mode of procedure we have proposed is the only method at all calculated to insure a satisfactory result. We want an arena for every combat, some common ground of mutual acknowledgment, which shall not be called in question hereafter, and whereon there shall be an actual meeting of parties. This ground we shall secure here; but criticism does not afford it; to say nothing of the immense difficulty, amounting with most of us to an impossibility, of taking a method requiring (if the process is to be in any way worthy of so dignified a subject) not only the closest intimacy with the works of the two poets, but also a power which suggests itself to us as similar to that which would be required to set two giants in juxtaposition, and compel their respective performances. Leaving our inadequacies in these respects out of the question, the main objection still remains, How shall we ensure a criterion? What shall be our gauge of merit? When every admirer has exercised his taste in the competition-every professional his taste; when every play and poem has had its excellencies displayed, and while either side is ready with a chaplet wherewith to crown its chief, who shall reduce rivalry to agreement, and bring the claims to a legal standard for trial? Here is one who, with all the pride of nationality and classic distinction, believes that his native tongue was never wrought into so rich an attire, or enfolded so beauteous a form of life, as when spoken by Shakspere; another, whose belief has an equal amount of loyalty and correct taste to support it, holds the same of Milton. One loves to linger among the bowers of Eden, and to pay his tribute to grace and gentleness where their fair embodiment, revealed in loveliness incarnate, reposes on beds of roses; while the wild fancies of another are mingling with the wilder orgies of witches, who in their dark retreats are constraining the fates to declare the destinies of men. How shall the two be persuaded to concord and companionship? When each casket is filled with gems of countless value, in themselves considered, without reference to their use, who shall declare the agio between them? It is clear that no conclusion can be thus arrived at. But, if we will surrender our partialities for the honour of truth; and, in strict accordance with our confessed convictions, allow that service shall be the test of value, we bring our cause to established canonical authority, which, though it disposes of the jurisdiction of taste, will not annihilate taste, nor prejudice it, as the sweet witching possession held by each one of us of his own right, and which authority will secure what we all profess to seek,-a disinterested verdict. The question then comes, Which, as a poet, ministered most to the interests of humanity, Milton or Shakspere? Which, having taught it its vast wants, supplied most of food and motive for the great attainment, with thought and hope of conquest, as well as expectation of strife and battle? Which, penetrating the depths of the human heart, and tracing there how mistakes and misery, self-preferment and degradation, fancied joys and bitter reflections, succeeded oftimes by despair and ruin, are inseparably united, and form but one labyrinth, though the connecting avenues are dark and hidden from the general gaze, has also seen and shown that this is not the whole of life, but that there are points of egress and escape,-paths leading out of the same nature (and therefore within the province of the poet, even if he were not to be held as a teacher), and which, like the old chartered highways we tread daily, are unexclusively free, and, like them, are directed to the best advantage. Which, in short, not only showed what man is, but also what he might be, unless our boasted freedom is to be taken as having no existence in fact? That Shakspere knew human hearts, as far as we can conceive it possible for our fellowman to be acquainted with them; and that, combined with this knowledge, there was commensurate ability to pourtray their divers manifestations, is the very foundation and fact of his greatness. As we have seen, it is because "he has told us all things that ever we did" that we have yielded without desire of resistance. And that life as it is, with all its seeming terrible anomalies,— might making right its prey, and vice deflowering virtue, the consciences of men acknowledging eternal laws, and at the same time their passions bent upon gratification,needs to be known, either from experience or from its truthful pourtrayal, before a startingpoint shall be gained for a more exalted state of being. We see in it a necessary and proper material for a teacher's use. It is, therefore, with no pious horror we view the creations of Shakspere,-their characters, histories, and, it may be, their follies, detailed either without expression of disapprobation, or so doubtfully censured as to give little direct advantage to morality. Our belief being that human nature, if progressive at all, must taste more or less of the disappointment which forbidden sources afford,-that, to rise, it must first have some sense of degradation, we recognise so far in Shakspere a good teacher of mankind, however disfavourably the admission may be viewed by many excellent persons. But here his work ceases. Beyond life, just as he found it, he had nothing to study, nor to recommend to the solemn consideration of his fellow-men. And herein lies the fatal charm that Shakspere exercises over us, that, dazzled by the splendid equipage which he has lavished on this life, we prefer to be at ease amidst such luxury to the exercise of hope and determination towards things as yet unseen. It is thus that E. W. S. and "Excelsior," feeling that Shakspere has halted on the journey, and unwilling to sever themselves from his company, are led even to acquiesce in the position, and to make it the citadel of their argument. "Shakspere (says E. W. S.) studies man; and, finding his whole being associated with moral evil, he struggles with the terrible fact with a power superhuman and almost divine; and, though he finds not a solution to the dread mystery.... "Excelsior" says:-"Our question refers to no other greatness than that of the poet. We are not to determine which was the greatest man, but which was the greatest poet. Waiving all considerations of utility, however important; of moral intention, however sacred; and, indeed, of everything extraneous to the poet,' we are required to give precedence to an abstract quality." What is the greatness of the poet, then? Are we to understand that it is his prerogative to exist as an abstraction-to do no service, and yet deserve homage, in a world where ability and neediness have made reciprocity a law, entailing the greatest obligations upon the greatest gifts? Why, it is an exemption which, in "its abstract quality," your own Shakspere would repudiate with all the discernment of a man alive to his own honour. E. W. S. concludes the sentence we have partly quoted thus:-"He shows us by the radiance of his genius how true the assurance of a higher revelation is--that what we know not now we shall know hereafter." We would, we think, allow more real value to Shakspere's claim than either of our friends E. W. S. and “Excelsior." To say that his genius is evidence of something that it is in man's power to strive for (which we suppose is the meaning of E. W. S.; for a revelation can be of no use to us unless what it reveals is to be sought for), is to say very little indeed for Shakspere's claim as a teacher of a higher life; and as a teacher E. W. S., with ourselves, holds the poet to be; while his responsibility to teach something of this higher life is clearly implied in the fact of his adverting to it. Now, over and above the advantage which the mere contemplation of Shakspere's genius would afford us, we would set the more direct instruction to be gained from his many representations of the existence and supremacy of moral law, and of the human spirit's necessities for a something which it cannot as yet lay hold of. The fine language of disappointed ambition, and of soliloquies upon the vanities of this life and the possibilities of another; the omnipotence of virtue visible through all the tortuous and questionable windings through which Shakspere passes it, must be, it appears to us, more impressing in their nature than the dim evidences which his genius as a poet, and that viewed abstractedly, would afford us of a higher revelation; and to this extent we allow Shakspere to have served his race. This, besides being just to Shakspere, and a thing we are agreed upon, is really the summing up of his claims, and is, we think, more to be regarded than the considerations of his "auspices" or his "supreme fame," as relied upon by "Excelsior," because these, if facts, are not what we should agree upon as proofs of superiority, since Time is fickle, and has not plighted her favours to one, and applause is often less indicative than censure of true desert; and because, as neither the "auspices" nor the "supreme fame" would exist but for that profound acquaintance with human nature characteristic of Shakspere, and from which we gather his best claim, the difference of value as data is just that which lies between an original principle and its accessories, of which difference we give the advantage to "Excelsior," as he has not taken it. Now, if human nature were so constituted 427 it may be with less apparent power, inasmuch as the subjects are farther removed from our experience; but these, constituting but an inferior part of the work-which to be satisfied with were to leave the great future a blank, a void, which the man shrinks from, though feeling it must be some time encountered or answered to-every means and motive is added which long trial has proved most effective in influencing his nature. There are the ancient high precepts and 66 as to need only a consciousness of its moral weaknesses, combined with a conviction of the might and sure policy of virtue, to ensure the pursuit of a better condition, then might Shakspere be said to have done all that was possible for the welfare of mankind, and his complete and noble manner of doing it might have favoured his claim to be considered a greater poet than Milton. But this is not found sufficient for the nature we inherit. Nothing can be clearer in the records of human existence-nothing clearer in every-standards which men must assay, though day fact than the necessity of a number of they should fail to reach; and penalties outward influences to act upon man, if he is annexed to disobedience, and gentle persuato be bestirred from his natural supineness, sions to trial, and promise of sustentation, and the degradation which accompanies it. and hope enlarging into assurance of conThe god whose counsel accomplished the quest, and at length the actual reward extrication of the mud-bound wain knew the betokened by crowns, and palms, and songs whole philosophy of the thing. He knew of victory! And is not this poetry? Does the capabilities of man; he knew also that it not "answer to some demand for it in our precept and hope of success were needed to hearts," and thus commend itself to "Exexcite them. So did Milton. have poetry which, while it takes in man in nition he has chosen? Will he brave the Therefore we celsior" as coming within the beautiful defihis lowest condition, anticipates