Martin did not abandon the RA after Belshazzar’s Feast: he continued to submit large-scale historical works and landscapes through the end of his career.[81] However, he vociferously protested its “gatekeeping” power over the British art world. In 1839, Martin and several other aggrieved artists—George Rennie, E. T. Paris, George Clint, F. Y. Thurlstone, James Holmes, and George Foggo—brought a petition against the Academy to the House of Commons under the request that as a public institution, they must submit their financial returns to the government, as would be expected of a public institution.[82] The vote itself regarded the House’s order of the 14th of March, which would have demanded their financial accountability.[83] The vote came down to 33 ayes and 38 noes, causing the order of the 14th of March to be disregarded, and the Academy to avoid public accountability.[84] Subsequently, in 1842, The Morning Post published a series of columns investigating the Academy’s conduct on behalf of the public. The author included testimony from Martin and the current Academy President, Sir Martin Shee, from an 1836 House of Commons Committee hearing about their treatment of Martin.[85] The article’s author makes clear their belief that the RA, under Shee’s leadership, mistreated Martin:
There is no possible construction of this evidence by which the conclusion can be avoided that in the particular case of Mr. Martin the Academy did all the harm that such an institution can ever have the power of doing —not merely to the interest of the individual artist, for of that we speak not — but to the public interest in the promotion of art.[86]
The published excerpts from Shee’s comments to the committee concern his opinion that Martin should have ignored the abuses that the Academy meted out to non-member artists. Referring to Martin’s Joshua, Shee stated for the Committee that Martin had one poorly exhibited work when he was young, and afterward he “withdrew from the exhibitions at the Academy.” Shee defended the RA by arguing that Joshua’s hanging position was not as poor as the artist felt. He also suggested that Martin’s objections ultimately caused his rift with the RA: “If he had gone on as a young man of talent might reasonably be expected to do… I am convinced Mr. Martin would, long since, have become a full member of the Royal Academy.”[87] This declaration confirms that Martin’s exclusion was not due to lack of artistic talent or the overly ”popular” appeal of his artworks. Instead, it was Martin’s willingness to protest against the Academy, a protest embodied in Belshazzar’s Feast, that prevented him from achieving membership, an important step toward entering the canon of British artists.
[81] Pendered, John Martin, 95, 135, 145-146; He seems to have sent about a dozen notable works to the Academy within the final few decades of his life.
[82] The parliament records refer to an order they made on the 14th of March. This order is not explicitly explained, but it seems to refer to a declaration by the House asking for the Royal Academy’s returns. That as a royally funded institution that uses the money of the people to sustain themselves, they must be held accountable to the House of Commons by revealing their finances and records.
[83] ”House of Commons: The Royal Academy,” The Morning Chronicle, July 31, 1839, 3,4; Benjamin Robert Haydon also sent in a petition that was read at this hearing.
[84] ”House of Commons: The Royal Academy,” The Morning Chronicle, July 31, 1839, 3,4; Benjamin Robert Haydon also sent in a petition that was read at this hearing.
[85] While the article does not say the date of the testimony, in their quotes, Shee refers to an event that he claims occurred 24 years prior when Martin was 22, indicating the year was 1835-1836.
[86] “The Royal Academy,” The Morning Post, May 16, 1842, 5; “The Royal Academy,” The Morning Post, May 3, 1842, 4.
[87] “The Royal Academy,” The Morning Post, May 16, 1842, 5.