« ZurückWeiter »
dents of Mr. Butterworth do not seem to think that we have suffered any thing at all. They seem to think, that our subsidies of
seem, in short, to think, that we ought to look upon ourselves as their debtors to an incalculable amount; and, I should not wonder if they were to threaten us with letting the French looseupon us, if we refused them indemnification. At any rate, if Mr. Butterworth speaks truth, as to the contents of his continental letters; and, who will suspect so ghostly a man of uttering a deliberate falsehood: yet, if he speaks
truth, one thing is very certain, and that is, that the Germans believe what Napoleon has so often told then ; namely, that they were fighting the battles of England; that they were incurring misery and shedding their blood merely to advance the power and riches of England. These notions, if
lence. He did not say: “I see, friend, “ that thou art wounded in fighting for “my safety. I will, therefore, do my “best to heal thy wounds,” leaving it to be inferred, of course, that, the wounded man, if need was, might, perhaps, be able to fight another round in his service.
Mr. Butterworth speaks truth, have been No: the good Samaritan, who was no completely imbibed in Germany; for, as he Christian, and even belonged to a set of says, his correspondents tell him, that they people thought to be reprobates, did not have suffered in our stead; which has no stop to ask, in whose service the wounds other meaning than this: that, if they had had been received; but, seeing a wounded not sought the French, we should have been and suffering fellow-creature, he set about invaded and conquered, notwithstanding all relieving him at once. If Mr. Luke that Mr. Canning has said about the result Howard's motives were those of pure (it is not known yet) of the war having Christian compassion, wholly unconnected proved to the world, that England is able with all ideas of self-interest and security, alone to secure her own independence and why did it never occur to him to make her own greatness and prosperity. Be- some effort to assist in relieving the people fore these gentlemen come forth again upon of France, who, if we have been told truth, these subjects, it may be as well for them have, for many years past, been suffering to have a preliminary select meeting, a re- miseries of all sorts in the most supreme hearsal, in order to arrange their several degree ? But, Mr. Howard, have we no parts, and settle upon the doctrines and ar- sufferers at home 2 The very day on which guments that each shall bring forward; for, this meeting was held, the news-papers as they may perceive, this clashing fur- told us, that there were in the parish of nishes weapons for those, who are inclined St. Giles's alone, six thousand poor creatures to dispute the points which they appear to actually in a state of starvation. Have they have considered as indisputable. Mr. been relieved? No: unless the humane Luke Howard, the Quaker, is reported to man who pleaded their cause with the pubhave said, that the Society of Friends, who lic has stated falsehoods, which I do not reject baptism and the Lord's Supper, believe. Why need we send money to
as being idolatrous, would “join in the “object of the Meeting, because its “basis was Christian Compassion, upon “ which ground also he had accepted of the “office of assistant Secretary. He trusted,” he said, “that they would feel and act like “the good Samaritan, who said to the host “ of the wounded traveller; take care of “ him till I come again.” Mr. Luke Howard's “basis” is wholly different from that of the object of the meeting, which was to give money to the Germans, because
Germany, upon the pure basis of Christian compassion, while these and hundreds of thousands of others of our own country people are suffering so severely as they are? Here is quite field enough for all our compassion. We want no hunting abroad for miserable objects; unless we connect the feeling of self-interest with the act; unless we give the money as a reward for having fought in our service and for our security, as Mr. Wilberforce states it; and, if that be the basis of the gift, what becomes of the religious principles and of the pro
