Sir, we have been told that Jacobinism is extinct, or at least dying.
We have been asked too, what we mean by Jacobinism? Sir, to employ arguments solely to the purposes of popular irritation is a branch of Jacobinism? It is with pain, Sir, that I have heard arguments manifestly of this tendency, and having heard them, I hear with redoubled suspicion of the a.s.sertions, that Jacobinism is extinct. By what softer name shall we characterise the attempts to connect the war by false facts and false reasoning with accidental scarcity? By what softer name shall we characterise appeals to the people on a subject which touches their feelings, and precludes their reasoning? It is this, Sir, which makes me say, that those whose eyes are now open to the horrors and absurdities of Jacobinism are nevertheless still influenced by their early partiality to it. A somewhat of the "feeling" lurks behind, even when all the "principle" has been sincerely abjured. If this be the case with mere spectators, who have but sympathised in the distance, and have caught disease only by "looking on", how much more must this hold good of the actors? And with what increased caution and jealousy ought we not to listen to the affirmation, that Jacobinism is obsolete even in France? The honourable gentleman next charges me with an unbeseeming haughtiness of tone, in deeming that the House had pledged itself to the present measure by their late vote for the continuance of the war. This is not accurate. I did not deem the House pledged: I only a.s.signed reasons of "probability", that having voted for the continuance of war, they would deem themselves inconsistent if they refused a.s.sent to those measures by which the objects of the war were most likely to be realised. My argument was, not that the House had pledged itself to this measure directly, but only as far as they must perceive it to be a means of bringing the war to that conclusion to which they have pledged themselves: for unless gendemen will tell me, that though they cannot prevent votes in favour of the war, they will yet endeavour to palsy the arm of the country in the conduct of it; and though they cannot stifle the vast majority of suffrages to the plan, they will yet endeavour to way-lay it in its execution; unless the gentlemen will tell me so themselves, I will not impute it to them. (Here Mr.
Pitt made a short reply to some observations of Mr. Bouverie in the early part of the debate, and then proceeded.) It was said of himself and friends (and often said) by a gentleman who does not now commonly honour us with his presence here, "We are the minority who represent the opinions of the country." In my opinion a state of universal suffrage, formal or virtual, in which, nevertheless, the few represent the many, is a true picture of Jacobinism. But, however this may be, if smallness of number is to become a mark and pledge of genuine representation, that gentleman"s friends must acquire the representative character in a continual progression; for the party has been constantly decreasing in number, and both here and out of this House, they are at present fewer than they ever were before. But they vote for peace, and the people wish for peace; and therefore they represent the opinions of the people. The people wish for peace--so do I! But for what peace? Not for a peace that is made to-day and will be broken to-morrow! Not for a peace that is more insecure and hazardous than war. Why did I wish for peace at Lisle? Because war was then more hazardous than peace; because it was necessary to give to the people a palpable proof of the necessity of the war, in order to their cordial concurrence with that system of finance, without which the war could not be successfully carried on; because our allies were then but imperfectly lessoned by experience; and finally, because the state of parties then in France was less Jacobinical than at any time since that era. But will it follow that I was then insincere in negotiating for peace, when peace was less insecure, and war more hazardous; because now with decreased advantages of peace, and increased means of war, I advise against a peace? As to the other arguments, it is of less consequence to insist upon them, because the opposition implied in them holds not against this measure in particular, but against the general principle of carrying on the war with vigour. Much has been said of the defection of Russia, and every attempt made to deduce from this circ.u.mstance so misnamed causes of despair or diminished hope. It is true that Russia has withdrawn herself from confident co-operation with Austria, but she has not withdrawn herself from concert with this country. Has it never occurred, that France, compelled to make head against armies pressing on the whole of her frontiers, will be weakened and distracted in her efforts, by a moveable maritime force?
