Page images
PDF
EPUB

assign its metaphors. Knowledge, in acquisition and communication, is a source of great, of the purest enjoyment; but if my hypothesis be reject ed and the literal meaning of the metaphors maintained, this source must fail in a future state, for all will be inspired. Knowledge is experience evolved, and in its progress furnishes us with many a delightful day and retrospect. According to my views, experience is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, never to be extirpated. That inspiration is to supersede experience and render it useless, appears to me impossible, unless it prove an everlasting narcotic. I do strenuously insist, that an infinitely wise and good Being will always do that which is best and possible; and what is best now must be best hereafter, for with him there is no variation: scripture and reason concur in proof thereof. "We can reason only from what we know." Mental inactivity is not happiness. If it were, the dormouse in winter is perfectly happy. Inspired knowledge would leave us in the dead sea of torpidity and listlessness. But we know that "life's cares are comforts, such by Heaven designed; he that has none, must make them or be wretched." Without them there is no escape from the deadly tædium vitæ.

This raises the question, of what use can that sort of knowledge be? It cannot benefit others, for they will be equally inspired; nor ourselves, for we and others shall be placed, according to the popular notion, beyond the reach of temptation, perplexity and doubt. But knowledge and wisdom in their useful application, import difficulty and the necessity of selecting. Superior knowledge and wisdom appear in the judicious selection and adroit application of means to a desired end, eluding evil and securing good. But according to the objection, there will be no difficulty to make demands on our wisdom and knowledge. Then the high degrees of knowledge talked of as peculiar to that state, will stagnate and become putrid; that is, useless as to any beneficial application. And is our improved happiness to consist in uselessness? Is there any imagination so romantic as to suppose that the great improvement in our future condition

will consist in placing us where we may sleep soundly, spend an interminable existence in looking one at the other calmly, or in playing on harps undisturbedly?

Let us view in connexion with this subject the popular creed which refers the introduction of all evil, moral and physical, to Adam's transgression. Its abettors admit that man, in capacity and knowledge, was superior to all in this world, yet he mistook, erred and fell. They admit also, that the angels who fell were of a class and order superior in these respects to man. Here then are two cases according to that creed, which prove that the Scripture representation of increased knowledge in another state does not militate against my theory, but against theirs who place such confident hopes of security on our future vast accessions of knowledge. Knowledge has failed to preserve in innocence. The angels have failed in obedience, though, as asserted, in the immediate presence and favour of God. It is certainly difficult to conceive how in such circumstances they could be tempted to deviate from duty, but by that liability to mistake, to err, which is inherent in all creatures, and which must be co-existent with every state and condition; and which, with reverence I repeat, Omnipotence cannot prevent, unless it could work contradictions. That such and that similar events have taken place in every part of the animated universe, appears to me more than probable, being consistent with reason, consonant with Scripture, and in full accordance with the infinite perfections of God.

Another objection may be urged from the possible seasonable interposition of Divine Power to preserve his creatures from evil. To those who believe that the perfections of God are infinite, there is a short answer. He has not nor does he apparently so interpose in favour of man, nor, according to the popular creed, in favour of angels. I therefore fearlessly avow my belief, that it cannot be done consistently with his general scheme; if it could, an infinitely wise and beneficent Being would mark his presence by a preventive interference. Reasoning à priori, we should be conducted to that conclusion, and reasoning à pos

teriori, facts in abundance present themselves to establish its validity. Even those events which have borne the strongest marks of such a character, may have been no more than the gradual developement of the varied ordinations of a grand whole, attended by circumstances not familiar to observation, and consequently attracting general attention.

To these views of the subject, it may be objected that they weaken the sense of our dependence on the Divine power. This I cannot admit. Substitute expectation of Divine interpositions for sense of dependence, and I grant it is weakened. The preceding views certainly rebuke the practice of invoking when we ought to be labouring, of kneeling when we ought to be shouldering the wheel. They make unceasing demands on our activity and care as the basis of our well-being here and hereafter, Nor have I ever known a single instance of a fool having been made wise, an ignoramus learned, a poor man rich, a distempered constitution healthful, by invocation, without the use of the proper means. Of the objectors I challenge the proof of such a fact, without referring to what took place at the first promulgation of Christianity, and without considering its aid as a collateral mean. With consequences I have not any thing to do: I leave them where I find them, in much better hands: I am anxious only to relieve the human mind from the apprehensions which the foul aspersions cast on the Divine character, sometimes produce.

