OBSERVATIONS
ON THE
EMIGRATION
OF
Dr. Joseph Priestly,
AND ON THE SEVERAL ADDRESSES DELIVERED
TO HIM, ON HIS ARRIVAL AT NEW-YORK.
"Du mensonge toujours le vrai demeure maitre:
"Pour paraître honuète homme, en un mot, il faut l'ètre;
"Et jamais, quoi qu'il fasse, un mortel ici bas,
"Ne peut aux yeux du monde étre ce qu'il n'est pas."
Boileau.
PHILADELPHIA, printed:—NEW-YORK, RE-PRINTED.
M,DCC,XCIV.

 

OBSERVATIONS, &c.
WHEN the arrival of Doctor Priestly in the United States
was first announced, I looked upon his emigration (like
the proposed retreat of Cowley, to his imaginary Paradise, the
Summer Islands) as no more than the effect, of that weakness, that
delusive caprice, that too often accompanies the decline of life; and
which is apt by a change of place, to flatter age with a renovation
of faculties, and with the return of departed genius. Viewing
him as a man that sought repose, my heart welcomed him to the
shores of peace, and wished him, what he certainly ought to have
wished himself, a quiet obscurity. But his Answers to the Ad-
dresses of the Democratic and other Societies at New-York, place
him in quite a different light, and subject him to the animadversions
of a public, among whom they have been industriously propogated.
No Man has a right to pry into his neighbor's private concerns;
and the opinions of every Man are his private concerns, while he
keeps them so; that is to say, while they are confined to himself,
his Family and particular Friends: But when he makes those opini-
ons public; when he once attempts to make Converts; whether it
be in Religion, Politics, or any thing else; when he once comes
forward as a Candidate for public Admiration, Esteem or Com-
passion, his Opinions, his Principles, his Motives, every Action of
his

[4]
his life, public or private, become the fair Subject of public dis-
cussion. On this principle, which the Doctor ought to be the last
among Mankind to controvert, it is easy to perceive that these ob-
servations need no apology.
His Answers to the Addresses of the New-York Societies are
evidently calculated to mislead and deceive the People of the United
States. He there endeavours to impose himself on them for a Suf-
ferer in the Cause of Liberty; and makes a canting profession of
Moderation, in direct contradiction to the Conduct of his whole Life.
He says, he hopes to find here, "that Protection from Violence,
which Laws and Government promise in all Countries, but which
he has not found in his own." He certainly must suppose that
no European Intelligence ever reaches this side of the Atlantic, or
that the inhabitants of these countries are too dull to comprehend
the sublime events that  mark his life and character. Perhaps I  
shall show him, that it is not the people of England alone who
know how to estimate the merit of Dr. Priestly.
Let us examine his claims to our compassion: Let us see whe-
ther his charge against the laws and government of his country be
just, or not.
On the 14th of July, 1791, an unruly mob assembled in the
town of Birmingham, set fire to his house, and burnt it, together
with all it contained. This is the subject of his complaint, and
the pretended cause of his emigration. The fact is not denied;
but in the relation of facts circumstances must not be forgotten.
To judge of the Doctor's charge against his country, we must take
a retrospective view of his conduct, and of the circumstances that
led to the destruction of his property.
It is about twelve years since he began to be distinguished among
the dissenters from the established church of England. He preach-
ed up a kind of deism, which nobody understood, and which it
was thought the Doctor understood full as well as his neighbors.
This doctrine afterwards assumed the name of Unitarianism, and
the religieux of the order were called, or rather they called them- 
selves,

[5]
selves, Unitarians. The sect never rose into consequence; and the
founder had the mortification of seeing his darling Unitarianism
growing quite out of date with himself, when the French Revolu-
tion came, and gave them both a short respite from eternal oblivion.
Those who know any thing of the English dissenters, know
that they always introduce their political claims and projects under
the mask of religion. The Doctor was one of those who entertain-
ed hopes of bringing about a revolution in England upon the
French plan; and for this purpose he found it would be very con-
venient for him to be at the head of a religious sect. Unitarianism
was now revived, and the society held regular meetings at Birming-
ham. In the inflammatory discourses, called sermons, that were
delivered at these meetings, the English constitution was first open-
ly attacked; and doctrines were there held forth subversive of all
civil and religious order. The press soon swarmed with publica-
tions expressive of these principles. The revolutionists began to
form societies all over the kingdom, between which a mode of com-
munication was established, in perfect conformity to that of the
Jacobin clubs in France.
Nothing was neglected by this branch of the Parisian Propagan-
de to excite the People to a general Insurrection. Inflammatory
Hand-bills, Advertisements, Federation Dinners, Toasts, Sermons,
Prayers; in short, every Trick that religious or political Duplicity
could suggest, was played off to destroy a Constitution which has
borne the Test, and attracted the Admiration of ages; and to estab-
lish in its place a new system fabricated by themselves.
The fourteenth of July, 1791, was of too much note in the an-
nals of modern Regeneration to be neglected by these regenerated
politicians. A club of them, of which Doctor Priestly was a mem-
ber, gave public notice of a feast, to be held at Birmingham, in
which they intended to celebrate the French Revolution. Their
endeavors had hitherto excited no other sentiments in what may be
called the people of England than that of contempt. The people
of Birmingham, however, felt, on this occasion, a convulsive mo-
ment. They were scandalised at this public notice for holding in   

[6]
their town a festival to celebrate events, which were in reality a sub-
ject of the deepest horror: And seeing in it at the same time an
open and audacious attempt to destroy the Constitution of their
Country, and with it their happiness, they thought their under-
standings and loyalty insulted, and prepared to avenge themselves
by the chastisement of the English Revolutionists, in the midst of
their scandalous orgies. The feast nevertheless took place; but
the Doctor, knowing himself to be the grand projector, and conse-
quently the particular object of his ownsmen's vengeance, prudent-
ly kept away. The cry of Church and King was the signal of the
people to assemble; which they did to a considerable number, op-
posite the hotel where the convives were met. The club dispersed,
and the mob proceeded to breaking the windows, and other acts of
violence incident to such scenes; but let it be remembered that no
personal violence was offered. Perhaps it would have been well if
they had vented their anger on the persons of the Revolutionists;
provided they had contented themselves with the ceremony of the
horse-pond or blanket. Certain it is, that it would have been ve-
ry fortunate if the riot had ended this way; but when that many-
headed Monster, a mob, is once roused and put in motion, who can
stop its destructive steps!
From the hotel of the federation the mob proceeded to Doctor
Priestly's Meeting House, which they very nearly destroyed in a
little time. Had they stopped here, all would yet have been well.
The destruction of this temple of sedition and infidelity would
have been of no great consequence; but, unhappily for them and
the town of Birmingham, they could not be separated, before they
had destroyed the houses and property of many members of the club.
Some of these houses, among which was Doctor Priestly's, were
situated at the distance of some miles from town; the mob were in
force to defy all the efforts of the civil power, and, unluckily none
of the military could be brought to the place 'till some days after
the 14th of July. In the mean time many spacious and elegant
houses were burnt, and much valuable property destroyed; but it
is certainly worthy remark, that during the whole of these unlaw-
ful proceedings, not a single person was killed or wounded, either

[7]
wilfully or by accident, except some of the rioters themselves. At
the end of four or five days, this riot, which seemed to threaten  
more serious consequences, was happily terminated by the arrival
of a detachment of dragoons; and tranquility was restored to the
distressed town of Birmingham.                          
The magistrates used every exertion in their power to quell
this riot in its earliest stage, and continued so to do to the last.
The Earl of Plymouth condescended to attend, and act as a justice
of the peace; several clergymen of the church of England also at-
tended in the same capacity, and they all were indefatigable in their
endeavors to put a stop to the depredations, and to re-establish or-
der and tranquility. Every one knows that in such cases it is very
difficult to discriminate, and that it is neither necessary nor just, if
it be possible, to imprison, try, and execute the whole of a mob.
Eleven of these rioters, were, however, indicted; seven of them
were acquitted, four found guilty, and of these four, two suffered
death. These unfortunate men were, according to the law, pro-
secuted on the part of the king; and it has been allowed by the
Doctor's own partizans, that the prosecution was carried on with
every possible enforcement, and even rigour, by the judges and
counsellors. The pretended lenity was laid to the charge of the
jury! What a contradiction! They accuse the government of screen-
ing the rioters from the penalty due to their crimes, and at the
same time they accuse the jury of their acquital! It is the misfor-
tune of Doctor Priestly and all his adherents ever to be inconsistent
with themselves.
After this general view of the riots, in which the Doctor was un-
lawfully despoiled of his property, let us return to the merits of his
particular case, and his complaint; and here let it be recollected,
that it is not of the rioters alone that he complains, but of the laws
and government of his country also. Upon an examination of
particulars we shall find, that so far from his having just cause of
complaint, the laws have rendered him strict justice, if not some-
thing more; and that if any party has reason to complain of their
execution, it is the town of Birmingham, and not Doctor Priestly.                       

