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 quote, contrast and comment. For the present, I 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

RICHARD CARLILE.

A GOD! A JEW! A JEW! A GOD! A JEWISH GOD! A GODDISH JEW! AND A GOD FOR A SHILLING! WHO'LL BUY, WHO'LL BUY, A GOD FOR A SHILLING!

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 God for a shilling!

TO MR. RICHARD CARLILE, DORCHESTER GAOL. DEAR SIR, 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. On 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 officer, 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 his 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.
J. C I have a witness.
Ald. Have you any witness?

Ald. To the witness-who corroborated my statement.

The Alderinan desired the prisoner to state what he had to say in his 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 his indignation to such a pitch, that he could not restrain himself, and in the warmth of his feeling, 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 amount 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 be 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 into the inside of the bar, to the desk, where he was informed, that instead of breaking the window, he ought to have come there, have made his complaint and he would then have had satisfaction. His address was requested, which he gave-Moses Elias Levi, 178, Sloane Street, Chelsea; no 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 refer. He said the exposure of (God) the print was an attempt to bring the Christian religion into contempt, and very wrong. I did not chuse to enter into a confabs with him; but wished to know if he had any thing to keep me there for. He said not at present; and I was almost forced out by the officers, leaving the Jew thief beJOHN CHRISTOPHER Yours, respectfully,

hind.

TO MOSES ELIAS LEVI, A JEW, 78, SLOANE STREET, CHELSEA. Dorchester Gaol, Oct. 81, 1825, of a God that was unsuccessfully sought to be palmed upon the Jews.

Ah! Master Jew!

What would you do,

Had you the power,
But for a hour,
To me who am selling
Your God for a shilling?
Should I be burnt,
Hanged stoned or learnt
To know a God
That lived in nod:
And respecting a Jew,
To swear that false is true.

"Better for you,
Ah! Mastsr Jew!
To prove a God,

Out of this Nod,

And tell me true and soon,

Whence came Jews at Babylon

Your Great High Priest,

I have addrest,

Upon this head,

And he's afraid,

To meet the man who can
Shew where your race began..
So Master-Jew!
See what you do,
Before again,
You break my pane
And deem it not a crime
To read my first in rhyme,
Adieu, adieu,
You silly Jew!
Learn wisdom late,
Avoid such fate,

You bave paid for your God,

As well as earned my rod.

Again, adieu,
Poor silly Jew.
I've sold a God,

You've bought a rod,
Which you'll feel for a while,
From yours,

RICHARD CARLILE

Printed and Published by R. CARLILE, 135, Fleet Street.-All Corrospor dences for "The Republican" to be left at the place of publication.

The Republican.

No. 19, VOL. 12.] LONDON, Friday, Nov. 11., 1825. [PRICE 6d

TO JOHN S. HARFORD ESQ. OF BLAISE CASTLE, NEAR BRISTOL, AUTHOR OF A FALSE AND SCURRILOUS MEMOIR OF THOMAS PAINE, MEMBER OF THE VICE SOCIETY AND PAPER MONEY DEALER IN BRISTOL.

LETTER II.

SIR,

Dorchester Gaol, Nov. 4, 1825, anniversary of the last revolution in the English monarchy.

THOMAS PAINE, as an Englishman, had more right and justice on his side, in seeking the dethronement of George the Third for the public good, than William, Prince of Orange, a foreigner, had to invade this country and seek the dethronement of his father in law James the Second. Yet, men of your stamp, who reason nothing honestly, call the former a detestable attempt at revolution, and the latter, because the royal revolutionists was successful, a glorious revolution! 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 virtuous revolutionist. In all bis views, in all his endeavours, self never counted higher than as one of the people for whom be wrote.

My first letter forms a complete disproof of all your slande rous 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 an

swer.

1

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 shall 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 praisewor thy 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 nothing of his writings, and his name had hardly been thought of, had 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 he had or had not read them, just as the wind 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 Paine, not a particle of it had ever abated. What was good in it is still good and has clung round the writings of Thomas Paine, which are daily cherished by new converts; until now, we see the effects in mechanie's institutions, 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 have silenced the others in a few days. I have had to start anew, again, and again with no property but the principles of Thomas Paine; and now, I feel invulnerable. 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.

Your dedication to Sir Thomas Aeland 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 have selected him for your dedication; because he is a sort of

leading mau in your vice society. Show me a man who subscribes largely to what are called public charities, and to institutions similar to the Vice Society and I will engage, that, at bottom, he is to be found a very weak or a very wicked man: a man who seeks a popularity by his money which 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 that Cobbett wrote in slander of him, after reading Cheetham's memoir, and after Freading 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 character 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 Christ is drawn in the New Testament, which 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 when compared with Thomas Paine. These are asseritions 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 nearer the truth. You see nothing, or you can shew nothing, dark, sinful or contentious in the system of Paine;