A Budget of Paradoxes Volume I Part 16

"G.o.d save n.o.ble Clarence, Who brings our king to France; G.o.d save Clarence!

He maintains the glory Of the British navy, etc., etc."

{180} Perhaps had this been published, the Government would have a.s.sailed it as a libel on the church service. They got into the way of defending themselves by making libels on the Church, of what were libels, if on anything, on the rulers of the State; until the celebrated trials of Hone settled the point for ever, and established that juries will not convict for one offence, even though it have been committed, when they know the prosecution is directed at another offence and another intent.

HONE'S FAMOUS TRIALS.

The results of Hone's trials (William Hone, 1779-1842) are among the important const.i.tutional victories of our century. He published parodies on the Creeds, the Lord's Prayer, the Catechism, etc., with intent to bring the Ministry into contempt: everybody knew that was his _purpose_. The Government indicted him for impious, profane, blasphemous intent, but not for seditious intent. They hoped to wear him out by proceeding day by day.

December 18, 1817, they hid themselves under the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Commandments; December 19, under the Litany; December 20, under the Athanasian Creed, an odd place for shelter when they could not find it in the previous places. Hone defended himself for six, seven, and eight hours on the several days: and the jury acquitted him in 15, 105, and 20 minutes.

In the second trial the offense was laid both as profanity and as sedition, which seems to have made the jury hesitate. And they probably came to think that the second count was false pretence: but the length of their deliberation is a satisfactory addition to the value of the whole. In the first trial the Attorney-General (Shepherd) had the impudence to say that the libel had nothing of a political tendency about it, but was _avowedly_ set off against the religion and worship of the Church of England. The whole {181} is political in every sentence; neither more nor less political than the following, which is part of the parody on the Catechism: "What is thy duty towards the Minister? My duty towards the Minister is, to trust him as much as I can; to honor him with all my words, with all my bows, with all my sc.r.a.pes, and with all my cringes; to flatter him; to give him thanks; to give up my whole soul to him; to idolize his name, and obey his word, and serve him blindly all the days of his political life." And the parody on the Creed begins, "I believe in George, the Regent almighty, maker of new streets and Knights of the Bath." This is what the Attorney-General said had nothing of a political tendency about it. But this was _on the first trial_: Hone was not known. The first day's trial was under Justice Abbott (afterwards C. J. Tenterden).[405] It was perfectly understood, when Chief Justice Ellenborough[406] appeared in Court on the second day, that he was very angry at the first result, and put his junior aside to try his own rougher dealing. But Hone tamed the lion. An eye-witness told me that when he implored of Hone not to detail his own father Bishop Law's[407] views on the Athanasian Creed, which humble pet.i.tion Hone kindly granted, he held by the desk for support. And the same when--which is not reported--the Attorney-General appealed to the Court for protection against a {182} stinging attack which Hone made on the Bar: he _held on_, and said, "Mr. Attorney, what _can_ I do!" I was a boy of twelve years old, but so strong was the feeling of exultation at the verdicts that boys at school were not prohibited from seeing the parodies, which would have been held at any other time quite unfit to meet their eyes. I was not able to comprehend all about the Lord Chief Justice until I read and heard again in after years. In the meantime, Joe Miller had given me the story of the leopard which was sent home on board a ship of war, and was in two days made as docile as a cat by the sailors.[408] "You have got that fellow well under," said an officer. "Lord bless your Honor!" said Jack, "if the Emperor of Marocky would send us a c.o.c.k rhinoceros, we'd bring him to his bearings in no time!" When I came to the subject again, it pleased me to entertain the question whether, if the Emperor had sent a c.o.c.k rhinoceros to preside on the third day in the King's Bench, Hone would have mastered _him_: I forget how I settled it. There grew up a story that Hone caused Lord Ellenborough's death, but this could not have been true.

Lord Ellenborough resigned his seat in a few months, and died just a year after the trials; but sixty-eight years may have had more to do with it than his defeat.

