The series cannot be considered complete; there are probably both omissions and redundancies; but it may, at least, be taken as the ground-work for such a guide.” We find the lists for this chronological collection to contain (the Byzantine curiosities not included) one thousand five hundred and fifty-five names, and it is probable that as many more might be collected. So that these specimens, if even confined to one for each name, would very soon exhaust the public purse, and possibly so disgust the nation, by their exhibition, as to cause a stoppage of supply for a national gallery. Seeing this array of names, Mr Dyce may well add, when he asks, “What ought a national collection of pictures to be?”—“extensiveness will, I think, suggest itself as one of those characteristics.” We are not denying that catalogues of this kind are of value—far from it; they are parts of the history of Art; but surely a dictionary of painters is one thing and a collection of pictures another. An army and navy list are valuable documents, but would be rather unwieldy national incumbrances if accompanied by each individual’s portrait at full length—especially viewing the collection, as is the case with this gallery scheme, “independently of merit.” It may be well said, that it is absurd to think of such a scheme with our present building; and it would be difficult to find a site of sufficient area for these specimens by thousands, and at the same time provide for the increase at the present ratio of art propagation.