Anti-Christians, we are unanimous, and shall always remain unanimous; though we may not all have the same amount of scientific knowledge. The persuasion of the truth of Christianity was and is founded upon ignorance: the conviction of its falsehood was and is founded upon a superior knowledge. Your book of notes exhibits, that, beyond matters of law, beyond the routine of your profession, you are a very ignorant man-silly, childish, dull, and hypocritical. There is not a sensible sentence in it: not one that can excite admiration in a literary mind, even if the mind be Christian. It is the dullest of all the Christian writings that I have read; and, I should think it'utterly unworthy of my notice, were you not a Judge in the Court of King's Bench and one of my persecutors.

In the Gospel that follows this Epistle before mentioned, we are told, that it is a commandment of Jesus to the Christians, that they should love one another. How have they obeyed that commandment? To him, who knows the history of Christianity, it is evident, that there never was less of love among mankind of any country, colour, or sect, than among Christians. In the name of Jesus, they have been a uniform set of murderers of each other, and, there is no bope of amelioration in this sense, until Christianity be conquered and extirpated. This is one of my strong motives for wishing to extirpate it-that there is no unity, no love, no desire of mutual improvement among Christians.

One proof of the fabulousness of Christianity may be found in the fact, that St. John, who was a Platonist, uniformly makes Jesus to speak of love; whilst the other Evangelists make him to talk about war, bloodshed, tumults, persecutions, and every thing disastrous, and no where about love. You find nothing said about war in St. John's Gospel-because St. John was rather a disciple of Plato than of Jesus.

But whatever were or are the combined precepts of Christianity, the example of Christians has been most horrible; and they have exhibited the most miserable religious propensity to ferociousness and hypocrisy, that ever degraded -that pseudo-rational thing called MAN.

RICHARD CARLILE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE REPUBLICAN.

SIR, Huddersfield, Sept. 12, 1824. I WOULD make an apology for sending you the following remarks, which are upon something which has appeared in a contemporary journal, did I not consider it a right, nay, a duty, for every journal to discuss the opinions which any contemparory puts forth, provided, that such discussion be carried on with temperance, and without attacking the person as well as his opinions. Mr. Cobbett, the editor of the journal alluded to, is a man who stands high in the literary world, and has talents which are perhaps unequaled in the present day. But the greatness of Mr. Cobbett's talents ought not to be a reason why absurdities should pass without exposure; because, if the talent be great, the mischief is in ratio with its influence. I, therefore, take the liberty to make a few remarks upon the following passages in Mr. Cobbett's Register, hoping, that if I hold to erroneous opinions, some one will be kind enough to set me right.

In a letter, in the Weekly Register, addressed to, "Lord John Russell, August 14, 1824," there are the following words: "The performance of labour, I mean heavy bodily labour, is absolutely necessary to the carrying on of the affairs of mankind. The far greater part of labourers must, of necessity, be only just able to obtain a sufficiency of food and raiment, in the days of their health and vigour. This must of necessity be the case: of absolute necessity mind; for, otherwise, the necessary labour would not be performed. This being the case there must always be a considerable portion of the labouring class to receive, in one shape or other, assistance from the richer classes." And, further on, he says: "There will always be great numbers of indigent persons in the class of labourers. There is a natural cause for this. It arises out of the nature of the affairs of men; and if the employers of the labourers be so severely pressed upon by the state, they must in their turn press upon the labourers."

A pretty "natural cause" this must be, surely, which causes the productive part of mankind to be dependant, after a life of unremitting toil, upon the unproductive part! I should like to know what this "natural cause" is, which causes a part of mankind to go "harnessed to sand carts with bandages of hay round their legs" for stockings,

or to spend more than half their time, in a "heat of ninety degrees, swallowing cotton fuz," while the other part, who never produced any thing, who spend their whole lives in idleness and dissipation, are destroying as much, each by extravagance, as would maintain a thousand of these poor wretches. 1 should like to know what is the natural cause of this. Mr. Cobbett, surely, will not say that the cause is as natural as that which produces hail or rain. If he will why complain? The cause must be either natural, or unnatural. And if it be as natural as that which causes rain, Mr. Cobbett surely will not be so vain as to endeavour to change that cause, because he cannot want convincing, that, no endeavours of his would be of any use to change any thing which was established in the very nature of things. And if it be unnatural, it cannot be "absolutely necessary to the carrying on of the affairs of mankind."

But why are the "greater part only just able to obtain a sufficiency of food and raiment?" Is the earth so barren, that with all the endeavours of man, in the days of health and vigour, it will produce only just sufficient to keep him alive, and that he must starve when he is unable to labour? Or, which is nearly the same thing: is there a "redundant population?" Redundant population in my teeth, I expect. Why, then, are a considerable portion of the "labouring class" to receive, in one shape or other, assistance from the "richer classes?" Richer classes! How came they to be richer? Do they labour harder and live barer than the poorer class? Labour harder indeed! No, it is those who must either be relieved or starve, who are the labourers! Then, as the "labourers" can only just obtain a sufficiency of food and raiment, how came the rulers to be rich? Have they had food and raiment dropped from the clouds? If not, how did they come by such things? They must either have been produced by labour, or they must have come in some such a manner as dropping from the clouds. Come, I urge the point, how did they come by such things?

