“Concerning this picture we find the following notice by Knowles, in his Life of Fuseli.  ’In the performance of this work, he (Harlow) owed many obligations to Fuseli for his critical remarks; for, when he first saw the picture, chiefly in dead-colouring, he said, ’I do not disapprove of the general arrangement of your work, and I see you will give it a powerful effect of light and shadow; but you have here a composition of more than twenty figures, or, I should rather say, parts of figures, because you have not shown one leg or foot, which makes it very defective.  Now, if you do not know how to draw legs and feet, I will show you,’ and taking up a crayon, he drew two on the wainscot of the room.  Harlow profited by these remarks; and the next time we saw the picture, the whole arrangement in the fore-ground was changed.  Fuseli then said, ’so far you have done well:  but now you have not introduced a back figure, to throw the eye of the spectator into the picture;’ and then pointed out by what means he might improve it in this particular.  Accordingly, Harlow introduced the two boys who are taking up the cushion."[2]

“It has been stated that the majority of the actors in the scene sat for their portraits in this picture.  Mr. Kemble, however, refused, when asked to do so by Mr. Welsh, strengthening his refusal with emphasis profane.  Harlow was not to be defeated, and he actually drew Mr. Kemble’s portrait in one of the stage-boxes of Covent Garden Theatre, while the great actor was playing his part on the stage.  The vexation of such a ruse to a man of Mr. Kemble’s temperament, can better be imagined than described:  how it succeeded, must be left to the judgment of the reader.  Egerton, Pope, and Stephen Kemble, were successively painted for Henry VIII., the artist retaining the latter.  The head of Mr. Charles Kemble was likewise twice painted:  the first, which cost Mr. C. Kemble many sittings, was considered by himself and others, very successful.  The artist thought otherwise; and, contrary to Mr. Kemble’s wish and remonstrance, he one morning painted out the approved head:  in a day or two, however, entirely from recollection, Harlow re-painted the portrait with increased fidelity.  Mr. Cunningham, we may here notice, has erroneously stated, that Harlow required but one sitting of Mrs. Siddons.  The fact is, the accomplished actress held her up-lifted arm frequently till she could hold it raised no longer, and the majestic limb was finished from another original.”

The lights of Love among the Roses are vivid and beautiful:  the whole composition will be recollected as of a charming character.

By the way, persons unpractised in the art of painting on glass, or in transparent enamel, have but a slender idea of its difficulties.  Crown-glass is preferred for its greater purity.  The artist has not only to paint the picture, but to fire it in a kiln, with the most scrupulous attention to produce the requisite effects, and the uncertainty of this branch of the art is frequently a sad trial of patience.  Hence, the firing or vitrification of the colours is of paramount importance, and the art thus becomes a two-fold trial of skill.  Its cost is, however, only consistent with its brilliant effect.