Part 8

To Locke, “Conscience is nothing else than our own opinion of our own actions;” to Penn it is the image of God, and his oracle in the soul. Locke, who was never a father, esteemed “the duty of parents to preserve their children to not be understood without reward and punishment;” Penn loved his children, with not a thought for the consequences. Locke, who was never married, declares marriage an affair of the senses; Penn reverenced woman as the object of fervent, inward affection, made, not for lust, but for love. In studying the understanding Locke begins with the sources of knowledge; Penn with an inventory of our intellectual treasures. Locke deduces government from Noah and Adam, rests it upon contract, and announces its end to be the security of property; Penn, far from going back to Adam, or even to Noah, declares that there must be a people before a government, and, deducing the right to institute the government from man’s moral nature, seeks its fundamental rules in the immutable dictates of universal reason, its end in freedom and happiness. The system of Locke lends itself to contending factions of the most opposite interests and purposes; the doctrine of Fox and Penn being but the common creed of humanity, forbids division, and insures the highest moral unity. To Locke, happiness is pleasure; things are good and evil only in reference to pleasure and pain; and to inquire after the highest good is as absurd as to dispute whether the best relish be in apples, plums or nuts; Penn esteemed happiness to be in the subjection of the baser instincts to the instinct of Deity in the breast, good and evil to be eternally and always as unlike as truth and falsehood, and the inquiry after the highest good to involve the purpose of existence. Locke says plainly that, but for rewards and punishments beyond the grave it is _certainly right_ to eat and drink, and enjoy what we delight in; Penn, like Plato and Fénelon, maintained the doctrine so terrible to despots, that God is to be loved for his own sake, and virtue to be practiced for its intrinsic loveliness. Locke derives the idea of infinity from the senses, describes it as purely negative, and attributes it to nothing but space, duration and number; Penn derived the idea from the soul, and ascribed it to truth and virtue, and to God. Locke declares immortality a matter with which reason has nothing to do, and that revealed truth must be sustained by outward signs and visible acts of power; Penn saw truth by its own light, and summoned the soul to bear witness to its own glory. Locke believed “not so many men in wrong opinions as is commonly supposed, because the greatest part have no opinions at all, and do not know what they contend for;” Penn likewise vindicated the many, but it was because truth is the common inheritance of the race. Locke, in his love of tolerance, inveighed against the methods of persecution as “Popish practices;” Penn censured no sect, but condemned bigotry of all sorts as inhuman. Locke, as an American lawgiver dreaded a too numerous democracy; Penn believed that God is in every conscience, his light in every soul; and therefore, stretching out his arms, he built—such are his own words—“a free colony for all mankind.” This is the praise of William Penn, that, in an age which had seen a popular revolution shipwreck popular liberty among selfish factions, which had seen Hugh Peters and Henry Vane perish by the hangman’s cord and the ax; in an age when Sydney nourished the pride of patriotism rather than the sentiment of philanthropy, when Russel stood for the liberties of his order, and not for new enfranchisements, when Harrington and Shaftesbury and Locke thought government should rest on property—Penn did not despair of humanity, and, though all his history and experience denied the sovereignty of the people, dared to cherish the noble idea of man’s capacity for self-government. Conscious that there was no room for its exercise in England, the pure enthusiast, like Calvin and Descartes, a voluntary exile, was to come to the banks of the Delaware to institute the “HOLY EXPERIMENT.”

WILLIAM H. PRESCOTT.

“To Prescott belongs the rare distinction of uniting solid merit with extensive popularity. He has been exalted to the first class of historians, both by the popular voice and the suffrages of the learned. By avoiding all tricks of flippancy or profundity to court any class of readers, he has pleased all.”—_E. P. Whipple._

“Mr. Prescott’s leading excellence is that healthy objectiveness of mind which enables him to represent persons and events in their just relation. The scenery, characters and incidents with which his history deals, are all conceived with singular intensity, and appear on his page instinct with their peculiar life. The mind of the author yields itself with a beautiful readiness to the inspiration of his subject, and he leads the reader along with him through every scene of beauty and grandeur in which the stirring adventures he narrates are placed.”—_Review._

Isabella of Spain and Elizabeth of England.

It is in the amiable qualities of her sex that Isabella’s superiority becomes most apparent over her illustrious namesake, Elizabeth of England, whose history presents some features parallel to her own. Both were disciplined in early life by the teachings of that stern nurse of wisdom, adversity. Both were made to experience the deepest humiliation at the hands of their nearest relative, who should have cherished and protected them. Both succeeded in establishing themselves on the throne after the most precarious vicissitudes. Each conducted her kingdom through a long and triumphant reign, to a height of glory which it had never before reached. Both lived to see the vanity of all earthly grandeur, and to fall the victims of an inconsolable melancholy; and both left behind an illustrious name, unrivaled in the subsequent annals of the country.

