« PreviousContinue »
'Tis not your debtors you
A noble trunk in back ground stood,
Her rights, and now triumphant reigns
Uurivall'd in each Briton's breast,
find birelings to screen you
ACT II.-SCENE 1:
The God of dreams now beckon'd,
I saw the inside of a palace
Such lewdness, such dissipation,
Again he wav'd the flower of magic
What wrought the change I long'd to know, . And who bad prostrate laid the foe,
I could not learn--the God Supreme
For his trouble, may be the case
The morning beam'd the curtain dropt,
TO THE EDITOR OF THE REPUBLICAN.
Nothing can be more dangerous to the happiness of the community than deception: it destroys friendship, confidence, and hospi. tality, 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 be 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 na. tural 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 ihe 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 fisty 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 revered rectors, vicars, and priests of all denominations, great supporters of public charities ? And who are they that stand in need of almıs 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, Jaboured, fought, bled, and conquered to maintain the riglits, propers 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, earis, 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 cliarity 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 nity 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 orher extreme poverty and wretcheduess. 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 and 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 tbat producer 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 employ
VOL. III. No. 17.