'The Gaols Committee of the House of Commons'
6 of 422 portraits matching these criteria:
- subject matching 'Known interiors'
- Extended catalogue entry
Early Georgian Portraits Catalogue
'The Gaols Committee of the House of Commons'
by William Hogarth
20 3/8 in. x 27 1/8 in. (519 mm x 688 mm)
This portraitback to top
Extortion in the Fleet debtors' prison had already become notorious during the wardenship, 1713-28, of John Huggins. In 1728 his successor, Thomas Bambridge, caused the death of Robert Castell, a minor architect and friend of the prominent humanitarian MP James Oglethorpe, by exposing him to smallpox. In January 1729, Bambridge made the mistake of antagonizing a baronet Sir William Rich, who stabbed him in the course of a quarrel. A legal enquiry ensued. 
Meanwhile on 25 February on a motion from Oglethorpe, it was ordered in the House of Commons 'That a Committee be appointed, to enquire into the State of the Gaols of this Kingdom, and report same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House: And it is referred to Mr. Oglethorpe ... Colonel Onslow; And they are to meet this Afternoon, at Five of the Clock, in the Speaker's Chamber; and have Power to adjourn from Time to Time, and from Place to Place, as they shall find convenient; and to send for Persons, Papers and Records.'  Ninety-six names are subscribed. The Committee first went to the Fleet on 27 February 1729, when Rich was brought before them. Bambridge was questioned on 8 March and the irons worn by the prisoners, the 'Articles of Complaint', were exhibited. The House heard the Committee's report on 20 March and passed a resolution ordering the prosecution of Huggins and Bambridge, and preventing Huggins from further wardenships. A supplementary report was submitted on 14 May 1729, but the committee was then at work on the Marshalsea which it subsequently investigated along with the Kings Bench prison. Reports were published on all three prisons, 1729-30. 
Two extant works by Hogarth relate to the gaols enquiry. A sketch in oils on paper from the collection of Horace Walpole,  Strawberry Hill sale, 1842, 10th day, lot 1330, bought by T. S. Forman, was given to the Fitzwilliam Museum by C. Fairfax Murray in 1909. The only canvas now known from Hogarth's hand is NPG 926, given by the 9th Earl of Carlisle. Though doubted by Beckett  and considered weak by Paulson,  it was exhibited at the British Institution 1814, with undoubted Hogarths of the calibre of the Rake's Progress (45-50) from Sir John Soane's collection, and the Angerstein self-portrait (92) now in the Tate Gallery. While admittedly not of the quality of the Wollaston family, 1730, the handling of NPG 926 is very close to Hogarth's musical group in the Fitzwilliam Museum and to his work in Wootton's 'Frederick Prince of Wales in the Hunting Field' (Sir Oliver Millar, The Tudor Stuart and Early Georgian Pictures in the collection of Her Majesty The Queen, 1963, 555). Since NPG 926 was cleaned, revealing the sensitive figure extreme left, and included in the Hogarth exhibition at the Tate (27), recent opinion has confirmed the view that it contains passages of autograph quality.
The painting was said in 1892 to have been at Strawberry Hill  but this must be a confusion with the sketch. NPG 926 was sold at Christie's, 7 May 1796, lot 100. It should be distinguished from an old oil copy which was sold earlier the same year at Christie's, 5 February 1796, lot 99, anonymous property: 'Hogarth ... A prison with a great variety of portraits, Undoubted by'. The lot fetched ten guineas; neither buyer nor seller are named. (See Provenance.) The following references probably all apply to this copy: it is likely to have been that engraved by T. Cook 1803, when owned by R. Ray who had bought it at Christie's a few years earlier.  Nichols in 1817 regarded Ray's version as a copy.  It was sold again at Christie's, H. B. Ray sale, 4 June 1856, bought Clarke. It next appears in the possession of W. P. Boxall, who, by 1892, had had it 'many years', giving the dimensions as approximately 26 x 32 in. Finally, this is likely to be the copy last seen at Christie's, 11 February 1949, lot 127, the dimensions then given as '24 x 39 inches' (actually 24 x 29). Though this copy was said to include an extra figure - the warder seen from behind, extreme left, who also appears in the engraving - the recent cleaning of NPG 926 revealed that it also contains this figure.
