FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

SERIES III.

VOL. V.	B E T H A N Y, VA., NOVEMBER, 1848.	NO. XI.

      MY DEAR CLARINDA--I promised to you a few general reflections on the character and condition of society in Great Britain and Ireland, when I should have gone through with the incidents and details of my tour. As preparatory to these we must first glance at the foundations of society;--the country and the climate in which it has its existence, and from which it uniformly, more or less, takes its peculiar mental as well as its physical complexion. Man is, in a good measure, one of the products of the soil and the clime in which [646] he is born and brought up to maturity. Countries and climates produce men as they do trees and animals. Hence the great variety of modifications of human character as of that of every species of animal and vegetable with which the earth abounds. Thus as certain shrubs of the north are the stately forest trees of the south, and as animals dwarfed in one region are fully developed in another; so man, a mere pigmy in one soil and latitude, is a giant in another, both in his physical and mental constitution.

      The Island of Great Britain has confessedly been the mater magna virum--the great mother of men. For genius, talent, and moral excellency, and all the great attributes that elevate and adorn human nature, she has seldom been equalled, and never surpassed. The extension other empire, from the rising to the setting sun, considering her very limited territory at home; her being mistress of oceans and seas, as well as co-partner of the continents of earth in her numerous extensive colonies in Asia, Africa, and America, present her to the eye of the moral philosopher, as the sublimest problem in the science of man.

      Her whole territory, from north to south, extends but 580 miles, and while 380 miles at the south, it is but 80 miles broad at its centre, giving an area of but 102,600 square miles--the largest Island in Europe, but less than some one of our American States.

      The climate is indeed peculiar. Extending from almost 50 to 58, 43 deg. north latitude, and in its greatest breadth situated between 35 and 8 34 degrees west longitude from Paris, and surrounded with water, it has spread over it a cool, moist, and healthy atmosphere, favorable to good health and much constitutional vigor.

      It has but three considerable ranges of mountains. I have seen them all, more or less, in the distance. Those of the Grampian Hills, terminating at the Friths of Forth and Clyde, have the loftiest summits in the Island, ascending 4,370 feet above the sea. The others do not much exceed half this height.

      Every thing, indeed, is in good keeping with the extent of the Island. Its hills, mountains, rivers, and lakes are in due proportion to the whole domain. Loch Lomond,¹ the largest of the lakes of England, is only 30 miles long by 8 broad, while the Scotch Loch Lomond is, though thirty miles in length, not more than two or three in breadth. The Thames, with us a very inconsiderable river, is that of the most importance in the Island of Great Britain.

      The green hills and luxuriant vallies of Great Britain show that its cool and moist climate is at least favorable to agricultural pursuits; and the vigor and athletic frames of many of its inhabitants [647] show that it is no less healthy for man than for its large and variegated tenantry of flocks and herds. But the true secret of Britain's greatness is neither its soil nor its climate, its green and fertile hills, nor its rich and luxuriant vallies, but in its extensive and well indented sea coasts. Had the same character and extent of soil been allotted to the same population on the most fertile portions of Europe, such an empire as that of Great Britain had never been. This, then, is a subject of considerable importance to those who desire to apprehend the true elements of national greatness and political glory.

      The two Islands of Great Britain and Ireland having such extensive sea coast, compelled a larger portion of its population to live near the sea and upon the sea, than can be found in any nation or country in the world. This gave rise to the sea-faring character of its population. A small territory and a large ocean around it, strong nations like that of France, almost within sight of it, and the belligerent spirit of Europe from times immemorial, early suggested to the inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland the necessity of union between them, and of providing wooden walls or floating navies as bulwarks in self defence against foreign aggression and invasion.--The healthfulness of the climate and the productiveness of its soil rapidly increased its population beyond the means of supply from the mere cultivation of the soil, and compelled them to devise other means of subsistence. The native ingenuity of their minds, their peculiar physical energy, and "necessity the mother of invention" early led them to mining and manufacturing, first to supply their own wants, and afterwards to supply those of their neighbors. As "practice makes perfect," they early excelled in these, as well as in the art of navigation; and thus they were naturally induced to go abroad in quest of a market. Manufactures soon contributed to commerce, domestic and foreign, and this to build ships and navies for its transportation and protection. Now, had Great Britain been a part of the European continent, or even had Ireland been joined to it, without an intervening sea, the kingdom never could have risen to such commercial and national greatness and glory.

