selves to reverse principles or practices of construction, which they find to be part and parcel of the system of law that they are appointed to administer; the Legislature, therefore, must tell the public, that henceforth Acts of Parliament are to be construed more liberally and more simply. How is this to be done? A direct declaratory enactment to that effect seems out of the question; instructions or hints from the executive to the judicial body, such as might be given in some other countries, are equally out of the question here; in short, the only feasible plan is for Parliament boldly to persevere in passing Acts in better language, and to trust that the judges and the public will feel it to be their duty (as no doubt they will) to alter their principles and habits of construction, when they see that it is the intention of the Legislature that they should do so. It may reasonably be expected that the pressure of minute, severe, almost hostile criticism, applied to Acts of Parliament framed on the old method, will be gradually withdrawn, when the style which seems to challenge such criticism has been abandoned. No elaborate plans or immutable rules are required to effect this object; all that is wanted is, that the persons who draw Acts of Parliament should be firmly resolved to use plain and concise English, to choose with care the proper words to express their meaning, and never to use a word that is not wanted, and, above all, to assume that they are writing for persons of ordinary candour and intelligence. To attempt to provide in terms against every foolish and unworthy quibble that unfair or unreasonable persons may possibly suggest, is to require of language more than language can perform; and until such attempts are entirely abandoned, no material improvement as to brevity and perspicuity can be hoped for.

Supposing, then, the proposed officer to be appointed, and supposing too that he enjoys the confidence and good-will of all those concerned in preparing or passing Bills,-for without such confidence and good-will he could effect nothing, his duties, according to our view, should be, in the first place, to draw up and circulate amongst the members of both Houses, parliamentary counsel, agents, and the other classes connected with the practical work of legislation, a plain statement, with examples, of the style in which he would propose that Acts should be drawn, and to invite all those who would wish for his advice and assistance in framing Bills to communicate with him. It is important to bear in mind, that after Bills have been completed and brought into Parliament, it is almost too late to amend them as to style; the proper time for forming that must be while the Bill is in progress of construction. Reports, therefore, on the style of Bills which have been brought in could be put to little use comparatively, except as warnings against errors

to be avoided by others; the principal utility of the proposed officer would arise from his general instructions, his personal assistance and advice, to be given freely and confidentially to all who wish for it, and also from the examples which he would furnish in such Bills as the Government should think fit to intrust to him. It is unnecessary to attempt to lay down all the other contributions which such an officer could make towards the improvement of our legislation; but it is not to be doubted that he might "make himself generally useful" in a variety of ways.

We have now passed in review all the principal projects for accomplishing what is called statute-law reform, and may thus sum up the effect of our comments: the notion of putting the whole law, or the whole statute-law, of England into a form in which it can be carried in a plain man's pocket is mere rodomontade; codification of the common law is most objectionable, consolidation of the whole statute-law out of the question; some groups of statutes may be consolidated, but the process will be of little use unless amendments accompany it; such consolidation with amendment cannot be intrusted to any Board or officer, but must be the work of public men, whether in office or not; a repeal of those acts which are not now in force, but have never been expressly repealed, is desirable; no other expurgation of the statute-book is practicable; no authorised edition of the statutes can be promulgated by Parliament; an officer to advise on the style and form of Bills would be a useful assistant to the members of both Houses.

ART. IV. DEMOSTHENES.

The Olynthiacs of Demosthenes. Edited by the Rev. Henry Musgrave Wilkins, M.A. London: J. W. Parker, West Strand. THE appearance of Mr. Wilkins's neat and serviceable little volume affords us a good opportunity for saying a few words upon the public policy of the great Athenian statesman, whose three most celebrated speeches upon foreign affairs are here presented to us. It may be fanciful to suppose that any real analogy exists between the relations of Macedon with Greece, and those of any great European power with its weaker neighbours. But even supposing that no practical lesson can be drawn from the various phases of the struggle which terminated with the battle of Charonea and the destruction of Grecian independence, still to those who survey history from the posit

tion of the student or the philosopher, it is one of the most interesting spots in the entire prospect.

It has sometimes been said that the conflict of the Jewish nation with the Persian and Babylonian monarchies has this one supreme element of interest, that there and there alone the veil is withdrawn from the operations of the divine Providence, and God's mode of dealing with nations made clear to us by the subjection of war, diplomacy, and legislation to his personal interference. We would not depreciate those feelings of awe which such a spectacle is calculated to inspire, or the salutary effects which they may occasionally exercise on the mind. But for men accustomed to the working of free institutions, and profoundly interested in their future prosperity, a history like the Greek, in which the divine guidance is more indissolubly blended with the free agency of man, is naturally far more instruc

tive.

