Page images
PDF
EPUB

NOTICE of the CHARACTER and WRITINGS of PHILIP STANHOPE, EARL of CHESTERFIELD.

[From the first Volume of the same Works.]

NEW men have been born

"FEW
with a brighter show of

parts:
: few men have bestowed
more cultivation on their natural
endowments; and the world has
seldom been more just in its admi-
ration both of genuine and improv-
ed talents. A model yet more rare-
ly beheld, was that of a prince of
wits who employed more applica-
tion on forming a successor, than to
perpetuate his own reno vn-yet,
though the peer in question not oa-
ly laboured by daily precepts to
educate Lis heir, but drew up for
his use a code of institution, in
which no secret of his doctrine was
withheld, he was not only so un-
fortunate as to behold a total mis-
carriage of his lectures, but the
system itself appeared so superficial,
so trifling, and so illaudable, that
mankind began to wonder at what
they had admired in the preceptor,
and to question whether the dictator
of such tinsel injunctions had really
possessed those brilliant qualifica-
tions which had so long maintained
him unrivalled on the throne of
wit and fashion. Still will the im-
partial examiner do justice, and di-
stinguish between the legislator of
that little fantastic aristocracy which
calls itself the great world, and the
intrinsic genius of a nobleman who
was an ornament to his order, an
elegant orator, an useful statesman,
a perfect but no servile courtier,
and an author whose writings,
when separated from his imperti-
nent institutes of education, de-
serve, for the delicacy of their wit
and Horatian irony, to be ranged
with the purest classics of the courts

of Augustus and Louis quatorze. His papers in Common Sense and The World might have given jealousy to the sensitive Addison; and though they do not rival that original writer's fund of natural humour, they must be allowed to touch with consummate knowledge the affected manners of high life. They are short scenes of genteel comedy, which, when perfect, is the most rare of all productions.

"His papers in recommenda tion of Johnson's dictionary were models of that polished elegance which the pedagogue was pretending to ascertain, and which his own style was always heaving to overload with tautology and the most barbarous confusion of tongues. The friendly patronage was return ed with ungrateful rudeness by the proud pedant; and men smiled, without being surprised, at seeing a bear worry his dancing-master.

"Even lord Chesterfield's poetical trifles, of which a few specimens remain in some songs and epigrams, were marked by his idolized graces, and with his acknowledged wit. His speeches courted the former, and the latter never forsook him to his latest hours. His entrance into the world was announced by his bon-mots, and his closing lips dropped repartees that sparkled with his juvenile fire.

"Such native parts deserved higher application. Lord Chesterfield took no less pains to be the phoenix of fine gentlemen, than Tully did to qualify himself for shining as the first orator, magistrate, and philosopher of Rome.

Both

Both succeeded: Tully immortaliz-no rwhether farther than a few chaed his name; lord Chesterfield's racters of some eminent persons, reign lasted a little longer than that which have since been printed, and of a fashionable beauty. His son, which are no shining proof that lord like Cromwell's, was content to re- Chesterfield was an excellent histoturn to the plough, without autho- ric painter. From his private farity, and without fame. miliar letters one should expect much entertainment, if most of those published by Maty did not damp such hopes. Some few at the end of his correspondence with his son justly deserve admiration."

6

"Besides his works collected and published by doctor Maty, his lordship had begun Memoirs of his ' own Time.'-How far he proceeded on such a work I cannot say;

"THU

NOTICE of ROBERT LORd Clive.

[From the same Volume.]

HIS lord, who was styled by policy a heaven-born hero, and whom policy alone would canonize, would never have been an author, if he could have silenced opposition as completely as he removed opponents in India. Yet was he qualified, like Caesar, either to write or conquer. Still one, who neither reverences Roman usurpations in Gaul, nor Spanish massacres in Mexico, will never allow his pen to applaud the invasions and depredations of his countrymen in India. Suffered to traffic as merchants, we have butchered, starved, plundered and enslaved, the subjects and pro

vinces of lawful princes; and all the imported diamonds of the east cannot out-blaze the crimson that ought to stain our cheeks, or the indignation that ought to have fired them, when more recent Machiavels have called for applause on their devastations. But as Cæsar's conquests lifted the yoke on the neck of Rome, Indian gold has undermined the English constitution; for, when heaven inflicts heroes on mankind, it generally accompanies them with their consequences, the loss of liberty-to the vanquished, certainly; to the victorious, often!"

