BIRMINGHAM.

BIRMINGHAM is situated almost in the heart of England, in the north-west extremity of Warwickshire, 112 miles from London; 85 from Manchester; and 97 from Liverpool. At the present time, (1854,) the population exceeds 232,000. The town, which is about two miles square, contains upwards of 45,800 houses, and is intersected by various Railways. It has long been distinguished for the variety, extent and excellency of its manufactures. As to variety, the Directory gives a list of 800 different manufacturing trades.

The town is situated on an elevated red sandstone formation, making its position dry and healthy. It is a singular fact that the amount of rain falling here is about one third less than in Liverpool and Manchester.

If one town more than another is entitled to the merit of having improved the machinery which tends to civilize the human race, that town is Birmingham. Here John Baskerville devoted his talents and his capital to the founding of type and printing, in which labor he was eminently successful. Here Priestly pursued his studies in chemistry and electricity. In the groves of Soho, James Watt laid the foundation of a power, more mighty in its effects on the condition of mankind, than any human invention has hitherto been. From thence sprung the power of applying to useful purposes that gas, the light of which now illumines almost every town and village in Europe. And there also was revived the art of medalling and coinage, which had almost been unknown in England since the days of the Second Charles.

From the period of the Norman Conquest to the wars of the Commonwealth, the inhabitants, isolated as they were, and actively engaged in the operations of trade, enjoying the blessings of uninterrupted peace, if we except one occasion. In the reign of Henry III, the Lord of the Manor, William de Birmingham, led some of the people, his vassals, to the battle of Evesham, where they fought on the side of the barons and

of liberty, although unsuccessfully. In the wars between the houses of York and Lancaster they took no part.

They were, however, deeply involved in the civil dissensions in the time of the First Charles. They enthusiastically embraced the doctrines and policy of the Puritans, to many of whom Birmingham afforded a friendly shelter. They exhibited their devotion to that cause in various other ways, but especially in supplying the Parliamentary army with arms. Nearly 15,000 sword blades were supplied from the workshops of Birmingham alone, while they refused to lift even a hammer for the Royal

cause.

When the unfortunate Charles, in October, 1642, marched from Shrewsbury towards London, he passed through Birmingham. For one night, he slept beneath the roof of Aston Hall, where he was the guest of Sir Thomas Holt. On the following day the king marched towards the metropolis with his army, leaving his plate, carriage, and furniture, to follow after. The inhabitants, however, rose in a body, disarmed the royal guard, and seizing the spoil, sent it to Warwick Castle for safety.

They suffered a fearful retribution a few months after. In April, 1643, Prince Rupert, with an army of 2,000 men and several pieces of artillery, marching to the north, arrived at Birmingham. He resolved to punish the inhabitants for their disloyalty to the king. They had received reports of his approach, and a band of them-a little army of 140 musketeers, supported by a troop of the Parliamentary cavalry-resolved to prevent his entering the place. They threw up barricades at the top of Derítend, and awaited his approach. The Prince encamped on a spot at the entrance to the town from the London road, still called Camphill, and sent a message demanding the surrender of the town. The inhabitants fired upon the messengers, and then commenced a fight, which resulted in the discomfiture and death of many of the townspeople. The troops plundered the place, and then set fire to it in various quarters. About eighty houses were completely destroyed in the conflagration, and fifteen men and two women lost their lives. Many prisoners were taken; but, according to a contemporary publication, "they were of no great quality, some redeeming themselves for 2d., 12d., and 8d., a piece, and some one or two for 20s." The loss to the town was estimated at £30,000-no weak indication of the growing wealth of the community. In this encounter the Earl of Denbigh, one of the royalist leaders, was mortally wounded, and shortly afterwards died.

