{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_56663/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_56663","id":"gutenberg_56663","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/56663","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Chemistry/Biochemistry","Chemists -- England -- Biography","Priestley, Joseph, 1733-1804"],"text":"Produced by Sonya Schermann, Stephen Hutcheson, and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n(This file was produced from images generously made\navailable by The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                ENGLISH\n                             MEN OF SCIENCE\n\n\n                               EDITED BY\n                        J. REYNOLDS GREEN, D.Sc.\n\n\n                            JOSEPH PRIESTLEY\n\n\n                         _All Rights Reserved_\n\n                      [Illustration: J Priestley]\n\n\n\n\n                            JOSEPH PRIESTLEY\n\n\n                                   BY\n                          T. E. THORPE, F.R.S.\n                               AUTHOR OF\n                   HUMPHRY DAVY, POET AND PHILOSOPHER\n                               ETC., ETC.\n\n                         PUBLISHED IN LONDON BY\n                      J. M. DENT & CO., AND IN NEW\n                       YORK BY E. P. DUTTON & CO.\n                                  1906\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nIn the following account of the life and work of that \"hero and type of\nthe intellectual energy of the eighteenth century\"--the \"honest\nheretic\"--Joseph Priestley, I have, to a considerable extent, made the\nsubject of it tell his own story. After Priestley's death there was\nfound among his papers a short autobiography, dealing with the main\nevents of his life up to the time of his settlement in America. This was\nsubsequently published, with additions and explanatory notes, by his\neldest son. Of this biography I have made full use, considering it, of\ncourse, as the best authority on the matters to which it refers.\n\nFor the account of the Warrington Academy, with which institution\nPriestley was connected for some years, and which connection profoundly\naffected his career, I am mainly indebted to Mr Henry A. Bright's paper\nin the _Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and\nCheshire_, 1858-59.\n\nThe Yates papers in the possession of the Royal Society have also\nafforded me much assistance, and have been freely drawn upon.\n\nI am also indebted to the late Mr Henry Carrington Bolton's collection\nfor certain letters and for information concerning the Lunar Society of\nBirmingham.\n\nFor the graphic account of the Birmingham Riots of 1791, when\nPriestley's house was wrecked, and his library and laboratory destroyed,\nas described by an eye-witness, Miss Martha Russell, I have to express\nmy obligations to her relative, Dr W. J. Russell, who first made me\nacquainted with her narrative. I am also indebted to Dr Russell for a\ncopy of the print from which has been prepared the illustration showing\nthe destruction of Priestley's house.\n\nI desire also to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr Aikin for permission\nto publish certain of Priestley's letters to his distinguished\nconnection, Mrs Barbauld.\n\nI am further under obligations to Lady Priestley, Lady Roscoe and Mr\nSydney Lupton for much useful assistance.\n\nThe portrait of Priestley, which forms the frontispiece, has been\nreproduced in photogravure from the painting by Artaud, now in Dr\nWilliams' Theological Library in Gordon Square. I have to thank the\nTrustees of the Library for their kindness in allowing the copy to be\nmade.\n\n                                                                T. E. T.\n\nLondon: _May_ 1906.\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\nChapter I                                                              1\nBirth--Parentage--Home Life--Early Education.\n\nChapter II                                                            17\nEnters the Daventry Academy to be trained for the Ministry--Goes to\nNeedham Market--His Life, Work and Privations there.\n\nChapter III                                                           30\nGoes to Nantwich--Starts a School--Is appointed a Tutor in the\nWarrington Academy--Life at Warrington.\n\nChapter IV                                                            45\nPriestley marries--Is ordained--His Essay on Education--Lectures on\nHistory and General Policy--His Chart of Biography--Becomes a Doctor of\nLaws of the University of Edinburgh--His visits to London--Makes the\nacquaintance of Dr Price, Canton and Benjamin Franklin--Writes the\n_History of Electricity_--Is elected into the Royal Society.\n\nChapter V                                                             66\nGoes to Leeds as minister of the Mill Hill Chapel--Resumes his studies\nin Speculative Theology--_The Theological Repository_--Becomes a\nUnitarian--Priestley as a controversialist--His Theory and Practice of\nPerspective--His literary characteristics--Begins his inquiries on\nPneumatic Chemistry--His invention of soda-water--Receives the Copley\nMedal of the Royal Society.\n\nChapter VI                                                            82\nBecomes literary companion to Lord Shelburne--Goes abroad--His visit to\nParis--His scientific work at Calne and in London--Continues his\ntheological and metaphysical studies--His growing unpopularity--Leaves\nLord Shelburne.\n\nChapter VII                                                           89\nRemoves to London--Declines a pension--Renews his acquaintance with\nFranklin--Goes to Birmingham--Becomes a member of the Lunar Society.\n\nChapter VIII                                                         103\nPriestley at Birmingham--His theological work there--His love of\nliterature--His catholicity--His personal characteristics.\n\nChapter IX                                                           120\nThe Birmingham riots of 1791.\n\nChapter X                                                            145\nDetermines to leave England--His arrival in America--Settles in\nNorthumberland--His closing days--His death.\n\nChapter XI                                                           167\nPriestley as a man of science--His characteristics as a\nphilosopher--_Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of\nAir_--His discovery of the influence of vegetation on vitiated\nair--Atmospheric air not elementary--His researches on nitric\noxide--Eudiometry--Nitrous oxide--Discovers hydrogen chloride--Prepares\noxygen from nitre (1771)--Isolates ammonia gas--Discovers sulphur\ndioxide--Dephlogisticated air (oxygen)--Discovers silicon\nfluoride--Intra-diffusion of gases--Respiration--Priestley's opinions of\nthe value of experimental science in education--Discovers nitrosulphuric\nacid--Notes the constancy of composition of the atmosphere--Prepares\nchlorine--Sound in \"air\"--Experiments relating to phlogiston--The\nseeming conversion of water into air--Watt and the compound nature of\nwater--Discovers sulphuretted hydrogen--Priestley's confession of faith\nin phlogiston.\n\nIndex                                                                225\n\n\n\n\n                         LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\nJoseph Priestley, from the portrait in Dr Williams' Library by Artaud\n          (_Photogravure_)                                _Frontispiece_\nBirthplace of Priestley, from a drawing by J. A. Symington after a\n          photograph                                            _page_ 5\nThe Pillaging of Priestley's House during the Birmingham Riots   _facing\n                                                               page_ 120\n\n\n\n\n                            Joseph Priestley\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n\n  Birth--Parentage--Home Life--Early Education\n\n\"If,\" says Mr Frederic Harrison, \"we choose one man as a type of the\nintellectual energy of the eighteenth century we could hardly find a\nbetter than Joseph Priestley, though his was not the greatest mind of\nthe century. His versatility, eagerness, activity and humanity; the\nimmense range of his curiosity in all things, physical, moral or social;\nhis place in science, in theology, in philosophy and in politics; his\npeculiar relation to the Revolution, and the pathetic story of his\nunmerited sufferings, may make him the hero of the eighteenth century.\"\n\n\nIn these few lines Mr Harrison has indicated, in terms sufficiently\nprecise, the leading features in the character and life-history of one\nof the most remarkable men of the eighteenth century. To what extent he\nmay be regarded as a hero and as a type of the intellectual energy of\nthat century it is the purpose of the following pages to make clear.\n\nJoseph Priestley was born at Fieldhead, in the parish of Birstall, near\nLeeds, on March 13 (Old Style), 1733.[1] He was named after his paternal\ngrandfather, \"an eminent tradesman, as much famed for his heavenly\nconduct as his grandson (Joseph) has since been for natural abilities.\"\n\n  \"The Priestleys,\" writes Madame Belloc, the great-granddaughter of the\n  subject of this memoir, in her charming essay, \"Joseph Priestley in\n  Domestic Life\" (_Contemporary Review_, October 1894), \"were of an old\n  Presbyterian stock; one branch of the family acquired wealth and lived\n  at Whiteways, but his (Joseph's) own immediate ancestors were farmers\n  and clothiers, people of substance in the yeoman class. We can trace\n  them accurately as far as the middle of the seventeenth century, when\n  one Phoebe Priestley, after wrestling with fever in her household, was\n  herself stricken, and 'lay like a lamb before the Lord' on her\n  deathbed. Her husband wrote a long and touching account of all she\n  said and did, that her children might know what manner of mother they\n  had lost. These people were presumably of the same stock as the\n  Priestleys of Soylands, who ran back into the Middle Ages.\n\n  \"The children of the Priestley families were all named after\n  scriptural characters. They were Josephs, Timothys and Sarahs from one\n  generation to another. The Bible was stamped into them, and from it\n  they drew all the inspiration of their lives.\"\n\nJoseph Priestley the elder was born in 1660, and died on August 2, 1745.\nHe married Sarah Healey and had by her eight children, five sons and\nthree daughters, of whom Jonas, the father of Joseph Priestley the\nyounger, born about 1700, was the seventh child and fourth son. Jonas\nPriestley married Mary, a daughter of Joseph Swift, a farmer and\nmaltster of Shafton, near Wakefield, and had by her six children, four\nsons and two daughters, of whom Joseph was the eldest and Timothy the\nsecond; Martha, the elder girl, who died in 1812, married John Crouch,\nand was left a widow in poor circumstances in 1786. Another member of\nthe Priestley family who requires mention for the purpose of this\nnarrative is Sarah, the sister of Jonas and second daughter of Joseph\nPriestley the elder. She was born in 1692 and married John Keighley--\"a\nman who had distinguished himself for his zeal for religion and for his\npublic spirit.\" She was left a widow in 1745. Three years before this\nshe took her nephew Joseph, the subject of this memoir, to live with\nher, and \"was fond of him in the extreme.\" She died in 1764. Her brother\nJohn, Joseph Priestley the younger's uncle, died on February 28, 1786,\naged ninety-two. \"He was a remarkable man and of a singularly happy\nconstitution, both of body and mind.\"\n\nThis happy constitution of body and mind seems indeed to have been a\ncharacteristic of many members of the family, the several branches of\nwhich were remarkably healthy and long-lived.\n\nPriestley says of his father Jonas that he had uniformly better spirits\nthan any man he ever knew, and by this means was as happy towards the\nclose of life, when reduced to poverty and dependent upon others, as in\nhis best days. These facts are not without interest as serving to\naccount for much that we shall have occasion to note in the character\nand temperament of the subject of this biography.\n\nFieldhead, the house in which he first saw the light, had been occupied\nby the family for several generations. It was a small two-storey\nbuilding, built of stone and slated with flag, similar in character to\nmany of the houses still standing in the district, the long, low windows\nin the upper storeys betokening that they were formerly occupied by\nweavers. It was last lived in by Martha Priestley (Mrs Crouch), but on\nthe death of her husband in 1786 was abandoned by the family, and,\nfalling into decay, was pulled down about fifty years ago.\n\nThe Priestleys were a simple, sober, honest, God-fearing folk, staunch\nCalvinists, and deeply religious. Jonas Priestley was a manufacturer of\n\"home-spun\"--a weaver and cloth dresser--two trades now distinct but\nthen practised in common--who took his week's work on ass-back, on roads\nlittle better than bridle-paths, to the Sunday market in Leeds. He was\nof a class characteristic of the district.\n\nThese hand-loom weavers, who lived in the hill country lying to the west\nof Leeds, were generally men of small capitals; they often annexed a\nsmall farm to their business, or possessed a field or two on which to\nsupport a horse and cow, and were for the most part blessed with the\ncomforts without the superfluities of life. During five or six days of\nthe week they dwelt in their own little village, among trees and fields,\ntaking no thought of the outside world and contenting themselves with\nthe homely gossip of their farmstead or hamlet. On market day they came\ninto the town in shoals, clad in their quaint corduroy breeches,\nbroad-brimmed hats, and brass-buttoned coats of antique cut, bringing\ntheir produce on pack-horses, to await the visits of the merchants--the\ncommercial aristocracy of Leeds, then a town of some 16,000 or 17,000\ninhabitants--who were the agents through which the outer world received\nits supply of Yorkshire woollen goods. They were a shrewd, careful race,\nsomewhat stolid and slow of speech and not given to great mental\nbriskness or activity, keenly appreciative of the blessings of liberty\nand usually in sympathy with the political party to whom the cause of\nliberty was for the moment entrusted; sober, godly souls for the most\npart; regular in their attendance at public worship, and upon the whole\npreferring the plebeian zeal of the Chapel to the aristocratic repose of\nthe Church.[2]\n\n                [Illustration: BIRTHPLACE OF PRIESTLEY.]\n\nAnd what a world it was in which they thus serenely dwelt apart.\n\n  \"It was,\" writes Madame Belloc, \"the time of Louis the Fifteenth in\n  France and of George the Second in England, and the nephews and nieces\n  of Charlotte Princess Palatine were still living, and her letters,\n  whose name is legion, yet lay stored in the cabinets of her\n  correspondents, full of inexpressible details discussed in most\n  expressive language. It was the time when Jeanie Deans walked from\n  Scotland to beg her sister's life of Queen Caroline, and met Madge\n  Wildfire in the way. It was the time when the polite world was\n  composed of 'men, women and Herveys'; when Squire Pendarves was found\n  dead in his bed in Greek Street, Soho, leaving his young widow to be\n  courted by John Wesley and wedded by Dr Delany; when statesmen bribed,\n  and young blades drank, and Sir Harbottle carried off Harriet Byron,\n  whose shrieks brought Sir Charles Grandison to the rescue, sword in\n  hand. It was the period when the Jacobite Rebellion flamed up and\n  expired; when the Young Pretender marched to Derby and the heads of\n  the decapitated lords were exposed on Temple Bar; tragedies, agonies,\n  highway robberies, Dick Turpin, Jack Sheppard, smugglers, the\n  press-gang; Frederick Prince of Wales quarrelling in Leicester Square;\n  Queen Caroline on her death-bed telling her weeping little George,\n  'que l'un n'emp\u00eache pas l'autre'; Horace Walpole making the grand\n  tour; Dean Swift dying in agonised misery. Merciful Heavens! What an\n  England, of which we possess the daily diary! We can see Hogarth at\n  his easel, and Sir Joshua taking his first stiff portraits, and\n  Garrick going on pilgrimage to Stratford, and the young king courting\n  Hannah Lightfoot and marrying his little bride from Mecklenburg.\n  Without too much verifying of dates it is certain that all this was\n  happening before Dr Priestley was thirty years of age, and that of\n  none of it is there the faintest mention in the account he has drawn\n  up of his own childhood, youth and young manhood, though he was\n  himself destined to be one of the principal illustrations of the\n  Georgian era. For anything which appears to the contrary, he and his\n  friends might have dwelt in some far-distant planet whose inhabitants\n  were wholly given up to study and to prayer.\"\n\nPriestley says of his father that he had a strong sense of religion,\npraying with his family morning and evening, and carefully teaching his\nchildren and servants the Assembly's Catechism, which was all the system\nof which he had any knowledge.\n\n  \"In the latter part of his life he became very fond of Mr Whitfield's\n  writings and other works of a similar kind, having been brought up in\n  the principles of Calvinism, and adopting them, but without ever\n  giving much attention to matters of speculation, and entertaining no\n  bigoted aversion to those who differed from him on the subject.\"\n\nWe may well imagine that Jonas, with his \"strong sense of religion,\" was\none of that earnest band of \"several hundreds of plain people\" who\nlistened, spellbound, to the eloquence of John Wesley on that memorable\nday of May 1742, on which, on Birstall Hill, began the great Yorkshire\n\"Revival.\"\n\nOf his wife, \"a woman of exemplary piety,\" the mother of the future\nphilosopher, little has been recorded beyond the fragmentary notice in\nher son's autobiography. He says of her:--\n\n  \"It is but little that I can recollect of my mother. I remember,\n  however, that she was careful to teach me the Assembly's Catechism,\n  and to give me the best instructions the little time that I was at\n  home. Once in particular, when I was playing with a pin, she asked me\n  where I got it; and on telling her that I found it at my uncle's, who\n  lived very near to my father, and where I had been playing with my\n  cousins, she made me carry it back again; no doubt to impress my mind,\n  as it could not fail to do, with a clear idea of the distinction of\n  property and of the importance of attending to it. She died in the\n  hard winter of 1739,[3] not long  after being delivered of my youngest\n  brother; and having dreamed a little before her death that she was in\n  a delightful place, which she particularly described and imagined to\n  be heaven, the last words which she spake, as my aunt informed me,\n  were, 'Let me go to that fine place.'\"\n\nDuring some considerable portion of his mother's short period of married\nlife, Joseph Priestley, together with his brother Timothy, was committed\nto the care of his grandfather Swift, with whom he remained with little\ninterruption until his mother's death. From this we may infer that the\ndomestic circumstances of his parents were far from easy, or that the\naccommodation at Fieldhead was unequal to the support of the\ncloth-dresser's rapidly-increasing family.\n\nTimothy, who, after following his father's business as a cloth-dresser\nfor a time, became an Independent minister, and died in London, has left\nus reminiscences of his brother's boyhood. He seems to have been\nparticularly impressed with his ability to repeat the Assembly's\nCatechism \"without missing a word,\" and by being made to kneel down with\nhim while he prayed. \"This was not at bed-time, which he never\nneglected, but in the course of the day.\"\n\nOn the death of his mother, the eldest boy, then barely six years old,\nwas taken home and sent to school in the neighbourhood. Luckily for him,\nhis Aunt Sarah, Mrs Keighley, \"a truly pious and excellent woman, who\nknew no other use of wealth, or of talents of any kind, than to do good,\nand who never spared herself for this purpose,\" being childless,\noffered, in 1742, to relieve her brother Jonas of all care for his\neldest son by taking entire charge of him. \"From this time,\" says her\nnephew, \"she was truly a parent to me, till her death in 1764.\"\n\nJohn Keighley was a man of considerable property, and at his death,\nwhich occurred when Priestley was about twelve years of age, the widow\nwas left with the greater part of his fortune for life, and much of it\nat her disposal after her death.\n\nBy Mrs Keighley's direction he was sent, he tells us, to several schools\nin the neighbourhood, especially to a large free school under the care\nof a clergyman, Mr Hague, under whom, at the age of twelve or thirteen,\nhe first began to make progress in Latin and acquired the elements of\nGreek. His brother Timothy records that \"from eleven to about thirteen\nhe had read most of Mr Bunyan's works and other authors on religion,\nbesides the common Latin authors.\"\n\nHow a well-ordered school was conducted in the middle of the eighteenth\ncentury may be gleaned from the following regulations in force in Mr\nCanton's well-known academy in 1745:--\n\n  1. That the School hours are from 7 o'clock in the morning till 12,\n  and from 2 to 5 in the afternoon: except the winter half-year, when\n  they begin at 8 in the morning.\n\n  2. That all the Scholars come decently, that is, with their Hands and\n  Faces wash'd, their Hair or Perriwigs Comb'd, and their Shoes black'd.\n\n  3. That they bow at Coming in and going out, and when any Thing is\n  given or rec'd; and never wear their Hats in the House or School.\n\n  4. That they loiter not, but go immediately to their own seats and\n  move not thence, without Leave, till School is done.\n\n  5. That if any Person come into the School whom they know, they are to\n  get up, make a bow, and sit down in their places again.\n\n  6. That if the Master be discoursing with, or reading to any Person,\n  they shall not stare Confidently on them or hearken to their Talk,\n  unless required to be present.\n\n  7. That they shall not interrupt the Master while a Stranger is\n  talking with him, with any Question, request, or complaint whatsoever,\n  but stay till he is at Leisure.\n\n  8. That they shall not presume to talk loud nor make any noise in\n  getting their lessons. A Boy's Tongue should never be heard, but in\n  saying his Lesson, asking or Answering a Question.\n\n  9. That there be no buying, selling, changing, laying Wagers or Gaming\n  in School-time, on the forfeiture of the whole so bought or sold, etc.\n\n  10. That those who learn French shall not speak English to any that\n  learn French, on the Forfeiture of ye Bill, or one Hour's Exercize\n  after School Time.\n\n  11. That such as learn Latin are also oblig'd not to speak other\n  Language to those that learn it, during School time, on the Penalty\n  last mentioned.\n\n  12. That all perform their Lessons and Exercises in fair Writing and\n  true Spelling, and likewise prepare themselves for their Examinations\n  in French, Latin, Accounts and Catechisms every week, both in School\n  times and all Vacations.\n\n  13. That such as perform well, shall be prefer'd according to their\n  Merit, and shall have liberty to leave School before the usual Time;\n  but such as are Negligent herein, shall have their Exercizes to write\n  over again after School.\n\n  14. That none presume to call any Party or Nick-names nor give any ill\n  or reproachful Language, much less Curse, Sware, or Lye, but in all\n  things behave in a quiet, peaceable, and civil manner.\n\n  15. That the Boarders shall not go beyond y^e bounds belonging to y^e\n  House on any pretence whatsoever without leave, on the forfeiture of\n  6d. or two Hours' Exercize after School for Every such Offence.\n\n  16. That one Scholar is not to strike another, or challenge him to\n  fight; but in case of any Difference shall acquaint the Master\n  therewith and be satisfied with his Determination.\n\nWhilst acquiring Greek at the public school, Priestley learned Hebrew on\nholidays of the Dissenting minister of the place, Mr Kirkby, under whose\ncare he eventually came.\n\nThe weakly, consumptive habit into which he now fell necessitated his\nwithdrawal from school. His fondness for books had led his aunt to\nencourage the hope that he might be trained for the ministry, and he\nreadily entered into her views.\n\n  \"But,\" he says, \"my ill health obliged me to turn my thoughts another\n  way, and, with a view to trade, I learned the modern languages,\n  French, Italian and High Dutch [German], without a master; and in the\n  first and last of them I translated and wrote letters for an uncle of\n  mine who was a merchant, and who intended to put me into a\n  counting-house in Lisbon.\"\n\nIndeed, he says a house was actually engaged to receive him there, and\neverything was nearly ready for his undertaking the voyage when his\nhealth so far improved that the idea of the ministry was resumed. During\nthe two years in which he had been kept away from school the boy was\nthrown almost entirely upon his own resources. It says much for the\nactivity and eagerness of his mind, his diligence and his power of\nmental acquisitiveness, that he should have neglected no opportunity of\ngaining knowledge from the various heretical divines who came to drink a\ndish of tea with his aunt. He tells us that from Mr Haggerstone, a\nDissenting minister in the neighbourhood, who had been educated under\nMaclaurin, and whom he visited twice a week, he learned geometry,\nalgebra and various branches of mathematics, theoretical and practical.\nHe also read, with but little assistance from him, Gravesend's _Elements\nof Natural Philosophy_, Watts's _Logic_, and Locke's _Essay on the Human\nUnderstanding_. \"He also gave lessons in Hebrew to a Baptist minister at\nGildersome, a village about four miles from Leeds, and by that means\nmade himself 'a considerable proficient in that language.'\" \"At the same\ntime I learned Chaldee and Syriac, and just began to read Arabic.\"\n\nAs his knowledge increased, and the powers of his intellect\nstrengthened, he began to exercise his reason upon the many problems of\ndoctrine and religious belief which could not fail to be uppermost in\nhis mind when his upbringing and the environment in which circumstances\nhad placed him are considered. His aunt, although a strict Calvinist,\nwas a large-minded woman, and, as her nephew says, \"far from confining\nsalvation to those who thought as she did on religious subjects.\"\n\n  \"Her home,\" he says, \"was the resort of all the dissenting ministers\n  in the neighbourhood, without distinction, and those who were the most\n  obnoxious, on account of their heresy, were almost as welcome to her,\n  if she thought them honest and good men (which she was not unwilling\n  to do), as any others.\"\n\nAlthough all the religious books that came in his way tended to confirm\nhim in the principles of Calvinism, he was led by the natural vigour of\nhis mind, and by an innate spirit of philosophical optimism, which\nstrengthened with advancing years, to feel a repugnance to its gloomy\ntenets, and to question the sufficiency and reasonableness of much of\nits doctrine. The conversation of the heretical divines in whose company\nhe was thrown served, moreover, to awaken inquiry and to increase his\ndoubts. These divines were for the most part men who, in liberality of\nthought, were far in advance of the congregations they served, and this\nwas especially the case of those for whose attainments and character the\ndiscerning boy had most respect.