But with these few circumstances of their history, the resemblance ceases. Their characters afford scarcely a point of contact. Elizabeth, inheriting a large share of the bold and bluff King Harry’s temperament, was haughty, arrogant, coarse, irascible; while with these fiercer qualities she mingled deep dissimulation and strange irresolution. Isabella, on the other hand, tempered the dignity of royal station with the most bland and courteous manners. Once resolved, she was constant in her purposes; and her conduct in public and private life was characterized by candor and integrity. Both may be said to have shown that magnanimity which is implied by the accomplishment of great objects in the face of great obstacles. But Elizabeth was desperately selfish; she was incapable of forgiving, not merely a real injury, but the slightest affront to her vanity; and she was merciless in exacting retribution. Isabella, on the other hand, lived only for others—was ready at all times to sacrifice self to considerations of public duty; and far from personal resentments, showed the greatest condescension and kindness to those who had most sensibly injured her; while her benevolent heart sought every means to mitigate the authorized severities of the law, even toward the guilty.

Both possessed rare fortitude. Isabella, indeed, was placed in situations which demanded more frequent and higher displays of it than her rival; but no one will doubt a full measure of this quality in the daughter of Henry the Eighth. Elizabeth was better educated, and every way more accomplished than Isabella. But the latter knew enough to maintain her station with dignity; and she encouraged learning by a munificent patronage. The masculine powers and passions of Elizabeth seemed to divorce her in a great measure from the peculiar attributes of her sex; at least from those which constitute its peculiar charm; for she had abundance of its foibles—a coquetry and love of admiration which age could not chill; a levity most careless, if not criminal; and a fondness for dress and tawdry magnificence of ornament which was ridiculous, or disgusting, according to the different periods of life in which it was indulged. Isabella, on the other hand, distinguished through life for decorum of manners and purity beyond the breath of calumny, was content with the legitimate affection which she could inspire within the range of her domestic circle. Far from a frivolous affectation of ornament or dress, she was most simple in her own attire, and seemed to set no value on her jewels, but as they could serve the necessities of the state; when they could be no longer useful in this way, she gave them away to her friends. Both were uncommonly sagacious in the selection of their ministers, though Elizabeth was drawn into some errors in this particular by her levity, as was Isabella by religious feeling. It was this, combined with her excessive humility, which led to the only grave errors in the administration of the latter. Her rival fell into no such errors, and she was a stranger to the amiable qualities which led to them.

The circumstances of their deaths, which were somewhat similar, displayed the great dissimilarity of their characters. Both pined amidst their royal state, a prey to incurable despondency rather than any marked bodily distemper. In Elizabeth it sprung from wounded vanity, a sullen conviction that she had outlived the admiration on which she had so long fed—and even the solace of friendship and the attachment of her subjects. Nor did she seek consolation, where alone it was to be found in that sad hour. Isabella, on the other hand, sunk under a too acute sensibility to the sufferings of others. But amidst the gloom which gathered around her, she looked with the eye of faith to the brighter prospects which unfolded of the future; and when she resigned her last breath, it was amidst the tears and universal lamentations of her people.

The Character of Cortés.

His character is marked with the most opposite traits, embracing qualities apparently the most incompatible. He was avaricious, yet liberal; bold to desperation, yet cautious and calculating in his plans; magnanimous, yet very cunning; courteous and affable in his deportment, yet inexorably stern; lax in his notions of morality, yet (not uncommon) a sad bigot. The great feature in his character was constancy of purpose; a constancy not to be daunted by danger, nor baffled by disappointment, nor wearied out by impediments and delays.

He was a knight-errant, in the literal sense of the word. Of all the band of adventurous cavaliers whom Spain, in the sixteenth century, sent forth on the career of discovery and conquest, there was none more deeply filled with the spirit of romantic enterprise than Hernando Cortés. Dangers and difficulties, instead of deterring, seemed to have a charm in his eyes. They were necessary to rouse him to a full consciousness of his powers. He grappled with them at the outset, and, if I may so express myself, seemed to prefer to take his enterprises by the most difficult side. He conceived, at the first moment of his landing in Mexico, the design of its conquest. When he saw the strength of its civilization, he was not turned from his purpose. When he was assailed by the superior force of Narvaez, he still persisted in it; and, when he was driven in ruin from the capital, he still cherished his original idea. After the few years of repose which succeeded the conquest, his adventurous spirit impelled him to that dreary march across the marshes of Chiapa; and, after another interval, to seek his fortunes on the stormy Californian Gulf. When he found that no other continent remained for him to conquer, he made serious proposals to the emperor to equip a fleet at his own expense, with which he would sail to the Moluccas, and subdue the Spice Islands for the Crown of Castile!

