attendances upon public business, I now dare to aver, even in the face of the phrensy and intemperance with which myself and my friends are pursued. Thus much for the impertinent attempt to represent me as assuming more than is becoming me. I will frankly confess, the character contained in another of his sarcastic sneers, gratifies me very highly, that of your "zealous friend." To be called the friend of Dr. Priestley, and to enjoy an intimacy with him, is an honour that I prize beyond estimation. And I rejoice in that zeal and activity to which this intimacy has led me, because it has ever been founded in benevolence, and had public usefulness for its object. The friends of Church and King, as they call themselves, have burned my house, and driven me from the place which it had been my study to improve for twenty-eight years successively, where I had fixed my earthly residence, and fondly imagined I had secured a retreat for the decline of life. But though I am thus deprived of my habitation, and driven from the spot in which I delighted, my principles are in every respect the same as before the Riots. I am, and will be, a truly independent man, a zealous friend of truth and liberty. I will still strive to attain the equal rights of a citizen, to which I know myself entitled; and I will always avail myself of every opportunity of serving the cause of truth and liberty. The note at the bottom of p. 56 of Mr. Burn's Reply is, I presume, to be read as a declaration of Mr. Dadley's. But this (as well as my declaration in p. 55, of dining by myself, which is printed in italics) is so ambiguously expressed, that much attention is necessary to preserve the connexion. To the latter I do not deem it necessary to make any reply. But, to expose the former, and shew the incorrectness of the additional note above-mentioned, I wish you to give the public the following declaration, which was signed soon after Mr. Burn's Reply appeared, and will shew that it was Mr. Dadley's windows only that were mentioned, and about which any apprehensions were entertained. The declaration Mr. Burn gives by Mr. Dadley, is as follows, and I have contrasted it with that of all the gentlemen who were present at the time he refers to: Mr. Burn's Note, (p. 56,) containing Mr. Dadley's declaration. "On the Monday preceding, I had informed Mr. William Hunt, Mr. Harry Hunt, Mr. William Russell, Mr. George Humphrys, and Mr. John Lawrence, who were met at my house that after noon, that it was then generally thought, if the dinner should be had, it would create a general disturbance in the town. In answer to which they all promised VOL. XIX. Declaration of Mr. Russell, &c. "On the Monday evening previous to the 14th of July, when we were at the hotel, Mr. Dadley informed us, that he had been told by a gentleman, that if the dinner was held at his house, his windows would certainly be broken. We pressed Mr. Dadley to give the name of this gentleman, as there seemed no doubt that if it so happened, this pro20 to indemnify me, provided any damages or loss should ensue in consequence of the dinner being had." phetic gentleman would either WILLIAM RUSSELL, JOHN LAWRENCE, I cannot but think that two positions advanced by this declaration are worthy of attention, viz. that the parties in question had no idea of any indemnification but what related to Mr. Dadley's windows, as he never so much as mentioned any other object of apprehension; and that we had not on Monday evening any of us seen a copy of the famous hand-bill, of which we have since heard so much. Mr. Dadley, as I have already observed, had received a substantial proof of our sympathy, and found us superior to the little subterfuge of sheltering ourselves under a plea that our promise extended to his windows only, although we never gave him any other. I pity Mr. Dadley, and wish he had suffered less. I never intended to hold him up as the cause of having the dinner; and therefore wish my letter written in London had been more guarded in that particular. But the extreme hurry in which it was penned, and the assurance which, immediately upon my return home, I gave Mr. Dadley of my intentions respecting it, would, I am persuaded, have satisfied him entirely, had he not been goaded on by the highchurch partisans to let them use his name as they have done. All my acquaintance well know that I never concealed my singular exertions in promoting the dinner; and had I conceived that there had been any thing illegal or unjustifiable, either in the dinner or the toasts, I should scarcely have personally avowed myself an advocate both for the one and the other, to his Majesty's ministers, and delivered them the original list of toasts, as it was transcribed for the press. But the fact really was so; and this list was in their hands when the infamous libel in the paper called The Times, was published.