he Museum
at Basle, the history of modern English painting may fairly be said to
have begun; for though it was long before a native of England was
forthcoming who was of sufficient force to carry on the tradition, the
seed was sown, and in due course the plant appeared, and after many
vicissitudes, at last flourished.

The immediate effect may be noted by mentioning here the names of
GUILLIM STREETES, who was possibly English born, and JOHN BETTES who
certainly was. To the former is attributed the large whole-length
portrait at Hampton Court of Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, in a suit of
bright red. Another portrait of Howard belongs to the Duke of Norfolk,
having been presented to his ancestor by Sir Robert Walpole. Both were
exhibited at the Tudor Exhibition in 1892. Streetes was painter to King
Edward VI., and according to Stype he was paid fifty marks, in 1551,
"for recompense of three great tables whereof two were the pictures of
his Highness sent to Sir Thomas Hoby and Sir John Mason (ambassadors
abroad), the third a picture of the late Earl of Surrey attainted, and
by the Councils' commandment fetched from the said Guillim's house."
Horace Walpole was under the impression that this was the Duke of
Norfolk's picture, but the Hampton Court Catalogue claims the other one
as the work of Streetes.

In the National Gallery is a bust portrait of Edmund Butts, physician to
Henry VIII., which is inscribed _faict par Johan Bettes Anglois_, and
with the date 1545. In this the influence of Holbein is certainly
discernible, though not all pervading. There were two brothers, THOMAS
and JOHN BETTES who are mentioned by Meres with several other English
painters in _Palladis Tamia_, published in 1598--"As Greece had moreover
their painters, so in England we have also these, William and Francis
Segar, brethren, Thomas and John Bettes, Lockie, Lyne, Peake, Peter
Cole, Arnolde, Marcus (Mark Garrard)," etc. Walpole, quoting this, adds,
"I quote this passage to prove to those who learn one or two names by
rote that every old picture you see is not by Holbein." At the same time
it must be admitted that until some considerable fund of information
concerning these early days of painting is brought to light, there is
very little to be said about any one except Holbein till almost the end
of the sixteenth century.

That Holbein was "a wonderful artist," as More wrote to Erasmus, is not
to be denied. But in placing him among the very gre