\n\nThe youth, who as a child had lisped at his mother's knee, \"without\nmissing a word,\" the formularies of the Assembly's Catechism, was now\ntortured with doubt and misgiving as he strove to penetrate into and to\nrealise the meaning of the phrases his memory so tenaciously retained.\nAnd the more he read and the more he pondered the more disquieted he\nbecame.\n\n  \"Having,\" he says, \"read many books of _experiences_, and, in\n  consequence, believing that a _new birth_, produced by the immediate\n  agency of the Spirit of God, was necessary to salvation, and not being\n  able to satisfy myself that I _had_ experienced anything of the kind,\n  I felt occasionally such distress of mind as it is not in my power to\n  describe, and which I still look back upon with horror.\n  Notwithstanding I had nothing very material to reproach myself with, I\n  often concluded that God had forsaken me, and that mine was like the\n  case of Francis Spira, to whom, as he imagined, repentance and\n  salvation were denied. In that state of mind I remember reading the\n  account of the man in the iron cage in the _Pilgrim's Progress_ with\n  the greatest perturbation.\"\n\n  \"I imagine,\" he continues, \"that even these conflicts of mind were not\n  without their use, as they led me to think habitually of God and a\n  future state. And though my feelings were then, no doubt, too full of\n  terror, what remained of them was a deep reverence for divine things,\n  and in time a pleasing satisfaction which can never be effaced, and I\n  hope was strengthened as I have advanced in life and acquired more\n  rational notions of religion. The remembrance, however, of what I\n  sometimes felt in that state of ignorance and darkness gives me a\n  peculiar sense of the value of rational principles of religion, and of\n  which I can give but an imperfect description to others.\"\n\nAt the time he was greatly distressed that he could not feel a proper\nrepentance for the sin of Adam, taking it for granted, he says, that\nwithout _this_ it could not be forgiven him. The fact was that, under\nthe influence of his friends, Haggerstone and Walker, he was insensibly\nfollowing Baxter in attempting to reconcile the doctrines of Arminius\nand Calvin, and he ended by embracing those of Arminius. It was\nrepugnant to his sense of equity and justice that, in the words of his\nCatechism, \"All mankind, by the fall of our first parents, lost\ncommunion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to\nall miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell for\never.\"\n\nHis first trial of faith came when he applied for admission as a\ncommunicant in the congregation which he had always attended. The old\nminister was willing enough to receive him, but the elders, who had the\ngovernment of the church, discovering this unsoundness on the subject of\nthe sin of Adam, stoutly refused to sanction his admission.\n\nWhilst the taint of heresy appears not to have greatly distressed the\nworthy Mrs Keighley, it doubtless added to her difficulties in shaping\nhis course towards the ministry. In the natural order of things he was\nto have been sent to the academy at Mile End, a hot-bed of Calvinism,\nthen under the care of Dr Cawder.\n\n  \"But,\" he says, \"being at that time an Arminian, I resolutely opposed\n  it, especially upon finding that if I went thither, besides giving an\n  _experience_, I must subscribe my assent to ten printed articles of\n  the strictest Calvinistic faith, and repeat it every six months.\"\n\nIt now looked as if the idea of the ministry was to be given up for good\nand all, and given up it probably would have been but for the\nintercession of Mr Kirkby, who strongly recommended that he should be\nplaced under the care of the good and learned Dr Doddridge.\n\n  \"Mr Kirby,\" says Priestley, \"had received a good education himself,\n  was a good classical scholar, and had no opinion of the mode of\n  education among the very orthodox Dissenters, and being fond of me, he\n  was desirous of my having every advantage that could be procured for\n  me. My good aunt, not being a bigoted Calvinist, entered into his\n  views.\"\n\nPriestley had another ally in his step-mother, for his father had\nmarried again. She was a woman of good sense as well as of religion, and\nhad been sometime housekeeper to Dr Doddridge, of whom she had a high\nopinion, and had always recommended his academy.\n\nTo Dr Doddridge, however, he was not destined to go. That eminent divine\nwas in the last stages of the malady to which he eventually succumbed,\nand he died at Lisbon in the October of 1751.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n\n  Enters the Daventry Academy to be trained for the Ministry--Goes to\n  Needham Market--His Life, Work and Privations there.\n\nAccordingly, in 1752, he was sent to Daventry, then under the charge of\nMr Ashworth. He was now nineteen. Although of a weakly constitution, his\nhealth was sufficiently re-established to enable him to stand the strain\nof preparation for the calling to which he now assiduously devoted\nhimself. In mental equipments he was so much in advance of his fellows\nthat he was excused all the studies of the first year and a great part\nof those of the second. He remained at the Academy three years.\n\nNo student ever dwelt more fondly on the memory of his _Alma Mater_ than\ndid Priestley on Daventry and all that it meant to him. Its atmosphere\nwas wholly congenial to him, steadying, stimulating and strengthening\nthe naturally vigorous powers of his mind. It was, he says, peculiarly\nfavourable to the serious pursuit of truth, and every question of much\nimportance, such as liberty and necessity, the sleep of the soul, and\nall the articles of theological orthodoxy and heresy were the subjects\nof continual discussion between the teachers and the taught. The general\nplan of studies was exceedingly favourable to free inquiry: the students\nwere referred to authors on both sides of every question and were\nrequired to give an account of them, abridging the more important for\nfuture use.\n\nConcerning this small seminary for the training of Dissenting ministers,\nthe Rev. Mr Hargrove in his account of Priestley in the _Inquirer_ of\n1904, says:[4]--\n\n  \"A miserable little place it must have seemed to the eyes of\n  neighbouring clergy, with nothing in it of the venerable traditions,\n  the ancestral wealth, the beauty and the dignity of the old colleges\n  at Oxford and Cambridge. There was nothing grand about this building,\n  nor did any sacred associations hallow its homeliness. But while the\n  lamp of learning burnt low in the ancient universities during the\n  eighteenth century, their gates kept fast closed against all who were\n  too intelligent not to doubt the doctrines of the Established Church,\n  or too honest to conceal their doubts, it burnt bright and clear, tiny\n  though the flame might be, in obscure and poor haunts like this of\n  Daventry. As Priestley proudly, and not untruly, boasted, at a later\n  time, to the Prime Minister of England:\n\n  \"'Shutting the doors of the universities against us, and keeping the\n  means of learning to yourselves, you may think to keep us in ignorance\n  and so less capable to give you disturbance. But though ignominiously\n  and unjustly excluded from the seats of learning, and driven to the\n  expedient of providing at a great expense for scientific education\n  among ourselves, we have had this advantage, that our institutions,\n  being formed in a more enlightened age, are more liberal and therefore\n  better calculated to answer the purpose of a truly liberal education.\n  Thus while your universities resemble pools of stagnant water secured\n  by dams and mounds, ours are like rivers which, taking their natural\n  course, fertilise a whole country.'\"\n\nThe manner in which he occupied his time, the range of his studies, and\nthe miscellaneous nature of his reading at Daventry, may be seen from\nhis following extract from his journal for 1755:--\n\n\n              BUSINESS DONE IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY AND MARCH\n\n                              _Practical_\n\n  Howe's Blessedness of the Righteous; Bennel's Pastoral Care; Norris's\n  Letters and Some Sermons.\n\n                            _Controversial_\n\n  Taylor on Atonement; Hampton's Answer; Sherlock's Discourse, vol. i.;\n  Christianity not founded in Argument; Doddridge's Answer; Warburton's\n  Divine Legation; Benson on the First Planting of Christianity; King's\n  Constitution of the Primitive Church.\n\n                               _Classics_\n\n  Josephus, vol. i. from p. 39 to 770; Ovid's Metamorphoses, to p. 139;\n  Tacitus's History, Life of Agricola, and Manners of the Germans.\n\n                              _Scriptures_\n\n  John the Evangelist; The Acts of the Apostles; The Epistles to the\n  Romans, Galatians, Ephesians; 1 and 2 Corinthians, in Greek; Isaiah to\n  the 8th chapter, in Hebrew.\n\n                             _Mathematics_\n\n  Maclaurin's Algebra, to part ii.\n\n                             _Entertaining_\n\n  Irene; Prince Arthur; Ecclesiastical Characters; Dryden's Fables;\n  Peruvian Tales; Voyage round the World; Oriental Tales; Massey's\n  Travels; Life of Hai Ebn Yokdam; History of Abdallah.\n\n                             _Composition_\n\n  A Sermon on the Wisdom of God; An Oration on the Means of Virtue; 1st\n  vol. of the Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion.\n\nWith one of his classmates he engaged to rise early and so \"dispatched\nmany articles of business every day. One of them, which continued all\nthe time we were at the academy, was to read every day ten folio pages\nin some Greek author, and generally a Greek play in the course of the\nweek besides. By this means we became very well acquainted with that\nlanguage and with the most valuable authors in it.... My attention was\nalways more drawn to mathematical and philosophical studies than his\nwas.\"\n\nThroughout the whole of his time at the academy, and despite the\nattractions which scholarship and literary studies had for him, and\nnotwithstanding his eagerness to satisfy \"the immense range of his\ncuriosity in all things, physical, moral or social,\" he never, he says,\nlost sight of the great object of his studies, which was the duties of a\nChristian minister.\n\n  \"There it was that I laid the general plan which I have executed\n  since. Particularly I there composed the first copy of my _Institutes\n  of Natural and Revealed Religion_, Mr Clark, to whom I communicated my\n  scheme, carefully perusing every section of it and talking over the\n  subject of it with me.\"\n\nWhat three years of this mental, moral and intellectual discipline meant\nto the young Arminian may be summed up in his own words: he saw reason\nto embrace what he says is usually called the heterodox side of almost\nevery question. And this notwithstanding that Dr Ashworth was earnestly\ndesirous of making him as orthodox as possible.\n\n  \"Notwithstanding the great freedom of our speculations and debates,\n  the extreme of heresy among us was Arianism; and all of us, I believe,\n  left the academy with a belief, more or less qualified, of the\n  doctrine of _atonement_.\"\n\nPriestley, even at this early stage in his career, gave abundant proof\nof that resolute regard for truth which constituted the motive power of\nhis life. His sturdy independence of thought, and his almost passionate\nresentment of dogmatic authority--among the most significant of his\nintellectual traits--were plainly manifested in his youth and early\nmanhood. They continued to the end to be the dominant notes of his\ncharacter and to be the springs of his action. They were at once the\nsources of his strength and the causes of his misfortunes.\n\nPriestley had now finished with Daventry. He was twenty-two years of\nage, and ready, and indeed eager, to minister in all the glory of a\nfull-bottomed wig to any congregation that might solicit his services.\n\nThe young divines at the academy were an unworldly set, taking but\nlittle thought of their future situations in life. They often, indeed,\namused themselves, as Priestley tells us, with the idea of their\ndispersion in all parts of the kingdom, after living so happily\ntogether, and with the _camaraderie_ of youth used to propose plans of\nmeeting at certain times, and smile at the different appearances they\nwould probably make after being ten or twenty years settled in the\nworld.\n\nPriestley set out on his career with the highest ideal of his calling;\nindeed to him the office of a Christian minister was the most honourable\nof any on earth, and he had no other ambition than to distinguish\nhimself by his application to the studies proper to that profession.\nThat he laboured unselfishly and with no idea of place and preferment is\ncertain from the circumstance that he suffered from a physical\ndisability which he must have recognised could not but tell strongly\nagainst his chance of worldly success. He had an inveterate stammer\nwhich, at times, made preaching as irksome to him as it was trying to\nthose who had to listen to him. In spite of many and repeated attempts\nhe never wholly overcame this trial. And yet nothing is more\ncharacteristic of him than, as he reviewed his career in the evening of\nhis life, he should see that, like St Paul's thorn in the flesh, his\nimpediment had not been without its use.\n\n  \"Without some such check as this,\" he says, \"I might have been\n  disputatious in company, or might have been seduced by the love of\n  popular applause as a preacher; whereas, my conversation and my\n  delivery in the pulpit having nothing in them that was generally\n  striking, I hope I have been more attentive to qualifications of a\n  superior kind.\"\n\nThe thorn in the flesh was probably not without its use in other ways.\nIt probably drove him to literature. If he had none of the graces of\npulpit oratory, he had at least the gift of facile composition. If he\ncould not hope to move men's minds by oral appeals, he might aspire to\nsway them by the power of the pen.\n\nHis first call came from an inconsiderable congregation at Needham\nMarket in Suffolk. It was a poor and needy place, nominally under the\ncharge of a superannuated minister, the prospects bounded by the\npossibilities attaching to a stipend of forty pounds a year. And these\nprospects, limited as they were, were still further curtailed by\nPriestley's own action. He found that his congregation had been used to\nreceive assistance from both Presbyterian and Independent funds.\nPriestley was no longer in the mood to receive assistance from the\nIndependents, and told his congregation that he \"did not choose to have\nanything to do\" with that body. That little difference between the\nelders and himself concerning the sin of Adam and its consequence,\ntogether with his three years' sojourn at Daventry, were beginning to\nbear fruit. The congregation readily consented to give up the\nIndependent fund and promised to make good the deficiency themselves.\nPriestley, however, quickly realised that they deceived themselves\neither as to their ability or their willingness to redeem this promise,\nfor the most, he says, he ever received from them was in the proportion\nof about thirty pounds per annum. They also deceived him in another\nsense. Their readiness in consenting to do without the assistance of the\nIndependents disposed him to think \"they could not have much bigotry\namong them.\" Although he made it a rule to introduce nothing in the\npulpit that could, or should, lead to controversy, he made no secret of\nhis real opinions in conversation, or in his lectures on the theory of\nreligion which he had composed at the academy and which he proceeded to\ngive to all persons, without distinction of sex or age, who chose to\ncome and listen to him. He then found that when he came to treat of the\nUnity of God merely as an article of religion his hearers were attentive\nto nothing but the soundness of his faith in the doctrine of the\nTrinity, and they quickly discovered, what he was at no pains to\nconceal, that he was a very pronounced Arian. From the time of this\ndiscovery, he says, his hearers fell off apace, especially as the old\nminister, as might have been expected, took a decided part against him.\nTo add to his difficulties his aunt stopped his remittances. This was in\npart due to the ill offices of his orthodox, _i.e._, Independent,\nrelations, but mainly because the worthy Mrs Keighley had largely\nexhausted her liberality in supporting others of her needy dependants,\nand in particular a deformed niece, her constant companion, and who\ncould not, Priestley thinks, have subsisted without the greatest part,\nat least, of all she had to bequeath. He himself was the first to\nrecognise that, being apparently settled in the world, he ought to be no\nlonger burdensome to her. She had spared no expense in his education,\nand that, he says, was doing more for him than giving him an estate.\nWhatever the world might have thought as to his being settled in it, it\nhad little to offer him beyond the dignity of his profession, and it is\ndifficult to live on dignity alone. The respectable and agreeable\nfamilies in the place, to whom he had flattered himself he would be\nuseful, were not very prompt to support that dignity, and eventually it\nhad to sustain itself on the wages of an agricultural labourer. Indeed,\nhe says, had it not been for the good offices of Dr Benson and Dr\nKippis, eminent eighteenth century divines, who procured him \"now and\nthen an extraordinary five pounds from different charities,\" he believed\nhe should have starved.[5]\n\n  \"At Needham\" he says, \"I felt the effect of a low, despised situation,\n  together with that arising from the want of popular talents. There\n  were several vacancies in congregations in that neighbourhood where my\n  sentiments would have been no objection to me, but I was never thought\n  of. Even my next neighbour, whose sentiments were as free as my own,\n  and known to be so, declined making exchanges with me, which, when I\n  left that part of the country, he acknowledged was not owing to any\n  dislike his people had to me as heretical, but for other reasons, the\n  more genteel part of his hearers always absenting themselves when they\n  heard I was to preach for him. But visiting that country some years\n  afterwards, when I had raised myself to some degree of notice in the\n  world, and being invited to preach in that very pulpit, the same\n  people crowded to hear me, though my elocution was not much improved,\n  and they professed to admire one of the same discourses they had\n  formerly despised.\"\n\nThe iron would have entered the soul of a weaker man, but Priestley,\ntrue to himself, never lost hope or faltered in his courage. However\nshort his commons, Providence had endowed him with the continual feast\nof a contented mind. He firmly believed, even during the darkest hours\nof that Suffolk time, that this same wise Providence was disposing\neverything for the best. Notwithstanding his unfavourable circumstances,\n\"I was,\" he says, \"far from being unhappy at Needham.\" He boarded with a\nfamily for whose kindness he was always grateful. He had free access to\none or two private libraries in the district, in particular one\nbelonging to Mr Alexander, a Quaker.\n\n  \"Here it was,\" he says, \"that I was first acquainted with any person\n  of that persuasion; and I must acknowledge my obligation to many of\n  them in every future stage of my life. I have met with the noblest\n  instances of liberality of sentiment and the truest generosity among\n  them.\"\n\nThere can be little doubt, however, in spite of his robust optimism and\nthe courage with which he confronted the world, the young divine led a\ncheerless and solitary existence at Needham. And it is no less certain\nthat it was during this dark and troubled time that he sowed the\nseed--the wheat and the tares--which in the fulness of time was to\nfurnish the harvest of good and evil he eventually garnered--fame,\nobloquy, insult, persecution, respect, affection and his position among\nthe immortals.\n\nAlthough the account which Priestley has left us of his life and work at\nNeedham is somewhat meagre, it is sufficiently full to enable us to\ntrace in it the initial stages of his evolution as a theological\nthinker. Indeed, he says his studies at this period were chiefly\ntheological, theology being the business of his life and the vocation to\nwhich he had been called. He had left the academy with a qualified\nbelief in the doctrine of atonement, and as he was desirous of getting\nsome more definite ideas on the subject he set himself to peruse the\nwhole of the Old and New Testament and to collect from them, with the\ngreatest care, all the texts that appeared to him to have any relation\nto the subject, and to arrange them under a great variety of heads.\n\n  \"The consequence of this was,\" he says, \"what I had no apprehension of\n  when I began the work, viz., a full persuasion that the doctrine of\n  atonement, even in its most qualified sense, had no countenance either\n  from Scripture or reason.\"\n\nHe then proceeded to digest his observations into a regular treatise, a\npart only of which was at that time published, under the title of the\n_Doctrine of Remission_. The portion omitted had reference to an\nexamination of the writings of the Apostle Paul, whose reasoning, he was\nsatisfied, was in many places far from being conclusive. This\nexamination grew into a separate work, in which he tested every passage\nin which the reasoning appeared to him to be defective or the\nconclusions ill-supported; and, as he says, he thought them to be pretty\nnumerous.\n\nHis friend Kippis advised him to publish this treatise under the\ncharacter of an unbeliever, in order to draw the more attention to it.\n\n  \"This\" he says, \"I did not choose, having always had a great aversion\n  to assume any character that was not my own, even so much as disputing\n  for the sake of discovering truth. I cannot ever say that I was quite\n  reconciled to the idea of writing to a fictitious person, as in my\n  _Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever_, though nothing can be more\n  innocent, or sometimes more proper, our Saviour's parables implying a\n  much greater departure from strict truth than those letters do. I\n  therefore wrote the book with great freedom indeed, but as a Christian\n  and an admirer of the Apostle Paul, as I always was in other\n  respects.\"\n\nWhen nine sheets of the work were printed off, Dr Kippis dissuaded him\nfrom proceeding, or indeed from publishing anything of the kind, until\nhe should be more known and his character better established, and\naccordingly he desisted. All that he considered of consequence in this\nwork he subsequently inserted in the _Theological Repository_, \"in order\nto its being submitted to the examination of learned Christians.\"\n\nAnother task that he imposed on himself at Needham, and in part\nexecuted, was an accurate comparison of the Hebrew text of the\nHagiographa and the Prophets with the version of the Septuagint, noting\nall the variations.\n\nIt was, perhaps, in connection with this inquiry that his name appears\nin the second list of subscribers to Taylor's _Hebrew Concordance_, the\nsecond volume of which was published in 1757. The subscription was three\nguineas, a very considerable sum to the young divine in those days. The\nfact that he should have entered his name at all is an indication of the\nardour and spirit of self-sacrifice with which he invariably pursued his\ninquiries, whether theological or scientific.\n\nPriestley, to the end of his days, cared little for money except as the\nmeans of procuring the material for his investigations, and he was\nalways ready to part with it, to the extent of his opportunity, in any\ncause in which his sympathies were enlisted.\n\nHis circumstances were now so straitened that, despite the great\naversion which he conceived he had to the business of a\nschoolmaster--having often said that he would have recourse to anything\nelse for a maintenance in preference to it--he was at length compelled\nto make some attempt that way. He therefore printed and distributed\nproposals to teach classics, mathematics, etc., for half a guinea a\nquarter, and to board the pupils in the house with himself for twelve\nguineas a year. It was recognised that he was not unqualified for this\nwork, but although there was no obvious connection between Arianism and\narithmetic it was enough that he was tainted with heresy, and not a\npupil was entrusted to his care.\n\nHe then proposed to give lectures to grown persons on such branches of\nscience as he could procure the means of illustrating, and began with a\ncourse of twelve lectures on the use of \"A New and Correct Globe of the\nEarth.\" His one course of ten hearers did little more than pay for his\nglobes.\n\nAt this juncture a distant relative procured him an opportunity of\npreaching as a candidate at Sheffield, but his trial sermon was not\napproved: his manner was thought \"too gay and airy.\" One of the\nministers at Sheffield had, however, more discrimination, and by his\ngood offices he was recommended to a congregation at Nantwich, in\nCheshire, who gave him an invitation to preach there for a year certain.\nAccordingly, he put together his few worldly possessions--his globes,\nhis beloved books, his stock of sermons, and the manuscripts of the\ntheological treatises he was too poor or too diffident to give to the\nworld--and took the Ipswich packet to London as the least expensive way\nof getting down to Cheshire.\n\nThe chapel in which Priestley preached at Needham was taken down and\nrebuilt in 1837. When Rutt was preparing his edition of Priestley's\n_Memoirs_, his daughter, Mrs Notcutt, who lived in Ipswich, made\ninquiries respecting Priestley, but with no result.\n\nNo reminiscences of him could be found at Needham. He was evidently\nthought too poor and too obscure for his memory to be treasured.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n\n  Goes to Nantwich--Starts a School--Is appointed a Tutor in the\n  Warrington Academy--Life at Warrington.\n\nPriestley left Needham Market in 1758. He had been there three years,\nand he was in his twenty-fifth year when he entered upon his work at\nNantwich. Of this place he had always the happiest recollections. The\nmeeting-house, as we learn from Partridge's _Historical Account of\nNantwich_, 1774, was a good, decent building, \"to which appertains a\nconvenient house for the minister.\" Whether he actually occupied this\nhouse is uncertain. One account states that he boarded with Mr John\nEddowes, a grocer, and sometimes showed his agility and sprightliness by\nleaping over the counter. Eddowes was described by Priestley as a very\nsociable and sensible man, and as he was fond of music his guest was--\n\n  \"Induced to learn to play a little on the English flute, as the\n  easiest instrument;\" and, he continues, \"though I was never a\n  proficient in it, my playing contributed more or less to my amusement\n  many years of my life.\"\n\nAnd he adds,--\n\n  \"I would recommend the knowledge and practice of music to all studious\n  persons; and it will be better for them if, like myself, they should\n  have no very fine ear or exquisite taste, as by this means they will\n  be more easily pleased and be less apt to be offended when the\n  performances they hear are but indifferent.