text:
Page:Best Russian Short Stories.djvu/157

Rh syrup and lime water, rubbed him with eau de Cologne, and wrapped him up in soft coverings.

"You are my precious sweet," she said with perfect sincerity, stroking his hair. "You are such a dear."

At Lent he went to Moscow to get his company together, and, while without him, Olenka was unable to sleep. She sat at the window the whole time, gazing at the stars. She likened herself to the hens that are also uneasy and unable to sleep when their rooster is out of the coop. Kukin was detained in Moscow. He wrote he would be back during Easter Week, and in his letters discussed arrangements already for the Tivoli. But late one night, before Easter Monday, there was an ill-omened knocking at the wicket-gate. It was like a knocking on a barrel—boom, boom, boom! The sleepy cook ran barefooted, plashing through the puddles, to open the gate.

"Open the gate, please," said some one in a hollow bass voice. "I have a telegram for you."

Olenka had received telegrams from her husband before; but this time, somehow, she was numbed with terror. She opened the telegram with trembling hands and read:

"Ivan Petrovich died suddenly to-day. Awaiting propt orders for wuneral Tuesday."

That was the way the telegram was written—"wuneral"—and another unintelligible word—"propt." The telegram was signed by the manager of the opera company.

"My dearest!" Olenka burst out sobbing. "Vanichka, my dearest, my sweetheart. Why did I ever meet you? Why did I ever get to know you and love you? To whom have you abandoned your poor Olenka, your poor, unhappy Olenka?"

Kukin was buried on Tuesday in the Vagankov Cemetery in Moscow. Olenka returned home on Wednesday; and as soon as she entered her house she threw herself on her bed and broke into such loud sobbing that she could be heard in the street and in the neighbouring yards.

"The darling!" said the neighbours, crossing themselves. "How Olga Semyonovna, the poor darling, is grieving!"

Three months afterwards Olenka was returning home from mass, downhearted and in deep mourning. Beside her


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/267

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/266


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/265


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/264


text: Template:Thai court document

title: Template:Thai court document


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/263


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/262


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/57

 ILLUSTRATION.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/58


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/98


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/97

 MASTER OF ONE OF THE 'THREE Rs'


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/139

 HE WROTE THE 'WOMAN IN WHITE.'


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/31

 AUTHOR AND ACTOR.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/32


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/19

 his parliamentary duties; had made several bold attempts to earn an independent reputation as a poet, by the publication of several poems of considerable merit; and had devoted himself to politics as a pamphleteer, and to social topics as an essayist. It is not to be wondered at that his health broke, happily to be restored to him again after a time. The story of his cure is told in his 'Confessions of a Water Patient' (1845).

In 1846, his first great work in rhyme appeared anonymously. It was a satire called 'The New Timon.'

In writing a couple of years ago about it, a contemporary essayist drew attention to the attack on Tennyson contained in the poem, and to the retort of the Poet Laureate in the columns of 'Punch.'

This reply appeared almost before the present generation of readers were out of their pinafores; and as it furnishes rather a curious example of the amenities of literature—one poet calling the other 'school-miss Alfred,' and being called 'you bandbox' by his angry rival in return—we will quote the lines of both authors. Doubtless the feud has long since been healed, or at all events forgotten, by the parties to it.

In 'The New Timon,' which, though published anonymously, was well known to be the work of the author of 'Pelham,' these lines occur:

Tennyson had had a pension of 200l. a-year granted to him—most


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/35


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/36


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/43

 THE SELECTED ARCHITECT.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/44


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/47

 MR. SPEAKER.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/48


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/51

 I HOPE I DON'T INTRUDE.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/52


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/55


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/61

 THE EARTHLY PARADISE.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/62


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/65

 M.D.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/66


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/71

 HER MAJESTY'S TOWER.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/72


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/73


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/75

 RIDING HIS HOBBY.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/76


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/77


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/79

 THE ARISTOCRACY OF NATURE.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/80


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/20

 people will think justly. He did not sit silent under this attack. What would be the consequence of such an attack on him now, from such a hand, it is impossible to conceive such things are out of date. This was his reply, and first and last appearance in the columns of 'Punch:'

Time and a change in the mode of expressing literary amenities on the part of famous authors have made these verses quite curious. We introduce them here for this reason, and not with any desire 'to fan afresh the ancient flame' that prompted them. It will only be necessary for us to apologise for their insertion to such of our readers as may recollect their first appearance five-and-twenty years ago, or may have seen them since.


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/89

 SO HE PLAYS HIS PART. As You like it, act ii. sc. 7.


text:
Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/64

44 confined to indoor use; and at the club they seem to have been restricted to the president, the assessors or secretaries, and the speakers while on their legs. Pigott, however, was plainly the introducer, if not of the bonnet rouge, yet of the bonnet; for the Chateauvieux mutineers, to whom it is generally attributed, did not enter Paris till June, three months afterwards. It is true that the cap of liberty had been a symbol employed from the outset of the Revolution, but it was Pigott who made it an article of dress. He had probably quitted Paris by the summer, when it was revived, and this time undoubtedly worn outdoors, sometimes placed on the back of the head, like that of a Zouave of the present day, sometimes placed on the top of the head with the end slightly lapping over in front. Of Pigott nothing more is heard till his death at Toulouse, July 7, 1794, three weeks before Robespierre's fall. He was fifty-eight years of age, is said to have had a son who predeceased him, and left a widow, Antoinette Bontau, possibly the Mrs. Pigott who was living at Geneva in 1807–15. There were two other Pigotts who sympathised with the Revolution, but what relation they were to Robert is not clear. Charles, the author of some plays and pamphlets, including a reply to Burke, died in London a fortnight before Robert, and was buried at Chetwynd. A John Pigott, dining at the London Coffee-house, September 30, 1793, in


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/90


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/93

 A TRUE POET.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/94


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/95


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/21

 There was an interval of four years in which Bulwer did not appear before the public as a writer of fiction; but finding, as he says, 'bad habits stronger than good intentions,' he dipped his novel-writing quill in ink again, and set to work on two very dissimilar stories—'Lucretia,' and 'The Caxtons.' The former—having for its heroine Lucretia Dalibard, one of his greatest creations—drew down a storm of angry criticism about his head. The two chief personages of the story were poisoners. To this criticism the author replied in a long and able defence of his work, and an explanation of what he held to be the artistic principles and ethical designs of fiction.

'The Caxtons,' one of his most charming stories, followed 'Lucretia,' and was succeeded by 'My Novel.' At intervals of some years after one another, 'What will he do with it?' and 'A Strange Story,' were published. The latter was completed in 1862.

Lord Lytton has been a popular writer for over forty years, and in that time he has produced above a hundred volumes. He has a good claim to the titles of statesman and orator, in addition to those of novelist, poet, dramatist, and essayist. Such versatility of talent is rare indeed; yet, in all these various paths of literature, the veteran peer has outstripped most of those who have entered the lists with him. He might now rest on the laurels his great talents and great industry have fairly won at the hands of fame. Lord Lytton—then Mr. Bulwer sat—in Parliament first, in 1831, for St. Ives; afterwards representing Lincoln and Hertfordshire. He was created a baronet in July 1838; and in July 1866 was raised to the peerage, with the title of Baron Lytton of Knebworth.


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/101

 MATHIAS.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/102


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/105

 SOMETHING LIKE A NOVELIST.


text:
Translation:Two Objections Against the Theory of Relativity and their Refutation

By..

I.

Of all apparently paradox consequences that stem from the time-transformation of the theory of relativity, there is probably none, against which the common sense of anyone (who is still unfamiliar with the matter) is more reluctant, than the one according to which the time indication of a clock shall be dependent on its state of motion. Already in his fundamental paper, has driven this paradox to the extreme by a thought experiment, recently explained in a particular nice way by  in a lecture that is also very readable in other respects.

With a small modification this can be represented as follows:

A bundle of clocks, physically exactly equal and equally set, shall be moving with uniform velocity at the same path, all adjacent so close, that they can be considered as simultaneously lying at the same point. Thus they all accordingly measure the proper time (in the an sense) of the worldline corresponding to their motion. In a particular moment, however, their paths will be separated, and only after the completion of a certain time, they simultaneously come together at the same spacepoint again, to execute a common motion again. At their encounter, differences exist in their indications that constantly remain. During the time of separation, the rate of that clock is most advanced which was at rest in a valid reference system in the meantime; namely there is always one, and only one valid reference system, for which the locations of separation and re-encounter lie in the same geometric point.

The opposition against this, which at first will probably be raised in the mind of everyone, has recently caused two authors to object at this place. rejects this consequence and thinks, that there is an error in 's consideration. Contrary to this, proves in a particularly striking way, that the discussed fact follows from the relativity laws, however, he thinks that it contradicts the "unconditional" relativity principle, and it would show the inequality of different "strides" (Schreitungen) in a particular clear way.