What may be the ultimate extent of the Russian forces engaged in this diversion, we cannot be expected to know, cut off as we are from the continent, by the season and the weather. If the Russians, acting in maritime diversion on the coast of France, and increased by our own forces, should draw the French forces from Switzerland and Italy, it does not follow that the Russians may be greatly, and perhaps equally useful to the objects of the campaign, although they will cease to act on the eastern side of France. I do not pretend to know precisely the number and state of the French armies, but reason only on probabilities; and chiefly with the view of solving the honourable gentleman"s difficulty, how the Russians can be useful, if not on the continent. It is unnecessary to occupy the time and attention of the House with a serious answer to objections, which it is indeed difficult to repeat with the same gravity with which they were originally stated.
It was affirmed, gravely affirmed, that 12,000,000 would be wanted for corn! I should be happy, if, in the present scarcity, corn could be procured from any, and all parts of the world, to one-third of that amount. It will not be by such arguments as these, that the country will be induced to cease a war for security, in order to procure corn for subsistence. I do object, that there is unfairness both in these arguments in themselves, and in the spirit which produces them. The war is now reviled as unjust and unnecessary; and in order to prove it so, appeals are made to circ.u.mstances of accidental scarcity from the visitation of the seasons. The fallacy of these reasonings is equal to their mischief. It is not true that you could procure corn more easily if peace were to be made to-morrow. If this war be unjust, it ought to be stopped on its own account; but if it be indeed a war of principle and of necessity, it were useless and abject to relinquish it from terrors like these. As well might a fortress, sure of being put to the sword, surrender for want of provision. But that man, Sir, does not act wisely, if, feeling like a good citizen, he use these arguments which favour the enemy. G.o.d forbid, that an opposition in opinion among ourselves should make us forget the high and absolute duty of opposition to the enemies of our country. Sir, in the present times, it is more than ever the bounden duty of every wise and good man to use more than ordinary caution in abstaining from all arguments that appeal to pa.s.sions, not facts; above all, from arguments that tend to excite popular irritation on a subject and on an occasion, on which the people can with difficulty be reasoned with, but are irritated most easily. To speak incautiously on such subjects, is an offence of no venial order; but deliberately and wilfully to connect the words, war and scarcity, were infamous, a treachery to our country, and in a peculiar degree cruel to those whom alone it can delude, the lower uneducated cla.s.ses. I will not enlarge upon that subject, but retire with a firm conviction that no new facts have occurred which can have altered the opinion of this House on the necessity of the war, or the suitableness of similar measures to the present to the effectual carrying of it on, and that the opinion of the House will not be altered but by experience and the evidence of facts."
The following paragraph is extracted from private memoranda, and was intended for publication ten years afterwards, in the Courier Newspaper, in which he wrote a series of Essays to Judge Fletcher, which were at that time acknowledged by the most able judges to be prophetic. But it must be remembered he never wrote for party purposes. His views were grounded on Platonic principles keeping the balance of the powers, and throwing his weight into the scale that needed a.s.sistance.
OF THE PROFANATION OF THE SACRED WORD "THE PEOPLE."
"Every brutal mob, a.s.sembled on some drunken St. Monday of faction, is "_the People_" forsooth, and now each leprous ragam.u.f.fin, like a circle in geometry, is at once one and all, and calls his own brutal self "us the People." And who are the friends of the People? Not those who would wish to elevate each of them, or at least, the child who is to take his place in the flux of life and death, into something worthy of esteem, and capable of freedom, but those who flatter and infuriate them as they do. A contradiction in the very thought. For if really they are good and wise, virtuous and well-informed, how weak must be the motives of discontent to a truly moral being!--but if the contrary, and the motives for discontent proportionally strong, how without guilt and absurdity appeal to them as judges and arbiters! He alone is ent.i.tled to a share in the government of all, who has learnt to govern himself--there is but one possible ground of a right to freedom, viz. to understand and revere its duties."
