It is in England alone, that illustration, like many other things, has been taken seriously. Ponderous volumes have been written about it, as well as clever essays. It seemed at first sight rather unnecessary to repeat what has been said so well by Mr. Austin Dobson, for example, in his chapter on modern illustrated books in Mr. Lang's "Library," especially as he has added a postscript to the edition of 1892 which is supposed to bring his essay up to that date. But there are other ways of looking at the matter, and I have tried not to repeat what Mr. Dobson has said, nor yet to trench upon the preserves of Mr. C. G. Harper and Mr. Hamerton, or Mr. Blackburn.

It appears to me, that before discussing the English illustrators of to-day, it might be well to take a glance at the state of English illustration. English illustration has during the last twenty years suffered tremendously from over-writing and indiscriminate praise and blame. I suppose that among artists and people of any artistic appreciation, it is generally admitted by this time that the greatest bulk of the works of "Phiz," Cruikshank, Doyle, and even many of Leech's designs are simply rubbish, and that the reputation of these men was made by critics whose names and works are absolutely forgotten, or else, by Thackeray, Dickens, and Tom Taylor, whose books they illustrated, and who had absolutely no intelligent knowledge of art, their one idea being to log-roll their friends and illustrators. It is true, however, that some of Doyle's designs, like those in "Brown, Jones, and Robinson," were extremely amusing, though too often his rendering of character was brutal, as, for example, in the "Dinner at Greenwich" in the "Cornhill" Series. Technically, there is little to study, even in his most successful drawings. Leech's fund of humour was no doubt inexhaustible, but one cannot help feeling to-day that his work cannot for a moment be compared to that of Charles Keene. Some of his best-known designs, the man in a hot bath for instance, praised by Mr. Dobson may be amusing, but the subject is quite as horrible as a Middle Age purgatory. Leech was the successor in this work of Gillray and Rowlandson, and though his designs appealed very strongly to the last generation, they do not equal those of Randolph Caldecott, done in much the same sort of way. Though some of the editions containing the engravings from these men's drawings sell for fabulous prices, on account of their rarity, one may purchase to-day for almost the price of old paper, lovely little engravings after Birket Foster, and the other followers of the Turner school; while drawings after Sir John Gilbert, and later, Whistler, Sandys, Boyd Houghton, Keene, Du Maurier, Small, Shields, and the other men who made "Once a Week," "Good Words," and the "Shilling Magazine," really the most important art journals England has ever seen, can be picked up in many old book-shops for comparatively nothing. Of the best period of English illustration there are but few of the really good books that cannot be purchased for, at the present time, less than their original price. And only the works of one painter who did illustrate to any extent, Rossetti, command an appreciable value. For this, the fortunate possessors of his drawings have to thank Mr. Ruskin, who, himself, is by no means a poor illustrator. Some of his work in "Modern Painters," "Stones of Venice," "Examples of Venetian Architecture," is excellent, while his original drawings at Oxford are worth the most careful study. Many of Rossetti's designs are, it is true, very beautiful, and probably others were; one can see that from, the few which were never engraved. But the bulk of his drawings are certainly not so good as those which several people working in London are producing to-day.

While the magazines I have mentioned were being published, the "Graphic" was started in 1870, taking on its staff most of the foremost artists of the day, Fildes, Holl, Gregory, Houghton, Linton, Herkomer, Pinwell, Green, Woods, S. P. Hall; and about the same date Walter Crane made his far too little known designs for children's books—"King Luckieboy's Party," the "Baby's Opera," the "Baby's Bouquet," and the many others—which have been not half enough appreciated. In a measure, the same may be said of Randolph Caldecott's books for children,—the "House that Jack Built," the "Mad Dog," the "John Gilpin," which, though they contain his cleverest drawings, are usually given secondary rank to his "Bracebridge Hall" and "Old Christmas," of far less artistic importance. Miss Kate Greenaway has been more fortunate: her "Under the Window," and the long series that followed, have set the fashion for children, and have enjoyed a popularity of which they are not by any means unworthy. A trifle mannered and affected, perhaps, her illustrations are full of refined drawing, charming colour, and pleasing sentiment. These artists, in conjunction with Mr. Edmund Evans, gave colour-printing for book illustration a standing in England, while every one of their books is stamped with a decided English character. A Frenchman, too, Ernest Griset, living here, made some notable drawings about this time.