We want to examine this objection, by using 's four-dimensional world as the basis of this study. The principle of relativity claims the equivalence of all time-like directions in it. 's experiment, however, is represented by a curved worldline, which (in a worldpoint $$A$$) decomposes into a row of curves, and all of them will be re-united at a worldpoint $$B$$ to a single line. Of all curves connecting the points $$A$$ and $$B$$ having time-like direction throughout, the straight connection has the longest proper time; that is the meaning of 's consideration. That of all time-like directions, one is preferred in this way, is to be admitted; however, this preference is not based on the natural laws employed, but only on the choice of world-points $$A$$ and $$B$$, i.e. on the special assumptions of our example.

At the end, an analogy shall be allowed. One of the most important physical findings is the physical equivalence of all directions in (three-dimensional) space; and one of the most elementary geometric laws says, that two points determine a straight line, and thus a direction as well. It would be in accordance with the previous objection against the relativity theory, when one would try to refute that law of the isotropy of space by the aid of that geometric theorem.

II.

Another indication for the existence of the aether is seen by in the occurrence of border-strides (Grenzschreitungen), occurring with the speed of light in every reference system. For small velocities he admits the validity of the relativity laws as very probable (gravitation may probably be neglected at this place); but beyond of this border he expects totally new phenomena, from which the state of motion of the aether can be recognized.

By a very striking terminology, distinguishes the standpoint of the "conditional" and the "unconditional" principle of relativity. Both are in full agreement as regards the mathematical formulation of the "relativity laws" for subluminal velocities. However, they are principally different as regards the assessment of the relativity principle. As to the first standpoint, it is only a mathematically convenient calculation-rule; since at this very place a preferred reference system at rest in the aether exists, whose time is "the time", while the time of all other systems is only "local time" according to 's terminology. It is quite correct at this place, to speak about velocities of every amount, and, since the speed of light indeed represents a limitation for the relativity laws, to expect principally new knowledge from superluminal velocities.

However, as to the second of the mentioned standpoints, the equivalence of all reference systems is a law of nature; yet they are only equivalent, when the times connected to them are completely equally valid. Now, already and maybe even better  and the author of this rebuttal have shown, that the existence of superluminal velocities must cancel the unambiguity of the assignment of cause and effect. (The conditional relativity principle, however, escapes from this conclusion, since it can re-establish the unambiguity by means of the passage from the local time to "the" time.) Thus it is a consequence of the unconditional relativity- and the causality-principle, that strides don't occur beyond 's border-strides. Thus when says: "For the judgment of what is happening with matter when the borders of the area were exceeded, any clue is missing until today", he consequently executes his standpoint of the conditional relativity principle. However, to derive from that an objection against the view of the "unconditional" relativity principle, as it was done by in § 15, is impossible. And when writes : "Yet, as soon as the validity  of the relativity principle will be concluded from the observations, so that (as previously described) a natural limitation of the ordinary states of motion must be assumed, is is impossible to avoid the conclusion, that just not all strides are equivalent for the world process", then this conclusion is totally inadmissible in the system of the unconditional relativity principle. Because this view necessarily must deny the occurrence of superluminal velocities for matter. To conclude different validities of the possible strides from the non-existence of certain imaginable strides, is not allowed.

For the rest it seems to me, as if the whole question after the existence of the aether and absolute time could be banned out of the physical discussion; as long as no totally new facts can be demonstrated by experiment, as for example the existence of superluminal velocities or a contradiction between the phenomena of gravitation and the relativity principle, it cannot be physically distinguished between both mentioned standpoints. Concerning all quantities accessible to measurement, they exactly give the same results. By that it should not be said, that this questions would be of no interest, on the contrary it seems to me as of high philosophical importance; yet exactly because of that it should be reserved to treatment by philosophical methods.

, December 1911.

(Received December 6, 1911.)


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/106


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/115


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/117

 FUN.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/118


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/119


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/22

Charles Robert Darwin, Fellow of the Royal Society, was born at Shrewsbury, February 12, 1809. He is the son of Dr. Robert Waring Darwin, F.R.S. He received his preparatory training at Shrewsbury School (under the care of Dr. Butler) and at Edinburgh, finally proceeding to the University of Cambridge, where he took his B.A. degree in 1831. The great naturalist comes of a distinguished stock. His grandfather on the mother's side was Josiah Wedgwood, the father of the Staffordshire art-pottery manufacture. On the father's side his grandsire was Dr. Erasmus Darwin, author of 'Zoonomia;' and it is somewhat curious that Mr. Darwin's father and both his grandfathers were Fellows of the Royal Society. He married in 1839 his cousin, Miss Wedgwood. His first work of importance to scientific knowledge was undertaken in connection with the surveying voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. The vessel was commanded by Captain Fitzroy, R.N., who offered a berth to any naturalist who would accompany him. Darwin volunteered, and was accepted. The Beagle left the shores of England in December, 1831; and, after an absence of nearly five years, she returned in October, 1836. The cruise was of a very extensive character South America, Australia, and New Zealand, the Mauritius, and the Pacific Islands being visited in turn. About three years after the return of the Beagle from her voyage round the world, Darwin published his account of what he had seen his volume being part of Captain Fitzroy's narrative of this voyage, subsequently reproduced under the title of 'Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the World.' The other principal works of this eminent savant are, 'Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle;' 'The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs,' 1842; 'Geological Observations on Volcanic Islands,' 1845; and 'On South America,' 1846.

Darwin's great book on, the 'Origin of Species by means of Natural


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/121

 THE GOVERNOR.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/122


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/125

 TO PARSONS GAVE UP, WHAT WAS MEANT FOR MANKIND.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/126


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/129


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/131

 BOOKS.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/132


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/135

 TONY LUMPKIN.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/140


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/143

 POET LAUREATE.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/144


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/25

 Selection' appeared at the end of the year 1859. Besides the English editions of this remarkable theory, the book has been translated into most of the European languages.

'On the Various Contrivances by which Orchids are fertilised' praised so highly by Canon Kingsley, in his recent book of travel in the West Indies—was published in 1862; and early last year the long-expected 'Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex,' made its appearance.

The conclusion to which the author came was that, 'at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe,' and the monkey, had the same parental relatives. This theory is at first a little shocking, and has been attacked as violently as it has been stoutly defended. Whatever there is of truth in this startling new theory of Natural Selection, whether it be almost of equal weight with a revelation or completely false in its assumptions, time may prove. The names of men of eminence, of great learning and great sagacity, can be catalogued both for and against it.

We shall not enter into the abstruse discussion; but it is a simple duty to record here, that for close observation of the various phenomena of natural history, unflagging energy and perseverance in the search after truth, and great intellectual power, no country has produced a more earnest or more able student than the author of the theory of Natural Selection.

The author's latest contribution to science and literature is 'The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals,' a work which even those who feel determined to question its scientific accuracy or soundness will own is as fascinating in its style as it is ingenious in argument and various in its research.


text:
Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/65

Rh with Dr. Hudson, drank "Success to the French Republic over all Europe." Other diners thereupon toasted "The King," and an altercation ensued, the result being that Pigott and Hudson were taken before a magistrate, shouting sedition from the coach windows on the way. They were committed for trial, and five days afterwards applied for release on bail, which was fixed at £250, but I find no record of any further proceedings. This Pigott may have been the "Jean Picotte" who was imprisoned in Paris from October 1793 to October 1794.

Let us pass from the franc original, as Madame Roland styles the Shropshire Pythagorean, to James Watt, junior, son of the great inventor, who likewise represented his country in a cosmopolitan procession. This young man of twenty-two had formed an intimacy at Manchester with an ardent politician, Thomas Cooper, a druggist, and towards the end of 1791 the Constitutional Society of that town deputed both of them to carry an address of congratulation to the Jacobin Club. Watt was the hero of the dramatic sitting of the 18th December, so vividly depicted in Carlyle's Essays, when the British, American, and French flags were suspended from the ceiling, and when a deputation of ladies presented to the "Constitutional Whig" an ark of alliance containing the new map of France, the


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/151


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/153

 ONE OF HER MAJESTY'S CHAPLAINS.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/154


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/157

 A SUCCESSFUL DRAMATIST.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/158


text:
Page:Best Russian Short Stories.djvu/158

138 walked a man also returning from church, Vasily Pustovalov, the manager of the merchant Babakayev's lumber-yard. He was wearing a straw hat, a white vest with a gold chain, and looked more like a landowner than a business man.

"Everything has its ordained course, Olga Semyonona," he said sedately, with sympathy in his voice. "And if any one near and dear to us dies, then it means it was God's will and we should remember that and bear it with submission."

He took her to the wicket-gate, said good-bye and went away. After that she heard his sedate voice the whole day; and on closing her eyes she instantly had a vision of his dark beard. She took a great liking to him. And evidently he had been impressed by her, too; for, not long after, an elderly woman, a distant acquaintance, came in to have a cup of coffee with her. As soon as the woman was seated at table she began to speak about Pustovalov—how good he was, what a steady man, and any woman could be glad to get him as a husband. Three days later Pustovalov himself paid Olenka a visit. He stayed only about ten minutes, and spoke little, but Olenka fell in love with him, fell in love so desperately that she did not sleep the whole night and burned as with fever. In the morning she sent for the elderly woman. Soon after, Olenka and Pustovalov were engaged, and the wedding followed.