The LIFE of Mr. THOMAS BAKER, the celebrated ANTIQUARY. [Extracted from the second Volume of the same Works.]

"TH

HOMAS Baker, a younger son of sir George Baker of Crooke-hall Lancaster in the county of Durham, was born September 1798.

14, 1656. With his elder brother George he was admitted pensioner of St. John's college in Cambridge, June 13, 1674; and Thomas was

B

received

received as scholar of the same college in November 1676; and as perpetual fellow of the same society in March 1680. In the books of the college is mention of a Thomas Baker as elected librarian in 1699, and Hebrew reader in 1700: but as our Mr. Thomas Baker was then fellow only by connivance, and was actually deprived of his fellowship in 1717; the gentleman who communicated this intelligence reason ably concludes that the society did not heap additional favours on one whom they only tolerated amongst them and he confirms this conjecture by observing, that, on Mr. Baker's expulsion, he is styled senior Baker for distinction.

nor dispensed with himself in the performance of the most difficult. This is not mere conjecture, nor drawn from the tenor of his delicate conscience. Mr. Baker early and boldly bore testimony to his religious sentiments. Here are the proofs.

[ocr errors]

"In the library of St. John's college is a collection of the London gazettes. That of July 5, 1688, contains those emanations of loyalty that attend all princes in possession (and had not been wanting to Richard Cromwell), and an account of the rejoicings made on the birth of king James's supposed son, in par. ticular of those celebrated at Durham, under the auspices of bishop Crewe, to whom Mr. Baker seems "At what age Mr. Baker dedi- to have been chaplain. On the cated himself to the church, does not margin of that gazette Mr. Baker appear. That it was the profession has written these words: This ache voluntarily embraced, cannot be count was drawn up by the bishop, doubted, from the unvaried colour as his secretary Mr. Peters told of his life and studies, and from his 'me. I was present at the solemhaving adhered to a monastic life,nity. If I did not rejoice as I when divested of the privilege ofought, pardon me, O God, that exercising his ministry. Born under sin!" a tempest of contending sects, his reason no sooner began to develop itself than he heard nothing but the conflict of the like warring elements. The jealousy of popery, that had alarmed the staunchest protestants under a devout king, blazed with reason under his profligate son, who was influenced by a bro-, ther, whose understanding he despised, in the point that most demands the exercise of one's own judgement. The controversy was managed, at least on the side of the church of England, with the highest abilities; yet when Mr. Baker consecrated his services to that church, though it was the predominant, it neither enjoyed the partiality of the crown, nor promised a life of ease and tranquillity, at least to one who fathomed every duty,

"What delicacy of conscience! The good man trembled for his religion, yet doubted whether the Omnipotent did not expect that he should exult in whatever good luck befell his vicegerent-But, of what religion were they who invented such principles; If the ruler of the universe visits a sinful world with pestilence, can he require us to rejoice at the calamity? In other words, can almighty wisdom exact our feeling contradictory sensations } Though a pious person says he rejoices, does he rejoice? Such doctors enjoin lip-worship, as if the All-seeing could be imposed on by a formulary of words. This is absurd casuistry, devised by bigots, and recommended by knaves. Nor could Mr. Baker's good sense bave swallowed such nonsense, if the

ten

tenderness of his piety had not been alarmed at what he had been told was his duty. He thought it safer to trust to his conscience than his judgement. Nor had passive obedience ever a sincerer victim, or did good sense ever lose a worthier son misled by authority. Bishop Crewe proved less sincere, or less firm.

"In the same gazette is an ac count from Whitehall of July 6, of the removal of the judges, (a clear indication that the king was acting against law,) and of the alteration of those appointed to hold the summer assizes on the northern circuit. There too Mr. Baker has attested his own conduct, with the same dubitation whether he had not transgressed his duty in obeying the dictates of his conscience. It is still more remarkable, that he wept his want of devotion to his worldly master after king James was divest ed of power. There can be no doubt but such contrition would not have been felt, if king James had been successful. Mr. Baker's scruples never led him to sacrifice bis religion to his prince, while in possession. Had James triumphed, we may justly conclude that Mr. Baker would have laid down his life for his faith. The relinquishment of fortune is nearer to the stake, than to a time-serving compliance. It was generous to bewail his own want of blind zeal for an unfortunate prince. He would have seen James's folly in its true light, if reduced to the op、 tion of emolument or the cross. The death of Charles I. has won him many hearts, that would have abhorred his tyranny if it had been successful.

