THE following Poem was suggested in an excursion one afternoon to Attenburrow, a village on the banks of the Trent, about five miles south-west of Nottingham, the birthplace of the well known Republican, General Ireton.

If, in the contemplation of the character of that illustrious man, and in the indulgence of feelings excited by a consideration of the great struggle in which he bore so distinguished a part, the author has been led, in the progress of this poem, to animadvert strongly on the state of society as existing in some countries; or to avow sentiments peculiarly favourable to forms of popular government, as opposed to absolute monarchy;—he assures the reader it is not with any wish or intention to weaken the bonds which hold society together, or to excite to discontent or insubordination those classes of the community dependent on labour for their support. His object has been to shew mankind, that their vices and follies are the real cause of their degradation;—that good morals, springing from right principles, form the only sure foundation of civil liberty; and that the men who would found an improvement of the social system, on any other basis than that of an improved moral and intellectual condition of the people, can only enter on a course of fearfully hazardous experiments: rationally hoping for nothing but to reap from the crimes of others, a harvest of contempt and execration as their own portion.

The true patriot is he who aims to elevate the tone of morals among his fellow citizens,—to excite them to a just respect for themselves,—

This was the true spirit of the eminent reformers of the age of Charles the first. They had undertaken the important work of settling the national character and institutions, at a period when men’s minds generally were bent on obtaining an improvement of their social condition—and an extensive toleration of religious opinions: and to accomplish the great benefits their sedate and comprehensive minds contemplated, they strove to induce among all classes, severe and independent habits of thinking and feeling in reference to politics and religion: without which they knew it would be in vain to attempt to abolish the pageantry and frivolity connected with kingly government, that they had begun to despise; or to supersede the heathenish rites and vain ceremonies of outward religion, the reliques of popery, which their souls abhorred; by those spiritual and devout exercises of the mind that themselves practised, and which they conscientiously believed the good of society required, and the laws of God enjoined.[A] Among the patriots no one was more deeply imbued with this sublime spirit, nor partook more largely of the generous enthusiasm it excited, than Henry Ireton, whose inflexible virtue, after the apparent defection of Cromwell, formed the basis on which rested the darling hopes of all the virtuous and enlightened reformers of his day.

In pursuing the train of thought connected with his subject, the author has been led to touch upon the comparative value of republicanism and monarchy, as conducive in the spirit of their institutions, to advance that perfectibility of the social system which he believes it the duty of every true patriot steadily to pursue. And he could not blink the question so far, (claiming to give an honest opinion) as to refrain from avowing that upon the abstract question of theoretical preference he is decidedly favourable to republicanism; at the same time declaring, unequivocally and unreservedly, that he will yield to no man in a cheerful, cordial, and loyal attachment and obedience to the mixed government under which he lives; identified as it is with the most generous feelings of his countrymen; and calculated, as in his conscience he believes it to be, to promote in a superlative degree the glory and happiness of a people with such habits and dispositions; and above all with such a condition of moral and intellectual attainment, as characterizes the community of Englishmen. Nor will he shrink from avowing, that, individually, he should feel himself necessitated by a sense of duty, unresistingly (as far as relates to the employment of physical means,) to obey any form of government, however despotic, under which he should live, so long as such government had the support and approbation of the decided majority of his fellow citizens. It might be his duty to SUFFER in bearing an honourable testimony against tyrants and tyranny; but at this point, in his individual capacity he must stop;—though acting in concert with the true vox-populi, in resistance to the encroachments of ambitious power, or the exactions of established despotism, he would not stop at any thing short of its certain abridgement or final extinction.