A large subscription was raised for Hone, headed by the Duke of Bedford[409] for 105. Many of the leading anti-ministerialists joined: but there were many of the other side who avowed their disapprobation of the false pretense. Many could not venture their names. In the list I find: {183} A member of the House of Lords, an enemy to persecution, and especially to religious persecution employed for political purposes--No parodist, but an enemy to persecution--A juryman on the third day's trial--Ellen Borough--My name would ruin me--Oh! minions of Pitt--Oil for the Hone--The Ghosts of Jeffries[410] and Sir William Roy [Ghosts of Jeffries in abundance]--A conscientious Jury and a conscientious Attorney, 1 6s. 8d.--To Mr. Hone, for defending in his own person the freedom of the press, attacked for a political object, under the old pretense of supporting Religion--A cut at corruption--An Earldom for myself and a translation for my brother--One who disapproves of parodies, but abhors persecution--From a schoolboy who wishes Mr. Hone to have a very grand subscription--"For delicacy's sake forbear," and "Felix trembled"--"I will go myself to-morrow"--Judge Jeffries' works rebound in calf by Law--Keep us from Law, and from the Shepherd's paw--I must not give you my name, but G.o.d bless you!--As much like Judge Jeffries as the present times will permit--May Jeffries' fame and Jeffries' fate on every modern Jeffries wait--No parodist, but an admirer of the man who has proved the fallacy of the Lawyer's Law, that when a man is his own advocate he has a fool for his client--A Mussulman who thinks it would not be an impious libel to parody the Koran--May the suspenders of the Habeas Corpus Act be speedily suspended--Three times twelve for thrice-tried Hone, who cleared the cases himself alone, and won three heats by twelve to one, 1 16s.--A conscientious attorney, 1 6s. 8d.--Rev. T. B. Morris, rector of Shelfanger, who disapproves of the parodies, but abhors the making an affected zeal for religion the pretext for political persecution--A Lawyer opposed in principle to {184} Law--For the Hone that set the razor that shaved the rats--Rev. Dr. Samuel Parr, who most seriously disapproves of all parodies upon the hallowed language of Scripture and the contents of the Prayer-book, but acquits Mr. Hone of intentional impiety, admires his talents and fort.i.tude, and applauds the good sense and integrity of his juries--Religion without hypocrisy, and Law without impartiality--O Law! O Law! O Law!

These are specimens of a great many allusive mottoes. The subscription was very large, and would have bought a handsome annuity, but Hone employed it in the bookselling trade, and did not thrive. His _Everyday Book_[411] and his _Apocryphal New Testament_,[412] are useful books. On an annuity he would have thriven as an antiquarian writer and collector. It is well that the attack upon the right to ridicule Ministers roused a dormant power which was equal to the occasion. Hone declared, on his honor, that he had never addressed a meeting in his life, nor spoken a word before more than twelve persons. Had he--which however could not then be done--employed counsel and had a _guilty defense_ made for him, he would very likely have been convicted, and the work would have been left to be done by another. No question that the parodies disgusted all who reverenced Christianity, and who could not separate the serious and the ludicrous, and prevent their existence in combination.

My extracts, etc., are from the nineteenth, seventeenth, and sixteenth editions of the three trials, which seem to have been contemporaneous (all in 1818) as they are made up into one book, with additional t.i.tle over all, and the motto "Thrice the brindled cat hath mew'd." They are published by Hone himself, who I should have said was a publisher {185} as well as was to be. And though the trials only ended Dec. 20, 1817, the preface attached to this common t.i.tle is dated Jan. 23, 1818.[413]

The spirit which was roused against the false dealing of the Government, i.e., the pretense of prosecuting for impiety when all the world knew the real offense was, if anything, sedition--was not got up at the moment: there had been previous exhibitions of it. For example, in the spring of 1818 Mr. Russell, a little printer in Birmingham, was indicted for publishing the Political Litany[414] on which Hone was afterwards tried. He took his witnesses to the summer Warwick a.s.sizes, and was told that the indictment had been removed by certiorari into the King's Bench. He had notice of trial for the spring a.s.sizes at Warwick: he took his witnesses there, and the trial was postponed by the Crown. He then had notice for the summer a.s.sizes at Warwick; and so on. The policy seems to have been to wear out the obnoxious parties, either by delays or by heaping on trials. The Government was odious, and knew it could _not_ get verdicts against ridicule, and _could_ get verdicts against impiety. No difficulty was found in convicting the sellers of Paine's works, and the like. When Hone was held to bail it was seen that a crisis was at hand. All parties in politics furnished him with parodies in proof of religious persons having made instruments of them. The parodies by Addison and Luther were contributed by a Tory lawyer, who was afterwards a judge.

