Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

to the faints was not left to be better understood and taught in the present age, than it was in the primitive times, by those who receia ved it immediately from the apostles. It is, indeed, no wonder that the adversaries of the catholic faith, instead of having an eye to these, the best interpreters of the holy Scriprures ; instead of enquiring for the old paths wherein the first Christians walked, 1hould affect to thew contempt of the primitive fathers, and, in order to propagate this contempt, grolly misrepresent their character and writinys. And when once the very entrance to these good old paths is by them thus obstructed and hid, it is not strange their deluded and blinded followers should continue wandering, and at length be loit, in endless mazes !

This divine coincides in opinion with Dr. Waterland, that Athanasius was not the author of this Creed, and that its authority depends little on his moral character ; and agrees with that learned and indefatigable writer, in ascribing it to Hilary, Bishop of Arles, in France, and supposes it to have been written by him about the year 430. As the author chose to conceal his name, it was called or entitled, only “ the Catholic Faith,till the year 570, when Athanasius recommended and adopted it in opposition to the Creeds of Arius, Sabellius, and other heretics. Mr. C. clearly distinguishes these fchismatics, and exposes their perversion of several palsages of scripture, which they have tortured to serve their own preconceived notions. Thus, relative to the doctrine of atonement, when misbelievers would persuade us, that the words of St. Paul to the Romans TV x2Tulaarine Encßopev, do not fignify, as we render them, received the atonement, or reconciliation ; but should be translated, have obtained a conzerfion unto God, he observes

“ Thus they would deprive our Redeemer of his priestly office, and regard him only as a teacher and lawgiver; as if there needed no. more to reconcile us to God, than the efficacy of our repentance and imperfect obedience for the future. But it is certain that the word xatareyn signifies primarily, as its derivation proves, nothing but a commutation or exchange between contracting parties of one person or thing instead of another; and hence it comes to fignify a reconciliation, The absurdity therefore of the Socinian interpretation of these words of St. Paul is very evident and flagrant.”

And, again, relative to the personality of the Holy Ghost (P. 139) he concludes the head of his 7th discourse:

“ I shall conclude this head of my discourse with pointing out one very remarkable circumstance in the words of my text, which, to the learned reader of the New Testament, muft seem itself a decisive proof of the personality of the Holy Ghost, viz. of joining the word Tlivus (which is of the neuter gender) to Exitros a pronoun of the

mafculine;

mafculine; Ota de la Sn Exiv TO Ulviüe; the sense of which can be only, When He, (that perion) the Spirit. Agreeably to this, St. Paul, in his epistle to the Ephesian;*, writes, Ilvevfa&to äs Esuy ’Ageabur.

These fermons contain a brief summary of the arguments of Bull, Pearson, and Waterland, and strongly prove the necessity of retaining the Athanasian Creed in the liturgy of the church of England.

Art. V. Report of the Committee of the House of Commons,

in Consequence of the several Motions relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; including the Whole of the Examination taken before the Committee; the Correspondence relative to the Exchange of Prisoners; the Inftrullions of

Colonel Tate, &c. &c. Svo. Pp. 133. Wright. 1798. WE

E are indebted for these valuable and necessary docu

ments, to the profligate falsehoods propagated by the Directory in France, and by their agents and advocates in England, respecting the relative treatment of the prisoners of war in the two countries. The result of the examination, by a committee of the House of Commons, was such, as every unprejudiced man must have expected-the establishment of British honour, and the exposure of French villainy.