Bigots will, I know, censure what I have written. It is not to them I address myself. They are afraid to reason, and their fears and selfishness make them unjust. Had they been accustomed to offer their children to Moloch, to Moloch would they continue to offer the unnatural and horrid sacrifice. I address those who are perplexed by the subject, as I have been. If the principle of my theory be right, it will find abler advocates and prevail: if erroneous, let it sink for ever. Such an event, however, I do not anticipate. Whatever be the result, I shall always feel the satisfaction of having been influenced by the purest motives-an ardent wish to vindicate the ways of God to man,

[ocr errors]

and thereby to obviate all doubt of his benignity; a settled anxiety to repress the presumption of creatures who, with finite and very limited faculties, dare arraign and condemn the measures of an Infinite Mind. When our knowledge and wisdom become infinite, then, and then only, shall we be qualified to decide.

After I had written the preceding observations, it occurred to me as probable, that it will be objected to this scheme, that it requires an interpretation of various passages of Scripture inconsistent with their general tenor. I am not aware that it will require greater latitude of construction than has been used on other occasions by the most pious and judicious interpreters of Scripture of all denominations: for instance, it was declared to Adam, "on the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,” but Adam did not die on that day. Here a positive averment and denunciation is construed figuratively to reconcile it with the actual event, One of the apostles writes thus, "for as in Adam ALL die, so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." Interpreters generally allow the word all, in the first sentence, to be a term of strict universality, as far as relates to the animated beings of our planet, and at the same time insist that the same word, in the second sentence, is not a term of such universality, but of partial import only, not even implying a majority, but the contrary; and this is done to reduce it to a consistency with their system. Again, Christ said, "This is my body, this is my blood," referring to the bread and wine: The Papists interpret both phrases literally. Most other Christians, to render them compatible with fact and common sense, put a figurative construction on them. The Scripture declares that the wicked shall be cast into unquenchable fire, into everlasting fire. But many good men have maintained, that such phrases do not refer to the durability of its inflictive agency, but to the intensity of its destructive powers. It certainly appears to me that no greater licence in the exposi tion of Scripture will be required to support my hypothesis, than has been taken and allowed in expounding the preceding passages, and many,

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

AGREEING completely with the statement of A Dissenter and a Parent, p. 33, that "it has again and again been laid down that any regis ter of a birth may be, under certain circumstances, good evidence: the hand-writing of a father in a familybible or pocket-book has been received: and it cannot therefore be that so regular and formal a registry as that at the Library, in Red-Cross Street, should be invalid:" the only remark I have to make upon it is this, that even Sir Thomas Plumer never denied the Register to be evidence; what he refused, was a copy of that Register.

1

Whether his decision was founded on legal principle, it is now my intention to consider; and, for that purpose, it must be determined under what class of instruments, whether of a private or of a public nature, the Register at Dr. Williams's Library should be placed.

If it should be considered a private instrument, of the same nature as a family-bible or a pocket-book, then I allow, according to the doctrine of Chief Justice Holt, 3 Salkeld's Reports, p. 154, that a copy is not evidence, unless the original is lost or destroyed. I, however, maintain that this Register is of a public nature, and would be evidence, if produced, and therefore, according to the doctrine of the same learned Judge, an immediate sworn copy will be equally admitted. The question then appears to turn upon the meaning of the word public. According to some, that in law is only public which is recognized by the Legislature in an Act of Parlia ment. Though this definition is not sufficiently comprehensive, to include every thing of a public nature, let us at present consider, whether it does not virtually comprehend the Register at Dr. Williams's Library.