* It was this circumstance, and this alone, which occasioned that extreme hurry which I see Mr. Burn had been acquainted with, previous to the publication of his book; and he has treated with a want of candour on the occasion which I hope it will never be in the power of any man to lay to my charge. Be this as it may, the See No. X. supra, pp. 542, 54S. libellous paper in The Times above-mentioned, was published on Tuesday the 19th of July, when under an expectation of another audience of the ministers, and receiving from them my list of the toasts on the afternoon of that day, my answer to it was promised for Wednesday's paper. I was, however, disappointed in the expected audience with the ministers on Tuesday; but although I had an appointment, and attended on Wednesday, yet I could not return from the Treasury till near two o'clock, and I knew the answer must necessarily be written, and be delivered at the printer's by three, if it was to appear in the paper of that day, which I had engaged it should. Nay, so much was I pressed for time upon my return from the ministers, that though I hastily wrote, I could not transcribe the letter, but was obliged to hasten with it myself to the printer's in its rough state, that I might enable the compositor to set it for that day's paper. Now, whatever Mr. Burn may do, I think every candid person who recollects the time and circumstances in which I wrote, will feel little difficulty in making due allowance for any inaccuracy which appears in a letter written in such a short and truly agitating period. I will therefore rely upon this candour, and go on to observe, that, in p. 118, Mr. Burn criticises, with his usual acrimony, upon the toasts, and gives an addition to the 9th toast, "The Prince of Wales." I have no objection at all to this addition. It was, however, added by the chairman, and is not in the original list. But the explanation that respectable gentleman has already given the public upon this subject renders it needless for me to say any more. As to the meeting breaking up without the least riot or disturbance, which, by way of emphasis, Mr. Burn again prints in italics, (see his book, p. 120,) I repeat the assertion I made before," that it did so." I again aver it to be true, and being called upon for proof, I refer to the company that dined, with a very small exception. I am obliged, however, to make that, because I was repeatedly told, and informed you of the same long ago, that one man was sent by the party to the dinner, purposely to insult yourself, and by that means begin a riot within doors, which was happily prevented by your not being at the dinner as they expected. It is true two of the gentlemen who came from a distance, and on horseback, went out at the back door, as the readiest way to their horses; but neither myself, nor the company in general, who went out together at the front door, met with any Rioters, or the least annoyance in leaving the hotel; and in repeatedly walking the streets some hours afterwards I did not perceive any disturbance, nor the appearance of any; neither did I ever hear of those two gentlemen who went out at the back door being molested, till some time after Mr. Burn's book was published, and occasioned conversation upon the subject. My own opinion is, that no disturbance would have happened, had not uncommon measures been used to promote it. In reply to what Mr. Burn advances respecting the short address I took the liberty of adding to our chairman's, upon the breaking See No. XII. supra, pp. 548-550. up of the company, I say, that if any part of it was lost through the "perturbed state" of the company, as he reports, it is more than I know of. I certainly did lament to them that the people out of doors were so much misled as to be brought to insult us as we came to dinner; but I uttered every word I wished to say upon the subject; and nothing which I should be unwilling to repeat again at any time. I shall only add further upon this topic, that the parties who dined together at the hotel on the 14th of July, may with the utmost propriety appeal to the whole tenor of their conduct, both before and since the Riots, for the refutation of the various calumnies which have been industriously circulated concerning their views in holding that meeting. As to the criminality of that convivial meeting, it is presumed that this will not be advanced by any one, even in the paroxysm of passion. But as Mr. Burn chooses to describe this dinner as the cause of the subsequent Riots, it may be observed, that as the chairman was a member of the Establishment, and many others of this class attended, if this dinner was the irritating cause, how came it to pass that the first object of the Rioters should be a meetinghouse where Dr. Priestley preached, who had nothing to do with the dinner? With more propriety still it may be demanded, what was the reason that those gentlemen who were publicly known to have been the first and most active in promoting the dinner, were the last to suffer in the depredations committed? Mr. John Ryland, Mr. Hutton, and Mr. Taylor were