To and fro, and up and down,

She walks the Frozen Sea; Up and down, and to and fro, She wanders silently.

For 'neath the kiss of her cold feet
Grow flow'rs of strange device,
Yea, glittering drops of diamond dew,
And lilies wrought of ice.

Oh, she is fair, and very fair,-
An Angel with blind eyes,
She walketh in that lonely air,
Or croucheth low, and sighs.

But when the summer days are here,
And blow with warm sweet breath,
She lies stone-still in the still North,
Yea, in a trance of Death!

Then o'er her bends the Phantom Frost,
And doth not breathe nor stir,
But holds his finger lean and cold
Upon the lips of her!

And this is when our grasses blow
And pale sea-pinks unfold,
And in the meres our lilies' hearts
Are heapen up with gold.

And when the eight Winds rise and wail The Frozen Pole around,

Where darkness like a vulture broods

And brooding makes no sound ;—

She wakens !-rises with low cry
And stretches out her hands,
While Frost, the silent Phantom Frost,
Would clutch her where she stands.

A brand of fire as red as blood

Shoots from the thunder cloud;

The gods glare out with dreadful eyes Until she shrieks aloud!

Southward she rusheth down the blast,

She plungeth on thro' night,
Across the rayless Frozen Sea
Her robes pass, flashing white.

Far south she flies with swiftest feet
And leaves the night afar,
And slower, softer as she comes
Her winged footsteps are.

Until she gains these silent thorpes,
Where men and women bide,
And here with light around her head
She faltereth, blind-eyed.

She stretcheth out her hand so cold,
And slowly gropeth now,-
The world is white below her feet,
Heaven blue above her brow!

See! as she slowly stealeth on

The kirk-bells ring out clear!

Across her face there comes a gleam,

And softly smiling, in a dream,

She standeth still to hear!

[We regret to say that the corrected proof of Mr. Buchanan's “Faëry Reaper" arrived from the author last month too late for the printer. For "form" (line 10, p. 313) read "Farm," and for "Paudiou" (footnote, p. 313) read "Pandion." There were other errors, but they are quite unimportant.]

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE

UNITED STATES.

T used to be said that a member of Parliament once ran into the study of the late Mr. Babbage, and begged the philosopher to tell him in six words all about his calculating machine. I know of a case in which the editor of a London paper was asked some years ago by a friend to write him a few lines explaining the Schleswig-Holstein question. There was no reason, therefore, for the writer of this paper to feel surprised when a few months ago he received a letter requesting him to make clear the principles and purposes of the two great American parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, to show in what manner they corresponded or contrasted with the political parties of England, to inform the questioner which of the two he, being an English Conservative, ought to sympathise with, and to do all this on the postcard which, to save trouble, the querist had enclosed. The feat was not accomplished on the postcard, and it could hardly be accomplished very satisfactorily within the limits of this article. I only propose to tell the reader something about one of the two great parties, not to write the history of both, or of either.

But it is well to say in the beginning that we may give up any notion of explaining the difference between Republicans and Democrats by any reference to our English Liberals and Conservatives. There has been, at least in the past, no possibility of such a comparison. Not merely were the issues different, but we have not in England any of the conditions out of which such issues could arise as those which were chiefly in dispute between the Republicans and Democrats. It may be that in the coming time the question of party controversy between them will prove to be principally that of Free Trade against Protection, and then of course we should have a controversy like that which lately raged among ourselves. But there are so many Free Traders among even the most influential of the Republican leaders and journals that I can hardly think the lines and names of the old parties will apply to this new division. It will probably create an entirely novel arrangement and nomenclature of factions. In any case, however, the past history of Republicans and Democrats receives no enlightenment from any comparison with Liberals and Conservatives.

