together; especially a piece of the breadth of the left shoulder is lost, and the right hand of Ananias rendered indistinct. His left leg now appears very hard for want of the middle tints; the heads of the apostles, who stand farther back, are more or less defaced. Notwithstanding these and many other injuries, and the painting over in several places, the general keeping is not essentially affected. In the execution there is a great inequality. Some heads, by their great animation and force, betray Raphael's own hand. In most parts, a certain coolness and subduedness of the tones, a more careful, than spirited treatment, indicate the work of Penni. Only some of the figures in front have the rather clumsy forms, the heavy brick-red tone of the flesh, which is so unpleasant in the fresco-paintings executed by Giulio Romano; for instance, in the Incendio del Borgo, in the Vatican, and therefore induces us to imagine that he was concerned in this part. This is applicable especially to the man crying out and the woman near him, whose heads, on the contrary, may be by Raphael. It is very interesting to observe close at hand the difference of these parts, which I was allowed to do by means of a ladder.'

Next to the cartoons, the nine pictures entitled the Triumphs of Julius Cæsar by Andrea Maulegria, are the most interesting in the Hampton Court Collection. Unfortunately these great works, the master-pieces of Maulegria, were coarsely painted over by Laguerre in the time of William III.; so that but a slender notion can now be formed of their original excellence. Still enough remains to excite the admiration of Dr Waagen in no ordinary degree.

The next collections visited are those of Mr Ottley and Mr Rogers, both small but both select. The gem of the latter is the Christ appearing to Mary Magdalene, by Titian. The great collection of drawings belonging to the Messrs Woodford, the museum of Sir John Soane, and the collections of Mr Edward Jolly and Sir Abraham Hume (the last very fine), are next described. Of the collection of the Duke of Marlborough a long and interesting description follows. Dr Waagen concurs with Passavant in doubting, or rather denying the genuineness of the socalled Titians at Blenheim, presented to the great Duke by Victor Amadeus. Passavant supposed them to be the work of a scholar of Titian. Dr Waagen thinks he can point out who that scholar was. • Even the absurd taste of the borders more that the pictures cannot be by Titian, and this is stillproves 'evident from the pictures themselves. Where should we ever 'find, in this greatest of colourists, such a heavy untransparent 'colouring, such red shadows, as here in the flesh of the male figures? The character of the heads; the, in some instances, pointed forms; the feebleness of the drawing, particularly in 6 many of the feet, lead me to recognise in them the style of

Alessandro Varottari, called Il Padovanino, (born in 1590, died in 1650), of which agreeable master this is, however, a re'markably careful and select work.'

Next follows the collection in Stafford House, abounding in master-pieces of all the schools. A picture by Correggio in this gallery, of a Pack-horse and an Ass with their Drivers, painted, as Dr Waagen observes, with great mastery and breadth, is said to have been executed by Correggio as a sign for a public-house 6 to pay his score.' The case of poor Dick Tinto, with his 'em'blem' of the Wallace Head, appears not to have been without a precedent in the school of Lombardy.

The remaining collections described in the Second Volume are those of the Duke of Wellington, the Marquis of Westminster, Mr Hope, the Royal Collection, that of the Royal Academy, the Dulwich Gallery, those of Lord De Grey, Lord Normanton, Lord Northwick (now, we regret to see, about to be dispersed), Lord Hatherton, the Duke of Northumberland, Lord Garvagh, the Marquis of Landsdowne and Lord Ashburton. His estimate of the Dulwich Gallery is much less favourable than we had anticipated. I had heard this collection so "highly extolled in many quarters, that my expectations were very highly raised; but, on the whole, they were by no means ful'filled, and I was convinced that it has been much overrated. In none of the galleries which I have seen in England do the pictures agree so ill with the names given to them, and where 'much that is excellent is so mixed with much that is indiffer⚫ent and quite worthless.' Accordingly, the Doctor makes sad havoc with the pretensions of many of the celebrated pictures in the Gallery. He does not even allude, for instance, to the Jacob's Dream by Rembrandt,-one of the most striking and poetical pictures ever painted, and, in fact, dispatches the subject of the alleged Rembrandts with the observation, that' among the 6 pictures which bear the name of Rembrandt, there are some very good works of his school, but probably none by his own hand.'

The Third Volume is occupied with the collections in the country. It contains descriptions of the galleries at Panshanger, Stratton, Longford Castle, Wilton House, Bowood, Carsham, Mr Beckford's at Bath, Leigh Court, Bristol, Warwick Castle, Sir J. Tobin's, the Liverpool Institution, Castle Howard, Chatsworth, Alton Tower, Oakam Hall, Keddleston Hall, Burleigh House, Holkham, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Althorp, Woburn Abbey, and Luton House.

It is impossible to present any abridgement of the accounts given of these galleries; but Dr Waagen's volumes will always

afford a most valuable work of reference to those who wish to become acquainted with the extent of the treasures of art which we possess. When we close the book, indeed, we only regret that the variety and numbers of these should be so little known to the mass of our countrymen ; and that so many should wander abroad in search of the best specimens of art who might have gratified their curiosity more effectually nearer home.

Beyond the descriptions and criticisms of works of art, we have little either to praise or to censure in Dr Waagen's volumes. His observations on society, manners, &c. in England, are neither new nor deep; even for picturesque descriptions of natural scenery he appears to have little turn; and any deeper speculations on our institutions he studiously, and, we think, wisely avoids.

We regret to add, that the translation is very indifferently executed. It is flat and slovenly, and abounds with expressions which certainly are not English, whatever affinity they may bear to the German. Should it reach a second edition, we would suggest to the Translator the necessity of a strict revision.

