Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

He

the true account of the quarrels between
the Prince and Princess of Wales.
left it with me to read. I read it, and I
found (for I had seen part of the real Book
before) that, not only was it a mere ro-

ing, a string of lies; but, that the author
never could have seen the Book, or any part
of it.- -When, therefore, Mr. Haydn
returned, I gave him his manuscript;
told him it was all falsehood; told him that
it was very unjust to publish such a thing;
and advised him to have nothing to do with
the matter.The production was, how-
ever, published; and Mr. Haydn brought
me a copy and gave it me.- - He asked
me to mention it in the Register. I told
him, that I could not do any thing tending
to give the work currency, because I knew
it to be wholly false, and because I regard-
ed it as containing matter calculated to do
great injustice to the Princess of Wales.

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. BERKSHIRE MEETING." SPIRIT OF THE "Book."This county, one of the very first in the kingdom to step forward in all cases where justice calls for the people's in-mance, that it was, as to its intended meanterference, met on Monday, the 4th instant, to address the Princess of Wales. -Mr. MONCK moved the Address, and was seconded by Mr. MAKANESS, who was followed by Mr. HALLETT.- These Berkshire men talk too freely for me to dare to insert their speeches. But, I have read, with great pleasure, all the excellent things they said about the parties, high and low, concerned in the transactions of which they spoke. There was a Mr. REYNARD, who spoke against the Address, who was very neatly answered by Mr. H. MARSH. But, what I am anxious particularly to notice with regard to this Meeting, is, an observation of Mr. Reynard, relative to a publication, called the "SPIRIT OF THE "BOOK." This gentleman is reported to have said, that that work contained matter against the Princess, which had not yet been answered.That any person, pretending to speak at a public meeting, should have named such a publication, as containing any thing worthy of serious notice, is quite surprising; and it only shows what shifts and tricks the enemies of the Princess are ready to resort. The thing having been mentioned, however, and on such an occasion, I will, for the information of the Tax-payers of Berkshire, give the real history of this publication.I saw it in manuscript: it was while I was in Newgate for two years, for having written about the flogging of English militiamen, at the town of Ely, in England, under the superintendence of German Troops, and about a year before I paid the Prince Regent a fine of a thousand pounds, for the same crime; while, I say, I was thus in Newgate, a young man, who said his name was HAYDN, came to me with the "Spirit of the Book," in manuscript, and told me that it was the writing of a person then in the King's Bench prison.He told me, that, under feigned names, it was

to

-He then asked me to be so good as to write against it! That I also refused, as being likely to aid in the circulation.However, it wanted no aid of mine. Curiosity; the love of diving into such matters; and the manner of dressing up the story, sent it through all the circulating libraries in the kingdom. The sale was immense; and the profit, as I am told, not less than three or four thousand pounds.

-This is the true history of the work, which Mr. REYNARD thought proper to refer to at the public Meeting of a county, as containing serious matter against the Princess of Wales.What, after this, will not the enemies of the Princess trump up? Will they stop at any thing? I think it is not likely that they will; and, therefore, the public ought to be upon their guard against every thing which they say.

-The Address, in Berkshire, was, it seems, carried with only two voices against it; but, as we are told in the Morning Chronicle, Mr. DUNDAS, one of the Coun ty Members, has refused to present it, on account of certain parts in it. censuring the conduct of the four Lords, who held the Inquiry. If this be true, the people of Berkshire ought to bear it in mind. What

