ples. It is to the principles we must look and not to the nominal distinction. I have never used the word Republican as an epithet, without a full explanation of the principles on which I have found it: can the Reformers, radical or moderate, say as much for themselves? If a man tells me that he is a Radical Reformer, and I show him that the principles upon which he founds that term will not produce Radical Reform, without calling in the aid of other principles; can be honestly adhere to that name upon his own alleged principles, without avowing the others that prove his own inefficient to his avowed object? Before the Radicals say any more about union upon their inefficient rotten principles, let them answer this question.

This, Republicans, is our answer to the manifesto which has lately been issued from the Radical Head Quarters on the subject of Union. We will unite, we wish to unite, but that union must be both honest and useful; it must be founded upon principles that cannot be shaken, nor shewn to be corrupt in the least degree. If the Radicals can shew us that there is any thing corrupt in the principles we advocate, and for the practice for which we contend, we will set them an example instantly and shake off, and in future disown, whatever they prove to be corrupt.

This then is our manifesto to them in reply to the one they have put forth; this is the ground upon which we will meet them and unite. If they can shew us that all we wish to abolish are not corruptions or not really mischievous to the general interests; if they can shew us that by demanding so much we even delay the acquisition of a part, we will yield to them and unite nearer their own ground; but if they cannot do this, and still persist in withholding themselves from our ranks, we know what conclusions to draw from their motives and conduct, and we will continue to denounce and to impeach their principles.

I am one of those who think we have never lost any thing by asking too much; but rather, that we have never gained any thing by not asking enough. Let the Radicals shew the contrary; and let the Whigs be silent until they can do the

same.

Republicans, hold on to your principles; your perseverance, determined resolution, and example have disconcerted both Radicals and Whigs. Like all other corrupt factions, they would all unite to persecute us, or to put us down, and you need not be surprised if you see some such attempt as this take place. But bear in mind this one gránd axiom:

that good principles will always triumph over those that are bad, whatever may be the momentary inequality of numerical support. Unless, then, they can combat our principles, we will not heed their attacks upon our persons. We will not fear them; we shall certainly thin their ranks, and draw off every one that has a spark of honesty about him, by continuing to hold up better principles to their view. Be this then our conduct; be this our line of march; be this our resolution, and we shall always feel the satisfaction in saying, we were among the first in the Island of Great Britain that started fair, and in the right path to the Goal of Liberty.

Let us once hear Russia actually at war with Turkey, and many months will not elapse before France, Spain, and Portugal will revolutionize themselves into Republics. Then adieu to British Monarchy; may it never return.

TO MR. D. KING.

R. CARLILE.

A part of this Letter having been omitted last Week for want of room, we have thought it requisite to reprint the whole in our present Number, that our Readers might have the entire Letter before them.

Dorchester Gaol, May 26.

CITIZEN, ACCEPT my thanks for taking upon you the two thousandth part of mine and my sister's fines, for though I am willing to give up every atom of my own property towards meeting them, I do hold it to be the duty of every man who calls himself an enemy to persecution, whether he be of my opinion or not, to take a portion of those fines upon himself. My crime, and that of my sister, is the publication of a book that questions the truth and validity of the Christian system of religion. I published that book under a conviction that it contained more truth than does the Christian .system of religion, or all the books connected with that system and in doing this I conceived I performed a duty, a virtuous duty, as a member of the community, under an impression, that whatever is questionable as to its truth or nominal value, ought to be questioned for the good of that community. My sister published her book as my agent, and at my request, when she saw I had need of her assistance from the penalties that she conceived had been unjustly heaped upon me. This is the extent of her crime. Is there, I would ask, a man in being, calling himself a Christian,

who would wish to preserve the form of the Christian religion if it can be shewn to be founded in falsehood and corruption? If there be such a man he must be corrupt and dishonest. Since, then, the Christian religion is questionable; since it has been questioned by thousands of the best informed men, by men who, above all others, were the most competent to judge, and whose judgment must have been impartial because it militated against their private and individual interest; since this has notoriously been the case, I take upon me to say, that no honest, no rational man can be living in this country but must deprecate my persecutions, and must feel himself persecuted through me, and ought to share the burthens thrown upon me. It matters not whether he be Christian, Jew, or Turk, if he be honest, he must feel himself wounded and persecuted through me. If he values his religion only because he thinks it to be the most pure, he must feel a doubt on his mind when that religion is questioned, and when it is notorious that the person who so questions it has only been met by an imprisonment of his body and a destruction of his property. Ought he not, then, as an honest man, to demand that the religion which he values, because he thinks and wishes to prove it the most pure, should be submitted to the severest scrutiny, and that such scrutiny should be rather rewarded than punished? If this be not the case, if the Priests and members of the Christian religion, whether Catholics, Protestants, or Dissenters from both, continue to encourage the persecution of those who question the dogmas on which their religion has its foundation, if they do not demand that persecutions shall cease on that ground, can they lay claim to morality? Can they feel any thing like true happiness of mind under such a dilemma as that in which they place themselves, by saying, that their religion is from God, and acting as if they feared a man could overthrow it with a pen and a PrintingPress? Does not such conduct display fear and corruption; and is it not a proof that such a religion can neither promote morality nor give solace to the mind? Let those who think otherwise prove it by their actions.

