Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Coast, the Slave Trade carried on by her citizens, or, at least, under cover of her flag, is hardly inferior to that carried on under the flags either of his Most Catholic, Most Christian, or Most Faithful Majesty? So perfectly irresistible do these arguments appear to us, that we agree with Mr Wilberforce in thinking that the American Government cannot long refuse to acquiesce in their validity, and "to exert herself in a cause where the happiness of so many millions is concerned !" If a qualified right of search were once acceded to, in terms of the recommendation of the Committee of the House of Representatives, the objections stated by Mr Rush, in his correspondence with Lord Castlereagh, in December 1818, to the constitution of the Mixed Commission Courts, might easily be got the better of by a new arrangement, equally effective in its operation, and more consentaneous in its character to the views of the American Government, and the fundamental principles of the Union. Till these great objects are attained, and till America and France shall no longer hesitate to go hand in hand with Britain, in a work which justice, humanity, and enlightened policy, unite in recommending to all nations, it is impossible that the Governments of Portugal and Spain should ever be hearty in the cause, or take effectual measures to prohibit a traffic, from which the neighbouring Powers continue to derive a sordid, and inhuman, but extensive advantage. The interesting intelligence recently received from Spain, however, that through the highly laudable efforts of Count Torreno, the Cortes had been induced to pass a law, inflicting an infamous punishment on all Spanish subjects engaged in the Slave Trade, and had determined to treat as felons, punishable with ten years' labour on the public works, persons convicted by the tribunals of this crime, as also to manumit the unfortunate creatures destined to slavery,-must tend greatly to facilitate the necessary future arrangements between this country and America. For "it is in vain for Parliament"(we use the words of the Marquis of Londonderry on the occasion of

VOL. XI.

Mr Wilberforce's motion,) "to conceal from themselves, that all their exertions for the suppression of the Slave Trade must be nugatory, while America and France are restricted from joining them!" We trust the example of Spain will have its due weight with Portugal, which, in defiance of the most sacred Treaties, and the recent happy change in the character of her Government, still continues to foster a traffic, which, if persevered in, must affix to her name the brand of historical infamy, and entail execration and shame on her latest posterity!

By what quip or cantrip of diplo macy, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, have been permitted to identify their Gothic, dark-lanthorned policy, with a question which, in no degree, concerns their secular interests, and which they are too legitimately barbarous to entertain upon arguments and considerations founded on such Revolutionary principles as those of Justice and Humanity, we do not profess ourselves cunning enough to divine; nor should we, perhaps, be much enlightened on this curious matter, were the "Holy Alliance" to put forth another Rescript, like that of Vienna, to be belied, like its predecessor, by their whole future conduct. But what, let us ask, are the facts? Russia has few colonies, and none where the labour of black slaves could possibly be employed ;— she has also few ships, and no foreign commerce- -at least none worth mentioning. What right, then, had she to put herself forward as a party in the discussions on the Slave Trade which took place at the Congress of Aix-laChapelle, and to oppose her hostile influence and inveterate prejudices to the emancipation of Africa, and the purgation of Europe from one of the foulest crimes ever committed against humanity? What right had she, who, in 1815, had denounced this traffic as "odious in itself, and contrary to the principles of religion and nature," to endeavour, in 1817 and 1818, to resist the only measure

the right of search-by which that traffic could have been successfully abolished? Having no colonies, and consequently no Slave Trade,-how could this right, claimed by the British Plenipotentiaries, even had it