[8]
Some timeafter the riots, the Doctor and the other Revolution-
ists who had had property destroyed, brought their actions for da-
mages against the town of Birmingham, or rather against the Hun-
dred of which that town makes a part. The Doctor laid his da-
mages at £. 4122. 11. 9. sterling; of which sum, £. 420. 15. 0.
was for works in manuscript, which he said, had been consumed in
the flames. The trial of this cause took up nine hours: The jury
gave a verdict in his favor; but curtailed the damages to £. 2502.
18. 0. It was rightly considered that the imaginary value of the
manuscript works ought not to have been included in the damages;
because the Doctor being the author of them, he in fact possessed
them still, and the loss could be little more than a few sheets of dir-
ty paper. Besides, if they were to be estimated by those he had
published for some years before, their destruction was a benefit in-
stead of a loss, both to himself and his country. This sum then of
£.420. 15. 0. being deduced, the damages stood at l.3701. 16. 9.
and it should not be forgotten that even a great part of this sum was
charged for an apparatus of philosophical instruments, which in
spite of the most unpardonable gasconade of the Philosopher, * can
be looked upon as a thing of imaginary value only; and ought not
to be estimated at its cost any more than a collection of shells or in-
sects, or any other of the frivola of a virtuoso.
Now it is notorious that actions for damages are always brought
for much higher sums than are ever expected to be recovered.
Sometimes they are brought for three times the amount of the real
damage sustained; sometimes for double, and sometimes for only a
third more than the real damage. If we view then the Doctor's es-
timate in the most favorable light; if we suppose that he made but
the addition of one third of his real damages, the sum he ought to
* "You have destroyed the most truly valuable and useful apparatus of
philosophical instruments that perhaps any individual, in this or any
other country, was ever possessed of; in my use of which I annual-
ly spent large sums, with no pecuniary view whatever, but only in
the advancement of science, for the benefit of my country and of
mankind."
Letter to the Inhabitants of Birmingham. 

[9]
have received would be no more than l.2467 17. 10; whereas he
actually received l.2502. 18. 0; which was l.35. 0. 2 more than
he had a right to expect. And yet he complains that he has not
found protection from the laws and government of his country! If
he had been the very bed subject in England in place of one of the
very worst, what could the laws have done more for him? Nothing
certainly can be a stronger proof of the independence of the courts
of justice, and of the impartial execution of the laws in England
than the circumstances and result of this cause. A man who had
for many years been the avowed and open enemy of the govern-
ment and constitution, had his property destroyed by a mob, who
declared themselves the friends of both, and who rose on him because
he was not. This mob were pursued by the government whose
cause they thought they were defending; some of them suffered
death; and the inhabitants of the place where they assembled, were
obliged to indemnify the man, whose property they had destroyed.
It would be curious to know what sort of protection this reverend
Doctor, this "friend of humanity" wanted. Would nothing sa-
tisfy him but the blood of the whole mob? Did he wish to see the
town of Birmingham like that of Lyons, razed, and all its industri-
ous and loyal inhabitants butchered; because some of them had
been carried to commit unlawful excesses from their detestation of
his wicked projects? BIRMINGHAM HAS COMBATED AGAINST
PRIESTLY. BIRMINGHAM IS NO MORE." This I suppose
would have satisfied the charitable modern philosopher, who pre-
tended, and who the Democratic Society say did, "return to his
enemies blessings for curses." Woe to the wretch that is exposed
to the benedictions of a modern philosopher. His "dextre venge-
resse" is ten thousand times more to be feared than the bloody poig-
nard of the assassin: The latter is drawn on individuals only, the o-
ther is pointed at the human race. Happily for the people of Bir-
mingham these blessings had no effect; there was no National Con-
vention, Revolutionary Tribunal, or Guillontine in England.
As I have already observed, if the Doctor had been the best and
most peaceable subject in the kingdom, the government and laws
B

[10]
could not have yielded him more perfect protection: his complaint,
would therefore be groundless, if he had given no provocation to
the people, if he had in no wise contributed to the riots. If then 
he has received ample justice, considered as an innocent man, and a
good subject, what shall we think of his complaint, when we find
that he was himself the principal cause of these riots; and that the
rioters did nothing that was not perfectly consonant to the princi-
ples he had for many years been labouring to infuse into their minds?  
That he and his club were the cause of the riots will not be dis- 
puted; for had they not given an insulting notice of their inten- 
tion to celebrate the horrors of the 14th of July, accompanied with
an inflammatory hand-bill, intended to excite an insurrection against
the government, * no riot would ever have taken place, and conse-
quently its disastrous effects would have been avoided. But it has 
been said, that there was nothing offensive in this inflammatory
hand-bill; because forsooth "the matter of it (however indecent 
and untrue) was not more virulent than Paine's Rights of man,
Mackintosh's answer to Burke, Remarks on the constitution of
England, &c. &c. which had been lately published without incur-
ring the censure of government." So; an inflammatory perform-
ance, acknowledged to be indecent and untrue, is not offensive, be-
cause it is not more virulent than some other performances, which
have escaped the censure of government! If this is not a new man-
ner of arguing, it is at least an odd one. But this hand bill had
something more malicious in it, if not more virulent, than even
the inflammatory works above mentioned. They were more diffi-
cult to come at; to have them they must be bought. They contain-
ed something like reasoning, the fallacy of which the government
was very sure would be detected by the good sense of those who
took the pains to read them. A hand bill was a more commodious
instrument of sedition: It was calculated to have immediate effect.
Besides, if there had been nothing offensive in it, why did the club
* This hand bill was disowned by the club, and they offered a reward
for apprehending the author; but they took care to send him to France
before the advertisement appeared. 

[11]
think proper to disown it in so ceremonious a manner? They dis-
owned it with the most solemn asseverations, offered a reward for
apprehending the author, and afterwards justified it as an inoffensive
thing. Here is palpable inconsistency. The fact is, they perceiv-
ed that this precious morsel of eloquence, in place of raising a mob
for them, was like to raise one against them: They saw the storm
gathering, and in the moment of fear disowned the writing. After
the danger was over, seeing they could not exculpate themselves
from the charge of having published it, they defended it as an inof-
fensive performance.
The Doctor in his justificatory letter to the people of Birming-
ham, says that the company were assembled on this occasion, "to
celebrate the emancipation of a neighboring nation from tyranny,
without intimating a desire of any thing more than an improvement
of their own constitution." Excessive modesty! Nothing but an
improvement? A La FRANCOISE of course? However, with res-
pect to the  Church, as it was a point of conscience, the club do not
seem to have been altogether so moderate in their designs. "Be-
lieve me," says the Doctor, in the same letter, "the Church of En-
gland which you now think you are supporting, has received a
greater blow by this conduct of yours, than I and all my friends
have ever aimed at it." They had then it seems aimed a blow at
the established church, and were forming a plan for improving the
constitution; and yet the Doctor in the same letter, twice expres-
ses his astonishment at their being treated as the enemies of church
and state. In a letter to the students of the college of Hackney, he
says, "A Hierarchy, equally the ban of christianity and rational
liberty, now confesses its weakness; and he assured that you will see
its complete reformation or its fall." And yet he has the assurance
to tell the people of Birmingham, that their superiors have deceiv-
ed them in representing him and his sect as the enemies of church
and state.
But say they, we certainly exercised the right of freemen in as-
sembling together; and even if our meeting had been unlawful,
cognizance should have been taken of it by the magistracy: There 

