« PreviousContinue »
It does not appear, however, that the offended wagoner fell to throwing stones into the President's carriage, or hooting at him, the compliment so frequently bestowed on some of their present gracious majesties of the old world, when they appear before the eyes of their beloved subjects. It is amusing to see Mr Faux italicising obleege, as vulgar; a pronunciation almost universal in England the last century; and he himself from a country, where no known dialect of English is spoken; where they talk of 'orse,' and 'ouse,' of ' annythink,' and 'somethink,' of 'a lung while,' of 'the byes (boys) and gals,' and a thousand other things, which, for the mere English reader, require a version.
On the page last quoted, occurs the following sentence, which farmer Faux would obleege us by translating out of the Somersetshire into the English. This morning presented a poor fellow lying all night until nine A. M. in the street in a hot broiling sun, 110° by the thermometer.' From this specification of a person, presented by the morning as lying all night in a hot broiling sun, we should apprehend him to be one of those unfortunate persons, immortalised in the well known and pathetic exclamation,
To night's the day, I speak it to my sorrow,
That we were all to have been hung tomorrow.
But the Farmer proceeds;
He was found nearly murdered, having his legs both broken, and otherwise terribly bruised about his head and breast, and robbed of all he had, fifteen dollars. To the disgrace of the nightly watch and city sentinels, and to the open day humanity of the citizens, here was he suffered to lie saturated with pestilential dew, and in the day left to roast and be devoured by flies, until an old Prussian Colonel offered a dollar to have him removed, as a nuisance too disgusting to delicate nerves and sensibilities. Mr Brown, a landlord in Church street, then called out to two black men, "here, June and July come and assist, and tell August to help you.""
Thus spake Mr Brown and straightway they moved.Incipiunt magni procedere menses.
The Farmer facetiously adds, that but for the black men, June, July, and August, the poor forsaken sufferer would literally have taken three months to effect his removal. This too is quoted by the Quarterly Reviewer, and that fraudulently; for the ridiculous names of the servants, enough of
themselves to throw ridicule on the whole tale, are omitted, and the whole is put into English, which alone is a cruel satire on the Farmer. What inferences against the American character might be authorized by this occurrence, were it true, may be judged of by a parallel case, which we give as we find it, in the number of the Westminster Review already quoted. Faux's adventure happened in 1819.
Three years have not elapsed,' says the writer in the Westminster Review, since an aged pauper in the middle of this metropolis of London was thrust from parish to parish, from officer to officer, each contesting the liability to administer relief, till the last, on whose hands he was thrown, left him famishing with cold and hunger, in the open streets. The wretched sufferer, unable to crawl farther, laid himself down at night in a public thoroughfare near Drury Lane, where thousands passed by him regardless of his dying groans. The next morning he was found a stiffened corpse, and a coroner's jury brought in a verdict of" died by starvation." p. 253.
We have some doubt whether the Quarterly Reviewer will hereafter revive the story of Mr Faux's sufferer in the streets of Charleston.
On occasion of his visit to Columbia, S. C. Faux treats us with the following sketch, which is faithfully transferred to the pages of the Quarterly. There are one hundred and twenty five students in the university here, who are very disorderly, frequently disturbing congregations on the Sunday, because the head, Dr Maxwell, is too idle to preach, and thereby keep them together.' In the next sentence, the Reviewer says, 'The once notorious Joseph Lancaster expected to make a fortune in this free and independent republic, where no questions would be asked him on the score of religion.' Again, 'Mr Faux, being brought up in serious habits, seldom failed to attend, wherever he was, at some place or other of religious worship; he appears, however, to entertain a very humble opinion both of the preaching and practice of all the numerous sects, in this land of "liberal institutions." Some of them he found cold, others fanatic, and the more dignified time serving.' Finally, it is said, by this candid Reviewer, toward the end of his article,
'We are very much inclined to ascribe the vicious and heartless conduct of the Americans, with which every page of Mr Faux's
book teems, to the total disregard of religion on the part of the government. This fatal mistake in framing their constitution has been productive of the most injurious consequences to the morals of the people; for to expect that men will cultivate virtue and morality and neglect religion is to know very little of human nature. The want of an established national religion has made the bulk of the people either infidels or fanatics. "Some," says one of their writers, "plead the sufficiency of natural religion, and reject revelation as unnecessary and fabulous; and many, we have reason to believe, have yet their religion to choose." In the back settlements, here and there, a frantic sectarian holds forth in a hovel, or under a tree; and in the old states no kindly associations are connected with the gloomy and heartless performance of religious worship. The village church with its spiry steeple, its bells, its clock, the well fenced churchyard, with its ancient yew tree and its numerous monumental records of the dead, are here utterly unknown. Even the tomb of Washington is so totally neglected, that "it might be mistaken," Mr Faux says, "for a dog kennel, or a mound much resembling a potato grave in England, the door rotting away, such as would disgrace an English pig stye." American apologist for this neglect admitted that among his countrymen, the corpse was no sooner laid in the earth, than it appeared to be forgotten; and "that the tear of sorrow, and the hand of affection neither bedews nor decorates the sward under which the friend, the parent, the relative reposes." "It is in vain to look into the burial grounds of this country, for the pensive cypress or the melancholy willow, the virgin weeping over the urn of her departed lover, or the mother hanging over the grave of her darling child. No flower blooms bedewed with the tear of affection. All is waste, and dreary, and dead, as the sunken grave over which you pass; and a few stones, on which are engraved the name and age of the deceased, are all that remains to manifest the affection of the living to those who have passed away and are no more."' p. 369.