Mr. Charretié, a Frenchman, who had relided some years in this country, was appointed by the French government, in December 1795, their agent for the care of French prisoners; --a talk which he seems to have cifcharged in a manner highly pleasing to his employers : he appears to have been studious to devise grounds of complaint against the government; and constantly to have converted the most insignificant trifles into serious subjects for difpuie. It is worthy of remark, that while the French prisoners were making frequent complaints, not one was made by the Spanish or Dutch, whose treatment was precisely the same. The following extracts from the report of the committee will courey to our readers an adequate idea of the treatment of prisoners, by England and France respectively :

« On the 4th of September a revolution in France took place, and fince that period it seems to have been the objuet of the French government to irritate the minds of their countrymen against Great Britain, by misrepresentations of the treatment which the prisoners

[blocks in formation]

underwent in this country. A paragraph appeared in The Postillion de Calais of Octoéter 16, giving a false account of the prisoners in Porchester Castle: this was contradicted by the agent at that place, as well as by a certificate from the English and French surgeons employed there ; and M. Charretié himself, being called upon by the Transport Board to refute this calumny, acknowledged the falsehood and impropriety of the paragraph.

“ Mr. Charretié, however, appears to have wished to second these views of the French government ; for in November he wrote to the Commission of Exchange at Paris, stating, that at Norman Cross prison, out of nine thousand prisoners contined there, three thousand were fick for want of clothes and other necessaries. This representation produced a strong effect on the public mind in France against this country ; but upon the British agent enquiring into the truth of the statement, Mr. Charretié was induced to contradiet his own a sertion. --From the evidence of Captain George, first Commisioner of the Transport Board, and the certificates of the surgeons at Norman Cross, it appears that the prison at that place was not capable of containing even fix thousimd prisoners ; that there were at that time about five thousand two hundred ; and that the sick then amounted to one hundred and ninety-four, including twenty-four nurses, and never had amounted to above two hundred and sixty. It must be observed, that Mr. Charretié had the means of knowing all this, and that previous to sending this account to France, he did itot apply to the Board on the subject, though he was actually in London at the time. He acknowledged that he was furnished with a list of persons confined at each prifon, whenever he required it, so that he might casily have ascertained the faljehood of his assertion.

“ Your committee fee, with much concern, the newspapers of this country lending themselves to the views of the enemy. They must recal the attention of the House to the paragraph which appeared in The Courier of January 20th, relative to the treatment of the prisoners at Liverpool, which produced an investigation by the Mayor and Magiitrates of that town, and a report, in the highest degree fatisfactory to the feelings of the persons concerned. It was with the fame object of irritating the French against this nation, that papers were stuck up in different towns of France, as appears in evidence before your committee, afferting that the prisoners in England were fed with dead cats and dogs ; and that when a person at Nantes, who was lately returned from imprisonment in England, contradicted this account, he was ordered to hold his tongue, and not dispute the assertion of his government.” Pp. 4-5.

The allowance granted to all French prisoners, we are told, while provided by our government, was equal to that of British foldiers. We shall now shew what a different treatment English prisoners experienced in France :

“ The first paper relative to the treatment of prisoners before the comunicee, in a letter from a merchant at Dunkirk to Mr. Swinburne,

gives a mclancholy account of the persons imprisoned at Air ; he futes, that forty fick were pent up in a small room with the prisoners in health, without permission to enjoy the benefit of the fresh air, and that numbers died daily from the filth and stench. From subsequent papers and documents, it appears that the treatment of British prifoners in moit of the prisons was bad. At Dunkirk few blankets could be obtained for them, and at Amiens none at all.-ile the Latter place the British agent found it neceflary to order bedsteads of rough plants, raised from the ground, to protect the prisoners from the damp, and the expence of which was defrayed by the British go. vernment. At Pontane zan prison, near Bieit, fixty masters of merchant ships and passengers were contined with about nine hundred seamen ; they were not allowed to go into the open yard, and their confinement was aggravated by the brutal behaviour of the commiffary, and by a want of provisions and neceffaries.