Hone had published, in 1817, tracts of purely political ridicule: _Official Account of the n.o.ble Lord's Bite,_[415] _Trial of the Dog for Biting the n.o.ble Lord_, etc. These were not touched. After the trials, it is manifest that Hone was {186} to be una.s.sailed, do what he might. _The Political House that Jack built_, in 1819; _The Man in the Moon_, 1820; _The Queen's Matrimonial Ladder_, _Non mi ricordo_, _The R--l Fowls_, 1820; _The Political Showman at Home_, with plates by G. Cruickshank,[416] 1821 [he did all the plates]; _The Spirit of Despotism_, 1821--would have been legitimate marks for prosecution in previous years. The biting caricature of several of these works are remembered to this day. _The Spirit of Despotism_ was a tract of 1795, of which a few copies had been privately circulated with great secrecy. Hone reprinted it, and prefixed the following address to "Robert Stewart, _alias_ Lord Castlereagh"[417]: "It appears to me that if, unhappily, your counsels are allowed much longer to prevail in the Brunswick Cabinet, they will bring on a crisis, in which the king may be dethroned or the people enslaved. Experience has shown that the people will not be enslaved--the alternative is the affair of your employers." Hone might say this without notice.

In 1819 Mr. Murray[418] published Lord Byron's _Don Juan_,[419] and Hone followed it with _Don John, or Don Juan Unmasked_, a little account of what the publisher to the Admiralty was allowed to issue without prosecution.

The parody on the Commandments was a case very much in point: and Hone makes a stinging allusion to the use of the "_unutterable Name_, with a profane levity unsurpa.s.sed by {187} any other two lines in the English language." The lines are

"'Tis strange--the Hebrew noun which means 'I am,'

The English always use to govern d----n."

Hone ends with: "Lord Byron's dedication of 'Don Juan' to Lord Castlereagh was suppressed by Mr. Murray from delicacy to Ministers. Q. Why did not Mr.

Murray suppress Lord Byron's _parody_ on the Ten Commandments? _A._ Because it contains nothing in ridicule of Ministers, and therefore nothing that _they_ could suppose would lead to the displeasure of Almighty G.o.d."

The little matters on which I have dwelt will never appear in history from their political importance, except in a few words of result. As a mode of thought, silly evasions of all kinds belong to such a work as the present.

Ignorance, which seats itself in the chair of knowledge, is a mother of revolutions in politics, and of unread pamphlets in circle-squaring. From 1815 to 1830 the question of revolution or no revolution lurked in all our English discussions. The high cla.s.ses must govern; the high cla.s.ses shall not govern; and thereupon issue was to be joined. In 1828-33 the question came to issue; and it was, Revolution with or without civil war; choose.

The choice was wisely made; and the Reform Bill started a new system so well dovetailed into the old that the joinings are hardly visible. And now, in 1867, the thing is repeated with a marked subsidence of symptoms; and the party which has taken the place of the extinct Tories is carrying through Parliament a wider extension of the franchise than their opponents would have ventured. Napoleon used to say that a decided nose was a sign of power: on which it has been remarked that he had good reason to say so before the play was done. And so had our country; it was saved from a religious war, and from a civil war, by the power of that nose over its colleagues. {188}

THOMAS TAYLOR, THE PLATONIST.

