sisted." The design and merit of that poem he thus describes (p 214):

"But the highest encomium of Thomson is to be given him on account of his attachment to the cause of political and civil liberty. A free constitution of government, or, what I would beg leave to call, the autocracy of the people, is the panacea of moral diseases, and, after having been sought for in vain for ages, has been discovered in the bosom of Truth, on the right hand of Common Sense, and at the feet of Philosophy; the Printing-Press has been the dispensary, and half the world have become voluntary patients of this healing remedy.

"It is glorious for Thomson's memory that he should have described the platform of a perfect government, as Milton described the platform of a perfect garden: the one in the midst of Gothic institutions of feudal origin, and the other in the midst of clipped yews and spouting lions."

It is the more surprising that Lord Buchan had not been aware of a piece so entirely to his taste as Thomson's Preface,' since there had been published, in 1780, by Archdeacon Blackburne, 'Remarks on Johnson's Life of Milton.' To which is added,' Milton's Tractate of Education and Areopagitica.' To the Areopagitica' is prefixed the Preface' by Mr. Thomson, to whom, it is also attributed in an enumeration of " the dates of Milton's prose works."

6

Mr. Holt White, a gentleman with whose liberal principles and literary accomplishments I have been long acquainted, and who is attached to the character of Milton, both as a poet and a politician, published, in 1819, an edition of the Areopagitica; with Prefatory Remarks, Copious Notes, and Excursive Illustrations.' He has republished this Preface as written by Thomson, and confirmed his opinion by quoting the following note, written in a copy of the Areopagitica,' by that distinguished patriot, Thomas Hollis:

"This matchless Speech,' composed of noblest learning, wit, and argument, was republished, in 1738, with an excellent Preface, by Thomson, author of Liberty,' a poem, and other works."

Dr. Joseph Warton, in his edition of Pope's works, says:"The liberty of the Press was about this time (1738) thought to be in danger; and Milton's noble and nervous discourse on this subject, entitled' Areopagitica,' was reprinted in an 8vo. pamphlet, with a Preface by Thomson, the poet.'

To the Government of George II. had certainly been attributed, a few months before this republication of Areopagitica,' the project of a general censorship; such, at least, that acute politician, Lord Chesterfield, considered as the intended result of the Lord Chamberlain's censorial authority to control the stage, conferred by

an Act passed in June 1737. This Act is still in force, and has been, on some occasions, in vexatious exercise.

In his speech now before me, as preserved in The History and Proceedings of the House of Lords,' (1742, v. 211,) Lord Chesterfield having censured" the Bill" as a most arbitrary restraint on the liberty of the stage," the only place where courtiers, too polite to reprove one another, can meet with any just reproof," adds, "I fear it tends towards a restraint on the liberty of the Press, which will be a long stride towards the destruction of liberty itself." He proceeds to declare that "every unnecessary restraint on licentiousness is a fetter upon the legs, a shackle upon the hands of liberty. Licentiousness," he adds, "is the alloy of liberty; an ebullition, an excrescence, a speck upon the eye of the political body, which I can never touch but with a gentle, with a trembling hand, lest I destroy the body, lest I injure the eye upon which it is apt to appear."

Lord Chesterfield was probably aware of some courtly designs, happily rfustrated, which were never recorded in the public history of that period, for he thus sounds the alarm: “ If we agree to the Bill now before us, we must, perhaps next session, agree to a bill for preventing any play's being printed without a licence. Then, satires will be wrote by way of novels, secret histories, dialogues, or under some such title; and, therefore, we shall be told, what! will you allow an infamous libel to be printed and dispersed only because it does not bear the title of a play? Thus, my Lords, from the precedent now before us, we shall be induced, nay we can find no reason, for refusing to lay the Press under a general licence, and then we may bid adieu to the liberties.of Great Britain."

