mountains. Another corridor, which traversed the lower part of the house, led on both sides to the garden of the monastery, which was well furnished with fruit trees and flowering shrubs, and from which the branches of the lemon and orange trees, rising to the windows of the imperial residence, diffused their beautiful blossoms and their delicious perfume.

The apartments occupied by Charles the Fifth were on the first floor. His own room communicated with the church of the convent by means of a window from which the high altar could be plainly seen. This window was doubly closed by a glazed sash and a wooden door, and afforded the Emperor an opportunity of hearing mass from his bed, when ill, and of assisting in divine service without mingling with the monks; to whom, however, he had easy access through an underground gallery which led into the choir of the church, as well as by the covered corridor which opened into the convent garden. Though not so luxurious as a palace, his residence was destitute of none of those conveniences which princes were then beginning to appreciate. The walls of the rooms were covered with Flanders tapestry; his own apartment was hung with fine black cloth, in token that he had not left off mourning since the death of his mother; and the floors were covered with Turkey and Alcaraz carpets. His bed-chamber was marked by none of that cloistral nakedness attributed to it by Sandoval. It contained two beds, one rather larger than the other, and both furnished with an extraordinary profusion of mattresses, pillows, and coverlids, for the use of the Emperor. There were also twelve chairs of walnut-wood, artistically carved and ornamented with gilt nails; six folding seats, with cloth coverings; six handsome arm-chairs covered with black velvet; and two easy chairs for the special use of Charles the Fifth himself. The first of these was supplied with six cushions and a footstool; the second was equally well padded, and furnished with projecting arms by which it might be carried from one place to another, as the Emperor loved to sit in the sun on the terrace garden, and frequently would dine there in the open air when the weather was fine and his health good.

The taste for painting, music, and the ingenious arts of mechanism which had distinguished him on the throne, accompanied him to Yuste. Titian was his favourite painter, and several pictures by that great master adorned the walls of his apartments. The largest and most magnificent of them was a composition on the subject of the Trinity, which Charles had ordered of Titian several years before abdicating the throne. Other sacred pictures by the same great artist, and by a painter named Maestro Miguel, decorated the rooms and in addition to these, he had several portraits of himself and his beloved Empress, and of the other members of his family, on canvas and panel, as well as other medallions and miniatures.

He had also brought with him to Yuste several reliquaries, in which he had the greatest confidence, as they were said to contain fragments of the wood of the true cross; and he preserved, with

pious care, the crucifix which the expiring Empress had held in her hands, and which both himself and his son were to hold in their hands in their dying moments. Other objects of a very different character, relating to his favourite pursuits of horology, mechanics, astronomy, and geography, had also been brought to divert his mind and amuse his leisure. The clever mechanician, Juanello Torriano, assisted by an ordinary artisan Juan Balin, had constructed for the Emperor four large and beautiful clocks, and these, with a number of smaller horologes, were now placed in the various rooms of the imperial residence. A sun-dial, a variety of mathematical and astronomical instruments, and a collection of maps and charts, enabled him to pursue, in his retirement, the studies to which he had always been strongly addicted, but which other occupations had hitherto prevented him from pursuing to any great extent.

His library consisted of a few books of science, history, Christian philosophy, and religious practice. The "Almagest," or great astronomical composition of Ptolemy, which was then the standard authority on the subject; the "Imperial Astronomer of Santa Cruz;" Cæsar's "Commentaries;" the "History of Spain," by Florian de Ocampo; several copies of Boethius "De Consolatione;" the "Commentaries on the Wars of Germany," by the Grand Commander of Alcantara; the poetical romance of the "Chevalier Delibéré;" the "Meditations of St. Augustine;" two other books of pious meditations; the works of Dr. Constantine de la Fuente and Father Pedro de Soto on "Christian Doctrine;" the "Summary of Christian Mysteries," by Titleman; two breviaries, a missal, and two illuminated psalters; a collection of prayers from the Bible, and the commentary of Fray Tomas de Portocarrero, on the thirty-first Psalm: these were the habitual subjects of his perusal.

