nious contrivance, and of the labour and time she had spent upon her plants; nay, how would the country in general have been filled with indignation, had any envious female neighbour come by force, or stealth, and thrown all her flowers into the fire, and thus destroyed all the fruits of her ingenuity, and patient working for years, in a single moment! And yet all this, excellent as it was, might with certainty have been done again, and perhaps in an improved manner. If this particular lady had not had time or inclination to do the same work over again, she might have instructed others, and precautions might have been taken to prevent such a misfortune a second time. But the havoc that was made in almost as short a space of time in my library and laboratory, neither myself nor any body else can repair; and yet thousands, and ten thousands, I have no doubt, are so far from feeling any sympathy with me, or my friends, on the occasion, that they rejoice in it, and would rejoice the more in proportion as the irreparable mischief had been greater.* If the same malicious female should not only have thrown this lady's flowers into the fire, but ransacked her apartments, and, getting possession of all her private letters, have amused herself with reading them and publishing them in all the neighbourhood, in order to do her all the injury in her power, would not the crime be thought worthy of the severest punishment, as a violent breach of all the bonds of society? And yet, in my case, this very outrage has been committed without any sense of guilt in the perpetrators, or the by-standers, of the same party. Such is the baneful influence of party-spirit. * So far am I from being considered an injured person by many, that they scruple not to consider me as the proper cause of the death of those who were executed for the Riots; in short, nothing less than a murderer. Such is the idea conveyed by the author of a ballad in imitation of the song of William and Margaret, entitled, The Ghost and the Doctor, sent to me by the post from Chester. This is the dark and fearful hour, When Ghosts their wrongs disclose. Bethink thee, Priestley! of thy fault, Thy love of civil strife; And give me back my honest fame, And give me back my life. (P.) Thus the author of the Thoughts on the late Riot," speaking of the Rioters, attempted to resolve their crimes into a natural, and for any thing he has intimated, no way reprehensible ebullition of zeal; the pranks of a generous animal, which had been goaded in its most sensible parts. It may indeed be questioned, the occasion and all circumstances being taken into the account, if he would not have their conduct looked upon as meritorious." See " holder," 1791, pp. 2, 3. Strictures,-by a Welsh Free SECTION II. My coming to Birmingham not the Cause of the Party-spirit in the Place. It will be evident from the preceding narrative that my coming to Birmingham was by no means the cause, as is now asserted, of the party-spirit which so unhappily prevails in that place. Every thing that I wrote respecting the Established Church was occasioned by the writings of others against the Dissenters. In no case whatever was I the aggressor; and I never troubled even my own congregation with a single discourse on the subject, though this had been done again and again by my predecessor Mr. Bourne; and I never heard that he was particularly complained of on that account. The long controversy I had on the subject of the Trinity, which, however, had no particular respect to Birmingham, was the consequence of the attack of Bishop Horsley, and others of the clergy, on one part of my "History of the Corruptions of Christianity." All my Defences of Unitarianism," written in the course of this controversy, are before the Public, and I appeal to all impartial readers, if they be not calm replies to some of the most virulent modes of attack of which there are any examples in this, or any other country. The bishop's professed object was to destroy my credit in toto, so that nothing that I should ever write on the subject might be regarded. Besides, what did I do, urged as I was in every possible method, more than propose my opinions, with the reasons on which they were founded. There was no violence in this. And cannot opinion be opposed by opinion, and argument by argument? I seriously think that the doctrine of the Divine Unity, as opposed to that of the Trinity, is of the greatest importance in Christianity; and it is likewise my opinion, that civil establishments of Christianity are the bane of it, tending to increase and to perpetuate every abuse that has been introduced into it. But many other persons have maintained the same opinions, and have held the same language, before me. I, therefore, think it a peculiar honour to my writings that my adversaries have at length found no method of replying to them so effectual as de stroying my property and attempting my life; instigating a furious mob to commit such ravages on general literature as the European world has not known since the ages of acknowledged barbarism. SECTION III. Of Dissenters' meddling with Polities. It is said by many, that if I had not meddled with politics, the Riots in Birmingham would not have taken place. But this, also, is an hypothesis not supported by facts. If the indignation of the populace had been excited against me as a politician, and not as a Dissenter, why did they begin with demolishing the meeting-house, before they proceeded to my own house, or made any attempt upon my person? Why did they demolish the Old Meeting, the ministers of which had never appeared in a political character? And what had Mr. Taylor and Mr. John Ryland ever done in a political capacity? The Rioters evidently made no distinction between political Dissenters and others, but confined their outrages to those who are generally called the more liberal, or Unitarian Dissenters, as conceiving them to be peculiarly hostile to the church, and therefore to the state, as connected with the church. But what have been my writings as a politician? They are very inconsiderable, and never, that I understood, gave much offence. All the time that I was with the Marquis of Lansdown, which was seven years, in which I had no employment as a minister, I never wrote a political pamphlet, or paragraph. My studies were then as before and since, theology, philosophy, and general literature. 