"Heaven, with contempt, the empty toil

surveys,

And buries blockheads in the dust they raise."

The three are in a perpetual state of civil war. There have already been about fifty of the gravest imaginable theories of the world, each insisting on its pre-eminent solidity, and each swept away in his turn, like so much sand. The naturalist, when he ascends beyond the humbler drudgery of classification, and even there every succeeding dilettante spurns his predecessor, only pillories himself for the burlesque of the ten thousand pamperers of mice and minnows; and the political economist of to-day can scarcely find words sufficiently crushing" for the desperate blunders of the rash enquirer" before him. The whole is like the fall of a house of cards, every story rolls down the faster the higher it is built. The catastrophe of Tom Thumb, murderous as it is, is pacific to the family havoc. Punch and his wife, who get their bread by cudgelling each other, are domestic, to the public fury which mutually tears those philosophers to pieces.

Dr Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise has had the ill effect of exhibiting an English divine ranked on the side of the French geologists. They pronounce, on the faith of chalk and lizards, that the earth must have been made millions of years before the time in which the Scriptures distinctly declare it to have been created. The Frenchmen pronounce that it must have been the work of processes as slow as those by which we now see trees grow and limestones harden; the Scriptures pronounce the work to have been instantaneous. The Frenchmen evidently lean to the idea of a primitive chaos; the Scriptures distinctly pronounce that the material universe had no existence in either substance or form before the six days declared in the Mosaic history. Thus the geologists and the Scriptures are totally at variance, and in the present condition of their statements are irreconcilably at variance. The French and German geologists, for the Gauls are, after all, only pupils of the Teutons, cling fiercely to their dogma, evidently from its allowing a tacit insult to revealed religion; and every theory finishes with a sneer at Moses. The English geologists, with rather more decency, yet with as hopeless a

result, attempt to reconcile them by diluting the palpable meaning of words, and diminishing the palpable testimony of facts. Thus, the controversy has turned on the interpretation of the first verse of Genesis. The

words "In the beginning," are taken as expressing an indefinite time, which, however, the geologists immediately define in their own way, and manufacture into as many millions of years as they want; and the word create, in the original, they say, may have also meant made. But they altogether overlook the other declarations, in which the language is beyond all evasion. Thus, in the "ten commandments the words, not of Moses, but of the Deity, declare that the universe was the work of six days. This single declaration sets the possibility of compromise at rest. The words are of the most solemn order that can be the most conceived, delivered on solemn occasion, and incapable of any other meaning whatever. St Paul's declaration (11th Hebrews) also amounts to the doctrine that the universe was created; in other words, formed out of nothing, by the direct influence of divine command. The British geologists in some instances have attempted to shift the difficulty, by saying, that "possibly the days then were longer than now, and might mean vast periods of years." But, if they so meant, why was a word used whose only purport could be to mislead. Years, too, are spoken of. what. dimensions must such years have been? A year of 365 days, with each day a thousand or a million of years for the geologists draw perfectly at their ease on the bank of time-must have demanded a change not only in the gravitation of the earth to the sun, and in the centrifugal force, but in the constitution of the earth itself and every product of the earth. A day of a thousand years would leave one half of the globe exposed for five hundred of our years to the whole light and heat of the sun. This must be ruinous to all vegetation in the five hundredth part of the time. It would also expose the other half to five hundred years of intense frost and intense darkness. This must be equally ruinous. we are to be told, against all existing fact, that the habits of the animals and plants on the two hemispheres were rendered conformable to suei

Of

Or if

extreme states, this escape will be cut off by the obvious remark, that by the revolution of the globe, though slow, those animals and plants must have been necessarily exposed to a total change in succession, and must have been alternately advancing into intolerable heat and sinking into intolerable cold, as the parts of the globe moved successively round to the sun or receded from it. But the sufficient answer at once is, that we have not the smallest evidence for supposing that the smallest change has occurred in the periods of either the day or the year since the world began. This is the testimony of Laplace and of all the great physical astronomers.

