condition, and is contented with nothing less than the subjugation of his reason. The following extract from a church magazine will bear out the assertion better than anything I could say :

"Religion is on the side of conservatism. The religious newspapers of the country are the open and uncompromising advocates of conservative principles. Religion and politics cannot coincide. The dissenter must leave his religion in a lock-up if he ventures abroad in quest of political light. His faith condemns his politics: his vote and bible must never be stored together. As a paper be comes religious it ceases to be Radical. A Radical Christian is a non-entity. The altar is the prop of the throne. The two alternatives are dissent and democracy, or religion and conservatism."

This is the truth, a Radical Christian is a non-entity, and I know it, and would prepare the Atheists for the struggle, for by them must the real emancipation of man be brought about. Religion and political liberty cannot exist together, and before a people are politically free they must be free from stupidity, or religion. T. P.

IS THERE A GOD?

XXIV.

When Bishop Berkeley said "there was no matter,"
And proved it-'twas no matter what he said:
They say his system 'tis in vain to batter,
Too subtle for the airiest human head;
And yet who can believe it? I would shatter,
Gladly, all matters down to stone, or lead,
Or adamant, to rind the world a spirit,
And wear my head, denying that I wear it.

BYRON.

|

I HAVE endeavoured to establish (see "Is there a God," No. 45) first, that there is but one real existence in the universe, which real existence I call matter. Second, that mind is a nominal not real existence, like space, time, inertia, repulsion, attraction, motion, color, and which are all purely ideal, all words expressive of certain orders of material phenomena; in short, that mind is a well understood effect of which matter is the cause. Third, that there is no escaping a 66 vicious circle" when we attempt to prove the first principles, or as they are sometimes styled the fundamentals of human knowledge; and consequently in logical strictness there are no certain facts, for a certain fact or facts must rest upon a certain basis, whereas the whole superstructure of human reason cannot possibly have any other than an assumptive foundation. The foregoing propositions are of immense importance. If true, they are fatal to all "cloud cap't" metaphysics; if false, materialism cannot stand. I fancy their truth has been shown with tolerable clearness, but as W. Baker and others may be of a different

opinion, to "make assurance doubly sure," I will, at the risk of some repetition, venture a few more paragraphs.

So much has been said and so many thousands of volumes written about mind, that many shrewd people are persuaded there really is such a thing. If I mistake not, however, the following observations will go far towards dissipating so ludicrous, illusory, and mischievous a notion.

That an actual existence must be a thing, by whatever name such thing may be called, or whatever form it may assume, will appear to every reflecting reader a self-evident truism. Hence the word no-thing can have no other than a negative signification, that is a signification signifying nothing but the absence of everything.

The prince of theological logicians, Dr. Samuel Clarke, said "nothing was the only thing with respect to which everything might be truly denied, and nothing could be truly affirmed." It follows, that if mind be nothing, it is logical to deny and illogical to affirm anything respecting it, but if mind be something it must be matter, as a something NOT matter is inconceivable, and just such an inconceivable non-descriptable something is mind. To talk about the reality of mind is talking at random, it being an acci·lent not a subject, a consequence of action not an actor. Those who suppose mind a thing, are no more rational than the man who took great pains to catch sounds, that he might put a few in his breeches pocket. Sounds are effects, so are minds, and of course without matter no such effects could be produced. Here it may also be observed, that whereas matter without mind is conceivable enough, it is impossible to conceive or imagine mind without matter, for mind is a property of matter, a consequence of the latter under certain indefinable modes of its operation. The difference between thinking and unthinking matter is simply one of state or condition. Nor is a thinking body, to the eye of a philosopher, either more or less wonderful than an unthinking one. The faculty of thinking is not one whit more marvellous than the faculty of sneezing, and when theologians or metaphysicians furnish the ultimate reasons why men sneeze, the writer will undertake to tell them in return why men think, why they feel, and many other grand secrets of importance. The truth is, all such questions are superlatively ridiculous. Fools are ever ready to ask, but wise men never ready to answer them.

The notion that mind was something of itself, led Berkeley into his most ridiculous errors. The learned and singularly acute bishop was not content to assert the existence of an immaterial something in the shape of spirit or mind, but with equal boldness and truth denied the existence of matter. He argued that Materialists could only reason in a circle

when they attempted logically to prove the reality of matter, but, as shown in No. 45, if Materialists have no right to argue, as though matter actually existed, because such existence cannot be logically proved, with what face could he or can any one argue as though mind actually existed, when it is obviously impossible logically to prove its real or ideal character. Here we have Spiritualists upon the hip, and this mode of dealing with such refined sophisters as Berkeley is the only one likely to bring them down to a common sense level. If they call upon us for proof of matter, we should return the compliment by demanding of them proof of mind; when they will be forced to admit, either that nothing is known, and nothing can be known, or what will suit Materialists equally well, that we have no more certainty about mental action than material existences. It is of no importance to the argument what mind may be supposed to consist of, whether it be something or nothing; the truth is plain, its actuality is assumed not logically proved.

