they come down into the mass of the tree; while in certain of the very nearest portions may be seen distinct leaves large and motionless, "the type and embodying of all that in the rest we feel and imagine but can never see.", 3. The infinite intricacy of foliage is always harmonised into perfect unity by a cloud-like disposition of shade and tone, which, in the midst of profusion, preserves repose. 4. The mass of a tree's foliage is always included within a certain symmetrical curved outline, within which all the component irregularities, segments, and divisions of a perfect tree are included, each bough reaching the limited boundary with its extremity, but not passing it. When this is not the case, an imperfection in the growth of the tree, or some loss of branch or bough, will always be found to account for it. Thus the beau idéal of a well-grown oak will be included within the form of a dome; that of a taller tree within the outline of a pear. The author justifies the adoption of the abstract ideal form, and only insists on its exhibiting that which might be, or has been found exemplified in particular cases. As before, he finds the modern English artists right; Claude worthy of praise in the trees of his middle distance, and Hobbima and Both equally so in their nearest foliage. He, however, censures them for exhibiting details where detail could not possibly be seen; magnifying the one leaf, diminishing the multitude; making finite the infinite. But it is upon Poussin that the graduate is most severe,-if, indeed, that can be called severity which is justice. In his pictures, he finds a certain computable quantity of resembling leaves, regularly disposed in resembling bunches-mere conventional touches mathematically arranged; the whole signifying tree, not resem their boughs, or the symmetrical curve of their general outline. Having thus considered the characteristics of the four great elements of landscape-sky, earth, water, and vegetation-he dismisses architectural painting as involving a mere knowledge of general truths within the reach of the most inferior draughtsman, saying it is disgraceful to misrepresent them, but no honour to draw them well. Any architect's clerk could have drawn the steps and balustrade in the "Hero and Leander" as well as Turner, but no one save he could have so thrown the accidental shadows on them; while many a man, who could not paint so well as Claude, would never have committed the egregious violations of perspective which he has in many instances exhibited. And it stands to reason, that men, who in broad, simple, and demonstrable matters are perpetually wrong, will not be right in carrying out matters delicate, refined, and subtile. The author then asserts that peo ple begin to find fault with Turner where they cease to have the power of appreciating him; that they are arrogant in criticising, where they ought to be humble in learning ; that the province of such a painter as Turner is to administer delight to the informed, and to afford instruction to the ignorant. His concluding chapter is on Modern Art and Modern Criticism. He exposes the error of measuring an artist's relative rank by the higher or lower amount of his feeling whereas it is the fidelity and truth with which he exhibits the peculiar subject of his choice that should be regarded. The feelings of different artists are not capable of comparison, but their fidelity and truth are; and the author seems rather to think, that when a painter exhibits perfect and high truth in some inferior subject to which he habituates himself, bling it. Sometimes, for a mass of and on which he realises fame and foliage a space of smooth, opaque, fortune, he is capable of taking much varnished brown, with circular higher ground with equal success; it groups of greenish touches at regular being his opinion that no man can intervals upon it-not coming out of draw any one thing well if he can it, and as far from Nature's intricacy draw nothing else, and that when and unity. Lastly, he refers to the owing to some trickery which will and variety as from her harmony this appears to be contradicted, it is total neglect of the old masters in respect to the proper disposition of sooner or later be discovered. Though material truth does not in itself constitute high rank, he thinks it a perfect test of relative rank; and does not so much accuse modern critics of injustice in their decision on artists, as of pampering to the varying and low state of the public taste. He thinks it the business of the press to tell us what to ask for, not whom to ask; not to tell us which is our best painter, but whether our best painter is doing his best; not to measure our living painters by a comparison with the old masters, but solely with reference to that Nature which scorns the mannerisms of the schools. He alludes to the morbid fondness of the public for unfinished works, shewing how improperly encouraging this is to the clever idler in art, or the claptrap money-maker; and how unjust towards the man of industry, energy, and feeling, who is desirous of doing something worth having lived for. The one draws a draft on a banker as he draws a sketch; the other drags on an unremunerated life as he labours on a picture. It should be the artist's difficulty to know when to leave off, nor should he do so while he can put another thought into his picture. Our author does not mean to censure real sketches, intended only as such; and, in fact, he thinks them not sufficiently encouraged. Young artists, instead of aping the execution of masters, and uttering disjointed repetitions of other men's words without sharing in their emotions, should be industrious with their out-door sketch-book. art. To the truth of all its principles we accord the fullest and most entire submission; on the perfect justness of all its illustrations we may not, with such unhesitating trust, rely; but, in the main, we are willing to accept them also. The author has made us clearly see much that we had overlooked; and has, at least, stimulated in us an increased desire for that knowledge of Nature, without which all patronage of art is foolery and all criticism cant. As the fault of the generality of modern painters, he instances a "want of solemnity and definite purpose," saying our landscapes are generally "descriptive," not "reflective." He deems them too prone to repeat themselves. "All copyists," says he, "are contemptible; but the copyist of himself the most so, since he has the worst original." He concludes by calling on the press to benefit art by leading the public into a proper estimation of Turner, and by urging that artist to give all his future efforts to great works; such works as may remain for the teaching of nations.