The Commentaries of Proclus.[420] Translated by Thomas Taylor.[421]

London, 1792, 2 vols. 4to.[422]

The reputation of "the Platonist" begins to grow, and will continue to grow. The most authentic account is in the _Penny Cyclopaedia_, written by one of the few persons who knew him well, and one of the fewer who possess all his works. At page lvi of the Introduction is Taylor's notion of the way to find the circ.u.mference. It is not geometrical, for it proceeds on the motion of a point: the words "on account of the simplicity of the impulsive motion, such a line must be either straight or circular" will suffice to show how Platonic it is. Taylor certainly professed a kind of heathenism. D'lsraeli said, "Mr. T. Taylor, the Platonic philosopher and the modern Plethon,[423] consonant to that philosophy, professes polytheism." Taylor printed this in large type, in a page by itself after the dedication, without any disavowal. I have seen the following, Greek and translation both, in his handwriting: "[Greek: Pas agathos hei agathos ethnikos; kai pas christianos hei christianos kakos.] Every good man, so far as he is a good man, is a heathen; and every Christian, so far as he is a Christian, is a bad man." Whether Taylor had in his head the Christian of the New Testament, or whether he drew from those members of the "religious world" who make manifest the religious flesh and the religious devil, {189} cannot be decided by us, and perhaps was not known to himself. If a heathen, he was a virtuous one.

A NEW ERA IN FICTION.

(1795.) This is the date of a very remarkable paradox. The religious world--to use a name claimed by a doctrinal sect--had long set its face against amusing literature, and all works of imagination. Bunyan, Milton, and a few others were irresistible; but a long face was pulled at every attempt to produce something readable for poor people and _poor children_.

In 1795, a benevolent a.s.sociation began to circulate the works of a lady who had been herself a dramatist, and had nourished a pleasant vein of satire in the society of Garrick and his friends; all which is carefully suppressed in some biographies. Hannah More's[424] _Cheap Repository Tracts_,[425] which were bought by millions of copies, destroyed the vicious publications with which the hawkers deluged the country, by the simple process of furnishing the hawkers with something more saleable.

_Dramatic fiction_, in which the _characters_ are drawn by themselves, was, at the middle of the last century, the monopoly of writers who required indecorum, such as Fielding and Smollett. All, or nearly all, which could be permitted to the young, was dry narrative, written by people who could not make their personages _talk character_; they all spoke {190} alike. The author of the _Rambler_[426] is ridiculed, because his young ladies talk Johnsonese; but the satirists forget that all the presentable novel-writers were equally incompetent; even the author of _Zeluco_ (1789)[427] is the strongest possible case in point.

Dr. Moore,[428] the father of the hero of Corunna,[429] with good narrative power, some sly humor, and much observation of character, would have been, in our day, a writer of the _Peac.o.c.k_[430] family. Nevertheless, to one who is accustomed to our style of things, it is comic to read the dialogue of a jealous husband, a suspected wife, a faithless maid-servant, a tool of a nurse, a wrong-headed pomposity of a priest, and a sensible physician, all talking Dr. Moore through their masks. Certainly an Irish soldier does say "by Jasus," and a c.o.c.kney footman "this here" and "that there"; and this and the like is all the painting of characters which is effected out of the mouths of the bearers by a narrator of great power. I suspect that some novelists repressed their power under a rule that a narrative should narrate, and that the dramatic should be confined to the drama.

I make no exception in favor of Miss Burney;[431] though she was the forerunner of a new era. Suppose a country {191} in which dress is always of one color; suppose an importer who brings in cargoes of blue stuff, red stuff, green stuff, etc., and exhibits dresses of these several colors, that person is the similitude of Miss Burney. It would be a delightful change from a universal dull brown, to see one person all red, another all blue, etc.; but the real inventor of pleasant dress would be the one who could mix his colors and keep down the bright and gaudy. Miss Burney's introduction was so charming, by contrast, that she nailed such men as Johnson, Burke, Garrick, etc., to her books. But when a person who has read them with keen pleasure in boyhood, as I did, comes back to them after a long period, during which he has made acquaintance with the great novelists of our century, three-quarters of the pleasure is replaced by wonder that he had not seen he was at a puppet-show, not at a drama. Take some _labeled_ characters out of our humorists, let them be put together into one piece, to speak only as labeled: let there be a Dominie with nothing but "Prodigious!" a d.i.c.k Swiveller with nothing but adapted quotations; a Dr. Folliott with nothing but sneers at Lord Brougham;[432] and the whole will pack up into one of Miss Burney's novels.