When I commenced this book I have no hesitation in admitting that my knowledge of the really great period of English Illustration was of the vaguest possible description.

I knew of "Good Words," "Once a Week," and the "Shilling Magazine," "Dalziel's Bible Gallery," and a few other books, but I had never seen and never even heard of the great mass of work produced during those ten years; even now, I am only slowly beginning to learn about and see something of it.

But a day is coming when the books issued between 1860 and 1870, in this country, will be sought for and treasured up, when the few original drawings that are still in existence will be striven for by collectors, as they struggle for Rembrandt's etchings to-day.

The source from which the English illustrators of 1860 got their inspiration was Adolph Menzel's books; pre-Raphaelites and all came under the influence of this great artist. The change from the style of Harvey, Cruikshank, Kenny Meadows, Leech and S. Read, to Rossetti, Sandys, Houghton, Pinwell, Walker, Millais, was almost as great as from the characterless steel engraving of the beginning of the century to the vital work of Bewick. The first English book to appear after Menzel's work became known, was William Allingham's "The Music Master," 1855, illustrated by Arthur Hughes, Rossetti and Millais; the first book of that period which still lives is Moxon's edition of Tennyson published in 1857, containing Rossetti's drawings for "The Palace of Art" and "Sir Galahad"; Millais' "St. Agnes' Eve," and Holman Hunt's "Lady of Shalott." These drawings and a few others have given to the book a fame, among illustrated volumes, which it has no right or claim to.

Far more important and more complete is Sir John Gilbert's edition of Shakespeare published by Routledge in three volumes, 1858 to 1860. This edition of Shakespeare has yet, as a whole, to be surpassed.

In 1859 "Once a Week" was started by Bradbury and Evans, and the first volume contained illustrations by H. K. Browne ("Phiz"), G. H. Bennett, W. Harvey, Charles Keene, W. J. Lawless, John Leech, Sir J. E. Millais, Sir John Tenniel, J. Wolf; this is the veritable connecting link between the work of the past as exemplified by Harvey, and of the present by Keene. The next year, 1860, the "Cornhill" appeared, for the first number of which Thackeray, more or less worked over by ghosts, and engravers, did the illustrations to "Lovel the Widower," but Millais was called in for the second or third number, and then George Sala. Frederick Sandys illustrated "The Legend of the Portent," and the volume ends with Millais' splendid design "Was it not a lie?" to "Framley Parsonage." It is curious to note that either Thackeray or the publishers refuse to mention the names of the artists in any way, only that Millais and Sala are allowed to sign their designs with their monograms. Leighton, I imagine, contributed the "Great God Pan" to the second volume, and Dicky Doyle began his "Bird's Eye Views of Society" in the third, but it is not until one is more than half way through this volume that the initials F. W. appear on what are supposed to be Thackeray's drawings—or, rather, it is not until then that the great author acknowledged his failure as an illustrator; though, in the "Roundabout Papers," he admitted his indebtedness to Walker.

The first drawing signed by Walker faces p. 556, "Nurse and Doctor," and illustrates Thackeray's "Adventures of Philip;" this is in May, 1861. "Good Words" was also started in 1860; in it in 1863 Millais' "Parables" were printed, as well as work by Holman Hunt, Keene and Walker, while A. Boyd Houghton, Frederick Sandys, Pinwell, North, Pettie, Armstead, Graham, and many others began to come to the front in this magazine and "Once a Week." About 1865 nearly as many good illustrated magazines must have been issued as there are to-day; not only were the three I have mentioned continued, but "The Argosy," "The Sunday Magazine," and "The Shilling Magazine," among others, printed fine work by all these artists.

