philosopher and statesman, Jefferson, and he was rewarded by the
discovery of the megatherium. The mastodon, exhumed in 1801, from the
marl pits of New York, by Charles Wilson Peale, has proved but one of an
order of animal giants. Even the tetracaulodon, or tusked mastodon, of
Godman, upon which rested his claims to fame, is not the most curious of
this order, as the investigations of Hayes and Horner have proved. This
order has excited the attention, not only of such minds as Cooper,
Harlan, and Hayes, but has also occupied the best naturalists of France,
Britain, Germany, and Italy.
Fossil conchology has attracted the attention of Conrad, the Lees, and
the Rogerses, not only calling forth much ingenuity in description and
classification, but also throwing great light upon the relative ages of
some of the most interesting geological formations. The earthquake
theory of the Rogerses is one of the boldest generalizations, founded
upon physical reasoning, which our geologists have produced. In the
parallel ridges into which the Apalachian chain is thrown, they see the
crests of great earthquake waves, propagated from long lines of focal
earthquake action, more violent than any which the world now witnesses.
The geologist deals in such sublime conceptions as a world of molten
matter, tossed into waves by violent efforts of escaping vapors,
cooling, cracking, and rending, in dire convulsion. He then ceases to
discuss the changes and formation of worlds, and condescends to inform
us how to fertilize our soil, where to look for coal and iron, copper,
tin, cobalt, lead, and where we need not look for either. He is the
Milton of poetry, and the Watt of philosophy. And here let me add, that
the recent application of chemistry to agriculture is producing the most
surprising results, in increasing and improving the products of the
earth, and setting at defiance Malthus's theory of population.
In medicine, that great and most useful branch of physics, our
countrymen have been most distinguished. From the days of the great
philosopher, physician, patriot, and statesman, Benjamin Rush, down to
the present period, our country has been unsurpassed in this branch; but
I have not time even to give an outline of the eminent Americans, whose
improvements and discoveries in medicine have contributed so much to
elevate the character of our country, and advance the comfort and
happiness of man. Rush, one of the founders of this branch in America,
was one of the signers of our Declaration of Independence, and his
school of medicine was as independent and national as his course in our
Revolutionary struggle. Statistics are chiefly concerned, as furnishing
the facts connected with government and political economy, but they are
also ancillary to physics. The statistical work of Mr. Archibald
Russell, of New York, which immediately preceded the last census,
contained many valuable suggestions, some of which were adopted by
Congress; and had more been incorporated into the law, the census would
have been much more complete and satisfactory. The recent statistical
work of Mr. George Tucker, of Virginia, on the census of 1840, is
distinguished by great talent and research, and is invaluable to the
scholar, the philosopher, the statesman, and philanthropist.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 2: This address was made and published several months before
any electric telegraph line was in operation, and is believed to
be the first prediction of the success of this principle, as
CONTINENTAL or OCEANIC.]
[Footnote 3: Now only one tenth.]
[Footnote 4: This Idea unquestionably originated in the United States,
but was improved last year, and has been introduced by Mr. Rammel, of
England.]
[Footnote 5: We now have several such museums in Washington.]
[Footnote 6: Our Coast Survey, as commenced by Hassler, and being
completed by Bache, is admitted in Europe to be the best in the world.]
THE CROSS.
Holy Father, Thou this day
Dost a cross upon me lay.
If I tremble as I lift,
First, and feel Thine awful gift,
Let me tremble not for pain,
But lest I may lose the gain
Which thereby my soul should bless,
Through mine own unworthiness.
Let me, drawing deeper breath,
Stand more firmly, lest beneath
Thy load I sink, and slavishly
In the dust it crusheth me.
Bearing this, so may I strength
Gather to receive at length
In turn eternal glory's great
And far more exceeding weight.
No, I am not crushed. I stand.
But again Thy helping hand
Reach to me, my pitying Sire:
I would bear my burden higher,
Bear it up so near to Thee,
That Thou shouldst bear it still with me.