\"\n\nAt Nantwich he found the people good-natured and friendly, and happily\nfree from those controversies which had been the topics of almost every\nconversation in Suffolk. He had indeed little mind for them himself. His\ncongregation never exceeded sixty persons, and a great proportion of\nthem were travelling Scotchmen, men, he says, of very good sense, and,\nwhat he thought extraordinary, not one of them at all Calvinistical. As\nthere were few children in the congregation there was little scope for\nexertion with respect to his duty in catechising.\n\nAs the duties of his office left him ample opportunity to turn the\nactive powers of his mind to account, he again attempted to establish a\nschool, and this time with a success far beyond his anticipations.\n\n  \"My school,\" he states, \"consisted of about thirty boys, and I had a\n  separate room for about half a dozen young ladies. Thus I was employed\n  from seven in the morning until four in the afternoon, without any\n  interval except one hour for dinner, and I never gave a holiday on any\n  consideration, the red-letter days, as they are called, excepted. I\n  had, therefore, but little leisure for reading or for improving myself\n  in any way, except what necessarily arose from my employment.\"\n\nPriestley, in truth, was an excellent teacher, and with the success\nwhich his efforts brought him there passed away the last traces of the\naversion with which he had entered on that calling. He made it his study\nto regulate his business as a schoolmaster in the best manner, and he\nwas able to say with truth that in no school was more business done, or\nwith more satisfaction, either to the master or the scholars, than in\nthis school of his.\n\nHe was no longer haunted, as at Needham, with the fear of debt, and he\nwas able to add to his stock of books and to gratify his wish to possess\nsome philosophical instruments, such as a small air-pump and an\nelectrical machine, which he taught his pupils to use and to keep in\norder, and by entertaining their parents and friends with experiments he\nadded greatly to the reputation of his school. At that time, however, he\nhad no leisure to make any original observations.\n\nSuch leisure as he had he gave to literature, recomposing his\n_Observations on the Character and Reasoning of the Apostle Paul_, which\nhe began at Needham, and compiling an English grammar for the use of his\nschool, on a new plan. This work, which was printed in 1761, had a\nconsiderable reputation in its day. David Hume acknowledged to Griffith,\nthe bookseller, that he was made sensible of the Gallicisms and\npeculiarities of his style on reading it.\n\nPriestley remained three years at Nantwich. His success there as a\nteacher induced the trustees of the newly-founded academy at Warrington\nto reconsider the desirability of engaging him as tutor in the Classical\nLanguages and in what used to be called Polite Literature. His name had\nalready been mentioned in connection with the Warrington Academy by his\nfriend, Clark of Daventry, at the time of its establishment and whilst\nhe was at Needham.\n\n\"But,\" says Priestley, \"Mr (afterwards Dr) Aikin, whose qualifications\nwere superior to mine, was justly preferred to me.\" On the death, on\nMarch 5, 1761, of Dr John Taylor of Norwich, the learned author of _A\nHebrew Concordance_ and other theological works, and a well-known\nclassical scholar, the head of the academy and its tutor of divinity, Dr\nAikin was appointed to succeed him, and Priestley was invited to take Dr\nAikin's place.\n\n  \"This,\" says Priestley, \"I accepted, though my school promised to be\n  more gainful to me. But my employment at Warrington would be more\n  liberal and less painful. But, as I told the persons who brought me\n  the invitation, I should have preferred the office of teaching the\n  Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, for which I had at that time a\n  great predilection.\"\n\nPriestley's removal to Warrington, in September 1761, was one of the\nturning-points in his career, and no single circumstance in it exercised\na greater influence on his life and fortunes. \"The Warrington Academy\nfor the education of young men of every religious denomination for the\nChristian ministry, or as laymen,\" and the men who formed its tutors,\nplayed a notable part in the history of Nonconformity in England. In\nTaylor of Norwich; in Aikin, the father of the well-known physician and\nlecturer on Natural History, and of Anna L\u00e6titia, better known as Mrs\nBarbauld, the poetess; in John Reinhold Forster, the naturalist, who\naccompanied Cook in his second voyage; in Nicholas Clayton, who\nsucceeded Aikin as divinity tutor; in William Enfield, the author of the\n_History of Liverpool_ and the well-known compiler of _The Speaker_, who\nafterwards became _Rector Academic\u00e6_; in Pendlebury Houghton, and in\nGilbert Wakefield, the accomplished editor of _Lucretius_, Priestley had\nfor colleagues or successors as eminent a set of teachers as any place\nof learning at that time could boast of. It was at the Warrington\nAcademy, the successor of the older academies belonging to the English\nPresbyterian body at Findern and Kendal, and the direct ancestor of the\nManchester College at Oxford, that the free thought of English\nPresbyterianism first began to crystallise into the Unitarian theology,\nand for a time it was the centre of literary taste and activity, and of\npolitical liberalism of the district in which it was placed--the\nAreopagus in the Athens of Lancashire, as it was called.\n\nThe _Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire_\n(vol xi. p. I, 1858-59) contain \"A Historical Sketch of Warrington\nAcademy,\" by Mr Henry A. Bright, compiled in great measure from a parcel\nof papers, letters and memoranda which had belonged to the Rev. J.\nSeddon, and which had been rescued from the hands of a Liverpool\ncheesemonger, who was using them for the ordinary purposes of his shop.\nAmong these papers were letters of Priestley, Kippis, Aikin and others\nof lesser note, all of interest as throwing light on the history of the\nacademy. I am indebted to Mr Bright's paper for the following account of\nthe character and fortunes of the academy. Mr John Seddon, we learn, was\nits virtual founder. The letters referred to, as well as the testimony\nof contemporaries, bear witness to \"the concern which he had ever\nexpressed for its support, honour, success; the indefatigable pains\nwhich he took for this purpose; the indifference which he showed to fame\nor censure, to good or evil report, so that he might serve the general\ndesigns of the institution.\"\n\nSeddon, although described as \"a dullish person,\" must have been a man\nof considerable pertinacity, patience and resource, as shown by the\nmanner in which he steered his venture through the difficulties and\ndangers incident to its establishment, for he had to contend with the\ndoubts, hesitation and luke-warmness of its professed supporters, and\nthe \"pleasing spirit of jealous rivalry\" which existed between Liverpool\nand Manchester as to its locality. Liverpool advanced seven \"excellent\nreasons\" why the academy should _not_ be settled at Warrington; of these\none of the Manchester party writes:--\"Some of them are _false_, others\n_dubious_, and all, whether true or not, _trifling_ and _impertinent_.\"\nThis \"retort courteous\" was naturally followed by \"Remarks on a letter\nfrom the gentlemen in Manchester to the gentlemen in Liverpool,\nsubscribers to the intended Academy,\" in which \"the gentlemen in\nLiverpool\" lose their temper most completely. Every fourth word in the\nremarks is italicised. \"The gentlemen of Manchester,\" are stigmatised as\n\"the authors of contention and division,\" and are subjected to much\nscathing sarcasm. Evidently the omens were not very propitious, but the\nwordy warfare eventually spent itself. Mr Seddon got his way; the\ntrustees ultimately settled down to business and on June 30, 1757, the\nacademy was duly inaugurated.\n\nIts first home, immortalised by the lines in which Mrs Barbauld bids us\n\n  \"Mark where its simple front yon mansion rears,\n  The nursery of men for future years,\"\n\nwas described, in terms eminently suggestive of the incomparable Mr\nGeorge Robins, as \"a range of buildings\" with \"a considerable extent of\ngarden ground, and a handsome terrace walk on the banks of the Mersey,\npossessing altogether a respectable collegiate appearance.\" The \"ugly,\nmean, old brick house,\" no longer\n\n  \"A dim old mansion, hidden half-away\n  From a dull world grown careless of its fame,\"\n\nhas been transformed into a place of quiet, old-world dignity, and is\nnow turned to uses worthy of its fame and in harmony with its\ntraditions.\n\nIn spite of the seeming unanimity of the trustees, and the zeal and\nenergy of their secretary, Mr Seddon, the fortunes of the Academy were\nill-starred from the outset. Dr Taylor, one of the first Arians who\nministered to the English Presbyterians, and an erudite and accomplished\nman--an author so widely read in his day that he is even mentioned by\nBurns in his Epistle to John Goudie:\n\n  \"'Tis you and Taylor are the chief,\n  Wha are to blame for this mischief\"--\n\nwas ill fitted to direct the precarious existence of the enterprise, and\nthe old scholar must have sighed often for the free and independent\nposition, and the dear home among an affectionate people, which he had\nsacrificed in leaving Norwich for Warrington. Dissensions arose, in the\nmidst of which Dr Taylor died.\n\nDr Taylor, as already stated, was succeeded as theological tutor by Dr\nAikin, who retained that position until his death in 1780.\n\n  \"Dr Aikin,\" says Gilbert Wakefield, \"was a gentleman whose endowments\n  as a man and as a scholar it is not easy to exaggerate by\n  panegyric.... His intellectual attainments were of a very superior\n  quality indeed. His acquaintance with all true evidences of\n  revelation, with morals, politics and metaphysics, was most accurate\n  and extensive. Every path of polite literature had been traversed by\n  him, and traversed with success. He understood the Hebrew and French\n  languages to perfection, and had an intimacy with the best authors of\n  Greece and Rome superior to what I have ever known in any Dissenting\n  minister from my own experience.\"\n\nUnder his judicious guidance matters now went more smoothly: indeed, the\neighteen or twenty years which followed constituted the golden age of\nthe Academy, and the brightest and happiest of these were the six years\nof Priestley's stay.\n\nIn the year following Taylor's death the academy moved from the house by\n\"Mersey's gentle current,\" then, we are told, an uncontaminated stream\nnoted for its salmon, to the new Academy, which is described as a brick\nbuilding in a quiet and secluded court, with stone copings and a clock\nand bell turret in the centre, of no great architectural beauty, but not\nunpleasing with its quaint, old-world look. This, too, was celebrated in\nverse by Mrs Barbauld:\n\n  \"Lo! there the seat where science loved to dwell,\n  Where liberty her ardent spirit breathed.\"\n\nIt exists no longer: municipal improvements have swept it away, and all\nthat remains of Academy Place are the houses at right angles to it where\ndwelt Priestley and Enfield. As to emoluments, the tutors had each \u00a3100\na year from the subscription fund, and \"with respect to dwelling houses,\nare to be at their own expenses.\" Poor students were exempted from the\npayment of fees, but richer ones paid two guineas yearly to each of the\ntutors, who might take boarders into their houses at \u00a315 per annum for\nthose who had two months' vacation, and \u00a318 per annum for those who had\nno vacation, exclusive of \"tea, washing, fire and candles.\"\n\nIf the living at Warrington was plain and the thinking high, there was a\ndegree of decorous gaiety, of refinement, of social charm, \"easy, blithe\nand debonnair,\" pervading the little community, which, as may be gleaned\nfrom the memoirs and reminiscences of the period, impressed and\ndelighted everyone who was witness of it. Among those who had pleasant\nmemories of the place were John Howard, the philanthropist, whose works\non prison reform were printed by Eyres of Warrington under Dr Aikin's\nsuperintendence;[6] William Roscoe, the author of the _Lives of Lorenzo\nde Medici_ and _Leo the Tenth_, who first learned to care for botany\nfrom his visits to the Warrington Botanical Gardens, and whose first\nwork, _Mount Pleasant_, was also printed there; Pennant, the naturalist,\nwhose _British Zoology_ and _Tour in Scotland_ first saw the light at\nWarrington; Currie, the biographer of Burns, etc.\n\n  \"The tutors in my time,\" wrote Priestley--(\"they knew better,\" said\n  Miss Lucy Aikin, \"than to usurp the title of _Professors_\")--\"lived in\n  the most perfect harmony. We drank tea together every Saturday, and\n  our conversation was equally instructive and pleasing. I often thought\n  it not a little extraordinary that four persons who had no previous\n  knowledge of each other should have been brought to unite in\n  conducting such a scheme as this, and be all zealous _Necessarians_ as\n  we were. We were all, likewise, Arians; and the only subject of much\n  consequence on which we differed respected the doctrine of atonement,\n  concerning which Dr Aikin held some obscure notions. The only Socinian\n  in the neighbourhood was Mr Seddon of Manchester, and we all wondered\n  at him.\"\n\nMiss Lucy Aikin, the granddaughter of Priestley's colleague, the niece\nof Mrs Barbauld, and the accomplished authoress of _Memoirs of the\nCourts of Queen Elizabeth_, and the biographer of Addison, has left us a\nlittle sketch of that society in which the early years of her girlhood\nwere spent.\n\n  \"I have often thought,\" she says, \"with envy of that society. Neither\n  Oxford nor Cambridge could boast of brighter names in literature or\n  science than several of those Dissenting tutors--humbly content, in an\n  obscure town and on a scanty pittance, to cultivate in themselves, and\n  communicate to a rising generation, those mental acquirements and\n  moral habits which are their own exceeding great reward. They and\n  theirs lived together like one large family, and in the facility of\n  their intercourse they found large compensation for its deficiency in\n  luxury and splendour.\"\n\nBut we learn there were other attractions in the Warrington circle\nbesides the tutors and their philosophy.\n\n  \"We have a knot of lasses just after your own heart,\" writes Mrs\n  Barbauld (then Miss Aikin) to her friend Miss Belsham, \"as merry,\n  blithe and gay as you would wish them, and very smart and clever--two\n  of them are the Miss Rigbys.\"\n\nWe are further told the beautiful Miss Rigbys, whose father was\n\"provider of the Commons,\"\n\n  \"made wild work with the students' hearts; and the trustees had to\n  insist that they must be removed from the house if any students stayed\n  there. And so for a time they were, but Mrs Rigby's health fortunately\n  broke down, and the young ladies were brought back again.\n\n  \"Rousseau's _Heloise_, too, had much to answer for, and at its\n  appearance (so Miss Aikin tells me), 'everybody instantly fell in love\n  with everybody'; and then it was that our poetess, after winning the\n  hearts of half the students, some one or two of whom for her sake\n  lived (I am informed) 'sighing and single,' was carried off to\n  Palgrave by that queer little man whom henceforth she was to 'honour\n  and obey.'\"\n\nOn another occasion she wrote:--\n\n  \"Somebody was bold enough to talk of getting up private theatricals.\n  This was a dreadful business! All the wise and grave, the whole\n  tutorhood, cried out, 'It must not be!' The students, the Rigbys and,\n  I must add, my aunt, took the prohibition very sulkily, and my aunt's\n  Ode to Wisdom was the result.\"\n\nThose wicked Miss Rigbys must have made the life of that \"dullish\nperson,\" Mr Seddon, who acted as _Rector Academi\u00e6_, and who was\nresponsible for law and order, well-nigh insupportable. On one\noccasion--perhaps it was to celebrate their return--they asked some of\nthe students to supper.\n\n  \"Hams and trifles, and potted beef and other luxuries, were placed\n  before them, and the students were asked to help the ladies. But the\n  hams were made of wood, and the trifles were plates of soap-suds, and\n  the potted beef was potted sawdust, and the other luxuries were\n  equally tempting and equally tantalising.\"\n\nNor were the Rector's feelings likely to be soothed by such letters as\nthe following from Mr Samuel Vaughan of Bristol, sent during the Long\nVacation, complaining bitterly of the disappointment he felt as regards\nthe Academy, and the \"too great latitude allowed the students\":--\n\n  \"My son Ben's expenses during ten months' absence amounted to \u00a3112,\n  and Billy's to \u00a359, 12s.; this should nearly suffice for the\n  University, and of itself would to many be a sufficient objection, but\n  in my opinion the consequence of the expense is abundantly more\n  pernicious, as it naturally leads to Levity, a love of pleasure,\n  dissipation and affectation of smartness; diverts the attention, and\n  prevents the necessary application to serious thoughts and Study. When\n  I sent my Sons so great a distance, it was with a view to preserve\n  them from the reigning contagion of a dissipated age, to imbibe good\n  Morals, acquire knowledge, and to obtain a manly and solid way of\n  thinking and acting, but they are returned with high Ideas of modern\n  refinements, of dress and external accomplishments, which if ever\n  necessary, yet resumed by them much too soon. As one instance, they\n  think it a Sight to appear without having their hair Frissened, and\n  this must be done by a dresser, even upon the Sabbath. No person can\n  more wish for, and encourage an open and Liberal way of thinking and\n  acting than myself, yet do I think that day should be kept with\n  Ancient Solemnity, for to say the least, the reverse gives offence to\n  many serious good People, and exhibits an Ill example at a time when\n  Religion is at so low an ebb as to stand in need of every tie and prop\n  (whether real or imaginary) for its support, therefore any relaxation\n  or Innovation under sanction of such a seminary as yours may have the\n  most pernicious tendency, for when restraints even in unessentials are\n  removed they are frequently a clue or gradation to the fashionable\n  levity of the Age and Irreligion.\"\n\nThat the _mauvais quart d'heure_ under the ancestral roof was not\nwithout its chastening influence on the improvident Ben is evident from\nthe fact that the same post brought the perturbed Rector a letter from\nhim protesting that--\n\n  \"none of us have been vicious but only gay.... Our recreations have\n  been innocent though expensive, but they imagine that they cannot be\n  expensive without being criminal.\"\n\nHowever, he expresses contrition and promises amendment, fears that he\nhas encroached on Mr Seddon's goodness and forbearance, and that his\nconduct may have acted injuriously on the Academy, etc., etc., and winds\nup by saying that Mr Wilkes will probably get a pardon from the Crown,\nand that he (Mr Vaughan) does not believe that he ever wrote the _North\nBriton_--No. 45.\n\nAlas! Mr Benjamin Vaughan's contrition was very short-lived, for next\nyear that \"affectionate but distressed pupil\" had to confess to the\nRector that he dare not show his accounts to his father.\n\n  \"My father, last year, was extremely angry at an account I gave him of\n  \u00a3112 spent at Warrington--the present sum is \u00a3179. Bill disclaims all\n  share in the expenses above \u00a360. _I_ then have \u00a3119 to answer for; _I_\n  who promised such a strict amendment, and who had as many excuses last\n  year as at present. I had more journeys, more music, and yet,\n  according to his knowledge, have spent \u00a37 more in my present year of\n  pennance, repentance, etc.!\"\n\nAnd yet Mr Benjamin Vaughan became a useful member of society, had a\nseat in the House of Commons, and had the honour of having dedicated to\nhim the _Lectures on History and General Policy_, to which is prefixed\nan \"Essay on a Course of Liberal Education for Civil and Active Life,\"\nto which he had listened as a pupil and which Priestley published in\n1788.\n\nWhatever may have been Mr Seddon's worries he had at least the\nconsolation of a loving wife, although, it is to be feared, she too\nsuffered much at the hands of those terrible Miss Rigbys, and even from\nMiss Aikin, who was somewhat of a quiz. The daughter of an equerry to\nFrederick Prince of Wales, she was a very fine lady, and, says Mr\nBright, \"spelt abominably.\"\n\n  \"Among the Seddon papers is a letter which her husband wrote to her\n  during a short absence in 1766. On the back of his letter Mrs Seddon\n  prepares a rough draft of an answer to her truant husband. The word\n  which puzzles her most is 'adieu,' and she has to spell it over three\n  times before she can determine whether the 'e' comes before the 'i,'\n  or the 'i' before the 'e.' The knotty point is at last settled and the\n  fair copy written out; and this, too, her careful husband put away and\n  preserved among his papers.\"\n\nI cannot resist quoting the last paragraph of this most charming but\nlaborious letter.\n\n  \"Let me hear of you as often as you can; for it does me more good, and\n  has a much stronger _a_ffect upon my spirits than either e_a_ther or\n  salvolatiley. Adieu, my dear, _e_xcept the sincerest and best wishes\n  for your health and happiness, of one whose greatest pleasure in this\n  world is in subscribing herself your truely affectionate wife.--J.\n  Seddon.\n\n  \"_P.S._--I shall want cash before you return; what must I doe? Pray\n  put me in a way how to replenish. Remember me propperly to everybody.\"\n\nWe cannot, however, concern ourselves at greater length with the life at\nthe Warrington Academy, or dwell much longer on the fortunes of that\nseat of learning. To do full justice to the theme would need indeed the\nwitty pen which in \"Cranford\" delineated the social life of a\nneighbouring town with such inimitable grace and charm.\n\nThe worthy Mr Seddon died in 1770, and was succeeded as Rector by Dr\nEnfield, a man distinguished for elegance of taste and sound literary\njudgment, and who, on the death, ten years later, of Dr Aikin, became\nchief tutor. For various reasons, which it is unnecessary to state here,\nthe trustees eventually decided to remove the Academy to Manchester, and\nWarrington knew it no more after 1786.\n\nDuring the twenty-nine years of its existence in the latter place some\n400 pupils had passed through it--many of them noteworthy men in their\nday, such as Percival; the Aikins; Rigby of Norwich; Estlin of Bristol;\nSergeant Heywood; Hamilton Rowan, the Irish rebel; Malthus, the\npolitical economist; Lord Ennismore; Sir James Carnegie of Southesk; Mr\nHenry Beaton, Mr Pendlebury Houghton and Dr Crompton.\n\n  \"In looking over the students' names,\" says Mr Bright, \"I cannot but\n  notice how many of their descendants are still the staunch supporters\n  of the liberal dissent which was the distinguishing characteristic of\n  the Academy. Some families, like the Willoughbys of Parkham, whose\n  last lord was educated at Warrington, have now died out; others, like\n  the Aldersons of Norwich, of which family the late judge was a member,\n  have seceded to the Church of England. But we still find united the\n  lineal and the theological successors of the Academy's students in the\n  Rigbys, the Martineaus, and the Taylors of Norwich, the Heywoods and\n  the Yateses of Liverpool, the Potters of Manchester, the Gaskells of\n  Wakefield, the Brights of Bristol, the Shores of Sheffield, the\n  Hibberts of Hyde, and the Wedgwoods of Etruria.\"\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n\n  Priestley marries--Is ordained--His Essay on Education--Lectures on\n  History and General Policy--His Chart of Biography--Becomes a Doctor\n  of Laws of the University of Edinburgh--His visits to London--Makes\n  the acquaintance of Dr Price, Canton and Benjamin Franklin--Writes the\n  _History of Electricity_--Is elected into the Royal Society.\n\nPriestley's entrance into the Warrington community affected his career\nin more ways than one. In the first place, the improvements in his\nworldly prospects enabled him to marry; and in the second he was led to\nturn his attention to Natural Philosophy, to which, as we have seen, he\nwas already predisposed. The selection of his wife and of his studies\ninfluenced the subsequent course of his life profoundly. Why he should\nhave left the sprightly, witty \"Nancy Aikin, with the blue and laughing\neyes,\" to be \"carried off to Palgrave by that queer little man\" whom she\nhad to \"honour and obey\" as a school-mistress, is one of those\ninscrutable dispensations which the hymeneal god delights in. That they\nwere the best of friends and had pleasure in each other's society is\nabundantly evident. Priestley warmly admired her genius: she confessed,\nindeed, that he first encouraged her to try her 'prentice hand at\npoetry. She was about eighteen when Priestley first appeared at\nWarrington, and about ten years his junior, a girl of many personal\nattractions and, as demonstrated by her writings, of great mental\nability and accomplishments. She had been carefully educated by her\nfather, had a considerable knowledge of modern literature, and was\nfairly well-read in that of Greece and Rome. Her first volume of poems\nwas printed at Warrington in 1773 and ran through four editions in a\nyear. It was said of her that she roused the admiration of Fox and\nJohnson, the envy of Rogers and Wordsworth, and the jealousy of\nGoldsmith; Scott declared she made a poet of him; Brougham eulogised her\nin the House of Lords, and Mrs Oliphant has paid her a beautiful tribute\nin her _Literary History of England_.\n\nMiss Lucy Aikin, in her edition of her aunt's collected works, gives a\ncharming description of her as she appeared in early womanhood:--\n\n  \"She was at this time possessed of great beauty, distinct traces of\n  which she retained to the latest period of her life. Her person was\n  slender, her complexion exquisitely fair, with the bloom of perfect\n  health; her features were regular and elegant, and her dark blue eyes\n  beamed with the light of wit and fancy.\"\n\nNot less charming is the testimony of Henry Crabb Robinson, who, in\n1805, wrote:--\n\n  \"Mrs Barbauld bore the remains of great personal beauty.[7] She had a\n  brilliant complexion, light hair, blue eyes, a small, elegant figure,\n  and her manners were very agreeable, with something of the generation\n  then departing.... Mrs Barbauld is so well known by her prose writings\n  that it is needless for me to attempt to characterise her here. Her\n  excellence lay in the soundness and acuteness of her understanding,\n  and in the perfection of her taste. In the estimation of Wordsworth\n  she was the first of our literary women, and he was not bribed to this\n  judgment by any especial congeniality of feeling or by concurrence in\n  speculative opinions. I may here relate an anecdote connecting her and\n  Wordsworth, though out of its proper time by many, many years; but it\n  is so good that it ought to be preserved from oblivion. It was after\n  her death that Lucy Aikin published Mrs Barbauld's collected works, of\n  which I gave a copy to Miss Wordsworth. Among the poems is a Stanza on\n  Life, written in extreme old age. It had delighted my sister, to whom\n  I had repeated it on her deathbed. It was long after I gave these\n  works to Miss Wordsworth that her brother said, 'Repeat me that Stanza\n  by Mrs Barbauld.' I did so. He made me repeat it again. And so he\n  learned it by heart. He was at the time walking in his sitting-room at\n  Rydal with his hands behind him, and I heard him mutter to himself, 'I\n  am not in the habit of grudging people their good things, but I wish I\n  had written those lines.'