years 1814 and 1825, and in the latter year purchased by Mr. Owen, as a theatre for his philanthropic speculations. The estate consisted of about twenty-five thousand acres, for which, with the buildings, the agricultural implements, and the stock of cattle, Mr. Owen contracted to pay one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. He had been in possession of his purchase eleven months when the Duke arrived. His chimerical views, respecting the equality of man, the injurious effect of all religious belief, the propriety of divorces at will, the separation of children from their parents at two years of age, the eating at a common table, with many similar nostrums, had been begun to be reduced to practice; but in the opinion of Duke Bernard, with no prospect of anything but confusion, regret, and, finally, dispersion. A few fanatics like himself, of both sexes, and of different countries, have joined him,—one, an elderly man, a native of Philadelphia, learned, and, according to report, rich, had become a partner with Mr. Owen, and was commonly expected to leave his property to the institution. The others seem to have been brought to the establishment by necessity, or by views as whimsical as those of the founders. The fine ladies of the party complained of the cookery at the common table, the young and accomplished girls were annoyed by being called from their harps and their pianos to milk the cows. The young men of education had their soft hands filled with blisters from the hard handles of the axes and spades. The uniform suited the taste of neither the belles nor the beaux. The children seemed in the happiest state, as they worked but little, and learned but little, and were spectators of almost nightly balls and concerts. The Duke says, After the milking of the cows, during which operation some of the young ladies were trodden upon, and others fouled by the beasts, I made a water party with the young ladies and some of the young philosophers. The evening was fine and moonlight; the air mild. The beautiful Miss Virginia forgot the griefs of the cow-house, and cheered us with a charming song. Afterwards, we assembled in the new school-room, where all the young gentlemen and ladies (comme il faut) met together. In spite of the applauded equality, these would not mix with the common people; and I believe almost all those members who have been well brought up are disgusted, and will soon quit the society. The amusements of the evening were cotillions, reels, and waltzes. Several of the ladies were disposed to make objections to dancing, it being Sunday. It was maintained, however, that in this sanctuary of philosophy such prejudices must be abolished; and the arguments used, combined with the inclination of the fair, gained the victory.' We are not disposed to join in the opinion given to the Duke by one of the leading members of the executive government of the state, state, that Mr. Owen is insane; but the intense interest he seems to take in his projects, the ease with which he overlooks every obstacle opposed to them, and the confidence which he places in the extensive and speedy effects of his proceedings, certainly warrant the suspicion of some most extraordinary aberration of mind. I had,' says Duke Bernard, a discussion with Mr. Owen on his system and his expectations. He looks to nothing less than completely to renovate the world, to extirpate all evil, to banish all punishments, to create like views and like wants, and to guard against all conflicts and hostilities. When his system of education is combined with the great improvements made, and to be made, in the mechanic arts, each man will provide for his own wants, and all trade will totally cease. I tried to show him the inapplicability of his system to the state of Europe, and even of the United States; but he was too positively certain to admit of the least doubt of the results of it. It pained me to see a man so humane as he is, suffer himself to be led away by his passion of cosmopolitism, as to think and say he can renovate the world, especially as at this very moment almost every member of his society with whom I conversed alone, assured me, that he had been deceived in his expectations, that Mr. Owen had begun every thing on too extensive a scale, and had admitted too many members without proper care in the selection.' The Duke visited, also, a settlement of the Shakers, a description of religionists, to whom some allusion has been made in our article on the Co-operatives. He describes the supper of this community, amounting to about six hundred individuals of both sexes, at which he was present:— 'There were,' he says, two long tables spread, each the whole length of both sides the hall, with benches, and in the middle of the room a table as a sideboard. At the sound of an horn, the males by the right-hand door, and the females by the left-hand door, marched into the room in double files, halted, and then fronted to the table. Those who were to wait upon them then drew up in a line in front. At a signal, each dropped on their knees, offered up a silent act of devotion, rose and took a seat at the table, and ate their meal in perfect silence. Then, after the very hasty meal was ended, in the same military kind of order, at quick time, the company retreated from the hall.’ This society is founded upon the principle of a community of property and an equality of rights. The peculiar dogma of the foundress, Ann Lee, that because God was to be praised by King David as well with the merry dance as with the voice and instruments of music, the same practice is indispensable for ever; whilst it serves to keep them separate from other communities, does not remove or weaken any of those social or moral ties, upon the stability of which all such institutions must be founded. The firm ness ness of their faith is secured as well by the military and monastic regulations as by the seclusion of the members from all intercourse with the rest of the world; and though they receive proselytes with hesitation, and only after a six months' probation, their numbers are kept up. Two of the brotherhood, a father and son, both Frenchmen, visited the Duke, and examined him. The son assumed all the humility of a monk, did not open his eyes, but explained the principles of the sect out of the Bible, and maintained that they were the only Christians who really lived in conformity to the spirit of the Gospel. It is obvious, as remarked by our author, that Mr. Owen has borrowed the laws of his new social system from the Shakers; only that they are kept together by the bond of religion, and the hope of another and better world, in which his plans are altogether deficient. We can only afford room for one more extract from the Duke's book. It is one with which our readers will be gratified. I have in general remarked (says he), that in the greater part of the United States the good society either belong to the episcopal church, or at least give the preference to its mode of worship. It