are owing, we think, to circumstances over which they had no controul. To quote again the powerful work of Madame de Staël, La séparation des classes nuit à quelques égards à l'esprit proprement dit. Les nobles y ont trop peu d'idées, et les gens de lettres trop peu d'habitude des affaires.' If we ask for the causes of this wide line of demarcation which exists in Ger many, between the different classes of society, the geography and history of the country will furnish us with the answer. With the exception of that part of the frontier which is washed by the Baltic, the sea coast of Germany is limited to the narrow space comprised between the Elbe and the Ems: a space utterly out of proportion to the size of the country, and far too small to allow that free communication.with foreign nations, which is as essential to the political welfare of a people, as a free circulation of air to the health of an individual, The sea opens to mankind a bound→ less field of action; and thus gives a practical direction to ener gies of the mind which, if denied their natural course, will run up into a luxuriant but unfruitful growth of speculation and theory. The continuance too of the original disunion between the dif ferent parts of Germany has contributed to the same results. In France, in Spain, and in the British islands, the petty kingdoms or provinces which seemed designed by nature to form one great body, were happily united before they had attained to that age when each would have become too stiff and hard to be moulded into a new form. But in Germany and Italy the separation has existed till the time for union has gone by: and in both countries the strength of the nation is frittered away in the multitude of prin cipalities into which they are divided. This, however, is not the only nor the worst evil which results. With the original elements unblended together, were retained also their original institutions and forms of society. That most infallible mark of barbarism, a system of castes, continued to defy the full light of the eighteenth century, (we beg Niebuhr's pardon for the expression;) and even now, notwithstanding the progress lately made towards a better state, is far from being completely overthrown. With all these disadvantages of an almost total exclusion from the sea, a deficiency of national power, and an absence of municipal freedom, we cannot be surprised that the energies of the Germans have been turned more towards thinking than acting; and that their understandings are tinged with that fanciful idealism for which a practical acquaintance with mankind, and with the concerns of real life, seems to offer the only remedy. With Great Britain, on the other hand, the case is totally different. Since the world began, no state of society has ever afforded such advantages for the attainment of the highest intel lectual lectual and moral excellence as that which we at this moment enjoy. With far more truth than when it was originally spoken, we may now say, that we have made every land and every sea accessible to our enterprise; yet our communication, extensive as it is, with foreign countries, is far surpassed by that wonderful internal intercourse, by which the remotest corners of our own island, we trust that ere long we may say islands, are connected and bound together, one with another. We believe it is no exaggeration to say, that if any two gentlemen were to be thrown together by accident in a stage-coach in any part of the country, and would consent to enter freely into conversation, they would soon find some one person, if not many, with whom they were both acquainted, and would thus have something of a tie to prevent them from feeling towards each other as perfect strangers. This is one good produced by our locomotive habits, and by the practice of visiting watering-places in different parts of the kingdom; and it is one which, if duly considered, will be found of immense importance. It produces directly an amalgamation of the several classes of society; men differing widely in rank and profession associate with each other; and thus, from the mixture of their acquaintance, even where the circle of it be small, they lose that pedantry and ignorance which are the invariable cousequences of living alone, or associating only with persons who view every thing in the same light with themselves. As far as the interests of literature are concerned, we believe that this vigorous and healthy circulation, reaching, as it does, to the remotest corners of Great Britain, is even more beneficial than the perfect freedom enjoyed by the press; although doubtless that freedom, as well as the whole character of our political institutions, is favourable to the perfection of the understanding in a degree which can hardly be estimated too highly. For instance, with what advantages over the writers of other nations does an Englishman undertake to unravel the histories of Greece or Rome? Familiar, as we are from our childhood, with all the phanomena of political parties, their aptness to adhere with pertinacity to a name, when circumstances have totally changed the thing, the slender thread which connects them, after a course of years, with their original principles, amidst many apparent deviations from them; the exaggeration of their language and feelings; their furious enmities, and convenient coalitions, and the audacity with which they identify themselves with the national good; we can easily interpret aright the language of historians concerning them, and accurately estimate their nature and their merits. If then we have not surpassed the literature of Germany, and still more if we have not equalled it, the fault is our own; and it can neither be ascribed ascribed to any external disadvantages, nor to any want of natural intelligence, but to some other cause which it most deeply concerns us to discover and remove. We are so accustomed to dwell upon the extraordinary merits of a few of our great writers, that we are generally insensible to the manifold deficiencies of our literature. Yet if we compare it with that of France or Germany, its poverty in works of laborious learning is truly remarkable. If a student in history ask where he can find an account of any of the great nations of the continent in the English language, we recollect nothing better to refer him to than the miserable compilation of Russell, or the heavy and unsatisfactory volumes of the Universal History. We are not forgetful of the works of Robertson, of Archdeacon Coxe, and of Mr. Hallam; but these embrace only particular periods, and still leave it undeniable, that we have no good history of any modern nation except our own. In ecclesiastical history we have a remarkable instance of our peculiar defect, a want of learning. Milner was a man of piety and of ability; but from the narrow limits of his knowledge, and the umcritical spirit with which he appears to have studied, his work is altogether unworthy of its subject. But our inferiority is still more striking and less excusable in every branch of study connected with the history, antiquities, and literature of Greece and Rome. We believe that there are many writers of those nations whose works have never been edited in England at all:-but it is more to the purpose to inquire in how many instances the editions of any of them generally received as the best have been executed by Englishmen. If we except certain portions of the Greek dramatists and poets, we really cannot remember a single one; and if this be spoken too universally, (as through forgetfulness it may be,) we are sure at least that the exceptions will not be more than sufficient to prove the rule. In lexicography our list contains scarcely a name of high reputation; and the many defects and errors of the Greek grammar which is most commonly used in our schools, may well excite a foreigner's astonishment.