There are in Birmingham about 130 churches, chapels, and rooms licensed for public worship, of which 33 belong to the established church-one of the most ancient is St. Martin's Church, which will accommodate 2,000 persons.[This church, with its long tapering spire, is seen in the central part of the foregoing view of Birmingham.] In consequence of some rumors that Effigy of an Ecclesiastic in St. Martin's Church. the spire was in an unsafe state, it was taken down and a new one is now, (1853,) erecting. This church contains within its walls a number of interesting monuments of the "Lords of Birmingham." The most ancient is the effigy of a knight, cross-legged and recumbent, and his hands joined in prayer. The most interesting of these monuments is the effigy of an ecclesiastic, placed upon a high tomb of alabaster. The priest is vested as a canon of some cathedral, or member of a collegiate or conventional foundation, in the choir habit; his hands are joined on the breast in prayer; his under robe consists of a long scarlet colored cassock, the skirts and sleeves of which are visible about the feet and wrists; over this is worn a vestment,

(the surplice,) above which appears the almucium, or aumasse, a furred tippet and hood, covering the shoulder and breast, with broad pendant bands hanging down in front. The attire is precisely the same, (allowing for the change of fashion in the different articles,) as that prescribed to be worn, and worn at the present time by many of the clergy of the Church of England. Mr. Bloxam has assigned the date to the latter part of the fifteenth century, and considers it one of the most curious monumental effigies extant.

The following account of the Riot of Birmingham, is from the London Journal:

A number of gentlemen residing in Birmingham and the neighborhood, had announced their intention of dining together on the 14th of July, 1791, to celebrate the anniversary of the French Revolution. Similar meetings were intended to be held on the same day in London and various other places. It may be necessary to state, that the country was at this time violently divided in opinion upon the subject of the great events which had recently occurred in France. One party beheld, in the success which had attended the national revolt against the ancient order of things, only the overthrow of despotism; the other, the destruction of all government. The friends of reform in this country, then comparatively insignificant in number, espoused, as might naturally be expected, the former of these views.

In Birmingham, not only the great majority of the wealthier classes, but the laboring population generally, who were in their employment, were violently opposed to all change, both at home and abroad. They were Church-and-King-men, as they called themselves; that is to say, they would hear of no alteration whatever in the existing order of things in Church and State, and they stigmatized the friends of revolution abroad or of reform at home as the enemies of the British constitution. The announcement of the dinner to take place on the 14th of July, therefore, was looked upon with much disgust and abhorrence. It was regarded as an insult offered to themselves and the principles they advocated.

Some days before the 14th, a hand-bill was distributed over the town, of a very seditious and inflammatory tendency. It professed to come from the projectors of the intended anniversary dinner, which it invited all the enemies of despotism to honor with their presence. Its real object, however, was to excite the alarm and indignation of the rest of the community against the reformers, by the extravagant opinions and violent language which it put into the mouths of the latter. As soon as the committee for the dinner were informed of the existence of this hand-bill, they disavowed all connection with it, by an advertisement in the public papers; and they offered a reward for the discovery of its fabricators. But this conduct did not allay the suspicions produced by the hand-bill in question; for so much did party prejudice influence the judgment and opinions of most people, that they still persisted in believing that it was the genuine production of the reformers.

The popular exasperation began to show itself in so alarming a manner, that the gentlemen who had proposed dining together were almost induced to abandon their design. Upon full consideration, however, it was thought fit that the dinner should take place; although, for sake of avoiding offense, in as quiet a manner as possible. Accordingly, on the day appointed, about eighty individuals assembled at one of the inns. They sat down to dinner at three in the afternoon; and they had all left the house before six.

Even during this short space of time, a considerable mob had collected in front of the inn; but, up to the time of the departure of the guests, no actual outrage was committed. After that, however, the crowd increased greatly in numbers, and about eight or nine o'clock they began a general attack with stones upon the windows of the house, and soon totally demolished them. On its being announced that the mob was thus employed, the magistrates repaired to the place, and pretended to endeavor to dissuade the people from proceeding with the work of destruction. Of course, their lukewarm interference was of no avail, and the mob proceeded from the inn to the New Meeting-House, a place of worship in which the celebrated Dr. Priestly, one of the most celebrated philosophers of the age, officiated. This gentleman's political sentiments was well known to be favorable to the extension of civil and religious liberty; and the mob accordingly had expected that he would be present at the din

ner, and had inquired for him while assembled around the inn. He had not, however, been there; and it was to revenge themselves for the disappointment that the rioters now took their way to his meeting-house. After having torn to pieces all the pews and furniture of the building, which was a very large one, they set it on fire; and every part of it, except the walls, was in a short time consumed. They then proceeded to the chapel of another dissenting congregation, known by the name of the Old Meeting, and destroyed it in like manner.

