Page images
PDF
EPUB

For his trouble, may be the case
Of personages now in place.

The morning beam'd the curtain dropt,
My dreaming for that night was stopt
But ere another week pass o'er,

I'll try to dream a little more.

SIR,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE REPUBLICAN.

Nothing can be more dangerous to the happiness of the community than deception: it destroys friendship, confidence, and hospitality; and wherever it exists, whether in the church, on the bench, at the bar, or in the senate, it is the duty of every man to endeavour to expose it.

When deception comes under the cloak of charity, that Christianlike word, our prejudices are so strong in favour of the appellation, that we cannot, or will not, divest ourselves of the idea, that every thing given in that name, is from pity and tenderness for those who stand in need. But if we examine the case fairly, we shall find that the word charity is like the word religion, it is used to corrupt and degrade us. As man supposes himself to be a favourite part of the creation, made in the image of his Creator for some noble purpose endowed with the power of reason and reflection, and having dominion over all-is it not strange that that being who has called him into existence as a favourite, giving him all these superior advantages over the rest; that he should still be the most ferocious, degraded, and unhappy being in all the creation? In no part of the brute creation do we find that they make war to destroy and kill each other of their own species, nor are they dependent on each other for their natural wants; if nature produces sufficient they have all an equal share; all is harmony, peace, and content. Yet man, that vainest of creatures, is a slave to his fellow; he makes war upon and destroys his own species; he prevents his fellow man from enjoying what nature has provided for all his wants; he makes him to honour, obey, fear, and thank him for his daily wants, instead of the God of Nature; he takes from him the common necessaries of life and doles out to him a poor pitiful allowance, just enough to keep life in motion, and that too in the name of charity. How long will man remain the dupe of his fellow, and receive that in charity which the God of Nature has al

lotted to him as his right? Will he never tear the veil from his eyes to see who these charitable men are? Is not our most gracious Majesty George the Fourth a great promoter of public charities, and the giver of alms to soup-shops? has he not made a charitable offer to his wife of fifty thousand a year of the people's money, to live in a foreign country, because she is a disgrace to royalty, and admired by the people? are not the noble dukes, and every branch of that illustrious family, the promoters and patronisers of some public charity or other? are not the noble, marquisses, earls, viscounts, and lords, the promoters of charities? are not the right reverend fathers in God, the archbishops, bishops, and the reverend rectors, vicars, and priests of all denominations, great supporters of public charities? And who are they that stand in need of alms of such men? Is it not the industrious part of the community, the poor, miserable, half-starved labourers and mechanics--they who have by the sweat of their brow, laboured, fought, bled, and conquered to maintain the rights, proper ty, and titles of such men-and can it then be called a charity to give unto such men an equal participation of the common necessaries of life? Can it be charity that induces the royal family to receive a million a-year from the people-can it be from feelings of humanity, that the noble dukes, earls, viscounts, and lords, receive immense sums of money, as placemen, pensioners, and sinecurists, independent of their immense private property, if they should give a few thousands back in the name of charity? can it be charity in the right reverend the archbishops and bishops, the reverend the priests of all denominations to receive from the people about six millions a-year for their religious advice, which costs them nothing? can there be any humanity in such a religion, that draws from the pockets of the industrious part of the community such an immense sum for teaching us a religious duty, which is comprised in a simple sentence, "Do as you would be done unto." Can it be from motives of charity that Bibles are given to the poor, when bread is unattainable? No, this cannot even have the appearance of charity, to see, on the one side, all the luxury and splendour, and on the other extreme poverty and wretchedness. But man does not ask for charity, but for his right to the common necessaries for his labour; every man's industry ought to procure them, and it would if it were not for the inequality of power property. How is property acquired but by society? No man can become rich without the aid of society, and if we examine that case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labour that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence. It is not the loss of our trade and commerce, nor the increase of population, that could have reduced the labour and distressed the country, had the landed property been more equally divided. The land would give employVOL. III. No. 17.

and

ment to all that are in want, it would produce every thing that our nature requires; and why should we ask in charity of man, for that which nature has sent in common for us all. England contains about 33 million of acres. The population does not exceed 8 milliontaking it for granted that there are four million of males, and four million females, and two million boys, old men, and sick, and lame, that are unable to labour, there then remains two million of men that are able. Now here are 33 million of acres for two million of men to cultivate, which is rather more than sixteen acres for each man, and sixteen acres would be labour enough for any one man. Supposing eight million of acres to be covered with water, roads, and houses, they would produce as much labour, or more than that quantity of good land would; and if half the two million were employed in making and manufacturing for the others, there would then be 32 acres for each of the other half to cultivate. Now, is it not an insult to our understanding, to be told there is not a sufficiency of employment for those who wish to live by the sweat of their brow, but that they must be dependent on the will, the caprice, and charity of those that have the property?

