the following passage appears:--

"In some respects all books of this class are evils: but it would be
weakness and criminal prudery--a prudery as criminal as vice itself--not
to say that such a book as the one in question is not only a far lesser
evil than the one that it combats, but in one sense a book which it is a
mercy to issue and courage to publish."

The _Examiner_, reviewing the same book, declared it to be

"A very valuable, though rather heterogeneous book.... This is, we
believe, the only book that has fully, honestly, and in a scientific
spirit recognised all the elements in the problem--How are mankind to
triumph over poverty, with its train of attendant evils?--and fearlessly
endeavored to find a practical solution."

The _British Journal of Homæopathy_ wrote:

"Though quite out of the province of our journal, we cannot refrain from
stating that this work is unquestionably the most remarkable one, in many
respects, we have ever met with. Though we differ _toto coelo_ from the
author in his views of religion and morality, and hold some of his
remedies to tend rather to a dissolution than a reconstruction of
society, yet we are bound to admit the benevolence and philanthropy of
his motives. The scope of the work is nothing less than the whole field
of political economy."

Ernest Jones and others wrote yet more strongly, but out of all these
Charles Bradlaugh alone has been selected for reproach, and has had the
peculiar views of the anonymous author fathered on himself. Why? The