To this spirit in our ancestors we owe the revolutions of 1640 and 1688—as individuals they suffered long and grievously for the sake of conscience, and the rights of man in civil society: but individual suffering became at last so identified with the general feeling of disgust and indignation at the despotism of the government, that its character ceased longer to be that of private suffering, or its remonstrance or resistance the effect of personal consideration: hence a legitimate opposition to authority on that great principle, that the public weal forms the only true measure of political allegiance, was aroused; sanctioning such an appeal to force, as under other circumstances, would have been justly stigmatized as treason and rebellion. And it is worthy of remark, that, principally to these two great events, as regenerating the political constitution of our country, and unfettering the conscience and intellect of man; are owing, under providence, most of those stupendous discoveries in science—and those sublime achievements of philanthropy, which are rapidly changing in our day, the moral aspect of the whole world.

That so much real and permanent good was accomplished by these events, is a decisive proof that the minds of Englishmen were fitted to receive and improve the benefits of them; and, of consequence, that a high degree of criminality attached to the men whose devotion to antiquated principles of civil government,—and superstitious veneration for the high prerogatives of barbarous ages, caused them to close their eyes against the light of truth, by which they were surrounded, and to lift their impious, but puny arms against the spirit inspired by heaven for the moral improvement of its creatures: for whilst there must always exist in the previous habits and attainments of nations, a qualification for the rational enjoyment of liberty, in order to prevent it from becoming a curse rather than a blessing; there ought always to prevail in governments a disposition to concede so much as the people know how properly to use;—if this principle form a constituent in the rule of any government, it signifies not by what name it is called—it is strictly a popular form of government, exercising its powers for the good of the people: if not, it is essentially despotic—employing the resources of the state for its own aggrandizement:—and will certainly be overturned at some moment of peculiar excitation, by the natural efforts made by the people, to render their social condition analogous to that improved moral and intellectual condition, subsisting at the period of such excitation—nor ought it, nor can it be otherwise: nor needs there any thing more than this simple principle to explain all popular revolutions, at least, such as have occurred in modern times. To claim for civil government under any name a right to withstand this principle, is to insult the moral Governor of the universe, and to libel human nature by advocating the divine right of governors to rule in unrighteousness. To enjoy liberty, nations in their individual, as well as collective capacity, must be wise and virtuous. Independence, it is true, requires neither the one nor the other of these high attainments; but independence is only the freedom of the savage state:—liberty, the rule of perfect society:—that happy condition, where man is only restrained in the exercise of what is injurious to others, or fatal to himself—where the laws necessitate no evil, and afford occasion for the greatest possible good of which the social institution is susceptible. Independence, mere independence,—founded on abstract considerations of the natural powers and propensities of man, irrespective of the moral effects of established habits and sophisticated institutions, appears to have been the object contemplated by the leaders in the late French revolution. Liberty,—rational liberty!—built on the firm basis of a refined morality, deduced from divine Truth and calculated to purify and exalt human nature, was the good sought for, by most of those men concerned in the subversion of the throne of the Stuarts. Yet have the memories of these men been assailed by the senseless cry of “hypocrites and fanatics,” in every age, by writers who were too timid or too passionate to take a sober view of their motives and actions: and yet in reality they were “men of whom the world was not worthy:”—philanthropists whose piety and genius broke open the sealed fountains of truth and happiness, long denied by the despotism of princes and the artifice of priests, to a suffering world;—but which thence issuing from Britain, have irrigated the world with their majestic streams, and carried beauty and fertility into regions apparently doomed for ever, to the sterile dreariness of slavery and superstition. That they were enthusiasts may be granted: but to denounce enthusiasm in the cause of religion and liberty, (those great interests so intimately connected with the real glory and welfare of mankind,) is to imagine the overthrow of virtue, and to join in confederacy against the true dignity of human nature. Such conduct in the bulk of mankind, is as becoming as if the tortoise were to impeach the character of the noble courser, because in the strength of his power, he makes the earth to shake beneath him as he scours along the plain, and overleaps in his might the enclosure which circumscribes his limited vision.