The illustration was done in a curious, but very interesting sort of way. The entire illustration began to be undertaken by two firms, Messrs. Dalziel and Swain—and I believe in the case of "Good Words" the same system is still carried on by Mr. Edward Whymper. These firms commissioned the drawings from the artists, and then engraved them. The method seems to have been so successful that the engravers, notably the Dalziels, began not only to employ artists to draw for them, and to engrave their designs, but they became printers as well, and produced that set of books which are now the admiration and despair of the intelligent and artistic collector. When they were printed, they were sold to a publisher, who merely put his imprint on them. To this day they are known as Dalziel's Illustrated Editions. The first important book of this series that I have seen is Birket Foster's "Pictures of English Landscape," 1863 (Routledge), printed by Dalziel; with "Pictures in Words," by Tom Taylor, though this was preceded by a horrid tinted affair by the same artist, called "Odes and Sonnets." The binding is vile; the paper is spotting and losing colour, but the drawings must have been exquisite, and here and there the ink is spreading and giving a lovely tone, like an etching, to the prints on the page.

In 1864 Messrs. Dalziel, who had already engraved for "Good Words" in the previous year Millais' "Parables of Our Lord," published them through Routledge. This book, in an atrocious binding described as elaborate, and it truly is, bound up so badly that it has broken all to pieces printed with some text in red and black, contains much of the finest work Millais ever did. Nothing could exceed in dramatic power, in effect of light and shade, "The Enemy sowing Tares," to mention one block among so many that are good. But the whole book is excellent, and excessively rare in its first edition.

But 1865 is the most notable year of all; in this "Dalziel's Illustrated Arabian Nights' Entertainments" came out; originally published in parts, I believe, and later in two volumes, text and pictures within horrid borders. In this book A. Boyd Houghton first showed what a really great man he was. He clearly proves himself the English master of technique, as well as of imagination, although in this volume, issued by Ward and Lock, he has as fellow illustrators Sir J. E. Millais, J. D. Watson, Sir John Tenniel, G. J. Pinwell, and Thomas Dalziel—the latter of whom is a very big man, and for this, and some of the subsequent books, he made most remarkable drawings. But Houghton towers above them all, and Mr. Laurence Housman in an able article on him in "Bibliographica" well says:

"Among artists and those who care at all deeply for the great things of art, he cannot be forgotten: for them his work is too much an influence and a problem. And though officially the Academy shuts its mouth at him ... certain of its leading lights have been heard unofficially to declare that he was the greatest artist" who has appeared in England in black and white. In '65, also, his "Home Thoughts and Home Scenes" was published, much less imaginative than his later work, but containing more beauty; and after this, for ten years, he worked prodigiously, and yet excellently. His edition of "Don Quixote" (F. Warne and Co.), must be sought for in the most out-of-the-way places; easier to find are his "Kuloff's Fables," '69 (Strahan), and best known of all, the drawings in the early numbers of the "Graphic,"—the American series—which were not all published, I think, before he died. If some of these are grotesque, even almost caricature, they are amazingly powerful—and being the largest engraved works left, show him fortunately at his best. His original drawings scarce exist at all. I happen to have one of the most beautiful, "Tom the Piper's Son," from Novello's "National Nursery Rhymes," 1871. I have not pretended to give a list of Houghton's drawings, it would be nearly impossible; but those books and magazines I have mentioned contain many of the most important. In '65 Pinwell did a "Goldsmith" for Ward and Lock, which revealed his surprising powers.

Cassells may have been the originators of this sort of illustrated book, or only the followers of a style which became immensely popular. They issued many works by DorÉ about the same time or later, and a "Gulliver," by T. Morten, among others, but as this volume is not dated, I am unable to say when it appeared—still to this day they keep up the system of publishing illustrated books in parts at a low rate. But soon expensive gift books, illustrated by Houghton, Pinwell, North, and Walker, began to appear, perfectly new unpublished works: in 1866 "A Round of Days" was issued by Routledge; Walker, North, Pinwell, and T. Dalziel, come off best in this gorgeous morocco covered volume, especially the last, who contributes a notable nocturne, the beauty of night, discovered by Whistler, being appreciated by artists, even while Ruskin was busy reviling or ignoring these illustrators. Houghton's edition of "Don Quixote" also belongs to this year. How these men accomplished all this masterly work in such a short time, I do not pretend to understand.