The whole question then comes to this, has geology so far attained certainty as to qualify any man to dispute the authority furnished by the Scriptures? That question is easily answered by the man who feels the rational and perfect homage which is due to the direct language of inspiration. It will be not less easily answered by the man of mere common sense, who sees that of all the attempts of human science geology is, at this moment, in the crudest imaginable state that its facts are totally undigested that, eminently depending on experiment, it is still only in its experimental infancy-that a ten millionth part of the globe has not yet been thoroughly examined that the structure of the globe is to be ascertained only in depths which have never been reached by man, and which seem to be expressly prohibited to man-that geology can know nothing beyond the mere crust of the earth, and yet knows but little even of that-and that even if more were known, that crust is no more in a fitting condition to assist the developement of the earth's general fabric than the coat of a traveller, bespattered with mud, reveals the anatomy of the living, vigorous compound of bone and muscle, blood and brain, within. It is remarkable, and as if intended as a direct rebuke to this modern presumption, that a new process in nature should be evolved in our days, expressly replying to the strongest part of the sceptical system. The anti-Scriptural arguments founded on the deposit of shells on the summits of mountains, and their perfect preservation in beds of clay, have been readily and completely answered by a reference to the true language of the sacred

record. The geologists, who certainly oftener attempt to refute than to read the Scriptures, triumphantly asked, could these deposits have been made by a furious inundation of a year? We answer, no; but answer, at the same time, that the geologists had forgotten to observe that at least a third of the earth's surface, the present dry land, was made the bed of the ocean in the first days of the creation, and continued in that state until the Deluge, which submerged the existing land, and uncovered and raised the bed of the ocean, a fact evidently proved by the nature of the strata, and long since conceded by all geologists of name, but a fact which gave a period of 1500 years, or rather 2000 (according to the Septuagint chronology, which is the authentic one), for the formation and preservation of the deposits in the calm depths of the primæval ocean.

But the grand objection was the slow formation of minerals, gems, &c. Nothing under millions of years would be sufficient for this! Yet what has the truth turned out to be? It has been shown, since the last few months, that the force of electricity, acting on such simple means as water, can effect the process of making crystal, and this within a month, or even a week; that there is a fair prospect of being able to make some of the principal metals in as short a time, and that, by an increased action of the voltaic pile thus simply applied, even the hardest substances in nature, gems, may be brought within the limits of human manufacture. The whole question between geology and Scripture rests on this point-Does the geologist know the whole construction of the earth? No, nor any thing beyond a most imperfect survey of an extremely small portion of its surface? Does the geologist know all the powers by which nature works? No, nor probably the ten-thousandth part of them. Then let him wait until he knows them, and let him speak humbly of himself in the mean time. Let him have the honesty to acknowledge his ignorance, and the good sense to speak with reverence of that revelation which is incapable of error, and which, so far as it has declared the physical construction of the earth and heavens, has declared it, not to feed the vanity, but to elevate the virtue of mankind.

WE rejoice that this subject has been taken up by a Committee of the House of Commons, and trust that most beneficial results to the arts in general will arise from the enquiry. There is much valuable information in the evidence, to which the report refers; more, however, will be supplied, as some returns, expected through the Foreign Office, have not, as yet, been made. But we doubt if these returns would materially have affected the matter of the report. We suspect that they will do little more than corroborate what has already been amply given. They may be of practical use in carrying out the details of some general plans; but there is much previous important work to be done. There were two committees-in 1835 and 1836. From the first we have nothing but the bare evidence; from the latter, a report upon the evidence given before that, and the former committee. The very first inference drawn by the committee from the testimony before them is, if quite true, not to the credit of our taste or our policy, "that from the higher branches of poetical design, down to the lowest connexion between design and manufactures, the arts have received little encouragement in this country." This is attributed to the want of public instruction, and to the absence of public freely open galleries and museums. They would therefore recommend the establishment of institutions throughout the kingdom, for the double purposes of museums or galleries, and for instruction, practically as well as theoretically, formed -and maintained by residents and municipalities, and by the aid of Government in such manner as aid is now given to build school-houses. They would suggest, that "the principles of design should form a portion of any permanent system of national education. Such elementary instruction should be based on the extension of the knowledge of form, by the adoption of a bold style of geometrical and outline drawing, such as is practised in the national schools in Bavaria. The committee further would suggest,

that, if the proper machinery for accomplishing such an object were supplied, the progress of the people in the arts should be reported annually to Parliament. This part of the subject, however, is involved in the much greater question of a responsible minister of education, which the limits imposed on the committee prevent them from doing more than alluding to. It is with regret that your committee notice the neglect of any general instruction, even in the history of art at our universities and public schools; an omission noticed long ago by Mr Burke, and obvious to every reflecting mind."