a destiny snow, the ice, the avalanche, and death, for for him; and, without dark doubts and sur- the sake of triumph, and allow no poetry in mises as to what that destiny shall be, is it? No. Then he must not sacrifice, as he has content to know that he has come of the done, "moral purpose," Father of the universe, and that itself is "high principles," at the shrine of "imagiamong the instrumentalities designed to pre-nation." Nor must E. W. S., after demand'important work,” pare him for a return. It shows him his ing of poetry that it shall "help faith to lay task, awakens hope within him, promises hold of a future life," release it from obligahim aid throughout, and then throws all the tion beyond the delineation of this life. responsibility upon him, as though, in fact, cannot, with E. W. S., extract from Shakit was wholly his. We do not, now, endorse spere's representations of "the condition, Milton's theology, or say his influences fall nature, character, powers, passions, virtues, into a perfect system. We think that less vices of man, his conflict with the world and of severity in the moral government of the evil powers, his falls and triumphs, hopes Deity might have been more just; but this and fears," sufficient motive and nutriment quality is greatly remedied by the benignant for that full faith and effort which overcome and tender aspects in which he has placed the world. If we shall be charged with misthe Divine character in other circumstances; taking Shakspere, we shall say that E. W. S. and, if a defect, is a set-off against the noto- has mistaken Milton, when he says that rious laxities of many of Shakspere's writings, "Milton leaves his reader as he finds him; and which are the images of crimes so bad the mysteries of his nature unsolved, the as to need, perhaps, the rule of a more rigid inquiries of his agitated spirit unanswered." administration than at first sight we should Had we the counselling of such a spirit, we be disposed to imagine. What we say of should, for its best interests, unhesitatingly Milton is, that his poetry has in it all those prefer, of the two poets, that it sought solace appliances adapted to the nature of man as and strength of Milton; and we crown his a being capable of progression, but needing memory with unrivalled honour because that, outward stimuli. There is the illusion of estimating his mission above the mere purforbidden gratification, and there is the pose of public amusement or royal entertainhideousness of vice contrasted with the ment, he has made the undying power and majesty of virtue, drawn with as much beauty of poetry our harbingers to "glory, veracity as in Shakspere's writings, though immortality, and eternal life." B. W. P. We Politics. OUGHT THE LAW OF PRIMOGENITURE TO BE REPEALED? AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II. Ir is confessedly always a hazardous under-points, not to remark upon their obvious taking for a mere civilian to venture to oppose inconsistency, but to show that, according to a "man learned in the law" upon a topic B. S.'s own statement, the law having been peculiarly within his own province. And practically abolished without any of the that your correspondent B. S. is such an one predicted evils having ensued, we are absolved I have no doubt. The diffidence, however, from the necessity of providing a substitute which is naturally excited by this circum- for it; and also, that in demanding its entire stance, is very much relieved by a perusal of and formal abolition we can point to the past the article itself. B. S. has treated the legal as an answer to all forebodings of "dangerous part of the subject in a manner which, in its consequences." results, ought to give entire satisfaction to all who, like myself, adopt the affirmative" side in this debate. By taking our "law" from him, we are landed in a position the most advantageous possible for the advocacy of our particular views. B. S. battles stoutly for the reverence due to the law in question, and deals with this part of his subject with a shew of legal erudition calculated to make a plain opponent nervous; but he immediately shows, in a satisfactory manner, that the question of law is of no practical importance; and insists that primogeniture is practically but a time-honoured custom; and thus clears the way for deciding the question of its entire abolition according to the simple and straightforward methods of common sense. The proof of these representations will be found in the 385th, 386th, and the first part of the column of the 387th pages, to which we ask the reader's careful attention. Now, there are important points involved in the passages indicated. We are told that B. S. believes "it would be almost impossible to repeal it, without at the same time providing a substitute for it." That "it forms part of the very framework of society; abolish it, and the whole nation would be thrown into a state of irretrievable confusion, and reduced to a state bordering on anarchy:" and then, that "primogeniture as a right, can no longer be said to exist; the owner of an estate, may, at any moment, destroy the right by making his will:" and again," Primogeniture, then, in this country is only a custom, not a law; is suffered, and not established." Now, we notice these In answer, then, to the question of B. S., Are my opponents prepared to forbid the practice and continuance of this custom " we offer a decided affirmative; and, in order to keep the matter of debate within as narrow limits as possible, we shall take as our grounds of objection two points brought forward by B. S., and which he calls "two peculiar advantages incident to primogeni ture." "The first of these," according