August 7, 1820.

THOMAS SINGLE.

*Our correspondent should recollect that if there was a more extensive cultivation of the land, and a greater number of inhabitants, confining themselves to their own produce, and relinquishing the luxuries of life, our virtuous rulers could not raise a sufficiency of taxes from the land to satisfy them and their dependent's wants. This is the obstacle to improvement.

EDITOR.

CONTINUATION OF REPLY TO THE REV. THOMAS HARTWELL HORNE'S PAMPHLET, ENTI TLED "DEISM REFUTED."-From p. 576.

As I have before observed, that it is very difficult to say who is and who is not a bastard, so also ought we to be cautious in attempting to fix any odium on such as are known to be so: in my humble opinion, the law should only know them as citizens, and the parent, when sworn to, should be registered as in a case of baptism, and bound equally to protect and provide for them to the same extent as for children born in wedlock. There can be nothing scandalous in the laws of nature; and where social laws attempt to attach scandal to the laws of nature, it rather injures than benefits the society at large. What would it matter to me if my father or mother had been deemed bastards, which I am satisfied was not the case, I should not consider it the slightest dishonour to them or myself; and even if I myself were a bastard, agreeable to the vulgar appellation, it would not trouble me a moment, and I should think myself of equal importance to the community, as if I had been born from wedded and what is commonly called noble parents. As to the idle talk about royal or noble blood, it is all a farce: and the child of the peasant has his blood perhaps less contaminated with the effects of vice and disease, than the child of a king and queen, duke and duchess, lord and lady, or any other nick-named gentry. The most noble part of a commonwealth are those who produce an healthy offspring, and support them by their own industry.

In the twenty-fifth chapter we find the following passage"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."

Of course we must believe that this came from the mouth of Jehovah, as well as some of the former passages quoted. As it will not bear comment, I must leave the reader to laug over it. I really wonder how the English females, who have more cause to boast their liberty than the males, can bear

the sight of this book. It is one continued scandal upon them.

There is one thing worthy of commendation in this chapter, and that is, that no more than forty stripes should be given for one offence, and this too, we are informed by the Rabbinical Commentators, was inflicted in the least painful manner; for the lash had three stripes, and each stripe of the hand counted for three, so that in fact, the sufferer bore only thirteen stripes according to the present mode of counting. In many other respects the Jewish law was very severe, such as allowing parents to stone to death a stubborn child, and stoning to death for other frivolous matters, such as gathering sticks on a Sabbath, or the vague and indefinite charge of blasphemy. When we consider the English mode of flogging, particularly in the army and navy, we are compelled to pronounce it not a jot less brutal, than the Indian mode of scalping and torture. Happily this barbarity is on the decline and must soon cease. To me it appears, that if the act to prevent cutting and maiming, commonly called Lord Ellenborough's Act, was fully and fairly put into force, it must apply to that species of flogging which shall lacerate the skin and flesh. What is it but a cutting and maiming to see a soldier receive 500 lashes, and perhaps 450 of them are laid on after the back is quite raw and streaming with blood? This is a cutting and maiming in the worst sense of the word, and often leaves the sufferer a cripple for life. Yet even in the last war, there were instances, where 999 lashes were inflicted on the same individual for the same offence, and many were actually flogged to death! The continental modes of torture were all mild when compared with this, and it is astonishing, how nations, as well as individuals, can cry out against the cruelty and barbarity of others, and overlook their own at the same time, which is perhaps the worst of the two. We hear the Russian Knout, the Turkish Bastinado, and several other modes of punishment condemned, still I doubt whether any of them are half so bad as the English mode of flogging. The English flogging cat has nine lashes, each of which is made to bear on the back and to count but as one. The Jews took this into consideration, and inflicted their flogging in the mildest manner possible, by counting every lash that touched the back. The failure of Lord Macartney's embassy to China arose, in a great measure, from the disgust which the Chinese took at seeing an English soldier, in the suite, flogged; by which they concluded, that the English were a barbarous and

« PreviousContinue »