ART. VII.-An Historical Essay on the Real Character and Amount of the Precedent of the Revolution of 1688: in which the Opinions of Mackintosh, Price, Hallam, Mr Fox, Lord John Russell, Blackstone, Burke, and Locke, the Trial of Lord Russell, and the Merits of Sidney, are critically considered. Addressed to the Right Honourable CHARLES W. WYNN, M.P. By R. PLUMER WARD, Esq. 2 vols. 8vo. London: 1838.

THIS is a Conservative Pamphlet in the disguise of an His

torical Essay. The author is apparently one of those unhappy persons whose peace of mind has been disturbed by Reform. He is affected with a morbid horror of what he calls revolutionary principles, which, among all ranks,' he tells us, in all places and at all times-among men, women, and chil'dren-morning, noon, and night are debated with more or 'less acrimony-producing divisions among friends and families— 'setting sons against fathers, and making fathers wish their sons had never been born.' We pity his unfortunate case, and fear it is not to be remedied by any exertions of his own; for we are persuaded that nothing he can write or do, will assuage the storm that howls around him and destroys his rest. He may abuse all Whigs, past and present. He may brand Hampden and Vane,

VOL. LXVII. NO. CXXXVI.

2 D

Russell and Sydney, as rebels and traitors. He may demonstrate to his own satisfaction, that the Civil War in the time of Charles I. was an unjust and unnatural Rebellion. He may stigmatize the Revolution of 1688 as a work of fraud, perfidy, and hypocrisy. He may decry King William as a man stained with dishonour, and practised in the arts of falsehood and dissimulation. He may retail and adopt against Fox all the blunders of Mr Rose. He may misunderstand Mackintosh, and confound him with the Editor of his Fragment. He may correct Hallam, confute Locke, and sneer at Lord John Russell. All will not do. He will neither arrest nor divert the progress of Reform, nor silence the disputants that distract him.

We shall not follow Mr Ward in his discursive career, but content ourselves with pointing out some oversights he has fallen into, which may deserve his consideration, in case his book should meet with such favour from the Carlton Club as to reach a second and corrected edition.

We should have thought that the calm and temperate discussion of the right of resistance, which Mackintosh has introduced into his Historical Fragment, would have satisfied every one who was not a thorough-going stickler for passive obedience' and 'right divine.' But Mr Ward, though he discards these doctrines with scorn, is not content with the cautions and limitations which Mackintosh opposes to the rash and indiscreet exercise of this imprescriptible right of the subject. When the rulers of a 'nation,' says that moderate and dispassionate enquirer, are requested to determine a question of peace or war, the bare jus 'tice of their case against the wrongdoer never can be the sole, and is not always the chief matter, in which they are morally bound to exercise a conscientious deliberation. Prudence in 'conducting the affairs of their subjects is in them a part of jus'tice; and, applying these principles to a war made by the 'people against their own Government,' he goes on to say, 'the 'chiefs of a justly disaffected party are unjust to their fellows and their followers, as well as to all the rest of their countrymen, if they take up arms in a case where the evils of submission are not more intolerable, the impossibility of reparation by pacific means more apparent, and the chances of obtaining it by arms greater than are necessary to justify the rulers of a nation towards their own subjects for undertaking a foreign war. A 'wanton rebellion, when considered with the aggravation of its 'ordinary consequences, is one of the greatest of crimes. The chiefs of an inconsiderable and ill-concerted revolt, however provoked, incur the most formidable responsibility to their followers and their country. An insurrection rendered necessary

6

6

6

by oppression, and warranted by a reasonable probability of a happy termination, is an act of public virtue, always environed with so much peril as to merit admiration.'

On these limitations of the moral exercise of the right of insurrection, Mr Ward bestows his praise; but he complains that they are merely prudential considerations-that nothing is said of rebellion being a crime, per se-and that if well managed, so as to promise success, then all is fair, warrantable, and legiti' mate.' It has escaped him, in his heat and fury against revolutionary doctrines, that in the whole course of the argument, Mackintosh assumes there has been just cause for revolt; and that even in that case he regards it to be the duty of the disaffected party to consider well the chances of success, and to take into account not only the immediate evils of civil warfare, but to weigh the consequences of failure, not merely to themselves, but to their country. If Mr Ward had not been blinded by passion, he must have seen that Mackintosh was arguing on his own side.

A legal and technical difficulty occurs to Mr Ward against the lawfulness of any particular insurrection, supposing the general right of insurrection to be admitted. The disaffected think they have cause of war against the King. The King thinks they have not. Who is to decide between them? Whichever party takes upon him to decide, that party assumes the character of judge in his own cause. There is no common umpire, no tribunal to be appealed to. Abstractedly speaking,' it may be true that there is just cause for resistance; but who is to pronounce that the case has actually arrived? We fear we must reply in the words of Paley, every man must judge for himself;' and though Mr Ward declares that answer to be untenable, we despair not of being able to bring him over to Paley's opinion. Though he repudiates with horror the right of insurrection, he has no objection to shoot the King in self-defence, when the case arises, at the risk even of his neck, if he is in the wrong.'† But who is to judge when the case arises? Must not Mr Ward, like every other man, judge for himself?

Mr Ward is still more grievously offended with the doctrine of a reformatory revolt, propounded by Mackintosh. That cautious and temperate philosopher not only admits the right of insurrection against systematic oppression, but where the rulers of a people obstinately withhold from their subjects securities

* Vol. I. 40.

+ Ib. I. 120.

Ib. I. 108-119.