But there is also this additional reason why the history of the Jews should be unsatisfactory to the student of politics; namely, that it is deficient in information concerning the real constitution of the Jewish government. We have, for instance, very little insight into the machinery of the Hebrew monarchy; and very little acquaintance with the play of that popular element which, from occasional glimpses that occur to us, we should judge it to have possessed. This defect, however, is one shared in common with the large majority of nations whose history has been written at all. But even of those by whom it is not shared, there is none of which the rise, progress, and decline is illustrated by such complete records as the history of Athens. Her internal development is as well known to us, in all its stages, as that of Rome. Her external history, while more varied and more instructive than that of even the mistress of the world, has all the advantage of being far more accurately described. The foreign policy of Rome, in the shape in which it has come down to us, is one of simple conquest. Her diplomacy and her embassies we know only by their results. There is a plain and uniform grandeur about the character of her career which powerfully affects the imagination; but it is deficient in the materials which constitute the very text-book of statesmanship. In Athens, on the contrary, we are admitted as it were behind the scenes. We see her matched against equals and against superiors; we listen to the public debates by which her policy was regulated; and observe the strings by which her fleets and armies were set in motion. In the contest with Macedon more especially are we enabled to inspect with minuteness both the administrative system of a free state, and the wars and negotiations of a brave and ingenious people.

We are permitted to watch, in the attitude of unconcerned spectators, the various fluctuations of a contest which has often been repeated in the world's history, but has never been conducted by abler or more accomplished competitors. The absorption of a weaker by a stronger power has not yet become sufficiently uncommon among nations to make the gradual steps by which such designs are consummated a matter of indifference to the world. It may be that no two cases are sufficiently alike to warrant us in employing for the one the precautions that we now see would have been effectual for the other. Yet if, as we have already said, there is little to instruct us in the history of this particular period, there is certainly a great deal to interest us; or, if it does not admit of practical application to the present time, it may at least supply us with much food for reflection, and many truths to be incorporated with our general political experience.

There is what must be admitted to be at least a singular coincidence between the situation of England to-day and that of Athens in the period of Demosthenes. A free and proud people reposing complacently on their past renown, their naval ascendency, and their rich commerce, confronted by a crafty and ambitious despot, intent upon the extension of his frontiers and the creation of a powerful marine, is the salient point of either picture. There, perhaps, the resemblance ends; and certainly the Volunteer movement of the last twelvemonth has been as much unlike the sluggishness of which Demosthenes complains as any thing that could well be conceived. But the coincidence is a striking one, though it be deemed too superficial for a warning. It may be true enough that the Emperor Napoleon has very little chance, even supposing him to have the wish, of imitating the career of Philip. England at the present moment may have nothing to fear from his designs. But neither, on the other hand, had Greece any thing to fear from Philip when he first commenced his operations. It seems probable that Athens by herself, to say nothing of a Grecian confederacy, could have arrested his progress southwards, had she only bestirred herself in time: and that she could at least have prevented the final disaster which overtook her, had she never relaxed in the activity which a transient sense of her real situation had subsequently excited. These considerations are sufficient to redeem our parallel from the charge of whimsicality. It shows us what another great people as self-confident, as brave, and relatively as rich and powerful as ourselves, once suffered because they slept upon their post in the presence of a dangerous enemy. It shows us the perils of domestic faction; and, above all, it warns us of the injury which the best-intentioned citizens may

inflict upon their country through a mistaken devotion to peace, commerce, and economy.

The three famous orations which Mr. Wilkins has been editing plunge us into the very middle of that exciting period when the issue of the Macedonian struggle was as yet doubtful. He who can read no other speeches of Demosthenes, should at least read these, making himself previously acquainted with the circumstances which led to their delivery. There is finer eloquence in the De Corona, and some of his other speeches throw a greater light upon the general condition of Athens. But in the Olynthiacs and the Philippics Demosthenes is at once the orator, the statesman, and the patriot. None of his other great orations give one an equally good idea of the combination of these three characters, which was really to be found in him. The chaste and vigorous style, the earnest purpose, and the deep sagacity, which distinguished him seem all to have been stimulated together by the critical situation of his country. There is in these striking compositions nothing either impassioned or elaborate. They are simple to the verge of crudity, but they are impressive to the verge of solemnity. Every sentence rings like an alarm-bell; clear and sonorous, but with no attempt at artificial melody or long-balanced cadences. Whether or no this artlessness was itself the result of art, we shall, perhaps, have to consider hereafter. But at present we are anticipating, and must return for a time to Mr. Wilkins.

When the classical scholar, be he of whatever grade he may, contemplates the class of works published for the rising generation of schoolboys, and then looks back upon those in use during his own boyhood, he may well wonder for the moment how he ever learned Greek at all. But the nil sine magno of Horace is the true explanation of the marvel. When a boy had to make the Greek explain itself, his progress of course was slower, but he made every step good, and left no unbeaten ground behind him. We do not attribute the alleged decline of accurate scholarship to the many royal roads to learning which have recently been opened. They are rather the effect than the cause. They spring, as we have before observed in this Review, from the necessity of curtailing the amount of time and labour which were formerly bestowed upon the Classics. It was found that a large proportion of the rising generation would either learn Greek and Latin less thoroughly than their fathers, or not learn it at all. We do not mean to say that such works as the Bibliotheca Classica are due to this discovery alone; though it may have had a good deal to do with the form in which its volumes have appeared. But we believe that a large majority of those thoroughly equipped class-books which