We might as well compare Humpty Dumpty with Abracadabra-to use Mr. Mill's illustration of a comparison essentially meaningless. Nor do the names Republican and Democrat convey in themselves any clear explanation of the nature and objects of the parties. There was a distinct historical source for the term Democrat when it first came to be applied; but to try to work out the political meaning of each party now by a study of its name would be as futile an effort as to attempt to discover by intrinsic evidence whether, let me say, "Flying Scud" and "Glendalough" were the names of yachts, racehorses, or coursing dogs. The divided objects of the great American parties, by whatever name they may have been called, are found in the political and the geographical conditions of the country. The history of the United States illustrates so far a struggle between State Rights and the power of the Federal system, which represents the country as a whole. This struggle, too, had always some immediate and practical object before it. The Southern States pressed to the utmost the doctrine of the right of each State to the absolute management of its own internal affairs because they wanted to be always secure of their slave system. The New England States called for an enlarged power of the Government and Congress over the whole Union because they felt that thus in the end must the slave system be put down. I am not going into all this weary question once again. It has been settled long ago. Years have already passed since I saw Jefferson Davis's official residence in Richmond occupied by Federal soldiers; since I was shown the ruins of Fort Sumter by the Federal commandant in Charleston, the city which holds the grave of John C. Calhoun, the parent of secession; since I saw negro lawmakers in New Orleans. But the broad distinction of ends and means thus suggested will help the reader to keep his mind clear as to State Rights and Union Rights.

The Democratic party, however, was not necessarily a slavery party. There would have been a Democratic party if there had never been a slave upon American soil. The name of the party arose out of the strong sympathies which Jefferson and his followers felt with the doctrines of the French Revolution. Their opponents, who preferred a more steady-going and Britannic system, called themselves Federalists; although rather inclined to limit than to extend the authority of the Central Government. The Democrats kept on advocating extended suffrages, liberal admission of foreign citizens, and the election of judges by the people; which the Federalists were naturally led to oppose. The Federalists passed away, and their place, or something like it, was taken by the Whigs. Then the

question of slavery came to the front and brought out new parties. The Democrats of the North naturally went with the Southern slave party; not that all the Democrats approved of slavery, but that they approved of State Rights, and thought Virginia and the Carolinas were entitled to do what they liked with their own. The Southerners made use of the Democrats, and between them they kept power in their hands. But then arose the Abolitionists, independent of both parties, and for a long time detested by both. The Abolitionists founded their party merely on the principle of opposition to slavery, and were willing rather to break up the Union than to allow the slaveowners to have their way and spread their system. It was clear that between these two parties, if they were unchecked, either the Union must be torn asunder or the Southerner must absolutely prevail. Therefore those who wished the preservation of the Union first of all, and who would have been glad to see slavery die out or be got rid of somehow-although they were not willing to root it out by central force-formed themselves into the Republican party. The Republican party took in the Abolitionists, but was not itself neces sarily Abolitionist; just as the Democratic party took in the proslavery men, but was not itself necessarily pro-slavery.

The growth of the spirit of secession led to a further modification of the old party arrangements. Many of the very best of the Democrats had been in favour of the doctrine of State Rights on principle, and because they believed it just. But when they found the slaveowners employing that principle as the means of getting up a rebellion they declared frankly their loyalty to the Central Government, and helped in the putting down of secession. They were called War Democrats; and passed, most of them, gradually over to the Republican party. "I was a Democrat when the word really meant something with us" said the venerable William Cullen Bryant once to the present writer. Mr. Bryant is now always ranked with Republicans, and will be of course a member of the organisation which calls itself Republican, so long as it keeps to the particular purposes which brought it into action, or so long as any of its original aims remain unaccomplished. But Mr. Bryant is a Free Trader as he was a Democrat. He was for State Rights so long as their assertion did not threaten the safety of the Union and claim the perpetuation of slavery: and he is for Free Trade as a first object of agitation when the danger which menaced the Union may be considered fairly out of the way. This single illustration will show how likely it is that new party lines are soon to be formed in the United States, and that even if the old names survive they will soon have new meanings attached to them.