Contemporary references by Vertue and Hogarth may help to establish the original. Vertue notes, probably not long after January 1730, 'also another piece the representation of the Gentlemen of the Committee of the House of Commons. to the jayles. setting upon the examination of those malefactors. well painted & their likeness is observd truly ...' He goes on to mention 'many other family pieces, & conversations consisting of many figures. done with great spirit a lively invention & universal agreeableness'.  'An/Account' in Hogarth's hand 'taken January the first 1731/of all ye Pictures that Remain unfinnshd/...’ includes: 
|the Committy of the house|
|Sr Archibald |
|half Paymt |
Novbr the 5th
|the Beggars Opera||Do||1729|
Neither reference has as yet been firmly connected with extant pictures. Vertue's comment, presumably after a visit to the studio, suggests something far enough advanced to contain likenesses, rather than the Walpole sketch which detailed the faces of only the three principal participants. It also suggests a work of quality. As to Hogarth's note, Sir Archibald Grant, 2nd Bart of Monymusk (1696-1778), was one of the Committee. The pictures would no doubt have been ordered when half payment was made 5 November 1729, but they are not at Monymusk. They were perhaps never claimed by Grant, who was declared bankrupt and expelled from the House in May 1732 after the exposure of the Charitable Corporation.  The Beggars Opera is now in the Tate, but there is some uncertainty whether NPG 926 is the ‘Committy' ordered by Grant.
What is known of the history of the pair is largely due to J. Nichols, who first stated in 1781, after describing the sketch in Walpole's possession, 'A son of Mr. Huggins was possessed of a valuable painting from this sketch, and also of a fine scene in the Beggar's Opera ... On the dispersion of his effects, the scene in the Beggar's Opera was purchased by the Rev. Dr. Monkhouse of Queen's College, Oxford. It is in a gilt frame, with a bust of Gay at the top. It's companion, whose present possessor I have not been able to trace out, had, in like manner, that of Sir Francis Page, one of the Judges, remarkable for his severity, with a halter round his neck.'  Nichols names Huggins' son. He is William (1696-1761), translator of Orlando Furioso. Father and son were both painted by Hogarth, and their portraits  along with their library and pictures passed to the younger Huggins' son-in-law, Sir Thomas Gatehouse, High Sheriff of Hants in 1762.
Later in 1817, Nichols gives a slightly different account. He first says that sometime after Huggins' death in 1761 the ‘Committy' was separated from the ‘Beggar's Opera' and 'is now the property of the Earl of Carlisle'.  Then, discussing the 'Beggar's Opera', he states that both paintings went to Gatehouse after Huggins' death, and the 'Beggar's Opera' was sold around 1776 to the Rev. Thomas Monkhouse.  Also in 1776, the library was sold to J. Russell, a Guildford Bookseller.  The ‘Committy', if it did go to Gatehouse, as stated in Nichols' second account, might have been sold at the same time as the library and the 'Beggar's Opera'. However, we do know that the NPG ‘Committy' was sold at Christie's in 1796 (see Provenance), and Gatehouse died intestate in 1799;  Nothing said by Vertue or Hogarth predicates further versions. Whether Hogarth ever made more than one drawing and one oil is an open question. If NPG 926, which was given by the 9th Earl of Carlisle, is the Grant-Huggins(?) Gatehouse picture, then it has lost its contemporary frame with the medallion of Sir Francis Page mentioned by Nichols in 1781. Proof that the ‘Committy' owned by the Earl of Carlisle in 1817 had this frame and that it was removed sometime later would establish that the NPG 926 version is the one originally ordered by Grant. Nichols' 1817 account is ambiguous on this point. After mentioning William Huggins as a previous owner of the Grant picture, he states 'the originality of the Picture (and of the Scene in the Beggar's Opera its companion) is ascertained, by their similar gilt frames;' and goes on to describe these again. Then follows the reference to the ‘Committy's' ownership by the Earl of Carlisle and its exhibition at the British Institution in 1814.  Whether this implies that the Carlisle painting was so framed is uncertain, but it seems likely from his introductory remarks to the third volume that Nichols attended the exhibition. Presumably, if the frame had been absent he would have noted this.
