Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

had Lord St. Vincent's approbation; but upon this subject I have no information. These are the points of animadversion in the Review, respecting Admiral P. which required the illustration of facts to invalidate misapprehension and misre presentation. As I write from recollection, there may be others: but these I think sufficient to illustrate Admiral Patton's superior professional knowledge and merits and his patriotic motives, in the ardent desire he has to secure to Britain, against the united naval world, the supe riority of her fleets, upheld by the voluntary services of unequalled seamen, conducted by brave and skilful officers, and directed by maritime proficiency and judgment.

his merits and motives, should, upon the present occasion, be made fully known. R. P.

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.

SIR,

EING a constant reader of your

B met a

in your last number, upon which I beg leave te offer some remarks. In a piece intituled, "A Memoir of John Fransham," the writer observes, of a period in his life, that "Fransham was now ac quiring, or rather exercising, a marked detestation against the christian religion. This was much the fashion of the time. At the court of George the Second, the literature of infidelity was not frowned down." Whether this is meant as an oblique reflection upon the court of George the Third, I do not pretend to say. The writer by his manner, how. ever, seems to think that it was an excellency of the former reign. I am as much an enemy of persecution as the writer, though I do not think it is for the advantage of any state to encourage infidelity. The effects of it upon the moral and political state of nations, has been such, as to furnish a warning to all who wish well to their country. The li

The reviewer wishes to represent Admiral Patton as a croaker and projector, whose opinions ought to be disregarded. But, upon this occasion, it must Be remarked that his croaking rests upon the same foundation with his anticipation of the mutiny in the fleet, contrary to the judgment even of professional men. God forbid that the reality of his representations should again be demonstrated by the occurrence of the events he wishes to avert, from the obstinacy of undiscerning confidence, secure in the want of information. Upon this subject the soliterature of infidelity was not "frowned dity of his conclusions has been fully demonstrated. His despair of influencing the rulers of the state to remedy the defect, which has already so nearly brought the navy to ruin, by the occurrence of a general mutiny, has induced him to offer his opinions to the public, and finally to refer his statement of the situation of the navy to the good sense of the nation.

Among the arts used by the same critie, to create a prejudice against Admiral P. it is proper to advert to a most uncandid perversion of Admiral P.'s genuine sentiments of the military force of this country, under every denomination, whose zeal and gallautry deserve every praise he could bestow, which he literally meant as he expressed. How the reviewer could pervert this into a sneer, his intentions must explain.

The facts specified in the foregoing statement, were derived from Admiral Patton, but not upon the present occaSION. I am perfectly assured of their truth, and I state them without his know Jedge or participation. I am uncertain how far he may approve of this explicit publication, but I think that justice to him and justice to the public, require that all the circumstances illustrative of

down" in the court of Charles the Second, the cause or consequence of which was, that it was the most profligate of any court recorded in the British annals, to say nothing of its intolerance in matters of religion. But the writer proceeds, "It was thought to diminish the certainty and authority of theologians, and thus their asperities and persecutions." In proportion as infidelity prevails, it will naturally diminish the certainty and authority of theologians in the minds of sceptics; but if the remark is intended against christianity itself, facts do not confirm it. Christianity has suffered nothing from that examination which has been excited by deistical writers, and the generality of theologians have not felt the ground, upon which Christianity stands, less firm from the strictest investigation; nor consequently is their certainty or authority diminished, among those who have given it an impartial consideration. With respect to the asperities and persecutions of theologians, it certainly is desirable that they should be diminished, wherever they prevail; but whether the prevalence of infidelity would diminish these evils, is rather a doubtful question. Avowed deists and

atheists

atheists have seldom possessed the civil power; but in those few instances in which they have obtained it, their liberality towards those who differed from them, has not appeared to any great advantage. Where has there appeared a more violent spirit of persecution than in France, when the civil power fell into the bands of avowed unbelievers? On the other hand, we may confidently appeal to the New Testament to decide whether a zeal for Christianity, as there represented, would promote a spirit of persecution or not. To diminish the asperities and persecutions of thelogians, it is not necessary to abandon Christi anity, but to understand and obey its dictates.