none of them at the dinner, and yet so violent was the fury against the last, that it was currently reported and believed among the mob, as well as others, that every mill and farm-house which were known to belong to him were threatened; and of a list which contained seventy-two or seventythree houses that were marked to be destroyed, it is known that the number belonging to this gentleman formed a very large proportion of the whole; whilst myself, though amongst the first at the dinner, was one of the last that suffered. And how is it to be accounted for, that, of twelve houses that have been destroyed, only three of the whole number belonged to gentlemen who dined, and not one to any member of the Establishment? Here I think it may be proper to observe, that I have supported a public character in the town of Birmingham for more than twenty years, and have ever been disposed to distinguish myself as a friend to the public interest of the community. In this character it was that I felt myself impelled to promote the dinner on the 14th of July on the principles both of humanity and of commerce. I have sufficiently declared myself a friend to humanity in the hand-bill that preceded the dinner. It did not seem politic to give the commercial reasons to the public. But I now state, that, as a friend to the town, I thought myself particularly called upon to promote the dinner, because I well knew that the trade it enjoyed with France, which was one of its most valuable branches, was in danger of suffering very materially from the spirit of discontent which the commercial treaty had very generally occasioned in France. And because I well knew that the patriotic popular party there were so much affected by this spirit of dissatisfaction, that they were forming associations, and by their example promoting the disuse of English manufactures. I also knew that this circumstance had alarmed some of the first commercial characters in Birmingham. I thought nothing so likely to do away this threatening evil as to testify, in a season of conviviality, a friendly disposition towards this, the first nation in Europe, by rejoicing in its emancipation from despotism and in its resolutions to live in peace with all mankind. I thought nothing more likely to promote a spirit of concord than applauding their declaration, that they would never go to war any more for the sake of conquest. I have always thought peace and commerce very cloely connected, and therefore conceived it my duty, as a sincere friend to both, and as a good citizen, to rejoice publicly in this solemn harbinger of both, to this country. But when it appeared that my views and those of my friends were misrepresented by some of our neighbours, and misconceived by others, we who were concerned in promoting the dinner joined in publishing an advertisement* which ought to have satisfied every reasonable person of our attachment to our present constitution at home; and which would no doubt have done it, had not many calumnies been circulated, and much exertion been made to prevent it by those who are the real authors and abettors of this mischief. Yet, Had there not been particular measures used at Birmingham, the dinner there would no doubt have passed over in peace, as it did in every other place in the kingdom where they were held. In no place whatever was the commercial part of the community so much interested in celebrating this festival as at Birmingham. The value of the commerce of France with this town and neighbourhood should not be publicly estimated. When the late commercial treaty was pending, the minister was particularly solicited to prevent any calculation of its value being made, lest its magnitude should be communicated to the French, and impede the treaty. I can assert, however, from the best authority, that one house alone, (which was among those that were most desirous of promoting the dinner,) has exported to France to the amount of some millions of the manufactures of the town and neighbourhood of Birmingham. extraordinary as it may seem, in a town thus interested, has the only disturbance of the festivity of this memorable day been found. Through the whole kingdom besides, all was peace; and yet that it would not be so here, several persons besides the gentleman Mr. Dadley mentioned, it now appears, ventured to foretel before the day arrived. The industrious circulation of Dr. Tatham's inflammatory letter, which was distributed gratis in the public-houses of the town, the advertisement which was published with the words. "Incendiary refuted" at the head of it, the impertinent insult of an anonymous bigot who advertised, that he would publish a list of those who dined at the hotel upon a black page in white letters, though all of them were measures manifestly calculated to promote a disturbance, they would, I believe, have been ineffectual, if the magistrates had not continued in town, and seen without resisting Dated July 18, 1791. See No. XI. supra, p. 546. |