In 1867, "Wayside Posies," and "Jean Ingelow's Poems" were published by Routledge and Longmans. These two books reach the high-water mark of English illustration, North and Pinwell surpass themselves, the one in landscape and the other in figures. T. Dalziel also did some amazing studies of mist, rain, and night, which I imagine were absolutely unnoticed by the critics. The drawings, however, must have been popular, for Smith and Elder reprinted the Walkers and Millais', among others, from the "Cornhill" in a "Gallery" (this also included Leightons and, I think, one Sandys), and Strahan the Millais drawings in another portfolio. The "Cornhill Gallery," printed, it is said, from the original blocks, came out in 1864, possibly as an atonement for the shabby way in which the artists were treated in the magazine originally.

In 1868, "The North Coast," by Robert Buchanan, was issued by Routledge; it has much good work by Houghton hidden away in it. In the next year the "Graphic" started, and these books virtually ceased to appear—why, I know not. There were some spasmodic efforts, most notable of which were Whymper's magnificent "Scrambles amongst the Alps," 1871, containing T. Mahoney's best drawings and Whymper's best engraving; and "Historical and Legendary Ballads," Chatto and Windus, 1876; in this book, made up from the early numbers of the magazines, one will find Whistler's and Sandys' rare drawings; it is almost the only volume which contains these men's work, although the drawings were not done originally for it, as the editor would like one to believe.

Whistler, it is true, illustrated a "Catalogue of Blue and White Nankin Porcelain," published by Ellis and White, 1878, a very interesting work, mainly in colours. But Sandys' drawings must be looked for in the magazines alone. I know of no book that he ever illustrated, a few volumes contain one or two, that is all; his drawings are separate distinct works of art, every print from them worthy of the portfolio of the collector. Dalziels issued at least two books later on, magnificent India proofs of "English Rustic Pictures," printed from the original blocks by Pinwell and Walker, done for the books I have mentioned, this volume is undated; and their Bible Gallery in 1881 (the drawings were made long before), to which all the best-known artists contributed, though the result was not altogether an artistic success; but most notable drawings by Ford Madox-Brown, Leighton, Sandys, Poynter, Burne-Jones, S. Solomon, Houghton, and T. Dalziel, are included in it.

This is the last great book illustrated by a band of artists and engravers working together in this country; whether the results are satisfactory or not, the fact remains that the engravers were most enthusiastic, and encouraged the artists as no one has done since in the making of books; and the artists were the most distinguished that have ever appeared in England. Possibly, I should also have referred to the "British Workman," which was probably the first penny paper to publish good work of a large size. And I may have treated Mr. Arthur Hughes in a rather summary fashion. But I know his original drawings far better than the books in which they were printed; the only book which I really am acquainted with is "Tom Brown's School Days;" yet I know that he has made a very large number of illustrations, especially for Norman MacLeod's books among others. After twenty-five years illustration is again reviving in England, and one looks forward hopefully to the future of this branch of art.

Ten years later than the "Graphic" came the introduction of process, and process was employed in England mainly for one reason only: cheapness. Bad cheap process—which by the way is very little worse than cheap wood-engraving—has been responsible in this country for more vile work than in all the rest of the world put together. The development of process has brought with it not only truth of reproduction, which is its aim, but evils which its inventors did not anticipate.

Too many process-engravers encourage the most commonplace, because it is the easiest, work. They know perfectly well that mechanical engraving will reproduce almost any drawings at the present moment, but then, good reproduction demands time and trouble and artistic intelligence. But it is no wonder that process-engravers are indifferent, when we remember the lamentable ignorance displayed by some editors, whose knowledge of art—in fact, of all art work—is simply nil. They may have piles of taste, but all of it is bad. They know exactly what the public wants, for they themselves are the public they consider. The slightest attempt at the artistic rendering of a drawing, or the appearance of a new man with a new style, is enough to put them in a rage, because they cannot understand the one or the other. And the selection of "cuts which embellish"—I believe is the expression—their pages, is left to the process man, the photographer, and the clichÉ agent, who of course pick out the easiest they can supply. Their other duty is to edit their contributors, that is, if screwing and jewing an artist, and taking all life and soul for work out of him, can be described as editing. Lately has sprung up a species of illustrator who licks the boots of these editors and grovels before the process man. He turns out as much work as he can in the shortest space of time, knowing that he must make as many drawings as possible before some miserable creature, more contemptible than himself, comes along with an offer to do the work at half the price which he is paid.

