court, which would undoubtedly appear to have been a private one, since Captain Brown himself-who had the strongest of interests, and, as I should have thought, the strongest of claims to be present was never admitted to know any thing of its deliberations until he read the accounts of them thus complained of in the Caledonian Mercury. strong leaning of the editor's own mind against Captain Brown. One instance he gives of this seems not unworthy of Mr Allan's attention. It appears that one of the charges made against the Captain was, that he had been implicated in a gross fraud, and that of a particularly mean charactera fraud by which a poor widow had suffered a pecuniary loss. It appears Now, I have no hesitation in saying, farther, that this charge was inthat, so far as this goes, I conceive vestigated by a committee, of which every impartial person must complete- Mr Allan was a member, and that the ly agree with Captain Brown in disap- report of that committee contained a proving, and that most strongly, of most distinct and honourable acquittal the conduct of Mr Thomas Allan. If of Captain Brown. Finally, it appears, the court was a public court, then the that the same charge was in fact public had a right to be there—and, brought forward again by a Mr above all, Captain Brown. If it was Stenhouse, a rhetorical baker, in a a private court, no one could have speech of his, reported by Mr Allan the smallest right to make public any in the Caledonian Mercury. "That part of its proceedings, unless with the gentleman," says Captain Brown in approbation, and under the control, his letter, (p. 116.) "in substance of the court itself. Most certainly, asserted, that a report by one of Mr Thomas Allan, when he-being the committees would have estabone of a court, consisting, I shall sup- lished my privity, in some way and pose, of thirty persons-presumed to to some extent or other, to a fraud. publish, in his newspaper, accounts It certainly was the duty of the editor of what passed in this court, unauof the Caledonian Mercury to report thenticated by any reference to minutes, Mr Stenhouse's speech as it fell from or any other formal record—he was in his own lips: it happened, however, stituting, in his own person, a most un- that the assertion I have just noticed warrantable monopoly, and exemplify was utterly disproved by the report ing, most egregiously, not the liberty, itself, which report was signed and subbut the tyranny and despotism of the scribed by Mr Allan. It is a very repress. He availed himself of his vo- markable circumstance, that Mr Allan cation as the editor of a newspaper, to did not avail himself of the facilities he inflame the public mind against an un- possessed, by stating in a separate paprotected individual; and the impar- ragraph how the fact truly stood; but tial part of the community may be in- that, with the means of contradiction in clined to doubt, whether the person, his power, he permitted the error of Mr who had prepared and published such Stenhouse's statement to go to the public reports as have lately filled the columns uncontradicted." Such are Captain of his paper, might not have done well Brown's own words: I doubt not you to decline continuing to act in the capa- will agree with me in thinking, that, city of a judge with regard to any inves- if they be founded in truth, Mr Allan tigation in which Captain Brown is con- is not the man who ought to have made cerned. I shall take liberty to believe, himself particularly conspicuous, by that such things are more worthy of casting the first stone against any one the Scotsman than of Mr Thomas Al- accused of negligence. lan; and that he, on reflection, must be inclined to repent of having, by his example, given any countenance to one of the most dangerous practices to which that basest of all the seditious prints has ever had recourse. But, 4thly, Captain Brown goes on to state, that these paragraphs in the Caledonian Mercury were not only published in an irregular and culpable manner by Mr Allan-but that, in various instances, they betray the As for the statements contained in the Scotsman, it would be doing them a great deal too much honour to notice them at so much length. It is only necessary to read Captain Brown's own letter in order to be convinced that the editor of that paper has all through this business been exercising himself in his old vocation—which may be described as that of drawing illogical inferences, from false facts, for wicked purposes. II. But I would request the only set of citizens to whom I am ambitious of addressing myself, to consider beefore they go any farther in this matter, the dangerous nature of the precedent which, if they do so, may be, through their means, established-of appealing, in questions of a strictly judicial nature, from the sentence of legal judges to the opinion of popular meetings on the one hand, and the statements of party newspapers on the other. Without the influence of these last, indeed, it is sufficiently manifest that no appeal to any popular meetings whatever, could ever have been dreamt of on the present occasion. It will be for those who are above the influence of such publications to consider of the propriety of combining together to prevent the malice now at work from succeeding in the infliction of farther injury on the character, or rather I should say, on the feelings, of Captain Brown. This officer has clearly and triumphantly answered every individual charge t brought against the honesty and Your obedient servant, LETTER FROM DR OLINTHUS PETRE, TO CHRISTOPHER NORTH. ESQ. They indeed are very indignant at It really is rather laughable, to read some of their charges against you. Or, (for it is probable they will not 66 weakness of Mr C. Wynne's voice, Lord Holland's stammer, and even in the very number, in which one of their hacks has had the insolence to abuse you for laughing at Hunt, Hazlitt, (the very author, by the way, of the base personalities just quoted,) and others of that loathsome knot? They have, (to say nothing of their affronts to some gentlemen supposed to be connected with you, displayed in the article under my consideration, and in the braying of the ass, who occupies their lion's head,) published the impertinencies of a Cockney Scribbler, who