Page images
PDF
EPUB

who were the authors, or the authors themselves to make the same statement to me. Mark, again! In the 33d Number of your "Memoirs" you say, "The two letters which I alluded to in the 30th Number of my "Memoirs," I have by me, and the extracts I made from them, shall be produced for the perusal of any honourable man who will promise me that the names of the writers shall not be given up to the vulgar assassin of private character." Here the number is reduced to two letters, but in the next Number of your "Memoirs" your Knight Errant has reduced the number to one, and avows himself the author. Your Journeyman, Robert Wilde, or Wild Robert, just as you like, to find you one author, avows himself to be the "Gentleman" who wrote to you and complained of being attacked! I will give you his words, or perhaps your own, for the signature is nothing to the point. At page 30, of the appendage to No. 34, of the "Memoirs of Henry Hunt, Esq., written by Himself," (that Esquire sounds so pretty when used by oneself,) the Gentleman-Journeyman is made to say, "I avow myself to be the author of the letter; I used the very words quoted, in my letter to Mr. Hunt, informing him that you had been abusing him in "The Republican;" and that through him you attacked every one in any way concerned in the Manchester Meeting; but that if I might judge of the whole from what I know of the matter, it was an atrocious string of falsehoods, which I now repeat, and which I had told you of long before you wrote that letter. Mr. H. could not have seen your "Republican" at that time, for it was not until the 9th that he sent it. I also informed him, on the authority of a person from Manchester, that Mary Fildes had written a letter to you before yours of the 1st of March appeared, contradicting your vague statements about the Meeting. It now remains for you to prove your assertions, or say you cannot do it." You have proved them for me, Mr. Wilde, or Mr. Hunt. Of all the lying I ever witnessed upon paper, this is the most barefaced, the most glaring. In another part of the same article this Mr. Wilde avows himself to be the person, too, who defended Mr. Harrison, so that Mr. Hunt's three letters are here at once reduced to one, and his Journeyman the avowed Gentleman who wrote them! Now it is come to this, let Mr. Wilde say who was the clergyman on the hustings that gave him the information about the two Atheists. So here it is evident, that it is the lies of the Gentleman-Journeyman that you, Mr. Hunt, wanted to screen from "the vulgar as

sassin of private character," and not the names of any other persons, whom if there had been such, and if they had had any private characters or public ones either that were honest, they might not have feared attack. I now repeat, you have no such names to give up; your Gentleman-Journeyman has exposed your falsehood. This is what comes of dishonesty and falsehood. No man but himself can be the assassin of his private character. It is not in the power of a second person to destroy private character. Moral virtue spurns and scoffs at the shafts of malignity. But I have not even attacked private character. I appeal to every reader of whatever I have written to say whether it was ever any part of my principles to attack private character. I shall be obliged to do it in the course of this letter, but if you dislike it, you should have been more careful of the words you have used towards me.

It ill became Henry Hunt to charge me with vulgarity, when the common charge against himself, and a reason assigned by many good men for not acting with him publicly was, a vulgarity of manner that was inseparable from his every action in public. Did I ever from a public hustings denounce two men as having been guilty of unnatural crimes, who were utter strangers to me? This you did at Westminster and at Bristol; the one case I witnessed with shame, the other I heard from the mouth of a Bristol freeman, and both I believe have been noticed in the Public Papers. You call me "the vulgar assassin of private character?" I dare you to the publication of a sentence of my writing, or speaking, that will support the foul charge. You call my answer to Mr. Wilde a vulgar and an impudent answer. It is neither the one nor the other. His letter to me was an insult, and a robbery to the bargain, and as such I treated it. I appeal to any man who has seen it to say whether the nicest impartiality would have required or justified my insertion of that letter in "The Republican." If I have not already shewn that you set him to bark at me with a hope of drawing my attention from you, I have no fear but I shall do it before I close this letter. I do not envy you the appearance of such a correspondence in your publication, although I am by no means ashamed of what I wrote to the man.. I did waste half a sheet of paper upon the first note to him, because his sheet was filled up, but the second was written in a few minutes on the back of his own letter, and returned to him by the return of the mail the same day. Mr. Wilde had not the least ground to address

a letter to me upon the subject, and in doing it he can be only considered a meddling fool, unless he has done it for pay, and in either case he will but get laughed at, for the hotch-potch you have made of the matter between you cannot fail to raise a laugh upon both of you, if not something in the shape of indignation and contempt. I really do not believe that he ever wrote you any such letter, for I cannot think that you would designate him a Gentleman. I call my shopmen in London, in Prison or out, my friends, but if I were to style them as Gentlemen, I should expect they would receive it as an insult, and that I should get laughed at by all who knew it to the bargain. In applying the term Journeyman to Mr. Wilde I do not use it contemptuously, I was many years a journeyman, and thought as much of myself then as now: I pay no respect to rank; the man who earns an honest livelihood by his hands, is as high in rank as he who lives upon the labour of others, and higher in my eye. I put in the phrase as a contrast to your appellation of Gentleman: the skit is intended to apply to you, not to Mr. Wilde.

