as these were but experiments; secondly, he considered experimenting would draw away pupils from the rudiments of the art.  Surely nothing but illiberal dislike would have perverted the plain meaning of the act.  “The secret of Sir Joshua’s own preparations was carefully kept—­he permitted not even the most favoured of his pupils to acquire the knowledge of his colours—­he had all securely locked, and allowed no one to enter where these treasures were deposited.  What was the use of all this secrecy?  Those who stole the mystery of his colours, could not use it, unless they stole his skill and talent also.  A man who, like Reynolds, chooses to take upon himself the double office of public and private instructor of students in painting, ought not surely to retain a secret in the art, which he considers of real value.”—­P. 287.  He was, in fact, too honest to mislead; and that he did not think the right discovery made, the author must have known; for Northcote says—­“when I was a student at the Royal Academy, I was accidentally repeating to Sir Joshua the instructions on colouring I had heard there given by an eminent painter, who then attended as visitor.  Sir Joshua replied, that this painter was undoubtedly a very sensible man, but by no means a good colourist; adding, that there was not a man then on earth who had the least notion of colouring.  ‘We all of us,’ said he, ’have it equally to seek for and find out—­as, at present, it is totally lost to the art.’”—­“In his economy he was close and saving; while he poured out his wines and spread out his tables to the titled or the learned, he stinted his domestics to the commonest fare, and rewarded their faithfulness by very moderate wages.  One of his servants, who survived till lately, described him as a master who exacted obedience in trifles—­was prudent in the matter of pins—­a saver of bits of thread—­a man hard and parsimonious, who never thought he had enough of labour out of his dependents, and always suspected that he overpaid them.  To this may be added the public opinion, which pictured him close, cautious, and sordid.  On the other side, we have the open testimony of Burke, Malone, Boswell, and Johnson, who all represent him as generous, open-hearted, and humane.  The servants and the friends both spoke, we doubt not, according to their own experience of the man.  Privations in early life rendered strict economy necessary; and in spite of many acts of kindness, his mind, on the whole, failed to expand with his fortune.  He continued the same system of saving when he was master of sixty thousand pounds, as when he owned but sixpence.  He loved reputation dearly, and it would have been well for his fame, if, over and above leaving legacies to such friends as Burke and Malone, he had opened his heart to humbler people.  A little would have gone a long way—­a kindly word and a guinea prudently given.”—­P. 319.  Opened his heart to humbler people! was the author of this libel upon a generous character, ignorant of his charity