— P. 423. Such is the general account we have endeavoured to give of, perhaps, the most remarkable book which has ever been published in reference to All men who have eyes to behold and liberty to range, have presented to them the innumerable distinct varieties and combinations of Nature. This exhibition involves every possible change of position, and modified form, and colour; every grade from impenetrable darkness to intensest light, and from the powerful strength of proximity to the fading and almost imperceptible delicacy of remotest distance. Some men, from either a comparative insensibility to emotion or partial education, see in all this nothing more than the result of physical creation acted upon by the laws of optics. Others, either from native susceptibility or the accidents of early training, observe in Nature's variety the eloquence of a Creator stimulating the heart as well as the mind to that apprehension of the Sublime and Beautiful which will exist for ever, when the physical has passed away and matter is no more. The Sciences which contribute to the practical good of the present world, and the Arts which sustain its imaginative condition, are doubtless of equal value, different men having their different missions, either for promoting a knowledge of the mechanism of the universe, or a feeling for its harmony. Leaving Science, then, in the hands of its duly appointed disciples, we would regard Art as having for its object the refinement and elevation of the soul in its temporal alliances. Confining our remark to the landscape artist, we would receive him as the minister of those eternal truths which the Creator speaks in the pictorial eloquence of Sky, Earth, and Ocean; it being his duty not to repeat the more commonly known passages in that literal form which is familiar to our memory, but to seize upon the more important, the more pregnant portions, and to render more acute our perception, and more exalted our estimate, of the comprehensive meaning they are intended to convey. That the work of the Oxford graduate has for its especial aim the promotion of Landscape Nature as a great moral means, and the elevation of the artist as the expounder of its mysteries, is sufficient to demand for its author the highest respect of the ordinary observer on the one hand, and the professional aspirant on the other. For our own parts, we are grateful to him, not more for stimulating our regard for Art, than for teaching us how to cultivate a thriving love for Nature. We have, since the perusal of his treatise, gained many an additional insight into the riches of landscape; and we thank him cordially for having opened to us those sources of enjoyment which lie, like ever gushing fountains, in the mountains, the valleys, the fields, and the woods; and for having awakened our fuller apprehension of those sublimities which distinguish the phenomena of ocean, and of" the brave o'erhanging firmament." The graduate's volume is, in short, a work which prompts us to leave the conventional for the true; and, quitting the cant of gallery connoisseurship, to find "Tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, Sermons in stones, and good in every thing." We cannot close this article on the graduate's volume, without referring to the singular eloquence and graphic power displayed in very many of its passages. It is evidently not the work of a critic only, but of a painter and poet. The sterling commonsense and the acute observation, shewn in its more practical details, are not more remarkable than the reverential feeling he entertains towards Art, and the enthusiasm of his love for Nature. We only regret, for the sake of his cause, that he should so openly have proclaimed himself the champion of Turner in particular. He might have kept Turner in his eye, without such unqualified personal worship. The Turneric might have been advocated, without such an especial idolatry of the artist himself. The pre-eminent genius of Turner might have been asserted, and sufficiently proved, by reference to certain particular merits, even in such of his works as are, in their general character, deemed most extravagant; but when such works are alluded to as illustrating the graduate's theory of landscape perfection, readers, less docile than ourselves, will visit, upon the very principles of his book, the doubts which should only attach to the justice of some of his examples. With these few qualifying remarks we take leave of the graduate, hoping that the "word of promise" which he has left with us, in respect to the continuation of his subject, will be speedily redeemed. Well and wisely hath he charmed us so far, and, in the words of Jaques, we earnestly exclaim, "More, more; I pr'y thee, more!" WHAT IS THE POSITION OF SIR ROBERT PEEL AND HIS CABINET? OUR readers, we think, will do us the justice to acknowledge, that we have not rushed into any hasty conclusions concerning the wisdom of the financial policy of the minister, being yet undeclared, or the effect which it bids fair to produce upon the general condition, social as well as commercial, of the country. It is indeed possible that to the more earnest among them we may seem to have exercised an excess of caution in this respect, for earnest men are not always reasonable men; and reason, though it be our safest guide in politics as in most other things, seldom keeps its ground when assailed by prejudice or passion. But we cannot help this. We have never written a line on any of the great questions of the day, which at this present moment we would wish to retract. We have done nothing in the matter of the last move in the Conservative cabinet, which we could at this moment desire to be undone. As long as it was possible to keep the judgment in suspense we wholly suspended ours; and took the precaution, even after Sir Robert Peel had made the first announcement of his purposes, to postpone to a future occasion the remarks which we might feel it our duty to make upon them. There is an end, however, now, to all farther hesitation. The secret is fully out, -the great plan is developed; the ways and means by which it has been brought so far towards its accomplishment are patent to the whole world: and to affect neutrality any longer would be ridiculous. It has become our duty to deliver our opinion on the premises before us, and we shall endeavour to go through with it as becomes us. And first let us guard ourselves against appearing to write in a spirit of bitterness about Sir Robert Peel. We have no railing accusation whatever to bring against him. As a man, we