[12]
can be no liberty where a ferocious mob is suffered to supercede the
law. Very true. This is uhat the Doctor has been told a thousand
times, but he never would believe it. He still continued to bawl
out: "The sunshine of reason will assuredly chase away and dissi-
pate the mists of darkness and error; and when the majesty of the
people is insulted, or they feel themselves oppressed by any set of
men, they have the power to redress the grievance." So the peo-
ple of Birmingham, feeling their majesty insulted by a set of men
(and a very impudent set of men too) who audaciously attempted to
persuade them that they were "all slaves and idolators," and to
seduce them from their duty to God and their country, rose to redress
the grievance. And yet he complains? Ah! says he, but, my good
townsmen,
"—you mistake the matter:
"For in all scruples of this nature
"No man includes himself, nor turns
"The point upon his own concerns."
And therefore he says to the people of Birmingham: "You have
been misled." But had they suffered themselves to be misled by
himself into an insurrection against the government; had they burnt
the churches, cut the throats of the clergy, and hung the magistrates,
military officers and nobility to the lamp posts, would he not have
said that they exercised a sacred right? Nay, was not the very fes-
tival, which was the immediate cause of these riots, held expressly
to celebrate scenes like these? to celebrate the inglorious triumphs
of a mob? The 14th of July was a day marked with the blood of
the innocent, and eventually the destruction of an empire. The
events of that day must strike horror to every heart except that of
a deistical philosopher, and would brand with eternal infamy any
other nation but France; which, thanks to the benign influence of
the Rights of Man, has made such a progress in ferociousness, mur-
der, sacrilege, and every species of infamy, that the horrors of the
fourteenth of July are already forgotten.
What we celebrate we must approve; and does not the man, who
approved of the events of the 14th of July, blush to complain of
the Birmingham riots? "Happily," says he to the people of Bir-     

[13]
mingham, "happily the minds of Englishmen have a horror for
murder, and therefore you did not, I hope, think of that; though by
your clamorous demanding me at the hotel, it is probable that, at
that time, some of you intended me some personal injury." Yes,
Sir, happily the minds of Englishmen have a horror for murder;
but who will say that the minds of Englishmen, or English women
either, would have a horror for murder if you had succeeded in over-
turning their religion and constitution, and introducing your French-
ified system of liberty! The French were acknowledged to be the
most polite, gentle, compassionate and hospitable people in all Eu-
rope: What are they now? Let La Fayette, Brissot, Anacharsis,
Cloots, or Thomas Payne himself, answer this question.
Let us see a little how mobs have acted under the famous go-
vernments that the Doctor so much admires.
I shall not attempt a detail of the horrors committed by the cut-
throat Jourdan and his associates in Provence, Avignon, Languedoc,
and Roussillon. Towns and villages sacked; Gentlemen's seats
and castles burnt, and their inhabitants massacred; magistrates in-
sulted, beat, and imprisoned, sometimes killed; prisoners set at li-
berty to cut the throats of those they had already robbed. The
exploits of this band of Patriots would fill whole volumes. They
reduced a great part of the inhabitants of the finest and most fertile
country in the whole world to a degree of misery and ruin that
would never have been forgotten, had it not been so far eclipsed
since, by the operation of what is in "that devoted country" called
the law. The amount of the damages, sustained in property, was
perhaps a hundred thousand times as great as that sustained by the
Revolutionists at Birmingham. When repeated accounts of these
murderous scenes were laid before the National Assembly, what
was the consequence? what the redress? "We had our fears," said
Monsieur Gentil, "for the prisoners of Avignon, and for the lives
and property of the inhabitants of that unhappy country; but these
fears are now changed into a certainty: The prisoners are released;
the country seats are burnt, and"—Monsieur Gentil was cal-
led to order, and not suffered to proceed; after which these precious
"Guardians of the rights of Man" passed a censure on him, for 

[14]
having slandered the patriots. It is notorious that the chief of
these cut-throats, Jourdan, has since produced his butcheries in A-
vignon as a proof of his civism, and that he is now a distinquished
character among the real friends of the Revolution.
Does the Doctor remember having heard any thing about the
glorious atchievments of the 10th of August, 1792? Has he ever
made an estimate of the property destroyed in Paris on that and on
the following days? Let him compare the destruction that followed
the steps of that mob, with the loss of his boasted apparatus; and
when he has done this, let him tell us, if he can, where he would
now be, if the government of England had treated him and his
friends, as the National Assembly did the sufferers in the riots of
the 10th of August. But perhaps he looks upon the events of that
day as a glorious victory, a new emancipation, and of course will
say, that I degrade the Heroes in calling them a mob. I am not
for disputing with him about a name; he may call them the heroes
of the 10th of August if he will: "The heroes of the 14th of
July," has always been understood to mean, a gang of blood thirsty
cannibals, and I would by no means wish to withold the title from
those of the 10th of August.
Will the doctor allow, that it was a mob that murdered the state
prisoners from Orleans? or does he insist upon calling that massacre
an act of civism, and the actors in it, the heroes of the 12th of Sep-
tember? But whether it was an act of civism, a massacre or a victo-
ry, or whatever it was, I cannot help giving it a place here, as I
find it recorded by his countryman, Doctor Moore. "The man-
gled bodies," says he, "were lying in the street on the left hand as
you go to the Chateau from Paris. Some of the lower sort of the
inhabitants of Versailles were looking on; the rest, struck with ter-
ror, were shut up in their shops and houses. The body of the Duke
of Brissac was pointed out, the head and one of the hands was cut
off! a man stood near smoking tobacco, with his sword drawn,
and a human hand stuck on the point! another fellow walked care-
lessly among the bodies with an entire arm of another of the prison-
ers fixed to the point of his sword! A waggon afterwards arrived, 

[15]
into which were thrown as many of the slaughtered bodies as the
horses could draw! a boy about fifteen years of age was in the wag-
gon, assisting to receive the bodies as they were put in, and pack-
ing them in the most convenient manner, with an air of as much in-
difference as if they had been so many parcels of goods! One of the
wretches who threw in the bodies, and who probably had assisted
in the massacre, said to the spectators, in praise of the boy's activi-
ty; "See that little fellow there; how bold he is!"
"The assassins of the prisoners were a party who came from Pa-
ris the preceding evening, most of them in post chaises, for that pur-
pose, and who attacked those unhappy men while they remained in
the street, waiting 'till the gate of the prison, which was prepared
for their reception, should be opened.—The detachment which
had guarded the prisoners from Orleans, stood shameful and passive
spectators of the massacre.—The miserable prisoners being all un-
armed, and some of them fettered, could do nothing in their own
defence; they were most of them stabbed, and a few, who attempted
resistance, were cut down with sabres.
"There never was a more barbarous and dastardly action per-
formed in the face of the sun.—Gracious Heaven! Were those bar-
barities, which would disgrace savages, committed by Frenchmen!
by that lively and ingenious people, whose writings were so much
admired, whose society has been so much courted, and whole man-
ners have been so much imitated by all the neighboring nations?—
This attrocious deed, executed in the streets of Versailles, and the
horrors committed in the prisons of Paris, will fix indeliable stains
on the character of the French nation. It is said, those barbari-
ties revolted the hearts of many of the citizens of Paris and Versail-
les as much as they could those of the inhabitants of London or
Windsor. It is also said that those massacres were not committed
by the inhabitants of Paris or Versailles, but by a set of hired assas-
sins. But who hired those assassins? Who remained in shameful
stupor and dastardly inactivity, while their laws were insulted, their
prisons violated, and their fellow citizens butchered in the open
streets? I do not believe, that from the wickedest gangs of high-
waymen, house-breakers, and pick-pockets, that infest London and 

[16]
the neighborhood, men could be selected who could be bribed to
murder in cold blood, such a number of their countrymen!—and
if they could, I am convinced that no degree of popular delusion
they are capable of, no pretext, no motive whatever, could make
the inhabitants of London or Windsor, or of any town of Great-
Britain suffer such dreadful executions to be performed within
their walls"
No; I hope not: Yet I do not know what might have been ef-
fected, by an introduction of the same system of anarchy, that has
changed the airy amiable French into a set of the most ferocious
inhuman blood hounds that ever disgraced the human shape.
From scenes like these, the mind turns for relief and consolation
to the riot at Birmingham. That riot considered comparatively
with what Doctor Priestly and his friends wished and attempted to
stir up, was peace, harmony and gentleness. Has this man any rea-
son to complain? He will perhaps say, he did not approve of the
French riots and massacres; to which I shall answer that he did ap-
prove of them. His public celebration of them was a convincing
proof of this; and if it were not, his sending his son to Paris, in
the midst of them, to request the honor of becoming a French citi-
zen, is a proof that certainly will not be disputed. If then we
take a view of the riots of which the Doctor is an admirer, and of
those of which he expresses his detestation, we must fear that he is
very far from being that "friend of human happiness," that the
Democratic Society pretend to believe him. In short, in whatever
light we view the Birmingham riots, we can see no object that ex-
cites our compassion except the inhabitants of the Hundred and the
unfortunate Rioters themselves.
The charge that the Doctor brings against his country is, that it
has not afforded him protection. It ought to be remarked here, that
there is a material difference between a government that does not
at all times afford sufficient protection, and one that is oppressive.
However, in his answers to the New-York addresses, he very po-
litely acquiesces in the government and laws of England being op-
pressive also. Would he really prefer the proceedings of a revolu-
tionary tribunal to those of a court of justice in England? Does he 