This spirit of knight-errantry might lead us to undervalue his talents as a general, and to regard him merely in the light of a lucky adventurer. But this would be doing him injustice, for Cortés was certainly a great general, if that man be one, who performs great achievements with the resources which his own genius has created. There is probably no instance in history where so vast an enterprise has been achieved by means apparently so inadequate.

UNITED STATES HISTORY.

ENGLISH DISCOVERIES AND SETTLEMENTS.

In 1496 John Cabot, a merchant of Venice, but of English birth, under the patronage of Henry VII., made a voyage of discovery, accompanied by his son Sebastian, who became eminent as a bold, skilful navigator. They sailed into Hudson’s Bay, exploring the shore line for some hundreds of miles, and returned. This was really the first discovery of America, and some months before Columbus reached the main land. No important results followed immediately.

Two years later Sebastian Cabot sailed for the new continent in command of a squadron of well manned vessels. The northwest passage to India was doubtless the objective point of the voyage; but, failing in that, he gained much valuable knowledge of the country.

The whole coast of New England, and of the Middle States, was now, for the first time since the days of the Erricksons, traced by Europeans. In 1498 a fruitless attempt was made to colonize the country he had discovered. Some three hundred men were left on the coast of Labrador for this purpose, many of whom perished, and all who survived were a year after carried back to England.

For reasons that do not fully appear Cabot was during most of his active life in the service of Spain, having been appointed chief pilot, and honored beyond all others who then sailed the seas. When seventy years old he again visited his native country; was received with much favor, and remained some years the active patron of English enterprise.

Though for almost a century there was no actual possession of the lands thus made known, Cabot’s work proved of inestimable importance to the British crown. He traced the eastern coast of North America through more than twenty degrees of latitude, and established the claim of England to the best portion of the New World.

Others of like adventurous spirit followed in the work of discovery. Frobisher, Drake, Gilbert and Grenville, all men of influence, successively came to America, but failed to establish permanent settlements. In a few months the colonists either returned in disappointment or perished. The last voyage made by the English before their permanent occupancy of the country was in 1605. George Waymouth, under the patronage of the Earl of Southampton, came to anchor off the coast of Maine. He explored the harbor, sailed some distance up the river, and opened a profitable trade with the Indians, some of whom learned to speak English, and accompanied Waymouth on his homeward voyage. Efforts that continued at intervals through a century, though for the most part barren of the immediate results that were sought, were not altogether in vain, and they served to keep secure the partial knowledge that had been gained, and to sustain the hopes that were often dashed with disappointment.

In April, 1606, King James I. issued two patents, one to an association of noble gentlemen and merchants, called the “London Company,” the other to an association organized in the southwest part of England, called the “Plymouth Company.” The grants were alike liberal, but only the London Company succeeded under its charter, in planting an American colony. The other company lost their first ship that was sent out, captured by a Spanish man-of-war. The year following they sent out a company of one hundred colonists, and began a settlement on the Kennebec river under what seemed favorable circumstances. But the winter of 1607-’8 proved very severe. Some were starved, some frozen, their storehouse burned, and when summer came the survivors, as in other unfortunate attempts, escaped to England.

The London Company’s fleet of three vessels, under command of Christopher Newport, carried one hundred and five colonists, reached the American coast in April, intending to land in the neighborhood of Roanoke Island, but a storm carried them into the Chesapeake. Coasting along the southern shore of the magnificent bay, they entered the mouth of a broad, beautiful river that they called James, in honor of the King. Proceeding up the river about fifty miles they founded Jamestown, the first English settlement in America. This was more than a hundred years after the discovery of the continent by Cabot, so long a time did it take for the English to get any permanent possession of the country discovered. For all these long years they seemed to reap nothing but loss and misfortune from their enterprise. Not a single spot on the vast continent, now mostly peopled by their children, was as yet the settled habitation of an Englishman; while Spain and France had wonderful successes in the first century of their career of conquest and colonization. But their prosperity was not enduring. The invaders who treated the native inhabitants with murderous cruelty, were in turn oppressed by the home government, and, struggling for relief, plunged into the most deplorable anarchy. By injustice, mismanagement and tyranny, Spain alienated her once numerous dependencies. France too, whose subjects planted many flourishing colonies, lost them, not because of her oppression, but from want of ability to afford them sufficient protection.

