longer. Independently of wars, which must accelerate the great catastrophe, they all contain within themselves the seeds of their own destruction. The people acquiring knowledge every day, will not much longer bear what they have done. Nor is it difficult to foresee that the infatuation of the present race of kings, which is remarkably similar to that of Pharaoh, will bring on their destruction in the manner predicted in the Scriptures, viz. with violence, and much consequent general calamity.

I shall on this occasion observe, that it is also a manifest error with respect to true policy in those who wish to disarm seditious publications of their sting, to publish themselves, as they sometimes do, what appears to them most obnoxious in them; thinking to expose them, and to render the authors odious; not considering to whom they will appear in that light. For while they are read with dislike, and even horror, by some, they may be read with admiration by others. The intercepted letters, and the paragraphs selected from Mr. Cooper's "Address," are cases in point, as well as several other articles which have been inserted in the Federal Newspapers of this country. The friends of liberty rejoice to see such publications through any channel, and especially when it is done at no risk to themselves; and, without regarding the comments, they attend to the text.

66

The same wretched politicians also do not consider the natural tendency and effect of the abuse that they throw out against the friends of liberty and the rights of man. If it have any effect, which is very questionable, it only makes us stand something worse with those with whom it is no object to us to stand well at all, while it recommends us to all those whose good opinion and attachment we really value. What is it to me to be thought ill of by the friends of " Church and King" (with the cry of which my house was burned) in England, or by Mr. Cobbett and his readers in this country? My account with them has been long settled. I am already a bankrupt in their esteem, and no new article in the account can alter the balance for or against me. My part is taken, and my reputation, as far as it is an object with me, is with men of opposite principles, those who are opprobriously called democrats, jacobins, and every thing else of the kind; and to these, and especially those of that class in France, this abuse tends to recommend me.

I am, &c.

LETTER VI.

Of the Style of Abuse in the Writings of Mr. Cobbett, alias Peter Porcupine.

MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS,

It is commonly said, that when much dirt is thrown, some will stick; and on this principle I suppose it is that I have been distinguished so often by my principal antagonist, Mr. Cobbett, under the signature of Peter Porcupine. But he appears to me to have spoiled his part by overacting it. For men may be so covered with dirt that it shall not be known who they are, nor will they be distinguished from one another, like Virgil's complimentary epithets, fortisque Gyas fortisque Cloanthus. Besides, such coarse abuse as is implied in the words villain, rascal, scoundrel, &c., &c., with which his writings abound, only marks the low education, and the low character and manners, of the man that uses them. Such language is never used by gentlemen or scholars, nor can they return to it, though it were ever so well merited, not to say that a Christian must not return "railing for railing." (1 Pet. iii. 9.) With respect to them, therefore, it is an unfair weapon. It is like throwing street dirt, which they cannot handle.

agrees

It was a thing of course that I should be the object of calumny ever since I wrote in defence of unpopular truths and unpopular maxims. Indeed, I question whether any person in England (the prime minister for the time being excepted) ever had so much of what is generally termed abuse as myself. It has been pouring out with very little intermission for more than twenty years, and is continued, I find, in my absence. My friends, however, say, that it certainly with me. For though I was originally of a weak constitution, my health has been improving ever since, and I never was so well as I have been since my arrival in this place, except about three months after my landing, which was before Mr. Cobbett took notice of me. They now say, that, old as I am, I bid fair to outlive some of my younger opponents. That sarcastic writings should have this salutary effect will not be thought so extraordinary when it is considered that pepper, mustard, salt, and vinegar, have their use in a good dinner, as well as the beef and the pudding. They certainly contribute to a good digestion. But there must be some peculiar charm in Mr. Cobbett's writing, operating unseen and unknown, for

I do not think I have seen more than a tenth part of his voluminous publications, and in all of them, I doubt not, he contrives to find a niche for me. I am almost as necessary to him, and as good a subject for him, as the King of England is to Peter Pindar. In England, however, where decency and good manners are rarely violated, my antagonists were never of this low class. But the last of the animals that had a kick at the old lion in the fable was the ass.

The profusion and variety of Mr. Cobbett's abuse argues a peculiar genius of the kind, unequalled by any thing that I have met with before. In the In the compass of only three newspapers, and chiefly in one of them, I am called "a hoary hypocrite, a malignant old Tartuff, a lurking old illuminatus, a poor old wretch, a miserable perverse old man, a perverse old hypocrite, and a vindictive, unnatural, hypocritical wretch." I am "of a factious disposition, an apostle of sedition, a political viper, with a black, rancorous heart, and smooth-tongued, whining cant; a cunning sectary, an ambitious sectary, a baffled Socinian, and a Jesuit." I am accused of "falsehood and poisonous malignity, actuated by cool and premeditated • malice." I have "the craft of a sectary, joined to the hatred and malice of a fiend. My conduct," he says, "has been wicked and detestable," that I "wish Great Britain revolutionized and ruined, and indulge a wicked, though delusive hope of seeing this wish accomplished;" that "I never miss an opportunity of endeavouring to render my countrymen the hate and scorn of the universe;" that "for twenty years past I have, from hatred to my native country, sacrificed my interest, my peace, and my reputation, to the pleasure of injuring, insulting, and ruining it." In conjunction with others, he calls me a villain and a scoundrel,* and both fool and knave. My business in this country," he says, "is of a nature most hostile to its happiness and independence." It is no wonder, therefore, that he treats me, as he says, "with his unqualified contempt."