The imagination of the rioters becoming now violently excited, they became bolder and more ferocious. They set out for Dr. Priestly's dwelling-house, at Fair-hill, about a mile from Birmingham. As soon as they reached the place, they commenced the attack with impetuosity. Among the loss of valuable property which attended this last outrage, none was so greatly to be lamented as that of the library and the laboratory, in which were accumulated, in MSS., the records of the labor of years, the facts collected during a life of industrious observation. The valuable MSS. were wantonly destroyed, scattered, and irrecoverably lost. An eye-witness of the "riots" asserts that the high road, for full half a mile of the house, was strewed with books, and that, on entering the library, there were not a dozen volumes on the shelves, while the floor was covered several inches deep with the torn manuscripts. In the meantime, Dr. Priestly and his family were forced to seek safety in flight. The first two nights he passed in a post-chaise, the two succeeding on horse-back, but owing less to his own apprehensions of danger than to those of others.

The mob now ceased their devastations for this night. But as they had hitherto been wholly unopposed in their villainous proceedings, it was not to be expected that their career of mischief would finally terminate here. At an early hour of the morning of the next day, which was Friday, they commenced parading the streets in different bands. Towards noon, a body of about a thousand proceeded to Easy Hill, the residence of John Ryland, Esq., a gentleman known for his liberal opinions, but who had not been present at the dinner any more than Dr. Priestly. They broke into the house, and the scene soon became one of universal destruction and plunder. They entered the wine-cellar, where they regaled themselves till the roof fell in with the flames, and several lost their lives. About four o'clock, while the mob were still engaged here, a number of constables, who had been sworn in by the magistrates, came up to attempt to disperse them. They were armed with mop-staves, and their first attack had the effect of driving off the crowd. But, comparatively few in number. and unsupported as the constables were, they were unable to maintain their ground, when the battle was soon after renewed with more determination and ferocity on the part of the rioters. After many severe wounds had been received on both sides, and one gentleman killed by the mob, the constables were obliged to retire.

After completing the demolition of Mr. Ryland's house, the mob proceeded to Bordesley Hall, the residence of John Taylor, Esq., and set it likewise on fire. Every thing about the place was soon reduced to ashes.

The next attempt was made upon Mr. Hutton's house, which soon fell a prey to rapine. All business became now at a stand. The shops were shut. The town-prison, and that of the Court of Requests, were thrown open, and the strength of their inhabitants was added to that of their deliverers. Such were the achievements of the destroyers on Friday.

At four o'clock on Saturday morning, a party appeared before Mr. Hutton's country-house at Bennett Hill, where he and his wife and daughter had taken refuge. Immediately an attack was commenced. Mr. Hutton had been for some years a commissioner in the Court of Requests, where he had given ungrudgingly his time and labor to the public without any remuneration; and the popular fury that was now directed against him arose chiefly from the decisions pronounced by him in his judicial capacity, by which, of course, he had displeased many individuals. Although a dissenter, he had never taken any active part either in religion or in politics. The mob first threw out all the furniture, and consumed it in three fires; after which, they set fire to the house itself. "It expired," says its unfortunate proprietor, who has, among other valuable works which he wrote, left us an interesting account of these riots, "in one vast blaze. The women were as alert as the men; one female, who had stolen some of the property, carried it home while the house was in flames; but returning. saw the coach-house and stables unhurt, and exclaimed, with the decisive tone of an Amazon, Damn the coach-house, is not that down yet?-we will not do our work by halves! She instantly brought a lighted faggot from the building, set fire to the coach-house, and reduced the whole to ashes."

Numerous other buildings in the neighborhood of Birmingham were destroyed, with similar barbarity, in the course of the day. In Birmingham itself, the rioters bore supreme sway; small parties of them, wearing blue cockades in their hats, went up and down many of the streets, levying contributions from the inhabitants.