He, upon whose careless head
Never any load is laid,
With an earthward eye doth oft
Stoop and lounge too slothfully:
Burdened heads are held aloft
With a nobler dignity.
By Thine own strong arm still led,
Let me never backward tread,
Panic-driven in base retreat,
The path the Master's steadfast feet
Unswervingly, if bleeding, trod
Unto victory and God.
The standard-bearer doth not wince,
Who bears the ensigns of his prince,
Through triumphs, in his galled palm,
Or turn aside to look for balm?
Nay, for the glory thrice outweighs
The petty price of pains he pays!
Till the appointed time is past
Let me clasp Thy token fast.
Ere I lay it down to rest,
Late or early, be impressed
So its stamp upon my soul
That, while all the ages roll,
Questionless, it may be known
The Shepherd marked me for His own;
Because I wear the crimson brand
Of all the flock washed by His hand--
For my passing pain or loss
Signed with the eternal cross.
THE ENGLISH PRESS.
IV.
It was in January, 1785, that there appeared, for the first time, a
journal with the title of _The Daily Universal Register_, the proprietor
and printer of which was John Walter, of Printing House Square, a quiet,
little, out-of-the-way nook, nestling under the shadow of St. Paul's,
not known to one man in a thousand of the daily wayfarers at the base of
Wren's mighty monument, but destined to become as famous and as well
known as any spot of ground in historic London. This newspaper boasted
but four pages, and was composed by a new process, with types consisting
of words and syllables instead of single letters. On New Year's day,
1788, its denomination was changed to _The Times_, a name which is
potent all the world over, whithersoever Englishmen convey themselves
and their belongings, and wherever the mighty utterances of the sturdy
Anglo-Saxon tongue are heard. It was long before the infant 'Jupiter'
began to exhibit any foreshadowing of his future greatness, and he had a
very difficult and up-hill struggle to wage. _The Morning Post_, _The
Morning Herald_, _The Morning Chronicle_, and _The General Advertiser_
amply supplied or seemed to supply the wants of the reading public, and
the new competitor for public favor did not exhibit such superior
ability as to attract any great attention or to diminish the
subscription lists of its rivals. _The Morning Herald_ had been started
in 1780 by Parson Bate, who quarrelled with his colleagues of _The
Post_. This journal, which is now the organ of mild and antiquated
conservatism, was originally started upon liberal principles. Bate
immediately ranged himself upon the side of the Prince of Wales and his
party, and thus his fortunes were secured. In 1781 his paper sustained a
prosecution, and the printer was sentenced to pay a fine of £100, and to
undergo one year's imprisonment, for a libel upon the Russian
ambassador. For this same libel the printers and publishers of _The
London Courant_, _The Noon Gazette_, _The Gazetteer_, _The Whitehall
Evening Journal_, _The St. James's Chronicle_, and _The Middlesex
Journal_ received various sentences of fine and imprisonment, together
with, in some cases, the indignity of the pillory. Prosecutions for
libel abounded in those days. Horace Walpole says that, dating from
Wilkes's famous No. 45, no less than two hundred informations had been
laid, a much larger number than during the whole thirty-three years of
the previous reign. But the great majority of these must have fallen to
the ground, for, in 1791, the then attorney-general stated that, in the
last thirty-one years, there had been seventy prosecutions for libel,
and about fifty convictions, in twelve of which the sentences had been
severe--including even, in five instances, the pillory. The law of libel
was extremely harsh, to say the least of it. One of its dogmas was that
a publisher could be held criminally liable for the acts of his
servants, unless proved to be neither privy nor assenting to such acts.