I, for my part, could never see any difference in the sects or grades of the Christian religion. The man who, among the Freethinking Christians of Jewin Street Crescent, talks about the resurrection of Jesus being a guarantee for the resurrection of the whole human race, and who teaches about spirits or souls, is as much a Priest, a Jesuit, or an Impostor as the Pope of Rome. The Priest of the Greek

Church, of the Church of Rome, of the Church of England, or of any Dissenting Church, is the same man; it is only a variegated system of robbery, alike in its effects upon the persons robbed. There is no unison between the doctrines and the actions of any of them. As there is no consistency in the very book on which it is pretended their religion is founded, there never was, it cannot be expected there should be, any consistency to be found in any one sect that has been formed upon the dogmas of that book.

As to Dr. Rudge and Parson Wait, if they have servnd their own purposes they have served ours as well; for nothing could be more contemptible than the Doctor's promising me his opinions upon "The Age of Reason," or beginning to review it and then giving it up when he came to the first knotty point, lest he should cause some brother to offend by proceeding. The latter Gentleman I believe to be a poor, harmless creature, who had just sense enough. to read his Liturgy or a printed sermon, and none for any thing else but to count his tithes or his salary. In the parable of the good Samaritan they have acted the parts of the Priest and the Levite. They are receivers, they have nothing to give. Even the recondité James Humphrey has promised me five shillings when I have cleared his head of all the weeds in it, which will be another such a task as Hercules found with the Augean stable; and this he calls buying my opposition! This is the Christian charity. He promises to spend some pounds to publish in the channels. of Superstition that I cannot root out those weeds; but if I should succeed, I am to have five shillings for my trouble! Let us hear no more about Christian charity; and after this let me entreat Mr. Humphrey never to put his name to a subscription for me. Christian charity begins and ends at home. I will not build upon it. Robbery, not charity, is the characteristic of the Christian religion.

I am, Citizen, yours respectfully,

R. CARLILE.

A DEIST'S CREED.

I BELIEVE that matter and its motion, infinitely modified and combined, constitute what may be denominated the powers of Nature, which is my only God.

I do not believe that this God was ever revealed to man, (except

in the works of Nature) either by words, writings, or messengers.

I believe a man may be strictly moral and virtuous without being a member of any religious sect.

I believe the book called the Bible to be an imposition o the world.

I do not believe in the story of Jesus Christ, as I never could find any proof of the existence of such a person.

I do not believe in a future state of existence, as there is nothing in Nature to sanction it. The doctrine must have been invented by Priests for the purpose of terrifying and enslaving mankind.

I do not believe in miracles, as they must be violations of the laws of Nature.

I do not believe in Heaven or Hell; nor in the existence of angels, devils, ghosts, apparitions, or witches; nor in any thing supernatural.

TO MR. R. CARLILE.

C. B.

SIR, London, May 29, 1822. As I think you, and all who have made common cause with you, are unjustly punished, and as I am convinced that what you contend for is the inherent right of every man and woman, that is, to hold what opinions they think most reasonable, and to publish them without any obstruction, I think it a duty I owe to my husband and my country, to enter the lists against the enemies of free discussion, and of the liberty and happiness of mankind; I, therefore, Sir, not at all deterred by the infamous sentence passed upon my husband by that vile supporter of Murray and his crew, Little Jeff, nor that on Mr. Boyle by Jeff's successor, indeed, Mr. Denman, offer myself to go into your shop to sell openly, or by clock-work, as you think fit, any thing you have, or may publish, I am ready at a moment's notice; and should I have the honour to be prosecuted for the publication of truth, I shall always feel a conscious pride in having done the best I can towards defeating the petty tyrants of the surviving Gang in Essex Street.

With respects to Mrs. Carlile and your Sister, and wishing Mrs. C. every comfort a Prison can afford in her critical situation, I remain, Sir, yours, with the greatest esteem,

EMMA V. HOLMES.

The assistance of Mrs. Holmes shall be accepted as soon as ever an opportunity offers. There are three individuals now waiting their turns to defend the right of free discussion upon all subjects, particularly the opinions they themselves