He meant to have complied with the above suggestions, but being at that time very busily employed about his Comparison, and thinking his Memoirs of little value compared with the works about which he was then engaged, he put off the completion of his narrative, until his other works should be ready for the press. Unfortunately this was too late. The work he had in hand was not compleated until the 22d January, when he was very weak and suffered greatly from his disorder, and he died on the 6th of February following:
The reader will therefore make allowance for the difference between what these Memoirs might have been, and what they now are; and particularly for the part which I venture to lay before the public as a continuation of his own account.
The reasons that induced him to quit England, and the progress of his opinions and inclinations respecting that last important æra in his life, have been but briefly stated in the preceding pages by himself. But as many may peruse these Memoirs, into whose hands his appeal to the public, occasioned by the riots at Birmingham, and his Fast sermon, in which he assigns at length his reasons for leaving his native country, are not likely to fall; I think it right to present to the readers, in his own words the history of the motives that impelled him to exchange his residence in England for one in this country.
The disgraceful riots at Birmingham were certainly the chief cause that first induced my father to think of leaving England, though at the time of his writing the second part of the Appeal, in August 1792, he had not come to any determination on the subject. This appears from the following passage which as it shews the progress of his discontent, and likewise the true state of his political opinions, particularly in relation to the English form of government I shall quote.—
“In this almost universal prevalence of a spirit so extremely hostile to me and my friends, and which would be gratified by my destruction, it cannot be any matter of surprise, that a son of mine should wish to abandon a country in which his father has been used as I have been, especially when it is considered that this son was present at the riot in Birmingham, exerting himself all the dreadful night of the 14th of July, to save what he could of my most valuable property; that in consequence of this his life was in imminent danger, and another young man was nearly killed because he was mistaken for him. This would probably have been his fate, if a friend had not almost perforce kept him concealed some days, so that neither myself nor his mother knew what was become of him. I had not, however, the ambition to court the honour that has been shewn him by the national assembly of France, and even declined the proposal of his naturalization. At the most, I supposed it would have been done without any eclat; and I knew nothing of its being done in so very honourable a way until I saw the account in the public newspapers. To whatever country this son of mine shall choose to attach himself, I trust that, from the good principles, and the spirit, that he has hitherto shewn, he will discharge the duties of a good citizen.”
“As to myself, I cannot be supposed to feel much attachment to a country in which I have neither found protection, nor redress. But I am too old, and my habits too fixed, to remove, as I own I should otherwise have been disposed to do, to France, or America. The little that I am capable of doing must be in England, where I shall therefore continue, as long as it shall please the supreme Disposer of all things to permit me[25].
[25] “Since this was written, I have myself, without any solicitation on my part, been made a citizen of France, and moreover elected a member of the present Conventional Assembly. These, I scruple not to avow, I consider as the greatest of honours; though, for the reasons which are now made public, I have declined accepting the latter.”
It might have been thought that, having written so much in defence of revelation, and of Christianity in general, more perhaps than all the clergy of the church of England now living; this defence of a common cause would have been received as some atonement for my demerits in writing against civil establishments of christianity, and particular doctrines. But had I been an open enemy of all religion, the animosity against me could not have been greater than it is. Neither Mr. Hume nor Mr. Gibbon was a thousandth part so obnoxious to the clergy as I am; so little respect have my enemies for christianity itself, compared with what they have for their emoluments from it.”
“As to my supposed hostility to the principles of the civil constitution of this country, there has been no pretence whatever for charging me with any thing of the kind. Besides that the very catalogue of my publications will prove that my life has been devoted to literature, and chiefly to natural philosophy and theology, which have not left me any leisure for factious politics; in the few things that I have written of a political nature, I have been an avowed advocate for our mixed government by King, Lords, and Commons; but because I have objected to the ecclesiastical part of it, and to particular religious tenets, I have been industriously represented as openly seditious, and endeavouring the overthrow of every thing that is fixed, the enemy of all order, and of all government.”
“Every publication which bears my name is in favour of our present form of government. But if I had not thought so highly of it, and had seen reason for preferring a more republican form, and had openly advanced that opinion; I do not know that the proposing to free discussion a system of government different from that of England, even to Englishmen, is any crime, according to the existing laws of this country. It has always been thought, at least, that our constitution authorises the free proposal, and discussion, of all theoretical principles whatever, political ones not excepted. And though I might now recommend a very different form of government to a people who had no previous prejudices or habits, the case is very different with respect to one that has; and it is the duty of every good citizen to maintain that government of any country which the majority of its inhabitants approve, whether he himself should otherwise prefer it, or not.”