« AnteriorContinuar »
entangled points. Of his system as a whole, we are unable to judge, since the work is not yet completed. We have not any great expectation that it will accomplish its avowed intention, of exhibiting, as in dramatic consistency, the beginning, middle, and end of the Divine dispensations, during the period of history comprised between the dissolution of the Western Empire and the recent adjustments of European affairs ; but, even to its present extent, it contains a great mass of weighty and interesting matter, and furnishes a valuable contribution to the philosophy of history.
We are deterred from entering into more copions details, by the absolute impracticability of comprising, even within much more extended limits than we could afford, an adequate abstract of matter so multifarious and complicated. We have, moreover, a strong suspicion that some of Dr. Miller's political doctrines may, in their final exposition, assume a form, in our view at least, exceedingly in opposition to sound and liberal principles. When the remaining lectures shall appear, a fitter occasion will present itself for reviewing the work as a system.
Art. V. The Origin of Frauds detected; or, a Brief Commentary
on Paley's Exposition of the Law of Honour: being the Sub. stance of a Discourse preached at Laura Chapel, Bath, Oct. 31, 1824. By the Rev. E.'W. Grinfield, M.A. 8vo. pp. 31. London.
1824. ] N this discourse,
the subject of which appears to have been suggested by events of recent occurrence ---Mr. Grinfield expatiates in an earnest and convincing manner, on the danger of substituting the capricious code of worldly honour, for the Law of God as revealed in the Scriptures. The argument is well sunmed up in the following paragraph.
• The religion of the Bible, cordially embraced and sincerely acted on, is the only sure and stedfast anchor amidst the storms and tempe tations of society. Unlike the principles of worldly honour, it is addressed to men of all classes and conditions, “ high and low, rich and poor, one with another:" it teaches us to consider ourselves as members of one family, and as children of one parent. Unlike these false and fallacious principles, it does not invite us to rush into scenes of p eril and difficulty: it encourages no prodigality or needless ex. penditure : it commands to owe no man any thing, but to love one
Unlike these transient and uncertain motives, it teaches us to regard the sentiments of man as at best dubious and variable; not to place our highest affections even on reputation or character when most deserved, but to remember that we should still appeal to a higher and better standard and tribunal, even to Him " who seeth in secret, and who will reward us openly." Such is the principle which is alone fit to be deemed a rule of life, because it comes to us invested with proper authority, and fortified with proper sanctions. It is adequate for time, because it is commensurate with eternity: and it can support us upon earth, for it comes to us from heaven. The man who has drawn his principles from the motives of worldly honour, may hope, by cunning and duplicity, still to retain the good opinion of the world and to avoid detection ; but he who cares more for realities than appearances, cannot be satisfied even with the strongest hopes of such an escape. He looks forward to the period when that which is secret shall be made manifest, when every thought of his heart shall be brought into judgement; and whilst his faith enables him to support his present trials or losses with patience, it guards him from many of those difficulties and temptations which must always encircle the votary of fashion.' pp. 31-3.
In his commentary on Paley's Exposition of the Law of Honour, Mr. Grinfield may be thought by some persons to have dealt rather harshly with that celebrated writer. Paley's intention was, to describe, and nothing more. He says in effect, • Here you have a naked statement of the system which a certain class of mankind have thought proper to construct for the regulation of their conduct. Is not the deformity of the system self-evident? Can it be worth while to throw away a word upon it in the shape of argument ?' Yet, we cannot but agree with Mr. Griufield in thinking, that Paley's statement is liable to much objection. He draws no line of distinction between true and false honour; yet, he speaks of honour as' a law · prescribing and regulating the duties betwixt equals. Now, according to bis account of it, what one duty does it prescribe, what one vice does it not tolerate ? Paley's law of honour is as much beneath the honestum' of Cicero, as that again is inferior to the morality of the Gospel. Why then, Mr. G. fairly asks, gravely introduce it in connexion with the law of the land and the Scriptures, as a fundamental, though defective element of moral science? We think there is much force in the fol lowing remark.