Z

The

right has Mr. Dundas to refuse to comply little deficient; namely, in not having adwith a vote of the whole county upon such dressed the Regent upon the subject of his a ground as that which is here alleged? Royal Consort's escape from so base and The people of the county voted, that the wicked an attempt against her honour and Address, which they agreed to, should be life.- His joy must be as much greater carried up by the county Members; and, if than any other man's, upon the occasion, those Members refuse, what pretty repre- as his honour was more at stake. Her acsentatives they are! They seem to think, how-quittal; the complete proof of her innocence, ever, that they are not chosen by the peo- and of the guilt of her infamous enemies; ple; they well know, that it is not the free the shame, the disgrace, now affixed for popular voice that has placed them where ever on the heads of the "suborned and they are; and, therefore, they disregard," perjured traducers," must give him, Indeed the very likely, that voice. -The Meeting above all men, satisfaction. included, as it ought, all persons in the whole of the Royal Family, and, amongst County, paying taxes; and, surely, a man the female part, the Queen, that good old who pays taxes, ought to have something Lady, her aunt and mother-in-law, must to say in the affairs of the country and the feel her heart warmed at the wiping off of government. Here, again, we see (and, these aspersions on her family. I think, indeed, it meets us every where) the want that Her Majesty also ought to be addressof a reform in the parliament. The state- ed; for, as I find from the Gazette, she was ment about the conduct of Mr. Dundas may addressed upon the marriage of the Princess, be untrue; but, if he has refused, the cause and upon the birth of her child. Why is, that he knows that he does not depend not address the Queen now? I would, if I for his seat upon the payers of the taxes; had any thing to do with Addresses. I do but, in the first place, upon the dependants not like the idea of treating the Queen as if There can be no of Government; upon the aristocracy and she were out of date. the church; and, then, upon their dependants. If every man who pays taxes had had a vote in the county, Mr. Dundas would not have refused to present an Address of the people. Mr. HALLETT made an observation that was very striking. It was this: that, when the Addresses were going on against the conduct of the Duke of York, the movers were accused of factious and disloyal motives; and, that, now that they are addressing the Princess upon her escape from the machinations of disloyal conspirators, they are still accused of factious and disloyal motives.As he observed, these accusers are very difficult to please. The truth is, they depend on the Government for the whole, or part, of what they pos-haps, for this second series of Addresses sess, and, they imagine, that Addresses for the Princess are as disagreeable to those in power as Addresses were against the Duke of York.- -That they think this is manifest enough; but, the wonder is, why they should think so! Why they should imagine, that Addresses, expressing joy at the escape of the wife from a foul, and base, and infamous conspiracy, should be displeasing to any one in power. Why they should think this is the wonder; and yet, that they do think it, appears very clear to me; because I always see them ready to pour in Addresses, when those Addresses are manifestly pleasing to the Government. -There is one thing, in which, I think, the people have been a

doubt; it would be disloyal to doubt, that
Her Majesty must feel the most lively sa-
tisfaction upon the occasion; and, by all
that's loyal, address her I would!
people must meet again. They have but
half done their business. Indeed, though
the Ministers have, perhaps, too much mo-
desty to say it, they, I dare say, are of-
fended to see no Addresses coming forward
to the Queen and the Regent. This, now
I rightly think of the matter, must be the
cause why they appear so cold upon the oc-
casion. Go at them, therefore, with Ad-
dresses to the Regent and the Queen, and I
will engage, that they will discover a strong
fellow-feeling in the work. It is, per-

that the Clergy are reserving themselves; and, I must confess, that I am impatient to see those gentlemen come out. They have seldom been behind hand, when the work of Addressing was going forward in favour of any one of the Royal Family; and, upon an occasion like this, where an innocent woman has escaped from a base combination against her, the Church, it appears to me, ought to have stood in the frost. Why the Clergy have hung back I cannot imagine. I wish some one, at least, of them would give us the reasons for what appears so astonishing. But, at any rate, if they will not come out, let us bear the fact in mind.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

granting the relief liable to objection. (6 -The House went into a Committee, "when leave was moved for and obtained,