I am happy to say that this state of affairs is by no means universal in England; but I regret that there seems to be a tendency in some quarters to prefer bad work because it is usually cheap. On the other hand, there are many notable exceptions: intelligent publishers, editors, artists, and process-engravers, who strive to do good work and expect to pay, or be paid, for it. But this state of things has produced three classes of artists. First, the men who loudly declare they care nothing about their work, and who may therefore be dismissed with that contempt which they court. Second, those who rush absolutely to the other extreme, saying that all modern work is bad, and that there is nothing to do but to follow in the track of the fifteenth-century craftsman, not knowing, or more probably not wanting to know, that these same illustrators and engravers of the fifteenth century were, according to their time, as modern and up-to-date and fin-de-siÈcle as possible. Finally, there is a saving remnant, increasing as fast as good workmen do increase—and that is very slowly—who are going on, endeavouring to perfect themselves to the best of their ability, believing rightly that it is the business of engravers and printers to follow the artist, and not the artist's duty to become a slave to a mere mechanic, no matter how intelligent. The second of these classes has always existed in almost every profession in England; the class, in short, which is convinced that society and the world generally needs reforming, and that it is their little fad which is going to bring about this reformation.

Now I do not hold for a moment that the man who is generally accepted as the leader of the pre-Raphaelite movement, Rossetti, had any desire to reform anybody, or improve anything. A certain form of art interested him, and he succeeded in reviving it for himself, though he put himself and his century into his drawings. It is the same with Sir Edward Burne-Jones, and Mr. William Morris, and Mr. Walter Crane. But the praise which has been duly bestowed upon them has been unjustly lavished upon a set of people—or else, they, as they never weary of doing, have exploited themselves—who have neither the power to design nor the intelligence to appreciate a drawing when it is made, nor any technical understanding of how it was made. They will tell you, both by their work and in print, that there is nothing worth bothering about save the drawings of the Little Masters, and, to prove their appreciation of these drawings, they proceed at once not to copy the drawings, but the primitive woodcuts which were made out of them, not by the Masters at all. They will proceed to imitate painfully with pen and ink a woodcut, have it reproduced by a cheap process man, who, of course, is delighted to have work which gives him no trouble, entrust it to a printer buried in cellars into which the light of improvement has never made its way, that he may print it upon handmade paper, which the old men never would have used had they had anything better; and thus they succeed in perpetuating all the old faults and defects, adding to them absurdity of design which triumphs in the provinces, is the delight of Boston and the Western States of America, and the beloved of the Vicarage. Or, again, the young person, reeking with the School of Science and Art at South Kensington, will have none of process, and, painfully (for he usually cuts his finger), and simply (otherwise he should waste his time), endeavours, with halting execution but with perfect belief in his powers, to cut his design upon the wood-block, not knowing that the master woodcutter, whom he essays to worship, spent almost as many years in learning his trade, as this person has spent minutes in knocking off a little illustration as a change from designing a stained-glass window, or writing a sonnet. This is the sort of work that exhausts first editions, is remembered for a few months, and produces leaders in the advanced organs of opinion. It is unfortunately true that the leaders have little influence, and that, later on, the first editions may be bought as old paper.

Ignorance of printing and of the improvements in that art is really in this country too awful to contemplate. The average critic will blame a competent artist for the imperfections of a process and the ignorance of a printer. It never occurs to this critic that he knows nothing practically about the subject. No attempt is made to surmount mechanical difficulties; no attempt is made to study improvements; one is simply told to work down to the lowest level and to copy the fads of an obsolete past.

Quaintness and eccentricity, too, have their followers, and though both are dangerous games to play, still they imply, if good, such an amount of research, study, and invention, whether original or not, that from them good work may often come. Still I no longer dare to prophesy. I know not what a man will do or will not. There is possibility in every one.