Charles the Fifth kept his own papers in a large portfolio of black velvet, which, at his death, was sent under seal to his daughter, the Regent of Spain. This portfolio was always in his room, together with all sorts of jewels, and knick-knacks delicately wrought in silver, gold, and enamel, the most precious of which were doubtless those to which the credulity of the age attributed curative virtues. Charles the Fifth possessed a great quantity of these medical talismans; he had stones incrusted with gold, to stop effusions of blood; two bracelets, and two rings of bone and gold, to cure hæmorrhoids; a blue stone, set in a golden claw, to preserve from gout; nine rings from England against cramp; a philosopher's stone, which had been given him by a certain Dr. Beltran; and several bezoar-stones from the East, which were sovereign remedies for various diseases. With all these marvellous specifics, he ought surely to have got rid of every malady; but not even the prescriptions of his physician Mathys, or the compounds of his apothecary Oberistraten, could keep him in anything like a healthy state.

190

RUSSIA, ITS COURT AND CABINET.

ARE we really going to reverse 1812, to shake hands with Jaques Bonhomme, with whom we have been fighting since Crecy, if not since Hastings? And open altogether a new enmity and rivalry with a foe at the other side of the world, a country with which, though we once fought in conjunction, we as yet know but little, and which knows us still less.

The most durable things in history are, after all, national enmities. Dynasties rise, fall, and succeed each other; liberty flourishes or fades; countries are now warlike, now commercial; their taste is at one time for turbulence, and at another for servility. There are pious ages and profane ages, as every literature attests. One thing alone seldom or never varies. And that is national enmity. When did the English begin to hate and to fight the French? Since ever there were English or French, and that is at least six centuries ago.

The old rule of the world seems to have been, that we should hate our neighbours. And Christians as we call ourselves, we followed the rule. But now the progress of things has at least brought the one wholesome conviction, that it is inconvenient to hate our neighbours, or to war with them. Fifty or seventy years ago a war with France was generally pleasant to think of. People liked the idea. But who is there now that is not shocked at the idea of cannonading Boulogne, as Nelson did, or throwing shells into Havre, we paying all Europe to attack the French, whilst the Emperor threatened all Europe with the rod if it took our merchandise or received our vessels?

The world shrinks from the idea of quarrelling with one's neighbour. But as enemies must exist, and national hate must have an object, we must seek them as far as possible. This necessity for having an enemy at all is unfortunate. But there is at least some gain in having one at a distance. We can harm each other less, and the opportunities for whetting mutual hate by contact, must be less. If, however, the respective means of irritation and annoyance be lessened, the complete knowledge of each other, which best removes prejudices, and explains away causes of difference, becomes far more difficult. Let us remedy this, as far as we ourselves are concerned, by studying the Russians, and knowing what is their power, what are their peculiarities, and whether the causes, which have placed the two nations in antagonism, can be removed, or softened, or explained.

And, first of all, let us not blink the true and serious part of the case. People go about saying that the cause of quarrel does not concern us; that it touches Austria far more; and that France, who stirs up the quarrel by fostering the Latin Church in Jeru

salem, ought to be the principal in the quarrel, and England but the accessary. Let us not fall into error, thus, at the very commencement, by supposing that the real cause of quarrel is about who shall have the keys of the Holy Sepulchre, or whether the Hospodars of Bucharest or Jassy own the Czar or Sultan for Suzerain. The real object of dispute is at present the empire of the East, and the first place in the East. England and Russia alone aspire to that. England does so reluctantly, and unconsciously, perhaps. But still the power, whose flag floats at Peshawur and in Pegu, in the islands of Borneo and Canton-this is the power which the Russians look on as their rival, and with whom principally they seem to desire, at the present moment, to try a fall. England, in fact, pretends to dispute with Russia the empire of Asia, and the paramount influence in Europe. She has a double reason for rivalry. Austria has nothing whatever to do with the East or with Asia. France has little. Her quarrel with Russia, then, is of much smaller dimensions and narrower scope than ours.