THE TRINITY. -This seems an odd 66 was accordingly done.-LORD CASsort of topic for a Political Register; but," TLEREAGH said, he certainly did not see it belongs to politics as much as war does," any reason to object to the principle of it having become the subject of Acts of Par-"the Bill. When the Bill was before the liament, and being now, if the news-papers" House, he would then be enabled to see tell us truth, about to become the subject" if there was any thing in the mode of of a new Act.- This Act will, if passed, make a much greater change in the religion of this country than has ever yet been made. It strikes at the root of Chris-" to bring in the Bill in question."tianity itself. Now, mind, I say this as Now, as the reader will understand, if my deliberate opinion; and the reasons, on this Act pass, any person may, with impuwhich I found this opinion, I will state nity, openly talk, prate, or preach, that fully, when I have inserted the report of the Doctrine of the Trinity is a false Docthe proceedings in the House of Commons. trine.-What, then, is this Doctrine? "MR. Wм. SMITH said, he believed Our Church tells us, that, unless we beno opposition would be made to the mo- lieve in it we must be damned; the belief "tion he was about to submit to the House, of it is, our Church says, absolutely neces "and he therefore would not take up two sary to salvation; and, to allow people "minutes of their attention. The Act of openly to say that it is a false doctrine, King William, known by the name of what is this but to allow people to do their "the Toleration Act, denied to persons utmost to procure and ensure our damnawho disbelieved in the Trinity the bene- tion; and, pray, what did Mr. Paine, or "fit of toleration. An Act of the 19th of Mr. Eaton, or any body else ever do, or "His present Majesty required only the ge- attempt to do, more than this?—But, I neral belief in the doctrines of Christi-am before my story. What is the Doctrine anity and the Scriptures; but it so hap- of the Trinity?- -Why, it is this. That "pened, that though by the Act of the GOD, the Maker of the Universe; the "19th it was not necessary to subscribe the Creator and Sustainer of all things; did, "Articles of the Church of England, pro- through the instrumentality of the Holy fessing the belief in the Trinity, the Acts Ghost, assuming the shape of a Dove, beof the 9th and 10th of King William get upon the body of a woman, his son were not repealed. By these Acts, per- Christ. That Christ, so begotten, was sons who in writing or conversation deny GOD; and that the Holy Ghost was GOD; "the existence of any of the persons of the and yet, that there were not, and are not Trinity, are disabled in law from hold-three Gods, but only one God.-There "ing any office, civil, ecclesiastical, or military, on conviction; and if a second "time convicted, they are disabled to sue ❝or prosecute in any action or information, or to be the guardian of any child, and "liable to be imprisoned for three years. "The only object of his Bill was to do away these penalties. He said the libe"ral Act which was passed last year was "highly creditable to the liberality of the "Ministers of this country, and the timesno Christian; whence it follows, that, in "in which we lived. The only question my clear opinion, the proposed Act, if now for consideration was, whether those passed, would be a sanction to the persons dissenting from the Church of preaching against Christianity.--The diEngland, should be still liable to the pe- vinity of Christ is the basis of Christianity. "nalties of the Acts of King William. He If he was not God; if he may be consider"therefore moved for leave to bring in a ed in any other light; if he may be re"Bill for granting farther Relief to the dif-garded as something less; where is the "ferent Persuasions of Christians in this Country, who disbelieved the Doctrine of "the Trinity.THE SPEAKER observed, "that the regular course was to move first, "that the motion should be submitted to a "Committee of the whole House; which

[ocr errors]

66

are persons who deny this. They say, that they do not believe, that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are one God; they deny that the two latter are Gods, and acknowledge only as God, God the Father.Who is right and who wrong, I have not the presumption to say; but, this I say, that both are not right; that one of the two is wrong; and, I further say, that he who denies the divinity of Christ is

open

boundary? Once let the people be told, that he was a man, and what becomes of the whole system? Take away the law, as it now stands, and see to what lengths men will go. Every one will give his opinion freely upon this point; the incarnation;

