offered me by a rude man, who violates my feelings extremely, as by the loss I sustain from a person who takes an undue advantage of me, or who tricks me fraudulently out of my property. But it is not with a view to this point that I have laid down the position. For the present, I confine myself entirely to the almost universal, but highly reprehensible, custom of wanton and petulant contradiction in conversation, which so frequently engenders strife, animosity, revenge, and not unfrequently bloodshed.

In company, when a fact is stated, or an opinion offered, it almost always happens, that a certain portion of the hearers, instead of reflecting whether they may not, without impropriety, or a violation of veracity, assent to the opinion, or admit the fact, torture their imaginations to find out any improbability in the latter, or exception to the former. The first is by far the most unjustifiable; and, if the fact be stated on the authority of the narrator, is a violation of the fundamental rules of decency and politeness, amounting absolutely to a declaration that the speaker lies. This procedure is so truly shocking, that no person who has the smallest pretensions to the character of a gentleman, will be guilty of it. Of those accustomed to act thus, I say with Horace:

"Hi nigri sunt: hos, tu, Romane, caveto."

On the subject of opinions advanced, the case is somewhat different. Contradiction here is not by any means so offensive or ungentlemanly. But even in this case much impropriety of conduct and gross errors prevail. There are many persons, highly estimable in every other point of view, who, when a position is advanced, which is perfectly correct, in nineteen cases out of twenty, overlook the nineteen cases which, according to all the rules of politeness, not only admit, but imperiously demand assent. They advance the solitary exception, and on that hazard a flat and unqualified contradiction. The speaker is reduced to the very unpleasant alternative of either abandoning in silence the ground he has taken, and thus yielding an easy triumph to his ungentlemanly opponent, or else of entering into a long and tedious argument to support his opinion. If he adopt the latter plan, it produces a similar effort on the opposite side. The consequence is too frequently irritation and anger between the parties. And thus is too often banished the harmony of the whole circle.

It is unnecessary to state how diametrically opposite this is to the character and conduct of a gentleman. I venture to assert that urbanity requires us frequently to pass over in silence opinions which we have reason to believe entirely erroneous: for if we are to contradict every thing we hear advanced in company, which we disbelieve, it destroys the chief pleasures of social intercourse, and changes conversation into disputation and contention. I would not, however, be understood to mean, that we should pretend assent, when our convictions would be in hostility with our words. This would be simulation and deception, and on the man who should practise it, would affix the stamp of degradation.

To the rule laid down in the preceding paragraph, there will be many opposed. They will assert that our " silence gives assent;" that it is disingenuous not to controvert error wherever we meet it; and advance various other reasons somewhat plausible. I am, however, firmly convinced of the propriety of the rule, and of the advantages that would result from the general observance of it. But whatever may be the diversity of sentiment respecting that, there cannot, among rational or polite people, be any on the subject of another rule, which I strongly recommend to the observance of those who honour my lucubrations with a perusal, and that is, never, on any account, to controvert a position which is substantially correct, merely because they can imagine an exception to it; nor to express a doubt of a fact because it is improbable. I believe that this rule cannot, in any instance, be violated without a departure from those rules that ought to regulate the conduct of a gentleman.

I add one more observation. The less a man has seen-the more scanty his intellectual powers-and the more contracted his knowledge, the more prone he is to doubt the truth of every extraordinary fact he hears, and to controvert any idea out of the narrow track of his own paltry conceptions. He makes his thimble-full of brains the infallible test of right and wrong. He who has had opportunities of seeing the world on a large scale, or who has perused books extensively, must have seen and read of numberless things which will appear incredible, nay, impossible, to the insignificant animal who has not gone beyond his A, B, C, in study, and has always vegetated upon the spot where Nature thought fit to place him. The former has read of various incidents of the most extraordinary kind, which are

nevertheless established on the very best authority. To the latter these appear as extravagant as the wild stories of Sir John Mandeville, of one-eyed and headless nations.-Idem, p. 119.

SAME SUBJECT.-A few evenings since, I was in a company in which the effects of Thomas Paine's writings, in the early stage of the American Revolution, was a subject of conversation, and finally of ardent dispute. One gentleman boldly contended that they had had no effect whatever-that the mass of the nation had been previously prepared for independencethat there was none any way doubtful or hesitating, but the wealthy and higher orders generally, who could not be affected by such a flimsy composition as Common Sense. Another asserted with equal earnestness, that "Common Sense" had been eminently instrumental in reconciling the public to independence and in removing the objections that had been made to it by many of the warmest friends of the liberty of this country. In a word, he stated on the authority of the late John Dunlap, and numbers of other persons of the very best information, that some weeks previous to the appearance of Common Sense, it was highly unpopular to advocate a declaration of independence, whereas some weeks afterwards it was equally unpopular to advocate any thing short of that bold measure. He added, on the same authority, that carts-full of the pamphlets were dispersed in every quarter, under the direction and at the expense of the committee of safety.