In the Fitzwilliam sketch, the action is focused on the chairman. Opposite him stands a prisoner in rags, evidently a man of bearing, and behind the chairman, the warden under interrogation. To the right, a large but indeterminate number of members fill the panelled room. Walpole's description published by Nichols in 1781 is worth quoting at length. 'Mr. Walpole has a sketch in oil, given to him by Hogarth, who intended to engrave it. It was done at the time that the house of commons appointed a committee to inquire into the cruelties exercised on prisoners in The Fleet, to extort money from them. 'The scene,' he says, 'is the committee; on the table are the instruments of torture. A prisoner in rags, half-starved, appears before them; the poor man has a good countenance, that adds to the interest. On the other hand is the inhuman gaoler. It is the very figure that Salvator Rosa would have drawn for Iago in the moment of detection. Villainy, fear, and conscience are mixed in yellow and livid on his countenance, his lips are contracted by tremor, his face advances as eager to lie, his legs step back as thinking to make his escape; one hand is thrust precipitately into his bosom, the fingers of the other are catching uncertainly at his buttonhole. If this was a portrait, it is the most striking that ever was drawn; if it is not, it is still finer.'  An inscription below the warder, probably in Walpole's handwriting, identifies him as Huggins the Keeper. He looks young for a man of about seventy-four years however, and the youthful figure in the painting, who has a similar appearance, position and pose is surely Bambridge.
In NPG 926, the scene has been moved to a prison cell. The chairman turns back toward the warder, as in the sketch, but the emphasis has shifted towards a new group, foreground right. The prisoner is now a dark skinned man, wearing only a cloth about the waist with a large iron binding his neck and waist. He kneels before an MP seated prominently on the right. Vaguely outlined in the sketch, the MPs’ faces now appear to be rough portraits, and several of them are shown standing. The warder and turn-key are similar but a young warder, back to the spectator, has been added on the left. Something of the dramatic confrontation so admired by Walpole in the sketch is lost. The changes, which make the painting weaker, might have been requested by the patron. Since the focus was moved from the chairman to the group in the foreground right, he may be among these men. A recent x-radiograph of NPG 926 failed to reveal deliberate changes on the canvas, although a vertical stretcher bar obscures the area beneath the prisoner.
Although stylistically a few faces in the sketch and several in the painting must have been intended for portraits, it is difficult to work back through them to identifications. Not all of the MPs subscribed attended subsequent meetings, as Beckett has pointed out.  Names have been proposed for some figures, and in 1817 Nichols suggested thirty one 'regulars' on the committee,  but the sources are too thin and there are no attendance lists. A few should be considered. Oglethorpe (q.v.) is likely to be the chairman. Onslow (q.v.) may be the man seated next to him and Egmont (q.v.) is probably the third seated figure. The latter turns toward a man writing who may be Edward Stables, chief clerk of the House.  The standing figure, third from the right in the foreground group, resembles Sir Archibald Grant on comparison with Smibert's portrait of Grant and his wife.  If this is the Grant picture, the addition of this group which does not appear in the sketch, standing here, as it were, in the wings, might be thus understood. Lastly, the seated MP before whom the prisoner kneels looks like William Hucks in the painting by John Vanderbank engraved by J. Faber junior.  Hucks was well known in his day as a House of Commons committee man. It is conceivable that Carlisle's motive for purchasing this painting in 1796 was that it might include his ancestor, Lord Morpeth (1694-1758), a member of the committee; but this is not easily verified. The nearest portrait, that at Castle Howard, is rather youthful for comparison. 
Whether either sketch or picture represents a specific occasion is a matter for debate. Although these works were later associated with the Fleet, neither Vertue nor Hogarth are specific in their descriptions, referring merely to the Committee; the name of the prison cannot be read on the open page in NPG 926 and probably was not included - there is not space. While he was well placed to obtain eyewitness accounts, it is not known whether Hogarth would have actually been admitted to any sessions of the committee. It might be thought Parliament was jealous of its privilege throughout the century. Few were more outspoken in their defence than Onslow himself, who was to take a strong line over the complaint of breach of privilege by The Gentleman's Magazine heard by the House on 13 April 1738. But Dr Cruickshanks has kindly pointed out that in practice, while all committees of the House of Commons were supposed to sit in the Speaker's Chamber, in fact they used to sit in the house or lodgings of the chairman or of one of its members. Hence Hogarth would have found little difficulty in gaining admission.  He would have known the Fleet well from the days of his father's imprisonment, but to these or to one of the prisons he might easily have been admitted. So that while he was a great enough artist to convey a compelling sense of reality without it, the ‘Committy' may well have been composed from direct observation.
