Page images
PDF
EPUB

These rules of discipline, if constantly attended to, will do away all the metaphysical properties and preternatural character of the human mind, and make it as physical as all the other bodies and powers in nature, subject to the same specific and immutable laws, to make the agency of man competent and efficient in the great system of the universe.

“ All matter power, when rightly understood,
Proves true self-interest universal good;
Atoms, like waves, thro’ forms dissolving pass,
And make one sea one oroousia mass;
All interest essence to one centre brings,
One nature makes tlı' identity of things.”

In this simple classification of thought distinct from the faculties, viz. ideas are those actions of thought which conform themselves to past experience. Sentiments those actions of thought which conform themselves to eventual experience. Imagination those actions of thought projected on an object of sense, according to the rules of analogy in influential sentiment passing beyond experience no farther than the boundary of conception. Fancy those actions of thought without any object of sense called phantasm.

In this simple classification of thought, if you observe any advantageous discipline, law, or system, it will induce you to form some interesting expectation of that of the faculties which is to follow and altogether constitute the system on laws of intellectual power, the great desideratum of all knowledge, and the indispensable medium of human happiness and progressive perfecti

bility

NOTICE:

The Koran is now on sale in 25 Numbers, at threepence each, or in bds, at seven shillings. In stating former prices for bds. we were deceived in the vumber of sheets it would make. Thirteen shillings are saved in the price by excluding Sale's Preface and Notes.

It should have been stated, that Ilammon's Answer to Dr. Priestlcy's Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever was never before published. There was a printed copy in existence, but it was scarce, and never publicly published.

“ Bon Sens” will now be pushed rapidly through the press. A careful and competent comparison with the original French bas in some measure detained it.

R. C.

Printer and Published by R. Carlile, 135, Fleet Street.-All Correspor

dences for “ The Republican,” to be left at the place of publication,

No. 8, Vol. 13.] LONDON, Friday, Feb. 24, 1826. [Price 6d.

TO MR. RICHARD CARLILE.

SIR,

He says,

New York, Jan. 1, 1826. I HAVE observed in the 5th Volume of “ The Republican," a letter addressed to you from Mr. William Cobbett, in which, in answer to your call on him for that purpose, he states some of the reasons on which he grounds his dislike to Republican Governments ; and as the anecdotes on which he relies to support his pretended dislike, are for the most part in contradiction to truth, it becomes necessary to expose his mis-statements, that they may not be handed down to posterity as established historical facts, disgraceful to America, and injurious to the cause of freedom.

I shall, in the first place, give those parts of Mr. Cobbett's letter which particularly bear pon the subject in question, and afterwards make my remarks upon them.

“ If, in the absence of that elaborate confession of political faith, which you demand, and against which I protest, a practical anecdote or two will afford you any satisfaction, here they are at your service. In the year 1819, a man was tried in New Jersey, under the Act of William III. for impugning the Holy Trinity, found guilty, and punished by imprisonment in the common gaol. A few years before Mr. Paine's death, a man shot at him through the window of his own farm-house, as he was sitting by his fire-side, missed him, indeed, but sent the ball and slugs into a table, or some other thing, near him.

who had no hesitation in acknowledging and boasting of the deed, was held to bail, tried and acquitted amidst a cheering audience! Mr. Paine tendered his vote at an election in the county where his farm lay-They would not let him vote. He brought his action against the parties, lost his cause, and had to pay costs! These I take it, which are facts quite notorious, might suffice; but, I will just add, that the Republican Binns, who slipped his head out of the noose at Maidstone, leaving that of poor Father O'Quigley in it, keeps a newspaper-office at Philadelphia, wbich was in 1817, and 1818, also an office for openly trafficking in places under the Government of Pennsylvania ; that particular instances of this trafficking, with names, sums, and all the circumstances and proofs, were laid, in the form of petitions, before the Legislature; and that the Legislature passed to the order of the day!"

Printed and Published by R. Carlile, 135, Fleet Street, I undon.

The man,

I am unacquainted with the New Jersey case, tried under the Act of King William III, as well as with that Act: which, if it bears the construction said to be put upon it in New Jersey, ought to be rendered void by the Legislatures of those States in the Union that are governed by English laws. But it appears to me to be very absurd in Mr. Cobbett to make objection to the decision of a court of justice in this country, made in conformity to the Acts of the British Government; especially as he evidently meant to draw a contrast between the laws and usages of the United States and those of Great Britain, unfavourable to the former. And this too addressed to a man who had been suffering years of imprisonment for publishing works that are printed in the United States with impunity. The philosophical works of Voltaire, Hume, Paine, Volney, and Palmer, as well as those attributed to Mirabaud, Boulanger, and the Baron D’Holbach, have been printed in this country without a single instance of prosecution being instituted against the publishers.

Our courts, to be sure, in some cases, have adopted the absurd distinction made by English Judges, between the blunt expres · isions of an illiterate man respecting prominent points in the Christian scheme, and when the same ideas are expressed in different terms by classical writers. In the former case, it is called blasphemy, a term which admits of as many definitions as there are nations and languages in the world.

There have, however, been very few prosecutions of this kind in the United States since the Revolution, I know of but one solitary instance of a person's being convicted for blasphemy in the State of New York. In this case, the sentence of the court was three months' imprisonment, and a fine of 500 dollars. One or both of which were remitted by the Governor, Thompkins. Although I consider the few cases of punishment in the United States for what is denominated blasphemy as disgraceful to the country, still they bear no comparison in point of numbers and severity to those you have experienced in England.