• How imperfectly this eminent moral writer perceived the opposition of the Law of Honour to the spirit and motives of Christianity, may be judged of from his recommendation to military men of
á Court of Honour with the power of awarding those submissions and acknowledgements which it is generally the purpose of a challenge to obtain." (Part II. Book iii. Chap. 9.) Now this recommendation goes on the supposition, that honour, as distinguished from honesty, is a principle which may fairly be appealed to by men professing themselves Christians ; for it would be unjust to suppose that Paley would have sanctioned any appeal that was adverse to the pre
cepts of the Gospel. But if there be any truth in the foregoing ara guments, the supposition is altogether erroneous. Honour is founded on pride, whereas Christianity is founded on humility. Hence it is, that offended honour is but wounded pride, which does not seek for justice, but for revenge, and that when it has the strongest ground of complaint, it is still vicious in its nature, and dangerous in its effects.'
Art. VI. The Spirit of the Age : or Contemporary Portraits. 8vo.
pp. 424. Price 128. London. 1825. SOME years ago, an amusing volume of this description
was put forth, under the title of Parliamentary Portraits.” Making due allowance for the Writer's political partialities, the characters of the leading men of that day were sketched with considerable fidelity and spirit. We know not whether these portraits are by the same limner: the style is somewhat different, but he seems of the same school. Whoever he may be, he is a very clever fellow. He has the pencil of Gilray, and can hit off a likeness with a few artist-like touches, which may, indeed, be called a caricature, but still, the exaggeration is so dexterously managed as never to injure the likeness. We say nothing as to the propriety of the mixture of newspaper criticism, biographical anecdote, wit, philosophy, and scandal which is here served up to the public. But the execution of the work is so brilliant as to conceal, if not atone for the equivocal and irregular character of the perform.
The portraits are, of course, stolen likenesses; it will be taken for granted, that the parties have not sate to the artist. It is evident, too, that the first object of the Writer is not to present a flattering resemblance, but to make a good picture. The work has a flavour of the old times in its vigour, point, and coarseness. It reminds us of Bishop Earle's Characters; but here, though there is less scurrility, the personality is not less offensive. Public characters, however, may be considered as fair game ; and the excuse which the Writer offers for his harsh criticism on Mr. Gifford, may serve as a general apology: - as Mr. Gifford assumes a right to say what
he pleases of others, they may be allowed to speak the truth • of him.'
The portraits are twenty-three in number: they are as follow: Jeremy Bentham. William Godwin. Mr. Coleridge. Rev. Mr. Irving. The late Horne Tooke. Sir Walter Scott. Lord Byron. Mr. Campbell. Mr. Crabbe. Sir James Mackintosh. Mr. Wordsworth. Mr. Malthus. Mr. Gifford. Mr. Jeffrey. Mr. Brougham. Sir Francis Burdett. Lord Eldon.
Mr. Wilberforce. Mr. Southey. Mr. Thomas Moore. Mr. Leigh Hunt. Elia. Geoffrey Crayon.
The Author has done well to give the first place to his portrait of Jeremy Bentham. It is evidently a study. Nor could a more inviting subject have presented itself.
• Mr. Bentham is one of those persons who'verify the old adage, that “ a prophet has no honour, except out of his own country.” His reputation lies at the circumference; and the lights of his under, standing are reflected, with increasing lustre, on the other side of the globe. His name is little known in England, better in Europe, best of all in the plains of Chili and the mines of Mexico. He has offered constitutions for the New World, and legislated for future times. The people of Westminster, where he lives, hardly know of such a person; but the Siberian savage has received cold comfort from his lunar aspect, and may say to him with Caliban—" I know thee, and thy dog, and thy bush !” The tawny Indian may hold out the hand of fellowship to him across the Great Pacific. We believe that the Empress Catherine corresponded with him; and we know, that the Emperor Alexander called upon him, and presented him with his miniature in a gold snuff box, which the philosopher, to his eternal honour, returned. Mr. Hobhouse is a greater man at the hustings, Lord Rolle at Plymouth Dock; but Mr. Bentham would carry it hollow, on the score of popularity, at Paris or Pegu. The, reason is, that our author's influence is purely intellectual. He has devoted his life to the pursuit of abstract and general truths, and to those studies
“That waft a thought from Indus to the Pole"and has never mixed himself up with personal intrigues or party politics. He once, indeed, stuck up a hand-bill to say that he (Jeremy Bentham) being of sound mind, was of opinion that Sir Samuel Romilly was the most proper person to represent Westminster; but this was the whim of the moment. Otherwise, his reasonings, if true at all, are true every where alike : his speculations concern humanity at large, and are not confined to the hundred or the bills of mortality. It is in moral as in physical magnitude. The little is seen best near : the great appears in its proper dimensions, only from a more commanding point of view, and gains strength with time, and elevation from distance !