As specimens of his political writings I select the following, and leave party men to criticise them--Coleridge being of no party, but guided, as will sufficiently appear to those who have read his works with attention, solely by philosophical principles, from which he never swerved. Nor did he desire the praise of men, merely because they were in power; still less that of the mult.i.tude. For this reason, I repeat, these fragments are given, as ill.u.s.trative of Coleridge"s political views, and to shew how easily the harmony of the const.i.tutional balance may be disturbed by party zeal. His opinions were often misunderstood even sometimes by kindly-disposed individuals, when "theirs" were not founded on certain data, because their principles were not derived from permanent sources. The doctrine of expediency was one he highly censured, and it had existed long enough to prove to him that it was worthless. What one set of well-intentioned men may effect, and which for a time may have produced good, another set of men by the same doctrine, "i.e." of expediency may effect, and then produce incalculable mischief, and, therefore, Coleridge thought there was neither guide nor safety, but in the permanent and uncontrovertible truths of the sacred writings, so that the extent of this utility will depend on faith in these truths, and with these truths, his name must "live or perish". But some part of Coleridge"s writings requiring too much effort of thought to be at once thoroughly understood, may therefore have been found distasteful, and consequently have exposed his name to ridicule, in some cases even to contempt; but the application Coleridge has made of these truths to the duties and various circ.u.mstances of life will surely be found an inestimable blessing. They were truly his rock of support, and formed the basis of the building he was endeavouring to raise.
In the year 1807, he wrote those weekly Essays of the Friend, which were published about this time, and thus gave to the world some of his rich intellectual stores. The following letter, which he addressed to Mr.
Cottle, will shew the progress of his mind from Socinian to Trinitarian belief at that period of his life:
"Bristol, 1807.
DEAR COTTLE,
To pursue our last conversation. Christians expect no outward or sensible miracles from prayer. Its effects, and its fruitions are spiritual, and accompanied, says that true Divine, Archbishop Leighton, "not by reasons and arguments but by an inexpressible kind of evidence, which they only know who have it."
To this I would add, that even those who, like me I fear, have not attained it, may yet presume it. First, because reason itself, or rather mere human nature, in any dispa.s.sionate moment, feels the necessity of religion, but if this be not true there is no religion, no religation, or binding over again; nothing added to reason, and therefore Socinianism (misnamed Unitarianism) is not only not Christianity, it is not even "religion", it does not religate; does not bind anew. The first outward and sensible result of prayer, is, a penitent resolution, joined with a consciousness of weakness in effecting it, yea even a dread, too well grounded, lest by breaking and falsifying it, the soul should add guilt to guilt; by the very means it has taken to escape from guilt; so pitiable is the state of unregenerate man.
Are you familiar with Leighton"s Works? He resigned his archbishop.r.i.c.k, and retired to voluntary poverty on account of the persecution of the Presbyterians, saying, "I should not dare to introduce Christianity itself with such cruelties, how much less for a surplice, and the name of a bishop." If there could be an intermediate s.p.a.ce between inspired, and uninspired writings, that s.p.a.ce would be occupied by Leighton. No show of learning, no appearance, or ostentatious display of eloquence; and yet both may be shown in him, conspicuously and holily. There is in him something that must be felt, even as the scriptures must be felt. [15]
You ask me my views of the "Trinity". I accept the doctrine, not as deduced from human reason, in its grovelling capacity for comprehending spiritual things, but as the clear revelation of Scripture. But perhaps it may be said, the "Socinians" do not admit this doctrine as being taught in the Bible. I know enough of their shifts and quibbles, with their dexterity at explaining away all they dislike, (and that is not a little) but though beguiled once by them, I happily, for my own peace of mind, escaped from their sophistries, and now, hesitate not to affirm, that Socinians would lose all character for honesty, if they were to explain their neighbour"s will with the same lat.i.tude of interpretation, which they do the Scriptures.