Sunday rose a cloudless and beautiful morning. "Ranting, roaring, drinking, burning," remarks Mr. Hutton, "is a life of too much rapidity for the human frame to support. Our black sovereigns had now held it nearly three days and nights, when nature called for rest; and the bright morning displayed the fields, roads and hedges lined with friends and brother Churchmen dead drunk." The work of destruction, however, still continued; the mob, bending their course to the village of Kingswood, about seven miles from Birmingham, there burned several houses, pillaged all the wine-cellars, and extorted money from every person they met.

At last, about ten o'clock at night, a military force from London arrived, consisting of three troops of the 15th Light Dragoons. It was welcomed with the universal acclamations of the citizens; all parties of whom were by this time thoroughly satisfied with the experience they had had of mob domination. The town was immediately illuminated, in token of the general thankfulness. It was felt that the risk of any further destruction or depredation being committed in the town was now over. But the rioters still continued their course unchecked, in the country, although in diminished numbers; drunkenness and fatigue having, by this time, completely worn out many of them. They had now almost entirely

thrown off their “Church-and-King" pretensions, and had become a mere crew of robbers, breaking into and plundering indiscriminately every house they came to in which they fancied they could find any thing to reward their trouble. They were engaged on Monday morning in pillaging that of Dr. Withering, of Edgbaston Hall, when a party of military arrived. They did not wait the attack, but scampered off in all directins, even before they saw the soldiers.

Three other troops of dragoons arrived in Birmingham on Monday; but on Tuesday the rioters were still reported to be continuing their depredatoins. By this time, however, confidence had been restored to the peoacefully disposed inhabitants of the villages; so that when a band of the rioters attacked the house of Mr. Male, of Belle-Vue, the peasantry of the neighborhood rose of their own accord, and drove them off.

RICHARD BAXTER.

RICHARD BAXTER, a celebrated nonconformist minister and writer, was born at Rowton, in Shropshire, November 12th, 1615. He is well known to the religious world by his religious works, his "Call to the Unconverted," and "The Saint's Rest," &c. He compensated for the deficiencies of a neglected education by unusual application, and was appointed master of Dudley Free School, by the interest of Mr. Richard Foley, of Stourbridge, and soon after admitted into orders by the bishop of Winchester. His scruples were raised by the oath which was proposed by the convention which was at that time sitting, and he was among the number of those who showed their dislike to an unqualified submission "to archbishops, bishops, et cætera," as they knew not what the et cætera comprehended. In 1640, he was invited to be minister at Kidderminster, but the civil war which broke out soon after, exposed him to persecution, as he espoused the cause of the parliament. He retired to Coventry, and continued his ministerial labors till the success of the republicans recalled him to his favorite flock at Kidderminster. The accession of Cromwell gave him some offense, and he even presumed to argue in private with him on the nature and illegality of his power, but in the only sermon which he preached before him, he wisely confined his subject to the dissentions which existed in the kingdom on religious

matters.

He was in London after Cromwell's death, and preached before the Parliament the day before the king's return was voted, and likewise before the Lord Mayor for Monk's successes. Charles II made him one of his chaplains, and Chancellor Clarendon offered him the Bishopric of Hereford, which he refused, alleging in a letter his reasons of conscience, and he only requested permission to continue his ministry at Kidderminster, which was not complied with. His opposition to the church government was now so open that he felt the persecution of the Court, and he was continually watched, and did not even escape confinement. In 1672, hoping to find less acrimony among his enemies, he came to London, where he built a meeting-house in Oxendon-street, but his preaching was forbidden here as well as in Swallow-street, where he wished again to collect a congregation. In 1682, he was seized and fined £195 for preaching five sermons within five miles of a corporation, and he would have been imprisoned had not his physician, Dr. Thomas Cox, pleaded the infirmity of his health. His paraphrase on the New Testament, drew upon him, in 1685, the vengeance of Jeffries, and he was condemned to be imprisoned for two years, from which punishment, six months after, he was discharged by the interference of Lord Powis with King James. He died December 8, 1691.