But, there seems, by what Mr. Cobbett says, to be a different kind of labour from that which is bodily. For he says: bodily labour." The other is a labouring with the head I suppose. I believe that is the manner by which riches have been acquired. Nay, it must be, because, Mr. Cobbett says, "the far greater part must be only just able to obtain food and raiment in the days of their health and vigour." No imbecility, mind, but, "health and vigour;" therefore, the lesser part could not obtain riches by labour any more

than the greater part. So this other kind of labour, must have been head labour; a cajoling of their neighbours; for, without this cajoling, this head labour would never have produced them riches. No, let their heads ferment as they will if their hands do nothing, they must starve, without they can trick the labourers out of the produce of their labour by these fermentings. Therefore, this other kind of labour must be a cajoling, a tricking, the labourers out of their labour, for an imaginary something, which they were to receive in its stead. And, the event has proved, that it is a cajoling, by the labourers being sunk in poverty, while the idlers have acquired riches. Because, if the labourers had received an equlivalent for their produce; they would still have maintained their equality But I need not say, that they have not; as they are now to be assisted by the "richer classes," who are living upon the produce of those very labourers, in return, call them paupers, and vagrants, and what is worst of all, the "labourers" are now to be told by Mr. Cobbett, that this state of things is absolutely necessary to the carrying on the affairs of mankind! Better that there were no such affairs to carry on. Surely, the "richer classes" will not say, that he has been bribed by the "labouring class" to say this.

But, this cajoling, is not the only means of obtaining riches. No, we have crusades, conquests, going and taking possession of a country in the name of a something called King; murdering, or making "labourers" of the inhabitants, and then calling that, for which robbery and murder has been committed-property. The inhabitants finding it vain to resist, begin to labour for the then "richer classes," who soon learn to say "sacred right of property," and such like stuff; until, in a short time, it becomes a moral depravity, a kind of treason for the slaves, the " labourers," to doubt the right of the "richer classes" to consume the produce of their labour, while they are starving, or, so near to it, that, the slightest attack of sickness, or inability to labour, brings them so as to be unable to obtain food without receiving assistance from their robbers, these "richer classes."

That this has been, and is, the case, no one can doubt; nay it is absolutely the case in England at the present moment. Do not many of the things called "Lords, Peers," &c. boast of having descended from the butchers who cantoned into lots, the whole of England, and made the inhabitants labour to support them on pain of death? Where or

what then, is their right of propery? Possession? The highwayman has the same right to the property he has stolen, and it ought to be considered, in the like manner inviolate until again stolen. The class of men who are living upon the hard earned produce of the English labourer, wrung from him in the shape of taxes, have as good a right to their ill gotten wealth, as the lord has to his estate, for both have gained it, by either fraud or force, and the man who would protect the one and not the other is either knave or fool. Start not at my saying, that the lord has no more right to his estate, than the pensioner to his pension; for he absolutely has not, because fraud gives as good a title to that which a man has, as force, or plunder. And no one, no not Mr. Cobbett himself, will say that one man has absolutely more right to an acre of land than another1: all must be equal as nature left them, or found them, or, rather before man began to be what is called civilized. No man had then, nor can have now, more right than another to breathe the air, to feel the suushine, or to endure the cold. No one would think of claiming the exclusive privilege of baving all the beasts birds or fishes, no one would before man began to be what is called civilized, think of making game laws to protect the animals for himself, which Mr. Cobbett says, "God has given equally to all 3." Then if "God" has given the animals to all, why not the land to feed them? because, the animals, without something to feed them, would be an injury. If "God" gave the land to a particular set of men, he would also have given them that which the land supported. But, as Mr. Cobbett says, that "God" has given the animals equally to all men, we may without fear of contradiction, say, that he gave the land to feed them on, to all men. And we may also conclude, that no man has more right to one particular piece, or tract of

1 The same principle may be carried to every other animal, which has the same natural right with man, and proves that natural right to man is nonsense. The right of conquest is the question.

R. C.

Conquest is the question. What can we conquer, is the first principle with mankind, in relation to one another as social beings! And in relation to every other animal. Every thing centers there, Friend Penny, and there is not, there never will be any liberty or equality but in power. We must learn to make ourselves as powerful as our aristocrats and priests.

R. C. 3 Leave the word God out of the question, and say that the Aristocrats, by force, by treaty, or by stratagem, have conquered the power to make Game Laws, and we shall see the thing rightly. The knowledge of a disease is half its cure; wise men say. R. C.