« AnteriorContinuar »
eommon slaughter-house. It is now become the duty of the Spanish Cortes to assume a decided attitude, and should any attempt be made on the side of Portugal, by the English, to create a retraction in Spain, or should the despot of Austria attempt to meddle with the affairs of Naples, they are in duty bound, in self defence to revolution, viz. Portugal on one side and hoist the tri-coloured flag on the Pyrennees on the other side. The prosperity of Europe is now as much dependent on the Spanish Cortes for the moment, as ever was the fate of Europe on British gold, during the French revolution. Spain has it in her power to kindle the fire of revolution again in France, and if any attempts are made to crush her present government by the despots of Europe, slie will be in duty bound to effect it for self-preservation. Never were times more momentous than at present, never had mankind more to expect.
A specimen of the regulations in Dorchester Bastile or Christian Inquisition Prison.-Mr. Carlile having received a basket of fruit out of Hampshire, last week, was anxious to send a plate full to Wedderburn, who is closely locked up in another part of the prison, and in a place which has always hitherto been assigned for new prisoners, until they were examined and proved to be clean by the surgeon. Mr. C. gave a plate full to the turnkey, for the purpose of delivering it to Wedderburn, but cautioned him to shew it first to the keeper, to save himself from blame. In a few minutes it was returned to Mr. C. with the keeper's instructions, that nothing could be allowed to pass. Mr. C. has thought it proper to publish this circumstance, lest by and by it should be said, that such a person was confined in the same prison with him, of whom he took no notice. Mr. C. has repeatedly endeavoured to ascertain how Wedderburn is circumstanced, but can get any information, the turnkeys displaying an evident fear to say a word on the subject. This place much more resembles the French Bastile than an English Prison.
TO THE KING,
After having reviewed in my mind, your conduct towards the Queen, I should consider myself as destitute of the feelings of a man, were I to remain silent. I can have no wish to add unfairly to the indignation which already exists in the breast of every man who has any feeling for a woman; as well as in the breast of every woman who bas any feeling for her own sex :-and if you were aware of the extent of such indignation, you would pause, lest you rouse the brave and generous English nation to exclaim, with a voice not to be resisted :-". Thus far shall you go, and no farther.” You have little enough of popularity :-and perhaps it is the kuowledge that you cannot have less, which adds to your obstinacy in the present case.
Though I could find sufficient for comment, in your political career, yet, such comment not being the object of the present letter, I shall pass on, leaving "this most ihinking nation,” to judge of that career by its effects.
The struggle that is carried on by you, through your ministers, against the Queen, is not like the struggle against the persons called Radicals :-as opposed to the latter, you have the prejudices of the higher, and, I may say, great part of the middling classes: but no prejudice exists against the Queen, except within the parlieus of your Court. The question of right and wrong is so easily auswered, that it comes home to the feelings, of every man and woman in the kingdom.
You are aware it is an axiom in England, that the “ King can do no wrong," in a political point of view it may be correct; but it cannot be correct so far as relates to the proceedings against the Queen; because you are a party personally concerned ; aud consequently, whatever proceedings may be adopted against her, will be looked upon as having originated with you.
Before I make any observatiuss upon your conduct towards the Queen, I shall first remark, that nature has implanted in both male and female, certain propensities towards each other, the end and design of which, is the propagation of the human race. A question, therefore, naturally arises, as to which is the most natural and reasonable way, in which those propensities ought to be gratified ;-seeing that a regulation of some sort is rendered necessary, for the sake of society, of which every individual ought to be considered a member. Those propensities, I think, ought to be gratified, not by a promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, but by matrimony, or a union of one male and one female. That the latter is the most agreeable to nature, may be argued from the fact, that no male or female ever felt a real affection, for more than one of an opposile sex, at the same time; and it has seldom so happened in the whole course of his or her life ;
therefore, matrinouy seems to have originated in accordance with our natural feelings:--but I rather conceive it to have been generally adopted, principally with the view of preventing that confusion which would otherwise have resulted to civil society. A promiscuous intercourse seems irreconcileable to our natural feelings; for it can be no other than a false desire which is felt, independent of any affection for the object of that desire. In fact, if matrimony were to be dispensed with, the world, instead of (comparatively speaking) being a paradise, would be a hell!-Wbat, ip that case, would become of ihose tender affections which mankind bear towards their offspring! They would be extinguished, or rather, never could exist, in man, at Jeast. Thut such would be the effect, may be gathered from the an. swer which must be given to the following question :-" Has a man ever existed, who could feel ihat affection for his bastard child, which he would otherwise have felt, had the child been gotten in lawful wedluck? No; for it is notorious, that bastard children always have been, and I believe ever will be, neglected, by the father at least ; and you will perceive that such neglect seldom, if ever, happens to what a lawyer would call • lawful issue.'”
From what I have just stated, it is clear, that were matrimony to be dispensed with, it would not only destroy all parental affection, but would also destroy all those tender joys which endear mankind to their homes; and which joys have been the chief solace for the mivery which mankind have hitherto been doomed to suffer, by the craft of the abettors of misgovernment; and which misery, mankind, blinded by priestcraft, have attributed to what they call providence.
Among the duties incumbent op man and wife, I think, fidelity to the marriage-bed may be considered a chief duty, (if to attain happiness be the object of matrimony) for intidelity never yet took place, without breaking asunder all those endearing ties, those internal sympathetic feelings, by the existence of which, the happiness of man and wife is greatly promoted. That infidelity breaks asunder those ties is certain ; for can it be shewn that a man or woman ever did, or could feel that affection which was felt before infidelity had been committed.