The monstrous part of this was that, after a time, the judges refused to
receive any exculpatory evidence, and ruled that the publication of a
libel by a publisher's servant was proof sufficient of that publisher's
criminality. This rule actually obtained until 1843, when it was swept
away by an act of Parliament, under the auspices of Lord Campbell. The
second was even worse; for it placed the judge above the jury, and
superseded the action of that dearly prized safeguard of an
Englishman's liberties, it asserting that it was for the judge alone,
and not for the jury, to decide as to the criminality of a libel. Such
startling and outrageous doctrines as these roused the whole country,
and the matter was taken up in Parliament. Fierce debates followed from
time to time, and the assailants of this monstrous overriding of the
Constitution--for it was nothing less--were unremitting in their
efforts. Among the most distinguished of these were Burke, Sheridan, and
Erskine, the last of whom was constantly engaged as counsel for the
defence in the most celebrated libel trials of the day. In 1791, Fox
brought in a bill for amending the law of libel, and so great had the
change become in public opinion, through the agitation that had been
carried on, that it passed unanimously in the House of Commons. Erskine
took a very prominent part in this measure, and, after demonstrating
that the judges had arrogated to themselves the rights and functions of
the jury, said that if, upon a motion in arrest of judgment, the
innocence of the defendant's intention was argued before the court, the
answer would be, and was, given uniformly, that the verdict of guilty
had concluded the criminality of the intention, though the consideration
of that question had been by the judge's authority wholly withdrawn from
the jury at the trial. The bill met with opposition in the House of
Lords, especially from Lord Thurlow, who procured the postponement of
the second reading until the opinion of the judges should have been
ascertained. They, on being appealed to, declared that the criminality
or innocence of any act was the result of the judgment which the law
pronounces upon that act, and must therefore be in all cases and under
all circumstances matter of law, and not matter of fact, and that the
criminality or innocence of letters or papers set forth as overt acts of
treason, was matter of law, and not of fact. These startling assertions
had not much weight with the House of Lords, thanks to the able
arguments of Lord Camden, and the bill passed, with a protest attached
from Lord Thurlow and five others, in which they predicted 'the
confusion and destruction of the law of England.' Of this bill, Macaulay
says: 'Fox and Pitt are fairly entitled to divide the high honor of
having added to our statute book the inestimable law which places the
liberty of the press under the protection of juries.' Intimately
connected with this struggle for the liberty of public opinion was
another mighty engine, which was brought to bear, and that was the
Public Association, with its legitimate offspring, the Public Meeting.
The power and influence which this organization exerted were enormous,
and, though it was often employed in a bad or unworthy cause--such, for
instance, as the Protestant agitation, culminating in Lord George
Gordon's riots in 1780--yet it has been of incalculable advantage to the
progress of the state, the enlightenment of the nation, and the
advancement of civilization, freedom, and truth. Take, for instance, the
Slave-Trade Association, the object and scope of which are thus
admirably described by Erskine May, in his 'Constitutional History of
England':
'It was almost beyond the range of politics. It had no
constitutional change to seek, no interest to promote, no prejudice
to gratify, not even the national welfare to advance. Its clients
were a despised race in a distant clime--an inferior type of the
human family--for whom natures of a higher mould felt repugnance
rather than sympathy. Benevolence and Christian charity were its
only incentives. On the other hand, the slave-trade was supported
by some of the most powerful classes in the country--merchants,
shipowners, planters. Before it could be proscribed, vested
interests must be overborne--ignorance enlightened--prejudices and
indifference overcome--public opinion converted. And to this great
work did Granville Sharpe, Wilberforce, Clarkson, and other noble
spirits devote their lives. Never was cause supported by greater
earnestness and activity. The organization of the society
comprehended all classes and religious denominations. Evidence was
collected from every source to lay bare the cruelties and
iniquities of the traffic. Illustration and argument were
inexhaustible. Men of feeling and sensibility appealed with deep
emotion to the religious feelings and benevolence of the people. If
extravagance and bad taste sometimes courted ridicule, the high
purpose, just sentiments, and eloquence of the leaders of the
movement won respect and admiration. Tracts found their way into
every house, pulpits and platforms resounded with the wrongs of the
negro; petitions were multiplied, ministers and Parliament moved to
inquiry and action.... Parliament was soon prevailed upon to
attempt the mitigation of the worst evils which had been brought to
light, and in little more than twenty years the slave trade was
utterly condemned and prohibited.'