England, the last to commence settling the western hemisphere, but finally bringing to the task a spirit of progress and strength unknown to her predecessors, has founded an empire mightier and more enduring than any of its compeers; now lost indeed to her private aggrandizement, but not to the honor of her name, or the best interest of mankind; an empire already prosperous beyond all example in history, and destined, it is probable, to yet unite under its genial protection every league of the vast continent, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the tropical forests of Darien to the eternal snows of the Arctic circle.[C]

Among the gentlemen in the colony on James river there were those of better culture and higher position, but none equaled, in intrepid courage, force of character and practical wisdom, Captain John Smith. There were none who contributed so much to the success of the enterprise. He had been, from his early life, an adventurer, inured to hardships, and fearless in danger. He returned to England from the war with the Turks, in which he became distinguished for prowess and valor, in time to join the colonists, and was appointed by King James a member of the council. As the appointments were, very unwisely, under seal, and made known only after they reached their destination, there was no legitimate authority during the voyage, and a state of almost anarchy prevailed. Though no one of the number possessed a truer manhood, Smith was accused of plotting the massacre of the council, and for a time deprived of his liberty, but when tried, fully acquitted.

Many of the colonists being gentlemen unused to labor or hardships of any kind, were sadly unfit for the difficult enterprise. Exposure and want brought on malignant diseases. The fort, built for defense, was filled with the sick, and in a few months half their number perished. Bad management and dishonesty added to the calamities that were suffered. The first two Governors were found guilty of embezzlement and of attempting to desert in the company’s ship. The third had neither talents nor courage, and gave up the office, for which he was incompetent. In their distress Smith was chosen Governor, and did much to avert the calamities which all, at length, saw impending. Unable, at first, to induce the colonists to labor, or to seek the needed supplies by cultivating the soil, he obtained corn and other provisions from the Indians by trading, making some quite extensive trips for the purpose, and, by his courage and address, acquired great influence over the savages. In one of his excursions up the Chickahominy three of his company were killed, and he, after a terrible struggle, taken captive, and came near losing his life. When condemned to die, bound and placed in position to be slain by the war-club of a stalwart, painted savage, ready for the bloody tragedy, the stern chief yielded to the entreaties of his favorite daughter, Pocahontas, released his captive, and made a covenant of peace with him. This was not only a most touching event, but of great historical importance. The loss of their Governor at that critical juncture would have taken away all hope of continuing the settlement at Jamestown. His influence with the colonists was great, and greater with the natives of the country. He seemed to them without fear, while the natural dignity, kindness and manliness of his bearing awed and conciliated the most hostile tribes. Soon after his departure from the colony a most trying crisis came, and they were saved only by the timely arrival of men and supplies from the mother country. Other Governors succeeded, some of whom did wisely. The lands first held in common were divided, and the owners required to cultivate them.

In 1619 a Dutch trader brought some negroes from Africa, which were sold to the richer planters. Thus slavery began, and its blighting influence was long felt both there and in the other colonies. It was at first found profitable, and the population increased so rapidly that in less than forty years from the date of the first charter the little band in Virginia had grown to over twenty thousand.

In the meantime some settlements were made in Carolina by Virginians, and also by Puritans from New England, without chartered rights, and with alternations of success and disaster.

In 1663 liberal grants were issued by Charles II., and colonization advanced more rapidly. But the colonial government, adopted not by the people but by the proprietors, was a kind of landed aristocracy, that was distasteful, and the arrogant demands of the ruling class were met with rebellion.

An attempt was made at self-government, which succeeded so far as to show that aristocratic institutions and customs were not suited to the wilderness; and the famous constitution, framed with much labor by Lord Shaftsbury and the justly celebrated Dr. Locke, was abandoned, as its provisions were found oppressive and impracticable. The Indians, once numerous in the Carolinas, for a time gave much trouble, but through pestilence, wars and drunkenness their power was broken, and they rapidly faded away.

SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND.

In 1607 the Plymouth Company made an unsuccessful attempt on the Kennebec; but, though baffled and hindered, the purpose of colonization was not abandoned. In 1609 Captain Smith, injured by an accident, and disheartened by the unhappy state of the colony at Jamestown, returned to London to interest others in the settlement of America. Time was needed to make the preparation; and in 1614 he came in command of two ships to the coast of lower Maine, explored the country, and drew maps of the whole coast line from the Penobscot to Cape Cod, and called the region New England.

No colony was then planted. Months and years were consumed fruitlessly in making and unmaking plans that proved impracticable, or at best failed in the execution; till in 1617 the Plymouth Company was superseded by the Council of Plymouth, consisting of forty of the most wealthy and influential men of the kingdom. They planned magnificently, and made many fair promises; but the spirit of the enterprise was intensely secular if not selfish, and the hopes cherished were again disappointed. The actual settlement of New England was begun by men of more earnest spirit and loftier aim, to whom conscience and the love of liberty were a higher law.