signs himself Elia, full of all kinds of personal, and often offensive allusions to every individual who had the misfortune of being educated at the same school with himself. I could point out many more such reprehensible passages, even in the three numbers in my possession, particularly in the articles of Hazlitt and Elia; but I think I have said sufficient, to expose the sincerity of their indignation against you for personal allusions. I shall not stop to defend you, as I could on almost every point of their accusation; but as for them,-why Sir, their hypocrisy in this respect, is too thick and palpable to deceive even the most foggyheaded native of Cockaigne. I should most certainly never have noticed the article, but that I perceive a very sounding charge has been directed against you in it, on account of a letter of mine. The disinterested critic accuses you of attacking, in every number, "a most respectable professor of the University of Edinburgh;" viz. Professor Leslie. I believe the only serious charge against that " very celebrated" man, as he takes care to call himself in the Edinburgh Review, whenever he has or makes occasion to mention his name, came from me. There might have been some trifling allusions to him in sportive or satirical verses, but these could hardly be construed into very gross offences, and were besides in a great measure bottomed on my exposure of his ignorance. And as I do not think it fair, that you should be censured for a letter written by one of whom you know nothing, and concerning whom they cannot even have made a guess, I shall just say a few words with respect to my connection with Professor Leslie. In a work of his, treating on Arithmetic, that" celebrated" man thought proper to go out of his way to revile, in a most dogmatic and insulting manner, the Hebrew Language. I asserted, that he did not know even a letter of the tongue he had the impudence to pretend to criticize, and I proved my assertion. I leave the decision of the question to any Hebraist, to any man of common sense in the land. I proved that he was actuated by a hostility to the language of revelation, simply because it was so; and I defy any one to refute me. This unfortunate Cockney, who is lamenting over my hard treatment of the Professor, of course cannot be supposed to know any thing about the matter in dispute; but what I am saying is not the less true on that account. As I am on the subject, I may remark, that I was, at first, a little surprised to find, that in the second edition of the philosophy of arithmetic, which was announced since I had pointed out Leslie's mistake, he had not retracted the unlucky note which convicted him of ignorance; but on inspection of the work, my wonder ceased, for I perceived that the new edition was nothing more than the old one with a fresh lying title-page, and a few additional leaves; in short, only a collusion between an honest bookseller, and a doubly honest professor, to impose on the public, and get rid of the remaining copies of an unsaleable work. Here then is the vile offence against decency as committed by me. What reason have I to respect Mr Leslie ? His Essay on Heat? The matter of that work is no great affair; and the manner is so bad, that even a brother reviewer pronounces it to be execrable and "drossy." His Mathematics? There is not an original Mathematical fact of the smallest value in all his book, and his barbarous style, and vile arrangement, have done a great deal to obscure the merit of what he has purloined. I do not intend, for it would not be the proper place, to go into any detailed remarks on his geometry; but every mathematician has laughed at his droll proof of the doctrine of parallel lines, at his doctrine of ratios, at his failure in proving his very first proposition, the foundation of his system, and a thousand other such betises. Am I to bow to him because he is an Edinburgh Reviewer? I question the inspiration of that worthy oracle;—and as to the professor's own part in its lucubrations, why, his impudent puffings of himself, and ignorant sneerings at others, have of ten made me liken Leslie The Reviewer to some enormous overfed pet of the parrot species, stuck up at a garret-window-and occupied all day with saying, pretty poll-pretty poll," to itself; "Foul witch-foul witch," to every passer by. Look now, I beseech you, at his Article on the North-west passage!!! What other claims to respect he possesses I know not, except his having made some neat second-rate chemical experiments, and invented some handy little instruments; but even if his claims were ten times as weighty, they should not have deterred me from speaking as I thought. A man who could go out of his path, in an inquiry on the nature of heat, to recommend an impious work, and, in a treatise on arithmetic, to cast an ignorant sarcasm on the language of the Bible, or to sneer at the "fancies" of one of the apostles, must ever be an object of suspicion to those who hold the Scriptures in honour, and impiety in detestation. We have no assurance that he may not digress as culpably hereafter; and if he does so, it is on ly fair to give him warning, that I shall take care to point it out. With grief I have perceived that many of the young men, who go from this country to Edinburgh to pursue their medical studies, come back with their religious principles perverted, and their reverence for holy things sneered away it would be very unjust to accuse any individual, of this weighty charge. but the fact is undeniable. I rejoice, therefore, whenever it is in my power, even in the most trivial degree, to show that the lights of the famous Northern sect are not infallible; that under affected knowledge gross ignorance may lurk; and that considerable intolerance may sometimes be the characteristic feature of philosophic liberality. I rejoice also, but much more sincerely, to learn, that a better spirit is arising in your famous university; and, in spite of its levity, its humour, its follies, nay, even its trangressions, I think your Magazine has been instrumental in this good work. So much for my share in the tirade against you. The error I exposed was trifling, but it marked a bad spirit, and therefore I noticed it. If Professor Leslie or his friends be offended, let them