[17]
envy the lot of his colleagues Manuel, Lacroix, Danton and Cha-
bot? How would he look before a tribunal like that of the Princess
de Lambelle, for example? When this much lamented unfortu-
nate lady was dragged before the villains that fat in a kind of mock
judgment on her, they were drinking eau de vie, to the damnation
of those who lay dead before them. Their shirt sleeves were tuck-
ed up to their elbows, and even the goblets they were drinking out
of, were besmeared with human blood! I much question if the as-
sassin's stab, or even the last pang of death with all its concomitant
bitterness, was half so terrible as the blood-freezing sight of these
hell hounds. Yet this was a court of justice, under that constitution,
which "the friend of human happiness" wanted to impose on his
countrymen! Paine, in speaking of the English government, says
exultingly, and as he fancies wittingly: "They manage those
things better in France." I fancy this boasting "representative
of twenty four millions of freemen," would now be glad to ex-
change his post of deputy for that of under shoe black to the mean-
est Laquay at the court of London! Would he not with joy ex-
change his cachet with the reversion of the Guillotine into the bar-
gain, for the darkest cell in that very Bastile, the destruction of
which he has so triumphantly and heroically sung? His fate is a
good hint to those who change countries every time they cross the
sea. A man of all countries, is a man of no country: And let all
those citizens of the world remember, that he who has been a bad
subject in his own country, though from some latest motive he may
be well received in another, will never be either trusted or respected.
The Doctor, and his fellow labourers who have lately emigrated
to Botany Bay, have been continually bawling out: "A reform of
Parliament." The same visionary delusion seems to have prevaded
all reformers in all ages. They do not consider what can be done,
but what they think ought to be done. They have no calculating
principle to direct them to discover whether a reform will cost
them more than it is worth or not. They do not set down to
count the cost; but, the object being as they think desirable, the
C

[18]
means are totally disregarded. If the reformers in France had sit
down to count the cost, I do not believe, they were villains enough
to have pursued their plan as they did. To save a tenth part of
their income, they have given the whole, or rather it has been ta-
ken from them. To preserve the life of a person, now and then,
perhaps unjustly condemned, they have drenched the country with
the blood of the innocent. Even the bastile, that terrible monu-
ment of tyranny which has been painted in such frightful colours,
contained but two state prisoners when it was forced by the mob;
and the reformers to deliver these two prisoners, and to guard others
from a like fate, have erected Bastiles in every town and in every
street. Before the Revolution there were only two state prisoners,
there are now above two hundred thousand. Do these people cal-
culate? Certainly not. They will not take man as they find him,
and govern him upon principles established by experience; they will
have him to be "a faultless monster that the world ne'er saw,"
and wish to govern him according to a system that never was, or
can be brought into practice. These waking dreams would be
of no more consequence than those of the night, were they not gene-
rally pursued with an unjustifiable degree of obstinacy and intrigue,
and even villainy; and did they not, being always adapted to flatter
and inflame the lower orders of the people, often baffle every effort
of legal power. Thus it happened in England in the reign of
Charles the first; and thus has it happened in France. Some tri-
fling innovation always paves the way to the subversion of a go-
vernment. The axe in the forest humbly besought a little piece
of wood to make it a handle: The forest, consisting of stately trees,
could not, without manifest cruelty, refuse the "humble" request;
but, the handle once granted, the before contemptible tool began to
lay about with so much violence, that in a little time not a tree not
even a shrub was standing. That a parliamentary reform was the
handle by which the English revolutionists intended to effect the de-
struction of the constitution need not be insisted on; at least if we
believe their own repeated declarations. Paine and some others
clearly expressed themselves on this head: The Doctor was more
cautious while in England, but, safely arrived in his "assylum," he 

[19]
has been a little more undisguised. He says the troubles in Europe
are the natural offspring of the "forms of government" that exist there;
arid that the abuses spring from the "artificial distinctions in society."
I must stop here a moment to remark on the imprudence of this
assertion. Is it not notorious that changing those forms of govern-
ment, and destroying those distinctions in society, has introduced all
the troubles in Europe? Had the form of government in France
continued what it had been for twelve or thirteen hundred years,
would those troubles ever have had existence? To hazard an as-
sertion like this, a man must be an idiot, or he must think his read-
ers so.—It was then the form of the English government, and those
artificial distinctions; that is to say, of king, prince, bishop, &c.
that he wanted to destroy, in order to produce that "other system of
liberty" which he had been, so long dreaming about. In his an-
swer to the address of "the republican natives of Great Britain
and Ireland, resident at New-York," he says: "The wisdom and
happiness of republican governments, and the evils resulting from
hereditary monarchial ones, cannot appear in a stronger light to
you than they do to me;" and yet this same man pretended an invio-
lable attachment to the hereditary monarchial government of Great
Britain! Says he, by way of vindicating the principles of his club
to the people of Birmingham: "The first toast that was drank,
was, "the king and constitution." What! does he make a merit in
England of having toasted that which he abominates in America?
Alas! Philosophers are but mere men.
It is clear that a parliamentary reform was not the object: An
after game was intended; which the vigilance of government, and
the natural good sense of the people happily prevented; and the
Doctor, disappointed and chagrined, is come here to discharge his
heart of the venom it has been long collecting against his country.
He tells the Democratic Society that he cannot promise to be a bet-
ter subject of this government than he has been of that of Great-
Britain. Let us hope that he intends us an agreeable disappoint-
ment, if not, the sooner he emigrates back again the better. 

[20]
System mongers are an unreasonable species of mortals: Time,
place, climate nature itself must give way. They must have the
same government in every quarter of the globe; when perhaps there
are not two countries which can possibly admit of the same form of
government, at the same time. A thousand hidden causes, a thou-
sand circumstances and unforeseen events conspire to the forming of
a government. It is always done by little and little. When com-
pleated it presents nothing like a system; nothing like a thing com-
posed, and written in a book. It is carious to hear people cite
the Amercian government as the summit of human pefection while
they decry the English; when it is absolutely nothing more than
the government which the kings of England established here, with
such little modifications as were necessary on account of the state of
society and local circumstances. If then the Doctor is come here
for a change of government and laws, he is the most disappointed of
mortals. He will have the mortification to find in his "assylum"
the same laws as those from which he has fled, the same upright
wanner of administering them, the same punishment of the oppres-
for, and the same protection of the oppressed. In the courts of justice
he will every day see precedents quoted from the English law-books;
and (which to him may appear wonderful) we may venture to predict
that it will be very long before they will be supplanted by the bloody
records of a revolutionary tribunal. Let him compare the government
of these states, and the measures they have pursued, with what has pas-
ed under the boasted constitution he wished to introduce into England
& see if he can find one single instance of the most distant resemblance.
In the abolition of negro slavery for example, the governments of
the United States have not rushed headlong into the mad plan of
the National Convention. With much more human views; with
a much more sincere desire of seeing all mankind free and happy,
they have, in spite of clubs and societies, proceeded with caution
and justice. In short, they have adopted, as nearly as possible,
considering the circumstances and situation, the same measures as
have been taken by the govrenment which he abhors. He will
have the further mortification to find that the government here is 

[21]
not, any more than in England, influenced by the vociferations of
fish-women, or by the toasts and resolutions of popular societies. He
will however, have one consolation: Here as well as there, he will
find, that the truly great, virtuous and incorruptible man at the
head of government, is branded for an Aristocrat, by those noisy
gentry.
Happiness being the end of all good government, that which
produces the most, is consequently the best: and comparison be-
ing the only method of determining the relative value of things,
it is easy to see which is preferable, the tyranny which the French
formerly enjoyed, or the liberty and equality they at present labor
under. If the doctor had come about a year sooner, he might
have had the satisfaction of not only being an ear, but an eye
witness also, of some of the blessed effects of this celebrated revo-
lution. He might then have been regaled with that sight, so de-
lectable to a modern philosopher;—oppulence reduced to misery.
The stale pretence, that the league against the French has been
the cause of their inhuman conduct to each other, cannot, by the
most perverse sophistry, be applied to the island of St. Domingo.
That fine rich colony was ruined; its superb capital and villas
reduced to ashes; one half of its inhabitants massacred, and the
other half reduced to beggary, before an enemy ever appeared on
the coast. No: It is that system of anarchy and blood that was
celebrated at Birmingham on the 14th July, 1791, that has been
the cause of all this murder and devastation.
Nor let the Doctor pretend that this could not be foreseen. It
was foreseen and foretold too, from the very moment a part of
the Deputies to the States General were permitted to call them-
selves a national assembly. In proof of this I could mention a
dozen publications that came out under his own eye; but I shall
content myself with giving a short extract from a speech in the
British Parliament, which is the more proper on this occasion, as
it was delivered but a few weeks before the period of the riots,
"The Americans," said Mr. Burke, "have what was essentially

