Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

THE

ANALECTIC MAGAZINE.

SEPTEMBER, 1818.

ART. I.—1. Views of England, during a residence of ten years; six of them as a prisoner of war. By major general Pillet, knight of St. Louis, and member of the legion of honour. Translated from the French.

2. The Truth respecting England; or an Impartial Examination of the work of Mr. Pillet, and of various other writers on the same subject. Published, and dedicated to the English nation, by J. A. Vievard, proprietor and editor.

THE

HESE works are not a little singular in their character and history. The first is a spirited attack on the English nation by a French general officer, whose book has been suppressed, we understand, by the French government, but translated and republished in the United States; the second, a defence of the same people, published in England, in the English language, by another Frenchman, whose principal ground of apology consists in maintaining that the French nation is more wretched, immoral, and corrupt than the English! Betwixt them both, that unfortunate nation fares so badly, that, notwithstanding the scurvy and unneighbourly manner in which the British writers and critics have, from time to time, treated us of this western world, we have been induced to come forward in behalf of that suffering people: by endeavouring to defend them, as far as lies in our power, not only from the attacks of the major general, but the defence of the redoubtable M. Vievard; which, if the truth must be told, is rather the worst of the two. The general charges them gallantly in the character of an enemy, while M. Vievard, by his vindication, in our poor opinion, leaves them rather worse off than he found them.

Indeed, with all our critical sagacity, we are not, at this moment, perfectly satisfied, whether the latter gentleman is serious or not; whether, in fact, his defence be not rather a mischievous piece of irony, than a serious attempt to vindicate a calumniated nation. Thus, in denying the charge of tippling, brought by the general against the English ladies of quality, he admits its truth, when applied to all other classes of people, accounting for it, oddly enough, on the score of patriotism!

[blocks in formation]

'Political interest,' says M. Vievard, 'has on its side contributed to increase the consumption of spirituous liquors. Considerable duties are imposed on them, and they contribute, in a great proportion, to the wants of the treasury. Can we then be astonished, that the English of every rank, endeavour to encourage, by the example which they give, a consumption become national? Can we be surprised, that the custom of drinking, as M. Pillet politely says, is become general in England; in a country where, above all, they are patriots and citizens? When we are fully penetrated with this great truth, that there is nothing which an Englishman does not sacrifice to the interest of his country, and to the support of his government, we no longer think it shameful that the rich, the nobility, the first persons of the state, and even the princes of the royal family, adopt customs and a mode of living which testify a deference for the spirit and wants of the nation?'pp. 66-67. This now is one of the best reasons for drinking we ever heard; it is worth all Dr. Aldrich's five reasons put together.

Again-in reply to the major general's assertions with respect to the general cupidity of the English nation, M. Vievard, instead of controverting, proceeds to account for it in the following philosophical manner: After acknowledging it to be true, he observes, page 83, It would be proper, in the spirit of impartial justice, to examine the causes so profoundly multiplied in every commercial and maritime nation, which could induce a whole mass of people, of all conditions, to contract that spirit of avidity and of rapine. If M. Pillet had proceeded to an examination of such importance, with all the information and all the reflection which it requires, that observer would have acknowledged, that this desire of gain, this appetite for riches and fortune, of which he accuses the English character, that this innate desire of acquiring, as he calls it, does not originate in the natural character of the English, but that it is the effect, and the necessary effect of commerce, to which that nation is generally devoted, and which it could not renounce for an instant without compromising its existence.' Thus, this 'spirit of avidity and rapine' appears to be essential to the existence of England, although not originally a part of her character, but naturally growing out of those commercial habits, without which she cannot subsist!