In the "Clavis Universalis," of ArthurCollier, a book it is much to be regretted very little known, the same line of argument is adopted. It is there insisted upon that a direct proof of the external existence of body is impossible, and a direct proof of consciousness equally so. It is contended at considerable length that the Idealist has no better proof of the existence of his soul, than of the exis

tence of his body. "When (observes this author) an Idealist says I am a thinking being, of this am certain from interual conviction, I would ask from whence he derives this certainty, and why he excludes from this conviction all possibility of deception? He has no other answer than this: I feel it; it is impossible that I can have any representation of self without the consciousness of being a thinking being."

John Christopher Eschenback, professor of philosophy in Rostock, who did Collier's work into German, has followed up the argument with ability and excellent effect. Feeling, he clearly shows applies to the existence of body, and that the ground of belief is equally strong and conclusive in respect to the reality of the objective as of the subjective in perception. Arthur Collier has well said in the work above noticed, "A direct proof must not here be expected; in regard to the fundamental principles of human nature, this is seldom possible, or rather it is absolutely impossible." W. B. tells me that the answer scientific men make to his query, (What is matter ?) or would make, is that "it is anything having length, breadth, and thickness. Now, length, breadth and thickness is not matter itself." Agreed. "Then (he continues) remove the length, breadth, and thickness. Suppose even for a moment

He

form ine in his next where or in what book I can find an explanation of what a property is? where or in what book the nature of attraction, repulsion, heat, cold, time, space, colour, and motion, is fully or at all explained? These are properties of matter; but attrac tion, repulsion, heat, cold, &c. are only names after all; and the best proof that they are merely names expressive of kinds of sensations experienced by us, is in each man's consciousness of inability to conceive of any such absolute existences as attraction, heat, cold, space, &e. If W. B.'s thoughts had taken this direction, he would soon have seen reason to conclude that our knowledge of properties amounts to just nothing; for what can be more obvious to practical reason than the simple yet important truth, that we only know what we have an idea of? man knows an object or circumstance when he has a full and complete idea of it; nor is it common for an average intellect to be perfect master of an idea, yet unable to give any account of it. If then, W. B. knows properties, let him, for the sake of all that is useful, tell the world what manner of things or no-things they are. He tells us scientific men know only the properties of imaginary matter. Now, if this be true, scientific men can easily explain what attraction is, what repulsion is, what life is, what death, motion, colour, &c., are, for all these names come under the general term properties.

A

The eminently scientific Dr. Neil Arnott, tells me in Part I. of his Physics, that any visible mass of matter there is, of metal, salt, sulphur, &c., we know to be really a collection of dust, or minute atoms, by some cause made to cohere or cling together; yet there are no hooks connecting them, nor nails, nor glue; and the connection may be broken a thousand times, by processes of nature or art, but it is always ready to take place again;

XXVII.

Attraction it is hardly necessary again to remind our reader is always called a property What then becomes of the crude opinion that scientific books pretend not to tell us what matter is--only its properties? When W. B. can explain or point to a page where it is explained what kind of entity or nonentity attraction, or any other property is, he will justify what he has written.

W. B. reminds me that a point has neither length, breadth, or thickness, and consequently cannot have any real existence but in the mind of man ;" it seems, however, to me that though a thinking man, without a nothing called mind is conceivable enough; the most lofty and vivid imagination must fail to conjure up a mind without a man, or some kind of material animal.

One extract more, and for the present I have done with my doubting critic. He says, "there are not really such forms as a circle, square, sphere, or any of the forms mentioned in geometrical books." Now the question agitated by Materialists and Idealists is not whether there are really such or such forms, but whether there are any forms at all. The idea of form draws after it that of body; so that whether things appear to us as they actually are, is of no kind of consequence to the dispute. The terms circle, square, sphere, as well as heat, light, life, death, attraction, repulsion, &c., are intended to convey our ideas of certain simple and compounded sensations, excited in us by the action of unknown agents. If matter or substance be not that agent, what can we even imagine it to be, understanding by matter (called some

times substance), that which is capable of action. I think unless its existence be taken for granted, nothing can be more idle or absurd than to talk about properties-for our ideas of properties, as I think it has been clearly shown, are consequences of that unceasing action of which matter alone is capable, matter, the alpha and omega of all we know, of all we ever can know. Mind is a word which represents nothing is the type of nothing-explains nothing, and is good for less than nothing.

Horace Walpole says Addison, when he was dying, sent for the young Lord Warwick, to convince him in what peace a Christian could die. "Unluckily," says Mr. W., "he died of brandy—nothing makes a Christian die in peace like being maudlin."Walpole's Correspondence.

Birds (aves) continued.

THE absorbent system presents a somewhat higher grade of development in birds, both sets of vessels being more numerous and distinct, the valves are more abundant, but yet admit of the passage of fluids from trunks to branches. Glands appear now for the first time, in connexion with the lym phatics (lymph or water-bearers), but not with the lacteals (from their milk white colour, they convey the chyle, or the nutritious part of food, to its receptacle).

The heart, in this highly organised class of oviparous animals, consists of four separate and distinct compartments, and indeed presents a more perfect typical form than is

met with even in the mammalia. Its form is conical, being sometimes short and wide, as in the crane, and sometimes more elongated, as in the emeu.

