not express that every tenant should bring his own verses ;- so that one poet-the Parish clerk, or Ploughman Giles, or any other individual addicted to composing sonnets, epitaphs, valentines, or bell-man's verses-might have sufficed for the village. In the present instance, however, it is affirmed that there

'-Shot through many a heart a secret fire,

A new-born spirit, an intense desire

For once to catch a spark of local fame,
And bear a poet's honourable name!

Already some aloft began to soar,

And some to think who never thought before.
But O, what numbers all their strength applied,

Then threw despairingly the task aside

With feign'd contempt, and vow'd they'd never tried."

By some means or other, or, as we should say at OakleyHall, by hook or by crook, when old May-day arrived, there was note-paper enough in readiness to answer the demand.

4..

"Thus came the jovial day, no streaks of red
O'er the the broad portal of the morn were spread,
But one high-sailing mist of dazzling white,
A screen of gossamer, a magic light,

Doom'd instantly, by simplest shepherd's ken,
To reign awhile, and be exhaled at ten.
O'er leaves, o'er blossoms, by his power restored,
Forth came the conquering sun and look'd abroad;
Millions of dew-drops fell, yet millions hung,
Like words of transport trembling on the tongue
Too strong for utterance. Thus the infant boy,
With rosebud cheeks, and features tuned to joy,
Weeps while he struggles with restraint or pain;
But change the scene and make him laugh again,
His heart rekindles, and his cheek appears
A thousand times more lovely through his tears.
From the first glimpse of day, a busy scene
Was that high swelling lawn, that destined green,
Which shadowless expanded far and wide,
The mansion's ornament, the hamlet's pride.
To cheer, to order, to direct, contrive,
E'en old Sir Ambrose had been up at five;
There his whole household labour'd in his view,
But light is labour when the task is new.
Some wheel'd the turf to build a grassy throne,
Round a huge thorn that spread his boughs alone,
Rough-rined and bold, as master of the place.
Five generatious of the Higham race.

Had pluck'd his flowers, and still he held his sway,
Waved his white head and felt the breath of May..

Some from the green-house ranged exotics round,
To bask in open day on English ground;
And 'midst them in a line of splendour drew
Long wreaths and garlands, gathered in the dew.
Some spread the snowy canvas, propp'd on high
O'er sheltered tables with their whole supply.
Some swung the biting scythe with merry face,
And cropp'd the daisies for a dancing space.
Some roll'd the mouldy barrel in his might,
From prison'd darkness into cheerful light,
And fenc'd him round with cans; and others bore
The creaking hamper with its costly store,

Well cork'd, well flavour'd, and well tax'd, that came
From Lusitanian mountains, dear to fame,
Whence Gama steer'd and led the conquering way
To eastern triumphs and the realms of day.
A thousand minor tasks fill'd every hour,
Till the sun gain'd the zenith of his power,
When every path was throng'd with old and young,
And many a sky-lark in his strength upsprung
To bid them welcome. Not a face was there
But for May day at least had banished care.
No cringing looks, no pauper tales to tell,
No timid glance: they knew their host too well.
Freedom was there, and joy in every eye.

Such scenes were England's boast in days gone by.'

Of the songs and recitals, we have been best pleased with "The Soldier's Home," and " Alfred and Jennet." The latter is a very simple and interesting little tale, written to shew that it is not ' impossible for a blind man to fall in love.' It is so much the best thing in the volume, that we hardly do justice to the Author in not giving an extract from it; but we could not detach any passage from the narrative without disadvantage.

Art. VIII. Reflections on Gall and Spurzheim's System of Physiog nomy and Phrenology. Addressed to the Court of Assistants of the Royal College of Surgeons, in London, in June 1821. By John Abernethy, F.R.S. 8vo. pp. 75. London. 1821.

THERE is no erroneous doctrine or theory which has for any

length of time obtained an extensive currency, but will be found to have been indebted for its success to some portion of truth imbodied in it. And the force of truth is in nothing more manifest, than in its procuring a reception for the errors in which it is enveloped. Had the speculations of Spurzheim been wholly baseless and unreasonable, had he been not simply a theorist but an impostor, no argument would have been necessary to disprove his Craniològical reveries. Nor would even

his acknowledged abilities, his professional eminence, and the benevolence and candour which distinguish his character, have long rescued assumptions wholly gratuitous from the contempt of all men of science. There can be no doubt that Dr. Spurzheim was actuated by a genuine and not unintelligent enthusiasm; and he thought that he had collected facts sufficient to warrant the inferences he deduced from them. We give him full credit for believing that he had new and important information to communicate relative to the nature of man; and we wholly acquit him of any insidious intention. Between the doctrine of knobs or bumps and an atheistic Materialism, there is no more necessary connexion than between the physiognomical speculations of the amiable and pious Lavater, and the doctrine of a mechanical Necessity. We admit with Mr. Abernethy, that much mischief might arise from a persuasion on the part of an individual, that he had such and such protuberances, which rendered certain tendencies irresistible. But Dr. Spurzheim no where maintains that physical tendencies are irresistible. A more rational line of conduct on the part of the believer in Craniology, who should discover in himself any knobs of bad omen, would be, to direct all his efforts to the watchful and sedulous counteraction of that organic propensity. Again, Mr. Abernethy objects, that

If an unbenevolent and inconsiderate man who had never studied human nature, were at once to decide from the form of the head, and suspect or believe all those who happen to be broad across the temples, of being covetous or crafty, he would surely injuriously mistake the character of many persons.'

