The “Observations on Dr. Priestley’s Emigration,” appears to have been reprinted in London immediately after its publication in Philadelphia. Matters were especially troublesome to the ministry just then, and the partisans of loyalty eagerly, frantically, seized upon anything new, in the shape of argument or of declamation, with which to bind up their rotting timbers. Yet, mark the wonderful inconsistency of human affairs! The author of this poor plank, groping after political justice (according to his light), was also the author, or part author, of a pamphlet which was said to be doing infinite mischief among the soldiers and sailors,--a pamphlet against which, _at this very time_, they were actually writing and printing loyal antidotes. The “British Critic,” then, appears to have been the first to draw public attention to the new writer. The number for November, 1794, dedicated several pages to a review of the “Observations,” beginning with these appropriate remarks:-- “We sometimes elevate a pamphlet, on account of its importance, to a rank among our primary articles, and this honour is peculiarly due to a stranger, who comes forward to give his decision as an umpire, on points wherein the passions of Englishmen may be supposed sufficiently interested to bias their judgment. Of this nature is the acute and well-written American pamphlet here announced, in which the author, while he addresses himself to Dr. Priestley, as a new settler in the country, speaks very forcibly on many subjects respecting England and its public sentiments and conduct. We do not, therefore, consider the tract as an attack on an individual, but as a decision upon principles.” The writer proceeds to express his opinion that the pamphlet is indeed of American origin, and not fabricated in London. He considers the fable of the pot-shop [introduced into the Observations, being an account of the various articles in a crockery-shop, some formed to honour and others to dishonour, falling out with each other, and having a general smash] as “strongly in the style of Swift.” He concludes with a pious hope that the time was coming when, to “excite discontent and rebellions against government will be universally considered as a crime too atrocious to be palliated by any speciousness of theory.” The “Gentleman’s Magazine” followed suit in its number for January, 1795. The “Monthly Review,” well-known for the flexibility of its opinions, was just then on the side of toleration, and considered that there could be no justification for such abuse of Dr. Priestley; it did not admire the vulgar fable of the pitcher haranguing the pans and jordans; and concluded:-- “We have no doubt that London has the honour of being the native place of this production; although it is pretended, at the bottom of the title-page, that it was originally printed at Philadelphia.”