phia Literaria, the points of difference between the poets of his age and those of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and expressing a wish for the blending of the characteristic merits of both, writes: "A lasting and enviable reputation awaits that man of genius who should attempt and realize a union; who should recall the high finish, the appropriateness, the facility, the delicate proportion, and, above all, the perfusive and omnipresent grace which have preserved, as in a shrine of amber, the sparrow of Catullus, the swallow, the grasshopper, and all the other little loves of Anacreon, and which, with bright though diminished glories, revisited the youth and early manhood of Christian Europe, in the vales of Arno and the groves of Isis and of Cam ;-and who, with these, should combine the keener interest, deeper pathos, manlier reflection, and the fresher and more various imagery, which give a value and a name that will not pass away, to the poets who have done honor to our own times and to those of our immediate predecessors." Now, this man of genius, whom thus the prophetcritic foreannounces, is ALFRED TENNYSON. In him the manly reflection of Wordsworth, the fresh, varied imagery of Coleridge, the gorgeous word-wealth of Spenser, the solemn-thoughted wisdom of Milton, the keen intensity of Dante, and the subtle versatility of Shakspeare, are in admirable union with the high finish, the appropriateness, the facility, the delicate proportion, and the perfusive, omnipresent grace of the lyrists of Greece. We do not say that Mr. Tennyson unites these characteristics in such degree that, by common consent, he should take precedence of the really great souls, Grecian, Italian, English, "whose thoughts enrich the blood of the world," but we do maintain that he so unites them as to have among the living poets of the nineteenth century no equal, and among the dead ones of the same century few superiors. Serus in Calum redeat. May he, through many years of health and labor, receive those numerous tributes of applause and love which the thoughtful, wise, and good, in two hemispheres, gratefully yield. NOTE. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S ANSWER TO THE PROTEST ON SLAVERY. WE have taken no part in the matter which has been mooted in our pages, as to an expression in the Answer to the Protest on Slavery. We have merely published letters on the subject, leaving it to our readers to decide. Since our last issue, we have received a second letter from Dr. Patterson, and a note from Judge Allison, inclosing a letter from Mr. Hastings. These, the gentlemen in question think it proper to publish, to put the whole matter in a clear light. The reader now has before him, in our present and last Numbers, letters from all the four gentlemen who were present when the Answer to the Protest was adopted. Mr. Kendall, the fifth member of the Committee, says, that "the paper was shown to him, but he does not remember the wording as to the point in question." It will be seen that Drs. Patterson and Allen have one distinct impression, and Mr. Hastings and Judge Allison an entirely different one. The language quoted by Dr. Patterson, from the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, makes a wrong impression as to our course. He quotes from us as follows: "In some way, the original paper was placed in the hands of the Stated Clerk, who has printed the paper as originally drawn, but not as passed by the Committee." Now, 1. We did not say that, but the following: "This paper as drawn at first contained the words, It has only conceded, that certain exceptional cases may exist,' &c. On motion of Judge Allison and Orlando Hastings, Esq., this expression was modified as we print it. But it appears, that in some way, the original paper was placed in the hands of the Stated Clerk, who has printed the paper as originally drawn, but not as passed by the Committee. We make this statement on the authority of Judge Allison, and not with the intention of blaming any one." From which it appears: a. That, so far from doing the Stated Clerk injustice, and making a mistake, we disclaimed all knowledge on the subject; stating that we made the change entirely on the authority of Judge Allison. b. The Stated Clerk omits the qualifying expression, "it appears," changing our supposition or theory, founded on appearances, into an assertion. an assertion. c. He omits our express statement, that we blamed or inculpated no one, of course, not him. 2. Our statement, so far from being made with an intention of injury, was offered for the express purpose of avoiding any charge against the Stated Clerk. Judge Allison believed, that the paper as printed, was not the one adopted, as to a single expression. How then was it printed in the Minutes? Having confidence both in Judge Allison and the Stated Clerk, we proposed a probable solution, inculpating no one. We trust the whole matter will now rest where it is. LETTER FROM DR. PATTERSON. REV. B. J. WALLACE: DEAR BROTHER: My letter of September 18, 1857, which appeared in the "Quarterly Review" for December, 1857, was written without any thought of its publication. Perceiving that your variation of the language, in the Answer to the Protest, had been made on the authority of Judge Allison, without consultation either with the Stated Clerk of the Assembly, or with any of the other members of the Committee, I deemed it proper to give you the facts in the case as I understood them. And by way of suggesting that the other members of the Committee should be appealed to, I expressed the opinion that they would confirm my statement as to the main point. Mr. Kendall was not present in the meeting of the Committee, but the paper was shown to him, as modified in the meeting of the Committee, before it was submitted to the Assembly; and, if I mistake not, his attention was particularly directed to the variation from the original draught. Dr. Allen has fully confirmed my statement, except as to the very unimportant question, who suggested the modification which was adopted by the Committee. The truth on that point is simply this: the conference of the Committee was entirely conversational; Judge Allison and Judge Hastings wished a change in the language-to which Dr. A. and I objected. I then proposed another form of expression, which Dr. A. proposed to vary a little. This proposition, made partly by Dr. A. and partly by myself, was adopted. There is, therefore, no real discrepancy between Dr. Allen's statement and my own, even as to this little matter. I have written to Judge Hastings and Mr. Kendall, requesting their impressions touching this question, but have not received any answer as yet. But I have the testimony of the Stated Clerk of the Assembly, which ought to be decisive. He says: "Your statement of the facts in the case of the 'Answer to the Protest,' &c., is fully confirmed by the original paper before me. It is in pencil, and in your own handwriting, as follows." He then gives an exact copy of the sentence, with the erasures and interlinings, and adds: "I have this moment read in the Presbyterian Quarterly, for the first time, the Note on page 243, of the September No., and have seen, with surprise, the following statement: "In some way the original paper was placed in the hands of the Stated Clerk, who has printed the paper as originally drawn, but not as passed by the Committee.' The Editors' have done me great injustice in this remark. I took special pains, in the publication of these documents, to collate the Records of the Permanent Clerk with the original papers, in order to the utmost possible accuracy. Had I seen the marginal note of the 'Editors' sooner, I should have corrected their mistake at an earlier date. Strange that it did not occur to them, before committing their Article to press, to drop me a line of inquiry." It is now settled, whatever may have been the impressions of Judges Allison and Hastings, that the paper, as read to the Assembly by Dr. Allen, and adopted by that body, has been correctly given in the printed minutes. I believe, moreover, that both Judge Allison and Judge Hastings were present in the Assembly when the paper was read and adopted, and they no doubt voted for it. It is too late to change what the Assembly have thus publicly done, by the "authority" of one or two or all the members of a Committee. Of course, Judge Allison has given his real impressions in regard to this matter. But they are not sustained by the original document; and it is certain that the paper adopted by the Assembly has been incorrectly given in the "Quarterly Review." DEAR SIR: Inclosed you will find a note from Orlando Hastings, Esq., of Rochester, who was in attendance at the meeting of the Committee, of which he was a member, to prepare an answer to the Protest of the seceding commissioners to the late General Assembly at Cleveland. Mr. Hastings' testimony is the more valuable, as it was called out by no suggestion or communication from myself, or from any other person, so far as my knowledge on the subject extends. His recollection agrees, substantially, with my own; and of the correctness of that recollection, as stated in my former note, I feel the more confident, from the additional consideration and reflection I have been able to give to the point in issue between the different members of that Committee, supported as it now is by the memory of Mr. Hastings. I am, very truly, yours, &c., VOL. VI.-44 |