230 
mass that were raised, at no very dis- 
tant interval, the army that defended 
republican France, and that which 
now fights for the despot of Spain. 
The Edinburgh Review is confes- 
sedly a work of Whig politics, and, in 
many cases, the supporter of party 
views. We have often found that its 
discussions were directed to particu- 
lar, rather than to general, objects; 
and that a motion in Parliament often 
followed, as if it had been the neces- 
sary consequence of the unanswerable 
reasonings of an article in the Review. 
The ridiculous introduction of the 
Builder’s Guide, in the last Number, is 
an instance in point: it preceded the 
motion for a repeal of the® “duty on 
stones carried coastwise,” and must 
give additional value to the stone- 
quarries of Mr. Stewart, of Dunearn. 
In the present Number a sheet is de- 
voted to a detail of the advantages of 
Capt. Manby’s Apparatus for Wrecks. 
The additional grants to the captain 
and his friend Mr. Wheatley, recom- 
mended by the late Select Committee 
of the House of Commons, will, we 
dare say, be found too poor a remune- 
ration for their services,—-services 
which, for our part, we feel no wish to 
depreciate. 
We are next favoured with thirty 
pages of strictures on the Periodical 
Press, written by a veteran in that 
walk of literature,—one who is a re- 
gular contributor to almost all the 
publications which he has deigned to 
praise. From a critic so situated, it 
would have been vain to have expect- 
ed an unbiassed award: but the fault 
Jay with Mr. Jeffrey, and not with Mr. 
Hazlitt. When this gentleman was 
picked out and paid to characterize 
the periodical press, it was not to be 
expected that he should censure either 
his own labours, or those of his friends; 
and he must have been more than 
man could he have praised those pub- 
lications the editors of which are 
Known to be his political and personal 
enemies, and who have invariably ridi- 
culed and condemned all his literary 
productions. The bias of the bowl 
was, therefore, natural; and it was 
necessary that it should have rolled 
asit has done. Had Mr, Jeffrey done 
us the honour to employ the writer of 
these remarks, the criticism would 
have been different. The Monthly 
Magazine would then have taken a 
more distinguished stand; and, being 
Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism, No. XXXIIf. (Oct. 1 ‘ 
neither Optum-eaters, nor adepts in 
‘able Talk, we might have assigned to 
some others a lower niche in the temple 
of Fame. Not having heard of him for 
some time past, we might have possi- 
bly forgotten that Coleridge was still 
an inhabitant of this sublunary world ; 
and, never having had any direct 
quarrel with Mr. Gifford, we should 
not have revived the horrible accusa- 
tion, that he was the murderer of 
Keats! 
The account of the management of 
the British Museum, which forms. the 
fifth article, seems to be another of 
those subjects that are the preludes 
to parliamentary discussion; and, if 
half of what is here stated be true, itis 
high time to enter upon the inyestiga- 
tion, The whole of the animal and 
vegetable departments of natural his- 
tory are said to be ina state of rapid 
decay, approaching to total ruin. Of 
the 19,275 articles, connected with 
animal life, which belonged to Sir 
Hans Sloane’s collection, we are 
assured that little or nothing remains. 
“'The insects alone amounted to up- 
wards of 4500 specimens. Of these 
not one remains entire; but the scat- 
tered ruins may be found, with the 
piled-up cabinets, ina corner of one 
of the subterranean passages.”—“ The 
ornithological department of Sloane’s 
Museum contained 1172 articles. This 
was augmented seven years ago by the 
purchase of an extensive collection of 
birds, and by a prodigious number of 
presents, it is said, both from foreigners 
and natives ; amongst which the mag- 
nificent collection of birds, formed by 
Sir Joseph Banks during his voyages, 
stood pre-eminent.”—‘ Of these va- 
rious collections, we are informed, by 
those who have taken much pains to 
investigate the subject, that there are 
now but 322 specimens left !”—‘ The 
fate of Sir Joseph Banks’s collection 
appears almost incredible, yet not the 
less true. Will it easily be believed, 
that this noble collection has disap- 
peared from the Museum!” The 
purchases made two or three years 
aco, which included several rare and 
splendid humming-birds, that cost . 
three and four guineas a-picce, are 
said to be “swarming with insects ;” 
and the writer adds, “that except 
moths, ptini, and dermestides, busily em- 
ployed amid the splendors of exotic 
plumage, or roaming through the fur 
of animals, we do not know that a sin- 
gle 