Maria Edgeworth,[433] Sydney Owenson (Lady Morgan),[434] Jane Austen,[435]

Walter Scott,[436] etc., are all of our century; as {192} are, I believe, all the Minerva Press novels, as they were called, which show some of the power in question. Perhaps dramatic talent found its best encouragement in the drama itself. But I cannot ascertain that any such power was directed at the mult.i.tude, whether educated or uneducated, with natural mixture of character, under the restraints of decorum, until the use of it by two religious writers of the school called "evangelical," Hannah More and Rowland Hill.[437] The _Village Dialogues_, though not equal to the _Repository Tracts_, are in many parts an approach, and perhaps a copy; there is frequently humorous satire, in that most effective form, self-display. They were published in 1800, and, partly at least, by the Religious Tract Society, the lineal successor of the _Repository_ a.s.sociation, though knowing nothing about its predecessor. I think it right to add that Rowland Hill here mentioned is not the regenerator of the Post Office.[438] Some do not distinguish accurately; I have heard of more than one who took me to have had a logical controversy with a diplomatist who died some years before I was born.

THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY.

A few years ago, an attempt was made by myself and others to collect some information about the _Cheap Repository_ (see _Notes and Queries_, 3d Series, vi. 241, 290, 353; _Christian Observer_, Dec. 1864, pp. 944-49). It appeared that after the Religious Tract Society had existed more than fifty years, a friend presented it with a copy of the original prospectus of the _Repository_, a thing the existence of which was not known. In this prospectus it is announced that from the plan "will be carefully excluded whatever is enthusiastic, absurd, or superst.i.tious." The "evangelical"

{193} party had, from the foundation of the Religious Tract Society, regretted that the _Repository Tracts_ "did not contain a fuller statement of the great evangelical principles"; while in the prospectus it is also stated that "no cause of any particular party is intended to be served by it, but general Christianity will be promoted upon practical principles."

This explains what has often been noticed, that the tracts contain a mild form of "evangelical" doctrine, free from that more fervid dogmatism which appears in the _Village Dialogues_; and such as H. More's friend, Bishop Porteus[439]--a great promoter of the scheme--might approve. The Religious Tract Society (in 1863) republished some of H. More's tracts, with alterations, additions, and omissions _ad libitum_. This is an improper way of dealing with the works of the dead; especially when the reprints are of popular works. A small type addition to the preface contains: "Some alterations and abridgements have been made to adapt them to the present times and the aim of the Religious Tract Society." I think every publicity ought to be given to the existence of such a practice; and I reprint what I said on the subject in _Notes and Queries_.

Alterations in works which the Society republishes are a necessary part of their plan, though such notes as they should judge to be corrective would be the best way of proceeding. But the fact of alteration should be very distinctly announced on the t.i.tle of the work itself, not left to a little bit of small type at the end of the preface, in the place where trade advertis.e.m.e.nts, or directions to the binder, are often found. And the places in which alteration has been made should be pointed out, either by marks of omission, when omission is the alteration, or by putting the altered sentences in brackets, when change has been made. May any one alter the works of the dead at his own discretion? {194} We all know that readers in general will take each sentence to be that of the author whose name is on the t.i.tle; so that a correcting republisher _makes use of his author's name to teach his own variation_. The tortuous logic of "the trade," which is content when "the world" is satisfied, is not easily answered, any more than an eel is easily caught; but the Religious Tract Society may be _convinced_ [in the old sense] in a sentence. On which course would they feel most safe in giving their account to the G.o.d of truth? "In your own conscience, now?"

