while the House of Lords exists as it is at present; and it is quite astonishing to me that out of so many politicians there does not appear to have been scarcely one who has clearly seen the baleful effects of this House of Lords.

Q. What are the ill effects attending the House of Lords?— A. Being a hereditary and privileged body, it has a different interest from the people, and its Members have a great desire to maintain all ancient tyrannical laws and customs.

Q. But how can it influence and corrupt the Commons' House? -A. As it is privileged and hereditary, its Members will always have sufficient wealth and influence to bring in whom they please, and can of course command a majority in favour of their own Bills. Thus a Parliament may sit eight months in a year and not be able to pass a single Bill that might be calculated to ameliorate the condition of the people.

г

Q. Is the spirit of the House of Lords repugnant to the spirit of philanthropy, and the dissemination of new and philosophic ideas?-A. Yes, for the principal parents of those two colleagued bodies of national locusts now existing in England, known by the names of Vice and Constitutional Societies, are Members of the House of Lords, whose main object, it would seem, is the annihilation, if possible, of the intellectual world; and this is a crime of the very blackest dye, for that tyranny which enslaves the mind, includes within it nearly all the evils that do or can afflict society.

Q. Is there much rational piety in Britain now?-A. No, very little, indeed, but there is a great deal of enthusiastical and baneful fanaticism.

Q. Is there a spirit to despise and persecute amongst the various religious bodies?-A. Yes; most of them are much disposed to persecute, and in some instances they carry their enmity to a very great length, and what is still worse, many of them endeavour to conceal their malevolence as much as possible from the parties to whom it is directed.

Q. Are there no liberal sects in Britain ?-A. Yes, I think I know five or six sects that are pretty rational and disposed to be liberal, but they are not numerous.

Q. Do those who are extravagant in censure and persecution evince any disposition to reason with those who hold different opinions?-A. No, they are not searchers after truth, nor lovers of it, but most of them apparently treat both reason and philosophy with a degree of abhorrence.

Q. Are there many philosophic philanthropists in Britain?— A. Yes, their number is quite sufficient to effect every important change necessary to render the nation virtuous and happy: but, unfortunately, they are but little attended to; nor are they allowed to exercise their talents in order to perform what they are willing and desirous to do for the good of the human race.

Q. Are those men persecuted and abused?-A. Yes, many of them are, and some of them very severely treated.

Q. If the British Government be not reformed, do you think there will be a revolution ?-A. Yes, I think it is inevitable ultimately, (unless the people immediately begin to retrograde towards a state of profound ignorance and brutal stupidity, but which now seems a thing impossible) but as to the precise time it' may take place I do not presume to name.

Q. What kind of revolution do you think it will be? Will it be effected as easily as the Spanish Revolution was, or will it be a bloody one?-A. I think there are but two alternatives.

Q. What are these alternatives ?-A. They are the power of reason, and physical force: and if reason be allowed to bring it about, physical power will of course be unnecessary, and it may be effected without terror and bloodshed; but in case it should be necessary to use physical force, then there is no possibility of saying where or how the consequences may terminate.

Q. Which of the two do you think will obtain ?-A. I cannot give a decided opinion, but I know the weapons of reason and truth are by law almost confined to the narrow limits of those who are able and desirous to wield them.

Q. Do you think the manufacture of Britain will continue to increase and flourish under the present system of Government?— A. No, I do not; but it may hold out four or five years more, after which period, if the system be continued, it will then begin to retrograde rapidly, and in a few years her foreign resources of commerce will be irrecoverably lost.

Q. What makes you think so?-A. Because it was a superior government which Britain possessed over the rest of the world, that caused her to extend in science, manufacture, and greatness; and as she has now allowed, at least, two other nations to surpass her in government, those advantages will necessarily pass from her to those countries whose Government is more perfect and equitable. For where there is the most freedom, political and religious, there will always be the most genius, the most invention, and, of consequence, the most improvement: and as it is one of the essential principles of pure Republicanism to reward all merit, it must be allowed that there is every encouragement for genius, ingenuity, and industry in the vast continent of America, every part of which will soon enjoy the blessings of Republicanism.

Q. Do you think Monarchy a necessary evil? A. It is an evil in its best state, but not a necessary evil; it is absolutely contrary to Nature, therefore cannot be necessary.

Q. What do you think principally upholds Monarchy ?A. Ignorance and superstition.

Q. Do these two calamities decrease in Britain ?-A. Yes, notwithstanding the fettered state of the philosophical and political part of the Press, truth finds its way to the human breast.