“ A declaration, figned by three respectable persons, confined for four months, in the beginning of 1797, in Pontanezan prison, states the daily allowance froin roth January to have been fixteen ounces of biscuit, of a bad quality, full of vermin and mouldy, and two ounces of rotten falt beef or pork.—(This allowance ought to have been two pounds and a half, but a mess for seven perfons has been known to be only fifteen ounces, and of that nearly half bone). Their peas-foup consisted of hot water wiih a few horse-seas. From February 20th, in licu of fixteen ounces of biscuit, about four ounces of rice were deli. vered out, together with ton ounces of black bread, and during that time many were ill and some died, which was attributed to the copper vessels, in which the rice was boiled, not liaving been properly cleaned. From February ist, in lieu of falt meat, fresh meat was allowed, which was nothing but carrion.--- The soup was made with the meat before it was given out.-No vegetables of any description were delivered out to the prisoners, and, during the above period of four months, at least two hundred persons died, chiefly of the fcurvy, arising from the badness of the provisions. From nine hundred to a thousand were confined in a room thirty feet wide, and from three to four hundred feet long ; one hundred daily were allowed to go into the opun air. Accounts of similar treatment have been repeatedly received.

“ Remonftrances were made to the commission of exchange on the {e anty allowance of provisions; and the agent was answered, that • If the fituation of the finances of the republic did not admit of the prisoners receiving the whole of what the law allowed them, it was not less true, that they experienced in that respect the benefits of the folicitude of government.'

“ This evafive language affords strong ground to suspect that the distressed situation of the British prisoners was not without an object on the part of the French government ; and this suspicion is confirmed by its appearing, from evidence delivered in to your committee, that every effort was made to induce the British feamen to go on board the French ficet, particularly at the time of the expedition

against

against Ireland. The provisions allowed were purposely bad and scanty, the confinement rigorous ; and during this state of suffering the pations of the men were inflamed, by being told that their own country had given them all up for the sake of one man, (Sir Sidney Sunith,) and that till he should be liberated, the British government would not consent to an exchange of prisoners. All efforts were used to inveigle them; they were frequently threatened to be starved, and at other times liquor was given to them, and advantage was taken of them when in a state of intoxication,

- When the combined force of all these various temptations and incitements is fairly considered, it cannot be matter of wonder, that the constancy and courage even of British seamen should have fometimes yielded. Many were induced to enter into the French service, under the hope and promise of being landed in Ireland ; and several applied to their own officers (prisoners with them) for leave to enter, but were refused. Three or four hundred were debauched into the scheme, under the expectation of being sent home for exchange.

“ It might, perhaps, be imagined, that this arbitrary and unprin: cipled measure had arisen from the necessity of the moment, and the want of seamen in the French navy, had it not appeared that it is a part of the system of France to force subjects to serve against their own countries. And here your committee cannot forbear referring to the inftructions given by General Hoche to Colonel Tate; previous to his landing on the coast of Wales, in the beginning of 1797 (and which were found on his perfon) as tending to explain the conduct of the French towards their prisoners. Colonel Tate was ordered to encou. rage all deserters and prisoners to enter into the new companies (which were to be commanded by French officers); • should such prisoners refuse, he will shave their head and eyebrows, and if they are taken again in arms they are to be shot.'

«« The system of ill treating and of oppressing prisoners, was not confined exclusively to the English who were in the prisons of Pontanezan, Nantes, and elsewhere, but was extended to the officers who were on parole in the interior parts of the country.”

Again-" It appears that they (the prisoners) were at the mercy of the French agents, and (among other hardships) when their provisions were delivered out to them, the liver, lights, jaws, and part of the horn, and even the offals of bullocks, were included in their allowance."

After the arrival of Captain Cotes, who succeeded Mr. Swinburne, in September, 1797, as the English Commissary at Paris, the prisoners were to be removed to different places of confinement; and though Captain Cotes was not allowed to visit them until they had been removed, their reinoval did not take place till the first week in March, 1798. On this subject we have the following observations, with which sve shall conclude our account of the book, which we recommend to the aitentive perusal of every Englilbman : NO. VII. VOL. II.

E

" It

« AnteriorContinuar »