The lungs, in this class, are confined to the back parts of the cavities of the thorax and abdomen by the serous membrane common to these cavities; they are of a flattened, elongated form, smooth anteriorly, and grooved posteriorly by the ribs, between which they are impacted; they are of a bright red colour, and of a loose spongy texture; on the surface of the lungs there are openings through which air passes from the bronchial tubes into large neighbouring cells. In birds not organised for flight these cells are confined to the abdomen, but in others they extend along the neck, and even into the extremities; they also penetrate the cavities and diploë of the bones, a discovery for which we are indebted to Mr. Hunter. This great physiclogist injected the medullary cavities of the bones from the trachea; he also tied this tube, and having broken the humerus of a fowl, and the femur of a hawk, he found that the birds respired for a short time through the artificial openings. The proportion in which the osseous system of birds is permeated by air has reference to their respective modes of progression, thus almost every bone in the body admits air in the kite, the hawk, the eagle, and other birds of high flight; and in the hornbill even the phalanges of the toes contain air. Four uses have been ascribed to this extension of the respiratory system in birds-first, to subserve the function of respiration; secondly, to aid by mechanical pressure the action of the lungs; thirdly, to render the body speficially lighter for the purposes of flight; and fourthly, by the distension of the cells in the extremities to assist in maintaining

the wings in a state of extension, during long continued flight. Mr. Hunter supposed it contributed to sustain the song of birds and to give it strength and tone.

The following is a

In the different Classes of Animals, as given by Dr. Thompson of Edinburgh. TABLE OF THE REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS [Parent splits, each part a new animal.

(Fissiparous .....

3. Irregular.

Transverse.

2. Longitudinal.

(Hermaphrodite.. Both sexual organs on one individual.

.. (Budding upon the parent stock. Separated buds, gemmæ, or sporules. Parent splits and discharges the young. 2. On one part or organ only. 1. On all parts of the body.

2. Internal fecundation.

Oviparous, laying eggs which are hatched.

1. External fecundation.

2. Mutual impregnation.

Self-impregnation.

2. Marsupial.

Mammiferous, suckling the young.

1. Monotrematous.

Ovo-viparous,eggs hatched within the maternal body.

3. Placental or strictly viviparons.

TREATMENT OF MR. HOLYOAKE

IN GLOUCESTER GAOL.

ON being sentenced by Mr. Justice Erskine to imprisonment in Gloucester Gaol, Mr. Holyoake was put under the regulations of hat part of the prison called the common aol, and suffering in health and other ways from the kind of treatment to which he was subjected, he sought in the usual mode alleiation. For this purpose he applied, as ill be seen below, to the surgeon, to the overnor, and to the visiting magistrates. All being without effect, he then addressed he following memorial to Sir James Graham.

Memorial of George Jacob Holyoake, prisoner for blasphemy in Gloucester County Gaol, to Sir James Graham, her Majesty's Secretary of State.

SIR.-At the recent Gloucester Assizes Four memorialist had the misfortune to be entenced by Mr. Justice Erskine to six

389

months' imprisonment for the alleged offence of blasphemy.

"Since that period your memorialist has been confined in the common gaol and fed on convict gruel, bread, rice, and potatoes: though such food is loathsome to his palate and injurious to his constitution, which has always been delicate. It is true your memorialist is allowed the privilege of purchasing, to some extent, better food, but his imprisonment renders this privilege valueless, without the assistance of his friends, upon whose generosity lie also the heavy claims of his wife and two children left in want by his incarceration.

"Under these circumstances your memorialist applied to the surgeon of the gaol for other diet; by the surgeon he was referred to the governor; by the governor to the visiting magistrates; and by the visiting magistrates back to the surgeon; who subsequently has recommended though not prescribed, better diet: but from the recommendation of it, your memorialist concludes that in that gentleman's opinion it is necessary. Two other surgeons whom your memorialist consulted on entering his prison warned him that a generous diet was absolutely requisite, and the decay of your memorialist's health is a testimony of its truth. "Your memorialist prays for other regulations than those under which he sees VISITORS. They have always to stand, sometimes to talk through the bars of a gate, and are permitted to stay but a few minutes. As your memorialist is far from his friends, these rules continually prevent him seeing them, and receiving those attentions to his wants he otherwise would.

Your memorialist also wishes permission to remain up in an evening until the hour of least to be allowed the use of a light in his the debtors' retiring (nine o'clock), or at cell, in which he is confined from twelve to

fourteen hours, and during the winter he will be so shut up sixteen hours and a-half. Thus much valuable time will be lost your memorialist could employ upon a little mathematical speculation, which would afford him the gratification of contributing himself a few pounds to the support of his family.

"As every newspaper sent your memorialist is seized by the officers, or retained by the governor, your memorialist prays the liberty of reading them.

"Your memorialist does not complain that he is treated contrary to the rules of the gaol, as it would be hard for him to say what they do or do not allow. The visiting magistrates have said they should have no

Mentioned only to prevent the voluntary supposition on the part of Sir James, that the time would fatal to the application. be employed in writing blasphemy, which would be