But this objection would equally apply to physiognomy. A man's misapplying its rules, does not prove that those rules have no foundation in nature, but only that they are liable to misapplication. Since, however, it is native tendencies only, which either the lines of the face or the inequalities on the surface of the cranium are supposed to indicate, the man who should peremptorily decide on another's character, (that character which is the complex result of temperament, education, social habits, and moral discipline,) from the physical propensities of the individual merely, leaving all the other circumstances out of consideration, would but discover a craniological deficiency, not to say, a moral defect, in himself.

Leaving the doctrines of Lavater and of Spurzheim out of the question, the existence of certain intellectual and animal propensities in different individuals, cannot, we think, be rationally questioned. In what part of the organization these propensities reside, or by what, if by any, external signs they are

That they

indicated, is a question for after-consideration. exist in the brute, is a familiar fact: in them they assume the shape of a salutary and often astonishing instinct. And man, in common with the animal creation, is the subject of various modifications of what, in him also, we recognize as instinct. The love of a mother for her infant, and the principle of imitation in children, are unequivocal exhibitions of instinctive propensity. And these propensities, though common to the species, yet exist in different individuals, in various degrees. They operate without the influence of reason; (for this is our notion of instinct ;) yet, in man, they are susceptible of being regulated by reason; a circumstance which sufficiently discri minates the rational subject of such propensities from the brute animal. Now, there is nothing irrational, nothing necessarily derogatory to either the dignity or the free agency of man, in the supposition, that he may possess other instinctive and urgent propensities in common with the brutes, besides those to which we have adverted; for instance, a strong propensity to construct things, and an aptitude for such employment, a propensity to combat, or to hoard; that he may possess partial or individual propensities besides those which are common to human nature. Such predispositions make their appearance very early, and we call them turns of mind. We have seen infant mechanics, infant arithmeticians, infant heroes. The marks of hereditary temper and disposition also are discernible in the earliest stage of mental development. Whether these things are indicated by knobs or lines, or not, they exist, and may soon be detected.

The causes which determine the instinctive propensities of the brute, are not less mysterious than those which originate similar constitutional tendencies in man. There seems no reason to doubt that organization has much to do with them. Organization is at least a collateral cause, as it is adapted to the peculiar instincts of different animals, Yet, Mr. Abernethy justly remarks that, as in the instance of the propensity to construct in birds and insects,

the occasional, perhaps annual recurrence of this propensity, renders it probable that it is not organization merely which creates it, but that it arises from temporary actions occurring in peculiarly organized parts; and the rare occurrence of this instinct shews how long such actions may be suspended so as to render organization of no effect.

Admitting (then) that man, like animals, possesses in various degrees. a natural propensity and talent for construction, yet, no blind impulse regulates his labours; he constructs what his reason directs, or his fancy suggests; he forms previous plans or designs, and alters them till the whole seems to accord with his intentions; and yet, none of his works

are so unalterably perfect as are those produced by blind instinct operating according to the ordinances of overruling Intelligence.'

That organization is only one of the causes which create or determine the qualities of the brute, is manifest; because animals are seen to be capable of acquired habits not common to the species, capable of a sort of education, in which both rewards and punishments have their efficacy. So true is it, that did even the actions of men take place under a mechanical necessity similar to that which prompts the impulses of the brute, there would still be scope for a moral discipline, though not for moral probation; still a reason for the law which apportions reward and punishment to good or evil actions. If organization, then, is one of the causes which determine the tendencies of the animal, there can be no danger in admitting that it is one of the causes of predisposition in the human being. Regarding the brain as an instrument, (which is the proper idea of an organ,) we might expect to find a difference of adaptation in the organ, in relation to different intellectual processes; and a difference of adaptation must be considered as amounting to a predisposing cause. 'If we find the head more produced in ⚫ parts peculiar to man, it is reasonable then,' as Mr. Abernethy remarks,

to suppose that he will possess more of the intellectual character; and if in those parts common also to brutes, that he will possess more of those propensities in which he participates with the brute creation? We are

all naturally physiognomists; and almost every observant person has remarked the amplitude of this part of the head to be indicative of intellectual power.'

That men should be born with brains of different capacity, with different degrees of intellectual capability, or with different animal propensities, is no more to be objected against, than that they should possess different powers of mind, be born in circumstances so immensely dissimilar, and grow up to maturity under such widely varying moral advantages and disadvantages. The supposed physical or mechanical necessity in the one case, is not more real or absolute than the moral necessity in the other. There is, on either view, a limiting, but not a necessitating cause; an inequality in the distribution of good, which runs through the whole economy of Nature, but no overruling determination of the will. An organization precluding the highest intellectual attainments, cannot at all events be the cause which prevents the development of the intellect up to that point of organic limitation; and till cultivation has done its utmost, it is impossible to say what the organic structure will admit of. In the case of the Negro, a configuration supposed to be unfavourable to the intellectual