bellowing, turnings round, and, above all, the penances of the followers of Buddh with those of Roman devotees.  But he is not going to dwell here on this point; it is dwelt upon at tolerable length in the text, and has likewise been handled with extraordinary power by the pen of the gifted but irreligious Volney; moreover, the elite of the Roman priesthood are perfectly well aware that their system is nothing but Buddhism under a slight disguise, and the European world in general has entertained for some time past an inkling of the fact.

And now a few words with respect to the motives of the writer for expressing a hatred for Rome.

This expressed abhorrence of the author for Rome might be entitled to little regard, provided it were possible to attribute it to any self-interested motive.  There have been professed enemies of Rome, or of this or that system; but their professed enmity may frequently be traced to some cause which does them little credit; but the writer of these lines has no motive, and can have no motive, for his enmity to Rome, save the abhorrence of an honest heart for what is false, base, and cruel.  A certain clergyman wrote with much heat against the Papists in the time of—­who was known to favour the Papists, but was not expected to continue long in office, and whose supposed successor, the person, indeed, who did succeed him, was thought to be hostile to the Papists.  This divine, who obtained a rich benefice from the successor of—­who during -’s time had always opposed him in everything he proposed to do, and who, of course, during that time affected to be very inimical to Popery—­this divine might well be suspected of having a motive equally creditable for writing against the Papists, as that which induced him to write for them, as soon as his patron, who eventually did something more for him, had espoused their cause; but what motive, save an honest one, can the present writer have, for expressing an abhorrence of Popery?  He is no clergyman, and consequently can expect neither benefices nor bishoprics, supposing it were the fashion of the present, or likely to be the fashion of any future administration, to reward clergymen with benefices or bishoprics, who, in the defence of the religion of their country write, or shall write, against Popery, and not to reward those who write, or shall write, in favour of it, and all its nonsense and abominations.

“But if not a clergyman, he is the servant of a certain society, which has the overthrow of Popery in view, and therefore,” etc.  This assertion, which has been frequently made, is incorrect, even as those who have made it probably knew it to be.  He is the servant of no society whatever.  He eats his own bread, and is one of the very few men in England who are independent in every sense of the word.