Ministers assured Lord Russell that they were ready to sign a treaty for a triple alliance with us to defend Turkey. A peace might have been concluded, Lord Russell thought, on terms which he 'could not consider entirely satisfactory,' but by which all the concessions would have been on the side of Russia and none on the side of Great Britain and France. Russia would have renounced her exclusive protection of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, and all the advantages she had obtained on that head from the treaty of Kainardji to the treaty of Adrianople. She would have admitted an European commission to guard the free navigation of the Danube. She would have admitted the principle that all European Powers except Russia herself might pass the Straits of the Dardanelles.' Lord Russell, therefore, informed the Austrian plenipotentiary," that he would be prepared to recommend to her Majesty's Government the acceptance of the Austrian offer to send her alternative to Petersburg, and make the continuance of an Austrian mission at that Court contingent upon its favourable reception.' 22

English feeling, however, was still warlike. Englishmen did not believe in the sincerity of Austria,23 for her alliance seemed to them to depend on our success. It was asked why Russia, having curtly rejected the first terms, should now have fresh proposals made to her. It was affirmed that we should play into her hands by giving

1. A renunciation on the part of Russia of all the separate rights of interference which since 1774 had been formed into a complete net, including the Principalities in its intricate meshes.

2. The confirmation and development of all the privileges of the Principalities under the guarantee of the principal Powers of Europe.

3. The freedom of the navigation of the Danube, so far as it could be free without any diminution of the territorial integrity of Russia.

4. The guarantee by all the Powers of the integrity and independence of Turkey, as one of the States forming, or contributing to, the balance of power in Europe. '5. The putting an end to the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea by admitting Great Britain and France to pass through the Straits while Russia was to be prohibited from so doing, and regulating the respective forces in such a manner that in case Russia should increase the number of her ships, Turkey, France, and Great Britain together might maintain a force double that of Russia. Thus if Russia should have eight sail of the line, Turkey must have eight, and France and Great Britain four each. (Should this plan not prove acceptable to Russia, an alternative to be proposed that Russia should engage not to increase the number of her ships actually afloat in the Black Sea.)

'6. The equality of the Christian subjects of the Porte with the Mussulman subjects of the Porte to be enacted by the Sultan.'

21 The language of the Holy Alliance (of Russia, Prussia, and Austria) had been very explicit, its acts very positive. It was a great object to break a compact alliance, which hung over Europe like a dark cloud, obscuring the day with its shadow, and threatening destruction from its thunder. I thought, therefore, that I was doing good service to my own country, to Europe, and the cause of freedom (Lord Russell).

22 According to a high authority, it was said that at this particular time Lord Russell asked military advice as to whether the fall of Sebastopol was likely or unlikely and that the answer was 'most unlikely.'

23 Cf. Count Buol to Baron Bourqueney, May 3.

VOL. VIII.-No. 46.

3 Y

6

her the time which she needed, and by sapping through delay our own war energy. Lord Russell returned to England. Lord Palmerston and Lord Clarendon did not think that the new terms were 'sufficient security for the integrity and independence of Turkey. 24 To some it appeared that Lord Russell had not fully apprehended the strength of Lord Clarendon's views 25 on the subject, but had relied too much on the discretion allowed him; to others, that the terms had not received the consideration which their importance demanded. The Emperor Napoleon approved of the principle but not of the details of the Austrian proposals. Lord Palmerston said that he ought to be urged to express his opinion in clearer language; and, with Lord Cowley, warned him against the prejudices of the French Minister. They also entreated him not to listen to the tattle of the French Bourse. A telegraphic despatch arrived. The Emperor refused to accept the Austrian terms. Lord Russell's position was at once changed.' He had always stated the policy of accepting the terms as doubtful,' even when they were proposed in conjunction with the French Government,' though it had seemed to him that they might through a lapse of years pave the way toward a solid peace.' But now his policy of doubt was exchanged for a policy of certainty owing to this decision of the Emperor Napoleon, and to his staunch friendship for France, and the fear that the discontent of the army might have disturbed the internal tranquillity of France.' He declined any longer to put forward the Austrian proposals. He believed that, unless Austria should offer terms more acceptable to the Emperor of the French, and the English Government, the war must be carried on with the utmost vigour. Our Cabinet was in full accord. The French Minister, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, resigned; and upon this Lord Russell contemplated taking a like step, but Lord Palmerston dissuaded him from it. Lord Russell in a Private Memorandum relates the sequel:

