that no one would dare to take it up? It has been taken up, and if he is right, by a woman. What did he look for?

'Let not him that sows the dragon's teeth,
Expect a peaceful harvest.'*

Mere

Our author ascribes the article in the Edinburgh Review to the pen of Miss Martineau; how justly or otherwise we cannot tell. He judges, he says, by the peculiarities of the style, but especially by the remarks of Miss M. on the merits of Miss M., which, in his mind, establish the conviction, that the major part of the article, if not the whole, is hers. In his mind it may; we will venture to say, however, that in every candid mind it would establish just the contrary. The hostility shown to this lady throughout these volumes is astonishing; but in the reply' the Martineau-phobia appears in a perfectly rabid state. political partizanship could surely never induce even in a Tory, such-yes, we think we may say-hatred. There must be some deeper cause, surely-no affair of the heart we hope. The author then goes on to say, The Edinburgh Review will no 'doubt most positively deny that Miss M. had any thing to do 'with the review of my work.' He then tells a story in which the words incorrigible liar,' in italics, are evidently applied to the Edinburgh reviewer; and finishes by saying, 'The very cir'cumstance of its denial would with me be sufficient to establish 'that fact;' very fair, and very honorable to the writer! This is the kind of thing which Tories always bring forward when they have no reason or argument on their side; attacks on private character are regular ingredients in their reviews.

At page 298, we find the following charge brought against the Edinburgh reviewer, There is a malevolent feeling in the 'assertion, that I have treated all previous writers on America 'with contempt; and here again he intentionally quotes falsely (the italics are ours), my words are the majority of those who have preceded me.' Such a charge, if proved, would destroy the credit of any reviewer. Now, let us see the other side. Page 306, Captain Marryat says, 'But the reviewer in his viru'lence, has not been satisfied with attacking me; he has thought 'it necessary to libel the whole profession to which I belong. He has the folly and impertinence to make the following re'mark. No landsman can have been on board of a ship a week "without coming to the conclusion, that a sensible house dog is more like the people he has left at home, than most of his new companions; and that it (the house dog) would be nearly as

66

* Schiller's Wallenstein.

"capable of solving problems on national character.'' Page 308, House dogs! hear this, ye public of England, a sensible 'house dog is to be preferred to St. Vincent, Nelson, Collingwood, Exmouth, and all those great men,' &c.

The Edinburgh reviewer says no such thing. He does not say a word of Nelson, &c., or of any great men: he says most of his companions,' or the 'majority;' and even were the four above-named noblemen in one ship together, they would not be the most, or majority,' even of the officers. The reviewer, then, has not libelled them, nor such as they; much less the whole profession. Now, let us for a moment imagine ourselves promoted into the Edinburgh reviewer, and see how we should rewrite Captain Marryat's own sentence. 'There is a malevolent 'feeling in the assertion, that we have libelled the whole profes'sion, and here again he (the author) intentionally quotes falsely; our words are most (a majority') of his new companions.'

Now, worthy Captain, are not you rather ashamed of yourself? You have used foul language to the reviewer for doing precisely what you have done yourself; indeed, you have done worse, for to false quotation you have added misrepresentation. You are not to make one law for others, and another for yourself; either the reviewer had not a malevolent feeling, and did not intentionally quote falsely, or you had and did the same and worse.

We admire the naval profession, and certainly do not admire the taste which compared its members to house dogs; good dogs they surely are (we mean no disparagement), for they have kept the wolf from the door, and the nation knows it.

Miss Martineau, like every body else, has doubtless much to be thankful for, and for this among the rest-that abuse kills nobody. Her opinions have been incessantly assailed, now come a few personalities. At page 304, she is attacked, on the authority, be it observed, of certain anonymous young ladies' (who most probably would never have been quoted or perhaps credited, had they narrated any thing to her advantage), for having sat down, surrounded by young ladies, and amused them with all the histories of her former loves.' And I said to myself, 'who would have supposed that this Solon in petticoats would ' ever have dwelt upon her former days of enthusiasm and hope, 'or have cherished the reminiscences of love?' Very feeling and gentlemanly! Again,

6

'I was conversing with a lady at New York, who informed me that she had seen a letter from Miss Martineau, written to a friend of hers, after her return to England, in which Miss M. declared, that her door was so besieged by the carriages of the nobility, that it was quite uncomfortable, and that she hardly knew what to do.'

It is then insinuated that no carriage but that of Lord

Brougham is ever seen at her door, and of course that the foregoing statement is false.

6

But when I heard this I was pleased, for I said to myself, So, then, this champion of democracy, this scorner of rank and title is flattered by the carriages of the nobility "crowding at her door.''

Miss M., it seems, has said, that 'human nature is everywhere 'the same,' and all this impertinent personality is written and printed forsooth, to prove the truth of the assertion. The following extract from vol. i. p. 183, relates to some political discussions in America, and is quoted by the author to prove the extent to which defamation is carried in that country, and amongst democrats and voluntaries.

6

Party spirit has entered the recesses of retirement; violated 'the sanctity of female character, invaded the tranquillity of private life, &c. A licentious and destroying spirit has gone forth, 'regardless of every thing but the gratification of malignant feelings, and unworthy aspirations.' The decencies of private 'life were disregarded; CONVERSATIONS and CORRESPONDENCE, 'which should have been confidential, were brought before the 'public eye; the ruthless warfare was carried into the bosom of 'private life; neither age nor sex was spared.'

Such things as these, of course, could never happen under monarchy, and an established church!