66 My Essay on the First Principles of Government," which, of all my writings, may be thought the most offensive to the friends of arbitrary power, was published more than twenty years ago, [1768,] and never proceeded farther than a second edition, which also has been on sale almost twenty years; so that it could not have given any recent provocation. The political part of my "Lectures on History and General Policy," is much in favour of the civil part of our present constitution, though not without hinting at such improvements in it, as many upright and enlightened persons of all denominations wish for. Supposing, however, that I had written much more largely on politics, particular as well as general, is this a subject that Dissenters must not touch? As equal citizens, have we not an equal interest in the concerns of the state; and does it not behove us to watch over that interest, as much as others whose stake in it is not greater than ours? When the government was friendly to the Dissenters, our rulers were glad enough to avail themselves both of our pens and of our swords. Our right to give our opinion in affairs of state were not then questioned; and what has happened to affect that right since? It is plain that it is only our exercise of that right that gives offence. No complaint was ever made of the conduct of Mr. Bradbury, who was continually preaching political sermons, and who had a great hand in promoting the accession of the House of Hanover, except by the clergy, who were generally enemies of that accession. Though no change has taken place in our general principles, our opinions are now supposed to be unfavourable to the maxims of those who have the conduct of administration; and hence the new language, that Dissenters, and particularly Dissenting Ministers, ought to confine themselves to matters of religion; and that, content with our toleration, we ought not even to reflect on the Established Church, which is now considered as an essential part of the state. I was never complained of for having meddled with philosophy, which is as foreign to my proper profession as politics. But in what sense can this be called a free country, if every citizen be not at full liberty to deliver his opinion, in speaking or writing, on any subject whatever, without the dread of civil penalties, legally or illegally inflicted? And how is our religion even tolerated, if we be debarred the privilege of writing in its defence, and freely advancing whatever we may deem of importance for that purpose? If umbrage be taken at Dissenters for writing on any particular subject, let us, at least, be prohibited by law, and let not any man be punished for doing what no known law makes to be a crime, and which in itself may be highly meritorious. Let an act of parliament be made to declare it felony or treason for any Dissenter, (or, if that be thought too much, for any Dissenting Minister,) to write a political pamphlet finding fault with the constitution, or arraigning the conduct of administration, and we shall then consider what is to be done in these new circumstances. Some weak politicians and high churchmen as an excuse for not appearing displeased at the Riots in Birmingham. which did not affect the Calvinistic Dissenters, allege that the Dissenters of this day are a very different set of persons from those of former times, for whom the Act of Toleration was provided. This, no doubt, is true. All bodies of men have changed in a course of time, and the Dissenters among the rest. The clergy of the Established Church are by no means the same that they were at the Revolution; for they were then generally the enemies of the present reigning family, though they now make so great a boast of their being the friends of it. With respect to their religious sentiments, they are greatly changed indeed since the time of Queen Elizabeth, being, from Predestinarians, become almost universally Arminians; and till of late the more learned of their body are well known to have been Arians. There has also been a great change in the general sentiments of many of the Roman Catholics. But, to a politician, the only question is, whether any of these changes of opinion give them less right to the protection of civil government. The principal change in the Dissenters is similar to that which has taken place among the members of the Church of England. They have receded farther from the system of Calvinism. Many of them became Arians, and many are now Unitarians, heretofore more generally called Socinians. But what has this to do with civil government? Can it be pretended that the man who confines his adoration to one God, and who calls this one God the God and Father of Jesus Christ, is a worse subject of civil government than he who, in addition to the worship of this one God, pays equal divine honours to Jesus Christ, and also to another divine person called the Holy Ghost, or than he who adds to all these the worship of the Virgin Mary, and of all the saints and angels in the Popish calendar? The question is surely too ridiculous to be discussed. Why then should Unitarian Dissenters be more exposed to lawless violence, and left out of the protection of the state, than Trinitarian Dissenters or than the Roman Catholics, to whom the favour of government has of late been very justly extended. It is true also, that many of the Dissenters are of late become enemies to all civil establishments of religion. But so also are many Catholics, and even many members of the Church of England itself. And in what sense are they enemies, and how are they to be dreaded and guarded against as such? They are only enemies in point of argument. They think it would be better for all states not to trouble |