« PreviousContinue »
chuse to produce. But in a pamphlet recently published by Mr. Mills, we have a list of those who may be called the Direclors of this Company, with a few explanatory comments, which we shall here abridge.
“The Queen's fourteen avowed Prosecutors then in the Cubinet are as follow,
"1. The Earl of Liverpool. The origin of this Lord was from a Lawyer to a Baron 34 years ago, with a transition to the Earldom 24 years since. This Earl and family derive from the public annually the sum of 35,4501.” Multiplying this 33,5401. by only 24 ycars, although for more than 50 years past this family has received the public money, we have the sum of 804,9401. as paid to this servant's family.
2. Lord Eldon. The origin of this Lord in his own lifetime like the sin. ful Mr. Bergami, was the result of his own merit or adventurer. He was the son of a coal-fitter at Newcastle, and recommeoded himself to the notice of his superiors as a fit tool for the company! by declaring that he was ready to sacrifice the King to its interests, on the trial of Mr. Hardy, in the following words .--" If the KING SHOULD CONSENT to ack with any representation OTHERWISE than it is now constituled, he ougar TO DIE, and I TRUST IN GOD HE WOULD NIE.” This Lord and family derive from the public annually the sum of 50,4001. Calculating that this lawyer has enjoyed the family revenue for only 25 years, it would amount without joterest of money to 1,260,0001.
3. WBSTMORELAND, E. (Fane). This Earl and Family derive from the public annually the sum of 51,6501.
Supposing this income to have lasted 10 years it amounts to 516,5001.
4. The Earl of Harrowby. Nobility was first conferred upon this family of the lower order by the late King, the Earldom given by the , advice of the present ministers. This Earl and family derive 11,902'.
Supposing this worthy president only to have enjoyed his income to bimself and relatives from 1791, when he was Paginasier of the Forces, his receipts would be 345,158l.
5. Viscount Sidmouth. This is another of the Baron Bergami's rivals, who has had the good fortune lo raise biisself by bis talents. He remained a lower order man till 1805, when bis good friends in office filled his veil's with noble blood, and for his patriotic services to his country he draws from her ignoble blood, 17,025).
Supposing this profound statesinan to have received his present income for himselt and family 20 years, although he has been in the receipt of the public money a great deal longer, they would have received 340,5001.
6. Viscount Castlereagh, of the ancient family of the wicked Bergami's; that is, one of those who can date their rank from their mierit. No one can tell what this man bas amassed or guess what his influence is worth in pounds sterling. His father and family are said to possess the following income, but Lord Castlereagh bimself has had, it appears between 30,000l. and 40,0001. a year spent upon bis inissions alone.28,2551.
1. Earl Bathurst left the lower orders in the year 1772, and condescends to receive with a doble title for himself and famíiy, at the bands of the people, 35,4331.
If this income be correctly stated in 20 years, it would amount to 708,4601. of the public money,
8. Right Honourable Nicholas Vansittart, the paper Chancellor of the paper Exchequer, a very religious good character, having a nominal soug income of his owo, of only 7,5001. a year, but as his brother in.
law does the country the honor of reckoning an income to his family of 32,335l. a year, we will e'en take the family inconic of Lord AuckJaod, at 17 years enjoyment, amounting to 459,6901.
9. Viscount Melville, made noble in 1802. The present income of this pohleman's family is 18,7761.
Wbich, if received for eighteen years, would amount to 337,9681.
10. Duke of Wellington, ennobled by the present ministers for bis military prowess. This noble lord, thanks to the brave soldiers he commanded, has obtained a noble reward. His pensions amount to 12,5311.; and this man has already cost the country more than a million of money. -65,74 11.
11. Right Honourable Charles Bathurst (brother-in-law to Lord Sid. mouth). It is alleged that the Queen added Bergarni's sister, the Countess of Oldi, to her suite, but her Majesty thereby only placed one lady in offiee, at least she did not take two old women oui of one family.
12. Right Hoo. W. W. Pole (not yet ennobled), brother to the Marquis of Wellesley and Duke of Wellington. This gentleman is Master of the Miut, and joint Remembrancer of Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in addition to his own income, stated to be 12, 1501. the Marquis and his family are said to cnjoy 30,8551. per year, which for 20 years would amount to 866,1001.
13. Right. Hon. F. G. Robinson, whose family income is stated at 4,7751.
14, Last, though not least, of the Cabinet, the Right Hon. George Canning. This gentleman's noble birth placed along side Mr. Bergami, elevates the latter at once iuto a Baron, inasmuch as the comparison is no longer between nominal titles or royal distinctions, but bel ween the base born and the free. The mission of this Right Hon. (ientleman to Lisbon, where he held the sinecure situation of ambassador, cost the country 18,0001. This may
be considered as the board of management of this Join Stock Corupany, and “ out of the Cabinet," we have the following list of artive auxiliaries, with their reusons, and they are ample enough, for the prosccution of the Queen.
MINISTERS OUT OF THE CABINET. Lord Cholmiondely, £10,050 Hertford,
34.758 Montrose, 4,266 Paliñersion,
2,480 Chichester, 9,000 Salisbury,
6,400 Rt Hon. Long, 3,500 Wallace,
1,500 Oakes, 5,000 Huskisson,
2,400 Sir R. Gifford, 6,000 | Sir I. S. Copley,
4,000 The sum total of the advantages of these lwenty-six servants of the Crowel, alias Masters of the Joint Stock Company, is £488,399 !!!!!! 'The annual advantages of 164 more out of 225 of her Majesty's Judges, amount lo £1,280,252!!!!! And the patron of the Society; receives, for his share, L595,000 per annuin !!!!! Was there ever heard of so profilalle a Joint Stock Company before? Well might Lord Eldon ihreaten to kill the King, if he should care to use bis rcasul, lo the
prejudice of the Company; but trifles light as air, often destroy the most deliberate machinations ; and his policy will indeed be mortified, if a Queen should avenge the cause of an insulted King, and a woman be the means of obtaining freedom for an enslaved people!