We suppose these apocryphal stories are intended to convict Miss M. of vanity. Vanity! there is more vanity in the 'reply' alone, than would weigh down all that is imputed to Miss M., and herself to boot. But granting that she has her little vanities, what in the name of common sense has that to do with the merits of the article in the Edinburgh Review, or with Miss M.'s judgment in political economy? Suppose Captain Marryat should apply for an appointment at the Admiralty, and that very logical personage, the secretary, should say to him, 'Give you a ship, indeed; you boasted the other day that you had severely "punished' the Edinburgh reviewer; what can you know of navigation? Of course this answer should be quite satisfactory. Captain M. talks of getting the Edinburgh reviewer into an 'everlasting awkward fix ;' but other people can get into awkward fixes quite as well. Captain M., for instance, seems to be dreadfully sore about Miss M.'s review: if he is, his feelings and his assertions are at decided variance; if he is not, his personalities to Miss M. are perfectly heartless and inexcusable.

And now come up the Triarii, the constant reserve of Tories and high Churchmen; the charges of sedition and infidelity which are regularly brought against all who differ from their opinions on matters of policy and religion. Our readers expected this, of course, but we have a few words to say on this subject also.

The passage in the Edinburgh Review, on which these charges are professedly founded, is as follows (we say professedly, because the charges would have been as surely made, though the shadow of a foundation had been wanting): An ardent pursuit of wealth and deep religious feeling go very well together.' Our author is wonderfully indignant at this; and quotes text upon text against it, with as much earnestness as though the whole bench of bishops believed them—and acted accordingly: such as, 'Ye cannot serve God and Mammon,' and that whole class of Scripture axioms, which neither we, nor any of our readers, we presume, dispute. We only propose to show, that the condemnation of the person who wrote the sentence, would have come with a much better grace from a more immaculate quarter.

Miss Martineau-poor Miss Martineau-has said that the 'habit of intemperance is not infrequent among women of station and education in the most enlightened parts of the country,' implying, says our author, that it is a general habit among the American women (it implies no such thing); and he goes on to

say,

The origin of this slander I know well, and the only ground for it is, that there are two or three ladies of a certain city, who having been worked upon by some of the evangelical revival ministers, have had their minds crushed by the continual excitement to which they have been subjected. The mind affects the body, and they have required, and have applied to, stimulus; and if you will inquire into the moral state of any woman among the higher classes, either in America or England, who has fallen into the vice alluded to, nine times out of ten you will find, that it has been brought about by religious excitement. Fanaticism (i. e. evangelical religion, see the context) and gin are remarkably good friends all over the world.'-Vol. ii. pp. 24, 25.

St. Paul says, 1 Corinthians vi. 10, that drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and he repeats it in Galatians vi. 21: but Captain Marryat says, Fanaticism (evangelical religion) and gin are remarkably good friends.' Again, Captain Marryat considers that the laws relating to divorce are much too strict in this country; and that some half dozen causes for it should be allowed, instead of the one permitted by the Scripture. Our Saviour says, Matt. v. 32, Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit 'adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.'No,' says Captain M., 'it certainly appears 'to me to be reasonable to suppose, that those laws by which the imperfection of our natures may be fairly met (that is, provided 'for), and which tended to diminish the aggregate of crime (by committing one to prevent another), must be more acceptable 'to our Divine Master, than any, which however they may be

in spirit more rigidly conformable to his precepts, are found in 'their working not to succeed.'-vol. ii. p. 30. That is, our Divine Master, who made the heart, does not know how to govern it; and the more rigidly our laws conform to the spirit of his precepts, the worse they work; and Captain M. will be happy to teach Him better. Now, Quære. If the Edinburgh reviewer is an infidel, what is Captain Marryat ?*

We must now make a few general observations, while our space suffices. In the first place, we would just hint to Captain M. (like his friend Mr. Chucks, with the greatest delicacy imaginable), that there are two sides to most questions; that to oppose the political doctrines of Tories is no more sedition in a Whig, than to controvert the principles of Whig statesmen is sedition in a Tory: and that a conscientious opposition to a secular church is no more infidelity in a reviewer, than a constant vituperation of Dissenters and their institutions is infidelity in a bishop--both are infidelity, or neither is. And now, having told the author what is not sedition and infidelity, we will tell him what is. When a man at a public dinner gets up, and uses abuse and even threats, to the highest personage in the realm, that is sedition. When Tory clergyment hunt in couples over the kingdom, and endeavor to raise dissatisfaction and opposition to her Majesty's government, and even proceed, the one to denounce her as no Christian; and the other to call her that woman Jezebel;' this is sedition. A disbelief in the religion of the evangelists is infidelity; and when we consider that the clergymen above alluded to, are the very men who when their party was in power, were constantly preaching to Dissenters and others, the scriptural duty of passive obedience and non-resistance even to tyranny; and the heinous sin of speaking evil of dignities; their conduct, on Captain M.'s own principles, comes pretty near to infidelity as well as his own. We quote his own 'reply' against all three. If they acknowledge the Scriptures, they must at 'the same time acknowledge their own grievous error, and we 'may add, their deep sin; if on the contrary they still hold to their own opinion, have they not denied their faith, and are they 'not worse than infidels ?'—vol. iii. p. 303.

Since writing the above, we have turned to the Edinburgh Review, and it certainly appears to us from the context, that the writer merely meant to express the Scripture doctrine, that a man may be diligent in business-yet fervent in spirit serving God. The offence arises from this infidel' having given the author a well merited rebuke for the flippancy and lightness with which he speaks on religious subjects.

The Reverends Gregg and M'Neile.

Here is another everlasting awkward fix. Either the Tory spirituals must admit their tool to be a seditious libeller, or the head of their immaculate and apostolic Church, to be no Christian.