In the first half of this article, Sir Walter gives the history, and describes the varied character, of Landscape Gardening, in a very imaginative and felicitous manner, which, as depending on genius and literature alone, was to be expected; but, in the latter part of the essay, when he comes to treat of {231} action and facts, and Sir Henry’s _discoveries_, the deficiency in practical knowledge and judgment, only forms a contrast to the fancy, elegance, and erudition of what goes before. Sir Walter, apparently not quite unconscious of the ridicule attaching to the subject,—to this mighty scientific and historic parade in teaching country gentlemen to amuse themselves by transferring grown trees as they list, from one place to another, without entirely destroying the life of the transported subject,—makes a curious effort to sustain its consequence, by pointing out the immense advantages to a district by the squire’s residing in it; insinuating, that every thing which may amuse him at home, and thus induce him to stay, although of itself childish or infamous, becomes of the highest importance, being ennobled by the end. The following courtly quotation is from Sir Walter’s proemial observations: “A celebrated politician used to say, he would willingly bring in a bill to make poaching felony, another to encourage the breed of foxes, and a third to revive the decayed amusements of cock-fighting and bull-baiting; that he would make, in short, any sacrifice to the humours and prejudices of the country gentlemen, in their most extravagant form, providing only he could prevail on them to dwell in their {232} own houses, be the patrons of their own tenantry, and the fathers of their own children.” Sir Walter does not attempt to describe or analyze the “humours and prejudices” necessary to render the above lures efficacious. Does he infer that such dishonourable power over their fellow men, or that the opportunity of indulging in such low despicable practices, would induce the country gentlemen to sojourn in their father-land? It is impossible to say any thing more insultingly cutting. But we are far from imputing to Sir Walter any intentional offence. Yet we cannot help being angry with the freakish favouritism of Fortune, although we are sensible it belongs instinctively to the female character, often a necessary and very interesting trait; how she dooms one man from his childhood to toil incessantly for a bare subsistence; how she lavishes her favours upon another, and surrounds him from the cradle with every delight; the mind enlightened, the taste cultivated, the body trained to the most graceful exercises, _even whose very amusements_ are considered of so great importance as to throw a high interest upon an art of no earthly utility, but, on the contrary, where the labour of many workmen is thrown uselessly away. We are aware that Sir Walter and his Senator only regard these pastimes {233} of the country gentlemen,