But the writer assumes a bolder tone, in speaking of the supposed influence of infidelity upon the literary and military characters. "Inasmuch," says he, "as it unlocks the chambers of pleasure and banishes the fear of death." By the kind of pleasure here meant, we are led to understand, those pleasures which Christianity prohibits; while it allows all the sober, temperate, and innocent, enjoy ments of life; and therefore the passage seems to intimate that infidelity takes off the restraints which religion lays upon our propensity to excess in the indulgence of animal appetite, drunkenness, des bauchery, &c. &c. and therefore confers a benefit upon mankind. A shocking idea, but it appears to be the consequence of the writer's mode of expression. "And banishes the fear of death." If a man can persuade himself that there is no future state, no day of retribution beyond the grave, it may, indeed, diminish the fear of death, to such characters; but even then, annihilation is what nature dreads, and death is far from being regarded with indifference. It is not easy, however, for an infidel to be so esta blished; the fear of death has often discovered itself in all its horrors, when the unbeliever has apprehended its near approach; this is said, by an eye-witness, to have been the case with Volney, when crossing one of the lakes of North America, in a violent storm. But, respecting the military, does infidelity render soldiers more fearless of death in an engagement, and thus more brave? What facts the writer could bring to prove it I know not. But there are many instances of the most cool and steady courage in military men, who have most seriously believed the Gospel. Such were Colonels Gardiner and Blackader formerly.

And in the present day it is well known, that there are military men, both officers and common soldiers, who give the best evidence of their firm and serious faith in the Gospel, who have not been exceeded in courage, when exposed to the utmost danger of death, by any of their comrades, who have perhaps affected to despise them as enthusiasts. It is further said that infidelity "bestows frankness, strengthens the vigour, und enlarges the dominion of the intellect." I think the author is peculiarly unfortunate in the mention of frankness, as the effect of infidelity, when it is so well known that. many of the most celebrated unbelievers. have been guilty of the meanest disin genuity, in disguising their principles by a pretended belief in revealed religion. Thus Morgan professed himself a Chris tian in those very writings in which he labours to destroy Christianity. Voltaire, in a letter, still extant, requested his friend D'Alembert to tell a direct false.. hood by denying that he was the author of the Philosophical Dictionary. D'Alem bert in his answer informed him, that he had told that falsehood. Voltaire also. solemnly professed to believe in the Catholic Religion, although, at the same time, he doubted the existence of a God.

Collins, though he denied the truth of christianity, qualified for a civil. office by partaking of the Lord's supper, Shaftesbury did the same. Yet such men as these are continually declaiming against the hypocrisy of priests. In short, whatever may be the "vigour or enlargement of intellect," of which infidels may boast, they have no reason to take the praise of it exclusively to themselves, so long as Christians can claim such men as Sir Isaac Newton, Mr. Locke, and Sir William Jones, as the avowed, steady, and consistent, professors of christianity.

John Fransham, according to the memoir, was certainly a man of talents, industry, and learning; but it is to be lamented that he should employ them as he did. Had he impartially examined the New Testament, the only standard by which to judge of the religion of Jesus; he could not have considered Christianity and cruelty as synonimous terms. It must be attributed to prejudice or ma-. lignity, that he should entertain such an idea, merely because some, who call themselves christians, but neither re-. gard nor understand Christianity, are. cruel. CHRISTIANUS

May 9, 1811,

T

[merged small][ocr errors]

I

SIR,

WISH through the medium of your extensively circulated miscellany, to submit to the public some general remarks upon a subject, which now de servedly engages much of their attention.

Stimulated by numerous faults or misfortunes in the inanagement of our affairs, and by accumulating burdens and calamities painful and oppressive to all classes of the people, an apparently large portion of the community again loudly demands a Reform in the Com mens' House of Parliament.

That the state of the representation is partial and defective, can hardly be disputed. According to just theory, a body professedly representing the nation ought to be constituted by the suffrage of all persons having an interest in the state, as contributing directly at least towards its support, and not incapacitated by crimes, &c. from exercising their rights. Upon a purely rational principle, it would perhaps be difficult to justify the practice of allowing any person to have more than one vote, as for freeholds in several counties, or in the capacity of freeholder and member of a corporate town. Equally indefensible it appears in theory to be, that any towns should he privileged as such to return members to Parliament. All, it seems, ought to be chosen upon one uniform and equitable principle by counties or other districts. But there is a most important maxim in politics, which I trust all zealous advocates of reform will keep in view;-that very great or sudden changes in the institutions of a state are always attended with danger, generally with mischief, and sometimes with the dissolution, for a time at least, of the bonds of society. I hope that in the very moderate plan now generally -countenanced, which only seeks, I believe, to annihilate the rotten boroughs, giving the right of voting in towns to all householders paying taxes, and in counties to copyholders, as well as freeholders, to a certain annual amount, and trans. ferring to populous towns and counties a number of members equal to the number which had been returned from the boroughs disfranchised;-its promoters are influenced by this maxim, and do not limit their demands, because they despair at present of obtaining more.

