« السابقةمتابعة »
than it would do to make a correct likeness, by patching or compounding together a flattering portrait and a monstrous caricature. We have but a word or two, indeed, to add on the general subject, before we take a final farewell of this discussion.
We admit, that many of the charges which Mr W. has here made against our country, are justly made—and that for many of the things with which he has reproached us, there is just cause of reproach. It would be strange, indeed, if we were to do otherwise--considering that it is from our pages that he has on many occasions borrowed the charge and the reproach. If he had stated them, therefore, with any degree of fairness or temper, and had not announced that they were brought forward as incentives to hostility and national alienation, we should have been so far from complaining of him, that we should have been heartily thankful for the services of such an auxiliary in our holy war against vice and corruption, and rejoiced to obtain the testimony of an impartial observer, in corroboration of our own earnest admonitions. Even as it is, we are inclined to think that this exposition of our infirmities will rather do good than harm, so far as it produces any effect at all in this country. Among our national vices, we have long reckoned an insolent and overweening opinion of our own universal superiority; and though it really does not belong to America to reproach us with this fault, and though the ludicrous exaggeration of Mr W.'s charge, is sure very greatly to weaken his authority, still such an alarming catalogue of our faults and follies, may have some effect, as a wholesome mortification of our vanity. It is with a view to its probable effect in his own country, and to his avowal of the effect he wishes it to produce there, that we consider it as deserving of all reprobation ;--and therefore beg leave to make one or two very short remarks on its manifest injustice, and indeed absurdity, in so far as relates to ourselves, and that great majority of the country whom we believe to concur in our sentiments. The object of this violent invective on England is twofold; and we really do not know under which aspect it is most reprehensible. It is, first, to repress, if possible, the invectives which we, it seems, have been making on America ; and, secondly, to excite, there, a spirit of animosity, to meet and revenge that which those invectives are said to indicate here :-And this is the shape of the argument - What right have you to abuse us for keeping and whipping slaves, when you yourselves whip your soldiers, and were so slow to give up your slave trade, and use your subjects so ill in India and Ireland ?--or what right have you to call our Marshall a dull historian, when you have a Belsham and a Gifford
who are still duller? Now, though this argument would never show that whipping slaves was a right thing, or that Mr Marshall was not a dull writer, it might be a very smart and embarrassing retort to those among us who had defended our slave trade or our military floggings, or our treatment of Ireland and Indiaor who had held out Messrs Belsham and Gifford as pattern historians, and ornaments of our national literature. But what meaning or effect can it have when addressed to those who have always testified against the wickedness and the folly of the practices complained of, and who have treated the Ultra-Whig and the Ultra-Tory historian with equal scorn and reproach ? We have a right to censure cruelty and dulness abroad, because we have censured them with more and more frequent severity at home ;-and their home existence, though it may prove indeed that our censures have not yet been effectual in producing amendment, can afford no sort of reason for not extending them where they might be more attended to,
We have generally blamed what we thought worthy of blame in America, without any express reference to parallel cases in England, or any invidious comparison. Their books we have criticised just as we should have done those of any other country; and in speaking more generally of their literature and manners, we have rather brought them into competition with those of Europe in general, than those of our country in particular. When we have made any comparative estimate of our own advantages and theirs, we can say with confidence, that it has becn far oftener in their favour than against them ;-and, after repeatedly noticing their preferable condition as to taxes, elections, sufficiency of employment, public economy, freedom of publication, and many other points of paramount importance, it surely was but fair that we should notice, in their turn, those merits or advantages which might reasonably be claimed for ourselves, and bring into view our superiority in eminent authors, and the extinction and annihilation of slavery in every part of our realm.