In the Old Whig,' No. 77, (1739, ii., 224-226,) written about this period, there is also an allusion to "the project of restraining the Press," and the writer justly inquires" to whom must the care and oversight of it be committed?" "Shall we trust it with ecclesiastics? What may then be expected? Why, that every thing will be prohibited, right or wrong, that contradicts their favourite creeds, and ambitious thirst after power. Shall we trust it with politicians? Yes! if we think it advisable that all books and writings should be suppressed, that do not suit the complexion of courts, and an iniquitous Machiavelian craft. The consequence therefore is plainly this, that if we undertake to restrain the liberty of the press, as the world is at present governed, we must destroy it altogether. Either the press should be entirely restrained, or universally free; mankind should be either allowed to improve their knowledge in all points, so far as their faculties will reach, or be reduced and confined to a state of total stupidity and barbarism."

Returning to the preface, from the subject of which I have in

deed scarcely digressed, I find the author declaring it" impossible to produce better arguments," than those proposed by "the divine Milton," in his "admirable defence of the best of human rights, or to set them in a more convincing awakening light." Thomson proceeds to describe" the absolute freedom of the press" as "the only preservative" against "universal ignorance, darkness, and barbarity," and consequently as "the most dear and valuable of all the privileges that Government is designed to protect;" supposing it to be" the end of Governors and Government, to diffuse, with a liberal unsparing equal hand, true rational happiness," and not" to make the bulk of mankind beasts of burden, that a few may wallow in brutish pleasures." After applauding the saying of Alfred, "a truly good king of England," that "a people have liberty, when they are free, as thought is free," and that definition of a state by Alcæus, which Sir W. Jones has immortalized in our language, the preface thus proceeds: "What is it that distinguishes human society from a brutish herd, but the flourishing of the arts and sciences; the free exercise of wit and reason? What can Government mean, intend, or produce, that is worthy of man, or beneficial to him, as he is a rational creature, besides wisdom, knowledge, virtue, and science? Is it merely, indeed, that we may eat, drink, sleep, sing, and dance, with security, that we choose Governors, subject ourselves to their administration, and pay taxes? Take away the arts, religion, knowledge, virtue, (all of which must flourish or sink together,) and, in the name of goodness, what is left to us that is worth enjoying or protecting? Yet take away the liberty of the press, and we are, all at once, stript of the use of our noblest faculties: our souls themselves are imprisoned in a dark dungeon: we may breathe, but we cannot be said to live."

Referring to the barbarous anecdote of "certain Scythian slaves' who had their eyes destroyed, that they might work the harder," Thomson remarks, that " to extinguish human understanding, and establish a kingdom of darkness, is just so far more barbarous than even that monstrous cruelty, as the mind excels the body; or as understanding and reason are superior to sense." When Richlieu in his Political Testament' declares that "a people possessing knowledge, sense, and reason, are as monstrous as a beast with hundreds of eyes," and which "will never bear its burthen peaceably," and thence concludes, that "it is impossible to promote despotic power, while learning is encouraged and extended;" the author of the preface commends this "plain dealing and consistent politics." He opposes it to the pretences of those who "talk of liberty and free government, public good and rational happiness, as requiring limitations on the press, and licences of books," language" as absurd as to speak of liberty in a dungeon, with chains on every limb. Hobbes too," he adds, was consistent with himself, and advises those, who aim at absolute dominion, to destroy

66

all the ancient Greek and Latin authors; because if those are read, principles of liberty, and just sentiments of the dignity and rights of mankind must be imbibed."