\"[8]\n\nPriestley's choice fell upon Mary Wilkinson, who was of about the same\nage as Anna Letitia Aikin. She was the daughter of a well-to-do\nironmaster at Wrexham, with whose family he had become acquainted in\nconsequence of the youngest son, William, having been a pupil at his\nschool in Nantwich. He certainly had no reason to regret his choice,\nwhatever Mary Wilkinson might have felt at times in the \"cloudy weather\"\nshe was destined to go through. It is, of course, idle to speculate \"on\nwhat might have been if things had been otherwise.\" The world, at all\nevents, was the richer for the _Hymns in Prose_ and the _Early Lessons_,\non which Mr Rochemont Barbauld's young charges and many succeeding\ngenerations of children were nurtured.\n\nFrom a worldly point of view Priestley's marriage was not without its\nadvantages to him, immediate and prospective. Mary Wilkinson had all the\nforce of character, and much of the mental and intellectual ability of\nher father and her brother John, both of whom had a considerable share\nin the development of the iron industry in this country. Of them Miss\nMeteyard, in her _Life of Wedgwood_, writes:--\n\n  \"John Wilkinson and his father Isaac played no unimportant part in the\n  vast industrial movement of their time. Isaac invented and first\n  brought into action the steam-engine blast at his iron works near\n  Wrexham. John, at the same place, as also at Bradley Forge, in\n  Staffordshire, executed all the ponderous castings for the steam\n  engines required in the Cornish mines, as well as those for Boulton\n  and Watt when they first commenced business.\"\n\nThe father was ruined in one of the commercial crises of which the times\nwere fertile. Of the son we shall hear more as this history proceeds. He\nwas one of the truest and staunchest of the many true and staunch\nfriends Priestley possessed.[9]\n\nPriestley was married in 1762, Mr Threlkeld, one of the students at the\nacademy, who subsequently became a well-known Presbyterian divine,\nnotable for his linguistic attainments and his extraordinary power of\nmemory, being his groomsman. Whatever might be Mr Threlkeld's faculty of\nrecollection it went wholly astray on this occasion, for he became so\nabsorbed in the study of a Welsh Bible he found beside him in the pew\nthat he became quite oblivious to the onerous duties of his office.\n\nOf his marriage Priestley characteristically writes:--\n\n  \"This proved a very suitable and happy connection, my wife being a\n  woman of an excellent understanding, much improved by reading, of\n  great fortitude and strength of mind, and of a temper in the highest\n  degree affectionate and generous; feeling strongly for others, and\n  little for herself. Also, greatly excelling in everything relating to\n  household affairs, she entirely relieved me of all concern of that\n  kind, which allowed me to give all my time to the prosecution of my\n  studies and the other duties of my station.\"\n\nAll accounts we have of Mary Wilkinson are to the same effect. Her\ngreat-granddaughter, Madame Belloc, writes:--\n\n  \"It is a tradition in the family that Mrs Priestley once sent her\n  famous husband to market with a large basket, and that he so acquitted\n  himself that she never sent him again! Mrs Priestley was extremely\n  intelligent and original. Lord Shelburne once found her sitting on the\n  top of a pair of steps, clad in a great apron, and vigorously pasting\n  on a new wallpaper. She received him with calm composure. There is a\n  good portrait of her as an elderly lady in a cap, curving her hand\n  round her ear to assist her hearing. She must have herself insisted\n  upon being painted in this unusual attitude. She looks like a person\n  of excellent understanding, whose mind has been much improved by\n  reading.\"\n\nBefore he committed himself to matrimony Priestley took another step\nhardly less momentous.\n\nWhat it was may be gleaned from the following extract of a letter dated\nMay 1, 1762, to Seddon, who was away at the time on one of his frequent\nbegging expeditions on behalf of the Academy:--\n\n  \"I am seriously preparing for _ordination_. As all things in this\n  world are uncertain, I think it a point of prudence not to omit\n  anything that may possibly be of advantage to me, if ever it be my lot\n  to be obliged to have recourse to the ministry for the whole or any\n  part of my subsistence, particularly as I am going to have a dearer\n  and more important stake in this world than I have ever yet had in it.\n  I can sincerely say I never knew what it was to be anxious on my own\n  account, but I cannot help confessing I begin to feel a good deal on\n  the account of another person. The hazard of bringing a person into\n  difficulties which she cannot possibly have any idea or prospect of\n  affects me, at times, very sensibly.\"\n\nThe earliest known portrait of Priestley is of this period. It\nrepresents him as a slender young man with sloping shoulders, with a\nkeen, intelligent eye and an expression not unlike that caught by Fuseli\nat a later time; his long neck is swathed in the ample folds of a white\nneck-cloth, and he wears a full-bottomed wig.[10] During Priestley's\nresidence at Warrington an artist was employed in making silhouettes of\nthe principal inhabitants. Many of these were published by Dr Kendrick\nin his _Profiles of Warrington Worthies_. In that of Priestley the\nfeatures are delicate and almost feminine: the full-bottomed wig is very\nmuch in evidence.\n\nPriestley brought his young bride to \"the good dwelling-house neatly\nfilled up, handsomely sashed to the front, with a flight of five steps\nto the entrance, three storeys high, four rooms on a floor, cellared\nunder, with convenient kitchens, yards and out-offices,\" over which she\nwas to preside for the next five years. To add to her responsibilities\nshe was promptly charged with the care of the gay but improvident Mr Ben\nVaughan and his brother Bill, and \"received the very moderate\ncompensation of fifty pounds a year for each son.\"\n\nPriestley's house in Academy Street still remains, and the fact that he\noccupied it until his removal in 1767 is commemorated by a bronze tablet\naffixed to its walls by the members of the Warrington Society on the\nhundredth anniversary of his death.\n\nThere is a local tradition that an adjoining building was used by him as\na laboratory, although it is difficult to find any grounds for the\nbelief. There is no mention of experimental work at this time in his\nmemoirs or correspondence, and whatever he might have done in this\ndirection for his own amusement or the instruction of his pupils needed\nno special apartment.[11]\n\nLectures on chemistry were, however, given at the academy by Matthew\nTurner, who is believed to have first turned Priestley's attention to\nthat science. Turner, who practised medicine in Liverpool, although an\neccentric man, applied his knowledge of chemistry to industrial\npurposes, and he is credited with having revived the art of\nglass-painting.\n\nPriestley was now wholly engrossed in the business of teaching, and\nalthough nominally tutor in the classical languages and in the _belles\nlettres_, there was practically no department of education in which at\none time or other during the half-dozen years of his sojourn at\nWarrington he was not called upon, or did not offer, to instruct. He\nenlarged and published the _Grammar_ to which reference has already been\nmade, and began a treatise on \"The Structure and Contemporary State of\nthe English Language,\" the material for which he eventually gave to\nCroft of Oxford for the compilation of his _Grammar_ and _Dictionary_.\n\nBut what particularly impressed him as a practical educationist was that\nwhilst most of his pupils were designed for situations in civil and\nactive life, every article in the plan of their education was adapted to\nthe learned professions. There was hardly any medium between an\neducation for the counting-house, consisting of writing, arithmetic and\nmerchants' accounts, and a method of instruction in the abstract\nsciences. He proceeds to trace how this came about:--\n\n  \"Formerly none but the clergy were thought to have any occasion for\n  learning. It was natural, therefore, that the whole plan of education,\n  from the Grammar School to the finishing at the University, should be\n  calculated for their use. If a few other persons, who were not\n  designed for Holy Orders, offered themselves for education, it could\n  not be expected that a course of studies should be provided for them\n  only. And, indeed, as all those persons who superintended the business\n  of education were of the clerical order, and had themselves been\n  taught nothing but the rhetoric, logic and school-divinity, or civil\n  law, which comprised the whole compass of human learning for several\n  centuries, it could not be expected that they should entertain larger,\n  or more liberal, views of education; and still less that they should\n  strike out a course of study for the use of men who were universally\n  thought to have no need of study, and of whom few were so sensible of\n  their own wants as to desire any such advantages.\n\n  \"Besides, in those days, the great ends of human society seem to have\n  been but little understood. Men of the greatest rank, fortune and\n  influence, and who took the lead in all the affairs of State, had no\n  idea of the great objects of wise and extensive policy, and therefore\n  could never apprehend that any fund of knowledge was requisite for the\n  most eminent stations in the community. Few persons imagined what were\n  the true sources of wealth, power and happiness in a nation. Commerce\n  was little understood, or even attended to; and so slight was the\n  connection of the different nations of Europe that general politics\n  were very contracted. And thus, men's views being narrow, little\n  previous furniture of mind was requisite to conduct them.\"\n\nThese paragraphs constitute the introduction to an _Essay on Education_\nwhich Priestley published in 1764, with the object of drawing attention\nto the necessity for a reform in our educational system. Although\nwritten nearly a century and a half ago, Priestley's main contention\nthat the education of youth should be directed and adapted to the\ncircumstances and needs of the time in which they live is just as valid\nnow as then, and needs the same insistence. He points out that \"the\nsevere and proper discipline\" of the Grammar Schools, which are\nsubservient to the Universities, is become a \"topic of ridicule.\"\n\n  \"This is certainly a call upon us to examine the state of education in\n  this country, and to consider how those years are employed which men\n  pass previous to their entering into the world; for upon this their\n  future behaviour and success must, in a great measure, depend. A\n  transition, which is not easy, can never be made with advantage; and\n  therefore it is certainly our wisdom to contrive that the studies of\n  youth should tend to fit them for the business of manhood; and that\n  the objects of their attention, and turn of thinking in younger life,\n  should not be too remote from the destined employment of their riper\n  years. If this be not attended to they must necessarily be mere\n  novices upon entering the great world, be almost unavoidably\n  embarrassed in their conduct, and, after all the time and experience\n  bestowed upon their education, be indebted to a series of blunders for\n  the most useful knowledge they will ever acquire.\"\n\n  \"That man is a friend of his country who observes and endeavours to\n  supply any defects in the methods of educating youth.\"\n\nAt the risk of being called \"a projector, a visionary, or whatever\nanybody pleases,\" he proceeds to show \"how to fill up with advantage\nthose years which immediately precede a young gentleman's engaging in\nthose higher spheres of active life in which he is destined to move.\"\n\nIt will be observed that Priestley is not dealing with any scheme of\nnational or universal education adapted to every youth in the community.\nHe is concerned only with the young man who is destined for a station in\nwhich his conduct may considerably affect the liberty and the property\nof his countrymen, and the riches, the strength and the security of his\ncountry; and who is within the influence of an honourable ambition to\nappear as a legislator in the State, or of standing near the helm of\naffairs and guiding the secret springs of Government--in a word, that\nclass which the universities thought they alone were specially concerned\nwith.\n\n  \"That the parents and friends of young gentlemen destined to act in\n  any of these important spheres may not think a liberal education\n  unnecessary to them, and that the young gentlemen themselves may enter\n  with spirit into the enlarged views of their friends and tutors, I\n  would humbly propose some new articles of academical instruction, such\n  as have a nearer and more evident connection with the business of\n  active life, and which may therefore bid fairer to engage the\n  attention and rouse the thinking powers of young gentlemen of an\n  active genius. The subjects I would recommend are 'Civil History,' and\n  more especially the important objects of 'Civil Policy'; such as the\n  theory of laws, government, manufactures, commerce, naval force, etc.,\n  with whatever may be demonstrated from history to have contributed to\n  the flourishing state of nations, to rendering a people happy and\n  populous at home and formidable abroad; together with those articles\n  of previous information, without which it is impossible to understand\n  the nature, connections and mutual influences of those great objects.\"\n\nHe then gives plans and detailed syllabuses of three distinct courses of\nlectures subservient to this design. The first is on the \"Study of\nHistory in General\"; the second on the \"History of England,\" and the\nthird on the \"Present Constitution and Laws of England.\" This scheme is\nso daring an innovation on the established order of things 150 years\nago, that Priestley then proceeds with care to anticipate, examine and\nrebut the objections which may be urged against it. There is no\nnecessity to dwell upon them now. Much water has flowed under the Folly\nBridge or past the \"Backs\" since Priestley's essay was penned, and\neverything for which he contended, and even more, now finds its proper\nplace in the educational schemes of all our universities, ancient and\nmodern. But it is significant of the condition of things in the older\nseats of learning in the middle of the eighteenth century, that he\nshould have to urge his project apologetically and to labour points\nwhich to-day appear almost axiomatic. The essay is characteristic of the\nauthor in the breadth and liberality of its tone, in its declaration of\nthe real functions and objects of government, and in its note of true\npatriotism. Of course it was fiercely attacked, among others, by\nGriffiths in the _Monthly Review_, but it enlisted Josiah Wedgwood's\nsympathy with its author and formed the basis of a friendship as cordial\nand enduring as it was useful.\n\nThe lectures on \"History\" and on \"General Policy\" were subsequently\npublished, with a dedication, as already stated, to Mr Benjamin Vaughan.\nIt is interesting at this juncture to learn the views Priestley\ninculcated on the youth of Warrington concerning other matters which,\nlike the education problem and the poor, are always with us.\n\nIn the 51st lecture on \"General Policy\" we read:--\n\n  \"The gain of the merchants, it is said, is not always the gain of the\n  country in general. If, for instance, a merchant imports foreign goods\n  by which the consumption of national manufactures is hurt, though the\n  merchant should be gainer by those goods, the State is a loser. As, on\n  the other hand, a merchant may export the manufactures of his own\n  country to his own loss and the nation's gain. But if the merchants be\n  gainers, the consumers, that is those for whose use manufactures are\n  established, having a power of purchasing or not at pleasure, must be\n  so too. And if, after sufficient trial, it be found that merchants\n  importing foreign goods can sell these cheaper than the manufactures\n  can be bought at home, it is an indication that it is not for the\n  interest of the nation at large to encourage such manufactures.\n\n  \"Though exportation makes a nation rich, we are not to judge of the\n  quantity of riches which a nation gains by trade from exportation\n  only, but the importation must also be considered. If these exactly\n  balance one another nothing can be said to be gained or lost, just as\n  a person is not the richer for selling a quantity of goods if he buy\n  to the same amount. Nay, though the exportation be lessened, if the\n  importation be lessened more than in proportion, it proves an increase\n  of gainful trade, notwithstanding the decrease of exportation. This,\n  however, is estimating the value of commerce by the mere increase of\n  money. But a nation may flourish by internal commerce only, and what\n  is _external_ commerce between two nations not united in government\n  would be internal if they should come under the same government. In\n  every fair bargain the buyer and the seller are equally gainers,\n  whether money be accumulated by either of the parties or not.\n\n  \"It is a great mistake to confound the king's revenue with the gain a\n  nation makes by its trade. No man would presume to say it is more for\n  the public benefit that the nation should expend a million or more\n  every year with foreigners, in order to raise a hundred thousand\n  pounds to the revenue by the customs, than to save that million or\n  more within ourselves and to raise only the hundred thousand pounds\n  the other way. But Ministers of State are apt to estimate the value of\n  everything to the country by the gain it brings, and that immediately\n  to themselves....\n\n  \"The legislature of any country has seldom interfered in the affairs\n  of commerce, but commerce has suffered in consequence to it, owing to\n  the ignorance of statesmen, and even of merchants themselves,\n  concerning the nature of trade. And indeed the principles of commerce\n  are very complicated and require long experience and deep reflection\n  before they can be well understood....\n\n  \"Most politicians have injured commerce by restricting, confining or\n  burthening it too much; the consequence of which has been that by\n  aiming at great immediate advantage they have cut off the very springs\n  of all future advantage. The inconveniences which have arisen to a\n  nation from leaving trade quite open are few, and very problematical\n  in comparison of the manifest injury it receives from being cramped in\n  almost any form whatsoever....\n\n  \"Mr Colbert, a man of great probity, knowledge and industry ... would\n  have done better to have listened to the advice of an old merchant,\n  who being consulted by him about what he should do in favour of trade,\n  said, '_Laissez nous faire_.'\"\n\nIn another place he says:--\n\n  \"The happiness of all nations, therefore, as one great community, will\n  be best promoted by laying aside all national _jealousy of trade_, and\n  by each country cultivating those productions or manufactures which\n  they can do to the most advantage; and experience, in a state of\n  perfect liberty, will soon teach them what those are. In this state of\n  things the only advantage will be on the side of industry and\n  ingenuity, and no man or nation ought to wish it to be anywhere else.\"\n\nWith regard to questions of political and civil liberty, the theory of\nthe progress of law, the influence of religion on civil society, the\nconnection of modes of religion with forms of government, the teaching\nis precisely what we should expect in such a hot-bed of liberal dissent\nas the Warrington Academy. With regard to the connection between civil\ngovernment and religion he says:--\n\n  \"The principal sufferer by this alliance between the Church and the\n  State is religion itself, that is, the members of society as\n  professors of religion and deriving advantages from it. For when it is\n  thus guarded by the State, if it be faulty or wants reformation, it\n  must long continue so. The professors of it, being interested in its\n  support, will do everything in their power to prevent any alteration,\n  though it should be ever so much wanted....\n\n  \"It is alleged, in favour of these establishments, that religion has\n  an influence on the conduct of men in this life. No doubt it has, as\n  it connects the hopes of a future life with good behaviour in this.\n  But this is done in all sects of Christians, and as much in those\n  which are reprobated by the State as those which are encouraged by it.\n  Besides, if this was the true cause of attachment to Christian\n  establishments, the friends of them would be much more jealous of\n  unbelievers than they are of sectaries, which does not appear to be\n  the case.... One would think that Christian Governments might content\n  themselves with establishing the Christian religion in general without\n  confining themselves to any particular mode of it. But so far is this\n  from being the case, that by the present laws of this country a man\n  who denies the doctrine of the Trinity, which has no more imaginable\n  connection with the good of the State than the doctrine of\n  Transubstantiation, is deemed a blasphemer and sentenced to suffer\n  confiscation of goods and imprisonment....\n\n  \"In all other countries the established religion is that of the\n  majority of the people, and the writers in defence of it vindicate it\n  on this principle, viz., that it is the religion of the majority,\n  whatever that be. But in Ireland we have a most remarkable exception\n  to this rule. There the established religion is not that of the\n  majority but of a small minority of the people, perhaps not more than\n  that of one in ten of the inhabitants. That so flagrant an abuse of\n  power should exist, and under a Government pretending to justice, and\n  even to liberality, is barely credible.\"\n\nHere again much water has flowed under the bridges since these words\nwere penned, but the bread which Priestley cast upon the stream, as well\nas that upon which he nurtured the young gentlemen of the Warrington\nAcademy, has, we recognise, not been wholly wasted. In regard to what he\nconsidered other anomalies, the State still takes upon itself a \"great,\ndangerous and unnecessary burthen\" by undertaking the care of religion.\nFrom the remains of superstition the clergy are still considered as a\ndistinct order of men in this country, and they are in a manner\nrepresented in Parliament by the bishops having seats in the House of\nLords. \"From which,\" he says, \"if they had a just sense of the nature of\ntheir office, and consulted their true dignity, they would retire of\ntheir own accord. At present their seat in the House only flatters their\npride and gives the minister so many votes.\"\n\nIn regard to other items of political and social development, it is\nnoteworthy that Priestley was a consistent opponent of national\neducation as we understand it to-day, on the ground that in his judgment\nit was inimical to liberty and the natural rights of parents. His\nposition, in fact, was very similar to that taken up by a considerable\nand influential section of Liberal Dissenters prior to 1870.\n\nWhilst at Warrington he also gave lectures on the \"Theory of Language,\"\non the \"Laws and Constitutions of England,\" and on \"Oratory and\nCriticism\"--all of which were subsequently published, and which may\nstill be read with profit, despite Lord Brougham's sneering allusion to\nthe adventurous tutor afflicted with an incurable stutter who, having\nnever heard any speaking save in the pulpits of meeting-houses,\npromulgated rules of eloquence and of jurisprudence to the senators and\nlawyers of his country. The adventurous tutor with the incurable stutter\neven taught Elocution, also Logic and Hebrew for a time, and one year he\ngave a course of lectures on Anatomy.\n\nWhilst at Warrington he published a _Chart of Biography_, exhibiting by\nlines and spaces the succession of the eminent men in every age and of\nevery profession, with the relative length of their lives, and in such\nmanner that at any given epoch it could be seen not only who flourished\nin it, but how all their ages stood with respect to one another, who\nwere a man's contemporaries, how far any of them was before him, or how\nfar after him, in the order of their births or deaths.\n\nThe _Chart of Biography_ procured for its compiler the degree of Doctor\nof Laws of the University of Edinburgh.\n\nIt has been said of Priestley that he was not a man who made friends. If\nit is meant by this that he was essentially a self-centred recluse, who\nsought his relaxation in change of occupation, or only within his own\nfamily circle, the statement gives a wholly imperfect idea of the man\nand is very wide of the truth.\n\nIn reality he was one of the most gregarious and most easily\napproachable of individuals, a man of strong, active human sympathies\nand of much social charm. There is abundant evidence of this in the\ntestimony of his contemporaries; it is illustrated by numberless\nanecdotes, and is reflected in almost every letter of his\ncorrespondence.\n\nIt was, doubtless, under the impulse of the social instincts of his\nnature that, whilst at Warrington, he was led to begin the practice of\nspending one month in every year in London. This, remarks his son, was\nof great use to him. He saw and heard a great deal. A new turn was\nfrequently given to his ideas. New and useful acquaintances were formed,\nand old ones confirmed. London then, as now, was the centre of the\nintellectual life of the kingdom and the Royal Society the seat of its\nscientific activity. To a man of Priestley's versatility and eagerness,\nwhose curiosity ranged practically over every department of human\nknowledge, these annual visits were a sort of intellectual tonic and\ngave a powerful stimulus to his activity.\n\nOn the first of them he made the acquaintance of men who, in their\nseveral capacities, proved to be true and valuable friends, notably, Dr\nRichard Price, Mr Canton, and Dr Benjamin Franklin.\n\nDr Price, a philosopher, and an eminent nonconformist divine, and one of\nthe leading Arians of his time, is best known by his work on morals, and\nby his writings on financial and political questions. Among these, his\npapers in the _Philosophical Transactions_ on \"Life Insurance\" and on\nthe \"Proper Method of Calculating the Values of Contingent Reversions,\"\nare specially noteworthy. His pamphlet on the National Debt is said to\nhave influenced Pitt in establishing the Sinking Fund for its\nextinction, and that on the \"Policy of the War with America\" to have\ncontributed to the declaration of independence by the Americans. His\nliberal opinions gained him the friendship and patronage of Lord\nShelburne. The acquaintance with Priestley soon ripened into a lasting\nfriendship, which was in nowise disturbed by the controversy on\nmaterialism and necessity in which they subsequently engaged. Price and\nPriestley held similar views as to the French Revolution, and both were\ndenounced with equal fierceness by Burke. Price died in the spring of\n1791, and his funeral sermon was preached by Priestley, who succeeded\nhim in the care of the Gravel Pit Meeting at Hackney. He was a man for\nwhom Priestley ever entertained the warmest feelings of friendship on\nthe ground of his amiable simplicity, his truly Christian spirit,\ndisinterested patriotism and true candour.