upon him besides his own discretion. I will venture to assert, that all who are really acquainted with me will say that Mr. Burn's account is the reverse of my character.. But the most injurious of all Mr. Burn's insinuations are those by which he would give his readers to understand, that my writings are calculated to disturb the peace of the country, and that I am intending something more than the mere discussion of theological or political questions. Of the Preface to my Letters to him, he says, "It is written with more freedom, in the opinion of many, than is practically consistent with the entire peace of the country." This was also the object of the Extracts that were made from the Preface, which were sent to all the bishops and members of the House of Commons, as every thing in that Preface that shewed that my only object was free and calm discussion, was omitted, and the other passages were so put together, as to be calculated to excite alarm.t 66 With the same unfairness Mr. Burn represents my Letter to Mr. Pitt, as" menacing and insolent, most unconstitutionally infringing upon freedom of debate; a personal invective, and not an answer to arguments." "It was," he says, a fair developement of what I would be at, and, in the judgment of sober men, marked with some degree of precision the boundary of my ambition." Now as few men write. more intelligibly than I do, it is very easy to see the extent of my views in that, or in any other of my publications; and this has always been, to state my own opinions on any subject, and to invite the fullest discussion of them. What can be my ambition, when I plead for abolishing all civil establishments of religion, as hostile to the genius of it, and a burden to the state; and when I claim nothing for myself but what I equally plead for all persons without exception? Besides, in all my proposals for the reformation of the greatest abuses, I expressly say, that I would have no man disturbed in his present possession, but that the retrenchment should affect the successor only. Is this ambition? Is it not the greatest moderation? But in me nothing can be moderation. It must be ambition, or something equally bad. Perhaps the most perverse of Mr. Burn's constructions of my writing, is his inferring from what I have said of the French" having no court for the nobility and clergy to look Reply, p. 27. (P.) 1 Reply, p. 21. (P.) + See supra, pp. 215, 311, Notes *, 371. § Ibid. p. 19. (P.) up to, and to depend upon,' "* that I consider it "as the duty of Englishmen to renovate this part of their constitution, which lodges the government in the hands of an individual;"† that is, that it is my wish, and I doubt not, he would add, that it will be my endeavour, that there be no king in England. It is very fortunate for me that I never wrote a Roman History: for had I expressed any approbation of the conduct of the Romans in banishing the Tarquins, Mr. Burn's inference of my antipathy to all kingly power would have been much stronger, as they left no hereditary power in the country; whereas there still is a king in France, though not such a king as the nobility or clergy can look up to for much emolument. Mr. Burn can see no medium, at least in me, between retrenching exorbitant power, and taking it away entirely. At all events, I must be represented as a republican; and with many, republicanism is synonymous to every thing that is dreadful and detestable, perfect anarchy and confusion, to say the least. It is generally deemed fair to interpret particular expressions in one part of any person's writings, by his declared sentiments in others of them. Now in my political writings, which however are not numerous, I have again and again praised the English constitution, as consisting of the three estates of King, Lords, and Commons.§ What candour or justice, then, is there in supposing that I wish the subversion of it? I thought it necessary to premise these observations, which demonstrate a disposition in Mr. Burn and the clergy of Birmingham, with whose concurrence he wrote, to put the worst construction on every thing I say or do, which, if I may adopt their language, is an outrage on character similar to that which the Rioters committed on my property. Let us now come to the examination of the facts which I have advanced, the evidence for which is so loudly called for by Mr. Burn. And surely, if there be any thing wrong in producing this evidence, that is, what I take to be such, the blame must lie with those who called for it. With respect to accusation unsupported by facts, Mr. Burn expresses himself very properly, though without reflecting to whom his censure applies: "If a character must at any rate * See supra, p. 419. + Reply, p. 30. (P.) This was written before the Revolution of the 10th of August, which in the circumstances of France, was a happy and necessary completion of that of the 14th of July. (P.) § See supra, p. 214. be defamed, nothing in the world can be so convenient for the purpose of invented calumny, as an appeal to anonymous report."* "The introduction of anonymous report, whether true or false, into this serious argument, is more than impertinent; it is insidious."† Mr. Burn's challenge of me to produce authorities for what I have advanced is such as becomes a diligent inquirer after truth, and one who would not shrink from it. "If," says he, "the Doctor would convict by evidence, we invite him to the proof of his charge."+ "Let him produce instances from the conduct of the upper class of people, whom he thus gravely accuses. He is, no doubt, in possession of the facts."§ With respect to what I said of some of them being concerned in the insults offered to me, he says, "Let him then come fairly to the proof, or let him expunge all illiberal insinuations from the list of his charges."|| When I said that the clearest facts shew that there was more than remissness on the part of many persons of better condition, and that nothing they did shewed a real disapprobation of the conduct of the mob previous to the destruction of my house, Mr. Burn says, "Then produce them."