[22]
necessary for their freedom; they have the phlegm of the good
tempered Englishmen—they were fitted for Republicans by a
republican education. Their revolution was not brought about
by base and degenerate crimes; nor did they overturn a govern-
ment for the purposes of anarchy; but they raised a republic, as
nearly representing the British government as it was possible.
They did not run into the absurdity of France, and by seizing
on the rights of man, declare that the nation was to govern the
nation, and prince prettyman to govern prettyman. There are
in Cannada many of the ancient inhabitants; will it be proper to
give them the French Constitution? In my opinion there is not
a single circumstance that recommends the adoption of any part
of it, for the whole is abominably bad—the prodoction of folly,
not of wisdom—of vice, not of virtue; it contains nothing but
extremes, as distant from each other as the poles—the parts are
in eternal opposition to each other—it is founded on what is
called the rights of man, but to ray conviction it is founded on the
wrongs of man, and I now hold in my hands an example of its ef-
fects on the French colonies—Domingo, Gaudaloupe, and the
other French Islands, were rich, happy, and growing in strength
and consequence in spite of the three last distressing wars, before
they heard of the new doctrine of the rights of man; but these
rights were no sooner arrived at the Islands, than any spectator
would have imagined that Pandora's box had been opened, and
that Hell had yawned out discord, murder, and every mischief;
for anarchy and confusion and bloodshed raged every where; it
was a general summons for
"Black spirits, and white,
"Blue spirits and grey,
"Mingle, mingle mingle,
"You that mingle may."
When the assembly heard of these disorders, they ordered troops
to quell them: but it proves that the troops have joined the insur-
gents, and murdered their commander. I look on the Revolution
with horror and detestation; it is a revolution of consummate folly
formed and maintained by every vice."

[23]
But perhaps the Doctor's intense studies; "his continual labor
for the good of mankind," might not leave him time to peruse the
debates of Parliament; however we may fairly presume that he
read the letters addressed to himself; and if so he has read the
following passage: "You think that a neighboring nation is
emancipated from tyranny, and that a company of Englishmen may
laudably express their joy on the occasion. Were your premises
true, I would allow your conclusion. But let us wait the event.
Philosophers should not be too credulous, or form their determina-
tion too rashly. It is very possible that all the magnificent schemes
of your august diet in France may be succeeded by a ridiculous, a
villainous, or a bloody catastrophe."
Either he foresaw the consequences of the French revolution ot
he did not foresee them: If he did not, he mud confess that his
penetration was far inferior to that of his antagonists, and even to
that of the multitude of his countrymen; for they all foresaw
them. If he did foresee them, he ought to blush at being cal-
led the "friend of human happiness;" for, to forsee such dread-
ful calamities and to form a deliberate plan for bringing them up-
on his country he must have a disposition truely diabolical. If he
did not foresee them, he must have an understanding little superior
to that of an idiot: If he did he must have a heart of a Marat.
Let him choose.
But, it is pretty clear that he foresaw the consequences, or at
least, that he approves of them; for as I observed above, he sent
his son into France, in the very midst of the massacres, to request
the honor of becoming a French citizen; and in his answer to the
addressers at New-York, he takes good care to express his disap-
probation of the war pursued by his country (which he calls an in-
fatuation) because its manifest tendency is to destroy that hydra,
that system of anarchy which is the primary cause. Besides, is
not his emigration itself a convincing proof, that his opinion still
remains the same? If he found himself mistaken, he would confess
his error; at least tacitly, by a change of conduct. Has he done 
this? No: The French Revolution is his system, and sooner                   

[24]
than not see it established, I much question if he would not with
pleasure see the massacre of all the human race.
Even suppose his intended plan of improvement had been the
heft in the world instead of the worst: The people of England had
certainly a right to reject it. He claims as an undubitable right,
the right of thinking for others, and yet he will not permit the peo-
ple of England to think for themselves. Paine says: what a whole
nation wills, it has a right to do." Consequently, what a whole
nation does not will, it has a right net to do. Rousseau says:
"The majority of a people has a right to force the rest to be
free;" but even the "insane Socrates of the National Assembly"
has never in all his absurd reveries, had the folly to pretend, that a
club of dissenting Malcontents has a right to force a whole nation
to be free. If the English chose to remain slaves, Bigots and Idol-
ators, as the Doctor calls them, that was no business of his: He had
nothing to do with them. He should have let them alone; and
perhaps in due time, the abuses of the government would have
come to that "natural termination," which he trusts "will guard
against all future abuses." But, no, said the Doctor, I will reform
you—I will enlighten you—I will make you free. You shall not!
say the people. But I will! says the Doctor. By—, say the
people, you shall not! "And when Ahithopel saw that his council
was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to
his house, to his city and put his household in order, and hanged him-
self, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father."
I now beg the reader's company in a slight review of the addres-
ses delivered to the Doctor by the several patriotic societies at
New-York.*
* I. An address from the "Democratic Society"
II.  From the "Tammany Society." 
III. From the "Associated Teachers."
IV.  From the "Republican Natives of Great Britain and Ireland."
These addresses with the answers to them having all appeared in the
Gazettes, it will be useless to give them at length here. 

[25]
It is no more than justice to say of these addresses, that they are
in the lump distinguished for a certain barrenness of thought, and
vulgarity of style, which were we not in possession of, the Doctor's
answers might be thought inimitable. If the parties were less
known, one might be tempted to think that the addressers were
dull by concert; and that, by way of retaliation, the Doctor was
resolved to be as dull as they. At least, if this was their design,
nobody will deny but they have succeeded to admiration.
"The governments of the old world," say the Democratic,
"are most of them now basely combined to prevent the establish-
ment of liberty in France, and to effect the total destruction of the
rights of man."
What! The Rights of Man yet? I thought that Liberty and E-
quality, the Rights of Man, and all that kind of political cant, had
long been discovered for the greatest Bore in nature. Are there
people in this country, and people who pretend to possess a superior
degree of sagacity too, who are dolts enough to talk about French
Liberty, after what they see under their eyes this very day? Is not
every Frenchman in the United States, obliged to go to a justice
of the peace, every two or three months, to have a certificate of re-
sidence? And must he not have his certificate sworn to, and signed
by four of the inhabitants besides the Magistrate? And must he not
pay for this too? And if he fails in any part of this slavish ceremo-
ny, or goes into Canada or Florida, is he not marked out for the
Guillontine? An Englishman may come when he will, stay as long
as he pleases, go where he will, and return when he will to his own
country, without finding any law of prosecution, or confiscation,
issued against him or his property. Which has most liberty?
I thought no one would dun our ears with French Liberty, after
the decree which obliges every merchant, under pain of the guil-
lontine, to make a declaration of all his property in foreign coun-
tries, and to give up his right and title of such property to the con-
vention; and not only to make a declaration of his own, but of his
D

[26]
neighbors property also, under the same penalty! It has long been
customary to express a detestation of the tyranny and cruelty of the
inquisition: But the inquisition, in the height of its severity, was
never half so tyrannical as this decree. This is the boasted "gallic
liberty." Let us hear their own definition of this liberty. "Li-
berty," says Barrere, in his report to the National Convention, on
the 3d of January last, "Liberty, my dear fellow citizens, is a
privileged and general creditor; not only has she a right to our
property and persons, but to our talents and courage, and even to
our thoughts." Oh Liberty! What a metamorphosis hast thou un-
dergone in the hands of these political juglers!
If this be liberty, may God in his mercy continue me the most
abject slave. If this be liberty, who will say that the English did
not do well in rejecting the Doctor's plan for making them free?
The Democrats of New-York, accuse the allies of being combi-
ned to prevent the establishment of liberty in France, and to destroy
the rights of man; when it is notorious that the French themselves
have banished the very idea of the thing from among them; that is
to say, if they ever had an idea of it. Nay, the author of the
rights of man and the authoress of the rights of women, are at this
moment starving in a dirty dungeon, not a hundred paces from the
sanctum sanctorum of liberty and equality; and the poor unfortu-
nate Goddess * herself is guillontined! So much for liberty and the
rights of man.
The Tammany Society comes forward in boasting of their "ve-
nerable ancestors," and, says the Doctor in his answer: "Happy
would our venerable ancestors have been to have found, &c."
What! Were they the Doctor's ancestors too? I suppose he means
in a figurative sense! But certainly, gentlemen, you made a faux
* Madame Hebert, who had the honor of representing this Deity and
who received for a considerable time, the adorations and incense of
the devout Parisians, was guillontined not long ago. It is impossible
to say for what she was executed, as the court by which she was tried
do not waste their precious time in commuting their proceedings to
writing.