I have in my head some floating ideas on the "Logos", which I hope, hereafter, to mould into a consistent form; but it is a gross perversion of the truth, in "Socinians", to declare that we believe in "Three G.o.ds", and they know it to be false. They might, with equal justice, affirm that we believe in "three suns". The meanest peasant, who has acquired the first rudiments of Christianity, would shrink back from a thought so monstrous. Still the Trinity has its difficulties. It would be strange if otherwise. A "Revelation" that revealed nothing, not within the grasp of human reason!--no religation, no binding over again, as before said: but these difficulties are shadows, contrasted with the substantive, and insurmountable obstacles with which they contend who admit the "Divine authority of Scripture", with the "superlative excellence of Christ", and yet undertake to prove that these Scriptures teach, and that Christ taught, his own "pure humanity!"
If Jesus Christ was merely a Man,--if he was not G.o.d as well as Man, be it considered, he could not have been even a "good man". There is no medium. The SAVIOUR "in that case" was absolutely "a deceiver!"
one, transcendently "unrighteous!" in advancing pretensions to miracles, by the "Finger of G.o.d," which he never performed; and by a.s.serting claims, (as a man) in the most aggravated sense, blasphemous!
These consequences, Socinians, to be consistent, must allow, and which impious arrogation of Divinity in Christ, (according to their faith,) as well as his false a.s.sumption of a community of "glory" with the Father, "before the world was," even they will be necessitated to admit, completely exonerated the Jews, according to their law, in crucifying one, who "being a man," "made himself G.o.d!" But, in the Christian, rather than in the "Socinian", or "Pharisaic" view, all these objections vanish, and harmony succeeds to inexplicable confusion. If Socinians hesitate in ascribing "unrighteousness" to Christ, the inevitable result of their principles, they tremble, as well they might, at their avowed creed, and virtually renounce what they profess to uphold.
The Trinity, as Bishop Leighton has well remarked, is, "a doctrine of faith, not of demonstration," except in a "moral" sense. If the New Testament declare it, not in an insulated pa.s.sage, but through the whole breadth of its pages, rendering, with any other admission, the Book, which is the Christian"s anchor-hold of hope, dark and contradictory, then it is not to be rejected, but on a penalty that reduces to an atom, all the sufferings this earth can inflict.
Let the grand question be determined; Is, or is not the Bible "inspired?" No one Book has ever been subjected to so rigid an investigation as the Bible, by minds the most capacious, and, in the result, which has so triumphantly repelled all the a.s.saults of Infidels. In the extensive intercourse which I have had with this cla.s.s of men, I have seen their prejudices surpa.s.sed only by their ignorance. This I found conspicuously the case in Dr. D. (Vol. i. p.
167) the prince of their fraternity. Without, therefore, stopping to contend on what all dispa.s.sionate men must deem, undebatable ground, I may a.s.sume inspiration as admitted; and, equally so, that it would be an insult to man"s understanding to suppose any other Revelation from G.o.d than the Christian Scriptures. If these Scriptures, impregnable in their strength; sustained in their pretensions by undeniable prophecies and miracles; and by the experience of the "inner man", in all ages, as well as by a concatenation of arguments, all bearing upon one point, and extending, with miraculous consistency, through a series of fifteen hundred years; if all this combined proof does not establish their validity, nothing can be proved under the sun; but the world and man must be abandoned, with all its consequences to one universal scepticism! Under such sanctions, therefore, if these Scriptures, as a fundamental truth, "do" inculcate the doctrine of the "Trinity;" however surpa.s.sing human comprehension; then I say, we are bound to admit it on the strength of "moral demonstration".
The supreme Governor of the world, and the Father of our spirits, has seen fit to disclose to us, much of his will, and the whole of his natural and moral perfections. In some instances he has given his "word" only, and demanded our "faith"; while, on other momentous subjects, instead of bestowing a full revelation; like the "Via Lactea", he has furnished a glimpse only, through either the medium of inspiration, or by the exercise of those rational faculties with which he has endowed us. I consider the Trinity as substantially resting on the first proposition, yet deriving support from the last.
