410 The Philosophy of Cotemporary Criticism. [Dec. L 
drawn into a tedious discussion on tlie 
fitness of the hexameter measure to 
English versification. And after all 
it does not appear that the reviewer has 
made out a satisfactory negative of this 
proposition. If versification consist, 
as it undoubtedly does, in the recur¬ 
rence of certain marked and conspicu¬ 
ous sounds, at regular intervals, it is 
not easy to conceive, why a line of pqp- 
try may not be of six, as well as of five 
feet. The length of the line is as inde¬ 
terminate as the length of a stanza, and, 
in the structure of both, so as to obtain 
all the advantages of a metrical arrange¬ 
ment, it is only necessary to dispose the 
accented and unaccented syllables, so 
that the pauses return at the expected 
places, and at such a distance as not to 
be disagreeable to the organs of speech. 
The greatest objection to the hexame¬ 
ter measure is, that it is unusual, so 
that neither the eye nor the ear is ac¬ 
customed to it; but this argument ap¬ 
plies to the usage, not to the nature of 
the verse itself. In short, we think the 
44 Laureate's Hexameters” quiet defen¬ 
sible ; and farther, we think, that the 
Doctor has acted with peculiarly cour- 
tier-like feeling in adopting it in his 
“ Vision of Judgment,” for we think no 
measure so worthy of celebrating the 
glories of the 44 Georgian Age ,” as the 
heroic measure, nor no man so worthy 
to celebrate them, as the author ot Wat 
Tyler and Joan of Arc. 
The reviewer of the u Lifte of Mr. 
Pitt A and the Right Reverend compiler, 
are pretty well met. They are both as 
stately, prolix, and dull as possible. In 
an article of 30 pages, one scarcely 
meets an idea which lias not been re¬ 
peated a hundred times. All that is 
remarked on Mr. Pitt entering prema¬ 
turely into public life—his great poAvers 
as a debater—his merits as a financier, 
and his mistakes on the French revolu¬ 
tion—had been remarked by Coleridge 
twenty years ago—and with far more 
eloquence. Indeed, neither this minis¬ 
ter nor Mr. Fox is a fair subject for the 
aristocratical journals. Were they to 
write impartially, feAv, considering Iioav 
much present interests and former opi¬ 
nions-—re\A r ards and disappointments— 
are at issue, AA'ouki believe them. 
44 Mr. Musket's Tables ” form the 
eleventh article. There is a good deal 
of common-place remark on the perni¬ 
cious effect of degrading the currency, 
and a show of argument against reduc¬ 
ing the interest of the public debt; but 
(here is nothing very new nor very sa¬ 
tisfactory on either topics. As to the 
last of these questions, it does not em¬ 
brace any thing very peculiar. Like 
every measure of general policy, it in- 
A T olves a contingency of adi'antages and 
disadvantages. If the public creditor 
AA r ere injured by a reduction of the inte¬ 
rest, the public debtor would be bene¬ 
fited, so that some good, as Avell as evil, 
would attend it; and the question is, 
can the former, on any fair principles 
of justice and policy, be deemed an 
equwalent for the latter ? 
Fo^ the reduction of the debt to be 
Avise, it ought also to be just; but to 
be just it must be unaAmidable. It is 
obvious that the public, no more than 
an individual,Cain be compelled to pay 
beyond its ability. Noaa t , what can be 
fairly considered the limit of public 
ability to pay the interest in full?— 
Clearly Avhen the payment of it destroys 
the sources of productive industry. To 
exact payment beyond this limit, would 
be injurious to both creditor and debtor, 
and ultimately mvolve both parties in 
ruin. When the nation, therefore, ar- 
rivesat this crisis, justice, no less than 
expediency, would direct a compromise. 
But the land and chattels of the 
community, it is said, are mortgaged to 
the public creditor, and unless the inte¬ 
rest be paid in full, he has a claim on 
them for the principal ? — Hoav so ? 
We find no such thing in the bond. 
Neither loan-lender nor loan-borrower 
contemplated such a condition Avhen 
the bargain Avas made— Iioav, then, can 
it be exacted ? Real property, even 
among individuals, is only liable in par¬ 
ticular cases for debt; but surely the 
commonAA’ealtli has a higher privilege— 
surely it is preposterous to contend, that 
a poAver, Avhich is paramount to eA r ery 
other, the sole arbiter of right and 
Avroiig,the owner of all property—which 
it had at all times a right to command 
—can never be pledged to its oavh ruin 
to a part of itself! 
When money Was borroAved by go¬ 
vernment, the re-payment obviously 
depended on various contingencies, of 
which the CroAvn must have been aAvare 
at the time. First , the conquest of the 
country by a foreign enemy ; secondly , 
a revolution in the government itself; 
and, lastly , inability to raise taxes to 
pay the interest. Of all these contin¬ 
gencies the loan-lender AA _ as apprised, 
and he exacted terms accordingly. The 
last contingency may probably happen, 
but he cannot justly complain of an 
evil he foresaw. 
Another 