We would also remark, that while we have thus praised America far more than we have blamed her—and reproached ourselves far more bitterly than we have ever reproached her, Mr W., while he affects to be merely following our example, has heaped abuse on us without one grain of commendation-and: praised his own country extravagantly, without admitting one fault or imperfection. Now, this is not a fair way of retorting the proceedings even of the Quarterly; for they have occasionally given some praise to America, and have constantly spoken ill
enough of the paupers, and radicals, and reformers of England. But as to us, and the great body of the nation which thinks with us, it is a proceeding without the colour of justice or the shadow of apology-and is not a less flagrant indication of impatience or bad humour, than the marvellous assumption which runs through the whole argument, that it is an unpardonable insult and an injury to find any fault with anything in America, must necessarily proceed from national spite and animosity, and affords, whether true or false, sufficient reason for endeavouring to excite a corresponding animosity against our nation. Such, however, is the scope and plan of Mr W.'s whole work. Whenever he thinks that his country has been erroneously accused, he points out the error with sufficient keenness and asperity ;-—but when he is aware that the imputation is just and unanswerable, instead of joining his rebuke or regret to those of her foreign censors, he turns fiercely and vindictively on the parallel infirmities of this country—as if those also had not been marked with reprobation, and without admitting that the censure was merited, or hoping that it might work amendment, complains in the bitterest terms of malignity, and rouses his country to revenge !
! Which, then, we would ask, is the most fair and reasonable, or which the most truly patriotic ?-We, who, admitting our own manifold faults and corruptions, testifying loudly against them, and feeling grateful to any foreign auxiliary who will help us to reason, to rail, or to shame our countrymen out of them, are willing occasionally to lend a similar assistance to others, and speak freely and fairly of what appear to us to be the faults and errors, as well as the virtues and merits, of all who may be in any way affected by our observations ;--or Mr Walsh, who will admit no faults in his own country, and no good qualities in ourssets down the more extensive of our domestic crimes to their corresponding objects abroad, to the score of national rancour and partiality; and can find no better use for their mutual admonitions, which should lead to mutual amendment or generous emulation, than to improve them into occasions of mutual animosity and deliberate hatred ?
This extreme impatience, even of merited blame from the mouth of a stranger-this still more extraordinary abstinence from any hint or acknowledgment of error on the part of her intelligent defender, is a trait too. remarkable not to call for some observation ;—and we think we can see in it one of the worst and most unfortunate consequences of a republican goyernment. It is the misfortune of Sovereigns in general, that
they are fed with flattery till they loathe the wholesome truth, and come to resent, as the bitterest of all offences, any insinuation of their errors, or intimation of their dangers. But of all sovereigns, the Sovereign People is most obnoxious to this corruption, and most fatally injured by its prevalence. In America, everything depends on their suffrages, and their favour and support; and accordingly it would appear, that they are pampered with constant adulation, from the rival suitors for their favour-so that no one will venture to tell them of their faults: and moralists, even of the austere character of Mr W., dare not venture to whisper a syllable to their prejudice. It is thus, and thus only, that we can account for the strange sensitiveness ..which seems to prevail among them on the lightest sound of disapprobation, and for the acrimony with which, what would pass anywhere else for very mild admonitions, are repelled and resented. It is obvious, however, that nothing can be so injurious to the character either of an individual or a nation, as this constant cockering of praise; and that the want of any native censor, makes it more a duty for the moralists of other countries to take them under their charge, and let them know now and then what other people say of them.
We are anxious to part with Mr W. in good humour ;-but we must say that we rather wish he would not go on with the work he has begun--at least if it is to be pursued in the spirit which breathes in this. Nor is it so much to his polemic and vindictive tone that we object, as this tendency to adulation, this passionate vapouring rhetorical style of amplifying and exaggerating the felicities of his country. In point of talent and knowledge and industry, we have no doubt that he is eminently qualified for the task-(though we must tell him that he does not write so well now as when he left England)—but no man will ever write a book of authority on the institutions and resources of his country, who does not add some of the virtues of a Censor to those of a Patriot-or rather, who does not feel, that the noblest, as well as the most difficult part of patriotism, is that which prefers his country's good to its favour, and is more directed to reform its vices, than to cherish the pride of its virtues.
With foreign nations, too, this tone of fondness and self-admiration is always suspected, and most commonly ridiculous—while the calm and steady claims of merit that are interspersed with acknowledgments of faults, are sure to obtain credit, and to raise the estimation both of the writer and of his country.
And now we must at length close this very long article-the yery length and earnestness of which, we hope, will go some
T: 'he philologers of Germany, whose labours have so largely
contributed to restore the text, explain the allusions, and elucidate the philosophy, of the writers of ancient Europe, have at last begun to direct their attention to those of India.. Mr Frederick Schlegel was the first, who, in an Essay on the language and philosophy of the Indians, indicated to his countrymen the sources of unexplored truths concealed in that distant region, and the important discoveries to which they might probably lead, in tracing the affiliation of nations, the progress