Adopting this advice, I could not but concur in every measure which would tend to bring the war to a satisfactory conclusion. For this purpose it appeared to me indispensable to hold the most decided language in the House of Commons. When, therefore, Mr. Disraeli brought forward in May a motion to overthrow the Ministry, I pointed out the danger of acceding to those propositions of Russia which I had rejected at Vienna. I also pointed out the dangers to be feared from the aggrandisement of Russia. In the whole of that speech, I spoke my own real and true sentiments, such as I had already stated in writing or verbally to the Cabinet, such as I entertained then, such as I have entertained ever since. It is true that I did not state the nature of the Austrian propositions, which I had at one time advised the Government to adopt. But could I have done so, consistently with my duty to the Crown? The negotiations with Austria were not then concluded, and to have revealed the substance of these negotiations, before the Govern

24 Cf. The Eastern Question, by the Duke of Argyll, vol. i. p. 4, on the meaning of the Independence of Turkey.',

25 For the numerous pros and cons see Eastern Papers, pt. xv., 1855.

ment had advised her Majesty to lay them before Parliament, would have been to violate my oath as a Privy Councillor, and betray my duty to the country. It was even possible that Austria, finding her proposals rejected in Paris and in London, might have improved her terms, and have adopted that plan of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, which she some months afterwards sent to Petersburg. A premature declaration of what had passed would only have prevented any such termination. I therefore advised the House of Commons, as I had advised the Crown, to prosecute the war. If the Austrian terms were not to be entertained, there was no other course to pursue.

In the account which I gave of the power and proceedings of Russia, I merely gave the result of my observations at Vienna. What I had told to my colleagues, I told to the assembled Commons; such were my opinions then, such are my opinions now. So false and unfounded is the charge of having attempted a fraud upon the public.

The country indeed was not informed that I had been of opinion that the Austrian terms should have been entertained. But until Count Buol-most unwarrantably-stated my opinion in a circular despatch, it would have been a breach of confidence in me to have made any such avowal.

Everyone knows what followed. The despatches relating to the negotiation with Austria must have been produced, but the circular of Count Buol and the questions of Mr. Milner Gibson forced from me a premature declaration. My enemies took advantage of my avowal to cabal against me, and the Opposition naturally enough made my conduct at Vienna a handle for a hostile motion. Lord Palmerston, who had advised me to remain a member of his Administration, handsomely offered to support me, but he could not have done so without risking the existence of his Government, and the public interests required that he should remain at the head of affairs. I therefore retired.

Had the disclosures taken place in the order of the transactions, there could, as we see, have been no handle' for the 'hostile motion.' With Lord Russell's retirement the memoranda, from which I have been quoting, cease.

The changes and growth of time would no doubt have enforced on him applications of his political maxims other than those of his own day. Yet not the less would the maxims themselves have stood firmly on the conviction, that it is not in arrogant assertion of individuality, nor in effacement of individuality, but in its highest development, and its honest use in the service of other individualities -first of those nearest by natural ties, and then, as occasion with ever-widening circle offers, of those more remotely connected-that a nation fulfils its loftiest destiny.

HALLAM TENNYSON.

THE SCULPTURES OF OLYMPIA.