As for the other men who calmly go on doing their work in their own way, showing the process-engraver what is wanted, instructing the printer on the subject of effects and colour, and dealing satisfactorily with intelligent publishers and editors, or even, as some do, ignoring all these factors, which they should not, their work is around us and delights us.

Of the older men, though Whistler has long ceased to illustrate, Du Maurier, Sidney Hall and William Small are still with us, producing characteristic designs. Charles Green carries on the excellent method which he developed in his illustrations to Dickens. Though J. Mahoney is dead, the present re-issue of Whymper's "Scrambles amongst the Alps" testifies marvellously to his powers. The late A. Boyd Houghton's abilities, too, are beginning to be appreciated, and his designs for the "Arabian Nights" are now being sought for as they never were during his lifetime. The success of Messrs. Macmillan's re-issue of the "Tennyson" of 1857 is gratifying proof that a large number of people do care for good work, and that the endeavour to swamp us with poor drawings, tedious photographs, and worn-out clichÉs will probably have its just reward. F. Sandys, one of the greatest of all, though still living, scarcely produces anything; F. Shields' designs for Defoe's "Plague" were Rembrandt-like in power; while H. Herkomer, in his illustrations to Hardy's "Tess of the D'Urbervilles," has, within the last few years, done some of his most striking work. Linley Sambourne, whose name was made years ago, pursues the even tenor of his ways, his reputation having been well secured by his illustrations to the "Water Babies," and his countless "Punch" contributions. From the quantity of work produced by Harry Furniss it is quite evident that he is one of the most popular men in England. The fund of imagination which he devotes to perpetuating the unimportant actions of trivial members of Parliament is truly amazing. J. F. Sullivan has made caricature of the British workman his speciality, and he has recorded many of the antics of that personality with a truth that the labour organs might imitate to advantage. Sir John Tenniel is the legitimate successor of the old political cartoonist, but, luckily for him, his reputation rests, not upon his portrayal of the events of the moment, but upon his marvellous "Alice in Wonderland" and his classic illustrations to the "Legendary Ballads." Political caricature rarely, however, has an exponent like Tenniel, and though the work of J. Proctor, G. R. Halkett, and F. C. Gould is good in its way, owing to the conditions under which much of it has to be produced, and the absolute artlessness of the subject, their aim naturally is to drive home a political point, and not to produce a work of art. The most genuine caricaturist who has ever lived in England was W. G. Baxter, the inventor of "Ally Sloper." Baxter died a few years ago. Happily, the three men who, in a great measure, are responsible for modern English illustration are working to-day: Birket Foster, Sir John Gilbert, and Harrison Weir, but, save the latter, they now produce scarcely any designs. Few of the brilliant band who succeeded them, however, are at work save Du Maurier and W. Small. One has to deplore the recent death of Charles Keene, the greatest of all English draughtsmen.

One therefore turns with interest to some of the younger men—men who have made and are making illustration their profession. Among them, one looks first to that erratic genius, Phil May, who has produced work which not only will live, but which successfully runs the gamut of all wit and humour. Nothing in its way has been done in England to approach his designs for the "Parson and the Painter." They appeared first in the pages of the "St. Stephen's Review," where they were scarcely seen by artists. But on their reappearance in book form, though even more badly printed than at first, what remained of them was good enough to make May's reputation. Between him and everyone else, there is a great gulf fixed, but the greatest is between May and his imitators.

