strict accordance with these predictions.THIRDLY, that he appeared under the figure of the friend, who in his lifetime had made the promise; or in some way enabled her to recognize him as that friend; and FOURTHLY, that the spirit not only spoke, audibly, and in a language which she could understand; but that it was tangible; and of a temperature so high and ardent, as to communicate caloric with a rapidity and in an abundance, sufficient to burn the wrist of the lady, which, at her desire, it touched. By appearing, and by vanishing, it also indicated a power, of making itself visible, and invisible, at will.-Some circumstances of the transaction might be explained, by supposing it to have been a singularly impressive dream. But others of its appurtenants will not admit of this explanation: and on the whole, we must pronounce the narrative to be false; or a preternatural occurrence to have taken place. But again you smile; and for the third time since our dialogue began.

I smile to think, that we may be touching upon Irish politics, unawares.

Upon politics! How so?

By making one of the Beresford family our theme.

True. The times are out of joint; and as we cannot reduce the dislocation,-in the name of common Prudence, let us retire, and have done.

Agreed; so far as politics are concerned.— That "the better part of valour is discretion," has been pronounced by a greater man,* than either of us, I hope, will ever be. But dreams are not politics.

No; though political speculations may often be mere dreams; or 'such stuff as dreams are made of." I see what you are about. Next to your appetite for phantoms, is your hankering after dreams; and abandoning imputed politics, you would have us escape from them to these. Well! if an allegory and a vision will content you, these shall form our appendix; buttressed by an appurtenant essay, or selected extracts from one.

Nothing political in their nature, I presume? Certainly not. An essay is not political,

*Falstaff.

which merely asserts and comments on the undisputed principles of the Constitution. Blackstone, in his commentaries, has treated of the Constitution of England. But I have never heard any portion of these commentaries described as a political or party tract; nor the treatise of De Lolme, whatever be its merits, stigmatized as a work of Faction. The same observations I would apply to whatever has been written by Montesquieu upon the subject.-As for what you may find in my appendix, it is impossible that it should, with reference to present political differences, be of a party character; for this amongst other reasons; that essays which appeared in print, in 1792, could not have been written with a prospective view to the parties of 1835.—I say could not for though I hope I am a soothsayer, I do not claim to be a prophet.

Under these circumstances, I accept your promise of an allegory and a vision. At the same time, I confess, that the dreams which I was in search of, were such as you, and Beattie, and Lord Brougham had been treating

of.

Anything concerning these, we must postpone to some future ramble.

But shall we ever have another?

This will depend, partly on our own leisure; partly on our reader's will. A brisk purchase of the present dialogue will be a Le Lecteur le veut. On the contrary, a banishment of our lucubrations, to that quarter of the town, in which quicquid chartis amicitur ineptis is for sale, this, I fear, will be a Le Lecteur s' avisera.

But lest this Readerian assent and sanction should be withheld, and thus, that (although your occupations should permit) you and I might never have another stroll,-I would ask, in rather pedantic language, for a synopsial epitome, not so much of your arguments, as of your views.

If it can be given, by my answering your inquiries, you shall have it.

It can but you must submit to my repeating questions, which have been already put, and to which answers have been returned.-Do you assert that the human soul is immaterial?

No.

That it is material?

No.

And why do you decline asserting that it is immaterial?

1st. Because Revelation has not declared that it is so; 2dly. Because it has not hitherto been proved to be so; and 3dly. Because I do not think that such proof can, to merely human understanding, be supplied.

The first of the above three grounds stands equally in the way of your pronouncing the soul to be material.

It does.

On what additional grounds do you decline to assert its materiality ?

On the second and third ground, by me above suggested: viz. that the materiality of soul has not hitherto been demonstrated; and that I deem it unlikely that proof of this kind will be (to sublunary intellect) supplied.

But, in the course of our dialogues, you stated farther grounds for a denial of the materiality of soul.

Yes: I admitted that I did not know what matter was.