The example of Catherine, Empress of Russia, upon this head, is worthy of being adopted by all Governments. She said, she was determined that no person should be punished for heresy in her empire during her reign, for, said she, “ when we consider how much these poor creatures will have to suffer in the next world, it is our duty to make this as comfortable to them as possible.”

An infinite evil has been entailed upon many of the States by the adoption of the whole of the common law of England, as well as the Acts of the British Parliament passed previously to the 4th of July, 1776. The Legislatures can, to be sure, amend or abrogate those laws at pleasure; but it is often difficult to get rid of abuses when a portion of the community may be interested to retain them. The Legislature of New Jersey once passed a law,

prohibiting the citing of any English authority in their courts. But this law was soon repealed ; and perhaps there was a necessity for it, as they had no written code of their own.

In conclusion of this part of the subject, I will observe, that as Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Major Cartwright, has fully proved that the Scriptures form no part or parcel of the common law of England, it is to be hoped that it will never again be resorted to in support of blasphemy-suits, either in England or the United States.

The shooting at Mr. Paine can be easily accounted for by those well acquainted with the manners of the Dutch descendants in America. Christmas and New Year are great holidays, with the common people. In country places particularly, it is considered the higbest honour paid to distinguished citizens, to call at their houses on Christmas or New Year's Eve, and discharge muskets, heavily loaded with powder, but without ball. This is a thing expected, and country gentlemen are always prepared with liquors, to be handed out as a reward for the compliment. This turned out, on the trial, to be exactly the case in the affair of Mr. Paine; although he was certainly deceived respecting it himself. Mr. Paine had many Tory enemies in the town where he resided, and he did think that there had been a conspiracy formed against his life. Poor Derrick (that was the Christian name of the man alluded to, and I know him by no other) an honest Dutchman by descent, who was employed by Mr. Paine as a labourer on his farm, borrowed a musket of a neighbour on New Year's Eve, saying he would go, and give Thomas Paine a shot, which he did. He was probably intoxicated at the time, and loaded the musket very heavily with powder and wadding, and placing the muzzle against a thin clap-boarded house, without any wall within, the wadding perforated the board, and entered the room in which Mr. Paine was sitting. This naturally surprized and alarmed him to a great degree. No “ balls and slugs” were discovered. That part of the clapboard which had been perforated was cut out, and produced in court on the trial as a proof, from its ragged appearance, that it had been effected by the wadding. Derrick was acquitted by the jury. Whether there was any cheering by the audience or not, is not recollected. If, however, cheering in a court of justice is excusable in any case, it certainly is when a fellow-citizen is acquitted of criminal charges of which he was not guilty.

The above statement I have from Peter Jay Munroe, Esq. who was Counsel for Derrick in the cause, and particularly remembers every essential circumstance that took place on the trial; its truth may therefore be implicitly relied on.

I shall now examine the election case, in which Mr. Paine was refused his vote. And, in the first place, it may not be amiss to state, that our election contests, between democrats and fede

ralists, are carried on much in the manner of those in England, between the Whig and Tory parties: though with less expenditure of money, and probably with fewer personal assaults and batteries. Every possible quibble in the construction of election laws has been resorted to by both parties for the purpose of defeating their adversaries. I mention this fact to shew that there was nothing peculiar in the instance of Mr. Paine, and that the refusal of his vote resulted from party conflicts.

In the town where he resided the federalists composed a majority of the electors, and of course appointed from their own party a majority of the inspectors of the election. The inspectors consist of three men in each town, or ward in cities; who are clothed with a little brief authority for three days, under the regulations of the election laws. These men are often of very limited understanding, and always more or less under the influence of party feelings. It is not therefore strange that they should sometimes commit egregious blunders, either from design or want of judgment to define the laws made to regulate the discharge of their duties.

In the election in question it was of course known, that Mr. Paine intended to give his vote for the democratic candidate for Governor; which being against the wishes of a majority of the inspectors, they set up the pretext of his having been made a French citizen to deprive him of his suffrage.

The result of this pretext will be seen by the following letter from Mr. Paine's Counsel, Richard Riker, Esq. the present Recorder of the city of New York, in answer to mine calling for information on the subject.

The reason of the long delay in deciding this case was partly owing to Mr. Paine's neglect to procure from the Secretary of State's office a deed of the farm which had been presented to him by the State for revolutionary services. In consequence of his not being prepared for trial, on the first calling of the cause, his Counsel obtained a postponement.

« SIR,

New York, Dec. 16, 1825. “Excuse me for not sooner answering your note to me of the 1st inst., in which you request information as to the result of the suit of the late Thomas Paine, against Elijah Ward and others, for refusing to receive his vote at an Election held for the choice of a Chief Magistrate of this State.

The facts are briefly these. In the year 1806, a Governor of the State was to be chosen. Mr. Paine then resided at New Rochelle, in West Chester County, and claimed his right as an Elector. He tendered his ballot to Mr. Ward and the other Inspectors. They refused to receive it, alleging that he, by becoming a French Citizen and Member of the French Convention, had expatriated bimself, and thereby lost his rights as an American Citizen.

“Mr. Paine consulted with me, and I concurred fully with him, that

« PreviousContinue »