Pustovalov and Olenka lived happily together. He usually stayed in the lumber-yard until dinner, then went out on business. In his absence Olenka took his place in the office until evening, attending to the book-keeping and despatching the orders.

"Lumber rises twenty per cent every year nowadays," she told her customers and acquaintances. "Imagine, we used to buy wood from our forests here. Now Vasichka has to go every year to the government of Mogilev to get wood. And what a tax!" she exclaimed, covering her cheeks with her hands in terror. "What a tax!"

She felt as if she had been dealing in lumber for ever so long, that the most important and essential thing in life was lumber. There was something touching and endearing in the way she pronounced the words, "beam,"


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/161

 MODERN HISTORY.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/162


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/165


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/167

 A SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/168


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/173


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/175

 THYSELF IN THY LIKENESS. Tempest, act iii. sc. 2.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/176


text:
Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/85

72. She said all the posts along the river seemed to know intuitively when a new one arrived from the East. The young officers found more imperative duties calling them to Fort Sully than they had dreamed of in a year. Before long the governess began to be abstracted, and watch longingly for the mails. A ring would next appear on the significant first finger, and be the forerunner of a request to allow her to resign her place. This had happened four times when I met our hostess, and though she was glad to furnish the officers with wives, she rather sighed for a woman who, though possessing every accomplishment, might still be so antiquated and ugly that she could be sure to keep her for a time at least.

The commandant had some fine greyhounds, and joining the general with his packs of stag and fox hounds, they had several hunts in the few days that remained. Of course, after so bright a visit and such a feast, it was hard to begin again on the march with baking-powder biscuit and tough beef. The cattle that supplied us with meat were driven along on the march, and killed every other day, and could not be expected to be in very good condition. The interest of our journey, however, made us soon forget all deprivations. Grateful sentiments towards those who had been so kind to us as strangers remained as a memory.

title: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/85


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/179


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/181

 HERALD AND PLAYWRIGHT.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/182


text: Translation:Judgment of the Supreme Court No. 6083/2546


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/185

 A WAITING RACE.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/186


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/187


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/189

 JERUSALEM RECOVERED.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/190


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/193

 ART CRITICISM.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/194


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/199

 COMMON SENSE.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/200


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/203

 A LATTER-DAY PHILOSOPHER.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/204


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/207

 OF INFINITE JEST.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/208


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/211

 A MELANCHOLY JESTER.


text: Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/212


text: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/2

title: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/2


text: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/3

title: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/3


text:
Category:Judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice of Thailand

th:หมวดหมู่:คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกา


text: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/4

title: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/4


text: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/5

title: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/5


text: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/6

title: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/6


text: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/7

title: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/7


text: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/9

title: Page:Boots and Saddles.djvu/9


text:
Category:Supreme Court of Justice of Thailand

th:หมวดหมู่:ศาลฎีกา


text:
Category:Judiciary of Thailand

th:หมวดหมู่:องค์กรตุลาการไทย

title: Category:Judiciary of Thailand


text:
Template:Thai court document/doc

Purpose
Used to create the heading of a judicial document from Thailand.

title: Template:Thai court document/doc


text:
Translation:Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 6083/2546/Syllabus

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 6083/2546 The Public Prosecutor, Office of the Attorney-General: 	Prosecutor

Mrs Suda PRATYAPHAT: 	Joint Prosecutor

Mr Soem SAKHONRAT: 	Defendant

CC, § 298

CrPC, § 218

The court of first instance adjudged the Defendant guilty of premeditated murder pursuant to the Criminal Code (“CC”), § 289 (4), and sentenced him to capital punishment. By virtue of the CC, § 78 in conjunction with § 52 (1), the capital punishment was reduced by one third to imprisonment for life. The court of second instance amended the judgment of the court of first instance that he was also found guilty of torturous or cruel murder under the CC, § 289 (5). On account of the offence of premeditated and torturous or cruel murder which was subject to the severest punishment, it sentenced him to capital punishment and, with reference to the CC, § 78 in collaboration with § 52 (1), reduced such punishment by one third to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court saw the facts that the court of second instance merely amended the offence of premeditated murder in accordance with the CC, § 289 (4), to the offence of premeditated and torturous or cruel murder in connection with the CC, §§ 289 (4) and 289 (5), but retained the punishment of imprisonment for life. This is the insignificant amendment and the infliction of imprisonment for a term exceeding five years, in which event the prosecutor is prohibited from entering a final appeal on account of the questions of fact by the Criminal Procedure Code, § 218, ¶ 2. Such prohibition applies also to the Joint Prosecutor.

The facts that the Defendant shot the Deceased’s head, and that the bullet shot came into her left temple and went out of her right temple, indicated the Defendant’s intent to have her died immediately. Though the Deceased did not die at the very time she was shot and she was still alive whilst being decapitated by the Defendant, it was not certain as to how he did perform in order to commit an act of torture or cruelty against her. The facts that the Defendant shot the Deceased at her head and dismembered her remains, and that he then flushed certain parts of the remains away into toilet and threw the other parts into the Bang Pakong River, indicated the Defendant's intent to merely destroy the Deceased's remains for the purpose of concealing her death or cause thereof, not to have her sustaining affliction prior to murdering her. It was unable to hold the Defendant guilty of torturous or cruel murder pursuant to the CC, § 289 (5).

The facts that the Defendant had a gun and several knives in his room led to no other conclusion than the Defendant preparing for murdering the Deceased and remembering the Deceased's corpse. The facts that the Defendant, in short time and without having been seen, could bring the corpse of the Deceased away from his room to be discarded, had his gun and knives and her belongings hidden in various places as well as burnt her cloths away, indicated that he had previously planned on the places for discarding her remains and concealing her belongings and prepared the materials required for taking the parts of her dead body away. The Defendant was therefore adjudged guilty of premeditated murder.

THE PROSECUTOR PREFERRED a charge remarking: On and at an uncertain date and time during January 1, 1998 to January 28, 1998, the Defendant committed several offences liable to several punishments, i.e. he had in his possession without having been licensed by the local registrar other person’s registered .38 short colt―official register no. RYG 177, filled with three .38 bullets―and carried it into the public roads and town without urgent needs according to the circumstances, and also shot it two times in town, village and community areas. Such event came to pass in Tambon Bang Pla Soi, Amphoe Mueang Chon Buri, Changwat Chon Buri, and connectedly in Khwaeng Phaya Thai, Khet Ratchathewi, Bangkok. Moreover, on and at an uncertain date and time during January 26, 1998 to January 28, 1998, the Defendant, intentionally and premeditatedly, murdered Ms Chenchira PHLOI-A-NGUNSI by shooting her head for one time. The bullet came into her left temple and went out of her right temple. The Defendant, with knives, dissected the corpse of Ms Chenchira, decollated her, enucleated both her eyes, cut her ears and nose off, slit her lips up and sliced her scalp, causing death to her. Such act of the Defendant was a kind of torture and cruelty, pursuant to the biometric report and the autopsic report annexed to the charge. Having murdered the Deceased, the Defendant threw certain parts of her remains, including her head, arms, legs and bones, into the Bang Pakong River, Changwat Chachoengsao, and further flushed the other parts, including fleshes, viscera and scalp, away into toilet, so as to conceal her death and the cause thereof. Also, the Defendant dishonestly took away her belongings, i.e. of two thousand baht cash, a chintz single-strap shoulder bag costing three thousand baht, a wristwatch costing six thousand baht, a tri-coloured necklace weighing one salueng and costing one thousand and four hundred baht, an animal-shaped bracelet weighing two saluengs and costing three thousand baht, a pager costing four hundred baht, a compact disc player costing five thousand baht, a talking dictionary costing nine thousand and five hundred baht and a wallet costing five hundred baht, being three hundred thousand, four thousand, four hundred and fifty baht in total. Such event occurred in Khwaeng Phaya Thai, Khet Ratchathewi, Bangkok, connectedly in Tambon Lat Khwang, Amphoe Ban Pho, Changwat Chachoengsao and in Tambon Bang Pla Soi, Amphoe Mueang Chon Buri, Changwat Chon Buri. On January 28, 1998, the police officers discovered the skull of the Deceased. Later on March 5, 1998, the police officers pursued and arrested the Defendant, and seized the exhibits, i.e. one short colt filled with one bullet, two .38 cartridges, one flower-designed bed sheet, one zinc bucket with burning marks and one black cloth bag. The Prosecutor applied for the punishments of the Defendant in pursuance of the CC, §§ 33, 91, 199, 288, 289, 334, 335, 371, 376, the Guns, Munitions, Explosive Devices, Fireworks and Improvise Guns Act, BE 2490 (1947) (“Guns Act”), §§ 7, 8 bis, 72 bis, and applied for confiscation of the gun and its munitions which were exhibits.

