The magic of his voice! Rapidly, rapidly I followed him ; I threw away the shield that burthened me, I threw away from me the encumbering sword, The tale was ended-the old man was vanished. The soft silk, light and delicate, And feel no wounds but those of Love!"-pp. 161–163. We almost regret that Dr. Anster allowed the poem 66 On the death of the Princess Charlotte," to form a part of the present collection. It is a prize poem in blank verse. Prize-poems are seldom highly prized beyond the walls where they have been read; besides, the subject is one which, in our opinion, would be best treated in a more compressed and condensed form; nevertheless there are, as the reader will observe, passages of considerable power scattered throughout the composition. We cannot help regretting that the loss of the child is not brought forward more prominently. What admirable use has Milton made of the infant, where in a nearly similar case, he elegizes the Marchioness of Winchester! "So have I seen some tender slip, Sav'd with care from winter's nip, The pride of her carnation train, Pluck'd up by some unheedy swain, Who only thought to crop the flower, New shot up from vernal shower." "The Five Oaks of Dallwitz" is translated with freedom and grace, and partakes, even in its transfusion, of the characteristic bold romance of Körner's muse. We are not quite satisfied, however, with the expressionBright records of a better day," as applied to the oaks; nor is there any authority for the epithet in the original line "Alte Zeiten alte treue Zeugen." Bright is an adjective properly applicable neither to oaks nor records, as its substantive. We fancy that in using this word the author intended to convey the clearness of the testimony; but it is done awkwardly, at least, if not incorrectly. As we are in a carping mood, we 1 would here give expression to our wish that the book before us had been shorter by two pages. We could gladly have continued to recline under the peaceful shade of the "Five Oaks," without having our reverie interrupted by the howling and hooting of the animals let loose upon us in the "Nursery Rhymes," which immediately follow. We much fear that whatever custom may have sanctioned in the land of Goethe and Retsch, as applicable to the education or amusement of the wunder-kinder of the fatherland, our "march of intellect" nurseries would repel with phrenologic horror such primitive monstrosities as these. They teem with horrors such as would be refused admittance into any of those duodecimos, in which, under the name of "libraries," are comprised all legitimate knowledge for youth; and as they would be thus legally excluded from the region of governesses and go-carts above, so they would scarcely gain a welcome in the more adult and less castigated collection below. Seriously, the lines are unfit for children, and thus lose their principal claim upon our notice. With such objections, which, slight as they are, are all we can make, we take our leave of Dr. Anster's volume. We thought it our duty both to him and to the public, to speak sincerely, both in praise and blame. Our commendations are heart-felt, and our criticism, even where it appears condemnatory, is kindly meant, the author may be assured. We hail with gratitude the gift of a little work like this to our studies and boudoirs, filled as they generally are with the outpourings of the London press. In the language we have already used, (see our last number,) we are beginning "to collect our scattered forces," and to concentrate here a literature and a communicating medium of our own. Could we but ensure such contributions as these, we might look to vying with the "modern Athens" at no very distant period. It should be the object of the thinking portion of the public, the gentry, the aristocracy, the talent of the land, to confirm and strengthen what has begun under such happy auspices. Let them be assured, that the domestication of intellect will tend more than they are aware to unite us to our fellow-countrymen at the other side of the channel, and to render those fellow-countrymen desirous of more intimate union with us. It will tend in no small degree, we are confident, to smooth the turbulence of faction, thus to cast taste and refinement like oil upon the waters. We have a natural jealousy of receiving our intellectual aliment from hands not native. We seize with avidity and pride what we know to be indigenous. Let us hope that the patriotic example of Dr. Auster will be followed by all Irish aspirants to literary fame; and that Xeniola will but be one of the earliest of a series of popular productions, emanating from the head and heart of our countrymen, and given publicity through the Irish press. A GLANCE AT POLITICAL AFFAIRS. BY TERENCE O'RUARK, A.M. If there were any touch of virtue, or trace of magnanimity in the conduct of the Melbourne administration, one could hardly help being moved to some degree of pity at its present abject condition-our indignation at its crimes might give way, in some measure at least, to our commiseration of its wretchedness. But there is nothing in this administration with which any feeling of respect or sympathy can possibly be associated. Our abhorrence of its mischief, is inevitably combined with disgust at its meanness. Administrations, like individuals, may be great even in their crimes-with a satanic spirit, there may be satanic strength, but this