I have not yet done with the falsehoods of the last quoted article from the Gentleman-Journeyman's letter. He attempts to bear out your assertion and contradict mine, about your having a copy of "The Republican" of the 1st of March, before you on the 11th of that month: he says, you could not so have it, for it was not until the 9th that you sent it. I must leave you and him to make sense of that sentence. I cannot. The next is worse; in mentioning that he was the person who gave you information that Mary Fildes had written to me, he says, he informed you, upon the authority of a person from Manchester, that Mary Fildes had written a letter to me before mine of the 1st of March, contradicting my vague statements about the meeting. He might as well have said before the Manchester meeting had taken place while he was about a lie. My vague statement was not in print before the 1st of March, yet he says, Mary Fildes answered it before that day, whilst the letter in her name was dated the 18th of that month, and you had anticipated it by a week, and your Gentleman-Journeyman seems to have had a touch of the prophetic upon the matter in giving you the necessary information. Do you wish any more of it Mr. Hunt? What do you now think of your man's sticking to the truth? Will you venture to call this exaggeration, perversion, and fabrication of mine? Mary Fildes never

sent me a witten letter, and I believe that she never wrote any thing of the kind for the "Manchester Observer.”

You have another statement of the case about these letters, which contradicts both yourself and your GentlemanJourneyman at the same time. This Trinity, this three in one and one in three, not Gods but letters, is quite as mysterious as the God-head of your holy religion. Following on your last notice of this matter in your No. 33, you say: "As for Mr. Carlile's insinuations, that I had set Mr. Wilde to abuse him, I will show him that it is as false as the rest of his insinuations and assertions. Mr Wilde wrote me to say, that Carlile had been publishing some infamous falsehoods relating to the Manchester meeting, and as be, Mr. Wilde was present, and upon the hustings the whole time, he had written a letter to Mr. Carlile upon the subject, which completely refuted his false statements; but as Mr. Carlile had refused to insert it in his publication, and had returned him an impudent and a vulgar answer, he asked permission to have it published in the addenda of the thirtysecond number of my Memoirs." Here you see you represent Mr. Wilde as not writing to you until after he had written to me and received the vulgar answer. Now his first letter to me I see is dated, according to his own printed copy, on March 26, and did not reach me until the 31st. He got my vulgar note on the 1st of April I expect, and at any rate you could not have the letter you represent above until April, whereas Mr. Wilde himself asserts that he was the "Gentleman" whose letter you quoted from on the 11th of March, as a trinity in unity and unity in trinity, as before noticed! Should you like any more of it Mr. Hunt? Do not attempt to expose any more of my "insinuations" and "lyings" unless you can take more care of yourself than you have done hitherto.

There is nothing further in the 33d number of your Memoirs that requires notice, save where you speak of some persons as the victims of my cupidity! It is difficult to be satisfied as to the application of these words. The literal meaning is that there are women whom I have seduced and deserted and to whom you point my attention when I quit this Gaol. I felt indignant and astonished at the phrase although you may not have meant it as your readers must receive it. Cupidity is a derivation from the word Cupid and signifies lust, or amatory wantonness: now the inference from the phrase is, that there are some half-dozen or dozen of

other men's wives, or young wards, who have been the victims of a platonic disposition on my part, and whom as you intimate, require my support when I quit this Gaol. I certainly expect you to clear up this point. At first I thought you meant my shopmen who are imprisoned, but you speak of them as "poor fellows," in a distinct manner, and the "victims of my cupidity" in addition, seems to carry some hidden meaning. The "poor fellows" you speak off, are better provided for than they would be in your employ at the grain-roasting and grinding, and are happier than any man whom you have employed in London have been, always save and except the Gentleman-Journeyman, and more I shortly hope to be able to do for the others as some of them get released and my expenses become lessened. I leave nothing undone that I can do for them, and I do not think that one of them would wish himself at your mercy and generosity in preference to mine.

I have now to deal with the wanton lies published at your instance in No. 34 of your Memoirs. You must be responsible for them, for although, they do not bear your name; I can trace your marks of identity upon them, you wrote the out-line if not the whole. First, I must recommend you to buy a dictionary for your Gentleman-Journeyman if you make any further use of him as an author, or caution him not to borrow words without knowing their meaning beforehand. To issue a veto for the attendance of a person or persons, is an expression of that kind which we unjustly attribute to the sole phraseology of Irishmen. Every thing relating to the Manchester Meeting I have fully explained. Here is an alleged quotation again, as if I had used the phrase, linking arm-in-arm! I said nothing about linking

arms.

The remainder best answers itself.

Your statement that I acknowledge a profit of 200 per cent on my books is false, I refer you to my letter of the 1st of March for correction, if you can endure the thought of reperusing it. You were the first to bring up the subject of profits, and I shewed you that it did not become you so to do. My assertion that your wholesale profit on the breakfast powder was 150 per cent was true, and you admit the proof in the midst of an attempt to contradict it by saying, that persons sold it at 4d. per lb. You say they did not know the way to manufacture it; I am informed they were men whom you had ill used, and who had been in the habit of manufacturing it for you, so they must have known the way of the "real manufacture." All talk about the real

« PreviousContinue »