I know not to what passage Thomson here refers, or in what part of his works Hobbes has, in direct terms, proposed this anticlassical counsel. It is, however, by no means at variance with his recorded opinions. Thus, in his Elementa Philosophica, De Cive,' at cap. xii. De causis internis civitatem dissolventibus, speaking of tyrannicide, he thus complains of the Greek and Roman anarchists, by whom it was not only allowed, but applauded: "Ab omnibus sophistis, Platone, Aristotele, Cicerone, Seneca, Plutarche, cæterisque Græcæ et Romanæ anarchiæ fautoribus non modo licitum, sed etiam maximâ laude dignum existimatum est." Again, in his History of the Causes of the Civil War of England, from 1640 to 1660,' he thus accounts for the opposition offered by the leading members of the Long Parliament to the arbitrary designs of Charles: "There were an exceeding great number of men of the better sort, that had been so educated, as that in their youth, having read the books written by famous men, of the ancient Grecian and Roman commonwealths, concerning their politic and great actions; in which books the popular government was extolled by that glorious name of liberty, and monarchy disgraced by the name of tyranny, they became thereby in love with their forms of government; and out of these men were chosen the greatest part of the House of Commons; or if they were not the greatest part, yet, by advantage of their eloquence, were always able to sway the rest."

Before I quit the subject of Hobbes, I cannot forbear to quote from his autobiography entitled, "Thomæ Hobbes, Angli Malmsburiensis Philosophi vita," (1681, p. 81,) the following passage, too just and liberal for one who would not extend "principles of liberty and just sentiments of the dignity and rights of mankind." He says, as a ruling maxim in his commerce with the world, " Fruatur quisque suo per me sensu licet; mihi nec alienum philosophandi libertatem, neque propriam prodere, animus est." (Let every one enjoy his own opinion, I would neither restrain another man's liberty of philosophising, nor surrender my own.)

Thomson proceeds to express his regret" that anything is ever published tending to confound men's understanding, mislead their judgment, or deprave their morals." Yet, he asks," can truth be better armed against error, than with the mighty blade of uncontrolled reason? I hate," he adds, "all calumny and defamation, as I hate the corruption of heart from which alone it can proceed; and do, with the utmost zeal, detest those profaners of liberty, who, pretending to be friends to it, have recourse to such black diabolical methods." Against "abusive overt-acts" he deems" the laws a more than sufficient preservative;" and asks," because wicked things are published, must there be no publishing?" The apolo

gies for a censorship he thus exposes, at the conclusion of the preface:

"I know it is objected that there is a medium between an absoute liberty of the press, and an absolute suppression of it, which I admit; but yet aver, the medium (by which either licensing or nothing at all is meant) is far worse on all accounts than either extreme. For though we are indeed told, that licensers would serve us with wholesome goods, feed us with food convenient for us, and only prevent the distribution of poison; sure such cant was never meant to ́impose on any but those who are asleep, and cannot see one inch before them. Let no true Briton, therefore, be deceived by such fallacious speeches, but consider the necessary consequences which must follow, and he will soon find that it is as the flattering language of the strange woman (in the Book of Proverbs') who, with her fair smooth tongue, beguileth the simple, and leadeth them as an ox to the slaughter.' That plausible and deceitful language leadeth indeed into the chambers of darkness and death.

"What then is the noblest privilege that belongs to man? Is it not the free exercise of his understanding, the full use of all the means of advancing in virtue and knowledge? And can knowledge, virtue, or religion, be promoted, if the only means of promoting them are taken away? For what are the means of promoting them, but the liberty of writing and publishing, without running any risk, but that of being refuted or ridiculed, where anything advanced chances to labour under the just imputation of falsehood or absurdity."

Thus, the Poet of the Seasons devoted his prose, as well as his

verse,

"None but the noblest passions to inspire,"

and what his friend, Lord Lyttleton, said of the purely moral poet, was also eminently due to the enlightened and liberal politician, that he had not written

"One line, which dying, he might wish to blot."

AUTUMN AND AGE.

WHAT though the winter s chilling blast
Disrobe the gold autumnal scene,

Yet gentle Spring returns at last

With youthful grace and smile serenc.
And though we soon shall sink beneath
The cold and blighting hand of time,
There is a spring, whose verdant wreath
Will blossom in a lovelier clime.
A glorious spring that will not close,
But bloom in cloudless realms above,
Where weary pilgrims find repose

Beneath their Maker's smile of love.

J. J.