It is also possible, even likely, that sketch and picture are different in content. The panelled walls of the sketch may indicate the Speaker's Chamber, or the home of a committee member. The rather dignified prisoner might be Rich, of whom no portraits are known for comparison. NPG 926 clearly takes place in a prison. It might not have been completed until 1730 or 1731, and thus may be based on later reports. The dark-skinned prisoner suggests perhaps the Portuguese Jacob Mendez Solas, one of the first prisoners for debt ever loaded with irons in the Fleet, whose personality was broken by Bambridge's treatment.  Some details such as the tong-like irons in NPG 926 reflect the Marshalsea hearings,  but there is no other evidence to connect this enquiry with the painting.
Footnotesback to top
1) R. Paulson, Hogarth: His Life, Art and Times, I, pp 196-98.
2) Commons Journals, XXI, pp 237-38; see also Smollett, History of England, IV, 1758, pp 527-28.
3) R. B. Beckett, 'Hogarth's Early Painting', Burlington Magazine, XC, 1948, p 222.
4) For Walpole's description of this sketch, see below.
5) R. B. Beckett, 'Hogarth's Early Painting', Burlington Magazine, XC, 1948, p 41, no.18.
6) R. Paulson, Hogarth: His Life, Art and Times, I, pp 201-02.
7) Letter from John Duthie, 11 August 1892, NPG archives.
8) J. Nichols and G. Steevens, The Genuine Works of William Hogarth, 1808-17, III, p 94.
10) G. Vertue, Vertue Note Books (edited by The Earl of Ilchester), Walpole Society, 1930-55, III, p 41.
11) British Museum Add. MS 27995, f.1.
12) R. Paulson, Hogarth: His Life, etc., I, pp 229-30; R. Sedgwick, The House of Commons 1715-54 (The History of Parliament), 1970, pp 77-78.
13) J. Nichols, Biographical Anecdotes of William Hogarth, 1781, pp 15-16.
14) Exhibited ‘Hogarth', Tate Gallery, 1971-72 (117, 201). Gatehouse's daughter Anna Maria became in 1770 the second wife of Walter Blunt, grandfather of Lt-Col. E. W. Blunt-Mackenzie, owner of the portraits in 1949. They are now in Mrs Hyde's collection, Somerville, New Jersey.
15) J. Nichols and G. Steevens, The Genuine Works of William Hogarth, 1808-17, III, p 93.
16) Monkhouse was a colleague of William Huggins and is cited in his will. He is given £50 on the condition that he superintend the publication of certain literary works compiled by Huggins. PRO Prob. 11/867. For Monkhouse and Huggins see L. M. Knapp, The Letters of Tobias Smollett, 1970, and references there cited.
17) J. Nichols and G. Steevens, The Genuine Works of William Hogarth, 1808-17, III, p 98.
18) PRO Prob. 6/175, March 1799.
19) J. Nichols and G. Steevens, The Genuine Works of William Hogarth, 1808-17, III, pp 93-94.
20) J. Nichols, Biographical Anecdotes of William Hogarth, 1781, pp 14-15.
21) R. B. Beckett, 'Hogarth's Early Painting', Burlington Magazine, XC, 1948, p 41 (18).
22) J. Nichols and G. Steevens, The Genuine Works of William Hogarth, 1808-17, III, p 90.
23) See 'The House of Commons' by Thornhill and Hogarth, reproduced Paulson, Hogarth: His Life, Art and Times, I, fig.66; discussed Beckett, 'Hogarth's Early Painting', Burlington Magazine, XC, 1948, p 44, no.21.
24) 'Sir Archbald Grant and Lady in one cloth'; both half length for which Smibert was paid £33.12s.0d in May 1727: The Noteboook of John Smibert (Massachusetts Historical Society), 1969, p 84, no.145; this painting was exhibited, Aberdeen, 1859 (85) as by Hogarth.
25) J. Nichols and G. Steevens, The Genuine Works of William Hogarth, 1808-17, III, p 94 identified this MP as Sir William Wyndham, the seated figure on Oglethorpe's left as Andrew Fountaine and the MP behind him, Egmont.
26) Reproduced Lord Hawkesbury, Catalogue of the Portraits, Miniatures, etc. at Castle Howard (East Riding Historical Society), 1905, pl.ii.
27) Little is at present known about the details of procedure, but it was evidently possible to gain admission even to debates in the House from which strangers were excluded by bribing the doorman or being met by an MP. Dr Eveline Cruickshanks of the History of Parliament Trust kindly read this article and gave me the benefit of her knowledge and advice.
28) A Report from the Committee appointed to Enquire into the State of the Goals (sic) of this Kingdom: relating to the Fleet Prison, 1729, pp 9-10.
