It is not here,for example,he would persuade us,that a trader who occupies a booth at a fair is a fool for his pains;and on that account no fit object of the Law's protection.(8)It is not here that he gives the presence of one man at the making of a Law,as a reason why ten thousand others that are to obey it,need know nothing of the matter.(9)It is not here,that after telling us,in express terms,there must be an `actual breaking'to make burglary,he tells us,in the same breath,and in terms equally express,where burglary may be without actual breaking;and this because `the Law will not suffer itself to be trifled with.'(10)It is not here,that after relating the Laws by which peaceable Christians are made punishable for worshipping God according to their consciences,he pronounces with equal peremptoriness and complacency,that every thing,yes,`every thing is as it should be.'(11)It is not here,that he commands us to believe,and that on pain of forfeiting all pretensions to either `sense or probity,'that the system of our jurisprudence is,in the whole and every part of it,the very quintessence of perfection.(12)It is not here that he assures us in point of fact,that there never has been an alteration made in the Law that men have not afterwards found reason to regret.(13)It is not here that he turns the Law into a Castle,for the purpose of opposing every idea of `fundamental'reparation.(14)It is not here that he turns with scorn upon those beneficent Legislators,whose care it has been to pluck the mask of Mystery from the face of Jurisprudence.(15)If here,(16)as every where,he is eager to hold the cup of flattery to high station,he has stopt short,however,in this place,of idolatry.(17)It is not then,I say,this part,it is not even any part of that Introduction,to which alone I have any thoughts of extending my examination,that is the principal seat of that poison,against which it was the purpose of this attempt to give an antidote.The subject handled in this part of the work is such,as admits not of much to be said in the person of the Censor.
Employed,as we have seen,in settling matters of a preliminary naturein drawing outlines,it is not in this part that there was occasion to enter into the details of any particular institution.If I chose the Introduction then in preference to any other part,it was on account of its affording the fairest specimen of the whole,and not on account of its affording the greatest scope for censure.
Let us reverse the tablet.While with this freedom I expose our Author's ill deserts,let me not be backward in acknowledging and paying homage to his various merits:a justice due,not to him alone,but to that Public,which now for so many years has been dealing out to him (it cannot be supposed altogether without title)so large a measure of its applause.
Correct,elegant,unembarrassed,ornamented,the style is such,as could scarce fail to recommend a work still more vicious in point of matter to the multitude of readers.
He it is,in short,who first of all institutional writers,has taught Jurisprudence to speak the language of the Scholar and the Gentle man:
put a polish upon that rugged science:cleansed her from the dust and cobwebs of the office:and if he has not enriched her with that precision that is drawn only from the sterling treasury of the sciences,has decked her out,however,to advantage,from the toilette of classic erudition:enlivened her with metaphors and allusions:and sent her abroad in some measure to instruct,and in still greater measure to entertain,the most miscellaneous and even the most fastidious societies.
The merit to which,as much perhaps as to any,the work stands indebted for its reputation,is the enchanting harmony of its numbers:a kind of merit that of itself is sufficient to give a certain degree of celebrity to a work devoid of every other.So much is man governed by the ear.
The function of the Expositor may be conceived to divide itself into two branches:that of history,and that of simple demonstration.The business of history is to represent the Law in the state it has been in,in past periods of its existence:the business of simple demonstration in the sense in which I will take leave to use the word,is to represent the Law in the state it is in for the time being.(18)Again,to the head of demonstration belong the several businesses of arrangement,narration and conjecture.Matter of narration it may be called,where the Law is supposed to be explicit,clear,and settled:matter of conjecture or interpretation,where it is obscure,silent,or unsteady.
It is matter of arrangement to distribute the several real or supposed institutions into different masses,for the purpose of a general survey;to determine the order in which those masses shall be brought to view;and to find for each of them a name.
The business of narration and interpretation are conversant chiefly about particular institutions.Into the details of particular institutions it has not been my purpose to descend.On these topics,then,I may say,in the language of procedure,non sum informatus .Viewing the work in this light,I have nothing to add to or to except against the public voice.
History is a branch of instruction which our Author,though not rigidly necessary to his design,called in,not without judgment,to cast light and ornament on the dull work of simple demonstration:this part he has executed with an elegance which strikes every one:with what fidelity,having not very particularly examined,I will not take upon me to pronounce.