[27]
pas in talking about your ancestors at all. It is always a tender
subject, and ought to be particularly avoided by a body of men
"who disdain the shackles of tradition"
You say, that in the United States, "there exists a sentiment of
free and candid enquiry, which disdains the shackles of tradition,
preparing a rich harvest of improvement and the glorious triumph
of truth." Knowing the religious, or rather the irreligious, prin-
ciples of the person to whom this sentence was addressed, it is easy
to divine its meaning. But, without flattery, your zeal surpasses
that of the Doctor himself: He disdains revelation only; the autho-
rity of Moses, David, and a parcel of folks that nobody knows;
but you disdain what your fathers have told you; which is the
more surprising, as, at the same time, you boast of your venerable
ancestors." People should always endeavor to be consistent, at
least when interest does not interfere. However, suppose the shack-
les of revelation and tradition both completely shaken off, and the
infidel unitarian system established in their stead; what good would
the country derive from it? This is certainly worth enquiry; be-
cause a thing that will do no good, can be good for nothing.
The people of these states are, in general, industrious, sober, honest,
humane, charitable, and sincere; dutiful children and tender pa-
rents. This is the character of the people, and who will pretend
to say that the gospel, the belief of which has chiefly contributed
to their acquiring of this amiable character, ought to be exchanged
for the atheistical or deistical doctrines of a Monvel or a Priestly?
For my part I can see nothing to induce us to try the experiment;
no, not even "the rich harvest of improvement and the glorious
triumph of truth," that you say it promises. We know the truth
already; we want no improvement in religious knowledge; all we
want is to practice better what we know; and it is not likely that
our practice would be improved by disdaining the theory.
You allow that a public and sincere spirit of toleration exists
among us: What more is wanted? If you were to effect a general
disdain of the shackles of tradition, perhaps the "rich harvest"
be a corruption of the manners, discord, persecution and blood.
The same causes generally produces the same effects: To see and

[28]
be terrified at those effects, we have only to turn our eyes to that
distracted country, where it must be allowed even by yourselves,
the shackles of tradition are sufficiently disdained.
Doctor Priestly professes to wish for nothing but toleration; li-
berty of conscience. But let us contrast these moderate and disin-
terested professions with what he has advanced in some of his latest
publications. I have already taken notice of the assertion, in his
letters to the students of Hackney; "that the established church
must fall." In his address to the Jews (whom by the bye, he seems
to wish to form a coalition with) he says; "all the persecutions of
the jews have arisen from trinitarian; that is to say, idolatrous
christians." Idolatrous Christians! It is the first time I believe
these two words were ever joined together. Is this the language
of a man who wants only toleration, in a country where the estab-
lished church, and the most part of the dissenters also, are professed-
ly trinitarians? He will undoubtedly say that the people of this
country are idolators too, for there is not one out of an hundred at
most, who does not firmly believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Such a man complains of persecution with a very ill grace. But
suppose he had been persecuted for a mere matter of opinion; it
would be only receiving the measure he has meted to others. Has
he not approved of the unmerciful persecution of the unfortunate and
worthy part of the French clergy; men as far surpassing him in pi-
ety and utility as in suffering. They did not want to coin a new
religion; they wanted only to be permitted to enjoy, without in-
terruption, the one they had been educated in, and that they had
sworn in the most solemn manner, to continue in to the end of their
lives. The Doctor says in his address to the Methodists; "You
will judge whether I have not reason and scripture on my side.
You will at least be convinced that I have so persuaded myself; and
you cannot but respect a real lover of truth, and a desire to bring
others into it, even in the man who is unfortunately in an error."
Does not this man blush at approving of the base, cowardly and 

[29]
bloody persecutions that have been carried on against a set of men;
who erred, if they did err at all from an excess of conscientious-
ness. He talks of persecution, and puts on the mockery of woe:
Theirs has been persecution indeed. Robbed, dragged from their
homes, or obliged to hide from the sight of man, in continual ex-
pectation of the assassin's stab: Some transported like common fel-
lows, for ever; and a much greater number butchered, by those
to whose happiness their lives had been devoted, and in that coun-
try that they loved too well to disgrace by their apostacy! How
gladly would one of these unfortunate conscientious men have es-
caped to America, leaving fortune, friends and all behind him!
and how different has been the fate of Doctor Priestly! Ah, Gen-
tlemen! do not let us be deceived by false pretenders: The man-
ner of his emigration is, of itself, a sufficient proof that the step
was not necessary, to the enjoyment of "protection from violence."
You say, he has "long disinterestedly labored for his country."
"Tis true he says so; but we must not believe him more disinterested
than other reformers. If toleration had been all he wanted; if he
had contented himself with the permission of spreading his doc-
trines, he would have found this in England, or in almost any other
Country, as well as here. The man that wants only to avoid per-
secution, does not make a noisy and fastidious display of his princi-
ples, or attack with unbridled indecency, the religion of the country
in which he lives. He who avoids persecution is seldom persecuted.
"The lifted axe, the agonizing wheel,
"Luke's iron crown and Damein's bed of steel,
"To men remote from pow'r but rarely known,
"Leave reason, faith and conscience all our own."
But the Doctor did not want to be remote from power or profit ei-
ther; for in his sermon on the test laws, he proposes "to set apart
one church for the dissenters in every considerable town, and a cer-
tain allotment of tithes for their minister, proportioned to the num-
ber of dissenters in the district." A very modest and disinterested
request truly! Was this man seeking peace and toleration only?
He thinks these facts are unknown in America, After all his cla-

[30]
mour against tithes, and his rejoicing on account of their abolition
in France, he had no objection to their continuing in England,
provided he came in for a share. Astonishing disinterestedness.
In this country there is nothing to fear from the Doctor's disin-
terestedness; because there being no public revenue annexed to any
worship whatever, there is nothing to wrangle for; but from the
disseminating of his deistical doctrine there is much to fear. A ce-
lebrated deist in England says that there can be no such thing as an
athiest; that it is impossible: For says he, "every one must neces-
sarily believe that some cause or other produced the Universe; he
may call that cause what he pleases; god, nature, or even chance;
still he believes in the efficacy of that cause, and therefore is no a-
thiest." And indeed, we shall find that deism is but another name
for atheism, whether we confider it in the theory or in the practice.
That we should not be bettered by the introduction of deism or athe-
ism, I think is a clear case. "The fear of the Lord is the begin-
ning of wisdom." While this fear existed in France there was
some kind of manners, some kind of justice left; but ever since the
deluded people have been taught that Jesus Christ was an infamous
impostor; and the worship of him has been forbidden as "idola-
trous," the whole infernal legion seems to be let loose amongst
them; and the nation appears marked out for a dreadful example
to all mankind. Indeed some such example was necessary to cure
the world of the infidel philosophy of Voltaire, Rousseau, Gib-
bon, Priestly, and the rest of that enlightened tribe. We are con-
tinually exclaiming against prejudice, without attending to its ef-
fect on ourselves. I am afraid prejudice in favor of the French
Revolution has led Americans to approve many things, which a
few years ago they would have viewed with the utmost abhorrence;
and that they would even now view with abhorrence in any other
nation. And here I cannot help taking notice of an article that
appeared not many days ago in one of our public papers. The
writer is giving a list of eminent persons who have "arisen on the
democratic floor," which he concludes with Marat, St. Paul, and
Jesus Christ. Is it not a most horrid blasphemy to put the son of
god, the prince of peace, on a footing with the bloody author of 