is here the ton to go to that church, whereas the methodist church is in general only attended by the lower classes. It is a luxury to have a pew in the episcopal church, and decidedly polite to offer to strangers a seat in it.' We have read both these works with pleasure, and our satisfaction has been heightened by observing that, in spite of democratical principles and degrading practices, the people of the United States have not wholly abandoned either the lessons or the examples of their ancestors. It is to these they are indebted for whatever of a humanized aspect they exhibit when compared to - the emancipated colonies of other nations. However forgetful, or scornful, or even abusive, a son may become to a virtuous and intelligent father, that father can never forget the ties of nature; he may grieve for the follies his son displays-he may be slightly vexed by his scorn or abuse, but he will still feel a pride in everything good that may attend his progress. When he blames, it will be more in sorrow than in anger, and he will always have the gratifying reflection that his own principles have laid the foundation of his children's prosperity, and his own example and conduct secured to them a character and estimation in the world which cannot be easily forfeited. Notwithstanding all that Captain Hall may have said, we are satisfied that feelings such as these are commonly entertained in England towards America. We see nothing in that country to excite envy or jealousy; and little to excite our serious regret, except that the executive and judicial functions should be conferred by the voice of those least compe tént tent to make a proper selection of persons for such duties and that in consequence of the want of a church establishment, both bigotry and infidelity are making alarming progress. Note. WE ventured to say, in the preceding article, that Captain Hall's book was calculated to do much good in America, provided the people of that country received the instruction it contains in the proper spirit; and our opinion that it would be so received in at least one extensive circle of American society, derives strong confirmation from a letter written by a gentleman of high standing in the United States, which is put into our hands as this sheet is passing through the press. Captain Hall's Travels,' says the writer, have, of course, been reprinted here, and are, by this time, in the hands of every man, woman, and child in the country. Their political cast is the cause that an impartial judgment can hardly be formed upon them, as party spirit has seized upon the book, and marked it for her own. That spirit must be allowed time to subside, before a cool judgment can be obtained. For my part, my mind is taken up with other subjects than politics, and I have long since adopted the opinion of the poet: "Aime l'Etat, tel que tu le vois être : S'il est de peu, ou bien Communauté, There is much sense in these lines, and I find that Captain Hall aime la Royauté sufficiently; for my part it is natural I should be attached to la Communauté; but, after all, these things are relative, and 1 do not see why they should interrupt good humour between men. You recollect, no doubt, the answer of the great Frederick of Prussia to certain ministers of Neufchatel, who wanted some of their brethren to be punished because they preached against the doctrine of eternal punishments" Mes sujets de Neufchâtel ont le droit d'être damnés aussi long temps qu'il leur plait." And so we have a right to be mob-ruled, or priest-ruled, or king-ruled, as we think it most agreeable. You also know the answer which a wife gives, in one of Molière's plays, to one who wanted to prevent her husband from beating her" Je veux être battue, moi!" But what is the bestto be beaten or not to be beaten? I say, ask the back. To be serious -the permanency of states, like the life of individuals, is, in my opinion, the first thing to be considered. The constitution of a state, like that of a man, after it is once formed, cannot, without danger-or, rather, cannot materially be changed-but by death. It must, therefore, after it has taken a certain root, at all events be allowed to remain. Some constitutions are more liable to disease than others; that is a great misfortune; misfortune; but all that is to be done is to cure the disease, or prevent it by an hygienic course. But the constitution is not to be tampered with. Nature will sometimes effect changes, but art cannot. The constitution of England is an example of this. Great changes have taken place in it; but always by the course of things-never by premeditated design. There are, no doubt, peccant humours in our constitution, as there are in others; nature will throw them off-(for the body is strong)-but in what manner it is impossible to foretell. Disturbances and revolutions are the diseases of states; we have no right to expect to be free from them, more than others--I hope they will not produce death. But, be that as it may, opinion is a great and most powerful agent in political events, and it should have the greatest possible freedom. Therefore, far from putting to death, as the Athenians did, a foreigner who freely expresses his sentiments respecting our affairs, we ought to thank him, if it were only for making us think on these important subjects. That he should prefer his own form of government to ours is to be expected. He has a strong interest in the permanency of his own state, and, unless he be a disappointed or a discontented man, he loves what ensures safety to his person and property. The strength of this feeling is astonishing; I have known a Turkish subject, a native of Jerusalem, but a Christian, and, of course, a rayah or slave, who thought the Turkish form of government the best in the world. "But," said I to him, 66 a Turk may strike you and you cannot resent it." "Oh," answered he, "there's our glorious privilege. If a Turk insults me, I complain to the judge; he sends for the Turk, and says to him-What! you rascal, do you dare to insult a woman? (for you must know, sir, that we have the prerogatives of women, as the priests have in Christian countries;) and the Turk is reprimanded or punished as the case may be." I told him that I thought it was shocking they should cut off their sultans' heads without ceremony. "Oh," said he, "that's beautiful! Look at France, how much blood it has cost them to get rid of one sultan! We, on the contrary, cut off the head of our own at once, and no more is said about it; the tranquillity of the state is not disturbed." To every objection I made to him, he answered in the same manner; and at last concluded by saying-" I would rather live in Jerusalem upon bread and water, than in your country upon the best that the land affords!" . . Thus, also, the Spaniard boasts that the Inquisition has saved his country from the miseries of religious wars. For my part, I love the government under which I live, and I honour those who love their own-I don't except my poor Turk.' ART. |