• Mr. Bentham is very much among philosophers what La Fontaine was among poets :-in general habits and in all but his professional pursuits, he is a mere child. He has lived for the last forty years in a house in Westminster, overlooking the Park, like an anchoret in his cell, reducing law to a system, and the mind of man to a machine. He scarcely ever goes out, and sees very little company. The favoured few, who have the privilege of the entrée, are always admitted one by one.
He does not ke to have witnesses to his conversation. He talks a great deal, and listens to nothing but facts. When any one calls upon him, he invites them to take a turn round
his garden with him (Mr. Bentham is an economist of his time, and scts apart this portion of it to air and exercise)--and there you may see the lively old man, his mind still buoyant with thought and with the prospect of futurity, in eager conversation with some Opposition Member, some expatriated Patriot, or Transatlantic Adventurer, urging the extinction of Close Boroughs, or planning a code of laws for some “lone island in the watery waste," his walk almost amount. ing to a run, his tongue keeping pace with it in shrill, cluttering accents, negligent of his person, bis dress, and his manner, intent only on his grand theme of UTILITY—or pausing, perhaps, for want of breath and with lack-lustre eye to point out to the stranger a stone in the wall at the end of his garden (overarched by two beautiful cottontrees) Inscribed to the Prince of Poets, which marks the house where Milton formerly lived. He is something between Franklin and Charles Fox, with the comfortable double-chin and sleek, thriving look of the one, and the quivering lip, the restless eye, and animated acuteness of the other. His eye is quick and lively; but it glances not from object to object, but from thought to thought. He is evi. dently a man occupied with some train of fine and inward association. He regards the people about him no more than the flies of a summer. He meditates the coming age. He hears and sees only what suits his purpose, or some " foregone conclusion :" and looks out for facts and passing occurrences in order to put them into his logical machinery, and grind them into the dust and powder of some subtle theory, as the miller looks out for grist to his mill! Add to this physiognomical sketch the minor points of costume, the open shirt collar, the single-breasted coat, the old-fashioned half-boots and ribbed stockings; and you will find in Mr. Bentham's general appearance a singular mixture of boyish simplicity and of the venerable. ness of age. In a word, our celebrated jurist presents a striking illustration of the difference between the philosophical and the regal look ; that is, between the merely abstracted and the merely personal. There is a lack-adaisical bonhommie about his whole aspect, none of the fierceness of pride or power ; an unconscious neglect of his own person, instead of a stately assumption of superiority; a good-bumoured, placid intelligence, instead of a lyox-eyed watchfulness, as if it wished to make others its prey, or was afraid they might turn and rend him; he is a beneficent spirit, prying into the universe, not lording it over it; a thoughtful spectator of the scenes of life, a ru. minator on the fate of mankind, not a painted pageant, a stupid idol set up on its pedestal of pride for men to fall down and worship with idiot fear and wonder at the thing themselves have made, and which, without that fear and wonder, would in itself be nothing !
• Mr. Bentham, perhaps, over-rates the importance of his own theories. He has been beard to say (without any appearance of pride or affectation) that " he should like to live the remaining years of his life, a year at a time at the end of the next six or eight centuries, to see the effect which his writings would by that time have had upon the world.” Alas! his name will hardly live so long! Nor do we think, in point of fact, that Mr. Bentham has given any new or de.