140 
M‘Culloch. The chronology of this sci- 
ence will rather curiously illustrate the 
slowness with which the most important 
truths and principles are apt, in the first 
instance) to‘taketoots' and’ the rapidity 
with which; after niaking “a certain’ pro- 
gress, they'sométimnes spread. Political 
HéedAnsniy'is now all in all’ There seems 
even to, be, some danger that we should 
fall into’ the superstitious extravagance. 
(for all beliefs become superstitions, 
when pushed to: the bigotted extent of 
proscribing whatever is beyond. their 
pale) of supposing that there is no other 
subject’ worthy of the attention of the 
huinan-mind, . : 
“ Tf there is one sign of the times,” says 
the Reviewer, “ upon which, more than any 
other, we should be justified in resting our 
hopes of the future progression of the 
human race in the career of improvement, 
that sign undoubtedly is, the demand ‘which 
is now manifesting itself, on the part of the 
public, for instruction in the science of 
Political Economy.” mete 
Of this science, Adam Smith’s Wealth 
of Nations was the first prolific germ. 
Political Economy, as the subject is now 
understood in Europe, may be said to 
have originated with this Glasgow Pro- 
fessor of Moral Philosophy—who di- 
gressed, in his collegiate chair, from The 
Theory of Moral Sentiments, to the 
practical considerations of the sources 
of national prosperity ; and Chas, J, Fox 
had the honour of being the first, by a 
laudatory quotation in the House of 
Commons, to bring that invaluable work 
into,public notice. And yet 
‘A long: interval elapsed after the publi- 
cation of the Wealth of Nations, in 1776, 
without any thing worth mentioning being 
contributed to the science. In 1798, ap- 
peared Malthus’s Essay upon the Principle 
of Population; in 1802, Mr.-Say’s work ; 
in, 1815, two Essays upon the Nature of 
Rent; and, in 1817, Mr. Rieardo’s: pro- 
found work upon the Principles of Political 
Economy and Taxation; and finally, in 
1821, Mr. Mills’s Elements of Political 
Economy.” 
Arr. VII. The History of Ancient 
and Modern Wines. By ALEXANDER 
HENDERSON, M. p,—We know not whe- 
ther it will be attributed to our having 
some liking to a smack of the grape, or 
to whatever cause the psychologists, &c. 
may charitably think fit to assign it ; 
but, Jong as this article is (and the Re- 
viewer has. assigned to it no less than 
fifty pages,) there is no one in this whole 
number.in which: we have followed him 
with more satisfaction. The fact is, 
that the subject itself is susceptible of 
much ‘tearned, and much very amusive 
Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism. 
[Sept. 1; 
illustration ; and neither the author nor 
the Reviewer seems to have been negli- 
_.gent in availing himself of these re- 
sources, We suspect. that the subject 
is much more agreeable to the palate of 
the former, than would, be his own pre- ~ 
scriptions; how acceptable soeyer to his — 
palm, may be the fees which these latter 
produce, blaved ezolgvaale oxf 
But, as this is the solitary,instance in 
which we find,-an, article \on»the,same 
subject in two: of the rivali Reviews, we 
must notice them together, and make 
the Quarterly and the Westminster join 
with usin a critical reel to the tune of i 
vino veritas: and as “good wine, if well 
used, is a, good familiar creature,” and 
apt to,make people sociable, we may not, 
perhaps, on this occasion; even withsuch 
partners, “ find strange discord mock 
the music of the dance.” They. do not, 
of course, treat the subject in the same 
way, or direct. their commendations or 
censures exactly to the sameé* points ; 
but there is no actual opposition of sen- 
timent between them. Both speak of 
the work, upon the whole, very favour- 
ably. The subject is evidently a fayour- 
ite with them both; and each of them 
makes of it a very interesting article. 
The Westminster, indeed, invites us: to. 
the deeper potations — pours nearly 
twice the quantity into its critical cup ; 
but the Quarterly pledges us with, at 
least, equal conviviality. It is a little 
curious—their usual propensities (or 
professions rather) considered,—that the 
Westminster should be more classical, 
the Quarterly, more chemical, in its com- 
mentary: that the former should com- 
mence in the true spirit of an Horatian 
Bon-vivant, mingling the streams of 
Helicon with his Falernian, at every 
draught ;—in short, treating Dr. Hen- 
derson’s illustrations of the classics as 
the most entertaining, if not absolutely 
the most important, part of his book; 
blaming him wheneyer he has missed an 
opportunity of amplifying such illustra- 
tions, and stepping in, with his. own 
classical stores, to supply deficiencies; 
while the Quarterly, though he sets.out 
with disclaiming such intention, be- 
comes, with Dr.' McCulloch by his'side, 
a sort of chemico-political economist ; 
enters into the theory and experimen- 
talism of primary and secondary fer-: 
mentations; displays’ his judgment’ in 
“ The Art of Making Wines,” and dis- 
cusses the practicability, and demion- 
strates the endesirableness, of ‘tutning 
English wheat-fields into vineyards, 
(To be eovitinwed:)" 8? 