\n\nJohn Canton, a notable schoolmaster in his day, is best known for his\nelectrical inquiries and for his work on the compressibility of water,\nand his name is associated with the phosphorescent substance first\nobtained by him by calcining oyster shells with flowers of sulphur.\n\nAmong the Canton papers in the possession of the Royal Society is a\nletter from Seddon to Canton introducing Priestley, in which the latter\nis described as the author of _A Chart of Biography_ and of an _Essay on\nEducation_, and in which the writer says of the bearer:--\n\n  \"You will find him a benevolent, sensible man, with a considerable\n  share of learning. Besides the studies which belong to his profession,\n  he has a taste for Natural Philosophy which will not render him less\n  agreeable to you.\"\n\nThat Priestley greatly enjoyed and profited by his Christmas in London\nis evident from the terms in which he refers to it in a letter to Canton\nunder date February 14, 1766.\n\n  \"The time I had the happiness to spend in your company appears upon\n  revision like a pleasing dream. I frequently enjoy it once again in\n  recollection, and ardently wish for a repetition of it. I wish, but in\n  vain, that it may ever be in my power to return in kind your generous\n  communication of philosophical intelligence and discoveries.\"\n\nHe concludes the letter by expressing a desire to become a Fellow of the\nRoyal Society.\n\nBenjamin Franklin, journeyman printer and journalist, statesman and\ndiplomatist, was about sixty years old when Priestley, then a man of\nlittle more than half his age, first made his personal acquaintance. The\nRoyal Society, which had formerly ridiculed the discoveries which have\ngiven Franklin his undisputed position as one of the most eminent\nnatural philosophers of his time, had paid him, although still a British\nsubject, the distinguished compliment of making him an honorary fellow.\nAt the time of Priestley's coming to town he was occupied with the great\nstruggle on behalf of the American Colony which ended in the defeat of\nthe Stamp Act, and his famous examination before a Committee of\nParliament had made him an object of great popular interest. During the\neight or nine succeeding years in which Franklin remained in England his\nacquaintance with Priestley grew into the closest friendship, and there\ncan be no question that the friendship reacted powerfully on Priestley's\nwork as a political thinker and as a natural philosopher. Indeed, it may\nbe truthfully said that Franklin made Priestley into a man of science.\n\nAs the result of this intercourse with Canton and Franklin, Priestley\noffered to compile what he called \"a distinct and methodical account\" of\nthe history of discoveries in electricity, provided he could be supplied\nwith the necessary books. Franklin warmly seconded the proposal, and\nundertook, with the assistance of friends, to furnish all existing\nliterature on the subject. As a matter of fact almost the whole of the\nhistorical account in Priestley's book is taken from the _Philosophical\nTransactions of the Royal Society_, which was then the chief source of\ninformation concerning electrical science, inasmuch as the English\nelectricians of that period, in addition to their own original papers,\nwhich were both numerous and important, introduced into the\n_Transactions_ detailed accounts of all the principal books on\nelectricity published abroad. In putting together his work, Priestley,\nhaving, as he says, a pretty good machine, was led to endeavour to\nascertain several facts which were in dispute, and was thus led by\ndegrees into a large field of experimental inquiry, in which he spared\nno expense that he could possibly afford. One of the most important of\nhis discoveries is that charcoal is a good conductor. He describes\ncoloured circles produced by receiving discharges from 21 square feet of\nglass on metal plates. When an electrical battery is discharged light\nbodies placed near the electric circuit are moved. Priestley ascribes\nthis motion to what he calls the force of the lateral explosion, and he\nconceives it to depend upon the sudden elasticity given to the air. He\nfound that a long circuit conducts much worse than a short circuit, even\nwhen the conductors are the same; also, that when the circuit contains\nan imperfect conductor a spark passes to bodies near, no electricity\nbeing communicated.\n\nThe work necessitated much correspondence with Franklin and others of\nhis philosophical friends in London, and much of his leisure was devoted\nto his own experimental observations. Nevertheless, the book was\ncompleted in less than a year. Hasty and imperfect as it was, \"_The\nHistory and Present State of Electricity_. With Original Experiments,\nillustrated with Copperplates,\" was well received and ran through five\neditions in its author's lifetime. Its publication at once stamped\nPriestley as a man of science; it secured him recognition as such in\nscientific circles at home and abroad, and was the immediate cause of\nhis election, on June 12, 1766, into the Royal Society. The growing\ninterest in the subject induced him to put together a _Familiar\nIntroduction to the Study of Electricity_, which had also a considerable\nmeasure of success and was the means of popularising a knowledge of the\nmain facts then known concerning Frictional Electricity. Priestley was\ninstrumental in reviving the use of large electrical machines and\nbatteries. The first of the large machines for which Nairne became\nfamous was constructed in consequence of a request made to Priestley by\nthe Grand Duke of Tuscany to procure for him the best machine that could\nbe made in England. One of his machines, which figured in his _History_,\nand also in his _Familiar Introduction_, is in the possession of the\nRoyal Society.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n\n  Goes to Leeds as minister of the Mill Hill Chapel--Resumes his studies\n  in Speculative Theology--_The Theological Repository_--Becomes a\n  Unitarian--Priestley as a controversialist--His Theory and Practice of\n  Perspective--His literary characteristics--Begins his inquiries on\n  Pneumatic Chemistry--His invention of soda-water--Receives the Copley\n  Medal of the Royal Society.\n\nAlthough Priestley lived in philosophic contentment with his lot at\nWarrington, happy in his occupations and in the society of congenial\ncolleagues, the circumstances of the Academy were not fortunate. The\ninstitution never wholly recovered from the unhappy differences between\nthe trustees and the first head of the Educational Staff, and in time\nmany of the subscribers grew lukewarm in their support. Priestley had a\nremarkable power of adapting himself to his environment; he was one of\nthe most even-tempered of men and had a capacity for being cheerful that\nwould have extorted admiration even from Socrates. \"But,\" says Miss\nAiken, \"the Alma Mater of Warrington was ever a niggardly recompense of\nthe distinguished abilities and virtues which were enlisted in her\nservice.\" One hundred pounds a year, with a house and a few\nboarders--hungry lads at \u00a315 a year, exclusive of washing and\ncandles--meant little towards the _res angusta domi_. Moreover, little\nSarah Priestley had made her appearance, and the uncertain prospects\nwhich were before that young lady, coupled with the condition of her\nmother's health, which was not wholly satisfactory at Warrington, led\nhim to contemplate the expediency of giving up school-mastering and of\nresuming his profession of the ministry. Accordingly he was induced to\naccept an invitation to take charge of the congregation of Mill Hill\nChapel, at Leeds, where he was already pretty well known, and thither he\nremoved in 1767.[12]\n\nAlthough it was no part of his duty to preach when at Warrington, he had\nfrom choice continued the practice, and wishing to maintain the\ncharacter of a Dissenting minister, he had, as we have already seen,\nbeen ordained whilst there. His tendency to stammer was still a\ndifficulty. Indeed, whilst at Nantwich it was so marked that he had\nalmost resolved to abandon the calling. By reading aloud and very slowly\nevery day, and by taking pains, he in some measure got the better of his\ndefect, but he never wholly overcame it.\n\nAt Leeds he found a liberal, friendly and harmonious congregation, to\nwhom his services, of which he was not sparing, were very acceptable.\nThere, he says, he had no unreasonable prejudices to contend with, so\nthat he had full scope for every kind of exertion. His activity and zeal\nin the special duties of his office led him to prepare and print\ncatechisms for the young and to form various classes of catechumens and\nto instruct them in the principles of religion. He also published\ndiscourses on \"Family Prayer,\" on the \"Lord's Supper\" and on \"Church\nDiscipline,\" some of which were not altogether to the liking of members\nof the Established Church. Indeed, the first of his controversial pieces\nwas written in answer to some angry remarks on one of these discourses\nwritten by a clergyman in the neighbourhood.\n\nHis return to the active duties of the ministry naturally induced him to\nresume the studies in Speculative Theology which had occupied him at\nNeedham but which had been in large measure interrupted by the business\nof teaching at Nantwich and Warrington. He now published his _Institutes\nof Natural and Revealed Religion_, and began the publication of _The\nTheological Repository_, a collection of papers on theological\nquestions, contributed by himself and a number of neighbouring ministers\nand others. The work eventually extended to six volumes, three of which\nwere printed whilst he was at Leeds.\n\n  \"_The Theological Repository_,\" says the Rev. Charles Wicksteed,[13]\n  \"was one of those publications which will always appear from time to\n  time in every body in which there is much activity and much freedom of\n  thought. It had, however, a very slender circulation, and was very\n  little read by any but theologians of the Liberal school. Indeed, it\n  discussed questions which were viewed with terror by many even of the\n  Liberal school itself, because it, in fact, purposely deserted the\n  beaten track of opinion and opened out those questions on which\n  difficulties began to be felt, or on which fresh light was wanted. It\n  aimed at collecting the contributions of free, independent and\n  thoughtful minds--_towards_ correct ultimate decisions, without\n  pretending itself to furnish those decisions. This is ever a position\n  which the bigoted violently resent, which the unlearned cannot\n  understand, on which even the candid and liberal often look with a\n  dissatisfaction not unmingled with fear, but which is,\n  notwithstanding, the essential preliminary of correct settled opinion\n  in every age of thought. It is a position often assumed by the most\n  contemplative and the most thoroughly honest men of the generation,\n  but one which is never understood until the generation which produced\n  and neglected it is passed. If there were not this neutral ground on\n  which inquiring spirits can meet, beyond the hackneyed and settled\n  points in which alone the many are interested, there would be an end\n  to thought, which in a short time would prove an end to active,\n  healthy, influential and tested truth.\"\n\nShortly after his removal to Leeds, Priestley avowed himself an adherent\nto that school of theological opinion which its enemies associate with\nthe name of Fausto Sozzini; that is, he became what has been called a\n_humanitarian_, or a believer in the doctrine that Jesus Christ was in\nnature solely and truly a man, however highly exalted by God.\n\nSozzini's doctrine brought down upon its teacher the ill-will of a\nCracow mob; his house was wrecked, his books and manuscripts destroyed,\nhis life threatened, and he was driven from the city. Two hundred years\nlater the Socinian Priestley went through precisely the same experience.\nWrecking the homes, pillaging the property and injuring the persons of\nheresiarchs might seem an extraordinary way of identifying oneself with\nthe doctrine of the gentle author of the Sermon on the Mount if history\nhad not made us pretty familiar with such spectacles. At Leeds, as\nalready stated, Priestley published the first of the series of\ncontroversial pieces on religion and politics which ceased only with his\ndeath. By some strange irony of fate this man, who was by nature one of\nthe most peaceable and peace-loving of men, singularly calm and\ndispassionate, not prone to disputation or given to wrangling, acquired\nthe reputation of being perhaps the most cantankerous man of his time,\nwho delighted in tilting against established usage, and whose hand,\nIshmael-like, was against every man's. By sheer force of circumstances\nhe became an indefatigable pamphleteer, apparently ever ready to\nvindicate the cause of civil and religious liberty, to champion the\nprinciples and conduct of Dissenters, and to attack what he considered\nthe inveterate prejudices of the prevailing religion of his countrymen.\n\nAs a controversialist his methods were beyond reproach, and the arts of\ncasuistry were wholly foreign to his character. He was so obviously\nsincere and fair-minded that he frequently overcame prejudice and\ndisarmed criticism by his unconscious unwritten appeal to the finer\ninstincts of his adversaries. He made many enemies but he won far more\nfriends: the enemies were for the most part men whom history willingly\nlets die; the friends were of every sect, and some of them were among\nthe chief glories of the eighteenth century.\n\nThe following characteristic letter to his friend, Miss Aiken, is\ninteresting as illustrating the action of the active, eager mind which,\nas its owner says, found scope for every kind of exertion at this period\nof his life:--\n\n                                               \"Leeds, _13th June 1769_.\n\n  \"Dear Miss Aikin,--You will be surprised when I tell you I write this\n  on the behalf of _Pascal Paoli_ and the brave _Corsicans_, but it is\n  strictly true. Mr Turner of Wakefield, who says he reads your poems,\n  not with admiration, but astonishment, insists upon my writing to you\n  to request that a copy of your poem, called _Corsica_, may be sent to\n  Mr Boswell, with permission to publish it for the benefit of those\n  noble islanders. He is confident that it cannot fail greatly to\n  promote their interest, now that a subscription is open for them, by\n  raising a generous ardour in the cause of liberty and admiration of\n  their glorious struggle in its defence. Its being written _by a lady_,\n  he thinks, will be a circumstance very much in their favour and that\n  of the poem, but there is no occasion for Mr Boswell to be acquainted\n  with your name unless it be your own choice some time hence. I own I\n  entirely agree with Mr Turner in these sentiments, and therefore hope\n  Miss Aikin will not refuse so reasonable a request, which will, at the\n  same time, lay a great obligation on her friends in England and\n  contribute to the relief of her own heroes in Corsica. Consider that\n  you are as much a general as Tyrt\u00e6us was, and your poems (which, I am\n  confident, are much better than his ever were) may have as great an\n  effect as his. They may be the _coup de grace_ to the French troops in\n  that island, and Paoli, who reads English, will cause it to be printed\n  in every history of that renowned island.\n\n  \"Without any joke, I wish you would comply with this request. In this\n  case you have only to send a corrected copy to me at Leeds, to Mr\n  Johnson in London, and I will take care to introduce it to the notice\n  of Mr Boswell by means of Mr Vaughan or Mrs Macauley, or some other of\n  the friends of liberty and Corsica in London. The sooner this is done\n  the better. Mr Turner regrets very much that it was not done some time\n  ago. I shall not tell you what I think of your poems for more than\n  twenty reasons, one of which is that I am not able to express it. We\n  are now all expectation at the opening of every packet from\n  Warrington.\n\n  \"My piece on Perspective is nearly ready for the press. Come and see\n  us before it is quite printed, and I will engage to teach you the\n  whole art and mystery of it in a few hours. If you come a month after\n  I may know no more about the matter than anybody else. I am about to\n  make a bolder push than ever for the _pillory_, the _King's Bench\n  Prison_, or something worse. Tell Mr Aikin he may hug himself that I\n  have no connection with the Academy. On Monday next Mr Turner and I\n  set out on a visit to the Archdeacon at Richmond.\n\n  \"With all our compliments to all your worthy family, I am, with the\n  greatest cordiality, your friend and admirer,\n\n                                                         \"J. Priestley.\"\n\nPasquale de Paoli, the Corsican patriot, whose struggles to secure the\nindependence of his native island had excited warm sympathy in England\nand had enlisted the pen of Boswell, was at that time a refugee in this\ncountry, having been defeated, after a stubborn resistance, by the\nFrench under Count Vaux. The poem on \"Corsica,\" one of the earliest and\nmost beautiful of Miss Aikin's productions, was written in 1768, at\nabout the period of the appearance of Boswell's _Account of Corsica_,\nbut it was first published in 1773 in a collection of her poems, of\nwhich four editions, the first in 4to, the three others in 8vo were\nprinted in that year.\n\nThe copy seen by Priestley was in manuscript. Whether it was shown to\nBoswell or to Paoli is not recorded.\n\nThe piece on Perspective was published in 1770, under the title of \"_A\nFamiliar Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Perspective_. With\ncopperplates.\" He gave as his reason for writing it that, having\noccasion to make drawings of philosophical instruments and apparatus he\nhad felt the need of a work treating of perspective. It will be seen in\nthe various editions of his works that the words \"Priestley del\" are\nengraved at the left-hand corner of the copperplates of the\nillustrations. The book had a considerable sale and was frequently\nrecommended by drawing-masters. A second edition appeared in 1782 and it\ncontinued to be used well into the nineteenth century.\n\nIt is interesting to note that the first printed account of the use of\nindia-rubber for the purpose of erasing lead pencil marks occurs in the\npreface to this work. It ran thus:--\n\n  \"Since this work was printed off I have seen a substance excellently\n  adapted to the purpose of wiping off from paper the marks of black\n  lead pencil. It must therefore be of singular use to those who\n  practise drawing. It is sold by Mr Nairne, mathematical instrument\n  maker, opposite the Royal Exchange. He sells a cubical piece of about\n  half an inch for three shillings, and he says it will last several\n  years.\"\n\nThe \"bolder push than ever for the _pillory_, the _King's Bench Prison_,\nor something worse,\" probably refers to the anonymous pieces which he\npublished in support of \"Wilkes and Liberty\" in the course of the\nmemorable struggle between the freeholders of Middlesex and the House of\nCommons concerning the rights of free representation by parliamentary\nconstituencies which at that time agitated the country. Wilkes had\nshortly before the date of this letter been fined by the King's Bench\n\u00a31000 and sentenced to twenty-two months' imprisonment for publishing an\nimpious libel, and had been expelled from the House of Commons--to\nwhich, however, he was repeatedly returned by the electors of Middlesex.\n\nThe Richmond visit to Archdeacon Blackburne, whose son had been at the\nWarrington Academy, is memorable from the circumstance that on its\noccasion Priestley first met Theophilus Lindsey, with whom he contracted\nan intimate and lasting friendship, which greatly influenced the lives\nand fortunes of both, and of which Priestley subsequently wrote that it\nhad been a source of more real satisfaction to him than any other\ncircumstance in his whole life.\n\nThe busy pamphleteer found time, however, to put together more ambitious\nworks than _Wilkes and Liberty_. The success of his _History of\nElectricity_ induced him to attempt the compilation of the history of\nall the branches of experimental philosophy, and he made proposals to\npublish a _History of Discoveries Relating to Vision Light and Colours_.\nThe subscription to this work was not, however, sufficient to induce him\nto proceed, and after a considerable outlay in the purchase of books and\nother material the project was abandoned.\n\nPriestley was, perhaps, the most industrious bookmaker of his age.\nBoswell indeed dubbed him a \"literary Jack-of-all-Trades,\" and he was\nbusy with proof-sheets even to the day of his death. In fact, the\nclosing act of his life, before he put his hand to his face to hide the\nlast flicker of the vital spark, was to make a correction in a\nproof-sheet. He usually composed in shorthand, and much of this work was\ndone in the family circle, sitting by the parlour fire. Conversation\nnever disturbed him. Although his style is somewhat prolix, his language\nis simple and direct and his meaning invariably clear. Charges that his\nwritings were hasty performances in nowise disturbed him. Indeed, he was\nwont to say that some of those that were most hurriedly done were among\nthose that were best received. Whatever might have been the time he\nspent on their composition he was confident that more would not have\ncontributed to their perfection in any essential particular, and about\nanything farther he was never very solicitous. His object, he said, was\nnot to acquire the character of a fine writer but of a useful one.\nPecuniary gain was never the chief object of his work; several of his\nbooks, indeed, were written with the prospect of certain loss. Many\nwriters before and since the great lexicographer have left us what they\nhave imagined to have been the secret of their success as literary\ncraftsmen, and have told us of the means by which they gained their\nproficiency of composition and mastery of style. Priestley has no\npretensions to be considered a master of style; nevertheless, it is of\ninterest to learn how he acquired facility in writing the simple,\nunaffected English which characterises his literary work. It came, he\nsaid, from a practice of committing to writing as much as he could of\nthe sermons he heard, and of composing much in verse. With regard to the\nsermons, he says:--\n\n  \"This practice I began very early, and continued it until I was able\n  from the heads of a discourse to supply the rest myself. For, not\n  troubling myself to commit to memory much of the amplification, and\n  writing at home almost as much as I had heard, I insensibly acquired a\n  habit of composing with great readiness, and from this practice I\n  believe I have derived great advantage through life, composition\n  seldom employing so much time as would be necessary to write in long\n  hand anything I have published.\"\n\nAs regards the verses, he says:--\n\n  \"I was myself far from having any pretension to the character of a\n  poet, but in the early part of my life I was a great versifier, and\n  this, I believe, as well as my custom of writing after preachers,\n  mentioned before, contributed to the ease with which I always wrote\n  prose.\"\n\nIf Priestley was not himself a poet, he was at least the cause of poetry\nin another. Miss Aikin once told him that it was the perusal of some\nverses of his that first induced her fledgling muse to soar--so that, he\nadds, \"this country is in some measure indebted to me for one of the\nbest poets it can boast of.\" No example of Priestley's abilities as a\n\"versifier\" has come down to us, but in that dainty little sketch of the\nWarrington society, by Miss Lucy Aikin, from which we have already\nquoted, allusion is made to his accomplishment.\n\n  \"Both _bouts rim\u00e9s_ and _vers de soci\u00e9t\u00e9_ were in fashion with the\n  set. Once it was their custom to slip anonymous pieces into Mrs\n  Priestley's work-bag. One 'copy of verses,' a very eloquent one,\n  puzzled all guessers a long time; at length it was traced to Dr\n  Priestley's self.\"\n\nTo the man of science the special interest of Priestley's connection\nwith Leeds arises from the fact that he began there that fruitful series\nof inquiries, relating to what he called \"the doctrine of air,\" which\neventually raised him to the position of one of the greatest chemical\ndiscoverers of his time. The house in which he first lived whilst at\nLeeds was in Meadow Lane and adjoined the public brew house of Jakes and\nNell. He was thereby led, in the outset, to amuse himself by making\nexperiments on the \"fixed air,\" or carbonic acid, which is largely\nproduced in the process of fermentation. When he removed to his second\nhouse in Basinghall Street, on the site where the schools now stand, he\nwas under the necessity of making the fixed air for himself; and, as he\ndistinctly and faithfully notes in his various publications on the\nsubject, he was led to make one experiment after another until he\nbecame, what he does not state, the greatest master of pneumatic\nchemistry of his age.\n\nWhen he began these experiments he tells us he knew very little of\nchemistry. Indeed, he says he had in a manner no idea on the subject\nbefore his attention was drawn to it in a course of lectures delivered\nin the Warrington Academy by Dr Turner of Liverpool. But, as he says, on\nthe whole, this circumstance was no disadvantage to him, as in the\nsituation in which he found himself he was led to devise an apparatus\nand processes of his own adapted to his peculiar views. If he had been\npreviously accustomed to the usual chemical processes he might not have\nso easily thought of any other; and without new modes of operation he\nthinks he should hardly have discovered anything materially new. His\nmeans did not permit him to purchase expensive apparatus. Indeed, this\nvery circumstance materially contributed to his success by making his\napparatus so simple that his experiments could be readily repeated and\ntheir accuracy thereby ensured.\n\nHis first contribution to Pneumatic Chemistry was published in 1772. It\nwas a small pamphlet on a method of impregnating water with fixed air,\nwhich, being immediately translated into French, excited a great degree\nof attention to the subject, and this was much increased by the\npublication of his first experimental paper in the _Philosophical\nTransactions of the Royal Society_.\n\nPriestley's earliest method of impregnating water with carbonic acid\nconsisted in exposing it to the gas above the surface of fermenting\nwort. This process was no doubt accompanied with many disadvantages and\nthe resulting solution could not have been very palatable. Later on he\nadopted the method originally employed by Lane in 1709, although\napparently in ignorance of Lane's paper in the _Philosophical\nTransactions_, of making the gas from chalk and sulphuric acid and\nleading it directly into the water by means of a flexible tube provided\nwith an intercepting bladder to retain any solid or acid substance\nprojected from the effervescent materials in the generating flask. At\nabout this period increased attention was being paid to the question of\nthe supply of drinking water in the Navy, owing to the publication of\nIrving's plan of making fresh water from sea-water by distillation, and\nPriestley conceived the idea that if some ready means could be devised\nof impregnating water with carbonic acid on shipboard the solution might\nbe useful as a preventive of sea scurvy.