The parties could not agree, and the dispute terminated as such foolish disputes usually do, in a downright altercation. Each party obstinately persisted in the assertion of his opinion -and there was no umpire to decide.

The dispute had no reference whatever to any other part of the career of Mr. Paine, or to his character either then or subsequently thereto—It merely referred to that portion of his political writings, styled "Common Sense." This is necessary to be distinctly understood, in order to form a correct estimate of the merits of the question.

As other persons besides the first party alluded to above, may entertain the same erroneous opinions of the revolutionary services of Mr. Paine, it may not be unentertaining to your readers to furnish authentic testimony on the subject, so as to remove all doubt, and to enable them to form a correct estimate

on one of the leading points of the most important period of the history of their country. I therefore annex extracts from a work, of indisputable authority on the subject.* Before I close this introduction, I cannot help lamenting the immense folly of that spirit of contradiction, which is so very prevalent; which leads to so many frivolous disputes; which so frequently breaks up long established intimacies and friendships, and has as often as any other cause, led to duelling and bloodshed. Although we ought by no means to assent to what we disbelieve; nevertheless we are not called upon dogmatically to contradict every fact stated or opinion advanced in our hearing to which we cannot assent. This would lead to debates and disputes, and destroy the pleasure of conversation.

Our minds are so variously formed-our opinious so very

* From Ramsay's History of the United States, vol. 2., p. 154. "While the public mind was balancing on this eventful subject, several writers placed the advantages of independence in various points of view. Among these, Thomas Paine, in a pamphlet under the signature of Common Sense, held the most distinguished rank. The style, manner and language of this performance were calculated to interest the passions and to rouse all the acting powers of human nature. With a view of operating on the sentiments of a religious people, scripture was pressed into his service, and the powers, and even the name of a king, were rendered odious in the eyes of the numerous colonists, who had read and studied the history of the Jews, as recorded in the Old Testament. The folly of that people in revolting from a government instituted by heaven itself, and the oppression to which they were subjected in conse quence of their lusting after kings to rule over them, afforded an excellent handle for prepossessing the colonists in favour of republican institutions and prejudicing them against kingly government. Hereditary succession was turned into ridicule. The absurdity of subjecting a great Continent to a small Island, and on the other side of the globe, was represented in such striking language as to interest the honour and pride of the colonists, in renouncing the government of Great Britain. The necessity, the advantages, the practicability of independence were forcibly demonstrated. Nothing could be better timed than this performance. It was addressed to freemen who had just received convincing proof, that Great Britain had thrown them out of her protection, had engaged foreign mercenaries to make war upon them, and seriously designed to compel their unconditional submission to her unlimited power. It found the colonists most thoroughly alarmed for their liberties, and disposed to do and suffer any thing that promised their establishment In union with the feelings and sentiments of the people, it produced surprising effects. Many thousands were convinced and were led to approve, and long for a separation from the mother country. Though that measure a few months before, was not only foreign from their wishes, but the object of their abhorrence; the current suddenly became so strong in its favour, that it bore down all opposition."

different-our means of information run in such dissimilar channels, that few sentiments beyond mere common-place saws, can command the general assent of a large company. And therefore if every person makes a practice of denying every thing he disbelieves-and forcing the speaker to enter into proof or defence, of what he has advanced, mixed society, the genuine source of so much rational delight will lose more than half its joys. And many men, of whom I freely confess myself one, would prefer total silence to being obliged to defend every thing they say. I am no advocate of a slavish and hypocritical assent with, or without belief-far indeed from it. And therefore if our opinion be asked on points to which we cannot assent, we ought to express a decided, but a mild dissent. But this by no means implies either a necessity or propriety of contradicting whatever does not meet our opinions or impressions at the moment.-Philadelphia Sentinel, Oct. 9, 1817.

FALLACY OF HISTORY.-Who was he that said that history was a bundle of lies? Was he very wide of the mark? I believe not. Let me quote an instance in proof.

There is an historian of the highest possible reputation, [Hume,] whose work has been translated into almost all the languages of Europe, and been regarded as a model, not merely of style, for which it is highly and justly celebrated, but by some extolled for its fidelity-who has fallen into the grossest errors, without censure, and even almost without notice.

In giving an account of a most important and highly controverted event, [the Irish rebellion,] he has forty-five references to the authorities on which his narrative rests, and of these no less than thirty-three are to a book written by a person, who could with propriety say of such parts of his work as were correct, quorum magna pars fui.

This latter book, [Temple's History of the Irish Rebellion,] however, is one of the basest, most false, and most corrupt that ever was written. It is one continued tissue of falsehood, and as absurd and ridiculous as The Seven Champions of Christendom, Don Bellianis of Greece, or Parismus, Parismenos, and Parismenides. Many of the pretended facts are not merely to the last degree improbable, but absolutely impossible, and contrary to the most established rules of nature. The book, which