“Oh, I don’t know; only when I saw it hanging in the Grosvenor Gallery it was the other side up.” Whereupon--out of deference to precedent--the nocturne was reversed. When Whistler was asked whether the nocturne represented a view of Cremorne, he answered: “If it were called a view of Cremorne, it would certainly bring about nothing but disappointment on the part of the beholders. It is an artistic arrangement.” And again, when asked whether a certain nocturne in blue and silver was a “correct” representation of Battersea Bridge, he replied: “I did not intend it to be a ‘correct’ portrait of the bridge. It is only a moonlight scene, and the pier in the centre of the picture may not be like the piers at Battersea Bridge as you know them in broad daylight. As to what the picture represents, that depends upon who looks at it. To some it may represent all that is intended; to others it may represent nothing.” “The prevailing color is blue?” “Perhaps.” “Are these figures on the top of the bridge intended for people?” “They are just what you like.” “Is that a barge beneath?” “Yes. I am very much encouraged at your perceiving that. My whole scheme was only to bring about a certain harmony of color.” * * * * * Mr. Ruskin did not appear, but others testified in his behalf. Edward Burne-Jones admitted the picture had fine color, but found absolutely no detail and composition. It was “bewildering in form,” and “one of the thousand failures to paint night,” and “not worth two hundred guineas.” All of which opinions have been reversed by time,--even to the value, which quintupled many years ago. Mr. Frith--of whose art both Burne-Jones and Ruskin probably had opinions that could not be expressed in temperate language--presented his credentials as the author of the “Railway Station,” “Derby Day,” and the “Rakes Progress,” and testified that Whistler’s pictures were “not serious works of art.” But, then, he confessed he had not been invited to exhibit at the Grosvenor Gallery, and, as every one knows, what is considered art in one exhibition may not be so considered in another. And Tom Taylor, of the _Times_,--well, for Tom Taylor’s testimony and opinions one must go to the “Gentle Art.” It is his one sure niche in the temple of fame. In addressing the jury, the attorney-general said “he did not know when so much amusement had been offered to the British public as by Mr. Whistler’s pictures.” The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the damages assessed at one farthing; which coin Whistler wore on his chain long afterwards. The costs assessed against Ruskin amounted to £386 12s. 4d., and were paid by public subscription, one hundred and twenty persons contributing.