tered discussion on all the subjects to which it is proper that it should be applied, it is suitable here to inquire by what metes and bounds, if any, the subject is limited. What are the proper topics which may be brought before the mind for free and unrestricted inquiry? This is the first subject to which we naturally direct our attention.

While it will be our main object to assert the most unlimited right of free discussion which the interests of society permit or demand, yet we are not disposed to deny that there are some proper metes and bounds by which the right is to be limited. On this subject, we apprehend, there has been not a little indistinctness of conception, and confusion of language even among the friends of the right; and much designed mysticism thrown over it by its enemies. All the advantages in argument which the advocates for restraining this right have ever gained have arisen from a neglect perhaps a designed neglect in them to make the distinctions which are now seen to be obvious in regard to the subjects which are proper for public investigation. To a clear understanding of this subject, it is important that this distinction should be made.

We remark, therefore, that there are some subjects which are not to be regarded as proper subjects of public discussion. They are to be shielded from this kind of scrutiny which the right of discussion on any appropriate subject supposes. We specify particularly, that which pertains to private character, opinion, feelings, motives of action. I have no right to make the private sentiments of my neighbor the theme of public debate; nor have I any right to drag him forth that his motives and character may be tortured under the dissecting knife of public and angry controversy. There is a species of sacredness about every man's private feelings; a personal property in every man's own sentiments, views, and motives, which should shield them from public exposure and debate. The public has no right to them, any more than it has to his house, or land; his bonds and mortgages. The sanctuary of his own bosom is not to be entered, and his private feelings exposed to the blaze of noon-day without his consent, any more than the sanctuary of his dwelling is to be entered, and his goods exposed to public plunder. The reason of this is, that God has given him a right to his private sentiments, and feelings, just as he has to the avails of his honest industry. They no more belong to the public, than that which he has earned by honest toil. And the

interests of society would be no more promoted by making his private sentiments the theme of discussion, than by making his property common to all who should choose to enter his dwelling.

And yet we have observed, we think, a strange inconsistency in these times on this point. We have seen those whom we have regarded as the most violent enemies of the privileges of free discussion; who have sought most sedulously to trammel the sentiments of other men, and to shape and chisel all opinions to the prescribed model of a political or theological creed; who have instantly made war and evinced angry feelings, when in the investigations of truth by a bold and independent thinker, any position has been advanced that is a departure from what has been usually held, we have seen them foremost in making war on the private character of the individual; holding him up to public opprobrium; impugning his motives, and lacerating his feelings. We have seen them, instead of making war on the sentiment advanced, make war on the individual himself; instead of discussing the principle that is proposed as new truth to the world, assail the presumption of the man who has dared to differ from the prescribed forms of belief; and instead of sitting down coolly to see whether what was advanced was truth, proceeding with the appearance of decidedly excited feelings to an inquiry whether the man were worthy of public confidence; or whether he had not violated some public engagement, or obligation. To secure this, and to throw the highest opprobrium on the opinion advanced, we have seen the secrets of private life invaded; the former conduct laid open to noon-day, and all the power, which opprobrious names can give, resorted to, to overwhelm the man with infamy, and thus indirectly prevent his sentiments from spreading among mankind. The doctrine is not disproved; but the man is covered with infamy. Our observation has led us to a conclusion on this subject which may be stated in the form of a general proposition in regard to human nature; that the most violent enemies of free discussion are the most reckless of private feelings and character; and the men who stand most decidedly opposed to the independent exercise of the powers of thought, are the men who make most public havoc of private feelings, and most publicly practise on a secret principle of their own to make every man who differs from them the subject of most free public discussion. It is in fact often the only way. When argument fails, nothing is more obvious than to attack character. How much easier, too, it is,

to lacerate a man's feelings, and to hold him up to opprobrium, than to answer his arguments. And what a labor-saving, and an intellect-saving process it is to call a man a heretic, and to charge him with departing from the opinions of the fathers, rather than to sit down to a calm refutation of his opinions.

