succeeding overseer and bookkeeper. A father parts for life with his child, whom in its very birth he consigns to slavery, with as much indifference as with his old shoes."(Ibid. Vol. I. p. 127.) NOTE ()-Page 193. "Valour, or active courage, is, for the most part, constitutional, and therefore can have no more claim to moral merit, than wit, beauty, health, strength, or any other endowment of the mind or body; and so far is it from producing any salutary effects by introducing peace, order, or happiness into society, that it is the usual perpetrator of all the violences which, from retaliated injuries, distract the world with bloodshed and devastation. It is the engine by which the strong are enabled to plunder the weak, the proud to trample upon the humble, and the guilty to oppress the innocent; it is the chief instrument which ambition employs in her unjust pursuits of wealth and power, and is, therefore, so much extolled by her votaries; it was, indeed, congenial with the religion of Pagans, whose gods were, for the most part, made out of deceased heroes, exalted to heaven as a reward for the mischiefs which they had perpetrated upon earth, and therefore, with them, this was the first of virtues, and had even engrossed that denomination to itself; but whatever merit it may have assumed among Pagans, with Christians it can pretend to none, and few or none are the occasions in which they are permitted to exert it. They are so far from being allowed to inflict evil, that they are forbid even to resist it; they are so far from being encouraged to revenge injuries, that one of their first duties is to forgive them ; so far from being incited to destroy their enemies, that they are commanded to love them, and to serve them to the utmost of their power. If Christian nations, therefore, were nations of Christians, all war would be impossible, and unknown amongst them, and valour could be neither of use or estimation, and therefore could never have a place in the catalogue of Christian virtues, being irreconcileable with all its precepts. I object not to the praise and honours bestowed on the valiant; they are the least tribute which can be paid them by those who enjoy safety and affluence by the intervention of their dangers and sufferings; I assert only that active courage can never be a Christian virtue, because a Christian can have nothing to do with it. Passive courage is, indeed, frequently and properly inculcated by this meek and suffering religion, under the titles of patience and resignation; a real and substantial virtue this, and a direct contrast to the former for passive courage arises from the noblest dispositions of the human mind, from a contempt of misfortunes, pain, and death, and a confidence in the protection of the Almighty; active, from the meanest,— from passion, vanity, and self-dependence: passive courage is derived from a zeal for truth, and a perseverance in duty; active is the offspring of pride and revenge, and the parent of cruelty and injustice in short, passive courage is the resolution of a philosopher; active, the ferocity of a savage, Nor is this more incompatible with the precepts than with the object of this religion, which is the attainment of the kingdom of heaven; for valour is not that sort of violence, by which that king : : dom is to be taken; nor are the turbulent spirits of heroes and conquerors admissible into those regions of peace, subordination, and tranquillity."-(Soame Jenyns on the Internal Evidence of Christianity, Prop. 3.) NOTE ()-Page 201. The conclusion of Montesquieu's chapter on War ought in justice to be subjoined: "Le droit de la guerre dérive donc de la nécessité et du juste rigide. Si ceux qui dirigent la conscience ou les conseils des princes, ne se tiennent pas là, tout est perdu et lorsqu'on se fondera sur des principes arbitraires de gloire, de bienséance, d'utilité; des flots de sang inonderont la terre. "Que l'on ne parle pas surtout de la gloire du prince; sa gloire seroit son orgueil; c'est une passion et non pas un droit légitime. "Il est vrai que la réputation de sa puissance pourroit augmenter les forces de son Etat: mais la réputation de sa justice les augmenteroit tout de même." The passage quoted from Voltaire commences with a sneer at Machiavel, very unworthy of the author; and for the omission of which the reader will be fully compensated, if his taste at all accord with mine, by a comparative sketch of Machiavel and Montesquieu, taken from one of the very few works of temporary politics, which are so written as to be permanently interesting : “Machiavel, born and bred in tumultuous and profligate times, and occupied in the affairs of a distempered republic, caught his first principles of politics from what he saw. Montesquieu, more happy in his birth and fortune, enjoying an early leisure, in a quiet and wellregulated monarchy, drew his first principles of politics from what be read. Yet, neither was the first given up to mere personal observation; nor the last to mere study : in the progress of life, Machiavel applied himself to books, and Montesquieu to men: yet, as was natural, their first habits prevailed, and gave to each his distinct and peculiar character. Hence, though both saw the internal and secret springs of government, (which, in my opinion, no writer but these two did ever fully comprehend or penetrate,) yet they saw them by different lights, and through different mediums. Machiavel's leading guide was fact; Montesquieu's was philosophy. In consequence of this, simplicity forms the character of the one, refinement of the other. The speculative Frenchman forms a fine system, to the completion of which he sometimes tortures both argument and fact: the plain and downright Florentine builds on facts, independent of all system. The polite and disinterested Sage is warm in the praise of honesty: the active and penetrating Secretary, above praise or censure, gives a bold and striking picture of the ways of men. Hence, while the first gains every heart, by the force of moral sympathy; the latter hath been falsely detested as the enemy of virtue and mankind. Machiavel is negligent, yet pure and strong, scorning the minuter graces of composition : Montesquieu is elegant, yet nervous; and to the acuteness of the philosopher, adds the fire of the poet. Both were the friends of freedom and of man: both superior to the genius of their time and country: both truly great : the Florentine severe and great; the Frenchman great and amiable."-(Estimate of the Manners and Principles of the Times, by Dr. John Brown. 1757.) NOTE ()-Page 210. My well-informed readers, if with such these pages should be honoured, are doubtless acquainted with Andrew Fletcher; but I must just introduce him to my young friends. He was a Scotch gentleman, of large property, in the reign of Charles II., and having distinguished himself by his open and parliamentary opposition to the designs of James II., then Duke of York, was obliged to retire to Holland, and not appearing to a summons from the Privy Council, he was declared a traitor, and his estate confiscated. He joined in the unfortunate attempt made by the Duke of Monmouth, and afterwards came over with William III. at the Revolution. During that and the succeeding reign he distinguished himself in the Scotch Parliament by the jealousy with which he watched the encroachments of the crown, and the firmness and boldness with which he advocated popular rights. He is truly described as " steady in his principles, of nice honour, with abundance of learning: brave as the sword he wears, and bold as a lion: a sure friend, and an irreconcileable enemy: would lose his life readily to serve his country; and would not do a base thing to save it. His thoughts are large as to religion, and could never be brought within the bounds of any particular sect. Nor will he be under the distinction of a Whig or Tory; saying, those names are used to cloak the knaves of both."-"If ever a man proposes to serve and merit |