form. This doubtless is, to fill the House of Commons with men who, if they are not exactly the representatives of the whole nation, shall be disinterested, intelligent, and actuated by patriotic and virtuous principles. To a British parliament composed of such men, no good administration would object; and with such a body, by whatever means they were chosen, all real friends of reform would be satisfied. A House of Commons composed of men of this descrip tion, would use unremitting vigilance and activity to promote the domestic interests, and secure the domestic welfare of the country. Their foreign policy would have no other object. They would es tablish a system of provision for the poor, and a code of criminal jurispru dence, not unworthy of an enlightened age. They would watch over the na tional morals, cause the rudiments of knowledge to be every where dissemina ted, give the utmost encouragement to useful science, arts, and literature, and endeavour so to govern that the neces saries and even the simple comforts of life might abound in the cottage of in. dustry wherever situated, or by whom soever inhabited. They would not be misled by the delusions of ambition, revenge, or military glory. Peace they would strenuously cultivate, as one of the foundation-stones essential to the superstructure of national happiness. In addition to the arguments against war which humanity suggests, in addition to every familiar objection; they would feel and urge as another motive for deprecating this scourge of mankind, that by its burdens it depresses the people, while so long as they can bear those bur dens it exalts the executive govern. ment."

But is a large number of men of this description, and also disposed and fitted for the station of a British senator, to be found? Alas my country! who will answer in the affirmative, and give demonstration or conviction of the fact? To rail against public profligacy and preja dice, would tend to no good purpose; but let us look the real state of things fairly in the face.

The question then occurs, whether by the proposed reform in our representation, we should introduce into our House of Commons, a large number of independent and upright men? More independence, In the consideration of our subject, at least of individuals or of government, however, the first thing that claims our we should certainly secure, and probably attention is the ultimate object of a le-a little more patriotism and integrity.

[ocr errors]

More

More men of generally virtuous principles, or of brilliant talents, would not, I apprehend, be added. The absence of imposing talents, however, we should have no cause to regret, if their place was supplied by plain sound sense; but virtue, public and private, is an essential requisite to a useful public character. It appears still that the alteration would, to a certain extent, be beneficial; and the purchase of seats in parliament, or the appointment by government, by peers, or by commoners, of persons to fill them, is an opprobrium which no langunge can exaggerate.

I am reluctant to repress ardour in a good cause. I desire indeed, that such a temperate plan of reform as has been mentioned, may be pursued until it is effected; not pursued however with a passionate warmth which, at the expence of the public tranquillity, would extort by violence what cannot be instantly obtained by reason; but with a firm and patient perseverance, which strives to overcome obstacles by peaceful and conciliatory means, and never deviates nor desists until crowned with success. while the friends of reform do not relax in their efforts, let them not be too sanguine in their expectations of the beneEcial effect of their plans, lest disappointment in this respect, when their ob ject is attained, should excite new and dangerous projects, or a restless desire of change. Men must indeed be individually reformed before society can approach perfection, or government be conducted upon right principles.

But

In the mode of elections, much of good might, however, be easily effected. A choice by private ballot in towns, parishes, or districts, and in every place at the same time, would at once check corruption, and abolish disorders, odious in themselves, and injurious to the public morals and happiness. Let this object then be above all things pursued, and its attainment will indeed furnish cause for triumph.

No person of candour can doubt that many oppose reform from a sincere apprehension, that, when the door of innovation is opened, we are not certain of our ability to shut it, but that revolution with all its horrors may rush in. Such opponents deserve, respect, and even their opinion is above contempt. But with prudent management, an evil so justly to be dreaded may doubtless be averted. The measure ought not to be intemperately prosecuted, nor ungraciously opposed; but considered with MONTHLY Me, No.214,

[ocr errors]

quiet deliberation, and without eclat be speedily accorded.

Let us be persuaded that so long as we approve the general plan of our political constitution, it is both our duty and our interest to treat every branch of the government with external reverence, notwithstanding our objections to some par ticulars in their construction, or to some features in their character. The deportment observed towards establishments, will not readily vary with the variations in their purity. Mankind are, and probably ever will be, passively led by habit, and instinctively impressed by names and forms. And it would be a lamentable error to suppose that the ill conduct of members of an excellent establishment would warrant us in destroying or endangering the establishment itself.

I would conclude with the remark, that as a virtuous end will not sanctify vicious means; so neither can a good object be safely and certainly promoted by men of general bad principles. I. N. H.

May 26, 1911.

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.