administration is as paltry, as it is pernicious. The enormous evil which it produces, is not by the exertion of power, but through the abandonment of duty. Even while we behold the coming destruction, which, through the agency of these ministers, has been allowed to begin its frightful progress, we feel that there is nothing for great men to grapple with. We cannot fight with truckling and with treachery. The present administration is a foe, in the neglect of which there is ruin, but in the conflict with which there is no glory. Thus the whole character of public affairs is degraded, and the honest politician is obliged to descend from the dignity of a soldier of the state to the condition of a constitutional constable-a watcher of faithless servants, who open the doors to robbers, for the sake of sharing the spoil. To describe the ministers of the present day adequately, we must borrow the language of a more eloquent period we must take the liberty of applying to the body of which this administration is composed, the language used by an "illustrious Irishman," respecting an individual. "In their mind, all is shuffling, ambiguous, dark, insidious, and little; nothing simple, nothing unmixed, all affected plainness, and actual dissimulation. A heterogenous mass of contradictory quali ties, with nothing great but their crimes, and even those contrasted by the littleness of their motives, which at once denote both their baseness and their meanness, and mark them for traitors and speeches, there is the same mixture of tricksters. Nay, in the style of their vicious contrarieties. The most grovelflated language, giving mock consequence ling ideas, they convey in the most into low cavils, and uttering quibbles in heroics, so that their compositions disgust the mind's taste, as much as their actions excite the soul's abhorrence." These words fairly describe the Melbourne administration-the administration which Mr. O'Connell sneeringly compliments, upon its disposition to do justice to Ireland. Certainly no one knows its disposition better. He made the discovery at Lichfield House. Its talents he had known long before, and gave the world the benefit of his knowledge, in his celebrated epistles of October, 1834, to Lord Duncannon. Mr. O'Connell very accurately estimates the qualities of the administration, and uses it accordingly. But be ministers what they may, they have their reward. If they pocket the public money, they crouch under public contempt. If they enjoy the wages of perfidy, they also endure the suffering of sin. If any man supposes that, though despicable, they do not feel that they are so, let him walk into the Houses of Lords and Commons, and behold them there. He cannot be deceived; he will see degradation too palpable to be overlooked even by the pomposity and preposterous self-esteem of Whig-Radical ministers. He will see ministers of State cowering beneath the lash of Mr. Roebuck's petulant and flippant volubility, and Under Secretaries humbly addressing themselves to the level of Mr. Hume's honesty, capacity, and forbearance. Is it in mortal man to do this without feeling it? The malignity of the human disposition is generally in proportion to its meanness, and can we suppose that such men as these ministers, do not writhe with inward rage, while endeavouring to avert the dull growl of the arithmetical member for Middlesex, or bearing, in silence, the sharp invectives of the republican member for Bath? Most assuredly they would express their resentment if they dared; but these members, if their antagonists one day, will be their supporters the next. Ministers must not offend those by whose aid they live. The republican phalanx must not be affronted, because the King's ministers, though carrying on monarchy to-day, and, therefore, supported by the Conservatives, will be engaged in work tomorrow, which Conservatives will oppose, and which Republicans can support without violating their principles. Conservatives, as the ministers know, will not desert their principles upon party or personal grounds, and therefore, these magnanimous ministers feel it safe to insult them. They are still sure of their support against the enemies of the Church and the Throne. But the republicans they are not so sure of, and them, therefore, they do not dare to offend, even when their attitude is the most adverse. Nor is it, I think, conceivable, that any convenient cloud of self-conceit should so entirely shut out a view of the public sentiment from these ministers, as to free them from the sting of that contempt of their measures and them selves, with which public sentiment is imbued. Does any one deny that this is true? Let him consider for a moment what source there is of public sentiment in which this contempt may not be traced. It is true that in some public journals, and at some public meetings, certain measures of ministers are applauded. But examine a little farther-look into the ground of that applause, and you will see how certainly contempt is associated with it, and how likely the applause is to be merely politic, while the contempt is genuine and personal. The republican Dissenters, and the political Romanists, for example, applaud ministerial measures, when they are favorable to republicanism, and hostile to the Established Church. They applaud ministers, when ministers act as their tools. This they may do without having any respect for ministers, and