Year: 1860

". wy N"S'o ". fOJ"'SJ S"'s s"S hN~S'oisJ


which required it.


Mr.. Thackery has not been kind enough


to give us the benefit of General Lam


bert's cogitations upon custom, conse
quently we are compelled to substitute
our own comparatively worthless ones il
their stead. It is O word that carries u.
far back, rs far as the creation of man


1t is invested with all that time car
honor or antiquity make venerable. Per
haps from its great age it derives part
of its almost omnipotent power, for man
kind entertain veneration for that which
is old. However much custom may have
changed, and however arbitrary and toe
often absurd its requirements may now
be, it is very evident that it is the child
of necessity, and although it frequently
leaves its parent 10 indulge in crimes and
vagaries it must sooner or later acknowl-
edge the paternal authority. II may be
that acknowledgement will be deferred un-
til the dawning of the perfect day. We
know if not before, that then it must be
made. And as we are all its creatures,
and as individuals moved like puppets at
its command, yet changing and moulding
it to any form we please as masses, it may
not bo amiss to inquire how much of res
pect we should pay TO it, and how far our
obedience should extend. Let us be pre-
sumptuous enough to inquire if the inn
piled excuse of Martin Lambert to him
self was valid, and if submission to
or practice of wrong can be justified be-
cause custom or law land they are essen
TALLY for the purposes of this inquiry the
same demand it!


Martin Lambert, the educated and
Independent English gentleman-the sin
cere and practical christian, with percep-
tions keen enough to see and a conscience
to feel wrong, as he walked with his wife
and daughters upon the promenade
grounds at Bath, moralizing upon and
satirizing the meanness of his king, is the
person wo shall select to illustrate tho
subject. Did not Martin by his sarcasm
upon his gracious majesty evincc how
thoroughly he despised him; and can we
suppose he felt otherwise than indignant
in being compelled to acknowledge him
self the subject Of sovereign so entirely
debased. He was q General; war was
bis trade, and he could have drawn his
sword against his king, as he had often
drawn il for him, and we have no reason
to suppose that he was believer in the
divine right of kings to rule. He was
entirely free from any such foolish bigot-
ry, or he would not have made use of such
seathing irony in the presence of his wife
and daughters. Nor can VIC believe from
what we can learn of his character that
he was deferred by selfish fear from throw
ing off his allegiance to a king stained
with vice and crime. Nor could custom
alone in the absence of any other reason,
have enough in it of sacredness to an
original and independent thinker to keep
him loyal to the lid George. How hu-
initiating it must have been to genuine
man like him to have seen the prostration
of Bishops and Lords before one so vile,
and reflect that the only way he could OBJ
tain reward for faithful services and gain
the favor of bis sovereign, was by being as
abject and debnsed as they were. Must
not his soul have revolted, and his whole
manhood have been shocked and disgust
ed with the thought.


And yet he remained true and faith
full subject, and had occasion required,
probably king George had not in all his
realm one who would have moro freely
risked life and limb in defence Of the
British crown. Two considerations would
have impelled him 10 this. The first was
the consciousness of the power that Gus
tom exerted over the minds of the people,
and the second was that the history of his
country had proven that constitutional
monarchy was for it the best form of gov
ernment. To man like General Lam
bert, intelligent and inquiring, custom
would have in it nothing of virtue, only
so far as it tended to guard right. But
all the citizens of England were not Mar
tin Lamborts, and to the mass, the great
herd OF the vulgar and uneducated, the
simple fact that long and we'll estab.