SIR,

THE

HE great problem about the liberty of the press may be solved in a very narrow compass. Its perplexity has been occasioned by the want of due discrimination between discussions on abstract and public topics and strictures on private character. The enemies of free inquiry purposely confound these distinct objects, in order to destroy all liberty; and the friends of discussion fall into the snare, and often defend the right of exposing private vices as apparently connected with the general liberty of the public press. Hence, the right to defame private persons being mixed with the right to discuss general public topics, both parties are right, and both at the same time wrong!

When a man, therefore, is tried in a court of law for writing a public-spirited attack on some corrupt measure of an administration, the Judge often exclaims to the Jury in language like the follow ing:-" Gentlemen, if such abominable libeis as these are to be suffered, you will not be able to sleep in your beds; your fire-sides will cease to be a sanctuary; and all that is desirable in life, and all that religion teaches us to hold sacred, will lose their protection and security !"thereby confounding things as opposite as the Antipodes! Such libals as those described, would indeed deserve dif$ X

ferent

ferent treatment from that which they usually meet with in courts of law; but to confound with them legitimate strictures on any public topic, is like confounding a pick-pocket with a public benefactor. Separate therefore these distinct objects of literary jurisdiction, and all mankind will agree that science, morals, law, religion, politics, economics, and the public measures and conduct of public men cannot be too fully or too freely discussed; but on the other hand, that too heavy a responsibility, and too severe a punishment, cannot well be inflicted on the deliberate, wanton, and malicious, violator of the sanctuary of a man's fire-side and family circle.

There can, nor ought to be, no restric⚫ tions in speculative inquiries on abstract subjects, or on topics of a public nature involving public interests, in which every man has a stake in his fortune or posterity, and therefore, as part of the grand jury of the public, he ought to be at liberty to indict and present them through the press. But it would be a mischievous anomaly in jurisprudence, and would tend to disorganize all the social relations, if every man, through the instrumentality of the press, were to be allowed to usurp all the powers of a grand jury, in regard to his neighbours; if every malicious unprincipled character were to be armed with the powers of an authorised grand jury, and be suffered publicly to indict and put on his defence every other man whose superior virtues were the objects of his envy or hatred!

Private vices, when they exist, are properly cognizable only before the tribunal of a man's friends and family; they are alone within the jurisdiction of his own conscience, of his religion, and of his Maker; but, if they ever become the instruments of public wrongs, they are then cognizable before a legal tri bunal, and punishable according to the enormity of their effects.

It is a monstrous doctrine therefore to confer on an anonymous or malignant writer, the province of a grand jury, and to expect one who has been slan. dered, and who seeks redress at law, to prove that the slander is in every sense false. It ought to be enough to shew that the libeller of private character has published wantonly and malignantly, that which, whether true or false, is specially or palpably injurious. To ask for more of him who prosecutes for ■ personal libel, is at once to con

for on every miscreant who can write in the language of Billingsgate, and who, from lack of principle, cares not what he says, the powers of a grand jury of the country. It is to put a man on his defence without the qualifications of number, property, oath, or honour, in his grand jury, and to expose him to the worst and most ferocious of tribunals

the conscience of an anonymous ac cuser, who, unseen, unknown, devoid perhaps of every honourable sentiment, and stimulated by a thirst of revenge, would seek to satiate his diabolical passions in blood, but for the legal responsibility at tending murder.

Let us for a moment look to the effects of personal slander: a man writes a libel on another, and obtains its circulation through a public newspaper: the libel is read by ten thousand persons in all parts of the empire, and an extensive and lasting prejudice is created against the li belled, highly prejudicial to his comfort, family, fortune, and laudable ambition: whether true or false, deserved or undeserved, the effect is the same on nine thousand nine hundred of those who divert themselves in reading it. They do not take the trouble to ascertain its truth or falsehood; it is not worth their while to do so; and, if they chose to do it, they have not the opportunity. Besides, who is to gauge the precise degree of its foundation; the premises may be innocently true, and the inferences false and malicious; and after it has in some supposed way been sifted and proved to be partly false, partly true, how few of the tea thousand take the trouble to discharge their minds of the first prejudice; and how many never read the contradiction who read the libel, and, while under er ror, spread it among ten thousand more. No contradiction, no apology, no da mages, no punishment of a personal li beller, can, therefore, competently atone to the party, and entirely wipe away the stigma imposed upon him. Ought, there fore, such a' license to be tolerated under any limitation? Ought it not rather to. be deemed a crime in its very concoction and genera, without considering either its quality or species?

I assume it as a general and wellfounded position, that whatever it is the duty of one man to propagate about another for any alleged benefit to the pub lic, may be made the foundation of a legal accusation before a grand jury; and the criterion of its fitness for diffe sion, will be ascertained by their deci

« FöregåendeFortsätt »