NEWGATE MAGAZINE.

On the first of September, or as soon afterwards as possible, and on the first of every month, if the work finds public support, will be published, a new work, price one shilling, to be entitled the NEWGATE MAGAZINE, &C.

The object of starting this work is, to employ, to improve, and to profit, the eight shopmen of Mr. Carlile, now in Newgate; and it is hoped, that it will go on improving in character and in public support: as we are sensible the latter will only follow the former.

The Prison Disciplinarians may find a specimen of what can be done by converting a prison into a school for literature, as well as for industry and good habits.

The Editors of this new work will not present themselves to the public as men schooled in literature,, but as young men anxious to improve, and to be well employed. The time for which the half of them are sentenced to imprisonment being three years, a connection with such a publication will best remove the irksomeness of confinement, and will, it is to be hoped, be alike useful to the public and to the proprietors.

For the little inaccuracies that may occur in the first Nos. through the awkwardness and difficulties of conducting such a work in such a situation, the Editors hope to be excused, in the pledge, that improvement shall be their constant object, and that future care shall atone for all that may at first be found deficient.

Mrs. Wright acknowledges the receipt of One Pound from S. P.

Printed and Published by R. CARLILE, 84, Fleet Street.-All Correspondences for "The Republican" to be left at the place of publication.

No. 9, VOL. 10.] LONDON, Friday, Sept. 3, 1824. [PRICE 6d.

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. WILLIAM FITTON, OF ROYTON, LANCASHIRE.

TO MR. R. CARLILE, DORCHESTER GAOL. SIR, Royton, Lancashire, June 21, 1824. ALTHOUGH several months have elapsed since the publication of my last letter to you, and your reply thereto, yet, in the whole of this time, I have never entirely lost sight of the subject, but have been determined to make some observations on your reply to me, the first favourable opportunity that offered itself.

I must confess that I feel very considerable surprise at the beginning of your last letter to me, where you accuse me, of rather wishing to fall in with the strongest current of opinion, than to discover and support the truth. I have not, at present, in my possession, the copy of my last letter to you, and therefore, perhaps, I ought to be very cautious in giving a positive contradiction to this part of your reply. Yet thus far I think I can venture to say, that, I believe, you will have great difficulty in proving from my letter, the correctness of the opinion thus expressed by you.

I believe, that what I did say was this: that the general opinion of mankind was against you, so very strongly, with respect to the being of a God; that all your efforts to bring them over to your way of thinking would be perfectly useless; and I inferred from this, that as far as uniformity of opinion was a proof of any thing, it was, in the absence of some demonstration to the contrary, a proof of the truth.

Now you are fully aware, that there has, on this subject, been a very great uniformity of opinion; you know that while different systems of philosophy have each in their turn prevailed, and while different creeds of religion have in various parts of the globe, and at various times been acknowledged, yet on this one subject there has been no difference of opinion. The Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian; the sun-burnt African,

Printed and Published by R. Carlile, 84, Fleet Street.

and the frozen inhabitants of the north, however opposed to each other their different creeds may be in other respects, yet, on this one point, there is the most perfect agreement1. This being the case then, I ask, whether we are not reasonably justified in regarding this uniformity of opinion, as a proof of the truth of that opinion, especially when you yourself acknowledge, that no positive proof to the contrary can be adduced? I have now, I think, satisfied you, that my object is not so much to fall in with the strongest current of opinion, as it is to come at the truth; and that when I refer you to the generally established opinions of mankind, I do not do it because they are current opinions, but because, under existing circumstances, I think, they are to be regarded as proofs of the truth3.

I will now call your attention to another part of your reply, with a view to correct another error into which you have been led, and then proceed to make some remarks, on what I regard as the more important parts of your answer. I am here alluding to what you say, you have been informed respecting my having been more active in calumniating, than in examining the principles and tendency of your writings.

However I may differ with you in matters relating to theology, I have too high an opinion of your moral honesty to suppose that you would have said this, without having, as you thought pretty good authority for so doing. But, Sir, I can assure you, that your authority, good as you may have thought, it to be, is in this case, worth just nothing at all; in other words, the charge against me, is neither more -nor less than a gross fabrication of, as I suppose, those who caused to be transmitted to you, the information. If that charge be true they have after this nothing to do but to prove it, and thereby successfully to retort the charge of falsehood upon myself. It must however be observed, that a gross assertion, made by some person in the dark, is not to be regarded as proof. Let the charge be distinctly and tangibly made out; let it be properly signed by the names of the individuals who make it, and dated from their places of

1

As far as they have been alike ignorant.