And this magnificent result sprang from a Public Association. In this,
the most noble crusade that has ever been undertaken by man, the
newspapers bore a conspicuous part, and though, as might be expected,
they did not all take the same views, yet they rendered good service to
the glorious cause. But this tempting subject has carried us away into a
rather lengthy digression from our immediate topic. To return,
therefore:
In 1786 there was a memorable action for libel brought by Pitt against
_The Morning Herald_ and _The Morning Advertiser_, for accusing him of
having gambled in the public funds. He laid his damages at £10,000, but
only obtained a verdict for £250 in the first case, and £150 in the
second. In 1789 John Walter was sentenced to pay a fine of £50, to be
exposed in the pillory for an hour, and to be imprisoned for one year,
at the expiration of which he was ordered to find substantial bail for
his good behavior for seven years, for a libel upon the Duke of York. In
the following year he was again prosecuted and convicted for libels upon
the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, and the Duke of Clarence, but,
after undergoing four months of his second term of one year's
imprisonment, he was set free, at the instance of the Prince of Wales.
The last trial for libel, previous to the passing of Fox's libel bill,
was that of one Stockdale, for publishing a defence of Warren Hastings,
a pamphlet that was considered as libellously reflecting upon the House
of Commons. However, through the great exertions of Erskine, his
counsel, he was acquitted.
In 1788 appeared the first daily evening paper, _The Star_, which
continued until 1831, when it was amalgamated with _The Albion_. The
year 1789 is memorable for the assumption of the editorship of _The
Morning Chronicle_ by James Perry, under whose management it reached a
greater pitch of prosperity and success than it ever enjoyed either
before or since--greater, in fact, than any journal had hitherto
attained. One of the chief reasons of this success was that he printed
the night's debates in his next morning's issue, a thing which had never
before been accomplished or even attempted. Another secret of Perry's
success was the wonderful tact with which, while continuing to be
thoroughly outspoken and independent, he yet contrived--with one
exception, hereafter to be noticed--to steer clear of giving offence to
the Government. He is thus spoken of by a writer in _The Edinburgh
Review_: 'He held the office of editor for nearly forty years, and he
held firm to his party and his principles all that time--a long time for
political honesty and consistency to last! He was a man of strong
natural sense, some acquired knowledge, a quick tact, prudent,
plausible, and with great heartiness and warmth of feeling.' His want of
education, however, now and then betrayed him into errors, and a curious
instance of this is, that on one occasion, when he meant to say
'epithalamia,' he wrote and printed 'epicedia,' a mistake which he
corrected with the greatest coolness on the following day thus: 'For
'epicedia' read 'epithalamia.'
The next event of importance is the appearance of Bell's _Weekly
Messenger_, in 1796, a newspaper that met with immediate success, and is
the only one of the weeklies of that period which have survived to the
present time. The year '96 is also remarkable for an action brought by
_The Telegraph_ against _The Morning Post_, for damages suffered by
publishing an extract from a French paper, which purported to give the
intelligence of peace between the Emperor of Germany and France, but
which was forged and surreptitiously sent to _The Telegraph_ by the
proprietors of _The Morning Post_. The result was that _The Telegraph_
obtained a verdict for £100 damages. In 1794, _The Morning Advertiser_
had been established by the Licensed Victuallers of London, with the
intention of benefiting by its sale the funds of the asylum which that
body had recently established. It at once obtained a large circulation,
inasmuch as every publican became a subscriber. It exists to the present
day, and is known by the slang _sobriquet_ of the 'Tub,' an appellation
suggested by its _clientèle_. Its opinions are radical, and it is
conducted not without a fair share of ability, but, occasionally
venturing out of its depth, it has more than once been most successfully
and amusingly hoaxed. One of these cases was when a correspondent
contributed an extraordinary Greek inscription, which he asserted had
been recently discovered. This so-called inscription was in reality
nothing but some English doggerel of anything but a refined character
turned into Greek.