L

been as malignant in its principle, and as dangerous in its operation, as it is exactly the reverse-how could this right have affected her interests? She could not surely imagine that the Slave Trade was to be put down by a few pages neatly written on parchment, even through the magical names of Barclay de Tolly and Pozzo di Borgho were appended: or, if she was insane enough to believe so firmly in the omnipotence of diplomatic parchment,-what right had she to stand forward and throw obstructions in the way of wiser and honester people, who only proposed to take effectual measures to do that which she herself had, in the most solemn manner, and in the face of all Europe, sanctioned? But let the reader mark the consistency of Muscovite policy. In 1815, she anathematised the traffic in human flesh, and seemed to be so much in earnest, that she declared she would shut her ports against the colonial produce of those nations who should persist in buying, selling, and torturing their fellow-creatures; and in 1819, just four years after this memorable declaration, a tariff* was promulgated, in which the foreign produce of those Powers who had abolished the Slave Trade is virtually excluded, and the monopoly of the Russian market given to those who had obstinately refused, notwithstanding repeated pledges, to discontinue it. Was not this offering a premium for the encouragement of the Slave Trade? Was not this contributing, to the utmost of her power, to support those inhuman monsters who have filled Africa with rapine and murder, and deluged that great Continent with blood? Was not this conduct "odious in itself, and contrary to every principle of religion and nature?" Had this hostile and malignant influence been exerted from any principle of interest, however sordid and base, it would have been at least intelligible; but as the matter stands, it appears to have proceeded from an innate hatred to every thing that promised to rend asunder the fetters of the slave, and to elevate him one grade in the mighty scale of Humanity,-a hatred so

rooted and deep, that it appears to have been more than a match for the usual principles by which the conduct of Cabinets is guided, and their decisions determined. But still the question returns-upon what known principle of international law could Russia object to the right of search at Aix-la-Chapelle? Every body who has made himself acquainted with the subject, can explain the conduct of France, in refusing her accession to it:-she has colonies, by our generosity, and the right of search once granted would, in a great measure, have annihilated a traffic, which, in defiance of every obstacle and obligation, she was resolved to foster and encourage. But it could not affect Russia, any more than it could affect the kings of Bavaria or Wirtemberg. How, then, came our Plenipotentiaries to suffer her to interfere at all? We hope Lord Londonderry can explain this-we cannot !

Whatever applies to the case of Russia must, a fortiori, be more applicable to that of Austria and Prussia. Where are their colonies and fleets to be met with? We say nothing of the moon, having never travelled thither except in imagination; but if she be made of ice, as the Liverpool Sage maintains, we fear she would furnish but cold quarters to the sun-burnt children of the torrid zone. Sure we are, however, that, on the surface of this terraqueous globe, neither seaman nor geographer ever met with, or heard of, the fleets or colonies of these great powers. Why, then, were they suffered to throw their weight, such as it is, into the scale against the poor, oppressed, tortured, enslaved Africans? Where a nation has no interest, it can have no right. These are equal and reciprocal. We have shewn that Austria and Prussia had no interest to be compromised by the abolition; they could, therefore, have no right to obstruct or oppose it. Is it not a proof, then, of imbecility, on the part of our Government, that they were at all suffered to interfere in a matter with which they had no manner of concern? We did not consult these

* See the Speech of Sir James Mackintosh, 27th June 1822.

Powers when we issued the orders in Council; nor when we carried into effect the belligerent right of search, and in consequence involved the country in a war with America; nor when we sabred the Reformers at Manchester; nor when we hanged, and then, that the operation might be quite complete, beheaded the heroes of Bonnymuir; nor when we appointed Secret Committees; nor when we passed the Six Acts; nor when we legislated for India; nor, in short, when we did any thing which we had deeply and seriously at heart. Now, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, had just as much to do with one, or all, of these matters, as with the Slave Trade. Whence, then, all this difference in the discussion of that question? If Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and America, abolish that murderous traffic, the natives of Africa run little risk of being dragged into slavery by the subjects and ships of Prussia and Austria. Is Great Britain, then, to be restrained and trammelled, in doing what she is imperiously called upon to perform, in obedience to the just feelings and opinions of her people, by a Divan of Northern Despots, who hate the very semblance and shadow of liber

We solemnly protest against being thought to insinuate ought against the perfect and entire sincerity of our own Government-far from it. Many of Lord Castlereagh's Notes to the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, and to the Earl of Clancarty, our Ambassador at the Court of the Netherlands, are masterpieces of forcible, and sometimes eloquent reasoning-for even he glides into eloquence on such an inspiring subject;

and we are quite satisfied that he has done-and, what is more, done zealously and ably-all that REASON or REMONSTRANCE can ever do on the subject. But still his conduct has not been satisfactory to the country-and for this best of all reasons, that he never assumed that attitude and tone which he was entitled to assume,—with the gigantic power and resources of this country, with Justice, Humanity, Reason, Religion, and Waterloo, at his back!! We hold it, however, as a truth, at once sacred and consoling, that THE PRESENT AGE IS TOO HUMANE, ENLIGHTENED, AND RELIGIOUS, MUCH LONGER TO ENDURE THE SLAVE TRADE!!!