believe him to be as honest now as he ever was: as a statesman, we cannot doubt that the motives by which he is actuated are pure. What indeed has he to gain, either personally or in reputation, by the course which he has considered it expedient to adopt? He sacrifices old friendships, old associations, old opinions, old connexions, every thing which men most esteem, and which go the farthest to smooth for them the path of life and for what? To effect a change in the financial policy of the greatest empire in the world, over the destinies of which he has been called upon to preside; and to run the risk, while doing so, of making shipwreck of his own influence. For should he fail to carry his measure after all, there is but a choice of evils before him: he must either retire at once from public life, or throw in his lot with a party with which he has no sympathy in common. And even if he succeed, wherein can he expect to be benefited? Will future parliaments prove more manageable because this, which was elected on protection principles, has stultified itself and established the principle of free trade? Will the House of Lords, like the beaten spaniel, cringe or obey the premier more cheerfully in consequence of the discipline which it has undergone? nothing for Sir Robert Peel in the Positively we see future but mortification, annoyance, and an ultimate retreat to Drayton Manor. For, whether the country thrive or not under the new system which he has devised for it, in him no human being can hereafter repose confidence; inasmuch as, though acting always upon principle and a desire to do right, there is no fixedness of opinion about him. And we defy any set of rational beings, whether they be banded together in arms or collected into deliberative assemblies, to follow as their leader a man whom they cannot trust, not because they esteem him intentionally dishonest, but because he claims for himself the privilege of changing his opinions whenever he chooses, and insists that others shall change theirs in like manner. Sir Robert Peel has become a freetrader, in the most extended sense of the term, suddenly, and after a long public life spent in the maintenance of a system of protection to agriculture and domestic industry. He assures us that the change is the result of a settled conviction, not arrived at in a moment but cautiously, and in reluctance pressed upon him by the events of the last three years. Now we cannot give the lie to a man of honour, let him make what assertion he may; and we quite believe that Sir Robert Peel is sincere, as far as any man in his position can be sincere, when he makes this statement. But if it be true that the minds of most men are apt to be read imperfectly even by themselves, then must we claim the right of suspecting that Sir Robert deceives himself. He tells us that the working of the tariff of 1842 led him to consider the whole question of free trade in a new light, and that the result has been his conver sion. But why was this experiment of the new tariff tried? Were there no leanings in 1842 towards free trade which the champion of Protection hesitated to gratify, but which he plucked up heart of grace to try, in their fitness, by the very measures which are now described as giving rise to the free-trade opinion? We suspect that there were, and in sincerity and truth we hope that there were. For the experience of three such years as have just run their courseyears of unexampled prosperity and bustle of railroads and the press, and of business connected with them-of abundant labour, good harvests, and high wages, was certainly not the sort of experience which would induce any reasonable man to conclude that the policy which led the way to them was a bad policy. For his own sake, therefore, for the sake of his consistency and common sense, we hope, and indeed believe, that Sir Robert Peel imagined, long before 1845, that the system of protection had reached its extreme limits; and that the time was come for returning again to that order of things which is at once the best in the abstract, and would in practice be the best also, were all civilised nations to fall in with it. But even then, where are we? The measure may be as good as Sir Robert and Mr. Cobden declare it to be-it may lead to all the results, contradictory as they are, for which they both hope, but of the occurrence of which neither has given us the smallest proof by anticipation; yet the question still reverts upon us, Was Sir Robert Peel the man to bring forward this measure, and has he dealt rightly by the country, by his party, and by himself, in his manner of bringing it forward? We will endeavour to answer these questions with the candour and the calmness which the subject deserves, and our readers will perhaps save us the trouble of drawing any inferences from the argument, at all events, in detail. We are not going to argue at length about the comparative wisdom or folly of the restrictive and the free-trade systems, as applied to a country like this. A great deal is to be said for both, and a great deal against both. In favour of the restrictive system it may be fairly urged, that with it, and therefore by means of it, the country rose to the pitch of pros perity and greatness at which we find it. In favour of a free trade the argument unquestionably lies, that there are periods in the history of all nations when the system of policy which reared ceases to be applicable to their maintenance; exactly as in the individual man, the moral and even physical culture which most avails in youth becomes injurious in the vigour of our days, and kills if it be persevered in to old age. No fact, for instance, can be more perfectly established, than that the customs and excise, and other sources of revenue arising out of the system of protection, were stretched by the Whigs, in 1839, beyond their just limits; that they imposed upon both dealers and consumers inconveniences innumerable, and had ceased to be profitable. In like manner the old assertion that the agriculturalist is the manufacturer's best customer, will not bear a moment's inspection. That the home market is more to the manufacturer than all the foreign markets into which he makes his way, we quite believe; but the error is to suppose, that the only buyer in this market is the agriculturalist. Consider what the articles are which the manufacturer produces. He gives us cotton-piece goods for our shirting and our sheeting, for the gowns of our wives and daughters; he gives us broad cloths and narrow, and woollen fabrics of other sorts for our coats, trousers, waistcoats, blankets, and such like; hesupplies us with |