The struggle that is now commencing, and of which, the present century will not see the end, is, thus, for no less than the supremacy over two quarters of the globe. A great many are already appalled by the seriousness and risk of such a struggle, and the presenting them in naked truth is calculated to appal still more. But enter upon it or not, it is best to know fully what we avoid, or what we enter upon. Our statesmen, indeed, who are most intimately acquainted with the resources of the country, and the machinery of the Government, are more alarmed, and more reluctant to war, than any others. They will avoid it if they can They may, but will their successors? Or will the nation, which is one of great spirit and great resources, and whose commonalty are just the soldiers to march boldly to an assault, even over the bodies of leaders who had refused to head them.

The Russians have, unfortunately, a dogma, which not only exists in the brains of their statesmen, but which forms part of the pride and fanaticism of their people. They believe they are destined to subdue the earth, and to impose upon it the verities of their religion. The Turks set out with that idea many centuries ago, and went a great way with it. The Czar is fortunately dragged after the belief, instead of leading it, as the Caliph did. But still the impulse is not less formidable from being a popular, instead of being a political, one.

The existence of this popular superstition, acted on and encouraged by the moment, is not the only point of similarity between the Russians and the Turks. Persons generally make the mistake of considering Russia as a country which has for centuries been immersed in tyranny and barbarism, and that, as England and France first acquired the elements of freedom and civilization, Germany came next in that race, whilst Russia is, or will be, last to enter upon the same career. Now, the fact is, that as far as political freedom, and as commercial institutions and social gradations are concerned, the Sclavon people of the east of

Europe were as far advanced as the people of the west. They had independent princes, the population of each district tilled the soil in common, and were free. All were, in fact, what the Cossacks alone are now. It is no more than two hundred and fifty years ago since the peasants were made serfs. It is infinitely later since the Boyards, or nobles, were deprived of all power. And it is not very much more than a century ago since Peter the Great completed the existing despotism. The present despotic power, or autocracy, of the Czar is thus not an old institution, indigenous in the land, and natural to the population. It is rather an exception to all the rest of Sclavonian history and nature. It more strongly resembles the semi-military, semi-religious despotism, to which Mahomet fashioned the tribes of Arabia, than any natural result of Russian or Sclavon character and development. The political and social enslavement of the Russians only dates from 1600, and whilst, since that period, the rest of Europe was progressing to liberty, Russia was retrograding so far, that it was only a decree of Alexander that prevented the establishment of a Russian slave-trade by a decree, ordaining, that no men, women, or children should be sold, unless along with the land on which they lived.

It is one of the strongest arguments used by our Manchester party for not interfering with, or resisting the designs of, Russia, that the present despotism of that country is temporary and immaterial, and likely to give way to other systems of government, under which division of empire and relaxation of tyranny may take place. But, unfortunately for such arguments as these, the Russian Empire is held together by that identity of race and creed, which is fully capable of surviving even despotism, and which, making a Russian and Sclavonian population on the Bosphorus sympathize with each other, could as fully act on Russian and Finnish populations on the Baltic.

Peter the Great may be considered as the true founder of the present Russian system. The enslavement of the peasantry had reached its completion before his time. But he reduced the aristocracy to an equal state of subservience with respect to the crown. The tendency of a Sclavonian population is to be industrious, to till, to sow, and to reap, and to respect a local lord. To political considerations of a high kind a Sclavon with difficulty raises his mind. The educated classes alone can do this. An aristocracy of Boyards is not for extending empire, but for dominating their locality, which forms the natural state of the Sclavons. Servia, Wallachia, and Moldavia, are fair examples. But Peter the Great established institutions and laws which undermined the independence of the Boyards. He decreed that no noblesse should exist or descend, unaccompanied with serving the state in either a civil or a military capacity. The son of a peasant became noble by high place, and was entitled, indeed, to wear hereditary honours. But all titles of noblesse were abolished at the third generation for them, who did not repeat and renew