I recollect when I stood on the summit of Etna, and darted my gaze down the crater; the immediate vicinity was discernible, till, lower down, obscurity gradually terminated in total darkness. Such figures exemplify many truths revealed in the Bible. We pursue them, until, from the imperfection of our faculties, we are lost in impenetrable night. All truths, however, that are essential to faith, "honestly"
interpreted; all that are important to human conduct, under every diversity of circ.u.mstance, are manifest as a blazing star. The promises also of felicity to the righteous, in the future world, though the precise nature of that felicity may not be defined, are ill.u.s.trated by every image that can swell the imagination: while the misery of the "lost", in its unutterable intensity, though the language that describes it is all necessarily figurative, is there exhibited as resulting chiefly, if not wholly, from the withdrawment of the "light of G.o.d"s countenance", and a banishment from his "presence!"--best comprehended in this world, by reflecting on the desolations which would instantly follow the loss of the sun"s vivifying and universally diffused "warmth".
You, or rather "all", should remember, that some truths, from their nature, surpa.s.s the scope of man"s limited powers, and stand as the criteria of "faith", determining, by their rejection, or admission, who among the sons of men can confide in the veracity of heaven. Those more ethereal truths, of which the Trinity is conspicuously the chief, without being circ.u.mstantially explained, may be faintly ill.u.s.trated by material objects.--The eye of man cannot discern the satellites of Jupiter, nor become sensible of the mult.i.tudinous stars, the rays of which have never reached our planet, and, consequently, garnish not the canopy of night; yet, are they the less "real", because their existence lies beyond man"s una.s.sisted gaze? The tube of the philosopher, and the "celestial telescope",--the unclouded visions of heaven, will confirm the one cla.s.s of truths, and irradiate the other.
The "Trinity" is a subject on which a.n.a.logical reasoning may advantageously be admitted, as furnishing, at least, a glimpse of light, and with this, for the present, we must be satisfied. Infinite Wisdom deemed clearer manifestations inexpedient; and is man to dictate to his Maker? I may further remark, that where we cannot behold a desirable object distinctly, we must take the best view we can; and I think you, and every candid and inquiring mind, may derive a.s.sistance from such reflections as the following.
Notwithstanding the arguments of Spinosa, and Descartes, and other advocates of the "Material system", (or, in more appropriate language, the "Atheistical system!") it is admitted by all men not prejudiced, not bia.s.sed by sceptical prepossessions, that "mind" is distinct from "matter". The mind of man, however, is involved in inscrutable darkness, (as the profoundest metaphysicians well know) and is to be estimated, (if at all) alone, by an inductive process; that is, by its "effects". Without entering on the question, whether an extremely circ.u.mscribed portion of the mental process, surpa.s.sing instinct, may, or may not, be extended to quadrupeds, it is universally acknowledged, that the mind of man, alone, regulates all the voluntary actions of his corporeal frame. Mind, therefore, may be regarded as a distinct genus, in the scale ascending above brutes, and including the whole of intellectual existences; advancing from "thought", (that mysterious thing!) in its lowest form, through all the gradations of sentient and rational beings, till it arrives at a Bacon, a Newton, and then, when uninc.u.mbered by matter, extending its illimitable sway through Seraph and Archangel, till we are lost in the GREAT INFINITE!
Is it not deserving of notice, as an especial subject of meditation, that our "limbs", in all they do, or can accomplish, implicitly obey the dictation of the "mind"? that this operating power, whatever its name, under certain limitations, exercises a sovereign dominion, not only over our limbs, but over all our intellectual pursuits? The mind of every man is evidently the moving force, which alike regulates all his limbs and actions; and in which example, we find a strong ill.u.s.tration of the subordinate nature of mere "matter". That alone which gives direction to the organic parts of our nature, is wholly "mind"; and one mind, if placed over a thousand limbs, could, with undiminished ease, control and regulate the whole.