      This colossal empire, for all the elements of national greatness, most certainly far transcends any thing ancient or modern, in the annals of the world. The commerce of Carthage, and the martial glory of Rome, are incontrovertibly thrown into the shade by the superior lustre of British genius, in all the sciences and arts of peace and war, in agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, and even in [648] throwing her arms around more extensive and distant portions of the globe.

      With a population less than twenty-five millions at home, she holds in her hands the destiny of one hundred and fifty millions abroad, in Asia, Africa, and America. Her banners wave in every breeze, and her canvass is spread in every ocean, and sea, and navigable river in the four quarters of the globe. Her language is enriched with all the treasures of science and art. Her philosophy, physical, intellectual, and moral, transcends that of any age or any nation in the memory of man; and the efforts of her Protestant population to civilize, evangelize, and bless the human race, in every barbarous land where her power is felt, have never been surpassed, nay, indeed, have never been equalled by any nation or people on earth. On these accounts, notwithstanding her great national sins and transgressions, the blood that she has shed, the cruelties sometimes inflicted upon the people she has conquered, and if not commanded, yet winked at by her government, England stands upon the proudest eminence, and has reached the highest acme of national glory ever attained by any nation or people written on the rolls of time.

      The constitution by which all this has been effected, is sketched as follows, by one of her enlightened sons. He gives a synopsis of it in the following words:--"The British Constitution is a piece of Mosaic work, belonging to different epochs. It is the great charter of Henry I. modified, a century later, and forced upon the acceptance of king John. It is the charter confirmed, with great alterations, by Henry III. and sanctioned by Edward I. Its completion is the Declaration of Rights, in 1688. It possesses the advantage of not impeding the development of any social faculty, of securing every liberty by the unrestrained liberty of that of the press, and of exalting the character of the subject, by placing his life and property under the safeguard of the laws. The king of England joins to the dignity of supreme magistrate, that of head of the church. The former gives him the right of making war and peace, alliances and treaties, raising troops, assembling, proroguing, adjourning, and dissolving parliament, appointing all officers, civil and military, and the chief ecclesiastical dignitaries, and pardoning or commuting the punishment of criminals: the latter gives him power to convoke national and provincial synods, who under his approbation, establish dogmas and discipline. The parliament enjoys the prerogative of proposing laws, but no law has any validity till approved by the king. On the other hand the will of the sovereign or his ministers, and the [649] annual demand for supplies cannot take the shape of a law till under this form they have been sanctioned by the votes of both houses. The king may increase not only the number of peers, but even that of the commons, by authorizing a city to return members to parliament. He arrives at majority at the age of eighteen, and on his accession to the throne must sanction all the laws passed during his minority. Females as well as males possess a hereditary right to the crown. The responsibility of the ministers, not an empty phrase in England, secures the inviolability of the monarch: the ministers are four in number, and independent of one another:--the first Lord of the Treasury, or prime minister, who has under his direction the taxes, the custom house, the stamp office and the post office;--the Secretary of State for foreign affairs;--the Home Secretary, who has the direction of colonial affairs excepting those of the East Indies,--and the Secretary at War whose authority extends over the concerns of India. A council is organized to examine whatever relates to Indian affairs, and another superintending the business of commerce and the colonies, is composed of enlightened individuals who combine among themselves the interests of agriculture, industry and commerce, and study unceasingly the wants and tastes of every people for the purpose of making them in some way subservient to British industry. The House of Commons consists of 658 members, of whom 489 represent England, 24 the principality of Wales, 45 Scotland, and 100 Ireland."