[31]
the massacres at Paris and Versailles? I hope and believe, that such
Blasphemers are rare in the United States, and the only way to keep
them so, is for the people to reject unanimously every attempt to
debase christianity, in whatever shape, and under whatever dis-
guise it may appear.
In the address of "the republican natives of Great Britain and
Ireland, resident at New-York," we find a very extraordinary pas-
sage indeed. But before we say any thing about this address, it
will not be amiss to say a word or two about the addressers. I be-
lieve one might venture to say that there are but very few natives
of Ireland among them; because, the emigrants from that country,
being generally engaged in agricultural pursuits from their first ar-
rival here, have not the time to form themselves into political socie-
ties; and the words "Great Britain" might probably have been
supplied by one word. However, as the gentlemen have not thought
this word worthy a place in their address, I can by no means think
of introducing it here. But let us see what they think of themselves:
"After a fruitless opposition to a corrupt and tyrannical govern-
ment, many of us, like you, fought freedom and protection in the
United States of America. We look back on our native country
with pity and indignation, at the outrages that humanity has sustain-
ed in the persons of the virtuous Muir and his patriotic associates."
We may then fairly suppose, that these "republican natives of
Great-Britain and Ireland" can be no other than the members of
that renowned convention of which the "virtuous Muir," who is
now fortunately on his passage to Botany Bay, was president.
The passage of their address, alluded to above, is as follows:
"Participating in the many blessings, which the government is cal-
culated to insure, we are happy in giving it this proof of our res-
pectful attachment: We are only grieved, that a system of such beau-
ty and excellence should be at all tarnished by the existence of slavery
in any form; but, as friends to the equal rights of man, we must be
permitted to say, that we wish these rights extended to every hu-
man being, be his complexion what it may. We however look for-
ward with pleasing anticipation to a yet more perfect state of society; 

[32]
and from that love of liberty which forms so distinguished a trait
in the American character, are taught to hope that this last, the
worst disgrace to a free government, will finally and forever be done
away." So! These gentlemen are hardly landed in the United
States before they begin to cavil against the government, and to
pant after a more perfect state of Society! If they have already disco-
vered that the system is tarnished by the very last and worst disgrace
of a free government, what may we not reasonably expect from their
future researches? If they, with their virtuous President had been
landed in the southern states, they might have lent a hand to finish
the great work, so happily begun by citizens Santhonax and Pol-
verel. They have caught the itch of addressing, petitioning and
remonstrating in their own country; let them scratch themselves
into a cure; but do not let them attempt spreading their disorder.
They ought to remember, that they are come here "to seek free-
dom and protection" for themselves, and not for others. When the
people of these states are ready for a total abolition of negro slave-
ry, they will make a shift to see the propriety of adopting the mea-
sure without the assistance of these northern lights. In the mean
time, as the convention cannot here enter on their legislative func-
tions, they may amuse themselves with a fable that I have transla-
ted from the French for their particular use.
THE POT-SHOP—A FABLE.
In a pot-shop that was well stocked with ware of all sorts, a dis-
contented ill formed pitcher unluckily bore the sway. One day after
the mortifying neglect of several customers, "gentlemen" said he,
addressing himself to his brown brethren in general, "gentlemen,
with your permission, we are a set of tame fools, without ambition,
without courage: Condemned to the vilest uses, we suffer all with-
out murmuring. Let us dare to declare ourselves, and we shall
soon see the difference. That superb ewer, which, like us, is but
earth; those gilded jars, vases, china, and in short all those ele-
gant nonsenses, whose colours and beauty have neither weight nor
solidity, must yield to our strength & give way to our superior merit." 

[33]
This civic harrangue was received with peals of applause, and
the pitcher (chosen president) became the organ of the assembly.
Some however more moderate than the rest, attempted to calm the
minds of the multitude. But all those which are called jordans or
chamber pots, were become intractable: Eager to vie with the
bowls and cups, they were impatient almost to madness to quit their
obscure abodes, and to shine upon the table, kiss the lip and orna-
ment the cup-board.
In vain did a wise water-jug (some say it was a platter)
make them a long and serious discourse upon the peacefulness of
their vocation: "Those," says he, "who are destined to great
employments are rarely the most happy. We are all of the same
clay, 'tis true; but he who made us, formed us for different func-
tions. One is for ornament, another for use. The posts the least
important are often the most necessary. Our employments are ex-
tremely different, and so are our talents."
This had a wonderful effect; the most stupid began to open their
ears: Perhaps it would have succeeded, if a grease pot had not cried
out with a decisive tone: "You reason like an ass; to the devil
with you and your silly lessons."
Now the scale was turned again: All the hoard of Jordans; pans
and pitchers applauded the superior eloquence and reason of the
grease pot. In short, they determined on the enterprize; but a
dispute arose who should be chief: All would command and none
obey. It was then you might have heard a clutter: Pots, pans and
pitchers, mugs, jugs and jordans, all put themselves in motion at
once; and so quick and so well wisely were their operations conduct-
ed, that the whole was soon changed—not into china, but rubbish.
Let us leave the application of this fable to those for whom it is
intended, and come to the address of "the associated teachers in the
city of New-York."
From the profession of these gentlemen, one would have wished
not to find them among the doctor's addressers; and it will be for
E

[34]
those who employ the "associated teachers" to judge how far their
approbation and praise of the writings of such a man is a proof of
their being calculated for "the arduous and important task of culti-
vating the human mind." They very civilly invite the Doctor to
assist them to "form the man;" and, in his answer, he seems to hint
that he may possibly accept the invitation. All I can say on this
matter, is, if he should embrace this profession, I hope he will be
exactly as successful in forming the man, as he has been in re-
forming him.
In the answer to the "associated Teachers," the Doctor observes,
that classes of men, as well as individuals, are apt to form too high
ideas of their own importance." Never was a juster observation
than this, and never was this observation more fully verified than in
the parties themselves. The Doctor's self importance is sufficiently
depicted in the quotation that I have given from his letter to the
people of Birmingham; and as for the "associated teachers," how
familiarly soever they may talk of "the intriguing politics and vi-
tiating refinements of the European World," I must say, I think,
they know but little of what passes in that world; or they never
would have larded with such extravagant eulogiums, productions
which, in general have been long exploded.
With respect to the Doctor's metaphysical reveries, or, in other
words, his system of infidelity, I shall leave to himself the task of
exposing that to the detestation of Americans, as it has long been
to that of the English. Of his scientific productions, I propose, in
a little time, to give the public a short review; mean while I refer
the curious reader to the publications of the royal society, of 1791,
and 1792, and to Doctor Bewley's treatise on air. He will there
see his system of chimistry and natural philosophy detected, expo-
sed and defeated; and the "celebrated philosopher" himself accu-
sed and convicted of plagiarism. He will there find the key to the
following sentence: "The patronage to be met with in monarchial
governments, is ever capricious, and as often imployed to bear down
merit as to promote it, having for its object, not science, or any
thing useful to mankind, but the mere reputation of the patron, who 

[35]
is seldom any judge of science." This is the language of evrey sour-
ed neglected author, from a sorry ballad monger to a doctor with
half a dozen initials at the end of his name.
As to his talents as a writer we have only to open our eyes to be
convinced that they are far below mediocrity. His stile is uncouth
and superlatively diffuse. Always involved in minutiæ, every sen-
tence is a string of parenthesises, in finding the end of which, the
reader is lucky if he does not lose the preposition they were meant
to illustrate. In short, the whole of his phraseology is extremely
disgusting; to which may be added, that even in point of gram-
mar he is very often incorrect.
As a proof of what I have here asserted, I could give a thousand
sentences from his writings; but I choose one or two from his an-
swers to the addressers, as these pieces are in every body's hands:
And not to criticise unfairly, I shall take the first sentence I come
at. It runs thus:
"Viewing with the deepest concern, as you do, the prospect
that is now exhibited in Europe, those troubles which are the na-
tural offspring of their forms of government, originating indeed in
the spirit of liberty, but gradually degenerating into tyrannies, e-
qually degrading to the rulers and the ruled, I rejoice in finding an
assylum from persecution in a country in which those abuses have
come to a natural termination, and produced another system of li-
berty, founded on such wise principles, as I trust, will guard against
all future abuses; those artificial distinctions in society, from which
they sprung, being completely eradicated, that protection from vio-
lence, which laws and government promise in all countries, but
which I have not found in my own, I doubt not I shall find with
you, though I cannot promise to be a better subject of this govern-
ment, than my whole conduct will evince that I have been to that
of Great-Britain.
This is neither the style periodique, nor the style coupé; it is I pre-
sume the style entortillé: For one would certainly think that the
author had racked his imagination to render what he had to say un-
intelligible. This sentence of monstrous length is cut asunder in