I have tracked out a good many of the variations made by the Religious Tract Society in the recently published volume of _Repository Tracts_. Most of them are doctrinal insertions or amplifications, to the matter of which Hannah More would not have objected--all that can be brought against them is the want of notice. But I have found two which the respect I have for the Religious Tract Society, in spite of much difference on various points, must not prevent my designating as paltry. In the story of Mary Wood, a kind-hearted clergyman converses with the poor girl who has ruined herself by lying. In the original, he "a.s.sisted her in the great work of repentance;" in the reprint it is to be shown in some detail how he did this. He is to begin by pointing out that "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." Now the clergyman's name is _Heartwell_: so to prevent his name from contradicting his doctrine, he is actually cut down to _Harwell_. Hannah Moore meant this good man for one of those described in Acts xv. 8, 9, and his name was appropriate.

Again, Mr. Flatterwell, in persuasion of Parley the porter to let him into the castle, declares that the worst he will do is to "play an innocent game of cards just to keep you awake, or sing a cheerful song with the maids."

Oh fie! Miss Hannah More! and you a single lady too, and a contemporary of the virtuous Bowdler![440] Though Flatterwell be an {195} allegory of the devil, this is really too indecorous, even for him. Out with the three last words! and out it is.

The Society cuts a poor figure before a literary tribunal. Nothing was wanted except an admission that the remarks made by me were unanswerable, and this was immediately furnished by the Secretary (_N. and Q._, 3d S., vi. 290). In a reply of which six parts out of seven are a very amplified statement that the Society did not intend to reprint _all_ Hannah More's tracts, the remaining seventh is as follows:

"I am not careful [perhaps this should be _careful not_] to notice Professor De Morgan's objections to the changes in 'Mary Wood' or 'Parley the Porter,' but would merely reiterate that the tracts were neither designed nor announced to be 'reprints' of the originals [design is only known to the designers; as to announcement, the t.i.tle is ''Tis all for the best, The Shepherd of Salisbury Plain, and other narratives by Hannah More']; and much less [this must be _careful not_; further removed from answer than _not careful_] can I occupy your s.p.a.ce by a treatise on the Professor's question: 'May any one alter the works of the dead at his own discretion?'"

To which I say: Thanks for help!

I predict that Hannah More's _Cheap Repository Tracts_ will somewhat resemble the _Pilgrim's Progress_ in their fate. Written for the cottage, and long remaining in their original position, they will become cla.s.sical works of their kind. Most a.s.suredly this will happen if my a.s.sertion cannot be upset, namely, that they contain the first specimens of fiction addressed to the world at large, and widely circulated, in which dramatic--as distinguished from puppet--power is shown, and without indecorum.

{196}

According to some statements I have seen, but which I have not verified, other publishing bodies, such as the Christian Knowledge Society, have taken the same liberty with the names of the dead as the Religious Tract Society. If it be so, the impropriety is the work of the smaller spirits who have not been sufficiently overlooked. There must be an overwhelming majority in the higher councils to feel that, whenever _altered_ works are published, _the fact of alteration should be made as prominent as the name of the author_. Everything short of this is suppression of truth, and will ultimately destroy the credit of the Society. Equally necessary is it that the alterations should be noted. When it comes to be known that the author before him is altered, he knows not where nor how nor by whom, the lowest reader will lose his interest.

A TRIBUTE TO WILLIAM FREND.

The principles of Algebra. By William Frend.[441] London, 1796, 8vo.

Second Part, 1799.

This Algebra, says Dr. Peac.o.c.k,[442] shows "great distrust {197} of the results of algebraical science which were in existence at the time when it was written." Truly it does; for, as Dr. Peac.o.c.k had shown by full citation, it makes war of extermination upon all that distinguishes algebra from arithmetic. Robert Simson[443] and Baron Maseres[444] were Mr. Frend's predecessors in this opinion.

The genuine respect which I entertained for my father-in-law did not prevent my canva.s.sing with perfect freedom his anti-algebraical and anti-Newtonian opinions, in a long obituary memoir read at the Astronomical Society in February 1842, which was written by me. It was copied into the _Athenaeum_ of March 19. It must be said that if the manner in which algebra _was_ presented to the learner had been true algebra, he would have been right: and if he had confined himself to protesting against the imposition of attraction as a fundamental part of the existence of matter, he would have been in unity with a great many, including Newton himself. I wish he had preferred amendment to rejection when he was a college tutor: he wrote and spoke English with a clearness which is seldom equaled.