\n\nPriestley brought his idea to the knowledge of the Duke of\nNorthumberland, and showed a sample of the impregnated water to Sir\nGeorge Savile, who introduced him to Lord Sandwich, at that time First\nLord of the Admiralty in Lord North's Administration. The Board of\nAdmiralty thought the matter was of sufficient importance to ask for a\nreport from the College of Physicians, and Priestley was requested to\nappear before that body in order to explain and illustrate his process.\nThe report from the College was favourable, and in consequence two\nwar-ships were fitted with the apparatus.\n\nThe idea that scurvy, in common with other so-called putrid diseases,\nwas due to an insufficient supply of \"fixed air\" in the animal economy,\nand that it might be cured by the administration of that gas, originated\nwith Dr Macbride about the middle of the eighteenth century, shortly\nafter Black had established the individuality of the gas, and it was\ncurrent doctrine with the faculty at the time of Priestley's\nexperiments. The reasons which Macbride gave in support of his\nhypothesis are contained in his _Essays on Medical and Philosophical\nSubjects_, and are sufficiently ingenious to be worth stating as\ncharacteristic of much of the therapeutics of the time. Macbride assumed\nthat substances held together, and acquired the quality of firmness, by\nvirtue of containing a \"cementing principle,\" which ensured the perfect\ncohesion of their constituent particles, and that as putrefaction\nresulted in the decomposition and disintegration of substances,\nputridity was connected with the loss or disappearance of this cementing\nor cohering principle. He found that \"fixed air\" was invariably produced\nwhen animal and vegetable substances putrefy, that a greater amount of\nfixed air is produced from vegetable substances than from animal\nsubstances, and that animal and vegetable matters putrefy more rapidly\nwhen mixed than when separate, and yield more fixed air in conjunction\nthan apart.\n\nOn the basis of these observations Macbride proceeded to explain the\nwell-established fact that a diet mainly composed of animal food is apt\nto produce sea scurvy, the remedy for which is a sufficient supply of\nfresh vegetables, by assuming that the virtue of the vegetables was due\nto the evolution of a greater amount of carbonic acid in the process of\ndigestion, the fixed air so liberated in the body counteracting, by its\nantiseptic powers, putridity in the circulating fluids.\n\nWe are not here concerned with the subsequent history of so-called\n\u00e6rated or soda-water, as it came to be called, but it is worth noting\nthat Priestley's account of his process contains one remark which is not\nwithout significance in view of latter-day developments. He says:--\n\n  \"I do not doubt but that, by the help of a condensing engine, water\n  might be much more highly impregnated with the virtues of the Pyrmont\n  spring, and it would not be difficult to contrive a method of doing\n  it.\"\n\nThe manufacture of these waters was subsequently taken up by Priestley's\nfriend and _satellite_, as he called himself, Richard Bewley, of Great\nMassingham, an apothecary, and the inventor of the well-known \"mephitic\njulep.\" Bewley appears to have discovered that the addition of a small\nquantity of carbonate of soda to the water enabled it to absorb and\nretain an increased quantity of carbonic acid, and to him, therefore, is\ndue the credit of first making what was long called \"acidulous\nsoda-water.\" The receipt for its manufacture and use, given by Henry of\nManchester, is sufficiently quaint to be worth reproduction:--\n\n  \"To prepare Mr Bewley's julep dissolve three drachms of fossil alkali\n  in each quart of water, and throw in streams of fixed air till the\n  alkaline taste be destroyed. This julep should not be prepared in too\n  large quantities, and should be kept in bottles very closely corked\n  and sealed. Four ounces of it may be taken at a time, drinking a\n  draught of lemonade or water acidulated with vinegar or weak spirit of\n  vitriol, by which means the fixed air will be extricated in the\n  stomach.\"\n\nIt is hardly to be supposed that the Royal Society Club in 1773 adopted\nall the social manners and customs of the period. Nevertheless, its\nmembers, who were among the most influential fellows of the Society,\nwere evidently greatly impressed with the merits of Priestley's\nsoda-water, since the Council of the Society were moved to reward its\ndiscoverer with the Copley Medal.\n\nIn making the award on St Andrew's Day 1773, Sir John Pringle, then\nPresident of the Royal Society, said:--\n\n  \"For having learned from Dr Black that this fixed or mephitic air\n  could in great abundance be procured from chalk by means of diluted\n  spirits of vitriol; from Dr Macbride that this fluid was of a\n  considerable antiseptic nature; from Dr Cavendish that it could in a\n  large quantity be absorbed by water; and from Dr Brownrigg that it was\n  this very air which gave the briskness and chief virtues to the Spa\n  and Pyrmont waters; Dr Priestley, I say, so well instructed, conceived\n  that common water impregnated with this fluid alone might be useful in\n  medicine, particularly for sailors on long voyages, for curing or\n  preventing the sea scurvy.\"\n\nTo-day the Copley Medal is regarded as the highest award which it is in\nthe power of the Society to bestow, and certainly no man starts his\nscientific career by acquiring it--not even for so signal an invention\nas that of soda-water.\n\nWhilst Priestley was at Leeds a proposal was made to him that he should\naccompany Captain Cook in his second voyage to the South Seas. It\nprobably arose from his connection with the Admiralty in the matter of\nhis invention. He tells us that as the terms were very advantageous he\nconsented to it, the heads of his congregation agreeing to keep an\nassistant to supply his place during his absence. But Mr Banks informed\nhim that he was objected to by some clergymen in the Board of Longitude,\nwho had the direction of this business, on account of his religious\nprinciples. \"Whether,\" said Huxley, in commenting on this circumstance\nin the course of his speech at the unveiling of the Priestley statue in\nBirmingham in 1874, \"these worthy ecclesiastics feared that Priestley's\npresence among the ship's company might expose his Majesty's sloop\n_Resolution_ to the fate which aforetime befell a certain ship that went\nfrom Joppa to Tarshish, or whether they were alarmed lest a Socinian\nshould undermine that piety which in the days of Commodore Trunnion so\nstrikingly characterised sailors, does not appear.\" The appointment was\ngiven to Reinhold Forster, a man, as Priestley fully admitted, far\nbetter qualified for the position.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n\n\n  Becomes literary companion to Lord Shelburne--Goes abroad--His visit\n  to Paris--His scientific work at Calne and in London--Continues his\n  theological and metaphysical studies--His growing unpopularity--Leaves\n  Lord Shelburne.\n\nPriestley continued at Leeds for about six years. Although very happy\nthere he was tempted to leave Mill Hill Chapel to enter the service of\nLord Shelburne. How he was regarded by his flock may be gleaned from the\naddresses which were presented to him on the eve of his departure;\nthese, together with his own farewell letter, are still preserved among\nthe Chapel books of Mill Hill. But a stipend of one hundred guineas a\nyear, and a house which was not adequate to contain a family now\nincreased by the birth of two sons, and with no possibility of making\nany provision for them in the event of his death, induced him to accept\nLord Shelburne's proposals.\n\nLord Shelburne, afterwards first Marquis of Lansdowne, one of the most\nenlightened of the many politicians who sought to direct the destinies\nof this kingdom during the stormy times of the last thirty years of the\neighteenth century, had been Secretary of State in Pitt's administration\nof 1766, but had been dismissed from office in 1768 on account of his\nconciliatory policy towards America, and at this particular time was\nliving in retirement at Bowood. Under these circumstances his lordship,\na man of culture and fond of literature, sought the companionship of\nsome kindred spirit. Through the good offices of Dr Price, a mutual\nfriend, he was led to make Priestley so generous an offer--viz., two and\na half times his Leeds salary, a pleasant house at Calne in the summer\nand a house in town during the winter, and a retiring allowance for life\nshould their connection be dissolved--that our philosopher was\nconstrained to accept a position which, despite its perils and possible\nconstraints, was so alluring. The engagement seems to have given\nsatisfaction also to Priestley's friends, if we may judge from the\nfollowing extract from one of Wedgwood's letters to his partner at\nEtruria, Thomas Bentley of Liverpool, one of the founders of the\nWarrington Academy:--\n\n  \"I am glad to hear of Dr Priestley's noble appointment, taking it for\n  granted that he is to go on writing and publishing with the same\n  freedom he now does, otherwise I had much rather he still remained in\n  Yorkshire.\" Meteyard, II. 451.\n\nIn their political sentiments, and in their views on the great questions\nwhich at that time divided parties, the two men had much in common. Lord\nShelburne was certainly not unaware of Priestley's political\nproclivities, and the pamphlet he had written at Franklin's instigation\non the American question probably expressed his Lordship's own\nsentiments. At the same time Priestley was under no obligation to serve\nLord Shelburne politically, and there is no evidence that any such\nservice was either expected or rendered. His office was nominally that\nof librarian, but he had little to do in that capacity beyond arranging\nand cataloguing the books and numerous manuscripts at Bowood and\nLansdowne House and making an index of Lord Shelburne's private papers.\nIndeed, Lord Shelburne treated him rather as a companion and friend than\nas a servant, taking him, in the second year of his engagement, on a\njourney through Flanders, Holland and Germany as far as Strasburg, and\nspending a month in Paris. The time he spent on the Continent made him\nsensible of the benefit of foreign travel, even without the advantage of\nmuch conversation with foreigners. Indeed, he says the very sight of new\ncountries, buildings and customs of an unfamiliar type, even the very\nhearing of a fresh language, however unintelligible, stimulates and\nwidens the mind and gives it new ideas. He saw everything to the best\nadvantage and without any anxiety or trouble, and he had an opportunity\nof meeting and conversing with every person of eminence wherever he\nwent, the political characters by Lord Shelburne's connections and the\nliterary and scientific ones by his own. One of these was Magellan, or\nMagalh\u00e6ns, a Portuguese Jesuit descended from the great navigator of\nthat name. He resided in England, where he died in, or shortly before,\n1790. He had early information on scientific matters from abroad, and\nwas frequently employed in procuring English instruments for foreigners.\nHe was a Fellow of the Royal Society and an active correspondent of\nLavoisier's, to whom he sent all scientific memoirs published in\nEngland, Priestley's among the number. Magellan was the subject of a\nnotable trial at law--one of the last indeed of its kind in England. He\nwas indicted at the suit of a common informer under the statute against\nsaying Mass, but the suit, which was heard before Lord Mansfield, was\ndismissed on some point of legal informality.\n\nIt was, no doubt, mainly through Magellan that Priestley was brought\ninto the society of that brilliant galaxy of men of science which at\nthat period was the glory of France. In some respects he was out of\nsympathy with this environment, and, as he confesses, soon tired of\nParis. Priestley never obtruded his religious convictions on any company\nhe might be in; at the same time he never forgot that he was a Christian\nand a minister of religion. What is now called Agnosticism was at least\nas prevalent during the latter half of the eighteenth century as at any\nperiod of the history of Europe. Priestley tells us that a great part of\nthe company he saw at Lord Shelburne's did not really know what\nChristianity was, and Lord Shelburne numbered among his friends and\npolitical associates almost all who were intellectually eminent at that\ntime in this country. He was not unprepared, therefore, to find that all\nthe philosophers to whom he was introduced at Paris were unbelievers in\nChristianity and even professed Atheists. He was told, indeed, by some\nof them that he was the only person they had ever met with, of whose\nunderstanding they had any opinion, who professed to believe\nChristianity. It was this experience which caused Priestley to write his\n_Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever_. He says that as he had\nconversed so much with unbelievers at home and abroad he thought he\nshould be able to combat their prejudices with advantage. Indeed, he was\nwont to say that the greatest satisfaction he received from the success\nof his philosophical pursuits arose from the genuine weight it gave to\nhis attempts to defend the principles of Christianity and to free it\nfrom those corruptions which prevent its reception with philosophical\nand thinking persons.\n\nOf the many advantages he enjoyed through his connection with Lord\nShelburne, Priestley was always fully sensible. It came to him at the\nmost opportune period of his career, and in the full tide of his\nintellectual vigour. The years he spent in this association were, so far\nat least as science is concerned, the most fruitful of his life. Lord\nShelburne was a generous patron, and particularly encouraged Priestley\nin his chemical inquiries, affording him ample opportunity for their\nprosecution and defraying much of the expense they occasioned. He had\npleasure in witnessing his experiments, and frequently requested him to\nexhibit them to his guests, particularly to foreigners, by whom a\nknowledge of Priestley's work was thus spread abroad.\n\nPriestley's energies were, however, not wholly engrossed by his\nscientific labours. Theology and metaphysics still claimed much of his\ntime, and to this period belongs the concluding portion of his\n_Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion_ and his _Harmony of the\nGospels_, and his _Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit_. He also\nat this time wrote some _Miscellaneous Observations relating to\nEducation_, and published his Warrington _Lectures on Oratory and\nCriticism_, which he dedicated to his patron's eldest son, Lord\nFitzmaurice.\n\nCertain of these publications occasioned considerable uproar at the time\nof their appearance: the outcry indeed was such, he says, as could\nhardly have been imagined. He was attacked in almost every newspaper,\nand in the greater number of the periodicals, as an unbeliever in\nrevelation and no better than an Atheist. In the preface to his\n_Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion_ he had been led to\nquestion the principles of Reid, Beattie and Oswald with respect to\ntheir doctrine of _common sense_, which they had made to supersede all\nrational inquiry into the subject of religion, and he subsequently\ndeveloped the attack in a separate publication. He expressed his belief\nin the doctrine of philosophical necessity and his admiration of\nHartley's theory of the human mind. He had uttered some doubt of the\nimmateriality of the sentient principle in man, and after giving, as he\nsays, the closest attention to the subject, he was firmly persuaded that\nman is wholly material, and that our only prospect of immortality is\nfrom the Christian doctrine of a resurrection.\n\nPriestley clearly recognised that many of these publications were not\ncalculated to improve his relations with Lord Shelburne. Indeed, he says\nseveral attempts were made by Lord Shelburne's friends, though none by\nhimself, to dissuade him from persisting in them.\n\nHe goes on to say that:--\n\n  \"In order to proceed with the greatest caution in a business of such\n  moment I desired some of my learned friends, and especially Dr Price,\n  to peruse the work before it was published, and the remarks that he\n  made upon it led to a free and friendly discussion of the several\n  subjects of it, which are afterwards published jointly, and it remains\n  a proof of the possibility of discussing subjects mutually considered\n  as of the greatest importance with the most perfect good-temper and\n  without the least diminution of friendship.\"\n\nLord Shelburne's political enemies were not slow to take advantage of\nthe outcry raised against Priestley by the orthodox and to strike at the\npatron through the philosopher.\n\nIt is obvious, from Priestley's letters to his friends at about this\nperiod, that he was sensible that his relations with Pitt's Secretary of\nState had become somewhat strained, and when he received an intimation\nthrough Dr Price that Lord Shelburne wished to give him an establishment\nin Ireland, where he had large property, he interpreted this as\nsignifying that the Minister desired that their connection should be\nsevered. They parted amicably, Lord Shelburne continuing to pay him the\npromised annuity of \u00a3150 until the end of his days, paying it, too,\ncontrary to the insinuation of his enemies, with perfect punctuality.\nThat there was no unfriendly feeling on the part of Lord Shelburne at a\nseparation which seemed to be dictated solely by considerations of\npolitical exigency would appear from the circumstance that a few years\nlater he sent a common friend to Priestley, who was then settled in\nBirmingham, to invite him to resume his old position, accompanying his\nrequest with expressions which left no doubt of the value he set upon\nthe companionship. Sensible as Priestley was of Lord Shelburne's\nfeelings towards him, he was in no mind to return to a situation which\nexperience had shown might be incompatible with independence.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII\n\n\n  Removes to London--Declines a pension--Renews his acquaintance with\n  Franklin--Goes to Birmingham--Becomes a member of the Lunar Society.\n\nOn leaving Calne, Priestley repaired to London. His position was\nsomewhat precarious, as he had practically nothing but his allowance\nfrom Lord Shelburne to support him. This, although larger than the\nstipend he had enjoyed at Leeds, was barely sufficient for his growing\nfamily. Friends however were not wanting to come to his assistance.\nIndeed, during his residence at Calne, some of them observing, as they\nsaid, that many of his experiments had not been carried to their proper\nextent on account of the expense that would have attended them, proposed\nto supply him with whatever sums he should want for that purpose and\nnamed a hundred pounds per annum.\n\n  \"This large subscription I declined,\" he says, \"lest the discovery of\n  it (by the use that I should, of course, make of it) should give\n  umbrage to Lord Shelburne; but I consented to accept forty pounds per\n  annum, which from that time he (Dr Fothergill) regularly paid me from\n  the contribution of himself, Sir Theodore Jansen, Mr Constable and Sir\n  George Savile.\"\n\nThis sentence is characteristic of Priestley and of much of his\nautobiography. Probably no man with so many enemies had such troops of\nfriends, and certainly none had so many and such generous benefactors.\nAnd the measure of their beneficence was only equalled by that of\nPriestley's gratitude and sense of obligation. Indeed, he says the chief\nobject he had in putting together his memoirs was that he thought it\nright to leave behind him some account of his friends and benefactors,\nand accordingly we find that the incidents in his career are dwelt upon\nby him rather with the idea of illustrating his indebtedness to others\nthan as records of his own achievements.\n\nOn his removal to London, where he contemplated resuming his profession\nas a teacher, Dr Fothergill and his co-subscribers considerably\nincreased his allowance for experiments, whilst at the same time other\nfriends were not less zealous that he should have the means to pursue\nhis theological studies and to publish the fruits of his labours.\n\nIndeed, all who could in any way assist seemed to vie with one another\nin help. Parker, the optician of Fleet Street, supplied him with every\ninstrument that he wanted in glass, and Wedgwood, the potter, sent him\ninnumerable retorts, tubes and other articles of clay. Without such\nassistance he could not have carried on his experiments, except on a\nvery small scale and under great disadvantages.\n\nDuring Lord Rockingham's administration, and subsequently at the\nbeginning of that of Mr Pitt, some suggestions were made to provide\nPriestley with a pension to assist in defraying the expense of his\ninquiries.[14]\n\nHe however declined all overtures of this kind, wishing, as he said, to\npreserve himself independent of everything connected with the court, and\npreferring the assistance of individuals who were lovers of liberty as\nwell as of science.\n\nHis winter's residence in London threw him constantly into the society\nof his old friend Franklin; indeed, he says, as members of the same club\nfew days passed without their seeing one another, and their friendship\nripened into the closest intimacy.\n\nThere can be no doubt that this intercourse with Franklin not only led\nPriestley to the study of natural science, but quickened and fostered\nhis love of civil and political liberty. Priestley in his autobiography\ndoes ample justice to Franklin's efforts to maintain the union of the\nAmerican Colonies with this country.\n\n  \"But Franklin,\" says Mr Choate (Inaugural address as President of the\n  Birmingham and Midland Institute, October 23, 1903), \"was more than a\n  staunch Loyalist. He was an Imperialist in the most stalwart sense of\n  the word, and on a very broad gauge.\"\n\nHis biographer, Parton, truly says:--\n\n  \"It was one of Franklin's most cherished opinions that the greatness\n  of England and the happiness of America depended chiefly upon their\n  being cordially united. The 'country' which Franklin loved was not\n  England nor America, but the great and glorious Empire which these two\n  united to form.\"\n\nIn writing to Lord Kames, he said:--\n\n  \"I have long been of opinion that the foundations of the future\n  grandeur and stability of the British Empire lie in America; and\n  though, like other foundations, they are low and little now, they are\n  nevertheless broad and strong enough to support the greatest political\n  structure that human wisdom ever yet erected.\"\n\nIn 1774 he wrote:--\n\n  \"It has long appeared to me that the only true British policy was that\n  which aimed at the good of the whole British Empire, not that which\n  sought the advantage of one part in the disadvantage of the others;\n  therefore all measures of procuring gain to the Mother Country arising\n  from loss to her colonies, and all gain to the Colonies arising from\n  or occasioning loss to Britain, especially where the gain was small\n  and the loss was great ... I in my own mind condemned as improper,\n  partial, unjust and mischievous, tending to create dissensions and\n  weaken that union on which the strength, solidity and duration of the\n  Empire greatly depended; and I opposed, as far as my little powers\n  went, all proceedings, either here or in America, that in my opinion\n  had such tendency.\"\n\nPriestley's testimony is no less explicit. He says:--\n\n  \"The unity of the British Empire in all its parts was a favourite idea\n  of his. He used to compare it to a beautiful china vase which, if ever\n  broken, could never be put together again, and so great an admirer was\n  he of the British constitution that he said he saw no inconvenience\n  from its being extended over a great part of the globe.\"\n\nIn the autobiography we further read:--\n\n  \"I can bear witness that he (Franklin) was so far from promoting, as\n  was generally supposed, that he took every method in his power to\n  prevent a rupture between the two countries. He urged so much the\n  doctrine of forbearance, that for some time he was unpopular with the\n  Americans on that account, as too much a friend to Great Britain. His\n  advice to them was to bear everything for the present, as they were\n  sure in time to outgrow all their grievances, as it could not be in\n  the power of the Mother Country to oppress them long.\n\n  \"He dreaded the war, and often said that if the difference should come\n  to an open rupture it would be a war of _ten years_, and he should not\n  live to see the end of it. In reality the war lasted nearly eight\n  years, but he did not live to see the happy termination of it. That\n  the issue would be favourable to America he never doubted. The\n  English, he used to say, may take all our great towns, but that will\n  not give them possession of the country. The last day that he spent in\n  England, having given out that he should leave London the day before,\n  we passed together without any other company; and much of the time was\n  employed in reading American newspapers, especially accounts of the\n  reception which the 'Boston Port Bill' met with in America; and as he\n  read the addresses to the inhabitants of Boston from the places in the\n  neighbourhood the tears trickled down his cheeks.\"\n\nWhat Franklin thought of Priestley may be gathered from the following\nextract from one of his letters to Vaughan, one of Priestley's\nWarrington pupils, written in October 1788 after his return to\nAmerica:--\n\n  \"Remember me affectionately to the good Dr Price and to the honest\n  heretic, Dr Priestley. I do not call him honest by way of distinction,\n  for I think all the heretics I have known have been virtuous men. They\n  have the virtue of fortitude, or they would not venture to own their\n  heresy; and they cannot afford to be deficient in any of the other\n  virtues, as that would give advantage to their many enemies; and they\n  have not, like orthodox sinners, such a number of friends to excuse or\n  justify them. Do not, however, mistake me. It is not to my good\n  friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary 'tis his\n  honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic.\"\n\nIn 1780, at the suggestion of his brother-in-law, John Wilkinson, one of\nhis truest friends, Priestley was led to take up his residence in\nBirmingham. There were many circumstances which made this step\ndesirable. In Birmingham he had friends prepared to welcome him and\nsociety in every way sympathetic and congenial. Moreover, he was\ndesirous of resuming his ministerial duties, which had been intermitted\nfor the past six or seven years, and an opportunity of doing so, with a\ncongregation not less liberal than he had served at Leeds, offered\nitself, owing to the approaching retirement of Mr Hawkes from the charge\nof the New Meeting. As regards his philosophical pursuits he had the\nconvenience of good workmen of every kind and he could count upon the\npractical sympathy and interest of men like Watt, his partner Boulton,\nKeir, Withering, Wedgwood, Erasmus Darwin, and the Galtons, all at that\ntime living in Birmingham or in its vicinity. These men and their\nfriends constituted indeed a cultured society without a parallel in any\nother town in the kingdom, except possibly in the Metropolis. The more\neminent of them formed themselves into an association, to which frequent\nreference is made in the biographical literature of the period, on\naccount of the part which it played in the social and intellectual life\nof the Midlands.