THE DEFENDANT PLEADED not guilty. However, in the course of examining the prosecution evidence, the Defendant admitted his guilt, but asserted that the murder was not premeditated or an act of torture or cruelty.

In the course of the trial, Mrs Suda PRATYAPHAT, mother of Ms Chenchira PHLOI-A-NGUNSI, Deceased, entered a motion for associating herself as Joint Prosecutor. The court of first instance granted the motion (in respect of the offence against life and the offence of theft).

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE HELD that: The Defendant was guilty in connection with the CC, §§ 199, 289 (4), 334, 376, the Guns Act, §§ 7, 72 ¶ 3. As the Defendant committed several and different offences, he was thereby sentenced on account of each offence pursuant to the CC, § 91, as follows: In respect of the offence of premeditated murder and the offence of shooting gun in town which were committed concurrently, being one act liable to several punishments, the Defendant could only be punished by the most serious one―capital punishment. In regard to the offence of destroying a dead body or part thereof, imprisonment for a term of one year was imposed. In the matter of the offence of theft, imprisonment for a term of two years was inflicted. Apropos of the offence of possessing a registered gun of other person, imprisonment for a term of one year was given. Nonetheless, the Defendant’s admission of guilt during the arrest proceedings, the enquiry and the trial was information in favour of the court and in the interest of the trial which led to the extenuating circumstances under the CC, § 78 in collaboration with § 52 (1), whereby the punishments inflicted upon him could be reduced by one third as follows: As for the offence of premeditated murder, the punishment was reduced to imprisonment for life. As regards the offence of destroying a dead body or part thereof, the punishment was reduced to imprisonment for a term of eight months. Apropos the offence of theft, the punishment was reduced to imprisonment for a term of one year and four months. With respect to the offence of possessing a registered gun of other person, the punishment was reduced to imprisonment for a term of eight months. Nevertheless, when the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life by result of the offence of premeditated murder, he did not need to undergo the other punishments any further. All other applications and accusations were dismissed.

THE JOINT PROSECUTOR AND THE DEFENDANT APPEALED to the court of second instance.

THE COURT OF SECOND INSTANCE AMENDED the judgment of the court of first instance as follows: The Defendant was also held guilty of torturous or cruel murder under the CC, § 289 (5). Since the offence of premeditated and torturous or cruel murder and the offence of shooting gun in town without justifiable grounds were committed simultaneously, being one act subject to several punishments, the Defendant could only be punished by the heaviest one only. He was thereby sentenced to capital punishment solely, on account of the offence of premeditated and torturous or cruel murder. Nonetheless, by virtue of the CC, § 78 along with § 52 (1), the capital punishment could be reduced by one third to imprisonment for life. Having calculated all the punishments inflicted upon the Defendant, the court of second instance sentenced him to imprisonment for life only. Apart from this, the judgment of the court of first instance was applied.

THE JOINT PROSECUTOR AND THE DEFENDANT FILED the final appeals.

THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE (“Supreme Court”) RENDERED the following decision:

"THE SUPREME COURT ADJUDGED the following facts firm: The Defendant established his domicile in Changwat Chon Buri. He has graduated in bachelor’s degree of engineering. At the time of commission, the Defendant was twenty two whilst Ms Chenchira PHLOI-A-NGUNSI, Deceased, was twenty three. At such time, both were medical students: the Defendant was in the second year, and the Deceased, fifth. The Defendant and the Deceased knew each other as they were in a romantic relationship. According to the date and place indicated in the charge, the Defendant lured the Deceased to his rented room at the P.S. House apartment where he murdered the Deceased by shooting her head and decapitated and dissected her by himself. He then flooded into flush toilet certain parts of her remains, including fleshes, skins and viscera, and threw into the Bang Pakong River the other parts, including her bones and head. He also left her car at Mueang Thong Thani Village, and had his gun and knives and her belongings hidden and burnt away. On March 5, 1998, the police officers pursued and arrested him. In this Last Resort, the Joint Prosecutor, by a final appeal, argued that there existed not any extenuating circumstances whereby the punishments of the Defendant could be reduced; whereas the Defendant, by a final appeal, argued that he did not murder the Deceased torturously or cruelly, and he did murder her unpremeditatedly or by result of his sudden heat of passion. The Supreme Court found expedient to decide the final appeal of the Joint Prosecutor first.

"AS REGARDS THE QUESTION the Joint Prosecutor raised through her final appeal, the Supreme Court was of an opinion that: The court of first instance adjudged the Defendant guilty of premeditated murder pursuant to the CC, § 289 (4), and sentenced him to capital punishment. By virtue of the CC, § 78 incorporating § 52 (1), the capital punishment was reduced by one third to imprisonment for life. The court of second instance amended the judgment of the court of first instance that he was also found guilty of torturous or cruel murder under the CC, § 289 (5). On account of the offence of premeditated and torturous or cruel murder which was subject to the severest punishment, it sentenced him to capital punishment and, with reference to the CC, § 78 in collaboration with § 52 (1), reduced such punishment by one third to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court saw the fact that the court of second instance merely amended the offence of premeditated murder in accordance with the CC, § 289 (4), to be the offence of premeditated and torturous or cruel murder in connection with the CC, §§ 289 (4) and 289 (5), but retained the punishment of imprisonment for life. This is the insignificant amendment and the infliction of imprisonment for a term exceeding five years, in which event the prosecutor is prohibited from entering a final appeal on account of the questions of fact by the Criminal Procedure Code (“CrPC”), § 218, ¶ 2. Such prohibition applies also to the Joint Prosecutor, for the reason that the CrPC, § 2 (14), prescribes: “‘Prosecutor’ defines a public prosecutor or victim who prefers a charge before the court, or, where a public prosecutor and a victim are Joint Prosecutors, both.” Since the Joint Prosecutor submitted the final appeal arguing that the Defendant deserves capital punishment, both inferior courts ought not to reduce the punishments inflicted upon him and there were no extenuating circumstances, her final appeal was demonstrably based on the questions of fact and thereby debarred from being lodged with the Supreme Court by virtue of the aforementioned law. Even though the court of first instance accepted her final appeal, the Supreme Court decided that it was unlawful and therefore dismissed it.

"THE FIRST QUESTION the Defendant raised through his final appeal was whether or not he murdered the Deceased torturously or cruelly, the Supreme Court entertained an opinion that: For a gun is destructively powerful by nature, it may be used to cause lethal danger to either human beings or animals. The facts that the Defendant shot the Deceased’s head―one of the most essential parts of the body―and that the bullet shot came into her left temple and went out of her right temple, indicated the Defendant’s intent to have her died immediately. Though it could be admitted according to the decision of the court of second instance that the Deceased did not die at the very time she was shot and that she was still alive whilst being decapitated by the Defendant, the evidence produced by both the Prosecutor and the Joint Prosecutor could, however, not demonstrate the Defendant’s intent to have her undergoing severe pain and suffering before dying, and it was not certain as to how he did perform in order to commit an act of torture or cruelty against her. Having taken into account the facts that the Defendant shot the Deceased at her head and dismembered her remains, and that he then flushed certain parts of the remains away into toilet and threw the other parts into the Bang Pakong River, the Supreme Court believed that he merely intended to destroy her remains for the purpose of concealing her death or the cause thereof, not to have her sustaining affliction prior to killing her. Hence, the Supreme Court, determining not to hold the Defendant guilty of torturous or cruel murder pursuant to the CC, § 289 (5), decided that it disagreed with the decision of the court of second instance and that this point of appeal of the Defendant was reasonable.

"THE NEXT QUESTION the Defendant raised in his final appeal was whether or not the Defendant murdered the Deceased premeditatedly or by result of his sudden heat of passion, the Supreme Court deemed that: It did not appear that the Defendant, who was a student at the time being, had many valuable property or any individual aiming for his life. Although the Defendant asserted he possessed a computer and a car, the Supreme Court considered computers and cars are owned by the general public, and both things are not valuable to the extent that the Defendant needed to possess any weapon for protecting them as argued. Furthermore, the rented room where the crime scene took place is part of the apartment without kitchen, and it did not appear that the Defendant prepared himself food; he did not need to have in his room the kitchen knives sharp to such an extent that they could be used for dissection. The fact that the Defendant had the said gun and knives in his room led to no other conclusion than the Defendant preparing for murdering the Deceased and remembering her corpse. Moreover, since the strong smell, bloodstains and lymph would be produced from the dissected remains, certain materials for envelopment and package, e.g. cloths, papers, plastic bags and boxes, were required in order to take the remains away from the room, to eliminate the bloodstains, lymph and strong smell and to conceal from the sights of other persons the parts of the dead body whilst being taken away; and since the Defendant, in short time and without having been seen, could bring the corpse of the Deceased away from his room to be discarded, had his gun and knives and her belongings hidden in various places as well as burnt her cloths away; all of these indicated that he had previously planned on the places for discarding her remains and concealing her belongings and prepared the materials required for taking the parts of her dead body away. As the court of second instance held the Defendant guilty of premeditated murder, the Supreme Court agreed. This point of appeal of the Defendant was therefore unreasonable. Moreover, as the Defendant argued that he murdered the Deceased for he was mentally oppressed by the seriously unfair circumstances, i.e. the Defendant and the Deceased were in a romantic relationship, but the latter desired to terminate their relationship in order to begin a new one with another male; the Supreme Court viewed that: Love irrepressibly accrues from heart. True love is goodwill to the one a person loves, gladness when that one is glad, forgiveness when that one does thing wrong and self-sacrifice for that one’s sake. The Defendant, however, wished to take possession of the Deceased for his own sake. Disappointing with her, he murdered her. This was such a selfish and covetous act of the Defendant singly, without being mindful of her heart and mind. And absolutely, it was not love, but the absence of understanding which would gravely be detrimental to the social. Even if the facts could be admitted as argued, the Supreme Court could never hold that she placed him under the seriously unfair circumstances. There were no grounds for imposing upon the Defendant lighter punishments than those provided for by law. As both inferior courts inflicted capital punishment on the Defendant and reduced it to imprisonment for life, the Supreme Court concurred in this decision. This point of appeal of the Defendant was therefore unjustifiable."

