1825.] 
terre et en Eeosse) supports his preju- 
diced misrepresentations of the state of 
society in this country-: which-he seems 
to have viewed only from: the top ofa 
stagescoach,|-and to have appreciated 
only/in-the figures ofan innkeeper’s bill. 
M. Blanqui’s ‘Sketches of England are, 
in;many instances, ridiculous’ enough, 
undoubtedly :. but.can we be quite sure 
that the-expensive quartos of our Eng- 
lish-travellers ‘have always been made 
upfrom muchbetter documents ? or that 
there is not almost as much of John 
Bullism in some of these, as of Gallicism 
in the’ work in question ? 
- Art. IV. examines two French and 
English publications—the former by M. 
Champollion, the latter by Dr. Young 
and H, Salt, Esq., on the controversy 
relative to the original discovery of The 
System of Phonetic Hieroglyphics. The 
reviewer handles this subject, so im- 
portant in the estimation of literary 
antiquaries, with a learned and a candid 
spirit; and substantiates the claim which 
our correspondent, in the preceding 
Number of the M.M. (p. 32), has made 
in favour of our countryman, to the first 
discovery of the clue of science which 
detects an alphabetic, in the hitherto 
supposed. mere allegoric language of 
Egyptian symbols. At the same time, 
he does not undervalue the further 
researches and additional discoveries of 
M. Champollion. 
' Into Art. V. on Law Aszuszs (“ A 
Treatise on the Principles and Plead- 
ings in Civil Actions, Sc,” by H. J. 
SrerHen, Esq. Bar.; and “ Examina- 
tion of the Objections stated against the 
Bill, passed by the House of Lords, for 
better regulating the forms of Process in 
Scotland,y? it would be in vain to en- 
ter; unless we could afford much more 
ample space to the exposition than our 
limits. can possibly permit. We con- 
fine ourselves, therefore, to the quota- 
tion of two short paragraphs, which will 
shew how the question is hinged. 
» “Mr. Stephen informs us [p. 2], that 
English pleading, ‘when properly under- 
stood and appreciated, appears to be an 
instrument so well adapted to the ends of 
ditrtiv justice, so simple and striking in 
i Efyndaprntal principles, so ingenious and 
qa orate in its details, as fairly to be en- 
titled to the character of a fine juridical 
‘ifvention.’ Lord Mansfield says—“ The 
‘substantial rales of pleading are founded in 
strong sense, and in the soundest and closest 
llogié; and’ so? appear when well understood 
and) explained.’ And Sir William Jones 
tells us; ‘ That the. science of pleading is 
founded jin the most exquisite logic.’ How 
far these and similar eulogies are deserved, 
Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism. 
139 
will, we trust, be pretty apparent to our 
readers, when we have compared the ex- 
pense, delay, and consequent injustice, 
caused by the system eulogized, with that 
small quantity which is absolutely necessary 
to attain the ends in view, in the most 
perfect manner.” 
Our readers would, in all probability, 
be pretty well prepared to accord, with 
the reviewer, in the greater part.of the 
facts and arguments whereby he exposes 
that legal sophistry, which turns the pro- 
ceedings of courts of justice into mys- 
tified allegory, and substitutes the cir- 
cumlocutious jargon of a metaphysical 
romance for the plain matter-of-fact 
and straight-forward intelligible com- 
mon sense, which alone ought to charac- 
terize the proceedings of such tribunals, 
If law proceedings are instituted, and 
court processes are invented and 
organized, for the benefit of initiated 
practitioners,—why then, of course, the 
more mystery and unintelligibility the 
better : but if the end be justice to the 
clients, and protection to the rights and 
property of the people, fiction, mysti- 
cism and chicanery should, by all prac- 
ticable means, be avoided. This is a 
favourite subject with the Westminster 
Reviewers. They return to it, where 
one would little expect it, (and yet ap- 
positely enough, in the way in which 
they manage it,) at the end of the 
last article—their review of The Quar- 
terly Review on Greck Literature ; 
where, in reply to the sophistical viru- 
lence with which the Quarterly mis- 
represents the Sophists of Greece, they 
notice ‘the case in which Sir William 
Scott, in the Consistory Court of Lon- 
don, 17th December 1798, gravely an- 
nuls a Jewish marriage, because one of 
the witnesses to that marriage had been 
seen to eat meat and butter together, and 
to snuff a candle and stir a fire on a 
Saturday.* 
Art. VI. A Discourse on the Rise, Pro- 
gress, Peculiar Objects, and Import- 
ance of Political Economy. By J.R. 
M‘Cuttocu, Esqg., 2d. Edit. — This is, 
also, a very favourite subject with the 
Westminster Reviewers. They despatch 
it, however (rather contrary to what we 
are habituated to expect from them 
when they get upon their hobby), very 
briefly—in less than four pages. In 
these, however, they do justice, and, we 
believe, no more than justice, to Mr. 
T':2 M‘Culloch, 
“ Ridiculous -as this story may appear, 
we beg our readers to be assured, that. we 
are not joking. These are, really, the merits 
of the case.—EnpIr. ; 