R. C.

There is all the negative proof that can be given against any other proposition.

R. C.

This sort of argument is what the rhetoricians call arguing in a circle, all ways coming to the same point. Not because it is the current opinion, but because it is the general opinion, which is the current opinion. R. C.

abode, let all this be done, and I am ready to meet it; if not, I do not see how I can be reasonably called upon to reply to it. I fairly expose myself by signing my name, and place of abode to what I write. They fight from behind a masked battery in with-holding both the one and the other, from the public. Let them, I again say, act in a fair and open manner, and I shall have no hesitation to meet them..

Having said thus much, on this part of the subject, I shall now proceed to remark on what I look upon, as by far the most important part of your reply. You make a great number of observations again, on what I say respecting Deity, but nothing which, in my mind, goes to overthrow the reasoning I have used, or at least the opinions which I bold, on this part of the subject of our discussion. You do indeed fall into a most palpable error, as to my meaning respecting the nature and freedom of worship; an error which I will now, before I proceed any farther, correct. You say, when speaking of homage to God, that you "rather suspect, that the homage which you," meaning me" would exact, is an expensive homage, a continuation of that system which constitutes religion a trade for idle men to profit by; and by which the industrious are taxed and the poor kept poor." How you should ever come to entertain such an opinion as this, or how you should come to express it upon paper, I cannot form any idea whatever. But of this I feel confident, that nothing contained in any communication from me will fairly bear out any such meaning. For in the very letter, to which, what you here say is meant as a reply, this is as distinctly disclaimed as words can disclaim it. I there say "I wish you not to suppose, that I advocate the union of church and state establishments, as they exist in this country. I do no such thing. I am aware that such union is hurtful both in a religious and political point of view." Here is as complete a disclaimer of the inference drawn by you, as you can well have. You call upon me to renounce the idea of compulsory support of the church. If I will do this, you say, there will no longer be any difference, on this head, between us. Now, Mr. Carlile, in point of fact, I cannot renounce this idea, for I never entertained it,I have always contended for the most extended freedom of religious opinion and worship. And I certainly cannot help feeling some surprise, that you should, after reading the preceding quotation, have drawn from it the inference which you evidently have. In real truth, I advocate the doctrine of the being of a God, because I really believe such

a doctrine to be well founded, because, I cannot at all otherwise account for the phenomena which I see around me*. And I contend for the propriety of a belief in God, because I believe it to be true, and because I believe it is calculated, by restraining the bad passions of mankind, to promote the cause of morality and of virtue. And with this observation I shall for the present at least close this part of the subject.

You reason at some length, with a view to shew that my opinions respecting the nature of the human mind, are not well founded-and in support of the opinions which you hold, you agian adduce the authority of Mr. Lawrence, and Dr. Gall. You seem to look upon it that their authority should in a great measure, be regarded as decisive on this question. This, however, I am not as yet, by any means, disposed fully to admit. I know that Dr. Gall's theory is ingenious; but this, you are aware, does not necessarily prove it to be true. Ingenuity and truth are sometimes widely different, and if I mistake, not they are so, in the present case. As connected with this part of our discussion, you give your view of the nature of the human mind, intending thereby, to demonstrate its materiality. We have. before had oocasion to speak of the effects produced by the operations of Chemistry. I will again refer you to this science, to shew you, why I differ with you in opinion on this part of the subject of our discussion. I need not tell you that by means of chemical agency, we have it in our power to produce a great variety of compounds, out of a new line of simple elementary substances. We have it also in our power to decompose these compounds, and reduce them again to their original simple substances. for instance, we can by means of uniting oxygen and hydrogen, in their proper quantities, produce common water; we can, by means of an union between oxygen and nitrogen, produce atmospheric air, we can also, by means of chemical agency separate their component parts, and reduce them to their original simple states. So far we can go. But we cannot, by any combination of elements, give a permanent power or property, which is in its nature really different, from the powers or properties, which these elements in their separate state possess. Hence it is that I infer the immate

As

Can you account any the better for referring these phenomena to what you call God? Are you the wiser, when you have your idol?

R. C.