HEREBY, the judgment of the court of second instance is amended to be in conformity with the judgment of the court of first instance.

( Kamthon PHOSUWATTHANAKUN - Surachat BUNYASIRIPHAN - Kittisak KITTIKHUNPHAIROT )


text: Boots and Saddles

title: Boots and Saddles


text: Boots and Saddles/Preface

title: Boots and Saddles/Preface


text: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 1

title: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 1


text: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 2

title: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 2


text: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 3

title: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 3


text: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 4

title: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 4


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/7

4:1. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." Compare Ephes. 6:9.

aware though I am, that the subject I have proposed for discussion to-night is one of no ordinary delicacy, and of no little difficulty, on many accounts, yet its importance is such, that I think it ought to be discussed fully and without reserve. Nor can the discussion, if discreetly conducted, fail to be beneficial to all parties. It is not to be disguised, that the existence of domestic servitude among us attracts a large share of attention from the citizens of other States where it is no longer found. This subject is agitating the country from one extremity to the other. In the non-slaveholding States, it has produced a great excitement among all classes. It has already given birth to a political party, which is daily increasing in strength and influence, — and whose spirit is such as to show that they will never rest, and will leave no stone unturned, until, for the accomplishment of their purpose, they have convulsed the whole country. A like spirit has invaded the church, and has already produced, in more than one ecclesiastical body, stormy discussion and stringent measures, which threaten disruption to the church, and bitter animosity in its dissevered fragments, instead of harmony and love. The great body of the Methodist persuasion has been shaken to its centre by this perplexing subject. Nor has our own beloved church escaped without agitation, and imminent hazard of a second great schism, on this ground. Nor let us deceive ourselves by the idea that all this is the work of a few, a very few rash, ill-informed, and pestilent agitators. It is a very easy thing to class them all together as hot-headed abolitionists and crazy fanatics; but to do so is not wise:  the averment is not true. I admit that there is a very active, determined, and persevering set of men, the thorough-blooded abolitionists, who go all lengths in denunciation against the whole South, and against every man who lives here; and who seem prepared to attempt the extirpation of servitude among us, regardless of consequences. I


text: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 5

title: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 5


text: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 6

title: Boots and Saddles/Chapter 6


text:
User talk:112.198.78.91

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * Help pages
 * Style Guide
 * Inclusion policy

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you continue to edit without a username, your IP address is used to publicly identify you.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question. Again, welcome! — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:112.198.78.91


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/8

4 grant too that these, the prime movers in all the measures of the party, whether political or religious, are few in number. These ultra abolitionists are few, but they are resolute and reckless.

With some of this class it was my lot, during my late tour at the North and East, to come in contact; and my deliberate opinion is, that they are crazy quoad hoc. They are monomaniacs; labouring, on one subject, under a delusion which renders their minds impervious to reason. In my intercourse with them, (for, to avoid them was not always possible,) I have been saluted by epithets neither flattering nor courteous. They have, publicly and privately, through the newspapers and by private letters, denounced me as a thief, a ruffian, a villain, a hypocritical oppressor of the defenceless; as one who approaches the very altar of God, to solemnize the deepest mysteries of religion, with hands stained and of the victims of a cruel oppression. And why? because, and simply because, I live in a slaveholding community; I minister to a church most of whose members hold slaves;—and instead of teaching my flock that in so doing they are guilty of grievous sin and must be all damned for ever unless they, at once, set all their slaves free, I am supposed to be myself a slaveholder, and as such, a partner and abettor of their crime. Well! at all this, bad as it is, we might calmly smile, were this the extent of the evil. But these rabid advocates of universal equality and of immediate emancipation are but a very insignificant portion of that great body of American citizens, who look upon slavery with disapprobation and abhorrence. There are thousands of thousands in our country, utterly opposed to the violent spirit of Garrison and his followers, who yet look upon this institution as evil, altogether evil,—based on wrong, and most injurious in its tendency;—who contend that it must be extirpated sooner or later, and that it ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment that shall be found compatible with safety. And among these, there are certainly some of the clearest and coolest heads, as well as of the purest hearts, that this country can boast.

Grave and learned divines, intelligent lay officers of the church, nay, dignified ecclesiastical bodies, have, by the passage of solemn resolutions entered on their permanent records, pronounced slaveholding to be a deadly sin, inconsistent with all pretensions to piety; whereupon, they expressly debar from their pulpits all slaveholding ministers, and all pastors of slaveholding churches; and they shut out from the communion-table, and from the church of God, any and every slave-holder. These men may be mistaken; but they are, beyond all question, sincere and deeply in earnest. Again and again, I myself have been shut out


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/9

5 from pulpits, which my warm personal friends were desirous I should occupy. I have been refused subscriptions to our Bethel church, because it was to be erected in a slave-holding city: and, on one occasion, after having, on the Sabbath, by invitation from the pastor, preached in a certain church, and assisted at the communion-table, I was, a few days afterwards, insulted, by the thrusting into my hands of a set of resolutions, (duly attested as having been passed at a church meeting,) expressive of their abhorrence of slavery and of slaveholders, and expressive also of their conviction that deep repentance and humiliation of spirit before God were required of them, for the great sin of having recognized a slave-holder as a Christian and a minister, and attended on the dispensation of the word and ordinances at his hands. These resolutions I still have in my possession.

All these several considerations combine to place this matter in a very serious light. If these men are right, then we are wrong; and if so, then the southern portion of the church is guilty of a great sin, and her ministers are guilty of a still greater sin, in that they not only forbear to denounce the institution as sinful, and forbear to call upon their hearers to repent of it, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, by setting all their slaves free at once, but in that they also participate in the guilt of it, as well as connive at it; since ministers, no less than others, employ slaves as servants; and whether those slaves be their own property or merely hired, whether obtained by inheritance or purchase, matters not, as to the principle involved. If to hold slaves be a sin, ministers of the gospel ought to know it; and knowing it, they ought to teach it, no matter what might be the legal penalties, or the personal hazard, of so doing. Your laws can never render murder, adultery, theft, or Sabbath-breaking right, because God's word forbids these crimes: and God's authority is paramount. Before Heaven's decisions mere human law must bow. If, then, God's holy word condemns slavery, the minister of God is bound to condemn it, and to call on his hearers to clear themselves of all participation in it, whatever be the risk attendant on so doing: for what God condemns, human law can never make right.

If, on the contrary, God's holy book does not condemn domestic servitude; if, so far from this, it does distinctly recognize the institution, and lay down directions for the conduct of Christians in both or in either of the relations, as masters or as servants, then the institution is not, in itself and necessarily, sinful, whatever may be the evils individually connected with it, or springing from it. If so, then a man may be a servant, or he may be the owner of many servants, and still be a


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/10

6 true Christian, a worthy communicant in the church of God; nay, he may be a faithful and useful minister of the gospel. If so, then the ground assumed by so many Christians and ecclesiastical bodies at the North and the West, in excluding us from their pulpits and from their communion, simply on this one ground, is untenable, and ought to be abandoned. The men who take such ground may be in error, and we, who sincerely believe them to be so, may deplore their error, yet we cannot but respect their consistency and their zeal. Our part should be, to exhibit equal firmness, with a gentler spirit; by no means returning railing for railing, but contrariwise, forbearance and magnanimity.

But, inasmuch as it is undeniable that by these men our ecclesiastical standing, our piety, our sincerity, our very honesty as men, are all called into question, I have thought it but right to request your attention to a public discussion of this subject, which I shall aim to present in the light furnished by the Bible, and with all the plainness which the vast importance of the subject, and the weighty duties this relation imposes upon masters, seem to demand.

I take the ground distinctly and emphatically, that domestic servitude as found among us at the South (however undesirable it may be in some respects) is not, in itself, sinful. The Bible plainly recognizes it; and the (for there is much sin attending it) springs, not from the nature of the relation, but. The command of God is, "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven!"