trace the origin of it to himself. As for my part, I shall never repent of having contributed to a work which is even suspected of being supported by such names as any of those given in the article to which I am now referring. I remain, sir, yours, &c. OLINTHUS PETRE, D.D. Trin. Coll. Dublin. Nov. 10, 1820. THE QUEEN'S TRIAL. THE proceedings of the last two months are worth recording, less from their peculiar circumstances, which are revolting to all honourable feeling, or from the personages in question, who are only to be looked on as degraded and despicable, than from the insight which they give into the disposition of the English Multitude. The facts of the Queen's trial are sufficiently notorious; and, at all events, the subject is too repulsive for decency to detail. But the popular excitement the reprobate means, that were put in force for its productionthe gross partizanship to which the heads of Whiggism did not disdain to stoop-and the power exemplified of forcing back the current of justice in its highest channel-these things are important for our experience;-they are signs of the times." The dealers in that commodity of vulgar minds-prediction after the event-have now discovered that the whole proceeding was absurd. But if it has passed away from popular habits to think of the honour of the sitter on the throne-in better times an object of proud solicitude-was there to be no cognizance of the foulest aspersions on the national honour? Was the laugh and scorn of all Europe to be passed over as a thing not worth inquiry? Was the moral name of England to be insulted by a perpetual reference to the free and unquestioned career of its first female, through what was universally alleged to be the most barefaced and debasing licentiousness? Were those things done in a corner? Was this royal libertinism contented to shut itself up in the privacy that diminishes the moral danger to the public, by concealing the grossness of the offence to decency? The Queen of England, according to those universal rumours, was not satisfied to lavish her reputation in the shades of Como, the modern Caprea. She paraded her pleasures through the Continent. Asia and Africa shared with Europe the honour of witnessing this travelling intrigue; and, whether under canvas in Palestine, or under the roof of the Haram at Tripoli, or revelling on a deck in the Mediterranean, it was still the Queen of England-the first woman of the most moral nation-the presumptive model of female manners to the country-the patroness of female virtue, and domestic decency, and the purest form of religion-it was still she that was become the common byeword and contempt of Taverns and Casinos, the envy of less opulent libertinism, and the tool and plunder of a family of valets and chambermaids. The stories that came crowding to England were of the most offensive and glaring deformity. At another period, the public spirit would have been loud in its demand for reparation to the insulted personal feelings of the monarch; but the revolutionary doctrine acknowledges no sensibility, but for the punishment of riot and blasphemy. To be entitled to consideration with the regenerate mind of English patriotism, a man must have attempted to uproot the throne or the faith of his country. But there was a vast, though unmoving and silent majority, who thought, and still think, those acts of the Queen deserving of the most solemn investigation; if, for no other purpose, than for a public disavowal of their being sanctioned by the mind of England. The establishment of a commission, to ascertain how far those reports might be the creatures of vulgar exaggeration, was the natural proceeding of men, who desired to be convinced before they would decide. If there is a censure to be thrown on his Majesty's Ministers, it is that they delayed bringing the offence to trial, after the evidences which they thus obtained. But the nature of those proofs was so repulsive and disgusting; it was obvious, that so purulent a tide of dis soluteness must be let out before the public eye, that wise and honourable men might well pause on the alternative of suffering the offence of the individual, or the injury to the public. The Queen's declared intention of returning to England, compelled them to a determination. She palpably vibrated, between the hope of obtaining her objects here, and the fear of being visited by the tribunals. An offer of great liberality was made, on the condition of her withdrawing from the further disturbance of the country. It is said, that this offer was kept in his pocket by one of her counsel, on whose faith in the negociation, an unwary reliance had been placed by government. The Queen wavered, her council was alternately transferred from Milan to Geneva, and from Geneva to Milan; the offer of ministers was either totally withheld, or but partially transmitted until her arrival in France. Then again she paused, and the evil of her coming seemed to have passed away. Mr Brougham had waited on the king, and had come out from the audience miraculously changed in mind, overwhelmed with, as he divulged it to many a sneering circle, the unrivalled captivations of the royal manners, and-for the week-a smiling charmed convert. But the Queen was already in more tenacious hands. There Revolution had been unfortunate. The Manchester riot had failed of holding up its rank with St Bartholomew. The wholesale murder of ministers had failed, and Thistlewood in all his bloom of patriotism had perished. The Scottish insurrection had been inauspicious; Major Cartwright was under conviction; Cobbet was a beggar, and blasted with the suspicion of being a spy; Hunt lay inglorious in Ilchester jail. Rebellion was hopeless. was no stoppage in trade, no deficiency of the harvest; the bounties of fortune and nature have always been hostile to the hopes of rabble patriotism. The great cause of radical subversion was crumbling away, and even its wrecks were perishing in remote prisons, or in the nonthly exportations of felony to America and New South Wales. Mr Alderman Wood was, the ultima spes Troja, and even he-after trying all the expedients of a desperate popularity that were to be found in visits to the low recesses of riotous guilt, in receiving the confessions of conspirators |