We have quoted these few passages for the sake of showing more fully to our readers, what kind of ribaldry may find admittance into the most extensively circulated literary journal in the world, and to what ruthless hands is committed the important duty of influencing the public feeling in England toward this country. We proceed to a few remarks on the separate points in these quotations. First, we would speak of the indecency, with which the Reviewer quotes Faux's brutal insolence toward persons, whom he calls by name. Was the Reviewer so well convinced of the correctness of VOL. XIX.-NO. 44.
Faux's statement relative to the learned and respectable Dr Maxcy, (to whom he refers under the name of Maxwell,) that he felt it safe to copy a libel against him, to accuse him of neglecting, through idleness, to preach on the Sabbath, and in consequence permitting the students, over whom he presided, to roam the streets, and disturb the peace of the day? Faux arrived in Columbia on Thursday and left it on Friday; his information, therefore, as to what Dr Maxcy, or the students did, or neglected to do, was but hearsay, and he does not intimate the nature of his authority. The Quarterly Reviewer knows that his journal is reprinted in America, and must therefore have supposed, that this grave charge against a man in a responsible station would meet the eyes of the individual concerned, of his friends, and of the public. Was it, under these circumstances, either prudent or fair to quote this abuse of a man, who was, perhaps, entitled to nothing but respect? As far as it was calculated to wound personal feelings, this libel has failed of its aim. We have no certain knowledge of the private or official character of the late Dr Maxcy; but his high station, his well known reputation as a pulpit orator, and the tributes of respect to his memory abundantly satisfy us, that the Quarterly Reviewer is, in this case, guilty of wanton defamation.
We proceed next to the account, which the Reviewer gives of the state of religion in America. Here we are free to say, that for pharisaical censoriousness, and for unauthorised judgment of other men's consciences, we have scarce ever seen anything equal to his statements. He says, that the government totally disregards religion, that the want of an established church is a fatal error in the constitution; that this want of a national religion is the reason of the vicious and heartless conduct of the Americans; and that it has made the bulk of the people infidels and fanatics.' But is the Reviewer so ignorant of our institutions, as to suppose they are all derived from the federal constitution? That instrument has little more to do with the social, moral, and religious institutions of America, than the treaty of Amiens had with those institutions in France and England. Long before and long after the constitution was framed, some of the states in this Union had precisely that establishment of religion, which archdeacon Paley, (a writer whom this Reviewer has
occasion to defend in the very article we are considering,) quotes as a more perfect arrangement than that of England. Nay, it would seem that the Reviewer had, in his quality of editor in this number, been at war with himself as a writer, for in a subsequent article on Ecclesiastical Revenues, the account, which Dr Franklin gave of the laws for the support of religion in some of the American states, is quoted 'to confirm the opinions, which we entertain on this point,' viz. that the tithes are merely a servitude upon a part of the real estate of the country.
But if the want of a national religion be a fatal error in America, what is it in Great Britain, that the national religion in England itself is protested against by half of the population, that in Scotland a different, and, as English churchmen think, a schismatical and heretical communion is the established religion, so that we have the spectacle most extraordinary, and to the lovers of national religions a little scandalous, of different, mutually inconsistent orders of divine things pronounced by the same national law to be authorised by reason and Scripture, on the two sides of the Tweed; while in Ireland again, though the English religion is established by law, we have the spectacle still more perplexing to our poor transatlantic irreligious eyes of six sevenths of the people not merely not members, but bitter foes of the national church. Wishing to be set right in a point of great concernment, we do pray the Quarterly Reviewer to tell us, seeing the consequences to a nation of not having a national religion are fatal, what is the condition of an empire consisting of three realms, but governed by the same sovereign and the same parliament, and having a national religion rejected by half the population in one of the kingdoms, by six sevenths in another, while in a third, a dissenting sect is by law the established church?
But our government totally disregards religion;'-and what kind of regard should the government, as distinct from the constitution and laws, pay to religion? Does the Quarterly Reviewer think it an excellent thing for a queen to have a minister of religion whistle the word of God through the keyhole of her dressing room, while she changes her linen ;' or is he edified with the scandalous spectacle of the prayers of the House of Commons. The stranger, who is present at the opening of the daily sessions of the Congress of America,