The Church of England is established by Act of Parliament, and the keep. ing of parish registers for entries of births and christenings commenced in the reign of Henry VIII., was enforced by injunctions from Edward

[blocks in formation]

VI. and Elizabeth, and directed by the canons of 1603. At that time, to dissent from the Established Church was a crime in the eyes of the Legislature of great magnitude, and continued to be considered so, until the glorious

reign of William III., when the Act of Toleration was passed, which, according to the words of Lord Mansfield in the Sheriff's Case, "renders that, which was illegal before, now legal: the Dissenters' way of worship is permitted and allowed by this Act; it is not only exempted from punishment, but rendered innocent and lawful; it is established; it is put under the protection, and is not merely under the connivance of the law." And further, 66 Dissenters within the description of the Toleration Act are restored to a legal consideration and capacity; and an hundred consequences will from thence follow, which are not mentioned in the Act." On this important subject I hope your readers will excuse my quoting the opinion also of Mr. Onslow, once Speaker of the House of Commons, (from Dr. Furneaux's admirable Letters to Mr. Justice Blackstone,) "that as far as the law could go, in point of protection, the Dissenters were as truly established as the Church of England; and that an Established Church, as distinguished from their places of worship, was, properly speaking, only an endowed church; a church, which the law not only protected, but éndowed with temporalities for its peculiar support and encouragement."

[ocr errors]

If, then, the effect of the Toleration Act is such as Lord Mansfield and Mr. Onslow considered it, it must follow not only that the rites and ceremonies of Dissenters, as distinguished from those of the Church, are legal and established, but also the omission of such ceremonies, as conscientious Dis senters consider unnecessary, and even contrary to the meaning of scripture, is permitted and legal.

Now, church baptism is inconsistent with the profession of Dissent, and, indeed, in the opinion of many conscientious Dissenters, baptism is not enjoined by any part of the Scriptures. These persons could never submit themselves or their children to be baptized, or at least not according to the form prescribed by the Church of England, but then their names could

not be entered in the parish register. The inconvenience that arose from this, compelled Dissenters, as soon as their dissent was recognized, and their mode of worship established by the Legislature, to keep a register of their own, which, being merely a register of births, interfered not with private opinions concerning baptism. And copies thereof are good evidence, for the same reason that copies of the Bank and East India Company's books are evidence, because they belong to public bodies recognized in and esta blished by Act of Parliament..

However, if this reasoning should appear to any person not sufficient to prove, what I have been aiming at, that a copy of the Register at Dr. Williams's Library is evidence in our courts of law and equity, to him, I say, that an argument ab inconveni enti, should make judges in future reprobate the conduct of the judge who has refused it, and sanction a Register in which not only Dissenters, but the public at large, from the peer to the peasant, are most deeply interested.

A. B.

Letter of Col. Stanhope's to the Duke of Gloucester on the State of Slavery in British India.

To his Royal Highness the DUKE of GLOUCESTER, K. G., Patron and President of the African Institution, &c. &c. &c.

SIR,

London,

June 20, 1822.

the influence which a

[ocr errors]

by export or import, along the shores of their extensive dominions. Their political agent, Captain Thompson, persuaded some Arab tribes, inhabiting the borders of the Persian Gulf, to stigmatize the trade as piracy: The Marquis of Hastings, their Governor General, put a stop to this traffic in Nepaul, heretofore the great mart from whence the neighbouring countries had been supplied with Slaves. They also interposed their powerful mediation with the Imaun of Muscat for the entire abolition of the Slave Trade at Zangebar. Hitherto, men had been sold there like cattle, and they had been annually sent to India, to the Mauritius, and to Muscat, to the amount of ten thousand.

Slavery, both agricultural and domestic, is said to have prevailed in Indostan from time immemorial. The sources of bondage were numerous. Colebrook states that there are seven modes of obtaining Slaves, recognized by the laws of the Hindoos: "One made captive in battle; one maintained in consideration of service; one born of a slave in the house; one sold or given away, or inherited from ancestors; and one enslaved by way of punishment." These methods were common to all ancient nations. I shall now mention some examples illustrative of the origin of Slavery in India. Tippoo, having subdued Coorg, caused seventy thousand of the inhabitants to be driven, like cattle, to Seringapatam. He there forced them to submit to the rite of circumcision, and sent back the labourers among them to become Slaves under his Zemindars. In most

K Prince of England must possess, of the Hindoo places of worship there

who has ever taken an active part in promoting the rights and happiness of man, I venture to address my thoughts to your Royal Highness on the state of Slavery in British India.