It is the cant of despotism and infidelity to decry enthusiasm in the cause of religion and liberty: they dread its vivifying effects, as they detest the principles which give birth to its spirit; and therefore seek to render that contemptible in the eyes of their fellows, which puts to shame their own pretensions. What, it may be asked, was there in the degrading frivolity,—in the cold and cheerless scepticism introduced among Englishmen, at the restoration of the second Charles, which could kindle in the breasts of men enthusiasm? or compensate in any degree for the lofty hopes and generous darings of the Puritan heroes?—nothing!—absolutely nothing!—all feeling, except malevolence and voluptuousness, became congealed in the heart of man: and the nation presented the melancholy spectacle, of a people stricken with a general blight. It then became the fashion to ridicule the enthusiasm of the bye-gone days,—and to brand the reformers and their principles with terms of obloquy and reproach:—they were called “hypocrites,”—“fanatics,”—“visionaries,” and “enthusiasts.” That the leaders of them were sincere, is abundantly proved by their general character for integrity, and the sacrifices they made to the cause in which they had engaged;—that they were not “fanatics” is proved as far, at least, as respects the Independents, the true Republicans, by the liberality of their sentiments respecting religious toleration:—that they were not altogether visionary in their plans of government, may be demonstrated from the fact that the broad outline of policy marked out by them, still continues to be the land-marks of British policy; and has been so ever since, both with respect to our intercourse with foreign nations and the conducting of our internal affairs:—and that their enthusiasm neither debased their morals, nor weakened the force of their discrimination nor judgment, the record of their comprehensive plans and vigorous operations satisfactorily testifies. Among those whose memories have shared the largest portion of this abuse General Ireton stands conspicuous. His uncompromising sternness of principle, and intrepidity of conduct naturally exposed him to this: nor is it to be wondered at that such a character, possessing so much compass,—so much originality, and diversity of feature, should be liable to misrepresentation: it is the error of weak or rash minds to distort what they cannot comprehend; and to mistake their own crudities for imperfections in the sublime objects which they casually contemplate. The only cause for wonder would have been, if such a character as Ireton, had not been exposed to calumny and misrepresentation, by prejudiced persons, whose feeble or oblique vision rendered them unable to penetrate the slight mists with which error or inadvertency occasionally dimmed the true light of his glory: ascribing to deliberate criminality, or designed hypocrisy, what in reality only arose from the defectibility of human nature. But is it wise?—is it generous?—is it just?—in Englishmen thus to insult the memories, and degrade the characters of men to whom they undoubtedly owe much of that stamina in their moral character, which has so nobly distinguished them among the nations of the earth? it cannot be! it is high time that society, in the expression of its language, and the indulgence of its opinions respecting them, reversed that attainder under which they were condemned by the frivolous and licentious generation which followed them. This was, as it were, conventionally done by the country at the revolution in 1688—when the Stuarts were decisively expelled the throne of these realms—and the foul infection of their name, allowed no more to pollute the annals of Britain: a most glorious achievement this; which deliberately recognizing by an act of legislation the real voice of the people, as the only basis of legitimate government laid “the divine right of kings” prostrate before “the majesty of the people;” and then reared in triumph in the portico of our constitution, as two beautiful pillars, the “Bill of Rights” and the “Act of Toleration:” thus opening a more noble entrance than had hitherto been enjoyed into that venerable edifice, reared by the conjoined efforts of a long succession of more illustrious patriots than ever graced the annals of any other country; that so Englishmen of every name and party might be admitted to take refuge in its sanctuary, and walk exulting in the light of its glory. The revolution of 1688 certainly removed the stigma, which, but for that event might have rested on the reformers of 1640 as traitors and rebels:—it gave them generally a title to our gratitude and veneration; and most happy will the author of this little work feel himself, if, in following so good an example, he may contribute in any degree, however small, to restore particularly to his just rank among the acknowledged worthies of Britain, one of the most illustrious of those patriots, his much abused countryman, Henry Ireton.

ERRATA.
Page 10, line 12, for has read have.