The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-01 00:00:00

THE PRESS, AUGUST 1, 1857.

the background. It was Beatrice Lester; she whom he
had lately risked his life to save, by whose side he had knelt
in dread and hope, and for whose sake he had just under-
gone the ungenial cross•questioning of the Misanthrope.
• • • • •

Simple words, but thrilling earnestness. Nothing to
read, everything to hear—by those, at least, to whom they
might be addressed. And then, what • face! More
singular, perhaps, than perfectly beautiful, but not to be
forgotten with the sunshine just touching the upraised eyes
with that peculiar brilliance which the artist knows so well
how to appreciate, and, by simple but most effective touches,
to portray: those extra lights on the orbs even of an ordi-
nary face render humanity radiant, and the painter's work
complete. It was difficult to decide as to the rest of the
features ; the complexion was very pale, rendered still more
so by an abundance of heavy dark hair, requiring better
arrangement for a more perfect view of the countenance.
The form of this young creature, too, was slight, but
scarcely rounded and developed enough, beneath the
almost shapeless, dark dress for beauty. But all this was
for memory, more th►n conscious observation at the time ;
the eyes rivetted attention, and raised speculation as to
their owner, while the thrilling. somewhat tremulous tones
of the voice, seemed to bespeak a nature intense, poetic,
earnest; a moral harmony, an inward glow; than which
the sunshine from without on the principal feature of the
face caused the lesser radiance.

Here is Miss Lester's Loudon abode:—
The residence of Beatrice Lester was not very large,
but the promise of the chaste repose intimated by the
external arrangements was fully realised the moment your
foot crossed the threshold. No parade was there of a
liveried crew ; but a respectable, quiet man, without a
shade of the hypocrisy of his class on his countenance, led
the visitor on respectfully (whatever the cut of coat or
cloak), through a spacious hall (which, unlike many Lon-
don vestibules, was warm and peculiarly fragrant) into such
rooms as might be denoted by the business or pleasure-
seeking of the guest. For the visitors to his young mis-
tress were certainly not all of one class. .

It is difficult to sum up in a few words the tendencies
of our English school. Our English art, as we have seen,
is healthful and vigorous, because eminently naturalistic;
it is true and honest, because etch painter is true to him-
self, and with mental independence paints just what he
thinks sill feels ; it is for this reason diversified in subject
and character, not fettered by authority, nor bound down by
historic precedent. It likewise represents and corresponds
to the existing phases of society, painting up to the re-
quirements of the drawing room, and putting upon canvas
all that is talked of at the dinner-table. Finally, it knows
bow to respect as well as to represent English life and
manners in their observance of social and moral proprie-
ties, in their respectabilities, in their downright, honest,
and hearty commonplace. We think and trust, however,
that in our English life and thought are to be found higher
phases of existence than our national art has thus gene-
rally ventured to portray. The faculty of imagination, the
feelings of devotion, man in his higher aspects of thought
or worship, religion as it connects the earth and humanity
with heaven,—these inspirations, to a corresponding no•
bility in art, our national school has hitherto for the most
part left unheeded. The time has been, and in some
countries still is, when a picture claimed the bended knee.
Whatever, then, be the merits of our English school—and
they are great—it is but too manifest that we need the
guidance of higher thought, the inspiration of s nobler
idea. Our art is too fugitive, miscellaneous, and vagrant,
and seems, like our poetry, to await the outburst of some
strong national impulse, some cry from the people, some
kindling of the fire.

"Sea-side Studies" and " Afoot " make up a very
pleasant number.
In Fraser we find the same premature expression
of opinion upon the Indian mutiny which we shall
presently have to notice in the Dublin. The writer
endeavours to pooh pooh the notion of general
discontent, and unfortunately asserts that the Sikhs
are now " eager to try conclusions with the traitors
who have proved unfaithful to their salt." Alas ! for
human prescience ! The general contents of this
magazine are not less attractive than usual.
" English Social Life from the Thirteenth to the
Sixteenth Centuries" is perhaps the most interesting
in the number.

The Dublin University Magazine contains two
articles on the great question of the day—the first
a review of " Sir Charles Napier in lcdia ;" the
second a paper expressly on "The Indian Mutiny."
We shall quote a short passage from each :
Lord Ellenborough was crushed for attempting to carry
out a new system before the question had been sufficiently
ventilated, and the mists of error and prejudice dispersed.
The anomaly which be was the first clearly to detect, but
which is becoming better known every day, is as follows :
The government of an integral portion of the British empire
upon a system suitable only to a body it, settlers in a new
country. Private enterprise may be all very well for effect-
ing a lodgment in a remote and barbarous but powerful
and wealthy region, where strict observance of the forms
of law is impossible, and where the peril and the profit
alike appertain to the individual adventurer. Such was
the system by which in the seventeenth century we de.
stroyed the naval power of the Spaniards in the purple
seas of the tropics. Such was the system which originally
struck terror into the golden courts of Oriental potentates,
and laid the foundation of the greatest colonial empire
the world has ever seen. But while the conquest of India
was in progress, a system might be not only tolerable but
advantageous, which, after the establishment of a regular
government, would be fraught with danger and injustice.
It might be well to tempt indivtdual audacity by the enor•
mous magnitude of the prize to be won ; and it might be
well that a private company should bear the responsibility
of many questionable, though perhaps unavoidable,
actions, rather than the Imperial tioverninet.t, or the
whole British people. Under such circumstances, the
privileges of the East India Company were a benefit to
the community at large. But this state of things has
now, we maintain, entirely passed away. The necessity
for these privileges has ceased to exist ; they are now but
an encumbrance ; and in an age which has signed the
death•warrant ut all monopoliei, we cannot believe that
the gigantic monopoly in Lesdeahall•street will bug be
PriPitte4 to 0040110,