66

* I rather wonder that the term rascal is not applied to me, as it is to others, in this particular paper, as well as villain and scoundrel. It is, I doubt not, frequently enough applied to me in other parts of his writings. But such near relations and companions ought not to have been so far separated. (P.)

+ Thus proceeding to criticise, or rather to misrepresent and to vilify, Dr. Priestley's explanation on Mr. Stone's letter, Mr. Cobbett says,

"Before I begin my remarks, I must not forget to caution the reader against ascribing it to any respect which I entertain for Dr. Priestley, for whom I thus early take occasion to avow my most unqualified contempt: and this I do, lest, by inadvertence, I should let fall any thing resembling that affected civility, which has lessened the force of too many well-meant publications, and which partakes too much. of the cool, placid, Priestleyan cant to find an imitator in me."-Porcupine, IX. 248, 249.

His pamphlet on the subject of my emigration, published soon after my arrival, contains the following, among other falsehoods: I "had been," he says, "for many years an avowed and open enemy to the government and constitution of my country; in my inflammatory discourses, called sermons, the English constitution was openly attacked; and the doctrines there held forth were subversive of all civil and religious order;" and in his newspaper he says, my "conventicle at Hackney was a most convenient and successful school of treason."* I "entertained," he says, "the hope of bringing about a revolution in England on the French plan, and had no objection to the continuance of tithes in England, provided came in for a share."

He says that my "public celebration of the French riots and massacres is a convincing proof of my approving them, and that sending my son to Paris in the midst of them, to request the honour of becoming a French citizen, is another proof of the same that cannot be disputed; that I approved of the unmerciful persecution of the unfortunate and worthy part of the French clergy, men as far surpassing me in piety and ability as in suffering; that the French constitution is my system, and that sooner than not see it established, he much questions if I would not with pleasure see the massacre of all the human race." But if all mankind were destroyed, where is this constitution of mine to be established? As he has not told us where, I must suppose that he meant among bears, wolves, or wild beasts of some kind or other.

With respect to the riots in Birmingham, he says that "I was the principal cause of them; that the festival of the commemoration of the French revolution was to celebrate events which were in reality the subject of the deepest horror; that this riot, considered comparatively with what I and my friends wished to stir up, was peace, harmony, and gentleness; that the magistrates used every exertion in their power to quell the riot in its very earliest stage; that had the rioters stopped at the destruction of my meeting-house all had been well. In whatever light," he says, "we view the Birmingham riots, we can see no object to excite our compassion, except the inhabitants of the hundred, and the unfortunate rioters themselves; that the loss of my manuscripts was little more than a few dirty sheets of paper, and their destruction a benefit, rather than a loss, both to myself and the country; that my philosophical apparatus was a thing of imaginary value only, and

Porcupine IX. 256.

ought not to be estimated at its cost, any more than a collection of shells, or insects, or any other frivola of a virtuoso." "In this country," he says, "there is nothing to fear from me except my disseminating my deistical principles." In another place, however, he calls my doctrines atheistical, though it is impossible that they can be both; and he speaks of "the infidel philosophy of Voltaire, Rousseau, Gibbon, Priestley, and the rest of that enlightened tribe." To make the group complete (for the consistency of it is no object with him) he should have added some distinguished Heathens and Mahometans, as holding the same opinions. "When I preached in Philadelphia," he says, "I gave up a share of the

pence which I was able to draw out of the pockets of my hearers for the liberty of preaching in the church of the Universalists," of which he speaks with the greatest contempt.

All this, you will observe, is mere assertion, without any evidence whatever; and therefore my simple denial (though I could bring abundant proof of every thing that I shall say) may be a sufficient answer.

Now I can say with truth that, in the course of more than forty years, I never preached one sermon that any of you would have said was political; nor did I ever, in any place, or in any form, express a wish for any material change in the English constitution;* and I am confident I have a more sincere respect for my native country, and for this too, than Mr. Cobbett has for any country. My writings shew that I was always an enemy of all civil establishments of religion, but thought that, if there was to be one, it should be of Christianity in general, such as exists in the New England states; and then that the church revenues, whatever they were, should be given to all the sects alike.

When I preached at the church of the Universalists,‡ I wished to have no collection made after service; all that was collected was given to the minister of the place; and when I preached in the hall of the university, only one collection was made to defray the expenses that had been incurred. I was glad of the opportunity of doing what I thought to be good, without any pecuniary benefit. Whether the discourses that I delivered were calculated to do any good, those who read them may judge.

My son went to France before the revolution took place, and before any such thing was expected; nor was any request ever made by myself, or my friends, to be made a French citi+ See Vol. XXII. p. 63, note.

* See supra, p. 107.

In 1796. See Vol. XVI. p. 3, note §.