In 1797, Canning brought out _The Anti-Jacobin_ as a Government organ,
and Gifford--who began life as a cobbler's apprentice at an
out-of-the-way little town in Devonshire, and afterward became editor of
_The Quarterly Review_ in its palmiest days--was intrusted with its
management. _The Anti-Jacobin_ lasted barely eight months, but was
probably the most potent satirical production that has ever emanated
from the English press. The first talent of the day was engaged upon it;
and among its contributors we find Pitt, Lord Mornington, afterward
Marquis of Wellesley, Lord Morpeth, afterward Earl of Carlisle,
Jenkinson, afterward Earl of Liverpool, Canning, George Ellis, Southey,
Lord Bathurst, Addington, John Hookham Frere, and a host of other
prominent names at the time. The poetry of _The Anti-Jacobin_--its
strongest feature--has been collected into a volume, which has passed
through several editions. This journal was the first to inaugurate
'sensation' headings; for the three columns which were respectively
entitled 'Mistakes,' 'Misrepresentations,' 'Lies,' and which most
truculently slashed away at the opponents of the political opinions of
_The Anti-Jacobin_, decidedly come under that category.
We have now arrived at another era of persecution. Those were ticklish
times, and Pitt, fearing lest revolutionary theories might be
promulgated through the instrumentality of the press, determined to
tighten the reins, and curb that freedom of expression which, after an
interval of rest from prosecution, was manifestly degenerating. Poor
Perry was arraigned on a charge of exhibiting a leaning toward France,
and he and his printer were fined and sent to prison. Pitt really
appears to have had good ground for action, in one instance, at least,
for _The Courier_ had made certain statements which might fairly be
construed as hostile to the Government, and favorable to France.
Moreover, it was stated in the House of Commons by the attorney-general,
that a parcel of unstamped newspapers had been seized in a neutral
vessel bound to France, containing information 'which, if any one had
written and sent in another form to the enemy, he would have committed
the highest crime of which a man can be guilty.' Among other things,
the departure of the West India fleet under the convoy of two frigates
only was noticed, and the greatest fears were expressed for its safety
in consequence. Another thing mentioned was, that as there was to be a
levy _en masse_ in this country, the French would not be so ill advised
as to come here, but would make a swoop upon Ireland. A bill was brought
forward, the chief provisions of which were that the proprietors and
printers of all newspapers should inscribe their names in a book, kept
for that purpose at the stamp office, in order that the book might be
produced in court on occasion of any trial, as evidence of the
proprietorship and responsibility, and that a copy of each issue of
every newspaper should be filed at the stamp office, to be produced as
good and sufficient evidence of publication. A vehement debate followed,
in the course of which Lord William Russell declared the bill to be an
insidious blow at the liberty of the press; and Sir W. Pulteney said
that 'the liberty of the press was of such a sacred nature that we ought
to suffer many inconveniences rather than check its influence in such a
manner as to endanger our liberties; for he had no hesitation in saying
that without the liberty of the press the freedom of this country would
be a mere shadow.' But the great speech of the debate was that of Sir
Francis Burdett, who did not then foresee that the time would come when
he himself should make an attack upon the press.
'The liberty of the press,' he said, 'is of so delicate a nature,
and so important for the preservation of that small portion of
liberty which still remains to the country, that I cannot allow the
bill to pass without giving it my opposition. A good Government, a
free Government, has nothing to apprehend, and everything to hope
from the liberty of the press; it reflects a lustre upon all its
actions, and fosters every virtue. But despotism courts shade and
obscurity, and dreads the scrutinizing eye of liberty, the freedom
of the press, which pries into its secret recesses, discovering it
in its lurking holes, and drags it forth to public detestation. If
a tyrannically disposed prince, supported by an unprincipled,
profligate minister, backed by a notoriously corrupt Parliament,
were to cast about for means to secure such a triple tyranny, I
know of no means he could devise so effectual for that purpose as
the bill now upon the table.'