This idea is advanced on the supposition, that "one mind" could command an unlimited direction over any given number of "limbs", provided they were all connected by "joint" and "sinew". But suppose, through some occult and inconceivable means, these limbs were dis-a.s.sociated, as to all material connexion; suppose, for instance, one mind, with unlimited authority, governed the operations of "two"
separate persons, would not this, substantially, be only "one person", seeing the directing principle was one? If the truth, here contended for, be admitted, that "two persons", governed by "one mind", is incontestably "one person"; the same conclusion would be arrived at, and the proposition equally be justified, which affirmed that, "three", or, otherwise, "four" persons, owning also necessary and essential subjection to "one mind", would only be so many diversities, or modifications of that "one mind", and therefore the component parts, virtually collapsing into "one whole", the person would be "one". Let any man ask himself, whose understanding can both reason, and become the depository of truth, whether, if "one mind" thus regulated, with absolute authority, "three", or, otherwise, "four"
persons, with all their congeries of material parts, would not these parts, inert in themselves, when subjected to one predominant mind, be, in the most logical sense, "one person"? Are ligament and exterior combination indispensable pre-requisites to the sovereign influence of mind over mind? or mind over matter? [16]
But perhaps it may be said, we have no instance of one mind governing more than one body. This may be, but the argument remains the same.
With a proud spirit, that forgets its own contracted range of thought, and circ.u.mscribed knowledge, who is to limit the sway of Omnipotence?
or, presumptuously to deny the possibility of "that" Being, who called light out of darkness, so to exalt the dominion of "one mind", as to give it absolute sway over other dependent minds, or (indifferently) over detached, or combined portions of organized matter? But if this superinduced quality be conferable on any order of created beings, it is blasphemy to limit the power of G.o.d, and to deny "his" capacity to transfuse "his own" Spirit, when, and to whom he will.
This reasoning may now be applied in ill.u.s.tration of the Trinity. We are too much in the habit of viewing our Saviour Jesus Christ, through the medium of his body. "A body was prepared for him," but this body was mere matter; as insensible in itself, as every human frame when deserted by the soul. If therefore the Spirit that was in Christ, was the Spirit of the Father: if no thought, no vibration, no spiritual communication, or miraculous display, existed in, or proceeded from Christ, not immediately and consubstantially identified with JEHOVAH, the Great First cause; if all these operating principles were thus derived, in consistency alone with the conjoint divine attributes; of this Spirit of the Father ruled and reigned in Christ as his own manifestation, then, in the strictest sense, Christ exhibited "the G.o.d-head bodily," and was undeniably ""one" with the Father;"
confirmatory of the Saviour"s words; "Of myself," (my body) "I can do nothing, the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
But though I speak of the body, as inert in itself, and necessarily allied to matter, yet this declaration must not be understood as militating against the Christian doctrine of the "resurrection of the body". In its grosser form, the thought is not to be admitted, for, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of G.o.d," but, that the body, without losing its consciousness, and individuality, may be subjected, by the illimitable power of Omnipotence, to a sublimating process, so as to be rendered compatible with spiritual a.s.sociation, is not opposed to reason, in its severe abstract exercises, while in attestation of this "exhilarating belief", there are many remote a.n.a.logies in nature exemplifying the same truth, while it is in the strictest accordance with that final dispensation, which must, as Christians, regulate all our speculations. I proceed now to say, that:
If the postulate be thus admitted, that one mind influencing two bodies, would only involve a diversity of operations, but in reality be one in essence; or otherwise, (as an hypothetical argument, ill.u.s.trative of truth) if one preeminent mind, or spiritual subsistence, unconnected with matter, possessed an undivided and sovereign dominion over two or more disembodied minds, so as to become the exclusive source of all their subtlest volitions and exercises, the "unity", however complex the modus of its manifestation, would be fully established; and this principle extends to DEITY itself, and shows the true sense, as I conceive, in which Christ and the Father are one.
