The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-02-21 00:00:00

SOCIALISM.

k To THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL MERCURY .
a'nla,—Having perused your leading article in last Friday's
tl'n-I.er (headed Socialism and Mr. Robert Owen,) I beg leave
~i offe'r a few remarks to you upon the subject. In the first
Vox, that
ee, after uotin the words of the celebrated Charles
eontempt i?opiniogns are absurd, they should be met with
; if specious, by argument ; and it seditious by
treseention ;" and after having yourself stated that "this
rn„elEi," aPplies with peculiar force to this country," I was
lona surprised to find you attempting to prove, through t le
whole of your remarks, that the only sound policy to be
treat d .
t e, In preventing the spread of the social tenets, is to
.reat
hem
em with silence and contempt, as though they were
nothin,"
!less ,s more than a compound of absurdity.
.and specious-
path' and without-the least tincture of sedition. You are,
a al); sir, not aware that the fundamental principle of
c'eitdisra is that " the mind of man is made for him and not
1113.hitn,,_
tnat he is a perfectly irresponsible being—that it is
en_ri.pist to punish him for any crime he may commit; and,
ve copse to
that it is an act of injustice to tolerate in
go-
ern
th ment or laws whatever. These, sir, are the opinions
seditio'uand
waerYidlave declared again and again in the face of the whole
allowed s
check, Mere
I think no rational man can doubt their being
in the highest degree. If opinions such as these are
to be openly promulgated without receiving any
long w will safety be found for life or property? or how
to stand the present constitution of the country be allowed
iiitlity of
site „ii`n:_. It is an impossibility to reconcile two such oppo-
irreaponal?los as the necessity for a government, and the
to ratic man. For what man, laying the least claim
consider it 2,1 ean believe in the latter, and at the same time
lecturer
of mine, aet ofjustice to tolerate the former ? A friend
(and
time ago, in my hearing, asked one of their
went h 8 land that too before a crowded audience) if when he
wife a re' StiPPosino. him to be a
herbmaried man, he found his
p.._1.8.11 children murdered ; and if ad it in his power to
or"tilloth?heAperpetrator of the deed, whether he would do so
isiltzl noted
For as aid h unequi
combination of -and distinctly
al state
circ he
externd um-
s had forced the man into commission of the deed,
(not crime) he should think it an act of the greatest injustice
Punish him for it. And this is not only the opinion of a
single individual of their community, but the opinion of all.
And what government, I would ask, is justified in tolera-
-I.2iN „such opinions ? For think you, if they had but the
..tiiga.est
prospect of success, by an appeal to physical force,
ey would io„,.
~„ remain qutegeent r o, • • N they would soon embrace the views of Satan in his address to his fallen
angels—

-------------. eace aired,
For who can think submisp is
submission ? War then, war
Open or understood must be resolved."
And acting upon them, they would hurl the Queen from the
throne of her ancestors, and trample the noble constitution
of England in the dust. Secondly, you have quoted a
Paragraph from the Morning Chronicle, and by your manner
?f quoting it, you give your sanction to it, stating that to
commence a legal warfare against opinions," it would not
atop" with the Socialists, nor with the Unitarians, nor with
the Roman Catholics, nor with the Dissenting Voluntaries,
nor with the Methodists." I, for one, have yet to learn it
would ever begin with either Unitarians, Roman Catholics,
Dissenting Voluntaries, or Methodists. Nor am I aware
that either of the foregoing believe it unjust to punish an
aggressor of the laws, or that it is an act of injustice to
tolerate a government. It is not on account of their religious
?Pinions that legal proceedings ought to be instituted against
them, but because they exert themselves to the utmost in
Propagating doctrines that endanger the safety of the state.i
Agan you state, that a stranger to read the Bishop of Ex-
eters speech, would imagine socialism to be a heresy of re-
cent date, and that he would be surprised to find that the
ItYstern was publicly avowed by Mr. Owen, and put to the
test of practice considerably more than a quarter of a cen-
t' ago. Now, sir, you will find, if you take the trouble to
laquire, that at New Lanark in Scotland, for a number of
years after its establishment, the children were educated in
the Christian belief. And, even it appears from your own
,bowing, that his opinions upon the subject of religion were
„et publicly known until the year 1823; and that I think
.extla will not deny is considerably less than a quarter of a
entury ago. There are, sir, many infidels with whose
with,
!Pinions government would not be justified in interfering
by any ysummary process whatever; and
Wwith whom, rhtips, the arguments made use of by Dr. atson in his
iltPology for the Bible;bave more effect; but a man may not
a believer in the ;inspired Scriptures, and yet be a sup-
l'orter of law and government ; for instance Flume, Gibbon,
N,04t114„ many others whose opinions respecting religion were
~,eo, known, but who nevertheless did not poison the minds
tether's with sedition. Why' you should, sir, as a finish to
ietir remarks, attack the Ministers of the church, and pass
(tiaietly over Cop ministers of that system, which declares
tillere is no moral difference between Burke the murderer
Howard. ,the 'philanthropist, (and who are, generally
i,ll"eeking, interested. individuals,) am at a loss to o.9tteri
/,4111a, except- it is;'as I should hope not, for party Theca
rPoses,-1 remain, sir, yours,

ALT
Or th ZA,A.TIONS IN THE NAVES OF DocKs.—On the day
Lieu e Flacen's marriage the Brunswick half-tide basin was
stoeZlAinated the Coburg Dock, and the Brunswick half-tide
was called the Union Dock,