At Durham,' says Mr. Baker, • I preached before the judges (three "of the ecclesiastic commissioners

being then present). I could easily observe the sermon gave of fence (and indeed justly); and yet it passed without censure. I have since burnt it, as I did the ' rest.'

"Here good nature pauses to lament those confessors who resisted king James, and thought it their duty to become victims to their oaths. Indignation takes their part, and condemns oaths that are not mutual, and that are supposed to bind but one side. What foundation can there be for subjects devoting themselves to their prince, if he is bound by no reciprocal ties? If they are his chattels, his herd, his property, oaths are frivolous. He has power to punish them if they revolt, whether they are sworn to him or not. To swear to a king, without reciprocity from him, is subjecting our souls to him as well as our bodies. We are to be dainned to all eternity if he makes his tyranny intolerable. Proclaim him God at once. God alone can be trusted with power over our minds: God alone can judge how much. we can endure. Shall one of ourselves be emperor of the mind?— No, said Mr. Baker-yet repented that he had said so!-And we must admire the beauty of that integrity, which, instead of recurring to the refinements of casuistry to discover a salvo that would console it, bowed to arguments against itself, and distrusted its own reason more than its scruples.

"A contest so nice ought to make us, who stand at a distance, view the combatants with impartiality. Saucroft, who preferred his oath to his mitre, and Tillotson, who, in accepting it, adhered to the principles that he had avowed when persecution, not emolument, was the probable consequence of his B 2 resistance,

[ocr errors]

tians, who submitted to the higher powers-But how wide was the difference! The pagan emperors of Rome had never sworn to maintain pure christianity and the early christians themselves (if not the first, who had no opportunity of resistance) were not very passive, as soon as their numbers enabled them to use temporal weapons for the defence of their religion. Mr. Baker, of a more enlightened understanding than Saucroft's, yet acted the same disinterested part. But what severe reflections does the purity of their conduct call forth on a set of men who in the same cause acted and have acted the counterpart to those confessors!-I mean those Jacobites, who did take the oaths to king William and the succeeding princes down to the present reign, and yet constantly promoted the interests of a family they had so solemnly abjured! Let their conduct be tried by the standard of their own Sancroft, and let us hear by what casuistry they will be absolved from guilt and contempt!

resistance, deserve to be esteemed
honest men. James, who had vio-
lated his coronation oath, and yet
expected that the ministers of re-
ligion should prefer their oaths to
their religion, was guilty, if either
Sancroft or Tillotson was in the
wrong. The chief magistrate of
any country, who is a rock of of.
fence to the consciences of his sub-
jects, deserves no commiseration.
The profusion of advantages that
are showered on kings to enforce
the authority of magistracy, and to
reward them for their superinten-
dency of the whole community,
enhances their guilt when they set
an example of trampling on the
laws which it is both their duty and
their interest to preserve inviolate
-and none but womanish minds
will pity them, when they provoke
their subjects to throw off allegi-
ance, and incur the penalty of their
crimes. The blindest bigot to the
memory of Charles I. or James II.
cannot deny, that both were the ori-
ginal aggressors. Had they both
acted conformably to the constitu-
tion and laws, no man living can
think that any part of the nation
would have revolted. Did not ship-
money and disuse of parliaments
precede the rebellion, or were the
causes of it? Did not James in the
dawn of his reign hoist the banner
of popery? Had not Sancroft and
the six bishops been imprisoned for
withstanding the dispensing power?
If Sancroft was a sincere protestant,
could he believe that his oath
bound him to an idolatrous king,,
who had perjured himself by pro-
moting idolatry? Might not Til-
lotson think that the king's perjury
"
absolved his subjects from their
oaths? Sancroft, I verily believe,
was so weak as to be of the contra-
ry opinion, lle was deluded by

"The three ecclesiastic commissioners alluded to by Mr. Baker in his preceding note, were, probably, Crewe, bishop of Durham, and two of the new judges.

"Those commissioners ordered an account to be returned to them of the names of all such of the clergy as refused to read his majesty's declaration of April 7, for liberty of conscience.

[ocr errors]

"On the margin of the gazette for August 23, 1688, Mr. Baker has written this note: "I was ordered by the bishop of Durham (a commissioner) to attend the archdeacon, Dr. Granville, for the execution of this order; which I readily did, knowing it to be enjoined me as a penance for my the conduct of the primitive Chris-former disobedience, having re

[ocr errors]

fused

« PreviousContinue »