29) A Report from the Committee appointed to enquire into the State of the Goals (sic) of this Kingdom: relating to the Marshalsea Prison; and farther relating to the Fleet Prison, 1729, p 8.
Referenceback to top
A Report from the Committee appointed to Enquire into the State of the Goals (sic) of this Kingdom: relating to the Fleet Prison, 1729.
A Report from the Committee appointed to enquire into the State of the Goals (sic) of this Kingdom: relating to the Marshalsea Prison; and farther relating to the Fleet Prison, 1729.
R. B. Beckett, ‘Hogarth's Early Painting: III 1728/9: The Gaols Enquiry', Burlington Magazine, CX, 1948.
R. B. Beckett, Hogarth, 1949.
M. Bryan, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, ed. G. C. Williamson, 1903-05.
A. Graves, Art Sales, 1918-21.
Lord Hawkesbury, Catalogue of the Portraits, Miniatures, etc. at Castle Howard (East Riding Historical Society), 1905.
Journals of the House of Commons from June 15 1727 (1 George II) to December 5 1732 (6 George II), 1803.
R. Paulson, Hogarth: His Life, Art and Times, 1971.
R. Sedgwick, The House of Commons 1715-54 (The History of Parliament), 1970.
R. J. Sulivan, A Tour through Parts of England, Scotland and Wales in 1778, 2nd edition, 1785.
The Noteboook of John Smibert (Massachusetts Historical Society), 1969.
Physical descriptionback to top
Seventeen figures grouped round a table including: a standing figure faintly seen from behind, far left; two warders standing; MPs seated and standing, wearing wigs and white neck-ties; a prisoner in ragged cloth and headband kneeling before a small block; two MPs holding quills; on the table, standish, papers, inkwell and an open pamphlet, these words faintly visible: .../The Committee/that.../...Gaols/this(?) Kingdom/...; on the book, an iron, held by two seated MPs and a warder standing behind; bar with shackles on the floor, left; iron around the prisoner's neck and wrist; tong-shaped collar iron held by MP, right; green table-cloth; in background, left, a torn notice on the wall headed ALMANACK (?), windows with bars, a chain looped across the door; lit from the left.
Conservationback to top
Technical examination in 1970 established that its paint was generally thin; the wigs of the man standing between Oglethorpe and Onslow, and of the two standing extreme right, worn; other passages of worn paint in the legs of the prisoner and of Grant (?); slight losses near the corners; none of the paint losses affect the design or dramatis personae however; old varnish, repainting and double lining removed; cleaned, relined and retouched, 1970.
Provenanceback to top
Given by the 9th Earl of Carlisle, November 1892. Purchased at Christie's, 6-7 May 1796,  lot 100, by the 5th Earl, through the connoisseur and dealer, Michael Bryan (1757-1821), author of the well-known Dictionary of Painters; removed from London to Castle Howard 1865.
The evidence for its purchase is as follows. Bryan's receipt, 'Two Hundred & Three Pounds fourteen shillings for Two Portraits by Vandyke, and Three Pictures purchased for his Lordship at Christie's as expressed in the annexed account', preserved at Castle Howard, is dated 'London 15 May 1796'. It gives the following list of items ‘Bot at Christie's'/
|2nd day ---100 . . Hogarth ------------------------------|
|Two Portraits by Vandyk of the|
Electoc Palatine of Ld. Herbert --
The date of the sale is not given but it is certainly that held some ten days earlier in which the two main properties were those of 'A Man of Fashion lately deceased' and 'a few select Cabinet Pictures recently brought from A Nobleman's seat in the Country'. The title-page mentions also the two Zoffanys, evidently another property, depicting Foote in 'Major Sturgeon' and Foote and Weston in 'The President and Dr. Last'. These were the pair bought by Bryan for Lord Carlisle. The last item advertised on the page is 'A Representation of a Committee of the House of Commons enquiring into the Abuses practised in the Fleet Prison in the Year 1729, a curious interesting subject by the immortal HOGARTH'. The Zoffanys were sold by Woolmer, who had bought them at the sale of pictures from the town house of the late George Colman, playwright, Christie's, 3 and 4 August 1795,  lot 96. Woolmer was not the vendor of the Hogarth, lot 100, bought by 'Briand'  at twenty guineas.