Some have ventured to assert, that the text and other similar directions and like allusions found in various parts of the New Testament and the Old, do not necessarily imply slavery, properly speaking; because those designated as servants may have been hired labourers; and those called masters, merely the employers; just as it is now in British families, and in those of our Eastern and Northern States. But no competent judge, no one with the least pretensions to scholarship, will, for one moment, hesitate to admit, that slavery in its most despotic form existed among the ancient Greeks, the Romans, and even among the Jews. Nor can it be denied that the word servant does, in the New Testament, denote a slave, a person held as property by another; and that the word master denotes one who holds certain of his fellow-men in bondage, just as those terms are now used among us. Now the text, thus distinctly recognizing the existence of slavery, does as plainly imply the compatibility of holding slaves, and yet being a Christian; for


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/11

7 it is addressed to members of a Christian church at Colosse, and it addresses them as masters of slaves, and tells them their duties as masters. Here then we have, from the pen of an inspired Apostle, and written some years after the ascension of Christ, and after the day of Pentecost and the full establishment of the Gospel-church, an address directed to a church regularly organized under Apostolic authority; and the very terms in which this address, is couched show, that in that church, founded, governed, and instructed by Apostles themselves, were both masters and slaves. The relation is spoken of as existing, as well known and understood. Not one word of condemnation is here found, not a hint of its being wrong to be a master, or of its being an intolerable oppression to be a servant; but it is emphatically said, "Masters ought to treat their servants so and so." The inference is plain: slaveholding is not in itself sinful; since, if a master treat his slaves as herein required, he discharges his whole duty as a master; he may continue a master, continue to hold slaves so treated, and yet be a good man, and a worthy member of the church of Christ: which could not be, were slave-holding sinful in the sight of God.

Tell us not that the Apostles connived at slavery, because it was rooted in the usages of society and protected by law; because the community was not yet sufficiently enlightened to receive the whole truth on that subject, and because it would have perilled the very existence of the infant church to declare the real wickedness involved in slavery; and that, therefore, on the ground of expediency the Apostles wrote as they did, apparently sanctioning, what they really condemned! What! Are we to believe that the Apostles, the founders of the Christian church, the very men who counted not their lives dear "for the sake of truth and righteousness," suffered themselves to be deterred from a plain duty by fear of consequences? Are we to believe that they, who endured every hardship, braved every danger, and finally shed their blood to advance the cause of truth and goodness in the world, would, from dread of the consequences of denouncing it, tolerate in the infant churches they formed as models for the church in all ages, a sin so replete with evil, so enormous and so damning, as hot abolitionists now represent slaveholding to be? No man in his senses can believe this! The Apostles certainly addressed slaveholders in such terms as show that they regarded their position as masters, and their duty as Christians, as not at all inconsistent. If honest men, the Apostles would not thus directly sanction what they believed to be wrong. If, in writing their epistles to the churches, the Apostles were inspired of God, then it is plain, that not only did they honestly deem that the master of


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/26

English school of painters in oil, at the present day, may boast of some branches of the art in which it is not at all behind the French, Flemings, and Belgians. Nay, more, there is at least one living English painter who is unrivalled. It is true that making likenesses of dogs and pictures of deer are not to be counted as among the giddy walks of high art. Better, however, jump at a ditch and clear it than at a river and splash into the middle.

Now, in talking of British art to a foreigner, the question he asks at the Academy exhibitions of every year is, Where is your high art, where is the grand in your art? Well, it must be confessed that the grand is generally nowhere in English picture galleries, unless it happens to have been imported. Portraits, animals, fruit, and small landscape are as flourishing, and certainly as good, at Burlington House as at Paris or Brussels; but the Englishman must admit, with a sigh, that he has no grand art to show among the canvases that represent the year's labours of the exponents of British art. The majority of our painters go on, year after year, painting the same old hackneyed subjects, the same familiar portraits, the same bits of landscape. They are so generally successful because they are careful never to put themselves into the way of failure. They clear the ditch, and are satisfied. Should they essay the river? Should they try to rise above silk and satin in metallic folds, above pretty bits of landscape and portraits, whose mission of usefulness is to boil the family pot? Should they try to rise above themselves, above the dead-level of domestic prettinesses in their compositions, and strive to be, some of them, worthy successors of Sir Joshua, and Turner, and the few other great men who have kept the British School above contempt?

The foreign artists have answered the same question abroad by setting an example—they have a grand school, and they ask for it here.

But while so few of our painters become great enough to earn a


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/12

8 slaves might be a true Christian, but their decision is a sound one; and they who now assert that slaveholding is in itself wrong, are assuming to be wiser than inspired Apostles, and more benevolent than God himself. If God did not, by revelation through the Apostles, teach us that slavery is wrong, and therefore to be abolished, (as he clearly did not,) then has God no where taught this: for the Apostles were the last men ever found on earth, on whom the spirit of inspiration rested. The zealous friends of immediate and universal abolition, on the ground that slavery is sinful, must first bring proof, clear and indisputable, that they are inspired of God himself to teach this new doctrine, ere we can consent, at their bidding, to discard the teachings of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, and repudiate as utterly sinful, an institution which the Apostles unequivocally recognized as existing in the churches they themselves founded, and as not inconsistent with true piety and the hope of a home in heaven. So plainly does the Bible contemplate the existence of domestic servitude—even in the church—and by its laws provide for its due regulation, and for the correction of abuses likely to spring from it, that a zealous abolitionist lately addressed me thus:—"Prove to me from the Bible that slavery is to be tolerated, and I will trample your Bible under my feet, as I would the vilest reptile on the face of the earth." Such language flows, not from humanity, but from a ferocious pride; not from reason, but from madness; not from piety, but from the very spirit of infidelity.

The plain matter of fact is, that there ever has been, and there must be, great inequality in the condition of men. The rich and the poor, the powerful and the feeble, the daring and the timid, are every where found among men. In all communities there are superiors and inferiors, the successful and the unsuccessful, the leaders and the led. Could you, to-morrow, reduce all men to one uniform and perfect level, in condition, in property, and in privileges, not a week would pass away without producing changes utterly destructive of perfect equality. The prudence of some and the follies of others would have already wrought changes ominous of a speedy return to the ordinary condition of society, with all its diversity of ranks and conditions. The bold would overawe, the cunning would outwit their neighbours, the sagacious and energetic would accumulate property, and with it power. Masters and servants would, in some form, speedily be found in society as before.

In very early times, when society began to increase in numbers, the turbulent passions of men plunged them into conflicts one with another, and the successful parties compelled the vanquished to submit to their control. When wars at length arose, those who fell into the power of


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/13

9 the victors were put to death. Afterwards, the conqueror sometimes spared the lives of those falling into his power, but only to reserve them for his own service, or to secure the price they might bring when sold to others. Hence the origin of slavery. Captives taken in war were, doubtless, the first slaves: and the lot of servitude was entailed by inheritance on all their descendants. Hence we find traces of the existence of slavery, even from the earliest times. Nimrod, the mighty hunter, is often asserted to have been the first slaveholder. Gen. 10:9.

Certain it is that long before the time of Moses, slavery existed. Abraham had slaves, and many of them. There were of this class, born in his house, no less than 300 capable of bearing arms. Gen. 14:14. Hagar, the maid of Sarah, whom her mistress surrendered to Abraham in hope of an heir, was an Egyptian slave, Gen. 16:3; and Ishmael, her son, was by birth a slave also, in contradistinction from Isaac, who was born free, being the son of a free mother. This admitted fact, "Hagar gendereth to bondage—she is in bondage with her children," is the basis of the Apostle's comparison, between the law and the gospel, Gal. 14:24-26.

The patriarch Joseph was sold by his treacherous brethren, a slave to the Ishmaelite merchants, and by them he was conveyed into Egypt, and there resold to Potiphar. A few years later, under the administration of Joseph, as prime-minister to Pharaoh, the whole Egyptian nation having alienated their lands to the crown, to procure the means of sustenance, next sold their personal freedom, and became a race of hereditary serfs, appertaining to the soil, and passing with it from owner to owner. Later still, the whole race of Israel, from the condition of protected guests, were degraded to that of slaves to Egypt's monarchs; they were compelled to work, not for their own advantage, but at the bidding, and for the profit of their taskmasters. Samson, when captured by the Philistines, was reduced to the rank of a slave: compelled to labour hard, or to make rude sport, at the pleasure of his masters. The little Hebrew maid, who, in the time of the prophet Elisha (2 Kings, 5:2) waited upon her mistress, the wife of Naaman, the Syrian leper, was a slave, a captive taken in war.

Unquestionably were most of the ancient heathen nations around the Jews holders of slaves. Such were the Midianites, the Egyptians, and the Canaanitish tribes. We read that Pharaoh bestowed sundry gifts upon Abraham, among which were slaves. "He entreated Abraham as well, for Sarah's sake; and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants and maid-servants. Gen. 12:16. Abimelech also "took sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and gave''


text:
Page:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu/29

 fame, how many shine with a lustre above mediocrity! One of the most promising and original young painters of the English school five-and-twenty years ago was the subject of this notice.