[36]
the middle by a semicolon, which, except that it serves the weary
reader by way of half way house, might be placed in any other part
of the sentence, to at least, equal advantage. In fact, this is not a
sentence; it a rigmarole ramble, that has neither beginning nor
ending, and conveys to us no idea of any thing but the authors in-
capacity.
"Viewing with the deepest concern, as you do, the prospect that
is now exhibited in Europe, those troubles which are the natural
offspring of THEIR forms of government, &c." What, in the
name of goodness does this mean? Troubles is the only antece-
dent that can be found to their, and the necessary conclusion is,
troubles have their forms of government.
The doctor says in his answer to the Tammany society: "Hap-
py would our venerable ancestors, as you justly call them, have
been to have found America such a retreat to them." It may per-
haps be useful to the learned Doctor to know that he ought to have
said: "Happily would our venerable ancestors, as you justly call
them, have been, to find America, &c."
I grant that there is great reason to believe, that the Doctor was
resolved to be as dull as his addressers; but I assert that it is impos-
sible for a person accustomed to commit his thoughts to paper with
the smallest degree of correctness, to fall into such gross solecims,
or to tack phrases together in such an aukward home-spun manner.
In short, he cannot be fit for even the post of castigator; and there-
fore it is to be hoped that the "associated teachers" will not lesson
their "importance" by admitting him amongst them; that is to
say, except it be as a scholar.
There are many things that astonish us in the addresses, amongst
which the compassion that the addressers express for that "infatuated"
and "devoted country," Great Britain, certainly is not the least.
The Democratic society, with a hatred against tyranny, that
would have become the worthy nephew of Damien, or the great
Marat himself, say: "The multiplied oppressions which character-   

[37]
ise that government, excite in us the most painful sensations, and
exhibit a spectacle as disgusting in itself as dishonorable to the Bti-
tish name." And what a tender affectionate concern do the sons of
Tammany express for the poor distressed unfortunate country of
their "venerable ancestors." "A country," say they, "although
now presenting a project frightful to the eye of humanity, yet
once the nurse of sciences, of arts, of heroes, and of freemen, a coun-
try which although at present apparently devoted to destruction, we
fondly hope may yet tread back the steps of infamy and ruin, and once
more rise conspicuous among the free nations of the earth."
But of all the addressers none seem so zealous on this subject as
"the republican natives of Great Britain and Ireland." "While,"
say they, "we look back on our native country with emotions of
pity and indignation, at the outrages human nature has sustained,
in the persons of the virtuous Muir and his patriotic associates; and
deeply lament the fatal apathy into which our countrymen have fal-
len: We desire to be thankful to the great author of our being,
that we are in America, and that it has pleased him, in his wise
providence, to make these United States an asylum, not only from
the immediate tyranny of the British government, but also from
those impending calamities, which its increasing despotism, and
multiplied iniquities, must infallibly bring down on a deluded and
oppressed people." What an enthusiastic warmth is here! No so-
lemn league and covenant, prayer, embellished with the nasal
sweetness of the conventicle, was ever more affecting.
To all this the Doctor very pitiously echoes back "sigh for
sigh, and groan for groan; and when the fountain of their eyes is
dry, his supplies the place and weeps for both."
There is something so pathetic, so irresistably moving in all this
that a man must have a hard heart indeed to read it, and not burst
into laughter.
In speaking of Monarchies, it has often been lamented that the
sovereign, seldom, or never hears the truth; and much affraid I am
that this is equally applicable to democracies. What court Syco-

[38]
phants are to a prince, demagogues are to a people; and the latter
kind of parasites is by no means less dangerous than the former;
perhaps more so, as being more ambitious and more numerous.
God knows, there were too many of this description in America,
before the arrival of Doctor Priestly: I can therefore see no rea-
son for boastings and addressings on account of the acquisition.
Every one must observe, how the Doctor has fallen at once into
the track of those, who were already in possession of the honorable
post. Finding a popular prejudice prevailing against his country,
and not possessing that patriæ caritas which is the characteristic of
his countrymen, he has not been ashamed to attempt making his
court by flattering that prejudice. I grant that a prejudice against
this nation is not only excusable but almost commendable in Ame-
ricans: but the misfortune is, this prejudice exposes them to de-
ception, and makes them the sport of every intriguing adventurer.
Suppose it be the interest of Americans that great Britain should
be ruined and even annihilated, in the present contest; it can never
be their interest to believe that this desirable object is already or
nearly quite accomplished, at a time when she is become more for-
midable than ever, in every quarter of the globe. And with res-
pect to the internal situation of that country, we ought not to suf-
fer ourselves to be deceived by "gleanings from morning chroni-
cles, or Dublin gazettes:" For, if we insist that newspaper report
is the criterion by which we ought to judge of the governments
and state of other countries, we must allow the same measure to fo-
reigners with respect to their own country; and then what must the
people of England think of the government of the United States,
upon reading a page or two from the slovenly pen of Agricola.
"It is charitable," says this democrat, "It is charitable to be-
lieve many who signed the constitution, never dreamed of the mea-
sures taken place, which alas! we now experience. By this dou-
ble government, we are involved in unnecessary burdens which
neither toe nor our fathers ever knew. Such a monster of a govern-
ment has seldom ever been known on earth. We are obliged to
maintain, two governments, with their full number of officers from

[39]
head to foot. Some of them receive such wages as never were heard
of before in any government upon earth; and all this bellowed on
Aristocrats for doing next to nothing. A blessed revolution! a
blessed revolution indeed! but farmers, mechanics, and labourers
have no share in it, we are the asses who must have the honor of
paying them without any adequate service. Now let the imparti-
al, judge whether our government taken collectively, answers the
great end of protecting our persons and property! Or whether it is
not calculated to drain us of our money, and give it to men who
have not rendered adequate service for it. Had an inspired pro-
phet told us that the things which our eyes see, in the beginning of
the Revolution, he might have met Jeremiah's fate ; or if we had
believed him, not one in a thousand would have resisted Great Bri-
tain. Indeed, my countrymen, we are so loaded by our new go-
vernments, that we have little heart to attempt to move under
all our burdens; we have this consolation, when things come to the
word, there must be a change, and we may rest satisfied, that either
the federal or date governments must fall."
If "gleanings" like these were published in England, would hot
the people naturally exclaim: What! the boasted government of
America, come to this already? The poor Americans are dreadful-
ly tyrannized by the Aristocrats! There will certainly be a revolu-
tion in America soon! They would be just as much mistaken as
the people in this country are, who talk of a revolution in England.
Neither ought we to look upon the emigration of persons from
England to this country as a proof of their being persecuted, and
of the tyranny of the English government. It is paying America
a very poor compliment, to suppose that nothing short of persecu-
tion, could bring settlers to its shores. This is besides the most un-
fortunate proof that could possibly be produced by the advocates
of the French Revolution: For if the emigration of a person to
this country be a proof of a tyranny existing in that from which
he comes, how superlatively tyrannical must the government in
France be?  But they say, those who emigrate from France
arc Aristocrats: They are not persecuted; they emigrate because 

[40]
they hate a free country. What! do they really come to America
because they hate a free country? Did the governors of Martinico,
&c. make a capitulation to be sent here, to avoid going to a free
country? The Democratic Society will certainly oblige the world
very much in explaining this enigma.
I am one of those who wish to believe that foreigners come to
this country from choice, and not from necessity. America opens
a wide field for enterprize; wages for all mechanics are better, and
the means of subsistence proportionably cheaper than in Europe.
This is what brings foreigners amongst us: They become citizens
of America for the honest purposes of commerce, of turning their
industry and talents to the best account, and of bettering their for-
tunes. By their exertions to enrich themselves, they enrich the
state, lower the wages, and render the country less dependent upon
others. The most numerous as well as the most useful are mechan-
ics; perhaps a cobler with his hammar and awls, is a more valuable
acquisition than a dozen philosophi-theologi-political empiries with
all their boasted apparatus. Of all the English arrived in these States
(since the war) no one was ever calculated to render them less service
than Doctor Priestly; and what is more, perhaps no one (before or
since, or even in the war) ever intended to render them less. His
preference to the American government is all affectation: His
emigration was not voluntarily: He staid in England 'till he saw
no hopes of recovering a lost reputation; and then bursting with
envy and resentment, he fled into what the Tammany society very
justly call "banishment," covered with the universal detestation
of his countrymen.