\n\nThe Lunar Society of Birmingham appears to have been formed about the\nyear 1766 by Matthew Boulton and Erasmus Darwin, at that time resident\nin Birmingham. The members were about ten or a dozen in number and met\nat each other's houses for dinner once a month on the Monday nearest to\nthe full moon, in order to have the benefit of its light in returning\nhome. They were in the habit of sitting down to dinner at two o'clock\nand their meeting lasted until eight.\n\nEach member was allowed to bring a friend, and thus it happened that\nmany distinguished men were recipients, at various times, of the Club's\nhospitality. Among them we find Wedgwood, Sir Joseph Banks, Sir William\nHerschel, Smeaton, the builder of the Eddystone Lighthouse; Dr Samuel\nParr, the critic; Afzelius, the teacher of Berzelius; Solander, the\nwell-known naturalist and traveller; De Luc and other names eminent in\nthe literary and scientific annals of the century.\n\nAs might be supposed from what we know of its founders and their friends\nthe constitution of the society was on the broadest possible basis. \"We\nhad nothing to do,\" says Priestley, \"with the _religious_ or political\nprinciples of each other; we were united by a common love of _science_,\nwhich we thought sufficient to bring together persons of all\ndistinctions--Christians, Jews, Mahometans and heathens, Monarchists and\nRepublicans.\"\n\nThe invitations issued by the host were usually accompanied by some\nintimation of the nature of the impending symposium. Thus Watt writes to\nDarwin, under date Jan. 3, 1781:--\n\n  \"I beg that you would impress on your memory the idea that you\n  promised to dine with sundry men of learning at my house on Monday\n  next, and that you will realise the idea. For your encouragement there\n  is a new book to be cut up, and it is to be determined whether or not\n  heat is a compound of phlogiston and empyreal air, and whether a\n  mirror can reflect the heat of the fire. I give you a friendly warning\n  that you may be found wanting whichever opinion you adopt in the\n  latter question, therefore be cautious. If you are meek and humble,\n  perhaps you may be told what light is made of, and also how to make\n  it, and the theory proved both by synthesis and analysis.\"\n\nThe discussions of the philosophic _convives_ were not, however,\nconfined exclusively to chemistry.\n\n  \"The period,\" says Mr Carrington Bolton, \"was one of great activity in\n  the world of science; Laplace was applying his mathematical genius to\n  the problems of astronomy; Herschel was sweeping the heavens with his\n  gigantic telescopes; Galvani and Volta were laying the foundations of\n  a revolution in electricity; Count Rumford in Bavaria was devoting his\n  great energy to industrial and social economy; Hatton and Werner were\n  geologising in their respective countries; Ha\u00fcy was systematising the\n  innumerable crystalline forms occurring in nature; the Montgolfier\n  brothers were experimenting with air-balloons and prophesying the yet\n  unsolved problem of a\u00ebrial navigation; Captain James Cook returned\n  from his memorable voyages around the world, full of adventures and\n  novelties in nature: the application of steam to the driving of land\n  carriages and the propelling of boats was gradually being perfected by\n  patience and genius. These, together with the metaphysical and even\n  the political questions of the day, must have engrossed the attention\n  of the talented friends who dined together at the full moon.\"\n\nA picturesque account of the Club is given in Mrs Schimmelpenninck's\n_Memoirs_. Mary Ann Schimmelpenninck (_n\u00e9e_ Galton) was the daughter of\nMr Samuel Galton, a wealthy patron of letters and a man of considerable\nintellectual ability. He was interested in scientific pursuits and was a\nfellow of the Royal Society. His house at Barr, about seven or eight\nmiles from Birmingham, was a notable place in the social life of the\ndistrict, and the Lunar Society held some of its most delightful\nmeetings under his hospitable roof, as Mrs Schimmelpenninck recalls. She\nthus writes of Dr Priestley:--\n\n  \"A man of admirable simplicity, gentleness and kindness of heart,\n  united with great acuteness of intellect. I can never forget the\n  impression produced on me by the serene expression of his\n  countenance.\"\n\nIn his _Memoirs_ Richard Lovell Edgeworth says of the Society that it\nconsisted of--\n\n  \"Men of very different characters, but all devoted to literature and\n  science. This mutual intimacy has never been broken but by death, nor\n  have any of the number failed to distinguish themselves in science or\n  literature. Some may think I ought, with due modesty, to except\n  myself. Mr Keir, with his knowledge of the world and good sense; Dr\n  Small, with his benevolence and profound sagacity; ... Boulton, with\n  his mobility, quick perception and bold adventure; Watt, with his\n  strong inventive faculty, undeviating steadiness and bold resources;\n  Darwin, with his imagination, science and poetical excellence; and\n  Day, with his unwearied research after truth, his integrity and\n  eloquence, proved altogether such a society as few men have had the\n  good fortune to live with; such an assemblage of friends as fewer\n  still have had the happiness to possess and keep through life.\"\n\nThere can be no doubt that Priestley's coming to Birmingham contributed\ngreatly to the interest of the meetings of the Lunar Society and reacted\nbeneficially on Priestley himself by stimulating his activity and\naffording him the sympathy of congenial minds not less interested than\nhe was in the study of natural science. As each meeting came round he\nwas certain to find a gathering curious to hear of his latest\nexperiments and eager to discuss with him their bearing upon the\nchemical doctrine of the period.\n\nPriestley's influence and position in the Society may be inferred from\nthe circumstance that almost immediately after he joined it Pneumatic\nChemistry became one of the chief topics of discussion. This is amply\ndemonstrated in the correspondence of its various members, which has\nbeen preserved to us in the biographies of Watt, Wedgwood and others,\nand in the scientific letters of Priestley, which have been collected\nand edited by Mr H. Carrington Bolton. One direct outcome of this\ninterest is seen in Watt's connection with the History of the Discovery\nof the Composition of Water. It is reasonably certain that if Watt and\nPriestley had not foregathered round the festive board of the Lunar\nSociety, Watt would not have been stimulated to theorise on the meaning\nand true significance of Priestley's experiments, and as to their\nbearing upon the fact that Priestley's dephlogisticated air (oxygen) and\ninflammable air (hydrogen) enter into the composition of water. Watt's\nclaim to be considered as the discoverer of the composition of water\nrests upon his interpretation of the experimental phenomena made known\nto him by Priestley shortly after his arrival in Birmingham. The Water\nControversy--a controversy which keenly excited the entire scientific\nworld a generation or so ago--may be said to have arisen from the\naccident of Priestley's removal to Birmingham and to his association\nwith the Lunar Society.\n\nPriestley's connection with the Society influenced the progress of\nchemistry in this country both directly and indirectly. As already\nstated, he himself was greatly stimulated to accumulate chemical facts\nby his association with men like Boulton, Watt, Wedgwood, Keir, Darwin,\nwho loved knowledge for its own sake, but who were at the same time\nquite alive to the material benefits which they and their fellow-men\nmight derive from the pursuit of scientific inquiry. The measure of\ntheir interest may be gauged by the extent of their support, and by the\nreadiness with which they furnished Priestley with the means to carry on\nhis investigations. Priestley not only freely communicated to them the\nresults of his labours, but he incidentally fixed their attention on a\nclass of phenomena which, more than any other, were calculated to afford\nan insight into the real nature of chemical change, and to lead to a\nrational explanation of chemical phenomena.\n\nPriestley was not consciously a casuist, but there can be no question\nthat the interpretation which his active and ingenious mind occasionally\nled him to place upon his work not only served to blind himself, but was\nthe means of obscuring the truth for a time from others. We have only to\nread the correspondence, already more than once alluded to, to find\nample proof that such was the case. In a letter to Wedgwood, of March\n30, 1781, Boulton writes:--\n\n  \"We have long talked of phlogiston without knowing what we talked\n  about; but now that Dr Priestley hath brought the matter to light we\n  can pour that element out of one vessel into another; can tell how\n  much of it by accurate measurement is necessary to reduce a calx to a\n  metal, which is easily done, and without putting that calx into\n  contact with any visible thing. In short, this goddess of levity can\n  be measured and weighed like other matter. For the rest, I refer you\n  to the doctor himself.\"\n\nIn the following year (March 21, 1782) we find Priestley also writing to\nWedgwood:--\n\n  \"Before my late experiments, phlogiston was indeed almost given up by\n  the Lunar Society, but now it seems to be re-established.\"\n\nHow difficult it was to convince Priestley may be seen from the\nfollowing extract from a letter to his friend Franklin, who was then in\nParis, written at about the same time:--\n\n                                           \"Birmingham, _June 24, 1782_.\n\n  \"Please to inform the Duc de Rochefoucauld, whose civilities to me I\n  remember with pleasure, that my experiments are certainly inconsistent\n  with Mr Lavoisier's supposition of there being no such thing as\n  phlogiston, and that it is the addition of air, and not the loss of\n  anything, that converts a metal into a calx. In their usual state\n  calces of metals do not contain air, but that may be expelled by heat,\n  and after this I reduce them to a perfect metallic state by nothing\n  but inflammable air, which they imbibe _in toto_, without any\n  decomposition. I lately reduced 101 ounce measures of this air to two\n  by calx of lead, and that small remainder was still inflammable. I\n  explain Mr Lavoisier's experiments by supposing that _precipitate per\n  se_ [mercuric oxide] contains all the phlogiston of the metal mercury,\n  but in a different state; but I can show other calces which also\n  contain more phlogiston than the metals themselves. That mercury in\n  its metallic state does contain phlogiston or inflammable air is\n  evident from the production of nitrous air by the solution of it in\n  spirits of nitre, and I make _nitrous air_ from nothing but _nitrous\n  vapour_ and inflammable air; so that it indisputably consists of these\n  two ingredients. I have already ascertained the proportion of\n  inflammable air that enters into the composition of lead, tin, copper\n  and silver, and am proceeding with the other metals as fast as I can.\n  When the whole is completed I shall give you a further account of it.\n\n  \"I am exceedingly concerned to find that it is so difficult a thing to\n  make _peace_; but I hope before the campaign is over all parties will\n  have had enough of _war_, and be sensible that they will gain nothing\n  by continuing it. If I had any voice in the business, the prospect of\n  seeing you in this country would be a strong additional motive to\n  accelerate the negotiations.\n\n  \"With the greatest respect and every good wish.--I am, dear sir, yours\n  sincerely,\n                                                          J. Priestley.\"\n\nThere were already many indications prior to 1780 that men were\nbeginning to be troubled as to the sufficiency of Stahl's generalisation\nto account for the rapidly-accumulating mass of facts which the\napplication of quantitative chemistry to the study of natural phenomena\nwas bringing to light. Priestley's advent in Birmingham certainly\nretarded by the weight of his authority the growth in heterodoxy in that\nparticular among the members of the Lunar Society, and indirectly\ntherefore all whom they could influence.\n\nThe following letter from Keir is typical of many which passed between\nthe members of the Society in reference to Priestley's work and of the\ndiscussions which it occasioned.\n\n                              Keir to Priestley.\n\n  \"The more we discover of Nature, the further we are removed from the\n  conceit of our being able to understand the operations.\n\n  \"I wish M. Berthollet and his associates would relate their facts in\n  plain prose, that all men might understand them, and reserve their\n  poetry of the new nomenclature for their theoretical commentaries on\n  the facts.\n\n  \"I have wished much to call on you to hear of the progress of your\n  experiments, but have been much indisposed with the rheumatism. I long\n  to know what acids you get with the other inflammable airs. If you get\n  different acids from the inflammable air made from sulphur and water,\n  that made from marine acid and copper (for I would avoid iron on\n  account of its plumbago and carbon), and that made from charcoal and\n  water:--I say, if these acids are different (suppose, according to my\n  notions, vitriolic, marine and fixed air), then will you not be\n  obliged to admit that there is not one inflammable but many\n  inflammables, which opinion you now think as heterodox as the\n  Athanasian System.\n\n  \"However, there are wonderful resources in the dispute about\n  Phlogiston, by which either party can evade, so that I am less\n  sanguine than you are in my hopes of seeing it terminated. One\n  consolation remains, that in your experiments you cannot fail of\n  discovering something perhaps of as great or greater importance for us\n  to know.\"\n\nNevertheless, even in the Club itself there was at least one man who\ncame under the influence of Priestley, but who eventually emancipated\nhimself, and this was Withering, who, we are informed, read to them \"a\nhumorous piece in verse entitled 'The Life and Death of Phlogiston,'\nwhich was long remembered for its clever treatment and pointed wit.\"\n\nThat Priestley's influence still reigned in the Club, even down to 1803,\nmay be inferred from the introduction to his essay, \"The Doctrine of\nPhlogiston Established\"--the last of his scientific papers--in which he\nsays, \"And now that Dr Crawford is dead, I hardly know of any person,\nexcept my friends of the Lunar Society of Birmingham, who adhere to the\ndoctrine of Phlogiston.\"\n\nAs regards the history of the Lunar Society there is little more to\ntell. One by one its members submitted themselves to the arrest of the\n\"fell sergeant,\" and eventually Keir, Watt, and Boulton, the founder,\nwere the only survivors, and its meetings were gradually discontinued.\n\n  \"But,\" says its historian, \"the influence exerted by the Society did\n  not die; it had stimulated inquiry and quickened the zeal for\n  knowledge of all who had come within its influence, and this spirit\n  diffused and propagated itself in all directions.\"\n\nLeonard Horner, who visited Soho in 1809, thus refers to the continued\nmoral influence of the association:--\n\n  \"The remnant of the Lunar Society,\" he says, \"and the fresh\n  remembrance in others of the remarkable men who composed it, are very\n  interesting. The impression which they made is not yet worn out, but\n  shows itself to the second and third generation, in a spirit of\n  scientific curiosity and free inquiry, which even yet makes some stand\n  against Toryism and the love of gain.\"\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII\n\n\n  Priestley at Birmingham--His theological work there--His love of\n  literature--His catholicity--His personal characteristics.\n\nIn 1784 Priestley brought out a revised edition of the work on which his\nfame as a man of science mainly rests, under the title of \"_Experiments\nand Observations on Different Kinds of Air_; and other branches of\nNatural Philosophy connected with the Subject. In three volumes, being\nthe former six abridged and methodised. With many Additions. London,\n1790. 3 vols. 8vo.\"\n\nIn a letter to his friend Keir we find an allusion to this matter. He\nsays:--\n\n  \"I am working like a horse at the new arrangements of my _6 vols. of\n  Experiments_. It is a tedious business.\n\n  \"What do you think of an attempt to dedicate this work to the Prince\n  of Wales? The King I shall never think of in any such light, nor the\n  Prince, unless it be possible that he will be a real patron of science\n  and could look upon it in some other light than that of an honour to\n  myself.\"\n\nAn interesting account of Priestley at this period of his life is to be\nfound in the Memoirs of the French geologist, Faujar St Fond, who\nvisited Birmingham some time after Priestley's settlement there. He\nsays:--\n\n  \"Dr Priestley received me with the greatest kindness. He presented me\n  to his wife and his daughter, who were distinguished by vivacity,\n  intelligence and gentleness of manner. The young lady spoke to me of\n  one of her brothers, who was then finishing his education at Geneva\n  and to whom she seemed very much attached.\n\n  \"The building in which Dr Priestley made his chemical and\n  philosophical experiments was detached from his house to avoid the\n  danger of fire. It consisted of several apartments on a ground floor.\n  Upon entering it we were struck with a simple and ingenious apparatus\n  for making experiments on inflammable gas extracted from iron and\n  water reduced to vapour. The tube, which was thick and long, was made\n  of red copper and cast in one piece to avoid joinings. The part\n  exposed to the fire was thicker than the rest. Into this tube he\n  introduced cuttings or filings of iron, and instead of dropping in the\n  water he preferred making it enter in vapour. The furnace destined for\n  this operation was supplied with coke made of coal, which is the best\n  of all combustibles for the intensity and equality of its heat. By\n  these means he obtained a considerable quantity of inflammable gas of\n  great lightness and without any smell. He observed to me, that by\n  increasing the apparatus and using iron or copper tubes of a large\n  calibre, aerostatic balloons might be filled with far less trouble and\n  expense than by vitriolic acid. Dr Priestley allowed me to take a\n  drawing of this new apparatus for the purpose of communicating it to\n  the French chemists who are engaged in the same pursuit....\n\n  \"Dr Priestley did not regard the experiments made relative to the\n  decomposition of water as satisfactory. He could not admit the fact to\n  be demonstrated so long as the gas was only obtained through the\n  medium of iron, a metal which is itself susceptible of inflammability;\n  but he waited with impatience for the result of the experiments of the\n  French chemists, particularly those of Lavoisier, who had invented and\n  caused to be constructed an extensive apparatus for the same object.\n\n  \"'The decomposition of water,' said this indefatigable philosopher,\n  addressing himself to me, 'is of so much importance in Natural\n  Philosophy, and would occupy so distinguished a place among the\n  phenomena of the universe, that far from admitting the fact upon\n  slight evidence, and as it were from enthusiasm, it were rather to be\n  wished that all objections that may be made, and which will still long\n  continue to be made against this theory were completely refuted; in\n  the conflict of opinions, truth may at last be obtained. But I have\n  still so many doubts upon this subject, and I have so many experiments\n  to make, both _pro_ and _con_, that I can as yet regard the greatest\n  as only started.'\n\n  \"Dr Priestley has embellished his solitude with a philosophical\n  cabinet, which contains all the instruments necessary for his\n  experiments, and a library rendered valuable by a choice of excellent\n  works. The learned possessor employs himself in a variety of studies:\n  History, Moral Philosophy and Religion have all in their turn engaged\n  his pen. An active, intelligent mind and a natural avidity for\n  knowledge gave him a passion for experimental philosophy; but the\n  sensibility and gentleness of his disposition have sometimes directed\n  his attention to pious and philanthropic studies, which do honour to\n  the goodness of his heart, since they always have for their object the\n  happiness of mankind.\"\n\nPriestley's time in Birmingham was not, however, wholly devoted to\nscience and the social joys of the Lunar Society. Much of it was given\nto his beloved theology and to editing the _Theological Repository_,\nwhich he revived some time after he had settled there. A few months\nafter his arrival he was invited to take charge of the congregation of\nthe New Meeting. With the consent of the congregation his services were\nmainly confined to Sunday duty and to catechising and lecturing.\n\nOf his preaching Miss Hutton has left us an account. She says:--\n\n  \"I look upon his character as a preacher to be as amicable as his\n  character as a philosopher is great. In the pulpit he is mild,\n  persuasive and unaffected, and his sermons are full of sound reasoning\n  and good sense. He is not what is called an orator; he uses no\n  actions, no declamation; but his voice and manner are those of one\n  friend speaking to another.\"\n\nHis congregation is described as the most liberal in England, and with\nmany of its members, particularly Mr Russell, he was on the most\nintimate and affectionate terms. During this period he completed his\nfriendly controversy with the Bishop of Waterford on the duration of\nChrist's ministry, and he published a volume of sermons. To the same\nperiod belongs his _History of the Corruptions of Christianity_, which\nhe composed and published shortly after his settlement at Birmingham.\nThis work, which he spoke of as the most valuable of all his writings,\nhe dedicated to his \"dear friend,\" Theophilus Lindsey, in the hope that\ntheir names may ever be connected as closely after death as they were\nconnected by friendship during life. To Lindsey's example of a pure love\nof truth, and of the most fearless integrity in asserting it, as\nevidenced by the sacrifices he had made to it, Priestley says that he\nowed much of his own wishes \"to imbibe the same spirit.\"\n\nThe work, as originally planned, was to be the concluding part of his\n_Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion_, but as the matter of it\ngrew it became extended into a separate treatise, larger, indeed, than\nthe whole of the Institutes. Its object was to show that modern\nChristianity was a departure from the original scheme, and that the\ninnovations have debased its spirit and almost annihilated all the happy\neffects which it was eminently calculated to produce. Although it had\nbegun to recover itself from its corrupted state, and the Reformation\nwas advancing apace, abuses still continued in many places, even\nalthough their virulence was very generally abated and the number was\ngreatly increased of those who were most zealous in the profession of\nChristianity, whose lives were the greatest ornament to it, and who hold\nit in such purity that if it was fairly exhibited and universally\nunderstood it could hardly fail to recommend itself to the acceptance of\nthe whole world.\n\n  \"But so long as all the Christianity that is known to Heathens,\n  Mahometans and Jews is of a corrupted and debased kind, and\n  particularly while the profession of it is so much connected with\n  _worldly interest_, it is no wonder that mankind in general refuse to\n  admit it, and that they can even hardly be prevailed upon to give any\n  attention to the evidence that is alleged in its favour. Whereas, when\n  the system itself shall appear to be less liable to objection, it is\n  to be hoped that they may be brought to give proper attention to it,\n  and to the evidence on which it rests.\"\n\nIn this work Priestley attempted to trace every \"corruption\"--that is\nevery innovation or departure from what he conceives to be the original\nscheme--to its proper source and \"to show what circumstances in the\nstate of things, and especially of other prevailing opinions and\nprejudices, made the alteration, in doctrine or practice, sufficiently\nnatural, and the introduction and establishment of it easy.\" Priestley\nhoped as a true rationalist that this historical method would be found\nto be one of the most satisfactory modes of argumentation, in order to\nprove that what he objected to was no part of the original scheme.\n\n  \"For after the clearest refutation of any particular doctrine that has\n  been long established in Christian churches it will still be asked,\n  how, if it be no part of the scheme, it ever came to be thought so,\n  and to be so generally acquiesced in; and in many cases the mind will\n  not be perfectly satisfied till such questions be answered.\"\n\nWe are mainly concerned with this remarkable work as illustrating the\ncharacter and attributes of its author, and it is not within our\nprovince to give any analysis of its contents. It must be remembered in\nconnection with it that Priestley was no longer an Arian; he was not\neven a Socinian, as that term was understood by the immediate followers\nof Faustus Socinus, who thought it their duty as Christians, and,\nindeed, essential to Christianity, to pray to Jesus Christ,\nnotwithstanding they believed him to be, in Priestley's phrase, a mere\nman. Priestley was at this time what he remained until his death--a\nstrict Humanitarian, although he believed in the supernatural power and\ndivine mission of Christ.\n\nOf the reception which awaited his book he could not be altogether\nunprepared. It was received by the orthodox with a storm of disapproval,\nand a dozen pens were immediately set to work to demolish its doctrine\nand to defend the principles he so boldly assailed. Among those who\nentered the lists the most formidable was Dr Horsley, then Archdeacon of\nSt Albans, whose _Animadversions_ were described as \"at once nervous,\nanimated and evangelical, but in some passages too sarcastic.\"\n\nIt says something for Priestley's position and influence in the\ntheological world that his book should have met with the sternest\ndisapprobation in Lutheran, and especially Calvinistic, circles abroad.\nIt was ordered to be burnt by the hands of the common hangman at\nDordrecht, in 1785--a sign that the spirit of the Synod of Dort had\nsurvived even two centuries.\n\nPriestley thereupon undertook to collect from the original writers the\nstate of opinion on the subject in the age succeeding that of the\napostles, and he published the results of his investigation in his\n\"_History of Early Opinion concerning Jesus Christ_.\" In four volumes.\n8vo.\n\nThis bringing him still more antagonists he retaliated by writing a\npamphlet annually in defence of the Unitarian doctrine, until it\nappeared to himself and his friends that his antagonists produced\nnothing to which it was of any consequence to reply. The pains that he\ntook to ascertain the state of early opinions concerning Jesus Christ,\nand the great misapprehensions that he says he perceived in all the\necclesiastical historians, led him to undertake a _General History of\nthe Christian Church to the Fall of the Western Empire_.