Most of the younger men of individuality have studied abroad and, like Americans, have returned home more or less affected by continental ideas. It would be quite impossible for me to place any estimate on their work, or even attempt to describe it. But certainly it is to some of the new weekly and daily journals and less known monthlies that one must look for their illustrations. It seems to me that E. J. Sullivan, A. S. Hartrick, T. S. Crowther, H. R. Millar, F. Pegram, L. Raven-Hill, W. W. Russell are doing much to brighten the pages of the papers to which they contribute. Raven-Hill, Maurice Greiffenhagen, Edgar Wilson and Oscar Eckhardt have made a most interesting experiment in "The Butterfly," which I hope will have the success it deserves.[20] R. Anning Bell, Aubrey Beardsley, Reginald Savage, Charles Ricketts, C. H. Shannon and L. Pissarro have the courage of their convictions and the ability often to carry out their ideas. Beardsley, in his edition of the "Morte d'Arthur," "Salome," and his "Yellow Book" pictures, among other things, has acquired a reputation in a very short space of time. R. Anning Bell has become known by his very delightful book-plates, while Ricketts, Shannon and Pissarro, are not only their own artists and engravers, but editors and publishers as well. "The Dial" is their organ, and it has contained very many beautiful drawings by them, though they have contributed covers and title-pages to various books and magazines, and have brought out an edition of "Daphnis and Chloe" which must serve to perpetuate the imperfections of the Middle-Age wood-cutter. Wal Paget, W. H. Hatherell, and G. L. Seymour, in very different ways, head a long list of illustrators who can decorate a story with distinction, or depict an event almost at a moment's notice. In facility, I suppose there is no one to equal Herbert Railton, unless it be Hugh Thomson. They have together illustrated "Coaching Days and Coaching Ways." Railton must have drawn almost all the cathedrals and historic houses in the country; and Thomson is in a fair way to resurrect many forgotten and unforgotten authors of the last century. J. D. Batten's illustrations to Celtic, English, and Indian fairy tales are extremely interesting, while Launcelot Speed and H. J. Ford have for several years been making designs for Mr. Lang's series of fairy books. Laurence Housman has this year scored a decided success with his illustrations for Miss Rossetti's "Goblin Market." To Bernard Partridge has fallen of late the task of upholding "Punch" from its artistic end; this has apparently proved too much even for him, since I note that for the first time in its existence that paper is employing outsiders and even foreigners. To what is England, or rather "Punch," coming? His drawings for Mr. Anstey's sketches have been deservedly well received, while lately he, too, has fallen a victim to the eighteenth century in his striking illustrations for Mr. Austin Dobson's "Beau Brocade." Mr. E. T. Reed, of the same journal, during the last year has developed not only a most delightful vein of humour, but an original style of handling—his burlesques of the decadents are better than the originals almost. Reginald Cleaver can probably produce a drawing for a cheap process with more success than anyone, and yet, at the same time, his work is full of character. It is pleasant to turn to men like Sir George Reid and Alfred Parsons, with whom exquisite design and skilled technique, and not cheapness, is the aim in their illustrative work. Parsons has, with Abbey, in "Old Songs," "A Quiet Life," etc., and alone in Wordsworth's "Sonnets," and also in the "Warwickshire Avon," produced the books which reach the high-water mark of English illustration, although they were first published in America. On the other hand Sir George Reid's designs for "Johnny Gibb," "The River Tweed and the River Clyde," and several other publications of David Douglas of Edinburgh, have been brought out altogether in this country.

I should like to discuss the schools that have been developed by the Arts and Crafts Society in some of the provincial centres. But as none of the students approach for a moment such an exquisite draughtsman as Sandys, to say nothing of the work of the older men whom they attempt to imitate, it seems rather premature to talk about them.

Still, A. J. Gaskin, limiting himself in a way that seems quite unnecessary, has illustrated Andersen's "Fairy Tales" very well, if one adopts his standpoint. E. H. New has made portraits that are decorative; and, under Gaskin's direction, a little book of "Carols" has been illustrated by his pupils; while, in the same style, C. M. Gere and L. F. Muckley are doing notable work, and they are about to start a magazine "The Quest." The "Hobby Horse," the organ of the Century Guild, has contained many good designs by Herbert Horne and Selwyn Image. On much the same lines, too, Heywood Sumner, Henry Ryland, Reginald Hallward, Christopher Whall and others have been very successful. Nor can one ignore the initials and borders of William Morris, made for his own publications.

