32 Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism, No. XXVII, 
accordance” with, and yet (O won- 
derful!) ‘‘totally distinct” from, Mr. 
Hope’s ‘ Anastasius,” for reasons 
which the book-selling world will rea- 
dily comprehend. Both these works, 
though they possess considerable tact 
and talent, and the local advantage of 
diligent observation of oriental man- 
ners, are still dull, awkward, impro- 
bable, and prolix, for the greater part. 
Hajji Baba evidently drags ; and Ana- 
stasius owed much of its success to the 
artificial impulse of being for some time 
supposed to be Lord Byron’s. Time 
and chance happen to works as well as 
men. 
Next comes the tenth article, an 
attack on Mr. Hume, by Mr. Croker, 
under cover of the fungi of the Dry-rot. 
There’s a proverbial sympathy in 
mushrooms. ‘The article betrays a 
little rottenness ; we wish we could find 
a little dryness, and a little humour. 
How could the author venture to shake 
the dilapidated structure of the ‘‘ Forty 
Thieves?” page 224. We are happy, 
however, to hear him say, though we 
must be excused from believing it 
either in a physical or moral sense, 
that, for the first time these 150 years, 
we have completely got the better of 
the dry-rot. But report says otherwise. 
The ship-carpenters and dock-yard 
engineers by no means want to get rid 
of the dry-rot. 
As to Capt. Parry and the North- 
west Passage, which constitutes the 
subject-matter of the eleventh article, 
we are bound to differ from popular 
prejudice on the subject. We trusted 
that the last disappointment would 
have settled the chimera, and that the 
great men of the Admiralty would have 
been quite satisfied with the glory of 
giving names to Melville Island, 
Croker Point, Barrow Bay, &c. This 
Admiralty hoax will, we trust, be soon 
brought to a conclusion. We mean 
not the most distant imputation on the 
brave captain and his crew, who de- 
serve all the praise their countrymen 
can bestow on them. But what is the 
whole affair, but a tub thrown to the 
whale? Whether there be, or whether 
there be not, an Arctic basin, we should 
be glad to bear from Mr. Croker or 
Mr. Barrow of what earthly use it 
would be? No man has ever been so 
moonstruck as to assert that any prac- 
tical navigation could be effected by 
means of it? ‘The whole thing, there- 
fore, consists in sending a company of 
brave men to pass two winters in 
[ Aug. 1, 
playing cards by candle-light, kick- 
ing their frost-bitten heels, studying 
A B C, acting farces within a farce, 
growing salad in boxes, and. pur- 
chasing Esquimaux squaws with a nail, 
We differ from the Honourable 
Secretary, as to the purport of his 
third and last review, in the twelfth 
article, on the Practice and De- 
lays of the Court of Chancery. The 
whole sum of his reasoning amounts 
to this—that there is precedent for the 
grievance. But is there any villainy 
under the sun which precedent does 
not vindicate and attempt to sanction? 
The Admiralty Secretary crows with 
his loudest note in referring to a pam- 
phlet published in 1641,—‘‘in the pure 
and regenerate age of the Common- 
wealth,”—in which the great delay of 
the Court of Chancery, and the enor- 
mous profits of the six clerks, are bit- 
terly complained of. But what of 
that? We might refer him to Colonel 
Pride’s threat of making a military 
banner of the last gown of the 
last lawyer in Westminster-hall; we 
might refer him to a resolution of 
Cromwell’s packed Parliament (see 
Somers’s Tracts, December 12, 1653,) 
for ‘‘rooting up the Common Law 
of England, destroying the Court 
of Chancery, and reducing the whole 
judicial system to the Mosaic stand- 
ard ;” or, again, we might refer bim to 
a pamphlet, called “ihe Final De- 
mands” of the agitators, which are, 
“that all Inns of Court and Chancery, 
all Courts of Justice, all Corporations, 
all titles and degrees elevating one free 
subject above another, may be totally 
abolished.” But what have the chi- 
merical ravings of millenarian enthu- 
Siasts near 200 years ago to do with a 
modern, universally felt, and univer- 
sally admitted grievance? Such argu- 
ments are mere childishness. 
In concluding the present article, 
we may observe that the spirit of lite- 
rary enterprise has created new mate- 
rials with which to enrich future 
Numbers. The present year has pro- 
duced no Jess than four -reviews, 
which compete in spirit with those 
that bitherto have afforded subject- 
matter for our animadversions. Thus, 
Ist. The Westminster Review is write 
ten with great ability ; and in politics 
less equivocal than the Edinburgh. 
2d. The Universal Review is not de-\ 
void of good writing, while its plan is 
different from the others, in appearing 
every other month. Again,3. A more 
active 
a 
