CHANTREY BEQUEST. By the will dated Dec. 31, 1840, Sir Francis Chantrey (q.v.), left his whole residuary personal estate after the decease or on the second marriage of his widow (less certain specified annuities and bequests) in trust for the president and trustees of the Royal Academy (or in the event of the dissolution of the Royal Academy, to such society as might take its place), the income to be devoted to the encouragement of British fine art in painting and sculpture only, by "the pur chase of works of fine art of the highest merit . . . that can be obtained." The funds might be allowed to accumulate for not more than five years; works by British or foreign artists might be acquired, so long as such works were entirely executed in Great Britain. The prices were to be "liberal," and no sympathy for an artist or his family was to influence the selection or the pur chase of works, which were to be acquired solely on the ground of intrinsic merit. No commission or orders might be given : the works must be finished bef ore purchase. An annual sum of £300 and .£50 was to be paid to the president of the Royal Academy and the secretary respectively, for the discharge of their duties in carrying out the provisions of the will.
Lady Chantrey died in 1875, and two years later the fund be came available for the purchase of paintings and sculptures. The capital sum amounted to £io5,000. Galleries in the Victoria and Albert Museum at South Kensington were at first used, until in 1898 the Royal Academy arranged with the Treasury for the transference of the collection to the National Gallery of British Art, which had been erected by Sir Henry Tate at Millbank. A growing discontent with the interpretation by the Royal Academy of the terms of the will found forcible expression in the press in 1903, and a debate in the House of Lords led to the appointment of a select committee of that House (June to Aug. 1904). Its report made recommendations with a view to the pre vention of certain former errors of administration, but dismissed other charges against the Academy. A memorandum was issued by the Royal Academy (Feb. 1905) disagreeing with certain recommendations, but allowing others.