whenever ministers cease to be their tools, the real nature of the applause. and the support which they have received from Republicans is soon made manifest. Consider the gracious opening of Mr. Roebuck's speech on Canadian affairs--a speech to which no "A few minister attempted a reply. nights since," said he "A few nights since, in the very place I now stand, I found myself advocating, in conjunction with his Majesty's ministers, justice to Ireland. I did so, and I would fain have hoped that they did sonot in obedience to any pressing exigency -not for the sake of present expediency— but in accordance with great, lasting, and universal principles of legislation—with those principles which teach us that if we desire the people to be well governed, we must allow them to govern themselves. This hope, however, has been raised only to be disappointed a week has not passed before my illusion has been destroyed, and I am compelled to see that we in vain desire such conduct from men in office amongst us, for they have neither the capacity nor the courage to be con sistent." Here is the opinion of the radicals. How much, then, is their applause worth to the ministers, in the estimation of those who intelligently judge? That for which they are applauded is, it seems, the practical promotion of the principle of self-government, or, in other words, the principle that the people shall govern the people. With profound deference to that most impetuous radical philosopher, Mr. Roebuck, I take leave to declare my opi nion, that his "principle" is neither more nor less than a modification of the thing called "nonsense." Most certainly, however, as he himself will admit, it is not the principle of the constitution of Great Britain and Ireland, even as altered by that act of the legislature, which, in a spirit of formality or of derision, is similarly described as an act for the "Reform" of the Commons House of Parliament. Reform indeed! But let that pass-I know what many good men and true intended it should be, and for that cause I hold my hand. The end to which I mean to come is this, and it defies contradiction by any one who will use his eyes and ears, and tell the truth-there is scarcely any public support of this administration, except on the part of men who openly avow political objects, which they as openly declare that these ministers are afraid to avow. How does this differ from contempt? But ministers are upheld by the favorable verdict of the House of Commons. This may be true to the letter, but no further. I wish to see this matter put upon its right footing. In the first place, whatever may be said of the present power of the lower house, I cannot look upon the spirit which prevails in it as any thing like a permanent spirit. It does not sympathise with the heart of the nation. The mighty change produced by the "Reform" act is yet in its infancy. That new system is still acting, and will for some years yet to come, be acting upon circumstances which grew up and attained their force and their direction under a different system. The representation of many of the large towns is enjoyed as the reward of the agitation which was found useful in the demolition of the old system. Old enmities are still at work, or the habits which grew out of them are still operating, when the grievances, real or supposed, which gave rise to these enmities, are gone for ever. A few years, ten or a dozen, perhaps, must alter all this. We know what an alteration the two years between the first and second general elections under the Reform Act produced. In Ireland the trade of agitation is always kept up, let what will happen, and the continuing cause will produce a continued effect; but in Great Britain, in spite of the Dissenters, the case is different. As agitation, and the old promoters of it, die away, we may expect a very different sort of representatives from those which the House of Commons now exhibits. It is upon the representatives of the new-made boroughs that the present ministers depend for their parliamentary strength. These representatives are generally men of coarse and confident minds, who have begun to study their political books of practice, somewhat late in life. They appear in the political world possessing power without generosity, and age without experience. They take up specious theories, founded upon a low conception of utility, and measured perhaps by the commonest rules of vulgar arithmetic. Their views are neither elevated by the enthusiasm of youth, nor corrected by a mature contemplation of public affairs. They are stubborn without any sense of the dignity of perseverance. They are not shocked at low contrivance. They are easily flattered. They are fond of the appearance of power. They are jealous of those above them harsh and unfeeling towards those below them. They are not gentlemen in soul, nor anything like it. Of such men is the ministerial body in the House of Commons composed. There are a very few of the old race of English country gentlemen who still vote with them; and that small number is continually growing smaller. The men I have endeavoured to describe are the ministerialists: the rest of the House of Commons is made up of the Republicans and the Conservatives; of one class, who would uproot and destroy the church, in order that "the people might govern themselves," in matters of religion, upon "the voluntary principle," and would also