There are dozens of artists, whose names, like their works, are household words, Forrestier, Montbard, W. L. Wyllie, Barnard, Nash, Overend, Wollen, Staniland, Caton Woodville, Durand, Stacey, Rainey, Barnes, and Walter Wilson, who have a power of rendering events of the day in a fashion unequalled elsewhere, and whose excellent designs are seen continuously in the pages of the "Graphic," the "Illustrated London News," and "Black and White." There is also another set who amaze us by their power of compelling editors to publish weekly, and even daily, stacks of their drawings, when those of better men go a-begging.

Though wood-engraving is purely an English art, and though some of the greatest wood-engravers even in modern times have been Englishmen, the art no longer flourishes here as it should. The strongest of modern engravers, Cole and Linton, are both Englishmen, but their reputations are due chiefly to America. W. Biscombe Gardner is almost the only man who has continued to produce good interpretative work, engraving his own designs, while W. H. Hooper easily leads in facsimile work. This decline of wood-engraving has been especially felt by such important firms as Dalziel and Swain. An International Society of Wood-engravers has lately been started, and one hopes its members will succeed in the task they have set themselves: that of encouraging original wood-engraving. In colour-printing England has always held a leading place, the work of Edmund Evans and the Leighton Brothers being universally appreciated. A very strong endeavour is being made by Messrs. Way to revive original lithography. As this art is now beginning to be again practised by eminent artists, there is every probability that their efforts will be successful. "Vanity Fair" has always been illustrated by chromo-lithography, and in it appeared the work of the late Carlo Perugini, while "Spy" and others still carry out his methods. The architectural papers also use, mainly, photo-lithography for reproducing the drawings which they print. In England the fashion of making pictorial perspective drawings for architects has been very extensively practised; it is only an outgrowth of the work of Prout and Harding, but it has been enormously developed since their day; at present, several architectural papers are published which solely contain drawings of this sort, drawings mainly the outcome of the T-square, and the inner consciousness of the architectural perspective man, who has never seen the house, nor the landscape, nor street elevation in which his subject may be ultimately built; nevertheless some of these drawings are most interesting. The work of the late W. Burgess, A.R.A., of A. B. Pite, in mediÆval design; of G. C. Horsley, A. B. Mitchell, T. Raffles Davison, Rowland Paul, and, above all, of C. E. Mallows. Mr. Mallows is an artist; to him a drawing is as important as the building it represents; he does everything he can from nature, and his drawings of old work, notably difficult studies in perspective, like the cloisters of Gloucester, have never been equalled by any of the Prout-Harding-Cotman set. He feels that architecture and the delineation of it are a part of the fine arts—and he makes others feel it too. And to do this is simply to be an artist. This fashion of architectural drawing has spread to America and Germany, but it has no support in France. Much has also been accomplished in etching, and England possesses to-day in William Hole, Robert Macbeth, William Strang, Frank Short, D. Y. Cameron, C. J. Watson, C. O. Murray, a number of etchers whose fame is justly great.

Whether the idea of the "special artist on the spot" originated in England or not, I cannot say; certainly he was employed, and his work acknowledged in the early numbers of the "Illustrated London News." But, at any rate, many Englishmen have devoted themselves almost entirely to this form of pictorial reporting and correspondence. The man who has had probably the most extensive experience is William Simpson, of the "Illustrated London News,"[21] but F. Villiers, Melton Prior, and Sidney Hall have assisted at almost all the scenes of national joy or grief—have followed the fortunes of war, or the progress of royalty, or any other important event in every quarter of the world. These artists' methods of work were most interesting. They trained themselves to sketch under the most dangerous, fatiguing, and difficult conditions—making rather shorthand notes than sketches, which were quite intelligible to a clever band of artists attached to their various journals. These artists, on receiving the sketches, produced finished drawings in a few hours, or, at longest, a few days. Now, however, matters have changed somewhat. The editors (not the public) have learned to appreciate sketches, and men who can either produce a complete work of art on the spot, or work from their own sketches, are more generally engaged in this way. I do not mean to say that the war correspondents I have named could not do this work, only that often they did not, owing to exigencies of time and other difficulties. Mr. Hall's work at present is finished on the spot. His drawings at the Parnell trial were most notable. But I think in the next artistic generation the correspondent will have to work harder—if he produces less.

---