I am truly sorry to have been compelled to make these remarks upon the speech of Mr. Howard. My recollection of the excellent qualities of the Quakers, in Pennsylvania; my long observation, and, indeed, experience, of their real benevolence, their integrity, and their good sense, always makes me deeply regret to see any meddling and vain persons amongst them making the Society a tool in the hands of designing politicians. But, I feel myself disposed to exercise much less forbearance towards the personage, whose name stands first in the title to this article, and whose speech, upon this occasion, exhibits, I think, as complete a specimen, in a small Sompass, of egotism, vanity, folly, falsehood, and impudence, as I have ever met with in the whole course of my life. To do it justice, I must first insert it, word for word, as I find it reported in the newspaper above-mentioned, thus: ** The “Rev. Rowland Hill was of opinion, that “the sword had never been taken up in a “more necessary cause, than against that “wanton cruelty, by which mankind had “been harassed for the last 20 years. It “ might even be termed a righteous cause: “but for the battle of Leipsic, instead of “10 per cent. we must have paid 20. He “ had a worthy nephew, equally distin“guished for humanity and courage, who “was now fighting for an insulted nation, “ and against a kidnapping of royalty, “which must have been suggested to Buo“napart by the devil himself-(Loud ap“ plause.) Buonaparte might now squeak “for mercy as much as he pleased; but he “had shewn none himself when he had “the power. His nephew had received a “sword, worth a hundred guineas, from “the City of London, and he trusted they “would give another hundred guineas to “ the present fund. The Quakers, as they “were called, gave no money to kill, but “were always ready to give money to cure “(applause). He thought that in every “ episcopal diocese, the Dean and Chapter “should be called upon to assist the fund; “ and were he as high in the church as his “ nephew was in the army, he would set “ the example. As it was, he hoped they “would soon hear something from Surrey “chapel; for,
“ No woe should reach the ear, xx “That did not also touch the heart.
“The Rev. Gentleman concluded by mov“ing, ‘that all the corporate bodies be “invited to give their assistance to the
“funds of the meeting.” The motion was “seconded by Mr. Brunnmark and carried “unanimously.” Reader, you may not, if you live at a distance from London, know who and what this person is.-He is, and has been ever since I was a boy, a preacher at a meeting-house on the Surrey side of the River Thames, at London. He has long been famed for those sort of harangues, called sermons, which seldom fail to draw together great, crowds of the lowest and most ignorant of the people, with whom a bellowing voice and distortion of attitude do usually more than make up for the absence of reason and sense. One might, however, have expected from a person, with whose denunciations against pride and vanity the walls of his meeting-house (he calls it a chapel) are continually ringing; from a man who, in his “ sermons,” has no mercy upon the showy gowns and caps of the poor girls who are amongst his hearers; from such a man, from one of the elect, from a vessel set apart unto holiness; one might have expected to hear no boastings of any sort, and more especially of that mostdisgusting of all thesorts; namely, about one's family blood. Fielding, in speaking of a loan's beating his wife, after reprobating the act, generally, in very strong terms, does, I recollect, observe, that he thinks the medicine of a reasonable switch may be justly and beneficially used in cases where high blood breaks out in the wise. I do not recommend a similar remedy in the present case; but, I put it to the reader, whether it was becoming in any man, much less in a man putting in claims to superiority as a teacher of humility, to take such an opportunity of dragging out neck and heels, the fact, that he was the uncle of General Hill; and, in a speech of only eight sentences, to contrive to bring out this fact three several times 2 What had this fact to do with the subject before the meeting, which related to the raising of money for the German sufferers? First, he told his hearers, that he had “a worthy Nephew, “equally distinguished for humanity and “courage, who was now fighting for an in“sulted nation.” Without disputing the facts with him (for I do not know that the
are, or are not, disputable) what had they to do with the object of the meeting? The Nephew had nothing to do with the noney to be given to the German sufferers; he was not even in Germany; his example, or his authority, was not cited; his name was not wanted for any purpose of illustration. Why, therefore, drag' the pour General in, unless from a motive of the most consummate vanity? Next, this chosen vessel has to propose that the City of London shall be invited to give something to the fund; and one cannot help admiring the ingenuity with which he here brings the poor Nephew again upon the scene. The City of London, says he, “gave my...Wephew a sword worth a hundred “guineas, and I trust they will give an“other hundredguineas to the present fund.” A man with any sense of modesty, if he had wanted an example to refer to, would have cited some instance where the City had given a hundred guineas for charitable purposes; but who, besides this teacher of humility would have thought of thus bringing his Nephew upon the scene a second time, in order to convince his hearers, that the City ought to relieve the sufferers in Germany, because they had given a sword to an English general?