      Notwithstanding all these excellencies, applauded by its best friends and admirers, the Constitution of Great Britain has in it one great error, which, had it no other, must inevitably work the downfall of the existing government, and that before this century has run its rounds. I need scarcely specify to our American readers what that grand assumption of power is which must one day subvert the throne of England. It is not its monarchical character, as many will suppose, to which I allude. The people of Great Baitain, in the main, with but comparatively few exceptions, are now, and long have been, essentially monarchical. The great majority of them, like some of our own people, are essentially fond of monarchy.--They are Fond of power. Hence, our Presidents, even with a plain, intelligible constitution in their hands, admired, extolled, and sworn to, are not always restrained from assuming a very monarchical authority. Indeed, they either constitutionally have, or assume to have, a more absolute power than has ever been exercised by any of the present dynasty of English sovereigns,--not one of whom ever presumed to veto a law passed by the two houses of Parliament. [650] A Stuart once presumed to do this, but afterwards was made to retract it and to sign a law the same in substance with that which he had vetoed. Indeed, this, along with other assumptions, prepared the way for the famous revolution of 1688. We Americans--whig, democrat, and all--are born with a monarch in our stomach, and it occasionally refuses to be confined there when any of us is elevated to gubernatorial or presidential authority.

      Indeed, the English sovereigns are as much limited by their magna charta as our sovereigns are by ours. The main difference is in the name. We have, however, this pleasure and advantage, that we make and unmake them some ten times in the course of our lives, while the English kings occasionally survive one, two, or three generations. Consequently, we can have more good or bad kings during our lives, with the pleasure of creating them, than the people of Great Britain; and we call them by a trisyllabic name, rather than by a monosyllabic title. This, after all, is the essential difference.

      Were I a politician, I would certainly advocate the emendation of our constitution in one particular at least. I know of nothing that could so much improve the morals of our community, and prolong the existence of our excellent institutions, than the limiting of the reign of our sovereigns to one term of eight or ten years, and inhibiting a re-election. The people must certainly, (but I profess not to be a political prophet,) I say the people must be converted to Christianity, or our government become irksome to a decided majority of them, or the constitution must be new modified in this particular. Our policy, our interests, our morality, our religion, are subjected to a crisis every four years, from which every true patriot and Christian in the nation prays to be delivered. A volume of reasons in support of this opinion could, doubtless, from the wisdom and experience of our contemporaries, be furnished, which no one could rationally gainsay or successfully resist.

      During my tour through Great Britain, almost as often as any one introduced the subject of our American institutions, I was asked whether I thought our form of government could possibly long exist. On inquiring into the foundation of their apprehension that it would not, I generally received for answer--Why, sir, your citizens of the South and of the North, talk so often and so strong of a separation of the Union, and a consequent dissolution of the government, provided certain measures are or are not carried, that we conclude, either that the union is of little importance to either party, or that they do not expect it to weather the political storms and tempests which so often and so furiously break upon it. [651]

      Believe them not who thus reason, was my usual response. It is a proof of the superlative value all parties attach to it. The very insinnation that the Union may be jeopardized, is appalling to every patriot, and all patriots know it. Hence, political demagogues who wish to carry some favorite, or some selfish measure, of great importance to themselves, knowing how paramount the love of the union is, make these pretences, by way of a political device, to carry their measure. They make their appeal to the strongest passion, or use this threat as their strongest argument, well knowing that if any thing could secure their object, this expedient is the most likely. Suppose two persons, greatly attached to and interested in the life of a patient, remonstrating against the theory or practice of a physician, should each say to the other--Sir, your measures will destroy the patient rather than cure him.--Whether would it be a more logical conclusion that neither of them cared any thing for the life of the patient, or that both of them regarded his life as an object of transcendent importance to them both?--So reason, said I, and so conclude, when you hear any one infer, from such political excitement, either that the American Union is not appreciated by the citizens, or that it is likely to be dissolved.

      I was, however, much pleased to observe the increased amount of liberty of speech and freedom of debate, as I imagined, now enjoyed by the whole population of Great Britain, compared with what it was some forty years ago. They seem to speak, argue, and write as freely, upon all political questions in Great Britain, as we of Virginia, or they of Ohio. The Queen, the ministry, the measures of the government, are every where as freely spoken of as they ought to be. The only differences are, that there are not so many graduates in politics, nor so many professional politicians in England as in the United States. Nor is there one newspaper read in England for every score read in the United States. But here I must, from circumstances which I cannot control, break off in the midst of my reflections, to be resumed and prosecuted in my next. You will perceive that I have not yet named the most objectionable and fatal ingredient in the English magna charta.

[The Millennial Harbinger, Third Series, 5 (November 1848): 646-652.]