Q. Do you think that all nations as they advance in philosophy and towards a true knowledge of Nature, will become Republics? A. Yes, and the sooner the better, for no nation can be long together either happy or virtuous under a Monarchical Government, and kingdoms are nearly always tormented with external or internal wars and Kingly broils, which can only be settled by bullets and steel; and there can be but little if any real good arise from any system when its fundamental principles are not consistent with the laws of Nature.

Q. Are there many in Britain who are favourable to Republicanism? A. Yes, there are a great number, but they are very tardy in speaking their sentiments to their neighbours and those who are continually around them, on account of persecution. Two years ago there were but few; however, I know the increase since that time has been very considerable, particularly in Scotland and the North of England.

TO MR. RICHARD CARLILE, DORCHESTER GAOL.

DEAR SIR, Edinburgh, March 25, 1822. I AM Sorry to learn that your shop has been again plundered, and your property seized by your enemies, we have had a meeting here in consequence, and have collected a little to assist you in bearing up against your adversaries, as you will learn more fully by another communication. I have sent you another part of a Critical Enquiry into the Harmony of the Gospels. If you think this worthy of a place in "The Republican" you may insert it; perhaps it will set some people a thinking, and draw forth something better from some abler pen, and by that means excite rational enquiry, which is sure to promote Deism. I beg you will print another edition of your Quotations from the Bible, with some addition, like a small pamphlet, with the verses at full length, there are hundreds who would read them in that way who will never take the trouble of seeking out the verses in the Bible, if you do it not we will print them here but we rather wish you to do it, you are entitled to a preference, with admiration of your exertions and best respects for yourself and your family.. I am, Sir, your sincere friend,

R. A.

A Critical Enquiry into the Harmony of the Gospels continued.

IN reading over Luke's narrative (ch. ii. ver. 22--38) we see when Jesus was presented in the temple, two persons came in who deserve some attention, first Simeon, who pretends to pro

phecy, and says, that Jesus was "set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel," Was he set for the fall of many? He said also that a sword should pierce through Mary's soul; Was it ever so? What did he mean? His prophecy was so clear, that even Joseph and Mary who heard him did not understand him, then how can we? They marvelled at him! so may we. The second is Anna, a widow of eighty-four years who had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity. What means that? but wonderful as it appears, she served God night and day with fasting and prayer! Did she fast night and day? Strange, if so, she would take no sustenance at all! Is it possible? This is wonderful, but it is the Lord's word, and who can doubt it! but if fasting is meritorious, many of very profligate lives serve God in that way. We are told (Matt. ch. iii. ver. 5, and Mark ch. i. ver. 5) that Jerusalem and all Judea went out to John the Baptist, and were baptized by him in Jordan. Can we believe this? That they all went out and were baptized. It is nearly impossible that a whole nation could be baptized by one man, at one place, and at least improbable; when we know that many of them despised or hated him. Did the High Priest, and all the Priests and Rulers go out? Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and all! This is strange! Were it not the Lord's word, who would believe it.

If several authors write the life of any individual, we do not expect that they will use the same words in the narrative, it is only expected that the substance of their relation shall be the same without contradicting one another; but if these authors profess to give a speech or discourse which the person made, they ought to use the very same words which he spoke, or else it is not correct, it is not his speech, but their own manufacture. Now, besides the apparent contradiction in the narratives of the four Evangelists, they differ essentially both in words and substance, in the speeches which they put into the mouth of Jesus Christ, and also of the other persons who act a part in these transactions, the instances are too many to be quoted, but whoever will compare them will find they are almost all different.

There is also a particular discordance among the four Evangelists in their accounts of the place, where these discourses are said to have been spoken. Discourses which one of them says Jesus spake at a certain place, and to a certain audience, another says he spoke at a different place, and to quite a different suit of hearers. The words which one of them says he spoke to a certain person, another in relating it gives us quite different words.

There is also the utmost confusion among these authors in the order in which they relate events to have taken place, what one relates as transacted at one time and place, another places at quite a different time, events which one author places near the beginning of Christ's ministry, another places near the end of it; and the others still different, if they notice it at all. The accounts

of his journies are as discordant as his words, when one author has him going to one place, another has him going to a different place, and his actions are as beautifully varied in the narratives as either his words or his journeys.

(To be continued.)

This List was not received when the Correspondence was printed.

EDITOR.

Printed and Published by R. CARLILE, 55, Fleet Street. All Communications (post paid) are requested to be sent to Dorchester Gaol, until a further Ad. dress to some House or Shop be given.-Orders, with remittances, or references for payment, will be punctually attended to. Country Agents will find the most liberal Terms for prompt Payment.