—But, even this was not enough. The select vessel has to recommend to the Established Church to bleed freely upon this occasion. According to his account, the Devil is a very artful personage; but, I think, it would have puzzled the Devil himself to find out a way of hooking in the Nephew here too along with the Church. Yet Rowland Hill does it, and thus: the Church, says he, ought to be called upon to assist the fund; “and” (now, watch him :), “if I were as high “in the Church as my Wephew is in the “army, I would set the example.” Now, reader, can you form an idea of egotism and vanity more barefaced, more disgusting than this? Can you conceive how a man could find face sufficient to utter these passages, upon such an occasion, and amongst an assembly of persons, who might reasonably be supposed to be tolerable good judges of what they heard spoken? It has often been remarked, that, in point of front, men of this description surpass all the rest of the world. But, though the Reverend Gentleman's repeated mention of his Nephew was certainly extremely disgusting, it was not altogether thrown away upon me; for, I always thought, from the language and manner of this person, whom I remember to have heard holding forth some years ago, that he had been one of the lowest mechanics, or labourers. Indeed, till told of my error about two years ago, I thought that he was that famous coal-heaver, who made such a noise by his preaching; but I then found, that that nuan's name was Huntingdon, or Huntington, or something like it.
So that these expressions about his Mephew have, at any rate, given the world to understand, that this great preacher of humility has not sprung from the very dregs of the people; but, that he belongs to a family, who have been able to expend great sums of money, in the work of election at Shrewsbury.—We come now to the charge which Rowland prefers against the Devil. He says, that Napoleon, in his conduct towards the king, or, rather, kings, of Spain, must have acted “at the suggestion “ of the Devil himself.” Now, we might ask Rowland, in the first place, how he could know this fact, unless he had direct or indirect communication with the Devil; for, Napoleon could not give him the information without exposing Rowland to the charge of carrying on correspondence with the enemy. If he does not derive his information from the Devil, his assertion is made at hazard, and, for aught he knows, it may be wholly false. Then, if it be mere guess work, we may ask him, why he supposes, that the Devil should have had so much power. He must, I think, say, that he believes the Devil to be more powerful than God, or that God approved of what the Devil did, in this instant re; and, if Rowland adopt this latter opinion, with what justice, with what decency, with what face, can he rail against Napoleon for the acts he performed at the Devil's sug. gestion? Leaving Rowland to answer this question at his leisure, let us proceed to put a few other questions to him, first observing, that there can be little reason to suppose, that the Devil, if he were at the elbow of Napoleon at Bayonne, the same personage has not followed him in all his actions, as well before as after that time. Was it, then, the Devil, who suggested to Napoleon the putting down of the m/uisilion, and the turning out of the Monks and Friars? Will Rowland say, that it was the Devil, who inspired Napoleon with such inflexible and efficient hastility to these two establishunents of Christian Priests 3 I have heard Rowland bellowing most loudly against the Scarlet Whore of Babylon, whose seat was the seven hills of Rome. I have heard him rave about the cup of her abouninations, out of which the world had been made drunk. Well, was it, then, the Devil, who suggested to Napoleon to put down the Pope; to destroy his power; and to root out the Priests and the superstitions, by which the Pope was supported? Was it the Devil, who suggested to him the putting-down of the idolatry, as it was called, of the Church of Rome? Will Rowland assert the affirmative of this? If he does, what becomes of all his railing against the Romish Church; and, yet, it appears to me, that he must assert this, or he must confess, that the Devil had nothing to do in the prompting of Napoleon; for, to suppose, that he was prompted by him in some of his invasions and not in others, we must make the Devil a very whimsical being.