CONTINUATION OF REPLY TO THE REV. THOMAS HARTWELL HORNE'S PAMPHLET, ENTITLED “ DEISM REFUTED.”
[Concluded from p. 888.]
! From the son of God one might have expected some proof of the resurrection of the human
race, particularly as he knew the question of the Sadducees vas a mere bait for the purpose of trying his opinions on that subject; but the answer is an evasion, a mere shuffle, it is nothing applying to the question. Some of the new fangled Christians, such as the Unitarians and Freethinkers, merely believe that Jesus was sent to give the human race an exemplary proof of the resurrection. Do they find a support for their idle notions in the last extract, where Jesus is challenged to the point by those who disbelieved the immortality of man? Or how can they reconcile the rejection of all the miracles attributed to Jesus, and embrace that only of the resurrection ? I could never feel any thing like charity towards these sort of Christians, to me they appear anxious to establish a new fangled priesteraft, that retains the title of Christian merely to evade the penal laws which are in force.
I find nothing worthy of notice in the remainder of this book of Matthew; Jesus is charged with blasphemy by the Jews, and put to death as an innovator on established customs and opinions. He is made to rise again from the dead, and then to converse with his disciples as before; but this gospel does not send him to heaven nor give us any account of his end, therefore this story is but half told, and yet this was the original root of what is called Christianity; all the other gospels are mere branches from this root on which some new and additional lies have been grafted. Surely this book needs no comment for the exposure of its falsehood, or for a proof that it is a silly romance, it would be sufficient if we could pro
cure it a calm and unprejudiced reading, with a mind resolved to free itself from superstition and to enquire after truth.
I have gone through the book of Matthew, (for it is a perversion of words to call it Gospel, whích signifies, a true saying) and, if it be asked why I have not been more particular in noticing the several tales in it, I answer, because, I have a solemn conviction on my mind that every tale which speaks of the appearance of God in any shape or manner, or of angels, or of devils, or of what is commonly called ghosts or spirits"; or of miracles, such as are said to be supernatural ; or of prophecies; or of any thing that is not strictly natural, is nothing more than the invention of man, and cannot lay claim to our attention, much less our credence. I record this conviction with a hope that every reflecting mind will receive it as a sufficient reason why I should have treated those tales so lightly, or in some instances to have passed them unnoticed. It is impossible to offer argument against them further than by saying, that the laws of nature warrant us in not believing any thing of the kind; and we can only attest the falsehood of such tales by this authority, and no other. We have one thing in evidence against the truth of those tales, and that is, the Christian priests have continued to work all those miracles and to produce all those appearances down to a late period, or rather as long as they found persons credulous enough to believe ; but no sooner did the printing press begin to expand the mind of man with reason in Europe, than those tales or miracles began to vanish, and they have seceded in proportion to the progress of that reason, until we have no prophets, no miracle-workers, no visible gods, angels, devils, ghosts, or spirits, to be seen or heard. It has been altogether priestcraft, from the first to the last, a species of successful imposture by which millions of priests have led an idle life, and have supported themselves in splendour by the plunder of the industrious part of mankind. They have endeavoured to propagate a notion that they are the teachers of morals, but it is altogether a false assertion; mankind would have been naturally moral, if they had not been corrupted by kingcraft and priestcraft. The majority of priests in all ages have displayed a decidedly immoral example; and we well know, that where precept issues from an opposite example, it proves of no avail. Their pretended moral precepts have been a mere delusion, and have been used only as a necessary prop to their impos
tures. Morals mnst proceed from a less impure source to be observed, or to impress the mind of man with any force. Virtue and morality are now struggling with religion, not in conjunction but in opposition, and every sincere advocate of the former must wish for the downfall of the latter.
It will not therefore be expected, that I should take more than a cursory view of the next three books, the book of Mark, the book of Luke, and the book of John.
The book of Mark is but a compendium of the book of Matthew, with some few tales in addition, and others a little varied. It is admitted by all who have studied the early history of Christianity, that Matthew's book was the first extant, and the only book of the kind for some years. Its existence cannot be traced to any period before the destruction of Jerusalem; and we do not find any of the Epistles in the New Testament make mention of it, which could not have failed being done had it been known. Thus it appears, that it was not until the Christians had become numerous, that they formed this new fangled fanaticism into any direct form or shape; and this
may in some measure account for the variety of Gospels, as they were called, and so many different stories as were floating about Jesus before the time of Constantine. Every district, province, or church, formed its own tales on this head, and Gospels and Epistles were as numerous and various as churches and chapels.
It has been said that Mark was the follower of Peter, but there is not the slightest proof of any thing of the kind ; and I am inclined to think that the stories about those persons who are called the twelve disciples of Jesus, and the story of Jesus himself, are either fabulous, or, at least, a little fact mixed up with much fable. The whole Christian world has been famous for the invention of lies and wonderful tales, which habit was unquestionably borrowed from the Jews, as the first Christians were nothing more than one of those sects of the Jews, who, instead of believing the Messiah was to come, asserted that he had been. When it was found that this notion made but little progress among the Jews, its supporters began to preach it to the Gentiles, as they were called, for they were like every other sect of fanatics, they received converts from all sources, and it mattered not as to character or morals, so that they could but increase their numbers. We have nothing like authentic history of any