Laid thus low by age? Or is't
All-grudging man has brought thee to this end?
Perhaps the slender hair, so subtly wound
Around the grain God gives thee for thy food
Has proved thy snare, and makes thy inward pain!
I needs must mourn for thee. For I, who have
No fields, nor gather into garners-I

Bear Thee both thanks and love, not fear nor hate.
And, now, farewell! The falling leaves ere long
Will give Thee decent covering. Till then,
Thine own black plumage, which will now no more
Glance to the sun, nor flash upon my eyes
Like armor of steeled knight of Palestine-
Must be thy pall. Nor will it moult so soon

As sorrowing thoughts on those borne from him fade
In living man.

Who scoffs these sympathies,

Makes mock of the divinity within;

Nor feels he gently breathing through his soul
The universal spirit.-Hear it cry,

"How does thy pride abase thee, man, vain man!

How deaden thee to universal love,

And joy of kindred, with all humble things,-
God's creatures all!"

And surely it is so.

He who the lily clothes in simple glory,

He who doth hear the ravens cry for food,
Hath on our hearts, with hand invisible,

In signs mysterious, written what alone

Our hearts may read.-Death bring thee rest, poor Bird.

Y.

A SONG OF PITCAIRN'S ISLAND.

Come, take our boy, and we will go
Before our cabin door;

The winds shall bring us, as they blow,
The murmurs of the shore;

And we will kiss his young blue eyes,
And I will sing him, as he lies,
Songs that were made of yore:
I'll sing, in his delighted ear,
The island lays thou lov'st to hear.

And thou, while stammering I repeat,
Thy country's tongue shalt teach;
'Tis not so soft, but far more sweet,
Than my own native speech.
For thou no other tongue did'st know,
When, scarcely twenty moons ago,
Upon Tahete's beach,

Thou cam'st to woo me to be thine,
With many a speaking look and sign.

I knew thy meaning-thou didst praise
My eyes, my locks of jet;

Ah! well for me they won thy gaze,—
But thine were fairer yet!
I'm glad to see my infant wear
Thy soft blue eyes and sunny hair,
And when my sight is met

By his white brow and blooming cheek,
I feel a joy I cannot speak.

Come, talk of Europe's maids, with me,
Whose necks and cheeks, they tell,
Outshine the beauty of the sea,

White foam and crimson shell.
I'll shape like theirs my simple dress,
And bind like them each jetty tress,
A sight to please thee well;
And for my dusky brow will braid
A bonnet, like an English maid.

Come, for the soft, low sunlight calls,
We lose the pleasant hours;
"Tis lovelier than these cottage walls,—
That seat among the flowers.
And I will learn of thee a prayer,
To Him, who gave a home so fair,

A lot so blest as ours

The God who made, for thee and me,
This sweet lone isle amid the sea.

Beyant

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW-YORK REVIEW.

Gentlemen,

I regret to be obliged to resume the subject of your review of the late "spurious" edition, as you term it, of Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures. The task is unpleasant, but justice to myself requires it—and I have too much reliance on your honor to doubt your willingness to let the public hear the accused, as well as the accusers. Any other supposition would be an impeachment of your candor and impartiality.

I did hope that I had placed the matter in such a point of view, as. would have induced you to retract your accusations. But I have been mistaken. They are repeated, and urged in stronger form. As editor of the edition in question, I am expressly charged with an attempt at imposition, by

"Leaving the reader falsely to suppose, that the order [for printing this edition] issued from the Congress of 1823-4."

This, gentlemen, is a heavy charge, and ought not to have been lightly made. The proofs ought to be clear and unequivocal, so that "he that runs may read." It implies a conduct of which I should scorn to be guilty, and I hope to prove that it is wholly unfounded.

I quote your last number, page 387, wherein, as I have stated, the charge is repeated.

"In the original, the title-page, after setting forth the name, &c. adds, "Printed by order of the House of Representatives.

"The present edition reads

66

1792.

[Printed by order of the House of Representatives.]"

1823.

This, and "no more, is the very head and front of my offending;" and on this foundation rests the strong charge of "falsely" leading the public astray.

It is to be regretted that these quotations are both materially wrong. Neither of them gives the printer's name; and both have the dates so placed as to refer to the order for printing, whereas the reference clearly is to the time of publication. This is a most vital error.

