These circumstances seem in some measure to explain the disgraceful riots which took place in Birmingham in 1791, on the day of the anniversary of the French revolution. Dr. Priestley's meeting-house and his dwelling-house were burnt; his library and apparatus destroyed, and many manuscripts, the fruits of several years of industry, were consumed in the conflagration. The houses of several of his friends shared the same fate, and his son narrowly escaped death, by the care of a friend who forcibly concealed him for several days. Dr. Priestley was obliged to make his escape to London, and a seat was taken for him in the mail-coach under a borrowed name. Such was the ferment against him that it was believed he would not have been safe any where else; and his friends would not allow him, for several weeks, to walk through the streets. He was invited to Hackney, to succeed Dr. Price in the meeting-house of that place. He accepted the office, but such was the dread of his unpopularity, that nobody would let him a house, from an apprehension that it would be burnt by the populace as soon as it was known that he inhabited it. He was obliged to get a friend to take a lease of a house in another name; and it was with the utmost difficulty that he could prevail with the landlord to allow the lease to be transferred to him. The members of the Royal Society, of which he was a fellow, declined admitting him into their company; and he was obliged to withdraw his name from the society. When we look back upon this treatment of a man of Dr. Priestley's character, after an interval of forty years, it cannot fail to strike us with astonishment; and it must be owned, I think, that it reflects an indelible stain upon that period of the history of Great Britain. To suppose that he was in the least degree formidable to so powerful a body as the church of England, backed as it was by the aristocracy, by the ministry, and by the opinions of the people, is perfectly ridiculous. His theological sentiments, indeed, were very different from those of the established church; but so were those of Milton, Locke, and Newton. Nay, some of the members of the church itself entertained opinions, not indeed so decided or so openly expressed as those of Dr. Priestley, but certainly having the same tendency. To be satisfied of this it is only necessary to recollect the book which Dr. Clarke published on the Trinity. Nay, some of the bishops, unless they are very much belied, entertained opinions similar to those of Dr. Clarke. The same observation applies to Dr. Lardner, Dr. Price, and many others of the dissenters. Yet, the church of England never attempted to persecute these respectable and meritorious men, nor did they consider their opinions as at all likely to endanger the stability of the church. Besides, Dr. Horsley had taken up the pen against Dr. Priestley's theological opinions, and had refuted them so completely in