to B. S. "is, that it is absolutely necessary as a means of maintaining the honours and dignity of a titled aristocracy like our own, where territorial power and aggrandizement forms an indispensable part of their state." This then, is our first objection. Through the operation of this law, the eldest son inherits the whole estate; the younger members of the family are rendered dependent, and, as a matter of fact, the country is burdened with a host of noble and titled paupers. This it is which, more than all other causes combined, secures the maintenance of the wicked, injurious, and abominable connexion between Church and State. Many of our great landlords possess the patronage of church livings; and, when that is wanting, the political importance acquired by large territorial possessions is potent in procuring appointments from the minister of the day; which, being granted from political and essentially worldly motives, are seldom bestowed with any nice regard to "the fitness of the two things," the nominee and the duty to be dis charged. It thus frequently happens that the holy offices of the church are profaned by the ministrations of unclean hands; that the "cure of souls" becomes a gambling speculation; that a useful and sacred profession is injured, and degraded in public estimation by being regarded as a sort of lottery; and that the "house of God" is once again wellnigh become "a den of thieves." These evils are directly chargeable upon that law, which, for the crime of not having been all born at once, cheats the younger branches of a family of a natural share of the common inheritance. Lordly goslings evince the same natural aptitude for "picking up" a living as their feathered counterparts, and it is natural that a strong instinctive attachment should be evoked towards that institution which provides an unstinted supply of both food and feathers for the large and necessitous class under notice. Upon the same law, and for the same substantial reasons, we charge the yearly increasing burden of taxation occasioned by the yearly increasing expenses connected with our armaments. The army in particular is overrun with lordly parasites. It is for their sakes that the commissioned ranks are kept carefully closed against deserving, if humble merit. "The true reason of our estimates being kept up, is to furnish comfortable, gentlemanly, and lucrative situations for our deserving aristocracy. Our standing army is officered by 5734 gentlemen, men who spurn an honest trade, or the profession of a merchant, but who, nevertheless, dabble in the commission market, for their own aggrandizement." "For the character, professional qualifications, &c., of these gentlemen soldiers, the reader is referred to the published opinions of Sir James Napier, and the Duke of Wellington. We assure our readers they are not flattering. But B. S. proceeds to put in a claim for merciful consideration on behalf of the aristocracy in general as "an essential and desirable element of the British constitution." Now, what, we ask B. S., is there in the history or present conduct of our aristocracy to justify us in regarding them as a desirable," still less an "essential" element of the British constitution? Have they not been the heartiest and most forward conservators of every political and social abuse? Who, as a class, threw the weight Financial Reform Tracts, No. 4, p. 58. of its influence and hatred into the scale against the unfortunate Queen Caroline? Who, in the same interest, supported the vilest of organs, and the vilest of personal instruments, in a weekly promulgation of the most heartless, impudent, and detestable calumnies? Who offered the most determined opposition to the progress of the Reform Bill? Who brought the country to the verge of civil war by refusing to concede the justice of the Catholic claims? Who obstinately opposed the sense of the country upon the question of the repeal of the corn laws? Who now constitute the sole barrier between the Jews and justice, in connexion with their entrance into parliament? And, who, in the pending struggle for further reform, are instinctively regarded as the only certain and dangerous obstacle to the realisation of a desirable re-distribution of political power? The English aristocracy a "desirable element in the British constitution"! an incubus and a curse. It has fastened a millstone of debt about the neck of honest industry; and has never ceased from its endeavours to increase the burden. It is sickly, sentimental, effeminate, and bigoted; too weak to dare the hazard of change; too imbecile to appreciate the reasons which may render it necessary and desirable. With the possession of the enormous power for good which wealth and station confer, what have they done for suffering humanity or national progress which should claim a nation's gratitude and praise? And if, therefore, "nothing would be a more serious injury to our hereditary legislators' than the attempt to destroy the custom of primogeniture," "this one fact" will, we confess, weigh with us as a strong reason "for supporting the" affirmative "side of the proposition now under debate." 66 It is The "The second great advantage of primogeniture is, that it checks the minute subdivision of land." This, as in the former case, is our reason for opposing it. possession of a county by a few great landholders-here is an instance: Stretching from the sea, right across to the verge of the next county, and embracing great part of the parish in which I sit, are the estates of three proprietors, which extend in almost unbroken masses for upwards of twenty miles. The residence of one of them is surrounded with a walled park, ten miles in circum |