—Rowland should observe, that the putting down of the cruel, the infernal Inquisition, in Spain, was not only the work of Napoleon, but it was a consequence of the very art of which Rowland particularly complains. I will not stop here to ask, what sort of kings those must be whom it was possible to kidnap. I will not ask, whether it was very likely, that they should be the fittest persons to be at the head of the government of a great nation. These inquiries, though proper enough to be made, do not come within the scope of my present object. The Inquisition, that proverbially cruel and infernal instrument of tyranny over the bodies and consciences of men, was
put down in consequence of the invasion of Spain by Napoleon, and of his putting a new sovereign on the throne. Now, could the Devil wish to see this bloody institution destroyed? And, if he could not, why are we to suppose, that it was he, who prompted Napoleon to the act which was the cause of it; and, if we were to suppose, that the Devil really was zealous for the destruction of the Inquisition and of the power of the Monks, should we not be led to doubt, whether the Devil be so very detestable a personage as we have been taught to believe him 2–It was the Devil, too, I presume, who, in the opinion of Rowland, suggested to Napoleon to establish by law, and on the clearest ground and most firm basis, religious liberty in France and Italy; it was the Devil, who prompted him to lay the axe to the root of superstition; to leave all men free to worship God according to their several opinions; to make all religious sects perfectly equal in the eye of the law; to abolish all religious tests; to open all stations and employments and honours to men of all religions, not excepting the Jews; to give, in short, to fifty millions of people, a perfect freedom in all matters relating to religion, and,thereby, doing all that it was possible for the greatest potentate of the earth to do for the success of religious truth.-It was the Devil, was it, Rowland, who prompted
Napoleon to do all this; who stood at his elbow and urged him on and chuckled at his success 2 It was the Devil, was it, who was at the bottom of this grand scheme 2 Come, Rowland, never hesitate, man : Say, at once, that it was the Devil, and then you will at least, be consistent. —The Bourbon Proclamation (my ANswer to which has been so much sought for) calls Napoleon an instrument in the hands of God. So, one calls him God's instrument, and the other calls him the Devil's instrument: If I were to venture, if I were to dare, to talk of the Deity in this familiar, this vulgar, this grovelling strain; if I were presumptuous enough thus to trace the events of this earth to the maker of the Universe; if I were thus to pull down the Deity to the level of my own narrow conceptions, and to make him almost a party in the squabbles of men; if I were to do this, leaving out of view all the great scheme of intermediate causes, I should certainly say, that Napoleon, in giving perfect religious liberty, in unbinding the consciences of so many millions of people, before subject to the cruel persecutions of ecclesiastical power, was urged on by God and not by the Devil. For many years past, we have heard of schemes for the abolishing of tithes, which, by all sorts of people, have been represented as the greatest of nuisances and the heaviest of burdens. From Mr. Coke, the most enterprising and public-spirited agriculturist in the kingdom, and Mr. Arthur Young, the most voluminous and very able writer upon the subject of agriculture, down to the lowest of the farmers, who, in the scale of being, are but one remove above the clods which they till, or, rather, leave untilled, and which are the masters in the struggle. From the Lord to the artisan; all, yea the whole nation, have joined in this cry against tithes, as a nuisance, a burden, a grievance, a cause of impediments to the growing of corn, a source of want and of misery. —I, who am called a great Jacobin, have never been able to see them in this light. But, if this be the proper light to view them in, was it the Devil; was it the Devil, Rowland, who suggested to Napoleon to drive the idea of tithes from his Code? I fancy, if you ask the opinion of farmers upon this subject, you will find that they are disposed to be: lieve, that, in this instance, at least, he was surely inspired by God. It is true, that I could wish, as, doubtless, pany persons in France wish, that more lib"Y existed