Ar Olympia the earth had kept well her secrets of the past from many eager travellers in the present century, disclosing them in no material degree even to the French expedition of 1829. But German enterprise and love of classic soil could no longer be withstood, and the result is now known. It is a gain of the first magnitude if we consider only the interests of those whose minds are imbued with the history of art in ancient Greece. But it is a gain also of such a kind as may be expected to enlarge that circle. For though nothing has been found higher in art than what could before be seen in the sculptures of the Parthenon, yet along with the new statues there has come into play positive information about the men who made them, such as appeals to the natural desire of associating whatever is recovered from antiquity with some name surviving in tradition, and this must appeal in the first instance to a spirit more general than is the simple appreciation of sculpture. Nor is there danger in this desire now, when a long period of negative criticism has carefully defined its limits.

In any case it is from this combination of historical statement with artistic interest that the sculptures of Olympia acquire the fascination of things which have been lost and are found again, as compared with others which when found answer to no description of a missing treasure. Such, for example, is the fact regarding the marble statue of the god Hermes, obtained in the ruins of the temple where Pausanias had seen it. According to him it was the work of Praxiteles, but whether he found the name so inscribed on the base, or knew it otherwise, cannot well be determined so long as that part of the sculpture is missing. Its recovery, along with the lower part of the legs of the statue, while urgently demanded for artistic effect, might at the same time serve to settle a point of ambiguity which has been raised regarding the word employed by Pausanias which we have here translated as work.' No doubt there was the more serviceable word ergon at his disposal, and equally true is it that techne, which he selects in this case, may under special circumstances correspond with our expression 'school.' Against this interpretation, however, in the present instance there is this to be said; that the figure stood within a famous temple, into which, it is reasonable to suppose,

no work of art would have been admitted without the recommendation of a high name, or some extraordinary interest. A piece of sculpture merely of the school of Praxiteles could hardly have satisfied the conditions.

At the same time, so slender a statement as that of Pausanias– and there is nothing more-does not, it may be argued, prepare us to expect in the Hermes a masterpiece of the great Athenian, even when we consider how often it is the case that ancient records fail at the most critical moments. Before taking them into account we must inquire whether the statue may not really belong to that class in the works of all celebrated artists, which, to say the least, have not been the foundation of their fame. Usually, in such cases, indulgence is craved for the insufficiency of youth, or for the decay of age. But to make a satisfactory inquiry of this kind, the means of comparison are necessary, and as regards Praxiteles, they do not exist, except in the form of late copies, which cannot adequately serve the purpose. On the other hand, it is a curious fact that between this statue, accepting it as the work of Praxiteles, and a marble figure in Munich, which has long been clearly traced to his father, Kephisodotos, we find in one respect a very remarkable agreement, or rather an instance of direct copying, which becomes the more significant when we recall the statement of Pliny that Kephisodotos had himself also made a statue of Hermes nursing the infant Dionysos. The son, while under parental influence, and perhaps with his name still to make, could be easily understood to have adopted a motive already familiar in sculpture, from his father's hand, while such a proceeding is barely conceivable at a later period of his life. If this be agreed to, as we think it must, it will follow that the Hermes of Olympia is to be regarded as one of the early works of Praxiteles, executed possibly before he had attained any great reputation, and valued afterwards enough to receive a place in that temple of Hera at Olympia where, as is known, things very old or very curious were preserved.

The statue in Munich to which reference has just been made is generally called Leukothea. But it has been well ascertained that she is no other than Eirene with the infant Plutos on her left arm, and with her right hand raised as if resting on a sceptre, or at least in that attitude. Some have thought it the original work of Kephisodotos, others, a copy made in later times. Yet all agree in praising the sculpture, calling attention specially to the beauty of the composition, and the sweetness with which Eirene bends towards the infant on her arm. Now a moment's comparison with the Hermes will show that the infant Dionysos on his left arm is entirely identical as an artistic production with the infant Plutos, and is besides carried in precisely the same way. It is also a peculiar infant, with drapery carefully arranged across its legs, as if it were an old person,