Imágenes de página

I have not copied your memoir, it is unnecessary so to do. Where this is read in conjunction it will refute; where it is not so read it will instruct, and where it does not reach your calumnies, it will not extend them. But, in a second letter, I shall quoté, contrast and comment. For the present, 1 have to tell you, that, if character, were to go with it, I would not exchange Dorchester Castle for Blaise Castle, nor, for the name and fortune of John S. Harford, Esq. part with that of



Who'll bay, who'll buy?
ls London's cry!
A God for a shilling!
Come, come, who is willing!

Who'll buy, who'll buy ?
Is Carlile's cry!
A Gud for a shilling!


London, Saturday, October 29, 1825. About half past eleven or twelve o'Clock, a person, apparently about fifty years of age and of genteel appearance, very like a Portuguese Jew, made his appearance in the shop, and very mildly requested me to take the horrid Jew and Christian God out of the window. He observed, that he had not the least objection to persons arguing the subject of the existence or non-existence of a Deity; but he really thought that such a picture * was calculated to do a serious injury to the morals of the ignorant classes, who were hourly surrounding the window. Being rather busy at the time, I treated him cavalierly. Ou this, he left the shop, began to harangue the persons about the door, thrust his umberella through the window and tore the God therefrom. I, immediately ran out, seized the gentleman and demanded payment, for the window and God. He objected to pay. I sent the boy for an ofiicer, had the fellow taken before Aldermen Thompson, the sitting Magistrate at Guildhall, and charged him with feloniously breaking your window, and stealing your property therefrom. Mr. H., a person whose name is known to you, happened at the time to be in the shop and went forward as a witness. The following singular but gross perversion of Justice took place :-

Alderman to me, (upon being sworn) What do you want here?
J. C. I have a charge of felony against this man.
Ald. What is your name?
J. C. John Christopher.
Ald. What is your business?
J. C. Conductor of Mr. Carlile's business,
Ald. What is your charge?

J. C. This man thrust bis umberella through the window and stole a picture of God therefrom.

Ald. Did you see him do so?
J. C. I did.

Ald. What is the meaning of this ? (Looking at the God.) It is a horrible looking thing, (shaking his frame as if horror struck.)

J. C. It explains itself—it is a correct scriptural representation.' Read the explanation at the sides.

This demonstration is one of our modes of argument: and a very powerful argumeut it proves as was evinced by the holy zeal of this Jew, R. C.

Ald, I cannot read it, it is so mutilated.
J. C. On application at Fleet Street, you may procure a clean copy
Ald. Have you any witness ? J. C. I bave a witness.
Ald. To the witness—who corroborated my statement.

The Alderman desired the prisoner to state what he had to say in defence. The prisoner began a long oration about the heinous sin of exhibiting so blasphemous a print, which he represented to be as false as hell. It roused lis indignation to such a pitch, that he could not restrain himself, and in the warmth of his feel ing, he certainly broke the window; but as certainly not with the intention of committing a robbery. He admitted, that he tore the print and a second which he stole from Mr. Hanger. The Magistrate said he did not think the man meant to rob me; but admitted he had committed an illegal act, by taking the law into his own hands, and that he must make restitution by paying the amont of damage done. I appealed to the magistrate, and asked, if a man came into his house and took his property and maintained possession of it until he was arrested, whether he would consider the person a thief or not? He got out of this scrape (as I was not particularly desirous of pressing the charge) by saying, the best proof that the man had no intention of committing a robbery was his waiting quietly the arrival of an officer. The man paid the expences, was discharged, and called intu the inside of the bar, to the desk, where he was informed, that instead of breaking the window, lie ought to have come there, have made his complaint and he world then have had satisfaction. This addreis was requested, which he gave --Moses Elias Levi, 178, Sloane Sireet, Chelsea ; nu profession. The Alderman then said I must come forward; for he had not done with me, and asked if I was not under a recognizance to keep the peace. I told him if he wished to know he must refr. He said the exposure of (God) the print was an attempt to bring the Christian teligion into cuntempi, and very wrong. I did not chuse wenter into a confab with him ; but wished to know if he had any thing to keep me there for. He said not at present; and I was alınust forced out by the othcers, leaving the Jew thief behind.

Yours, respectfully, JOHN CHRISTOPHER.


Dorchester Gaol, Oct. Si, 1895, of a God that was un

successfully sought to be palmed upon the Jews. Ah! Jester Jew!

To meet the man who can
What would you do,

Slew-where your race began..
Had you the power,

So Master-Jew!
But for a hour,

See what you do,
To me who am selling

Before again,
Your God for a shiliing?

You break iny pane
Should I be burnt,

And deemn it not a crime
Hanged stuned or learnt

To read any first in rhyme,
To know a God

Adieu, adieu,
That lived in nod :

You silly Jew!
And respecting a Jew,

Learn wisdom late,
To swear that talse is true.

Avoid such fate,

You bave paid for your God,
Ah! Mastar Jew !

As well as eamed my rod.
To prove a God,

Again, adieu,
Out of this Nod,

Poor silly Jew.
And tell me true and soon,

I've sold a God,
Wlience came Jews at Babylon

You've bought a rod,
Your Great High Priest,

Which you'll feel for a while,
I bave addrest,
Upon this head,

RICHARD CARLILE. And he's afraid,

Better for you,

From yours,

Printer and Published by R. CARLILE, 135, Fleet Street.-All Corruspore

dences for “ The Republican” to be left at the place of publication.