They next advert to the "difficult and delicate question of copyright," and would turn the public attention to the remedy applied in France by the constitution of a "cheap and accessible tribunal," as the " Conseil des Prudhommes," in the manufacturing districts in France, according to the interesting account of them in the evidence of Dr Bowring. They touch upon the injury done to the arts by the excise laws, particularly with regard to glass. They then enter upon the subject of academies which have prevailed in Europe these two hundred years, and seem to think, that if they are more than schools, they are inimical to art. They entertain no favourable views of our Royal Academy. The National Gallery forms the next object of their report. It appears that full half of it is to be given to the Royal Academy, but they assert that the Royal Academy may "be compelled" to quit the National Gallery whenever public convenience requires their removal. It appears that the whole of the National Gallery is not fire proof, though part of it will be the residence of the keeper of the Royal Academy. The committee lay some stress upon the important evidence of Baron Von Klenze, who built the Munich Gallery, to whom, and to Dr Waagen, they refer for the method of arrangement of the schools of paintings in the National Gallery; and recommend that a portion should be set

apart, "dedicated to the perpetuation and extension of the British School of Art"-the purchase of pictures by living British artists for the national collection, "especially such as are more adapted by their style and subject to a gallery than a cabinet ;" and that a room should be devoted to engravings. They would recommend the removal of the cartoons from Hampstead court to the National Gallery. They complain of injury done to the great picture of Sebastian del Piombo by insects-would suggest an encouragement for individuals to bequeath money as well as pictures-recommend pictures of the era of Raphael to be more particularly sought forseem strongly to doubt the capability of the persons appointed to make purchases for the National Gallery, as if they were chosen more for their rank, than for taste, knowledge, and ability. They also animadvert on "the compositions of our commissions for deciding on plans for public works," and suggest, that public money should be laid out on British works of art in the highest and purest taste. In the completion of public buildings, painting and sculpture should be called in for the embellishment of architecture. The report thus terminates:-"It will give your committee the sincerest gratification if the result of their enquiry (in which they have been liberally assisted by the artists of this country), tend in any degree to raise the character of a profession which is said to stand much higher among foreign nations than in our own; to infuse, even remotely, into an industrious and enterprising people, a love of art, and to teach them to respect and venerate the name of artist." Such is the general subject matter of the report. We cannot but think that the committee have been hampered in the very outset, by having at one time two subjects under consideration, instead of one. Arts and manufactures-each most important! We would not undervalue either, and admit in some degree their connexion; nor indeed is it difficult to show, as Cicero asserts, that there is a certain chain uniting all arts and sciences; but is it a vital one? One of identity of nature? Are they in the common acceptation of the terms, fine arts and manufactures, Siamese twins, with but one and the same nervous system?

We are persuaded that it is a false view so to consider them. They are not one necessarily in origin, and differ in object. They are therefore built and founded upon different principles, though in certain points they may be subject to common rules; and so are often things extremely dissimilar. We doubt if either would be benefited by this compulsory association. The one would be under bondage, or the other under a sense of degradation. We might as well marry penmanship to poetry. We are convinced that it is the word "design" that induces this initiatory error.

The art of design for the artist is one thing, and the art of design for the manufacturer is another. They rest not upon the same principles of invention;-a facility of drawing, of delineating by the hand, is indeed the elementary necessity to both-but we contend, and suppose we shall be thought by many to deal in paradox, that further than this necessity they have little, we do not say nothing, to do with each other. They have not, in fact, the same objects, consequently they should not, even in this elemen tary part of their education, draw the same things. The object of manufac tures, whatever they be, next to their essential utility, is ornament, admitting of infinite variety, and combination in form and colour-that of the higher arts to instruct and to please by com manding our sympathies. The ambitious ornamentalist who will be half artist, will issue but tasteless, displeasing, incongruous productions, instead of works of completeness, referable to the rules of his art, which are strict and limited. We have been the more particular in the discussion of this point, because an idea seems to have been very general both with the committee and the evidence, that the study of the antique, and the drawing from statues, and casts of the Elgin marbles in particular, are the very first things that are necessary for incipient manufacturers, almost of every kind. We differ in opinion-these are not things whose great object ever was or ought to be ornament. Nay, we will go farther and say, that they wander far from the right line, who would urge even studies inferior, vastly inferior to this high antique, such as botanical drawing and knowledge; for, in fact, what is the principle of ornament which