I now present you with the title-pages of two editions of this work, one printed at Washington, sixteen years ago, by order of the then House of Representatives, and the other that which has called forth the severity of your animadversions.

"Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of Manufactures, made the 5th of Decr. 1791.

"Dec. 7, 1809.

"Printed by order of the House of Representatives.

The other runs thus, and is very materially different from your statement of it:

"Report of the Secretary of the Treasury [Alexander Hamilton] on the subject of Manufactures, made the 5th of Decr. 1791.

"Printed by order of the House of Representatives.

Philadelphia.

"Printed by Joseph R. A. Skenel.

Jan. 1, 1824."

Now, gentlemen, I appeal to you as men of honor, whether this title-page warrants the aspersion you have cast on me? Is there the slightest possible connexion between "the order for printing," and the date, Jan. 1, 1824 ?

But what temptation could there have been to the alleged literary fraud? Was a system matured by the full exercise of the splendid talents of Alexander Hamilton, one of the greatest statesmen that ever flourished in this country, in want of the imprimatur of the late House of Representatives? Could the alleged simulation of the order for printing add an iota to the force of the arguments? Surely not.

On this point I have said enough. Two of the other charges, which make a conspicuous figure in the indictment, those respecting capitals and notes of exclamation, you have abandoned, as wholly unwarranted.

On the subject of italic and indexes, I appeal to an enlightened public, whether an edition of a work can, with any appearance of propriety, be termed "spurious," when the text is preserved immaculate, without alteration, suppression, or interpolation, merely because various powerful passages, shedding strong light on a vital topic, in which the country is deeply interested, are italicized, and six of peculiar importance are marked by indexes? I throw myself on their good sense and candor for a favorable verdict.

Two other charges remain- "the INTERPOLATION of a silly dialogue," (which, by the way, is not an "interpolation,"—it is given in the form of an "appendix,") and the conversion of a few words printed in italics, into the Roman character. With respect to the first, I have only to observe, that it does not affect the text-does not, of course, impart the character of spuriousness to the edition, and stands or falls on its own merits. When the original work was set up, it was found that there were twelve pages vacant, and, as the dialogue bore strongly on the subject, it was introduced to fill the void. And with respect to the other, there is not one change that affects the grand question at issue in the United States, as to the protection of manufactures. The one you have selected goes to a question of comparatively little importance, whether manufacturing industry is or is not more profitable than agriculture. Had we adequate markets for all our agricultural productions, we might then discuss this VOL. I.

11

question. But as we have not, the conversion of a portion of the labor now devoted to agriculture in the other direction, could not fail to be highly salutary.

Notwithstanding the repugnance we all have to acknowledge our errors, I flatter myself you must acknowledge, that neither the editor nor the edition merited the censure you bestowed on them. MATHEW CAREY.

March 15, 1825.

Remark.

One word in reply. Mr. Carey is tilting against a shadow of his own conjuring. We have nowhere imputed to him, since he has avowed himself the publisher of the report, the slightest dishonesty of motive. Mr. Carey meant, no doubt, to make a genuine edition; all that we have done is to insist that it is not genuine. This is a mere matter of opinion, and, to our opinion, we have as much right as Mr. Carey has to his. What we said, we said deliberately, and now repeat deliberately. The ambiguity of the title-page-the conversion of unemphatic to emphatic passages the interpolation, or appendage, (if that be a better word,) of a silly dialogue 'to fill up a void,'and, above all, the removal of the marks of emphasis which Alexander Hamilton himself affixed with his own hand to those passages which denied the superior productiveness of manufactures, are objections great enough, in all conscience, to impair the genuineness of the edition, without implicating, in the least, the motives of the editor.

AMERICAN NATURAL HISTORY.

A work has been projected, and, we understand, is now in press in Philadelphia, which promises to form an era in the progress of American Natural Science. Its object is to accomplish what has long been regarded as a great desideratuma complete history, at once philosophical and popular, of the American Animal Kingdom. Dr. John D. Godman, who has devoted himself to this arduous undertaking, is peculiarly qualified for the task; and the reputation he has already gained as an able and indefatigable teacher of anatomy, as a Professor of the Philadelphia Museum, and as an Editor of the Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal, will, we are confident, be greatly confirmed and extended by the publication of his "American Natural History."

The first part will comprehend the quadrupeds of North