Lots 98 and 99 were sent in by Lord Palmerston. Under his name in the margin is the letter 'T', the vendor of lot 100. This might at first be read as an 'I' (idem), in which case lot 100 would have been the same property as lots 98 and 99. However, the sales clerk uses a ditto mark elsewhere. NPG 926 was never a Palmerston picture, as far as is known, and is not among the works mentioned by Sulivan in 1785 at Broadlands  then the Palmerston seat. The letter 'T' occurs frequently in the 1796 catalogue: 'T' bought and sold several minor pictures on both days. Unfortunately he is not named in Christie's copy of the sale catalogue and a search through 1795 and 1796 has failed to reveal his identity.  He cannot be ‘Thierry' purchaser of lot 82, because this lot was sold by ‘T' and not bought in. Fortunately there are other clues. 'T' bought and sold twenty pictures at the sale and was the joint vendor with 'C' of lot 102 ‘Seb. Bourdon ... The Punishment of Niobe, A NOBLE AND ELEGANT PICTURE'. 'C' is probably the dealer Paul Colnaghi (1751-1833). We are looking therefore for someone who may have been in partnership with a dealer, who probably dealt himself, and by this date was very well known at Christie's.
In Christie's catalogues of c.1779-82 the name Tassaert occurs not infrequently as buyer or seller. He is also listed as 'Tass', a purchaser in the 2nd day of the Gore sale, 16 and 17 January 1784.  Bryan was also present at the first day of this sale and is listed as 'Bryant'. It seems possible that 'Tass' and 'T' are progressive shortenings of this name. Philip Joseph Tassaert, a Flemish painter, dealer and restorer, born at Antwerp in 1732, is mentioned by Bryan in the first edition of the Dictionary. He came to England, worked for Hudson, and by 1775 became President of the Incorporated Society of Artists.
Where 'T' acquired NPG 926 we do not know. There is only one reference to a similar item sold at Christie's before the sale of 6-7 May 1796.  Lot 99 on the first day of an anonymous sale, 5-6 February 1796 was 'Hogarth ... A prison with a great variety of portraits, undoubted by'. The sale included the property of 'A gentleman, brought from his seat in Kent' but lot 99 seems to be another property and there is no vendor or buyer's name in the clerk's list. The name Furnivall' (?) is written in the body of the catalogue, perhaps as vendor. The lot fetched ten guineas. Whether it is NPG 926 or the copy is an open question. Ten guineas is the price level at which 'T' often bought, and being a dealer, he may have wished to make a quick profit. However, since both copy and original were bought at Christie's around this time and we know only these two sales of the 'Committee', the likely assumption is that this February sale must be of the copy.  In Christie's sales of this period, important pictures are puffed in the catalogues. In contrast to the description of NPG 926 'a curious interesting subject by the immortal HOGARTH', the simple 'undoubted by' in this catalogue entry suggests the seller's attempt to promote a less than impressive object. Also, only three months later NPG 926 fetched twice the price.
1) F. Lugt, Repertoire des Catalogues de Ventes, 1600, 5447.
2) Ibid, 5353.
3) So spelled by Christie's clerk. A. Graves, Art Sales, 1918-21, III, p 359, lists 'Brand' as the purchaser of the Zoffanys, and omits the Hogarth; the receipt at Castle Howard signed 'M Bryan' established his identity beyond doubt.
4) R. J. Sulivan, A Tour through Parts of England, Scotland and Wales in 1778, 2nd edition, 1785, I, pp 194-95.
5) Kindly checked by Lady Dorothy Lygon.
6) F. Lugt, Repertoire des Catalogues de Ventes, 1600, 3664.
7) Ibid, 5406. Thanks are due to Miss Evans and Mrs Cowen of the Hart Decorative and Fine Arts Group for checking these catalogues with me. I am particularly grateful to Mrs Cowen for drawing my attention to the early references to Tassaert.
8) I have not checked Christie's catalogues after 1796, however.
Exhibitionsback to top
'Pictures by the late William Hogarth, Richard Wilson, Thomas Gainsborough, and J. Zoffani', British Institution, 1814 (90); 'Pictures by Italian, Spanish, Flemish, Dutch, French and English Masters', British Institution, 1855 (148); 'Exhibition of the Royal House of Guelph', New Gallery, 1891 (127); 'Hogarth', Tate Gallery, 1971-72 (27).
This extended catalogue entry is from the out-of-print National Portrait Gallery collection catalogue: John Kerslake, Early Georgian Portraits, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1977, and is as published then. For the most up-to-date details on individual Collection works, we recommend reading the information provided in the Search the Collection results on this website in parallel with this text.