¶ "On this subject," he says, "be explicit, Sir;" and, "of this assertion he produces no evidence."** This is the most material article in the question that is now before the public, and therefore I shall endeavour to do what Mr. Burn challenges me to do, viz. to support what I have advanced, by an appeal to facts. Mr. Burn insults me with not having "proceeded against the magistrates legally, but contented myself with venting my spleen in tolerated slander," ++ But the history of the assizes at Worcester and Warwick, and of what passed in the House of Commons‡‡ itself, will, I hope, justify us in not appealing to the laws of our country in such a case as this. Though, however, we have no prospect of success there, we shall venture to appeal to a higher and more respectable tribunal, our countrymen in general," as Mr. Burn quotes my own words in his motto, "the world at large, and especially posterity." I have not, in my Appeal, said much of the conduct of the clergy of Birmingham: Mr. Burn, however, supposes that I have; and on that supposition he says, " Dr. Priestley Reply, p. 26. (P.) § Ibid. p. 59. (P.) ** Ibid. p. 95. (P.) (P.) + Ibid. p. 25. (P.) (P.) ↑ Ibid. p. 26. (P.) Ibid. p. 67. (P.) See supra, p. 435, "* The stands forward as the accuser of the clergy of Birmingham, and he is now called upon as publicly by one of that body, either to substantiate or retract his charge.' author of this Reply," he says, "will not shrink from the inquiry. He invites it. If there be any one motive that influences him more than another in this affair, it is the hope that, by promoting this discussion, in viudication of the character of the innocent, he may at the same time assist Dr. Priestley and the public, in a clear and full detection of the guilty." I shall be much obliged to him for this assistance. With respect to what I have said of the passions of the lower order of the people being inflamed by the preaching of the clergy, Mr. Burn says, "We do aver from our own practice, from the practice of our brethren in general, prior to the late unhappy affair, that this representation of the conduct of the clergy is not a true one. For the truth of this declaration we can cheerfully appeal to the constant experience of our hearers." This is sufficiently bold; and I shall answer the challenge, not by appealing to Mr. Burn's hearers, but to printed documents, sermons preached at the time, and now extant. Litera scripta manet. Thus publicly and boldly called upon, I shall proceed to the vindication of what I have advanced in my Appeal; first with respect to what passed previous to the Riot, and the probable cause of it; then what took place during the Riot, and subsequent to it. I only request an impartial attention to such facts as I shall produce; and it must be considered that, not having been myself a witness of what I shall relate, I must necessarily depend upon the testimony of others; and as in this I may, through misinformation, be mistaken, I sincerely wish to hear what may be alleged on the other side. I cannot wish to be misled myself, nor would I knowingly mislead others; and the press is as open to my opponents as it is to myself. After this it will be in the power of our readers to judge whether I be what Mr. Burn calls me, a public slanderer,"§ or not. 66 Reply, p. 103. (P.) + Ibid. (P.) Ibid. p. 38. (P.) Yet, admitting "the truth of this declaration," it was very pertinently asked respecting "the sons of theology," meaning especially the clergy of Birmingham, "How long will they think it right to act in violation of every virtue in religious disputation, which from the pulpit they recommend to the practice of their hearers?" See Thoughts on the Riots at Birmingham, by a Welsh Freeholder," 1791, p. 25. Reply, p. 106. (P.) SECTION III. Of Events previous to the Riot, and of the more distant Causes of it. in THAT there existed in Birmingham, and in all that part of the country, a strong spirit of party, exceedingly unfavourable to Dissenters, is evident from a variety of circumstances; and, independently of any that I have mentioned, it must appear probable from the history of those counties in this respect, given at length in an excellent pamphlet lately published, entitled, HIGH-CHURCH POLITICS, which it is shewn, that the neighbourhood of Birmingham was the head-quarters of Dr. Sacheverell; and that, in the reign of George I., several meeting-houses were destroyed by rioters in that town, and others in those parts. facts that I mentioned in proof of the existence of this party-spirit, and that it was far from originating with me, or being promoted by me, Mr. Burn has attempted to invalidate; but let the reader judge with what effect. The One of the instances that I mentioned was, that the Clergy refused to walk in funeral processions with Dissenting Ministers. I observed, that Mr. Curtis refused to do so at the application of Mr. Scholefield. This Mr. Burn insinuates was not on account of his objecting to doing this with Dissenting Ministers in general, or Mr. Scholefield in particular, but with myself only; "lest," as he says, "he should be led to act officially with one whose opposition to the doctrines and discipline of the church of which he is a member, had carried him into excesses, in his apprehension, in the highest degree illiberal and indecent. Of this class he justly considered Dr. Priestley. With him, therefore, he could not consistently act upon such an occasion; and for this reason solely he refused to comply in the instance produced by the Doctor."+ But this instance of bigotry in the clergy of Birmingham appeared before I went thither. More than forty years ago Mr. Wearden, curate of St. Philip's, expressed his concern that he could not walk with Mr. Blythe, § at the funeral of Mr. Russell's grandmother, having, as he said, received orders to the contrary from Mr. Vyse, who was then the rector. • Frequently quoted in the Notes. (See supra, pp. 116, 215, 229, 230, 301.) This pamphlet is attributed, I believe justly, to a learned Serjeant, now a Welsh judge. † See supra, p. 361. Reply, p. 4. (P.) § See supra, p. 361. |