the enunciation; the whole thing will be- | are, it seems, quite willing to be bound to come a subject of free discussion, and then a belief of the Scriptures; they believe, it will puzzle any one to devise the means they are content to be bound to believe, of criminating any man, who shall write that God came down, in the cool of the upon the Christian System. Remove this day, and walked in the Garden of Eden; great prop, and, in my opinion, down that he came down and talked to Moses in comes the fabric.- -The morality of the a Cloud; that the Red Sea opened and Gospel is nothing in support of Christianity, formed a sort of walls while the Israelites which stands upon faith; and, if you take passed over; that the Sun and Moon stood away the divinity of Christ, where is ground still at the command of Joshua; that the for your faith? The morality taught by walls of Jericho fell down at the sound of a Christ was taught long before his birth. trumpet; that five loaves and a few small There was, as our Clergy show us every fishes filled thousands of hungry people: day, nothing new in the morality. It was all this, it seems, they are willing to believe the super-natural things that took place in as well as we Church people; and why, I Palestine that were new; it was the mira- should be glad to know, are they to be percles, the resurrection, &c., and, if you take mitted openly to preach against the belief away the divinity of Christ, what becomes of Christ being God? Why do they not of all these? To suppose, that God had a come, at once, and ask for teave to deny son, after the manner of men, is something the whole as well as a part? They cannot so monstrous, so low, so degrading, so ab- comprehend how Christ can be God, by surd, so ridiculous, that it cannot live for a whom he was begotten. Oh, oh! And moment, except in a mind brutified by ig- can they comprehend how the Devil came norance. And yet, this you must believe, to take Christ up to the top of a high if you believe that God and his Son are two mountain, and to offer him all the kingdoms distinct persons, and in nowise united in of the world? Can they comprehend how essence. What, then, is your belief, Mr. all the animals got into one single ark? SMITH, or, rather, the belief of those in Can they comprehend why Deborah and whose behalf the Bill is to pass into a law? Barak sang the praises of Jael, who drove That Christ was not the Son of God? Is the nail through the head of Sisera, while this their belief? If it be, with what de- he was asleep? No: they pretend not to cency do they profess to believe the Scrip- comprehend these. They do, however, ture? With what decency do they call believe them as we Church people do any one, and by way of reproach too, a they do, like us, regard them as mystical; Deist?- You say, that the Act of the and, why, I again ask, cannot they accom19th of the present King, requires ONLY pany us through the whole of our faith? the general belief in the Doctrines of Besides, what do they mean by being Christianity and the Scriptures? ONLY! Why, Sir, this Doctrine is the all-in-all. Without it there is no more in being a Christian than there is in being a Pillite or a Foxite, and, I should be very glad to see any one attempt to prove the contrary.

forced to believe this, or that? They are forced to believe nothing; they are only forbidden to tell any body that they do not believe so and so. That is all. If they will but hold their tongues and their pens, they may believe, or disbelieve just what they No, if this part is taken away, the please. "Tender Consciences," indeed! And whole fabric totters. An Act of Parlia- how are their consciences hurt, how are they ment will, in such case, allow people openly violated, by a law which forbids the telling to say, that the great Creed of our Church of folks that the Doctrine of the Trinity, is a falsehood. Our Church lays down a Doctrine some hundreds of years old, and one point of faith as indispensable in order taught by all our Bishops and Clergy, is to obtain salvation; and the proposed Act false? They are not, as under some ty will permit any one to say, at the Church rannical governments, compelled to make door, that no man need believe any such open declarations that they do believe ac thing, for that the assertion is false, and cording to the Church; they are only forthat one of the most venerable of the Fa- bidden to say that they do not believe acthers of the Church was a retailer of false-cording to the Church; they may keep si hoods.What, then, you will say, per-lence; that is their remedy; and I know haps, are people to believe what they can'not believe? "Cannot believe," pray 'what does that mean? The people, in whose behalf you bring forward the Bill,

[blocks in formation]

not why they should be suffered to express their opinions about Christ, any more than I may not be suffered to express mine about the Regent, or his Judges, or his Ministers.