These Preliminary Remarks have insensibly swelled out to such an extent, that we are compelled to postpone, till next Number, our Detail of the Atrocities of the Contraband Slave Trade, as presently carried on under cover of the Spanish, Portuguese, Netherlands, American—AND FRENCH flags.

MODERN FANATICISM †.

IF Micromegas, or the Saturnian philosopher, who, according to a lively Frenchman, once visited our globe, were again to arrive among us, and, without any previous knowledge of our habits and literature, were to endeavour to estimate our general morality and religion merely from the habits of those to whom either happened to be introduced, how different would that estimate be, according to the different circumstances of his introduction! If either hap

We cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of adorning our pages with an extract from a speech delivered by Mr Fox, in a Committee of the whole House, on the Slave Trade, April 2, 1792: "He knew it was an unpopular thing to renounce moderation; but he did not profess moderation on this subject. In Middleton's Life of Cicero, there was a passage which exactly described what he thought of moderation applied to the Slave Trade:-A man might break open a house at midnight, for the purpose of robbery, and might murder the father, mother, children, and domestics; but, said the passage, all this might be done with MODERATION! So, in like manner, by this sort of reasoning, we might proceed in this trade; we might rob, plunder, kidnap, murder, and depopulate a whole country, with moderation! He professed no moderation; there could be no qualification of such guilt; he was equally an enemy to all their regulations-regulations as disgraceful as they would be impotent !”

Sermons by the late Rev. Alex. Stewart, D.D., one of the Ministers of Canongate, Edinburgh. To which is prefixed, a Memoir of his Life, including Letters, Evo. Oliphant, Edinburgh.

pened to associate with one class of our fashionables, he would be apt to conclude, that knowledge and morality were designed chiefly for those to whom they are necessary for acquiring or continuing the means of subsistence; while the golden rule of his associates was to eat, drink, and be merry, their highest knowledge, the calculation of the chances of a gaming-table,—and their best morality, punctual payment of their debts of honour. If he associated with another class, he might find knowledge highly valued, and morality tolerably practised; but if he were to form his general estimate of our religion from either class,-from the Hunts, Carliles, Cobbetts, and some of our best poets and philosophers, such estimate would be neither very correct, nor very favourable. He would suppose that Christianity was so absurd or pernicious, as to be a fit subject of ridicule on every proper occasion, and neither valued nor practised by any one with the least pretensions to taste or intellect. If, however, our philosopher had been introduced to a third class of our citizens, he would conclude exactly the reverse of this. If he had fallen among the brethren of the Tabernacle, or those persons who, like them, appropriate to themselves the title of Evangelical, he could not but conclude, that we were the most religious people under heaven; and that since the days of La Trappe, and the other monastic establishments, there had been nothing to equal the quantity and regularity of their religious observances, their apparent humility, the rigidity of their self-denial, and the austerity of their aversion to all kinds of pleasure.

If one judged of our literature, indeed, from the evangelical tracts, monitors, magazines, and reviews, he certainly would not rate it high,-for he would find no great indications of talent, and fewer of taste; but he would surely be lost in unbounded astonishment, both at the earnestness of our efforts to convert our unenlightened brethren, comprehending two-thirds of the inhabitants of these realms, and at the uncommon success that seemed to attend these efforts; and if he thought of comparing the monthly obituaries here with those

of other countries, he could hardly fail to arrive at this proud national conclusion, that whatever might have been the case formerly in popish countries, more saints now make their exit from this favoured kingdom, than from all the rest of Europe together. We have every day printed and well-authenticated accounts of the child dying an hundred years old; and many a happy parallel to the case of the thief upon the cross!