Again-M. Vievard remarking on the assertion of the major general, that the liberty of the press is at present in England in complete dependance on the rich and powerful, and, in some sort, at the mercy of the royal authority, breaks out into the following rhapsody: The liberty of the press, a right the most precious which man can enjoy, since it secures to him the preservation of his civil and political privileges-the liberty of the press is the bulwark, the safeguard, the eternal and invincible protector of the English constitution.' He adds, immediately after- But the law of libel represses, with the utmost rigour, the writer who outrages the royal majesty, who calumniates that majesty in the person of &c. Again our suspicions are excited that M. Vie

the minist

vard is a great dealer in irony. If these passages were not written previous to the late suspension of the laws for the security of free discussion and personal liberty in England, they certainly were intended as a severe satire upon the freedom of the press in that country. And here we will take leave to observe, that the same epithets are applied in different countries, and under different systems of government, not only to different degrees of the same thing, but sometimes to things totally different. During the late struggles in Spain, the word liberty, for instance, was made use of with great effect, and gained many friends abroad, although it afterwards appeared, that this liberty was nothing more than the liberty of restoring king Ferdinand, and reviving the inquisition. In like manner, during the short exercise of power by the Spanish Cortes, a free press was established, subject to the supervision of three censors, two of whom were ecclesiastics. So, also, in England, where the press is still called free, and where M. Vievard maintains it to be the bulwark, the safeguard, the eternal and invincible protector of the English constitution,' we have seen all the provisions of that very constitution, calculated for the security of personal freedom, broken, or as it is politely called, suspended, solely for the purpose of punishing certain free speakers and writers, who, though they transgressed no law, yet were, at the same time, putting the constitution in jeopardy. Thus it appears clearly, that in some free countries, the constitution may be broken to preserve the constitution, and a free press maintained, by the suspension of all laws for its support. It may therefore be well to caution the really free people, of this, the only free nation of the earth, how they suffer themselves to be deceived by mere names; to advise them, in short, when they hear the word freedom used as characteristic of any European government, to look to the system thus designated. They will then generally find, that what is there called, by a figure of rhetoric, liberty, is nothing more than what we are accustomed to look upon as abject slavery.

To us Americans, it must also appear evident, that M. Vievard is indulging this strain of irony in its fullest latitude, when, in reply to the major general, he denies that the Engiish sailors and soldiers are in fact slaves for life, when once they enter the service; and, in the spirit of triumphant burlesque, asks- Is the English soldier (or sailor) seen to desert, even in time of war, like those of other nations, although in England he alienates a great part of the most precious rights? Is the English subject seen to apostatize his country, and go to beg letters of naturalization in a foreign country?' Thus does this wily Frenchman covertly reproach England with that propensity to desertion and emigration, so remarkably evinced of late years by her soldiers, sailors, and subjects, to the perceptions of our countrymen!

In one part of his book, the major general takes occasion to remark, that the English nation makes a jest of perjury, and instances the case of lord Ellenborough, who causes to be exercised, in the name of his son, and by an old domestic of his house, the place of

head gaoler, or marshal of the Fleet Prison, in London.' This domestic; it seems, is obliged to make oath before lord Ellenborough himself, who enjoys the emoluments of this place, that he, the domestic, is the true titular head of the place, and that he does not hold it in the name, or for the advantage of any one. Now we will venture to say, that no person, whose object it really was to wipe away a great national stain, such as that of national perjury, would have made an explanation, or apology, which goes far beyond the original assertion of M. Pillet, in rendering support to the charge. 'Who,' exclaims M. Vievard,' does not see, in the case of lord Ellenborough, that kind of survivorship, which it is the custom, every where, to grant to a functionary after long services; a survivorship which requires, for form's sake, that kind of oath, or fictitious security? Again, says he- Can we range equally, in the rank of perjuries, those kinds of false oaths, or rather of false declarations, of personal qualification, of our income in landed property, of fortune, or of merchandize, which take place daily in England, either to fill a public function, or to avoid a surcharge of taxes, or the payment of certain duties, or the delays so hurtful to the facility of commercial enterprize? A multitude of these (false) declarations, which are called oaths, are certainly innocent, at least if we do not view them according to a strict sense of morality, or rather of religion.' If M. Vievard should ever, by any chance, happen to see this obscure article of ours, we beg him distinctly to understand, that if the national character of our country should happen to be assailed by the Quarterly Reviewer, or any other notorious libeller, we will take it as a particular favour (as sir Peter Teazle says to Mrs. Candour) if he will refrain from undertaking our defence.'