John Everett Millais was born at Southampton in 1829. In his ninth year he entered a drawing academy, and at eleven became a student at the Royal Academy. His first exhibited picture was at the Academy in 1846—'Pizarro seizing the Inca of Peru,' an ambitious subject for a young man of eighteen. During his Academy course, Millais had conceived a distaste for their system of instruction; and with his friends—W. Holman Hunt and Dante Gabriel Rossetti— he set off to look in nature for the effects the old masters had embodied in their pictures. The result of this appeal from art to nature was the foundation of the pre-Raphaelite school. Mr. Millais's principal pictures, executed while pre-Raphaelite influences were fresh upon him, were, in 1850, 'Our Saviour,' and 'Ferdinand lured by Ariel;' 1851, 'Mariana in the Moated Grange,' and 'The Woodman's Daughter;' and in 1852, 'The Huguenot,' and 'Ophelia.' At this time Mr. Ruskin came forward, and defended the pre-Raphaelites with all the power of his eloquence and learning; and Millais was the founder of a little school, written up in 'The Times,' and in his works on art by the greatest art-critic of the age. In 1853 Mr. Millais was elected an Associate of the Academy, and became R.A. in December 1863.

There is not now very much left in his works of the pre-Raphaelite fever of twenty years ago; but his pictures are always artistic and original in composition, and highly skilful in execution. Mr. Millais stands at the head of original thinkers among the R.A.s. He went from art to nature, and he has got a rich reward for his pains.


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/14

10 them to Abraham." Gen. 20:14. It is certain, then, that Abraham, the great progenitor of the Hebrew nation, and the friend of God, was a large slaveholder. He seems to have held slaves by inheritance, for he had several hundreds born in his family; he received some, as gifts, from powerful friends, and others he had, bought with his money. Gen. 17:23; (see also vs. 12. 13.) And yet,—"father of the faithful" though he is styled in God's word,—were Abraham now living among us, with all his slaves around him, sealed though they were in God's own covenant by divine command, he would, by modern abolitionists, be excluded from the church, as a cruel, selfish, hard-hearted man, a bloody-handed man-stealer.

Moreover, not only was slavery tolerated of heaven in the household of Abraham, but by the laws given to the Jews by Moses, it was expressly allowed, and placed under certain definite restrictions. From Levit. 25:39-46 we learn, that between the native Hebrew and the gentile, a marked distinction was established, in relation to this subject. A Hebrew might, through stress of poverty, sell his personal liberty; but he could not be made a slave. He might bind himself to render service for many years, but he served as one hired, not as a slave; and on the return of the year of jubilee, he had his freedom restored to him in full. But in regard to the heathen, the case was different. The Jew was allowed by the laws of Moses to purchase men of heathen or gentile origin, as slaves; to hold them as a possession, as property; and a servant of this class was called his master's money, i. e. his property, insomuch that though, if when chastising a servant, that servant should die under his hand, the master subjected himself to a certain penalty; yet, if the servant so beaten should linger for a day or two, and then die, the master who smote him should not be punished; for, (says the Hebrew legislator,) that servant is his master's money. Exod. 21:21. Whatever modern abolitionists may say respecting it, the Mosaic law, (which all Christians believe to have been given by inspiration from God himself,) allowed the most pious Jew that ever lived, to purchase slaves, and to hold them, and treat them as property. That is, the God of heaven did in times of old allow men to make merchandise of their fellow men, of beings made in the image of God. These gentile slaves, thus bought and held as property by the Jews, might be given to other Jews as presents, or sold, or bequeathed to their heirs as a possession. For the bondage of these gentile slaves was perpetual;—"They shall he bondmen for ever" Levit. 25:46; i. e. they and their descendants were a race of hereditary servants, as ours are now.


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/15

11 To the servant of Jewish birth the year of jubilee brought full restoration to freedom; to the servant of gentile origin the jubilee itself brought no discharge. The Hebrew servant was, like our hired labourers, or rather like a modern apprentice, or like a German redemptioner, held to service only for a limited period; the heathen slaves among the Jews, were, like our negro slaves, held in bondage for life, with a reversion of like servitude to all their descendants, for ever.

Nor were the ministers of religion debarred from the right of holding men in servitude. Thus we read, Levit. 22:10.11, "A sojourner with a priest,, shall not eat of the holy thing, (i. e. the flesh offered in sacrifice,) but if the priest , he shall eat of it; , they shall eat of it." Here, then, the distinction between hired servants and slaves, purchased or inherited, is clearly laid down; and slaves no less than hired servants, are supposed to be included in the family establishment of the very ministers of God, the priests officiating at the altars of religion. It seems, then, that Moses, the great lawgiver of the Jews, who talked face to face with God, did not think that holding slaves polluted a man's hands with blood, or disqualified him for serving acceptably in the awful solemnities of religion.

As surely, then, as Moses wrote by divine inspiration, did God himself sanction among the Jews, the tolerance of slavery, including the buying and selling of human beings, with their descendants, into perpetual bondage. What God sanctions cannot be in itself, and essentially, evil. Moreover, the laws which God enacted for the treatment of slaves, and the privileges he authorized to be extended to the slaves of his covenant—people show, that God looks upon the condition of a slave, (wholly dependent though he be on the pleasure of his master, for his personal comforts,) as not inconsistent with the service of God, and with the hope of salvation.

But in reply to this argument drawn from the Mosaic law, it is often urged—"The tolerance of slavery in the Jewish church, furnishes no argument to prove that slavery is lawful now; because polygamy was tolerated in that ancient church, and yet no one contends for polygamy now! If we may hold slaves now because Abraham held slaves, and any Jew, however pious, might hold them, then we must authorize polygamy now, too, because Abraham, and Jacob, and David, all good men and approved of God, had each of them many wives!"

But to this I answer, the cases are not parallel. Whatever God has once sanctioned cannot be, in itself, and essentially, wrong. God did once sanction the existence of slaveholding and of polygamy both; and


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/16

12 unless God have withdrawn that sanction, and condemned one or the other of these practices, both must be still lawful to this hour. In the case of polygamy, God has withdrawn that sanction, and declared it to be adultery for a man to have more than one wife at the same time. In the case of slaveholding, God has not withdrawn his sanction under the gospel. On the contrary, he has renewed that sanction, by prescribing, through his inspired Apostles, the rules by which masters and servants, even when members of the church of Christ, are to regulate their intercourse one with another.

If, instead of declaring, as he has done, that "whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, and marrieth another, committeth adultery, (and this surely condemns polygamy, for it is not the putting away'' of a wife that constitutes adultery, but the taking of a second wife while the first is living. Unless, indeed, we would maintain that a man may take a second and a third wife in addition to the first, and be no adulterer, so long as he keeps them all; but the moment he repudiates the first, his taking of a second renders him an adulterer, which were certainly absurd;) if, instead of this, God had given directions in the New Testament, how a Christian husband should treat his household of three or four or more wives, and how those three or four wives of one and the same Christian husband should treat that husband, just as the Apostles have laid down directions to show how Christian masters should treat their slaves, and how Christian slaves should conduct themselves toward their masters, then we should unhesitatingly admit, that now, just as in the days of Abraham and of Solomon, a man may have several wives and yet be a good Christian, and just as now he may have many slaves, and yet be a truly pious man. As it is, polygamy and slavery were, in the Jewish church, both allowed; but under the gospel polygamy is condemned; slaveholding is still recognized as lawful; and appropriate rules are laid down for the guidance of Christian masters and of Christian servants. "Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

But it is objected again, "The servants spoken of in the New Testament, could not have been like our negro slaves, held in involuntary bondage; they must have been either hired servants, or else persons bound by voluntary contract, to servitude for a limited period, like our apprentices; or, possibly, in some cases, bound to serve for the period of their natural lives. It could not have been a hereditary bondage, like modern slavery; because all claim to hold such slaves, is founded on oppression and injustice. The original title to property


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/17

13 in the slaves of this class must have been defective; and no lapse of time, no repetitions of transfer from one to another, can ever make that title good. The original title must have been fraudulently obtained, and however often transferred, it is, and it must ever be, still invalidated by the fraud involved in its origin. It is an admitted axiom, that the receiver of stolen goods, is as bad as the thief. He who first made his fellow man a slave, was a man-stealer; he was guilty of oppression and robbery; the first purchaser of such slave, became in the very act of purchase, a participator in the guilt of his reduction to slavery; and with every transfer of title, was transferred also the guilt of that original theft. A man who holds his fellow man in involuntary bondage is, therefore, and must ever be, an oppressor, and a manstealer. Now the Apostles declare, that 'men-stealers shall not inherit the kingdom of God;' consequently the masters to whom the Apostles wrote, were not men-stealers; they were not slaveholders in the modern sense of the word."