in France; I could wish the form of the government to be somewhat different from what it is, and, above all things, I could wish to see the people who pay taxes fully and fairly represented in a legislative assembly, having the real, not the sham, hold of the purse-strings of the nation. But, even in this respect, I shall be very slow to blame Napoleon. It is rarely that we find wisdom in all things meeting in one man. Napoleon was bred a soldier; he has, from his infancy, been used to military discipline; his ideas must necessarily be too much those of a soldier; and, besides, we are to take into our view the state of France after that revolution, which the attacks upon her from without had rendered so bloody. When the government came into Napoleon's hands, the first wish of the people of France was safety for person and property. It was thought dangerous to attempt any new scheme of liberty. And, therefore, we ought not so violently to censure Napoleon even upon this score; and, especially when we know, that those parts of his criminal Code, which are the most favourable to liberty, were chiefly of his own choosing. It is a fact, well known, and recorded in the speech of the person who proposed to the legislature the institution of trial by jury, that France owes this in particular to the inflexible adherence of the Emperor himself. Who, then, has a right to abuse him in the style which the base prints of London daily employ 2 They call him “the tyrant,” not only as if he were taken for granted to be one ; but as if he was the only one in the whole world. Mr. Canning so called him; but he did not attempt to establish the justice of that hateful appellation; he attempted to cite no instances of the tyranny of which he spoke. In short, like Rowland, Mr. Canning was a calumniator of a sovereign, of whose conduct he was ignorant, or whose actions and character he wished to misrepresent. I shall here take my leave of Rowland, with advising him to confine his attacks upon Napoleon and the Devil to his preachings, and then he will be in no danger of spreading the knowledge of his ignorance and malignity beyond the walls of his MeetingHouse.
MR. MANT AND CAPTAIN CAMPBell. Since my last article upon this subject, to which the reader will please to refer, in page 149 of the present volume, I have seen some authentic documents on the other side; that is to say, in favour of Captain Camp
bell and against Mr. Mant. Before I notice these, I will state Mr. Mant's charge against Capt. Campbell. It is this, that Captain Campbell, the commander of an English squadron, stationed in the Adriatic, did cause vessels of neutrals as well as of enemies to be stopped; and that, instead of sending them to Malta for trial, as prizes, agreeably to the law and his orders, took money from the Captains and Owners, and then let the vessels go their way. This is the substance of the charge; and a very heavy charge it is. In short, the act here described, is an act of neither more nor less than piracy upon a grand scale. Mr. Mant says, that he was the person appointed to stay on shore to negociate these ransoms, and to receive the money, and that thus it was he became acquainted with the facts.-This is a matter in which the interest and honour of the country are deeply concerned, and, I am, therefore, very glad to be able to state, that, from authentic documents, which I have now seen, I am convinced it is wholly unfounded. The case is one which would admit of misrepresentation, as, indeed, what case will not; but, after having examined the documents, to which I allude, with great care, I state it as my perfect conviction, that the charge against Captain Campbell is totally destitute of foundation. I wish I could give the same opinion as to the charge, which Mr. Mant says has been made against him. It was this; that, having been sent on shore by his Captain to manage the affairs of the prizes, he, Mr. Maut, took money for himself, in an unfair way. I said, in my last, that, as far as I could judge from hearing one side, Mr. Mant had exculpated himself from this charge. I have now, not heard, but seen, the other side. I need not dwell long upon the subject. It is a painful one, especially when I reflect on the respectable connexions of Mr. Mant. I have seen an original document, regularly attested before legal authorities, showing that Mr. Mant received 200 dollars “ TO CAUSE ME,” says the person who makes the declaration, ** TO HAVE ON ADVANTAGEOUS.. ** TERMS THE GOODS I BOUGHT “OF HIM.” These were prize-goods, which Mr. Mant sold for the benefit of the Captain and crew of the ship to which he belonged. Another document is a passport to permit a vessel to proceed with a cargo of corn, signed by Captain Campbell. But, after the signature, and without the Captain's knowledge, Mr. Mant