No. 19, VOL. 12.) London, Friday, Nov. 11., 1825. [PRICE 64





Dorchester Gaol, Nov. 4, 1825, anni

versary of the last revolution in the

,English monarchy. THOMAS PAINE, as an Englishman, bad more right and justice on bis side, iu seeking the dethronement of George the Third for the public good, than William, Prince of Orange, a foreigner, bad to invade this country and seek the detbrovement of his father in law James the Second. Yet, men of your stamp, who reason nothing bonestly, call the former a detestable attempt at revolution, and the latter, because the royal revolutionists was successful, a glorious rerolution! Thomas Paine, at least had the merit, not to seek the dethronement of a king for his own advancement to that title and office. He was a revolutionist; but a viituous revolutionist. In all bis views, in all his endeavours, self never counted 'bigher than as one of the people for wbom be wrote.

My first letter forms acomplete disproof of all your slanderous and false attacks upon the name and memory of Tho. mas Paine; but as the disproof was not written as a minute answer to your memoir, I now proceed to that minute answer.

On your title page, you profess to shew, that the writings of Thomas Paine had an intimate connection with the avowed objects of the revolutionists of 1793, and of the radicals in 1819. The first point, I sball not dispute. The revolution of all the governments on the face of the earth, as that of the United States of North America had been hap

Printed and Published by R. Carlile, 135, Fleet Street.

pily revolutionized, was the grand, glorious and praisewotthy aim of Thomas Paine. And, proud am I to say, that I possess the whole of his spirit. But as to the radicals of 1819, they were pursuing they knew not what. They had no system, nor a single leader that had a system which he could publish. Some of them were for Paine's system, the few of them who thought for themselves; but the bulk knew 10thing of his writings, and his name had hardly been tbought of, bad I not republished those writings at a critical period. Major Cartwright condemned the republication. Mr. Hunt boasted, that he had never read them; and Mr. Cobbett, we know, stood ready to praise or to denounce them, to say be had or had not read them, just as the wiod blew favourable or unfavourable. So that, in reality, there was very little of similarity between the radicals of 1819 and the republicans of 1793. The spirit of what was called radicalism in 1819 had no foundation and was soon evaporated; but bad it been a spirit founded upon the writings of Thomas Paive, not a particle of it bad ever abated. What was good in it is still good and has clung round the writings of Thomas Paine, which are daily cherished by dew converts; until now, we see the effects in mecbanie's insti. tutions, in free discussion societies, in men, in almost every town and village, making the priests visible in their real characters and showing a towering superiority over them in every kind of argument. I, alone, of all the revolutionary writers of 1819, have been able to maintain the same ground on which I started, and I attribute the circumstance entirely to aresting upon such solid principles as those developed in the writings of Thomas Paine. I have done this in spite of a persecution that would bave silenced the others in a few days. I have had to start anew, again, and again with no property but the principles of Tbomas Paine; and now, I feel inculnerable, Upon this shewing, I assert, that your title sets forth a falsehood. I have met with many of the old staunch republicans of 1793 and with scarcely an exception, I found them looking with contempt or indifference on the proceedings of the Radicals in 1819. . j Your dedication to Sir Thomas Acland is ludicrous enough. How would the Devonshire people stare to hear him called a patriot? All who knew him, know that he is a weak minded man, and, in expression of that weakness, is, in Devonshire, commonly called Tommy Acland. Instead of dying for his country, he would die with fright, if there were an insurrection of a formidable character. You bare selected him for your dedication; because he is a sort of

leading mau in your vice society. Shew me a man who subseribes largely to wbat are called public charities, and to institutions similar to the Vice Society and I will engage, that, at bottom, be is to be found a very weak or a very wieked man: a man who seeks a popularity by bis money mbich he cannot acquire by his abilities or virtues, Such a man is the present Sir Thomas Dyke Acland, ! The first paragraph of your preface states a falsehood, in saying, that the name of Thomas Paine is proverbial for infamy. Infamy expresses a notorious immoral character. Now, Mr. Harford, I have done all that I could do, to sift the real character of Thomas Paine, and, after reading what the government agent, Oldys, or George Chalmers, wrote of him, after reading all tbat Cobbett wrote in slander of bim, after reading Cheetham's memoir, and after lreading what you have written, I challenge you, and with you, all that are like you, and all that are unlike you, to attach a proof of one immoral act to the name and character of Thomas Paine. I pronounce every immoral act, that you and others have imputed to him, to be false and written for the most vicious of purposes-to deceive the people as to the real cbaracter of a man who was the greatest public teacher that ever appeared among them. If I would admit the reality of the character in which Jesus Cbrist is drawn in the New Testament, wbich I do not, but take it to be a sketch of an allegorical character, I can boldly say, and saying prove it, by a contrast, that Jesus Christ was a mere fool wben compared with Thomas Paine. These are assertions which the vileness and virulence of such attacks as yours upon the name and character of this great man have justifiably drawn forth. In every other respect, holding the character of Jesus Christ to be an allegory, I have resolved never to allude to him again, as to a real character, to say nothing for or against him, other than in the shape of criticism upon a fabled or allegorical character.

In this same first paragraph, you say, that you have taken up the history of Thomas Paine; because, with pain and wonder, you have witnessed the imprudent attempts lately made, in various ways, to confront the system of Paine with that of Christianity ; in other words, to oppose the kingdom of darkness, sin and contention, to that of light, purity and love.

A reverse of your description of the two systems will be Dearer the truth. You see nothing, or you can shew 00thiog, dark, sinful or coutentious in the system of Paine ;

« AnteriorContinuar »