The answer to this objection is obvious. If the reasoning here employed be correct, that all involuntary bondage is the fruit of oppression, and that every slaveholder is a man-stealer, then it must be conceded that, under the Old Testament dispensation, God did sanction oppression and man-stealing; for he did expressly permit the purchase, the holding, and the sale of men held to involuntary and perpetual bondage; and bondage entailed on their descendants. And yet, both in the Old and the New Testament, God does condemn man-stealing as a crime fatal to all profession of piety. Unless then we choose to charge God with injustice and inconsistency both, we must admit that slaveholding does not necessarily involve guilt of any kind; that a man may lawfully hold his fellow man in involuntary bondage, without being thereby stained with guilt of robbery, oppression, or injustice, and the title to property in slaves may be held and conveyed to others, without the attendance or conveyance of the guilt of any crime. If this might be true in Abraham's day, and in the days of the Jewish Judges and the Jewish Kings, it may be true also in our own day. Certain it is, that in the times of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, this must have been true. The masters addressed by the Apostles in the New Testament, are by them supposed to be capable of discharging their duty as masters and of being good Christians nevertheless. A man-stealer (as these same Apostles teach, see I Tim. 1:10; comp. also Exod. 21:16, and Deut. 24:7) cannot be a good Christian; therefore, if inspired Apostles judged correctly, these masters were certainly not men-stealers. But these masters were most unquestionably slaveholders, in the fullest


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/18

14 sense of the word as now used. This all the records of antiquity show. Of the servants of these masters, some they held by inheritance, some they had bought with money, just as slaves are now bought or inherited. Masters in the days of the Apostles had also a much more absolute power over their servants than we now have over our slaves. They held them as their property, they could sell them, or bequeath them by will, or they could by deed of gift, convey to others their title in their servants: and they could punish them for their faults, all just as we can; nay they could do what we have no power to do, for under certain circumstances masters could punish their servants with death. This is the kind of slavery existing, under the Roman governments, in the countries where Christian churches were established by the Apostles; nay, existing in those very churches, with the knowledge and the sanction of the Apostles. Thus to hold slaves was, therefore, not equivalent to man-stealing, in the days of the Apostles: if not then, neither is it now. To be a slaveholder, as slavery exists in these Southern States, is not, therefore, at all inconsistent with Christian character, if only the duties of a master be rightly performed on Christian principles.

A parent has almost unlimited power over his children. He has power to bring them up well or ill, to train them up virtuously or viciously, to make them happy or miserable. The mere possession of this power does not make him a tyrant, or a bad man. If the parental power be exercised on Christian principles, the strictest father may be a true Christian. The power to do a thing, and the right to do it, are two quite different things, and do not always go together.

The possession of power certainly implies the possibility of its abuse; and the abuse of power it is, that gives rise to the evils attendant on slavery. Hence the propriety of rules furnished in the word of God, for directing the conduct of parents and of masters in the exercise of their power in a right manner.

Slavery implies the possession by the master of a power over the servant, which may be abused to his detriment; and therefore the rule, "Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal," &c.

The command to do justice implies the possession of power, but not of right, to treat unjustly and to withhold that which is equal.

Another objection is often urged against the whole institution of slavery, and urged even by good and discreet men, to this effect:—"Slavery, though it may not be expressly forbidden in the Bible, nay, though it may seem to receive indirect sanction from the rules there laid down, is so manifestly contrary to the great law of love, that it cannot be right to uphold it. Just so far as true religion, which teaches us


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/19

15 '''to do unto others as we would they should do unto us', shall prevail among men, must the abuses of this institution become manifest, and lead to its extirpation. It follows, therefore, that no good man can be a friend to slavery; and the church is bound to attempt the removal of it at once, just as certainly as benevolence is a Christian duty."''

This objection presents a singular commixture of truth and error. In a certain modified sense the objection may be deemed valid. The direct tendency of religion is to eradicate vice and to correct all abodes; and so far as true religion prevails will men discern the abuses attendant on slavery—and abhor them, and attempt their removal. But the abuse of a thing is no part of the thing itself. The more extensively true religion prevails in Southern society, the more will masters use their power for the good of their slaves; and inasmuch as power (in the hands of beings so imperfect as men are) is always liable to abuse, true benevolence would lead masters to employ every safe and practicable means for improving the condition and elevating the character of servants, with a view to their complete emancipation, whenever that can be effected without detriment to them, and with safety to the community.

Were the question now to be agitated, Shall we suffer the introduction of slavery among us? and more emphatically still, Shall we take measures to furnish ourselves with domestic servants, by reducing to slavery some of our fellow-men, now free as ourselves? the great law of love, and sound policy no less, would return a prompt refusal.

But with the question of originating slavery, or of now first introducing it here, we have, at present, nothing to do. The institution already exists among us, and, however it may have been originated, the only question for us to ponder is, How, under these circumstances, shall we act? Does the great law of love forbid slavery, and require its immediate extinction? Does that law require that we, because we ourselves, now free, would not like to be reduced to slavery, should instantly set all our slaves free? This the objector affirms:—this I do emphatically deny.

If the law of love now demands this, it must always have demanded it, even in the days of Abraham and of Moses. Yet these holy men did not think so, as their practice and their laws show; and those laws God himself sanctioned. Thus to interpret the law of love, is to overstrain its meaning. That law requires us, not to abolish the existing ranks and distinctions of condition in society, but to treat each person in a manner suited to our relative positions; a manner such as, were our positions reversed, we might personally desire he would employ in


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/20

16 treating us. That law requires the master, not to set his slaves free, (which would, in many instances, be the greatest unkindness he could show them,) but to treat them humanely and considerately; to treat them as he, if himself a slave, could reasonably desire to be treated while he was such. If I see a poor man suffering from want, the law of love requires me, not to strip myself of just one half my substance, and confer it upon him, but to extend to him assistance suited to his wants as a poor man, and to my ability in view of my position in society and the other claims upon me.

That is a spurious benevolence which would aim to remove inequalities of condition in society. It is assuredly very different from the benevolence of God, which, pure and perfect though it is, tolerates great inequality of condition in society, and great suffering too, which, in our short-sighted wisdom, seems very undesirable; and tolerates it although He is all powerful to remove it at a stroke, if to Him it seemed good so to do.

The existence of slavery in society under certain circumstances, like that of poverty and pain and all the diversities of condition now found among men, may, in the view of Infinite Wisdom, be indispensable to the attainment of the greatest possible good. It may furnish an invaluable trial of character. Forbearance, self-control, justice and benevolence in owners; and patience, humility, fidelity, and deference to God's will, in servants, may be the fruits of this institution, where its appropriate duties are rightly discharged, which, in their effects on the character and the destiny of both masters and slaves hereafter, shall infinitely outweigh all the numerous evils now springing from its existence. Thousands, both of masters and servants, may be constantly growing in excellence of character that shall fit them for higher seats and brighter glories in heaven, than were possible without this institution; so that, many though its incident evils are, all shall hereafter see it was the highest benevolence in God to suffer it to exist: for "the wrath of man shall praise Him!"

However this may be, certain it is that the sudden introduction of any great change in society must be hazardous, and may be widely destructive. Common prudence and benevolence both require that before we attempt to effect such change, the probabilities should be very strong that the change is practicable, and will be beneficial, not detrimental. It is not enough that a patient be labouring under a disease which, if unremoved, must kill him, to induce a skilful physician to resort to bold and desperate remedies. He must see a strong probability that the remedy will be safe and effectual: else, it were better to leave


text:
Page:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu/21

17 the malady to run its course, and direct his efforts simply lo alleviate pain, and mitigate the several symptoms as they occur, in hope of some change that may warrant a more direct interference. Hitherto no scheme for abolishing slavery has been suggested, that is not replete with difficulties, threatening evils to both master and slave, far greater than the institution itself occasions. Until, therefore, some plan shall be unfolded which promises a safe as well as successful issue, benevolence, no less than prudence, demands that no movement be made. Every consideration seems to admonish us—"Be quiet: let this perplexing matter rest untouched, and discharge each one his duty to his servants, leaving the issue in the hands of God." The perplexities attending the management of British West India possessions at this hour, furnish an impressive warning on this subject. Emancipation has there proved a signal failure, so far as the prosperity of the colonies, or the improvement (moral or intellectual either) of the negroes is concerned. The emancipated slaves in those islands are indolent, ignorant, and luxurious: and the fertile lands they encumber are fast returning to a wilderness, their products continually decreasing, as the official returns show.

Sound policy and Christian benevolence do, then, both warn us to beware. So far from demanding the immediate emancipation of slaves, regardless of consequences, which, in the present condition of Southern society, could not but be eminently disastrous to all parties, the law of Christian love still points to the necessity for leaving this institution undisturbed for the present: and it shows the reasonableness of requiring humanity and justice in masters, fidelity and submission in slaves; precisely as the inspired Apostle taught, "Masters. render unto your servants that which is just and equal. And again: "Let as many servants as are under the yoke" (this certainly describes slaves) count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God be not blasphemed, &c. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, he is proud, knowing nothing. &v. ." 1 Tim. 6:1—5.

If the Bible is to be our guide on this subject, then, instead of