He distinguishes himself from other animal-painters, both of earlier and of present times, by his presenting to us his favourite animal, the dog, in those relations in which this animal exhibits a certain likeness to man, and even as playing a human part. This is exemplified, for instance, in his picture Laying down the Law, in which not only all the varieties of race are observed with the utmost delicacy, but also such traits of expression in which the canine and the human nature are found to agree, most humorously and shrewdly given. Next to dogs, horses and stags are his favourite animals, which he also presents to us with a variety of aspect and with an analogy to human nature which I have met with in no other animal-painter. In order to accomplish this with the more success, Sir Edwin has so carefully studied the human race, that, but for the circumstance that animals, properly speaking, constitute the chief subjects of his art, I should have assigned to him a distinguished place among the subject-painters of England. With this style of conception he unites the most admirable drawing, by which he is enabled to place both animals and men in the most difficult and momentary positions; his pictures also exhibit a finely-balanced general effect. His feeling for colour leads him both to choose his unbroken colours of a cold scale, and also to aim at a prevailing cool tone. In his earlier pictures the execution of every detail evinces a thorough love and understanding of nature. In those of his later time the touch is much broader and freer, and, when closely examined, every stroke will be found to express what he intended. After these few remarks, it is unnecessary to add a word as to the exquisite delicacy with which the physiognomy of both dogs in High Life and Low Life (No. 44) are expressed. Highland Music also is most admirable, not only in the different expressions of the dogs, but in the masterly keeping. If these two pictures may be said to exhibit him in his higher department as the historical painter of the race, the Spaniels of King Charles's breed (No. 90) show him as the portrait-painter-these little creatures being rendered with a love and correctness such as Leonardo da Vinci may be supposed to have exercised in the delineation of the Mona Lisa. Finally, we see him in his full dramatic power in the picture of The Dying Stag (No. 94): the expression in the head of the noble animal is quite touching.' Our other living painters also receive the tribute of Dr. Waagen's experienced discrimination, their leading merits and characteristics being defined in brief, sincere, and simple words, which, in many instances, we apprehend, will pass into a text. And it is a pleasant parting conviction, after all the treasures through which we have conducted the reader, that the Englishman, while feeding his eye and filling his house with the productions of other periods and nations, has not become indifferent, nor even affected indifference, to the excellence of his own living countrymen. The time will come when we shall hear where all the Mulreadys, Stanfields, and Landseers are dispersed; meanwhile such collections as those of Mr. Sheepshanks, Mr. Bicknell, and others, may justly make us proud of their owners as well as of their contents. ART. ART. VII.-1. Correspondence relating to Turkey presented to Parliament. Parts I. to VII. 1853-54. 2. Lettres sur la Turquie. Paris, 1854. Tome II. Par M. A. Ubicini. 3. Armenia: a Year at Erzeroom and on the Frontiers of Turkey, Persia, and Russia. By the Hon. Robert Curzon. London, 1854. 4. A Year with the Turks. By Warrington W. Smyth. London, 1854. 5. Journal of a Residence in the Danubian Principalities in 1853. By Patrick O'Brien. London, 1854. 6. The Greek and the Turk; or, Powers and Prospects in the Levant. By Eyre Evans Crowe. London, 1853. 7. Travels in Turkey, with a Cruise in the Black Sea. By Captain Slade, Admiral in the Turkish Fleet. London, 1854. 8. Communications respecting Turkey made to Her Majesty's Government by the Emperor of Russia, with the Answers returned to them: January to April, 1853. FTER many months of doubt and hope, the Speech from the country that peace was about to end, and that the nation was preparing for war. The terms of this announcement were still vague and unsatisfactory, and, in our opinion, neither worthy of the occasion nor calculated to call forth an earnest and unanimous response to the appeal thus made to the people of England. It is true that in the House of Commons, during the debate upon the Address to her Majesty, Lord John Russell, in a speech characterised by a straightforward and manly expression of the true policy of England, removed any doubts which might have prevailed with regard to the course the Government were bound to pursue; but Lord Aberdeen, and those known to be immediately connected with or inspired by him, have used language, if not directly opposed to, certainly at variance with, that held by the leader of the House of Commons, and those who are supposed to think with him. It is this state of things, showing a very great divergence of opinion in the Cabinet, that has chiefly given rise to that uncertainty which has prevailed throughout the country, and which, we do not hesitate to say, has contributed greatly to the increase of our difficulties, to the embarrassment of our allies, and to the encouragement of Russia. All these doubts are now removed. The sword has been drawn, and the issue of the great struggle has been left to the fate of war. To justify their policy, and to prove to the world that this mighty contest is one not lightly entered into or wantonly pro voked, her Majesty's Ministers have presented to Parliament the correspondence and various state-papers connected with the recent negotiations between this country and Russia. The time is now almost gone by for any criticism of these state-papers, but we cannot refrain from adverting to them with some satisfaction as a complete corroboration of the views upon the Eastern question put forward in our previous Number. We now have the admission of the Russian Government itself, that Count Leiningen's mission was one of the causes of Prince Menschikoff's embassy to Constantinople. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in a despatch of the 9th April, declares that it had reached him from more quarters than one that among the motives of Russia for increasing her influence in Turkey was the desire of repressing Protestantism wherever it appears. The moderation shown by the French Government, and its readiness to withdraw any demands, however just, inconsistent with the claims or even pretensions of Russia, and which might tend to embarrass the Porte, is most fully proved, whilst the communications of the French Ministers afford the most convincing testimony of the honourable and straightforward conduct of the Emperor himself, and his desire to give effective and speedy support to Turkey. At the same time it is impossible to rise from the perusal of these papers without being deeply impressed with the fatal effects of a vacillating and undecided policy, and without a solemn conviction that, had the British Government adopted in the first instance a firm and vigorous tone in dealing with Russia, England would have been spared the terrible necessity of a war. Had doubts remained upon this point in the mind of any man after perusing the two volumes of correspondence first published, they must surely have been removed by the supplemental or fifth part subsequently added to them, and containing the communications respecting Turkey made to Her Majesty's Government by the Emperor of Russia during the early part of last year. The first despatch in the collection (Sir G. H. Seymour to Lord John Russell, January 11, 1853) gives the clue and key to the whole Eastern question, and shows beyond a doubt why the moinent was chosen for hastening a crisis which might prove fatal to the existence of the Ottoman Empire. The supreme direction of the affairs of this country had, from a series of most unexpected occurrences, been confided to the Earl of Aberdeen. Unfortunately it was especially upon. his foreign policy that his character as a statesman both at home and abroad was founded. He had aided the Emperor of Russia in striking the first great blow against Turkey in 1829. He had in 1842 done his best to hand over to Russia the important Turkish province of Servia; he had been duped by France in the questions questions of Algiers and the Spanish marriages; and he had been declared by two of the most eminent statesmen of England to have a leaning towards the political principles of Austria. It has now transpired that in 1844 the Emperor of Russia had proposed to Lord Aberdeen, then the Foreign Minister in Sir Robert Peel's Government, the partition, on a certain contingency, of the Ottoman empire. A memorandum was drawn up recording the final results of the deliberations of the Emperor and three members of the British Cabinet. The real objects of this memorandum are shown by the two propositions which occur near its close. The two countries -or rather three, for Austria is assumed to be a consenting party -first pledge themselves to maintain the independence of Turkey, and secondly, to concert together what is to be done should it be foreseen that she were likely to fall to pieces. It would be utterly impossible to determine what symptoms were to be accepted as undoubted signs and proofs of dissolution, as this could but be a matter of opinion. Hence the great danger of this memorandum, and the fatal error committed by Lord Aberdeen. Russia well knew that she might at any time, through her intrigues and the influence she exercised over a portion of the Christian population of Turkey, bring about events which might be construed into the forerunners of the catastrophe she desired to hasten, and that she could, if not opposed, take advantage of them to execute her views. This extraordinary memorandum, unaccompanied by any explanatory documents, unsigned, and without any apparent mark of authenticity, was preserved as a state secret of the most vital importance, and was handed from Minister to Minister, in a separate box, as a political legacy too portentous to be even placed in the archives of the Foreign Office. These precautions give an additional importance to it, and render the circumstances under which it was drawn up, and the discussions which preceded it, still more suspicious and dangerous. Lord Aberdeen soon after quitted office, and was succeeded by other Foreign Ministers, who were justly supposed, both from their characters and connexions, to be less open to any such proposals as had been made by the Emperor Nicholas in 1844, and they were consequently not revived. Now begins the second act of this great drama, to which, whether for its all-absorbing interest, or its tragic results, a parallel may perhaps be sought in vain in history. The scene was shifted from London to St. Petersburg, where fortunately we had an Ambassador who in acuteness and high principle has shown himself worthy of the country he represented, and who has chronicled the details of the colloquies with a faithful and lively pen not unworthy of Boswell himself. VOL. XCIV. NO. CLXXXVIII. 2 L On On the last days of 1852 a new ministry came into power in England. At its head was Lord Aberdeen. The news of this event could scarcely have reached St. Petersburg before the 11th of January. On that day a festival was held in the palace of a member of the Imperial family-the Grand-Duchess Helena. Sir Hamilton Seymour was invited to meet the Emperor. In the midst of that brilliant company, the Czar eagerly sought the British Ambassador. He graciously and warmly expressed his pleasure at the intelligence of the formation of a new government in England under the guidance of a nobleman whom he had known for forty years, and for whom he entertained equal regard and esteem. He lost no time in proving the genuineness of these sentiments and showing the extent of his confidence in his friend, for in the next breath he recurred once more, after the long silence of nearly ten years, to his favourite scheme for the partition of Turkey. The astonished diplomatist naturally shrank, with feelings somewhat akin to horror and dread, from such dangerous advances. But what must have been his astonishment when, some time after, the Emperor, on repeating to him the views which he entertained with regard to Turkey, declared that, if he could have but ten minutes conversation with one of the British ministers, with Lord Aberdeen for instance, who knew him so well, and who shared a mutual confidence, he could come to a complete and satisfactory understanding with England upon them? Ten minutes to resolve one of the mightiest political problems that has ever been submitted to a statesman, and to perfect the schemes which had been for nearly two hundred years the great end of Russian policy! Lord John Russell, and afterwards Lord Clarendon, rejected these overtures, but not with the spirit which might have been expected from British statesmen upon such an occasion. We detect in their somewhat vague and indecisive replies the evil influence of the head of the Government. Here was the first great error, one of the principal causes of all our subsequent difficulties and our present embarrassments. It is of the conduct of the British Government in this stage of the proceedings that the Emperor of Russia has, we must admit, to a certain extent, good cause to complain. We should then have declared explicitly that England would not tolerate any interference in the affairs of Turkey; that, however much inclined a ministry might be to view with indifference or favour any steps taken by Russia to hasten the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, yet that the state of public opinion in this country was such as to render any understanding or connivance for this object impossible; but that any attempt to dictate to the Sultan or to invade his territories would inevitably lead |