We reproduce on another page two Cezannes which have been the subject of a controversy in the columns of the "Observer." Mr. Hugh Blaker wrote a wise and indignant letter in which he stated that the pictures, which he had offered on loan to the new foreign section at the National Gallery of British Art, had been rejected. Mr. Aitken, the director, replied in a conciliatory vein, pointing out that there is no room for more than a few out that there is no room for more than a few foreign pictures until the new wing is built. He adds that "for sufficient reasons" and "except in special circumstances" offers of pictures on loan will be refused, and that the whole gallery already contains twice as many pictures as can be shown. The absence of any Government grant is also spoken of; and the letter ends with the assertion that, for the reasons stated, the trustees must" weigh carefully the quality of pictures offered as gifts and the conditions of proposed loans.  

The position then would appear to be that the two Cezannes were rejected either (i) because of their quality, (ii) because there is no room for them, or (iii) because the conditions of loan were impossible. The concluding sentence of Mr. Aitken's letter seems to imply that the quality of the Cezannes is not up to the Tate standard. The fact that one of them, the landscape, has already been reproduced in THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE is a sufficient comment on our opinion regarding it, and it will be apparent, even from the plate on page 214, that the still life is an equally characteristic and important example of Cezanne. As for there being no room for them, which is the reason formally given-in a large collection like that at Millbank, room can be found for any two small pictures if they are really wanted. And as regards the conditions of loan; the pictures are stated to have been offered simply "for an indefinite period." Moreover, they are the property, we are permitted to say, of Miss G. Davies, whose disinterestedness and generosity are, of course, beyond dispute. Mr. Aitken seems almost to say " I don't think we can take loans because we must reserve our space for purchases. But we cannot make purchases because we have no money." He certainly implies that, with an occasional exception, none but the unconditional gift- always a rara avis- can be accepted.

 Experience, however, has shown that the surest way of encouraging gifts is to welcome suitable loans. But besides the Cezannes, many other modern French pictures, some offered on loan and some as gifts, have been from time to time refused, and the fact that most of the largest collectors-among whom a strong feeling undoubtedly exists-are known to be willing to lend examples, makes the policy of refusing loans hard to defend. One of the best collections to be found anywhere could, it is felt, be rapidly formed free of cost. What these collectors and others ask is that modern French art should be shown alongside the other pictures at Millbank, then if after continued examination they come to be condemned, they can at worst be returned to their owners. Now that it is decided that there is to be a foreign section it would surely be well to welcome really heartily the aid of the collectors, who at any rate have for many years studied this section of painting with the faith and passion through which alone, successful collecting, private or public, becomes possible. Although, of course, the opinion of such enthusiasts varies greatly regarding the relative merit of the painters of modern France, all have come to an agreement about Cezanne, who was born as long ago as 1839, is universally re cognised as the father of the whole movement and is now given a place in great public collections throughout the world. A Gallery of Modern Foreign Art without Cezanne is like a gallery of Florentine art without Giotto.