In the following observations, I shall endeavour to shew the origin of this bondage, the condition to which it has reduced a large portion of our fellow-creatures, and the policy of abolishing such an oppression, in our eastern empire. I shall enter on this discussion with the more confidence, because the Court of Directors of the East-India Company have, in several instances, declared themselves hostile to the principle of Slavery. They prohibited the commerce in Slaves, either

are establishments of dancing girls. They are generally purchased when infants, by the old prostitutes of the Pagodas. When the children grow up, they dispose of them as they please, so that the Bazars and Seraglios are supplied from this source. In the Hindoo Code, the Sudra tribe are considered as Slaves, the property of any person who defrays their marriage expenses, which is the ordinary way of constituting hereditary slavery. Free men of low caste, when in distress or debt, often sell their progeny, or their sisters' children, who are their heirs. In short, it appears that any man may voluntarily dispose of his own liberty, and may sell, without their consent,

the liberty of his children, and his heirs, and all their issue, from generation to generation.

As to the actual state of Slavery in Indostan, the domestic prevails all over India; but the agricultural exists, I believe, chiefly, though not exclusively, on the Malabar and Coromandel coasts, and the adjacent provinces. Slavery may be divided into two classes,-domestic Slaves, belong ing to rich men, and prostitutes; and Slaves employed in agriculture. The wealthy Mussulmans employ domestic Slaves, and these are usually converted to their faith. The men serve them as menials, the women are placed in and about their Seraglios. The Mahometans in general treat their Slaves well. This may be traced to a religious feeling; for by their law, Slaves are in some cases liable to only half the punishment adjudged to other offenders. "Moreover," says the Hadaya, "as bondage occasions the participation of only half the blessings of life, it also occasions the suffering of only half the punishment; because an offence increases in magnitude in proportion to the magnitude of the blessings under the enjoyment of which it is committed." With respect to the number of domestic Slaves, all we know is, that they are to be met with in almost every town and village, throughout our Indian empire.

The great Slave population consists of Hindoos, who are chiefly employed in agriculture. The principal Slave districts, are Arcot, Madura, Canara, Coimbatore, Tinnivelly, Trichinopoly, Malabar, Wynaud, Tanjore and Chingleput. No just estimate can be form ed of the extent of Slavery in these provinces. In Canara alone, there are said to be above 16,000 Slaves. The prices of Slaves vary in different provinces. A child may be estimated at a price varying from 10s. to 40s.; a woman, from £2 to £6; and a man from £3 to £20. In times of great scarcity or distress, they have been purchased for a handful of rice. The purchase, sale, or gift of a man, is usually confirmed by a title-deed, and this is binding on his descendants. The owners of Slaves are required to provide them with food and clothing, to defray their wedding expenses, and to assist them, on the births of children, and in funeral charges. The

Slaves have either a portion of ground allowed for their subsistence, or about one-eighth of the produce of the land they cultivate; or they get a small allowance of food, and one-twentieth part of the gross produce of the rice; or else they have a certain quantity of food daily. A man Slave receives about seven cubits of cloth yearly; a woman, about double that quantity. In some places they receive a larger allowance. "There are three modes," observes Buchanan, "of disposing of a Slave: First, by sale. Secondly, by mortgage; the proprietor receives a loan of money, generally two-thirds of the value of the Slave; also, annually, a small quantity of rice, to shew that his right in the Slave exists. He may resume the Slave on paying the money borrowed, and if he dies, the proprietor must find another. Thirdly, by letting the Slave for rent. This tenure is utterly abominable; for the person who exacts the labour, and furnishes the subsistence, is directly interested to increase the former and diminish the latter as much as possible." It is not incumbent on the Master to provide subsistence for his Slave, except when employed in his business. When the proprietor does not protect and subsist his bondsman, he may seek employment elsewhere; but he is bound to return to his master at harvest-time, and if not then wanted, he is still liable to be reclaimed at any future period. Slaves are incapable of acquiring any property of their own. "Three persons," says. Menu, "a wife, a son, and a slave, are declared by law to have in general no wealth exclusively their own. The wealth which they may earn is regularly acquired for the man to whom they belong." The Master possesses power over all the property of the Slave, and may use the cattle reared by him, for agricul tural purposes. He may also sell his Slave with or without his land. On the Coromandel coast, the Slaves are usually sold with the land, but the reverse is the case on the coast of Malabar. "The Hindoo law," says Colebrooke, "contemplates these two species of property, as one and the same; but in this, as in other countries, it has been usual to transfer the Slaves who were adscripti gleba, with the land itself." The Master cannot sell his Slave to one

« PreviousContinue »