The private affairs of a family, of a circle of friendship, of a school, a college, or corporation, are not to be made subjects of public discussion. I have no right to go into my neighbor's family, and to drag forth to public discussion his mode of administering domestic government; his manner of intercourse with his wife and children; his mode of treating his friends, or his enemies; his views of economy, of politics or of religion. His house is his castle; and his views of internal domestic economy, are a part of his private property, with which I can have nothing to do. Clearly he has a right to his own sentiments in regard to the domestic discipline, and laws; and provided he does not attempt to obtrude his sentiments on me, I have no right to canvass them. The same remark is true also respecting a circle of friendship; or a community of any kind, whatever may be its organization. Unless there is something in that organization which may affect the public welfare; or unless there is some principle advocated there which endangers great interests in other communities, it is clear that the sentiments and habits of such a community are not to be made the theme of public debate. We shall see in the progress of our remarks, that where there is any principle involved, it is right to examine that principle into whatever family, or society the discussion of the principle may be extended, or whatever agitation it may produce. The principle is public property. That may be examined. Yet it will not be discussed because it is in this family, or this nation; but because it belongs to man, and the interests of man demand that it should be investigated. And it matters not what agitation the discussion of the principle may cause in any community. It is not the fault of the discussion; but it is because there is something which will not bear the light of truth. It is on this ground that the right of examination of the principles involved in the questions of freemasonry, and slavery can be defended. It is not because we have a right to go into a masonic lodge and reveal its secrets; or because we have a right to go into a slave-holding State, and into the family of a master of slaves, and attempt to excite dissatisfaction and insurrection. But we have a right to examine

the opinions that are publicly avowed or are known to operate. We have a right to discuss the propriety of the existence of societies bound together by secret oaths; and we have a right to examine the question of the morality of slavery,-and in this discussion we are by no means answerable should the result be agitation, and displeasure, and anger, and wrath. We have done We examine abstract truths; and if fabrics reared on false principles totter and fall, it is not the fault of him that discusses the subject; but of the system, and its abettors.

no wrong.

Yet this principle, also, which is so obvious, is not always regarded. There is, we think, a recklessness in these times on this subject, which demands the loud voice of reproof. There is a needless, and improper making public of conduct and opinions in the domestic relations. There is a violation of confidence and of friendship. There is an improper laying open to public rebuke the arrangements of domestic institutions, and of the intercourse of friends. Foreigners come among us, and are admitted into our families, our churches, our cities, and towns, and on their return to their own country, or before, forthwith blazon to the world what was "spoken in the ear;" and reveal "on the house-tops," that which was seen in the privacy and sacredness of the domestic circle. Our own countrymen also travel into foreign lands, and are admitted with much kind feeling to the circles of elevated society, and on their return blazon to the world the details of domestic arrangements, and of private conversations. On such details we cannot but look with disapprobation. Valuable as may be the information which is communicated, yet we cannot but deem the furtive manner in which it was obtained a violation of the laws which should regulate the social intercourse of strangers; and the injury done to society by the violation of a great principle which should regard the domestic relation as sacred, is of incalculably more importance than all the advantage which has resulted. And in the same light we cannot but regard many of the details of the masonic institution; the revelation of the occurrences in those institutions, notwithstanding the most solemn and sacred oaths of secrecy, as inflicting an injury on society from which it will not soon recover. It is a shock to the moral feelings of mankind; and though we have never been in a masonic lodge, and doubt not the truth of the main things alleged to have been transacted in those institutions, yet we feel that every man is called on, now that the excitement is passed, to rebuke the spirit of prying cu

riosity into the domestic arrangements of any institution, and the breaches of confidence and the violation of oaths which attend such a development. And with the same feeling, much as we abhor slavery, and firmly as we maintain the principle that the subject may be and should be discussed any where, and every where, and by any man, or by any press, yet we confess we have no sympathy with the details which are often made of the state of things among our southern brethren. We do not believe that a northern man has any right to partake of the hospitality of the South; to secure confidence there, and be admitted to free acquaintance with the domestic details, and then to reveal them for the purpose of producing excited feeling, or of hastening the progress of abolition. Truth and justice may be advanced by open and public means. Manly free discussion scorns all that is treacherous, and seeks not to lay open private feeling, or domestic arrangements with the knife of torture under the plea of advancing the rights of man.

We are sometimes disposed to think that it is peculiar almost to these times, and to certain classes of men now, to be regardless of the sacredness of private feeling, and the tenderness and delicacy of private reputation. A man advances a sentiment, or publishes a book. It is deemed heretical; and he is subjected to the torture of public prosecution, and his reputation is forthwith covered, if possible, with infamy. Suspicion is excited against the man. His arguments are untouched; his reasonings are not refuted; his book may stand firm as mount Atlas. But his feelings are lacerated; his heart is wounded; his name is blazoned abroad as evil. All that can be done against him to excite prejudice is done; all that can be accomplished to overwhelm his name with disgrace is accomplished. And yet there is in all the parties only a professed desire to know the truth. And when all has been done that could be done by the detractor and calumniator; when he has employed all his means of torture on the feelings and character of the individual, he coolly says, 'all this was only to defend the truth. I have had doubts whether what you have advanced is in accordance with the doctrines of the church. I am not satisfied with your statements; and instead of examining the sentiment promulgated as an abstract matter, I have thought it best to arraign the man. I have endeavored to excite public odium against him; I have done all I could to embarrass him in his way, and my object in this has been to ascertain the truth of his positions.' And all this VOL. IX. No. 26.

48