HA

well as others, opposed to the intended Act. Our Church says, that this doctrine is the basis of our faith; that to believe in the Trinity is absolutely necessary to our salvation; and, why, I ask, is a particular set of men to be allowed to endeavour

saving belief?—I am no Doctor. I do not understand Greek and Latin. But I understand how to count my fingers; and it requires little more to enable any one to discover, that, if one sect be allowed to preach against one part of the Church faith, every other sect ought to be allowed to preach against any part of that faith which they may happen to dislike.I dare say, that an Unitarian Priest will tell me, NO. He will, I'll engage for him, say, that people ought to be permitted to deny the Godhead of Christ, but that they ought not to be permitted to deny the authenticity of any Chapter in Genesis or Numbers. No such latter denial does not, probably, suit him. That might lead to consequences that he would not like. If those chapters were set aside, others might, and, at last, away might go the whole; there would then be no want of an interpreter, and his priestship would be at an end. No, no: I am for no partial repeals. I am for a general Act, permitting every man to say or write what he pleases upon the subject of religion, or, I wish the whole thing to remain what it now is.

-Let them hold their tongues and their pens, and their faith is absolutely without shackle!When Mr. EATON was tried, the Attorney-General, Gibbs, called for punishment upon the old man, because his book was calculated to endanger the souls of the people, by causing them to disbe-openly to prevent us from entertaining this lieve the doctrines of Christianity. Now, of the Doctrines of Christianity the principal one is, that Christ is God; that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; and that these are not three but one. This, our Church says, we must believe, or we cannot be saved. What, then, having Mr. Eaton's prosecution and punishment in our eyes, are we to think of a proposition for passing a law to permit people openly to preach, that this Doctrine is false; that this faith, upon which the Church tells us our salvation absolutely depends, has no truth in it; and that we ought to believe no such thing? -These are my reasons against the proposed Act. But, besides these, there are others. If the Unitarians are to have an Act passed to authorize hem to preach against the Trinity, why should not the Deists have an Act passed to authorize them to preach against Revelation altogether. If one Sect is to be indulged in denying what they do not believe, why not another Sect in denying what they do not believe? If I am told, that it is right to ease the Tender Conscience of the Unitarian, I ask why the Tender Conscience of the Deist is wonder that the Clergy, so active as not to be considered? I have no objection they are upon other occasions, where the to an Act of Parliament to allow men to interests of the Church are in question, say and to write whatsoever they please should be so silent on this occasion. They upon the subject of religion; but, if such cry out that the Church is in danger, when an Act is not to be passed, I really can see a few Roman Catholics want only to share no reason for this favour to one particular in the good things under government; but, Sect. If this Sect be indulged in preach-here, where the very bowels of the Church ing against the Trinity, another may ask for permission to preach against the Resurrection, and so on, till, really, our laws will have chipped the whole of the Scriptures away and all the doctrines growing out of them, or ingrafted upon them. An Act to permit men to say and publish what they please upon the subject of religion would be much less hostile to the Church, than would be an Act giving permission as to one particular doctrine; because in this latter, the parliament seem to give up that doctrine to be demolished; whereas, if the permission were general, it would seem to proceed merely from a wish to remove all restraint as to men's faith.- -In short, I do not see why this particular sect should be indulged; and I am, on that ground as

are aimed at, they say not a word! Is it, because they do not perceive that the Unitarians want to get at their temporalities? I do not know that they do; but, I dare say they would have no objection to come in for a small portion.

MR. CREEVEY.- -The case of this gentleman was argued, last week, in the Court of King's Bench, upon a motion of Mr. Brougham for a new trial, upon the ground of misdirection on the part of Judge Le Blanc, who presided at the trial at Lancaster. I have inserted the proceedings below. They are of very great importance. The Court decided against him; and, in my opinion, decided very fairly.The only thing that Mr. Cree

« PreviousContinue »