proved nothing. (Loud cheers.) The speaker said that he was glad to hear
those sounds. But he would go further. The conclusion of the recent case
was described as dramatic. He had a far more dramatic possibility up his
sleeve. Suppose it should be discovered--as it might be, nothing being
impossible--suppose it should be discovered that ROMNEY chose to paint
some of his pictures under the pseudonym of OZIAS HUMPHRY. What then?
(Terrific sensation.) They had all heard of the SHAKSPEARE-BACON
controversy. The ROMNEY-HUMPHRY controversy might be destined to eclipse
that. (Profound excitement.) He, the speaker, personally was not
prepared to let the matter rest where it did. His honour as an Art
critic was at stake.

An even greater sensation was caused at this juncture by a rush of cold
air in the hall, followed by the appearance of a ghostly shape, which
announced itself to be the shade of OZIAS HUMPHRY himself. If anyone
doubted his identity or suggested that he did not paint his own pictures
he should take very prompt action indeed. The art of haunting was by no
means extinct. (Here the Chairman hurriedly left the room.) The shade,
continuing, caused some consternation by stating that the picture which
had led to litigation the other day was by no means the only supposed
Romney that he had painted. He could name several in collections within
a mile or two of the spot where he was then standing. (At this point Mr.
HUMPHRY WARD swooned and was carried out by Mr. ROBERTS.)

Mr. A.S. TEMPLE remarked that no doubt the shade of OZIAS HUMPHRY
attended that meeting in all good faith, but for his part he thought
that he would have shown better taste had he kept away. In fact everyone
would be happier if OZIAS HUMPHRY had never existed. It was not Art
critics that should be pitched into, but painters whose styles resembled
each other. They were the real nuisance. It was the duty of artists to