In continuation of this reasoning, if G.o.d who is light, the Sun of the Moral World, should in his union of Infinite Wisdom, Power, and Goodness, and from all Eternity, have ordained that an emanation from himself (for aught we know, an essential emanation, as light is inseparable from the luminary of day) should not only have existed in his Son, in the fulness of time to be united to a mortal body, but that a like emanation from himself (also perhaps essential) should have const.i.tuted the Holy Spirit, who, without losing his ubiquity, was more especially sent to this lower earth, "by" the SON, "at" the impulse of the Father, then, in the most comprehensive sense, G.o.d, and his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are ONE. "Three Persons in one G.o.d," and thus form the true Trinity in Unity.
To suppose that more than ONE Independent Power, or Governing mind exists in the whole universe, is absolute Polytheism, against which the denunciations of all the Jewish, and Christian Canonical books were directed. And if there be but ONE directing MIND, that Mind is G.o.d!--operating, however, in Three Persons, according to the direct and uniform declarations of that inspiration which "brought life and immortality to light." Yet this divine doctrine of the Trinity is to be received, not because it is, or can be clear to finite apprehension, but, (in reiteration of the argument) because the Scriptures, in their unsophisticated interpretation expressly state it. The Trinity, therefore, from its important aspects, and Biblical prominence, is the grand article of faith, and the foundation of the whole Christian system.
Who can say, as Christ [17] and the Holy Ghost proceeded from, and are still one with the Father, and as all the disciples of Christ derive their fulness from him, and, in spirit, are inviolately united to him as a branch is to the vine, who can say, but that, in one view, what was once mysteriously separated, may, as mysteriously, be recombined, and, (without interfering with the everlasting Trinity, and the individuality of the spiritual and seraphic orders) the Son, at the consummation of all things, deliver up his mediatorial kingdom to the Father, and G.o.d, in some peculiar, and infinitely sublime sense, become All "in" All!
G.o.d love you,
S.T. COLERIDGE." [18]
Those who are acquainted with Mr. Coleridge"s maturer view of the doctrine of the Trinity, will not need to be informed that this letter does not convey his later conviction in regard to this awful mystery, and will know that his philosophic meditations rested essentially in the same faith that dictated the Article of the Church of England on this subject.
Mr. De Quincey has made several mistatements in a memoir on Mr.
Coleridge, which he wrote in Tait"s Magazine; but it may be only fair first to quote a few interesting remarks, with which he begins:
"In the summer season of 1807 I first saw this ill.u.s.trious man, the largest and most s.p.a.cious intellect in my judgment that has ever yet existed amongst men. My knowledge of his works as a most original genius began about the year 1799."
A little before that time, Wordsworth published the "Lyrical Ballads,"
in which was the Ancient Mariner of Coleridge, and to which Mr. De Quincey attributes the unfolding of his own mind; this confession is by no means humiliating, for many persons of the highest reputation have made similar acknowledgments, and some there are still living who have the courage and integrity to do so now.
"I found (says this gentleman) that Professor Wilson, as well as myself, saw in these poems "the ray of a new morning;"--and to these names may be added that of the celebrated Sir Walter Scott."
The admiration of Mr. De Quincey was so great that inquiring where Coleridge was to be found, and learning that he was in Malta, he contemplated an immediate visit to that island, but the fear of a French prison reconciled him to remaining in England. When on a visit in 1807 (to a relation), at the Hot Wells, he learnt that Coleridge was staying with a friend not far from Bristol. This friend was Mr. Poole of Nether Stowey, and thither he bent his steps. In this house Mr. De Quincey spent two days, and gives, from his own knowledge, a sketch of Mr.
Poole"s person and character very descriptive of the original. Coleridge often remarked that he was the best "ideal for a useful member of parliament he ever knew;"
"a plain dressed man leading a bachelor life," as Mr. De Quincey observes, "in a rustic old fashioned house, amply furnished with modern luxuries, and a good library. Mr. Poole had travelled extensively, and had so entirely dedicated himself to his humble fellow countrymen, who resided in his neighbourhood, that for many miles round he was the general arbiter of their disputes, the guide and counsellor of their daily life; besides being appointed executor and guardian to his children by every third man who died in or about the town of Nether Stowey."