uproot and destroy the monarchy, and the aristocracy, in order that "the people might govern themselves," through the sole instrumentality of the House of Commons-of another class, who would uphold the church and the monarchy, upon principles of religious and political duty-principles for the sake of which they maintain, that all sacrifices ought to be made, and which it cannot be expedient to forego. Of these two parties the views and objects are at least intelligible, and their conduct is consistent with these objects. Whether they support or oppose the administration, these two parties remain true to their principles. When the minister proposes any measure the tendency of which is to un dermine established institutions in church and state, he is sure to find the Republicans with him, and the Conservatives against him; when he ventures to uphold these institutions the circumstances are reversed-he has the support of the Conservatives, while he is obliged to endure the loud reproaches and the hostile votes of the republicans. It is, however, to be observed, that as the general character of ministerial policy is destructive, there is a general and pervading sympathy between ministers and the republicans, and the latter are uniformly depended upon for succour when the question in controversy concerns the existence of the administration. It is only now and then, during some accidental extravagance of virtue, that the Whig ministers of the king are found to oppose the decided enemies of the established monarchical government. The principles upon which the conservative and the democratic parties proceed, are, as I have said, broad, plain, and intelligible. They are also directly contrary the one to the other; and, consequently, whether supporting or opposing the minister, these two parties are always found on opposite sides. But, in the ministerial policy, there is no intelligible principle, except it be that of yielding to clamor and in timidation, what they refuse upon any other plea that may be submitted to them. That which men of principle hold to be true or false, in all times, and under all circumstances, they regard as affairs to be determined by time, and the convenience of the day. The principle of the appropriation clause, which they scouted in June, 1834, they adopted in January, 1835; the principles which, in February, 1837, they affirm to be just, with respect to Ireland, they deny in March, 1837, to be just with respect to Canada. The principle of vote by ballot, which they now oppose, they hint, that, by and by, they may, perhaps, think it proper to support. With them, right or wrong depends upon the facility with which right may be maintained, or the difficulty with which wrong may be resisted. Every thing is right which must be done in order to keep them in their places. That alone is admitted to be wrong which they have power to resist. Make resistance difficult, swell the popular clamor, increase the popular agitation, be very violent, and do every thing which should disentitle a claimant to regard in the sight of a well-prin cipled government, and wrong becomes right. The old opinion is given upany thing, every thing is given up, except place! To do these ministers justice, however, let it be admitted that within a few days, they have removed one of the grounds on which previously they were justly charged with inconsistency. Up to the present session of parliament, a great difference was observable in their treatment of the Protestant Church in England and in Ireland. In Ireland, the church was comparatively weak, and surrounded by turbulent, implacable foes. The government, whose legitimate business is protection, threw the weight of its influence upon the side of persecution, and therein acted upon its usual system of siding with the party which seems, for the time, the strongest, wholly regardless not only of the abstract justice of the case, but of the law of the land, which, in the persecution of the church, was habitually violated. In England, the church was strong, and in spite of dissent, the still paramount religious interest; every where commanding respect, and interwoven in many ways, with the most permanent interests of property and legal right. The minister did not venture to attack this establishment, and every step taken with regard to it, was taken in concert with the heads and rulers of the church. Within these few days, this favorable consideration of the church in England appears to have been abandoned. So lately as last June, the leading minister of the crown in the House of Commons declared in emphatic terms, that it would be wrong to abolish church rates in England without an equivalent, and that it would be wrong to take that equivalent from the property of the church. The pressure from without which has since occurred, however— the clamor and the menaces of the radical dissenters, have altered the wrong of last June into right. The government says now, that it is right to take an equivalent for church rates from the property of the church, and without the consent of the church; nay, in direct opposition to what the church commission has decided as to financial possibilities, the government has proposed a plan to parliament of as direct spoliation, as could have been expected had it been the church in Ireland which was the object of their care. Both branches of the church now receive equal measure at the hands of |