Now, it has always appeared to us, that much of the statements contained in these evangelical reports and magazines is gross exaggeration. Nothing surely can be more absurd and ridiculous, than to publish memoirs of the lives and minutes of the conversations of children of seven years old. However satisfactory or consoling to relatives the recollection of such things may be,-to others it must appear highly ridiculous, gravely to assert, that children who cannot, without hesitation, distinguish between their right hand and their left, understand, and can express their ideas respecting some of the most mysterious truths of our religion,-respecting the divinity and incarnation of our blessed Saviour, for instance, or the depravity of their own nature,-or the doctrine of the atonement, the foundation of every sinner's hope.

It has become of late, too, very much the practice to publish memoirs of such unhappy persons as have forfeited their lives to the laws of the country, and sometimes to hold forth almost certain assurance of their salvation. Now, we think the utility of such publications very questionable. It appears to us, that such a practice too closely resembles that of a physician, who publishes an account of a difficult case which he has successfully treated. Neither the physician nor the divine is probably so much interested in the subject of his skill, as in another personage, viz. self; and perhaps neither is so very much concerned for the public, for whose temporal or eternal interest alone both accounts profess to be published:-but Dr A. is desirous it should be known, that he has cured a most difficult and dangerous disease; and the Rev. Mr B.'s regard for truth will not allow

him to conceal that he was the humble instrument of “plucking a brand from the burning!" If the hearts of either were narrowly examined, we cannot help thinking, that some such motive of pride or vanity might be often found lurking there, under the guise of zeal for the temporal or spiritual welfare of the public.

It is unquestionably our duty to attempt the conversion of such unhappy persons, and to prepare them for their untimely fate. Humanity requires it, Christianity enjoins it, the law of the country has in most cases commanded and provided for it; but still neither one nor all of these require the publication of the result of our attempts; and sure we are, that morality has not been consulted on the occasion. She would positively forbid all such publications. We mean not to say that such publication, though it did contain almost certain assurance of the late malefactor's having now entered into the happiness of immortality, would of itself induce any one "to go and do likewise;" but what we mean to say is this, that when a person who has already begun his career of guilt, observes that another, who he sees has done more atrocious deeds than himself-deeds that have drawn down the vengeance of human laws,-has, notwithstanding, obtained forgiveness and felicity, he is not very likely to stop short in his career. ing that the other has as yet gone far beyond him, he is much more likely to be tempted to fill up the measure of his own iniquity; and should he imagine that murder is necessary, either to attain his object, or to secure his personal safety, we ask, would the remembrance of such a publication have no mischievous effect at such a critical moment of temptation? A publication, which, by injudiciously offering pardon "to the chief of sinners," holds out to him the hope of eternal happiness, even should he do his worst; while, if he do so, he sees clearly that he diminishes the chance of being apprehended, or, if he should, silences for ever a most material witness against him. We think, if such a recollection were unfortunately to occur to his mind at such a moment, it would decide his choice; and that

See

[blocks in formation]

But to pass from these to more harmless memoirs. Never was the old adage, De mortuis nil nisi bonum so well understood, or so fully practised as at present. Indeed, so thoroughly is its force felt by many biographers, especially by those who undertake to write the lives of "just men made perfect," that it goes far to destroy the interest and utility of their biography altogether. Few indeed can recognize Humanity in the unnatural attitude in which she is often placed, and under the load of panegyric with which she is always encumbered. If something indicating the class to which the subject of the memoir belongs be permitted to appear, there is absolutely nothing, 'bating the circumstances of their births, deaths, and localities, that can distinguish any one individual from every other individual of the same class. It is in vain that we look in such memoirs for traits of character, or judicious anecdotes describing the man: it is in vain that we seek for their opinions of books, men, or manners, or any thing else that can render the account of the life of one man interesting to another:-all is so injudicious, formal, and laudatory, that one might venture to affirm, that there was really nothing. of which the writer had so great a dread as that one feature of nature should somewhere peep forth in his performance. This excessive lauding, and this want of nature, we take to be the perpetual and predominating faults in all religious memoirs. The portraits are commonly so general, that the likeness of any one might serve equally for the likeness of any other. These are the faults of Boston's, Newton's, (of Olney,) Bacon's, (the Sculptor,) Cadogan's, and Martyn's; all of which would have been

« AnteriorContinuar »