* If we turn to works written in illustration of ancient manners, arts, institutions, and laws, what names can we find amongst our own countrymen to oppose to It will be seen at once that we refer to the Eton Greek Grammar; by whom it was first written, or what character it deserved to bear in relation to the then existing state of knowledge, we know not-but it is decidedly behind the present age, and does not tend to give boys an accurate knowledge of the parts of speech, or the principles of syntax, We cannot but think that it might well become some of the members of the collegiate body, who have all appliances and means,' present leisure, past experience, sufficient learning in all, in some, as every one knows, a high degree of it, and an admirable library ; to do something for its improvement. From the masters themselves it would be most unreasonable to expect any labour in addition to their present overwhelming occupations, those those of Grævius and Gronovius, of Meursius, of Sigonius, of Petit, of Montfaucon, of Winckelman, of Godefroi, of Heineccius, and a multitude of others, without naming the great modern writers of Germany, Creuzer, Hugo, Haubold, and Savigny? Nor can it be said that the attention of Englishmen is engrossed by other subjects, and that they have no leisure to bestow on classical studies. We know that the attention of our great schools is directed almost exclusively to these very points; that they hold a principal place in the system of education adopted by our universities; and that in no country can there be found more munificent institutions, expressly founded for the encouragement of liberal learning. We know also that in no country in Europe is something more than a merely superficial acquaintance with the classics of Greece and Rome so indispensable, we might almost say universal, an accomplishment of a gentleman; and we know by the specimens of a higher degree, which we can produce, what might, and what ought to be the boast of our universities. When we speak of Blomfield, the great Porson, Gaisford, and the lamented Elmsley, a man whom it is not too much, perhaps, to call the most purely Attic scholar of his age, we speak of men, whose characteristic qualities are soundness of judgment, accuracy of knowledge, and elegance of taste-of men who do but make it a more important question, to what cause we ought to ascribe our general deficiency in the field of classic literature and criticism. The conclusion of a long article is not the place to enter upon such an inquiry. One observation, however, we will make; many of our readers will remember the time when the number and indolence, the prejudice and port' of resident fellows of colleges were the common topics of invective and ridicule. That clamour had its day, and has passed away; but its effect was in part most pernicious-we may attribute to it in no small degree the present custom of dispensing, as a matter of course, with the residence of all members of foundations who have taken the degree of master of arts. How little do we foresee the results of changes, which break in upon the rules laid down for us by our forefathers! this custom has defeated in great measure the object of the founders of our colleges; and the consequence of it has been the converting our universities into great schools; and the leaving in them scarcely any individuals who are simply occupied in the cultivation of literature. Fellowships are sought for as helping out the incomes of students in the active professions of life; and the residents in the universities are reduced to tutors and pupils. Far be it from us to insinuate that the duties of the former are not zealously and ably performed, we scarcely know a body of public servants more meritorious, or worse paid; but this we may be allowed to say without without offence, that from the unvarying and unceasing nature of their occupations they are wholly unable to devote themselves to literature; and that commencing their career early in life, and often with the highest promise of excellence, their minds become early jaded and worn out, their passion for study, and zeal in the pursuit of knowledge much abated, and that they often retire with intellects little, if at all, advanced by advancing years. Splendid exceptions may be and are found; but as a class of men it is obvious that these must not be looked to as likely to furnish many competitors in industry, knowledge, or in patient self-devotion to the cause of literature, with the indefatigable students of Germany. ART. IV.-1. A Digest of Reports in Equity. By A. Hammond, Esq. of the Inner Temple. 2 vols. 8vo. London. 1824. 2. Analytical Digest of Reports of Cases in the Courts of Common Law and Equity. By H. Jeremy, Esq. of the Middle Temple. London. 1825. 3. Supplement to Bridgman's Digested Index of the Reported Cases in the several Courts of Equity, with the points of Practice from the earliest period to the present Time. By J. Flather, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law. 8vo. Loudon. 1822, AMONGST the many peculiarities which characterize our legal institutions, there are none more remarkable, or less understood, than those by which the Courts of Extraordinary or Equitable Jurisdiction are distinguished from the Courts of Common Law. Blackstone has observed that nothing was extant in his day, which could give a stranger a tolerable idea of our Courts of Equity; and his own chapter on the subject, elegant and ingenious as it is, cannot be said to supply the deficiency. The root, indeed, of the inquiry, and the principles which can alone make those peculiarities intelligible, are more deeply laid in the antiquities of our ancient policy than has been commonly supposed; and although we are not prepared to fill up the space in legal literature, which is confessedly unoccupied, yet we think we can afford some assistance to the researches of those who may be disposed to consider our ancient law in conjunction with the history of our constitution. It is a mistake to suppose that even now Courts of Equity alone possess an equitable or extraordinary jurisdiction; for every lawyer knows that the courts of common law exercise something of the same kind in many cases and for many purposes. But it is certain that it was formerly much more extensively diffused, than it now, is; nor were its principles confined, as |