Setting aside, for a moment, the unhappy consequences that result from infidelity, it may be argued thal nature disapproves of it, or why should it excite a feeling of indignant disgust against the party who may be guilty of it.
Nature, however, will keep us within the bounds of fidelity, when the passion, called love, is felt in its full force ; for the man or woman who really feels that love, would sooner undergo a thousand deaths than dishonour the object of it; and why? because real love is unlike that felt by the sensualist, (if it may be called love) for the forner purifies our ideas, and spurns on every noble feeling of the soul to action.
As, however, it does not always happen that those who marry, feel the above passion in its full force, (though a man and woman are se dom married without one of the two feeling it) it still becomes them to act with the same fidelity as they otherwise would; because, though they may not feel scrupulous on this point, yet they should consider, that though it may not touch their own feelings, it possibly may touch anothers'.
Having stated, as clearly as I am able to do, the design and end of matrimony; and having also stated the duties of those who may become its votaries; and having also shewn, that by the performance of those duties, not only their own individual happiness, but the happiness of society may be promoted; the next thing to be ascertained is
, how far you have fulfilled those duties by your conduct towards the Queen; nierely to contrast that couduct with the conduct that appears to be consistent with the principles I have before laid down, (which principles I have deduced from nature) would be sufficient to euable any person to draw just conclusions, as to the uprightness of that conduct. I cannot however resist the temptation of reviewing that conduct generally.
In the first place I must ask, whether the social intercourse of man and wife is not the main spring, by wbich their happiness is promoted ? and whether a family of children does not constitute a source of happiness to man and wife? and whether any happiness can equal that which arises from the giving vent to their parental feelings? These questions may be safely answered in the affirmative ; for what more is wanting to make those happy who know how to appreciate the blessings of a numerous offspring? And is it not in the hope of enjoying this happiness that mankind (the female part in particular) are induced to tie the marriage knut? Undoubtedly it is; what therefore must be the feelings of a woman, who marries with such bopes existing in her mind, when she finds those hopes, together with every source of matrimonial happiness, destroyed ? Has not the Queen had her hopes and her bappiness thus destroyed? Has she not been shamefully neglected by you, who have sworn to protect her! Has she not been haled, nay more, persecuted by you, who have swom ete dal love and fidelity to her? Need you wonder therefore, that you are hated; while the Queen is beloved and sympathised with, by every man and woman in the kingdom who is not dead to moral feeling?
You have, I believe, endeavoured to excuse yourself, on the ground that your inclinations are not in your power; though I grant that you can have no power over your inclinations; yet I assert, without fear of contradiction, that it was in your power to know, whether you had or had not any inclinations towards the Queen, when you led her to the altar. Therefore, upon the supposition that you felt or fancied you felt, any inclinations towards the Queen; how came those incli nations to vanish after the matrimonial knot was tied ! You cannot excuse yourself on the ground, that it was occasioned by the disap
pointment you experienced, on finding that the Queen, so contrary to your expectations, was destitute of those accomplishments which add a grace and ornament to her sex; or that she had any bodily or mental defect. What then was the occasion of your treating the Queen in the way you have done ? Was it because her sterling virtues were so bright, as to reflect your sterling vices; whereby, you not only could not bear her presence, but determined to dash the reflecting mirror into pieces, in the hopes of being able to hide from yourself your deformity? What a man's feelings must be towards a wife, who by her conduct presents a contrast, between her virtues and liis vices;. may be easily guessed. And to what lengths such a man would go, in order to rid himself of such a plague, (for a plague it must be to him) you have given us a rare specimens.
I know there are those who would wish to excuse you, on the ground that as you were compelled by law (if you married at all) to marry from a limited number, for sear of tainting the royal blood, or breed, (I don't know which, for I have not Blackstone's sublime commentaries on this point to refer to) it is almost madness to expect you to bear those affections towards the Queen, which would otherwise have been the case, if you had had the whole world to range in choice of a partner, and bad chosen the Queen to be that partner. This excuse would be a very just one, if the law had compelled you to marry the Queen; but no, though the law forbade you to marry whom you pleased, it did not compel you to marry against your inclinations. If you had bitherto contributed, and did you now contribute, as a man of honor would do, to the personal comforts of the Queen, (considering the unhappy situation in which she has hitherto been, and is now placed,) scarce a single word, by way of complaint, would be uttered against you. But when the peo-, ple see the very reverse of this; when they see the Queen persecuted by you, for having done ,or under the pretence of her having done, that, which you have so repeatedly been guilty of, wliat conclusions can they draw as to your principles other than those, the being conscious of the existence of which, must make you hang down you head with shame.
Your rank, Sire, does not exempt you from having conclusions .drawn from your actions; any more than if you were one of the lower orders; who by the byė, I am inclined to think would, if " vistue alone the difference made on earth,' be entitled to take precedence of the higher orders.
Upon the supposition of the Queen being guilty, nothing plausible can be said, to justify the unparalleled persecutions and insults, she has endured: for upon the above supposition, the first thing that laturally occurs to every feeling mind is this ; ought her guilt to be considered as having arisen from depravity, or ought it not rather to be considered as the natural consequence (and as a matter of course excusable) of the neglect, and what is worse than the neglect, the persecution of the man called her husband. The latter is, i he conclusion