as another curiosity of literature for
the D'Israelis of the next age. The fate of the picture has since
been various ; become an object of value and importance, as many
claims have been made to it as we have seen advanced to extinct earl
doms. It is rarely, indeed, that any work of art has come into public
notice under circumstances so very interesting." — Edin. Daily Mail.

4

THE VELAZQTJE2 3 9°°2

1
S5953 OA

" Both as the work of a great painter, whose pictures are exceed
ingly rare, and as a memorial of the history of the seventeenth cen
tury, the picture is exceedingly curious. The face is precisely that
shown in the later portraits, with the same solemnity of aspect,
though yet unmarked, by anxiety, and the same proportions of the
different features, though yet fresh with youth." — N. Y. Eve'g Post.
"The manner in which Mr. Snare has, without leaving the shadow
of a doubt, traced the pedigree of the picture is truly wonderful, and
almost as romantic in many of its incidents as was the expedition of
the princely original himself." — London Naval and Military Gazette.
" Those who make the subject of art their principal study, may
fairly be considered not only qualified to express opinions, but enti
tled to have those opinions regarded with some degree of respect,
but if, through carelessness or indifference, they mislead the public,
or are prompted by envious feelings, to deny the merit of works of
surpassing excellence, no tacit acknowledgment or after apology can
shield them from ultimate contempt. We are led to these remarks
by the singularly interesting discussion that has engaged the pens of
so many accomplished critics of the day. We were ourselves enlisted
in the cause a few weeks back, aud determined in the outset to yield
only to evidence that forced conviction upon the mind. We were
neither sanguine in the commencement of our inquiries, nor scrupu
lous in accepting statements which appeared to us to be made with
candor. We allude to the Velasquez Portrait of Prince Charles.
It seemed to us no trifling matter to undertake the solution of
that which, to some of our most able and accomplished critics, ap
peared a difficult task. We had read the various discussions, and
knew the ability and tact of the different writers. We were not in
sensible to the value of such testimonies as those afforded by the
leading London journals ; nor were we disposed to cast aside with
undue respect the brief remarks of Sir Edmund Head, and of our
talented countryman, Mr. Stirling. Mr. Snare's plain and forcible
reply to the remarks of those gentlemen we had perused with deep
interest and great attention. If, therefore, we take some little credit
to ourselves for having well investigated the subject, we trust that,
in expressing our firm conviction of the genuineness of the work,
we shall at least be acquitted of anything like hasty or indiscreet
bias. — North Britsih Mail.
"The subject, so far as Art and History are concerned, has no par
allel. From doubt and uncertainty, the pioture has been raised to
importance, and criticism has failed to subvert the evidences of its
authenticity." — Edinburgh Monthly Advertiser.