[ocr errors]

Pursuing this original and happy mode of extenuating what he cannot, or will not deny, M. Vievard proceeds to assign a curious reason for the prodigious increase of pauperism in England, as noticed by the major general. Assuredly,' says he, this great number of persons reduced to depend on public help, is a great evil, we might say a great error; but it is necessary always to return, in order to explain or excuse it, to the prodigious extension of industry and commerce.' This is the first time we ever heard that plenty of business, and a disposition to work, were the causes of poverty among the labouring classes. It takes M. Vievard upwards of twenty pages to make it fairly out, and as usual, he finds it necessary to bolster up his theory by stoutly anathematizing the French revolution, and Napoleon Bonaparte, the roots of all evil past, present, and to come. This ingenious mode of reasoning he borrows, we suspect, from our brothers of the Quarterly Review, who always put honest John Bull off the scent of the real causes of his grievances, by appealing to his fears and antipathies, and starting Bonaparte for a chace.

Having laboured through this ingenious theory, M. Vievard goes on to examine the statements of the major general, relating to the manner in which prisoners of war are lodged and treated in

[ocr errors]

the depots in England. Throughout the whole extent of the three kingdoms,' observes the apologist, there are few strong places, or citadels, except military ports, and consequently these are not the places to which a great number of prisoners, of a stirring disposition, and induced to undertake every thing to recover their liberty, can be consigned. If prisoners at all times have been better cantoned in France than in England, it must be attributed to the local conveniences which the former offers; a country where a vast extent of internal territory permits legions to be barracked without danger. But England is far from offering the same facilities, and the more prisoners of war she has in the interior the more danger she runs.'

"The English are then necessarily forced, by the nature of circumstances, and with a view to their own safety, to confine their prisoners of war in pontoons. A pontoon being nothing more or less than some seventy-four or eighty gun ship, it is obvious how many privations, from want of room, this must occasion to 1500 or 1800 men, since a vessel of this magnitude, when full manned for sea, does not carry more than seven or eight hundred men at the most; and besides, the pontoon, independent of the prisoners which it contains, requires a numerous guard to insure the subordination and the state of tranquillity of the prisoners.' This 'being the case, let us, even while we deplore the horrible use England is obliged to make of her pontoons, to guard prisoners of war without danger, examine with impartiality whether a great part of the evils these prisoners have experienced, is not a necessary consequence of the state of things.' The nature and quantity of these provisions were fixed,' proceeds M. Vievard- and if this regimen was not the most comfortable, yet this could not be the fault of the English government, who followed the laws of war established among nations. Yet the nourishment of the prisoners of war was neither so scanty, nor so inferior in quality, as M. Pillet sets forth; a crowd of Frenchmen returned alive from England, attest this. It is from their authority we speak; and we would boldly assert the contrary if it were proved to us: we do not speak as Englishmen; we are Frenchmen, in defending the truth, although our assertions tend to show that a French writer has calumniated the English government. M. Pillet complains highly of the severity of the confinement, the rigour of the orders, of the searches and the musters which take place on board the pontoons; all these are very unpleasant for the people, for the victims, if you choose, who are subjected to this order of things: but those victims were reduced to this condition by the insatiable ambition of Bonaparte; it was he alone who provoked and maintained their sufferings! M. Pillet does not say, indeed he takes care not to say, that their return home was open to them, that liberty was offered to every prisoner of war who would espouse the cause of the French in the west, who held out their arms to receive them; M. Pillet does not state, that the intreaties of the French princes, and their faithful servants in La Vendee, were constantly repelled, and that with a kind of fury, by

« ÎnapoiContinuă »