\n\n  \"If you ask me,\" says the Rev. Alexander Gordon, \"what I should reckon\n  Priestley's greatest service to theological science, I should say that\n  it is to be found in his adoption of the historical method of\n  investigating the problems of doctrine and in his special handling of\n  that method. The faith of Priestley was the precursor of the modern\n  theme of theological development, though I do not think he used the\n  term. His term was 'corruption,' a term which, it may be said, begs a\n  very important question. At any rate it throws into strong relief the\n  fact, on which all are agreed, that there is, and must be, some\n  primitive nucleus whence developments proceed. Now it is the object of\n  all who, for any reason, are interested in the origin of Christianity\n  to reach this primitive nucleus at its first, undeveloped and\n  uncorrupted stage. Where are we to seek it? By universal consent we\n  must go to the New Testament. There, if anywhere, we shall come upon\n  its traces. Here the agreement begins and ends. The New Testament is\n  in all hands. But one man finds the Trinity in it; another the\n  simplest Monotheism; a third, the papacy; a fourth, the supremacy of\n  the illuminating spirit. The same words yield opposite results,\n  because the principles of interpretation differ. The New Testament is\n  to be interpreted by the voice of the Church; or by the testimony of\n  the Creeds; or by the opinions of the Fathers of the first centuries\n  before the age of dogmatic creeds began at Nic\u00e6a. These had been the\n  expedients proposed by the Catholic, the Anglican, the Arian\n  respectively. Socinus had rejected them all. It cannot matter to me\n  (so, in effect, he contended) what any Church, or any Creed, or any\n  Father may have said; I go to the New Testament myself, to read it\n  with my own eyes, to understand it with my own mind.\n\n  \"This was not the position of Priestley. He thought this as irrational\n  a proceeding as any of those which it superseded. Even if, by good\n  luck, the true sense were reached, there was no means of proving it to\n  be such. The New Testament, in Priestley's view, is not to be\n  construed as a book of enigmas which might belong to any age. It is\n  not dropped straight out of heaven into the hands of the man of to-day\n  for him to make what he will of it. It belongs to a specific period;\n  it was written for a given class of persons; it was written to be\n  understood. 'Therefore,' said Priestley, 'it will be an unanswerable\n  argument _a priori_ against any particular doctrine being contained in\n  the Scriptures, that it was never understood to be so by those persons\n  for whose immediate use the Scriptures were written, and who must have\n  been much better qualified to understand them, in that respect at\n  least, than we can pretend to be at the present day.' (_Works_, vi.\n  7.)\n\n  \"Accordingly it is the whole object of Priestley's histories of\n  doctrine to get at the mind of the common Christian people in the\n  first age; to make their primary understanding of Scripture the norm\n  for its true interpretation; and then to trace the process by which\n  this first impression, this real meaning, suffered transmutation by\n  the speculative genius of philosophising divines. Of the Nicene\n  Council he quaintly says, 'there was no House of Commons in that\n  assembly.' It 'represented the Christian Church in no other sense than\n  the House of Lords might be said to represent the English nation.' He\n  conceived that he could penetrate to this unsophisticated sense of the\n  primitive believers through the very writings of the Fathers whereby\n  it had been overlaid and obscured. Their admissions, their rebukes,\n  their appeals, their laboured arguments, their surviving\n  conservatisms: all were materials to his purpose.\n\n  \"The plan was novel, the conception original, the whole endeavour\n  strictly scientific in its method and basis. And I do not think that\n  Priestley's work in this department has received the full recognition\n  which it rightly claims from us, whether we regard its spirit or its\n  execution. The progress of biblical knowledge implies, no doubt, a\n  readjustment of his argument and a revision of his conclusions. But\n  the readjustment and revision are effected by the use of principles\n  which he was the first to set forth and apply. We now go behind the\n  New Testament just as he went behind the Fathers. The New Testament\n  itself is, to us, largely a record by help of which we may reach the\n  first impression made by the life, and work, and word of Christ. In so\n  doing we do but carry out his suggestions and carry on his method. He\n  is the genuine precursor of the properly historic treatment of\n  biblical and theological questions.\"\n\nPriestley's action with respect to the Sunday school movement was\nanother rock of offence to the Established clergy. This movement began\nin Birmingham in 1784, and was supported by all denominations. The High\nChurch party, however, insisted that all children, irrespective of the\nreligious persuasion of their parents, should attend the worship of the\nEstablished Church and no other. After some time, and mainly at the\ninstigation of Priestley, the Dissenters opened their separate Sunday\nschools, the Old Meeting in 1787, and the New Meeting in 1788, and\nPriestley preached the first sermon on behalf of the New Meeting Schools\nin November 1789, and with his son Joseph took an active share in the\nteaching.\n\nPriestley was a sincere lover of literature, and no man was more\nsensible of its value to the moral and intellectual life of communities.\nIn his own case he had derived so much benefit from a ready access to\nbooks which were beyond his means to purchase that he was ever willing\nto lend himself to any well-considered attempt to open the storehouses\nof literature, in its widest sense, as freely as possible, and to do all\nin his power to foster the love of reading and the spirit of inquiry\namong all classes of persons. In each succeeding situation--Needham,\nNantwich, Warrington, Leeds--he left evidences of his efforts to make\nbooks as accessible as possible to the community of which he was for the\ntime a member. Leeds still enjoys a striking example of these efforts in\nits proprietary library, and much of its reputation and character is\nowing to the wise and enlightened spirit which he infused into its\nadministration.\n\nAs to the library at Birmingham, he eventually succeeded in giving to\nit, as Hutton says, \"that stability and method without which no\ninstitution can prosper.\" We are further told that \"the Society are\nunder many and great obligations to the learned Doctor; it was him who\naltered its original plan and put it on a more extensive scale; he\namended and enlarged the laws and has paid a great attention to its\nwelfare and growing interests.\"\n\nPriestley's action, and more especially the catholicity he displayed in\nthe selection and admission of such books as in his judgment tended to\nthe spread of rationalism, whether in religion or in politics, drew down\nupon him the wrath of the Court party, and more particularly of the\nbeneficed clergy of the town and district, and the library was\nvigorously denounced as \"a fountain of erroneous opinions, spreading\ninfidelity, heresy and schism through the whole neighbourhood.\"\n\nThis catholicity is reflected in almost every circumstance of his daily\nlife.\n\n  \"If liberality of sentiment,\" he wrote on one occasion, \"be the result\n  of general and various acquaintance, few men now living have had a\n  better opportunity of acquiring it than myself. This has arisen from\n  the great variety of my pursuits, which has naturally brought me\n  acquainted with persons of all principles and characters. One day, I\n  remember, I dined in company with an eminent popish priest; the\n  evening I spent with philosophers, determined unbelievers; the next\n  morning I breakfasted, at his own request, with a most zealously\n  orthodox clergyman, Mr Toplady, and the rest of that day I spent with\n  Dr Jebb, Mr Lindsey and some others, men in all respects after my own\n  heart. I have since enriched my acquaintance with that of some very\n  intelligent Jews; and my opponents, who consider me already as half a\n  Mahometan, will not suppose that I can have any objection to the\n  society of persons of that religion.\"\n\nDr Samuel Parr, the Prebend of St Paul's, a staunch friend and true\nadmirer of Priestley, who wrote the inscription on the tablet to his\nmemory in the New Meeting House at Birmingham, related the following\ncharacteristic anecdote to Mrs Robert A. Wainwright, who died in 1891,\nin her 84th year:--\n\n  \"Now remember this. I knew your grandfather, Dr Priestley. He once\n  invited me to dinner at Fair Hill, and I never was at a more agreeable\n  party in my life. Your grandfather was at the head of the table. I sat\n  at the bottom. At your grandfather's right hand was Mr Berington, the\n  Roman Catholic, and Mr Galton, the Quaker, on his left. Next to me was\n  Robert Robinson, the Baptist, and Mr Proud, minister of the New\n  Jerusalem Church.\"\n\nAll the five guests were remarkable men and distinguished in their\nseveral Churches. Dr Parr, one of the most erudite scholars of his time\nand an acute critic, an inveterate Whig, and a political ally of Fox,\nBurke and North, was Vicar of Wadenhoe in Northamptonshire, although he\nresided, as assistant curate, at Hatton, near Warwick, where he had an\nexcellent library. Berington wrote a _Literary History of the Middle\nAges_, and the _History of Abelard and Heloise_. Robert Robinson, of\nCambridge, was the author of the _History of Baptism_, _Ecclesiastical\nResearches_, _Village Sermons_ and other books. The Swedenborgian\nminister was the chief defender of the New Jerusalem Church in England,\nand was engaged in controversy with Priestley.\n\nA contemporary account of Priestley at this period of his life describes\nhim as about the middle stature, or five feet eight inches high; slender\nand well proportioned; of fair complexion, eyes grey and sparkling with\nintelligence, and his whole countenance expressive of the benignity of\nhis heart. He often smiled, but seldom laughed. He was extremely active\nand agile in his motions; he walked fast and very erect, and his\ndeportment was dignified. His usual dress was a black coat without a\ncape, a fine linen or cambric stock, a cocked hat, a powdered wig, shoes\nand buckles. He commonly walked with a long cane in his right hand, and\nwas an excellent pedestrian. \"The whole of his dress was remarkably\nclean, and this purity of person and simple dignity of manners evinced\nthat philosophic propriety which prevailed throughout his conduct as a\nprivate individual.\"\n\nHe rose about six o'clock and commonly retired to his study, where he\ncontinued until eight, when he met his family at breakfast. He\nbreakfasted on tea, and after breakfast again went to his study,\naccompanied by his amanuensis. He often devoted the whole of his morning\nto composition, or divided his morning between the study and the\nlaboratory. When engaged in experimental work he commonly wore a white\napron and canvas covers drawn over his sleeves. He dined at one o'clock\nand was very abstemious. He seldom drank wine or beer. In the afternoon\nhe usually took a walk, frequently to Birmingham, and spent some time at\nthe office where his works were being printed. He supped at eight, the\nmeal usually consisting of vegetables, and retired to rest shortly after\nten. He was extremely methodical in his habits and a rigid economist of\ntime.\n\nAt Daventry he began the practice, which he continued up to within three\nor four days of his death, of keeping, in Peter Annet's system of\nshorthand, a diary in which he noted where he had been, the nature of\nhis employment, what he had been reading, and any hints or suggestions\nof future work which had occurred to him, when he rose and the hour at\nwhich he went to bed. He was very methodical in his reading and in the\nalternation of his studies and relaxation. He never read a book without\ndetermining in his own mind when he would finish it. Had he a work to\ntranscribe, he would fix a time for its completion. At the beginning of\neach year he arranged the plan he intended to pursue, and at the close\nhe reviewed the general situation of his affairs and took stock of the\nprogress he had made, noting whether the execution of his plan exceeded\nor fell short of his expectations. It was this regular apportionment of\nhis time, and the habits of method and order in the arrangement of his\nbusiness which he adopted in early life, and from which he never\nmaterially deviated, together with his uniformly good health, his\nindustry and aptitude for rapid work, which enabled him to achieve what\nhe did. It was, he says, a great advantage to him that he never was\nunder the necessity of retiring from company in order to compose\nanything. Being fond of domestic life he got a habit of writing on any\nsubject by the parlour fire with his wife and children about him, and\noccasionally talking to them without experiencing any inconvenience from\nsuch interruptions. When he was a young author (although he did not\npublish anything until he was about thirty) strictures on his writings\ngave him some disturbance, though he believed even then less than they\ndo most others; but after some time things of that kind hardly affected\nhim at all, and on this account he thinks he may be said to have been\nwell formed for public controversy. But what always made him easy in any\ncontroversy in which he was engaged was his fixed resolution frankly to\nacknowledge any mistake that he might perceive he had fallen into. \"That\nI had never been in the least backward to do this in matters of\nphilosophy can never be denied.\"\n\nThough he has been considered as fond of controversy, and that his chief\ndelight consisted in it, yet it was far from being true. He was more\nfrequently the defendant than the assailant. His controversies, as far\nas it depended upon himself, were carried on with temper and decency. He\nwas never malicious, nor even sarcastic or indignant, unless provoked.\n\nPriestley was a very busy man and a very industrious man, but he had not\nthe power of sustained and concentrated application to a single subject\nwhich is the characteristic of men of great intellectual eminence. In\nthis respect he was far inferior to his contemporaries Watt and\nCavendish. His quick and active mind enabled him rapidly to assimilate\nthe ideas of others, but it may be doubted, even in theology, whether he\npushed his convictions and doctrinal beliefs beyond the limits reached\nby previous thinkers. His philosophy, as Huxley has pointed out,\ncontains little that will be new to the readers of Hobbes, Spinoza,\nCollins, Hume and Hartley. \"It does not appear,\" says his son, \"that he\nspent more than six or eight hours per day in business that required\nmuch mental exertion.\" In his diary he laid down the following daily\narrangements of time for a minister's studies:--Studying the Scriptures,\none hour. Practical writers, half-an-hour. Philosophy and History, two\nhours. Classics, half-an-hour. Composition, one hour--in all five hours.\n\"All which,\" he adds, \"may be conveniently dispatched before dinner,\nwhich leaves the afternoon for visiting and company, and the evening for\nexceeding in any article if there be occasion.\"\n\nHis son tells us that for many years of his life he never spent less\nthan two or three hours a day in games of amusement, as cards and\nbackgammon, but particularly chess, at which he and his wife played\nregularly three games after dinner and as many after supper. As his\nchildren grew up, chess was laid aside for whist or some round game at\ncards, which he enjoyed as much as any of the company. He was fond, too,\nof bodily exercise, and was particularly attached to his garden, in\nwhich he worked constantly. His laboratory also afforded him exercise,\nas he never employed an assistant, and never allowed anyone even to\nlight his fire.\n\nThe attention, he says, which he paid to the phenomena of his own mind,\nmade him sensible of some great defects in its constitution. He was, he\nsays, from an early period, subject to a \"most humbling failure of\nrecollection,\" so that he sometimes lost all ideas of both persons and\nthings that he had been conversant with. He says, \"I have so completely\nforgotten what I have myself published, that in reading my own writings\nwhat I find in them often appears perfectly new to me, and I have more\nthan once made experiments the results of which had been published by\nme.\"\n\nApprised of this defect he never failed to note down as soon as possible\neverything that he wished not to forget. The same failing led him to\ndevise and have recourse to a variety of mechanical expedients to secure\nand arrange his thoughts, which were of the greatest use to him in the\ncomposition of large and complex works, and what he says excited the\nwonder of some of his readers would only have made them smile had they\nseen him at work. \"But by simple and mechanical methods one man shall do\nthat in a month which shall cost another, of equal ability, whole years\nto execute. This methodical arrangement of a large work is greatly\nfacilitated by mechanical methods, and nothing contributes more to the\nperspicuity of a large work than a good arrangement of its parts.\"\n\nWhat he learned to know with respect to himself tended much, he says, to\nlessen both his admiration and his contempt of others.\n\n  \"Could we have entered into the mind of Sir Isaac Newton, and have\n  traced all the steps by which he produced his great works, we might\n  see nothing very extraordinary in the process. And great powers with\n  respect to some things are generally attended with great defects in\n  others; and these may not appear in a man's writings. For this reason,\n  it seldom happens but that our admiration of philosophers and writers\n  is lessened by a personal knowledge of them.\"\n\nGreat defects may, however, be more than counter-balanced by great\nexcellences, and accordingly he hopes that his defect of recollection,\npossibly due to a want of sufficient coherence in the association of\nideas formerly impressed, might arise from a mental constitution more\nfavourable to new associations, so that what he lost with respect to\nmemory may have been compensated by what is called invention, or new and\noriginal combinations of ideas.\n\nIn the domestic relations of life he was uniformly kind and\naffectionate. As was truly said of him on Darton's portrait, \"Not malice\nitself could ever fix a stain on his private conduct or impeach his\nintegrity.\"\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX\n\n\n  The Birmingham riots of 1791.\n\nThe picture which Priestley drew of his life in Birmingham at this\nperiod, as given in the autobiographical sketch published after his\ndeath, is almost dramatic in its pathos when we bear in mind that it was\nwritten almost on the eve of that maniacal outburst of popular passion\nwhich eventually drove him from our shores. He said he considered his\nsettlement at Birmingham as the happiest event in his life, as being\nhighly favourable to every object he had in view, philosophical or\ntheological. He thanks God that his prospects are better than they have\never been before, that his own health, and that of his dear wife, is\nbetter established, and his hopes as to the disposition and future\nsettlement of his children are satisfactory. He has particular reason to\nbe grateful for the happy temperament of body and mind he owes to his\nparents, and for the fundamentally good constitution of body to which\nwas due an even cheerfulness of temper which had but few interruptions.\nAnother great subject of thankfulness to a good Providence was his\nperfect freedom from any embarrassment in his circumstances, for his\nsupplies had been always equal to his wants, and his indifference to an\nincrease of fortune was the means of attaining it.\n\n[Illustration: THE PILLAGING OF PRIESTLEY'S HOUSE DURING THE BIRMINGHAM\n                                 RIOTS]\n\n  \"When,\" he says, \"I began my experiments I expended on them all the\n  money I could possibly raise, carried on by my ardour in philosophical\n  investigations, and entirely regardless of consequences, except so far\n  as never to contract any debt.... But having succeeded, I was in time\n  more than indemnified for all that I had expended.\n\n  \"Yet frequently, as I have changed my situation, and always for the\n  better, I can truly say that I never wished for any change on my own\n  account. I should have been contented even at Needham if I could have\n  been unmolested and had bare necessaries. This freedom from anxiety\n  was remarkable in my father, and therefore is in a manner hereditary\n  to me; but it has been much increased by reflection, having frequently\n  observed, especially with respect to Christian ministers, how often it\n  has contributed to embitter their lives without being of any use to\n  them. Some attention to the improvement of a man's circumstances is no\n  doubt right, because no man can tell what occasion he may have for\n  money, especially if he have children, and therefore I do not\n  recommend my example to others. But I am thankful to that good\n  Providence which always took more care of me than ever I took of\n  myself.\"\n\nThis serene contentment is reflected in his correspondence at this\nperiod, and we find further evidence of it in the letters of his\nfriends.\n\n  \"I esteem it a singular happiness to have lived in an age and country\n  in which I have been at full liberty both to investigate, and by\n  preaching and writing to propagate, religious truth; that though the\n  freedom I have used for this purpose was for some time disadvantageous\n  to me, it was not long so, and that my present situation is such that\n  I can, with the greatest openness, urge whatever appears to me the\n  truth of the Gospel, not only without giving the least offence, but\n  with the entire approbation of those with whom I am particularly\n  connected.\"\n\nDr Aikin, visiting him in 1784, says in a letter to Mrs Aikin:--\n\n  \"The great philosopher, with his simple, bland, unaffected manners,\n  contented and happy, and declaring that he had not a wish on earth\n  unsatisfied, gave me infinite delight.\"\n\nThese halcyon days were, however, but as the calm before the storm, and\nthe contented and happy philosopher had soon need of all his philosophy,\nand of all his Christianity too, in face of the ungoverned fury of the\nmob which, to use Wedgwood's words, swept like a hurricane over him and\nhis friends.\n\nThe 14th of July 1791--the anniversary of the French Revolution--was\ncelebrated in several towns in England without interruption or any\nuntoward circumstance; that day, however, was long remembered by the\ninhabitants of Birmingham with feelings akin to horror. It is certain\nthat the popular rising which then took place in that town was in the\noutset mainly directed against Priestley. The course of events proves\nthis. As it happened, the appetite in the mob for mischief grew by what\nit fed upon, and many others, his friends and political and religious\nassociates, were involved in the disaster which overtook him. For it\nwould appear that those who, in the first instance, instigated and\ndirected the outrage lost all control over the forces which they\ninvoked, and the rising, which in the beginning was intended to visit\nPriestley with the vengeance which the Cracow mob inflicted on his\nprototype Socinus, developed into a wild anarchical riot, confused and\npurposeless except as gratifying a wanton lust for rapine and\ndestruction. Many contemporary accounts exist of the Birmingham riots of\n1791, and although, as might be expected from the temper of the times,\nsome of the narratives are not wholly uncoloured by prejudice and the\npartisan spirit of political and religious feeling, it is not difficult\nto put together a true view of an episode which profoundly affected all\nparties and sent a thrill of apprehension and alarm throughout the\ncountry. Political feeling at the period ran high. Europe had recently\nwitnessed the spectacle of a revolution which had filled the governing\nclasses of every state with awe and even terror, and the great masses of\nthe people in this and other countries, to whom all political power was\ndenied, were beginning to realise what might be possible to concerted\naction properly organised and vigorously pressed. Every bureaucracy was\nin a state of trepidation. The political atmosphere was heavily charged\nwith electricity and no one could foretell where and when the next\nthunderbolt would descend. Naturally enough the great vested interests\nin Church and State looked askance at, and were disquieted by, these\nperiodical celebrations of such an event as the destruction of the\nBastile and all that it symbolised, with their odes to Liberty,\nFraternity and Equality, and their impassioned appeals to Demos, and the\nrising hopes of a people grown restive and impatient under what they\nwere taught to believe was political thraldom. It required but a small\nspark to bring about a conflagration, and designing and unscrupulous men\nsaw in the approaching anniversary of the memorable 14th of July an\nopportunity of which they were determined to take advantage. Priestley\nhad himself, unwittingly, laid the train which brought about the\ncatastrophe.\n\n  \"Dr Priestley,\" says Corry, writing in 1804, \"from the commencement of\n  his residence at Birmingham, had undoubtedly turned his attention too\n  much from the luminous field of philosophic disquisition to the\n  sterile regions of polemic divinity and the still more thorny paths of\n  polemic politics. His tracts on these subjects amounted to upwards of\n  thirty, and from his celebrity they had a very general circulation. As\n  a philosopher he clearly saw defects in the most perfect of human\n  institutions, and expressed himself with a boldness and freedom which\n  alarmed the neighbouring clergy of the Established Church, and excited\n  their resentment. The labouring classes in Birmingham certainly looked\n  upon him as a disaffected and dangerous man. Incapable of deep\n  reflection themselves, they abhorred his Unitarian principles as\n  subversive of Christianity, and the idea that the Church was in danger\n  was propagated among them by men of deeper discernment, who wished to\n  render Dr Priestley odious and unpopular. A very considerable number,\n  however, of the more enlightened inhabitants, who were convinced of\n  the Doctor's integrity as a man, sincerity as a preacher, and\n  superlative merit as a philosopher, were his strenuous advocates and\n  admirers. The collision of parties became every day more violent, and\n  the events which were daily transacting in France kept alive the\n  jealousy arising from uncongenial opinions.\"\n\nA contemporary account states: The vigorous and repeated attempts of the\nDissenters to obtain a repeal of the Corporation and Test Laws [repealed\nin 1828], excited much alarm and apprehension amongst many of the\nEstablished clergy, and were most forcibly felt by those residing in\nBirmingham. The name and writings of Dr Priestley were as much dreaded\nby his opponents as they were admired by his friends; and as he long\nresided near this town, and was eminently conspicuous in his endeavours\nto procure a repeal of these laws, and in the promulgation of Unitarian\ndoctrines, it is not surprising that his sentiments should have been\nrepresented to the lower classes of the people as dangerous to the\nChurch and State.\n\nAttacks made upon his principles and motives in different pulpits were\nanswered from the Press, and produced among other things his _Familiar\nLetters Addressed to the Inhabitants of Birmingham_, in which his\nopponents are combated with much force and severity. In the course of\nhis controversial publications Priestley had made a comparison of the\nprogress of free inquiry to the action of gunpowder. The conclusion of\nthe passage ran thus:--\n\n  \"The present silent propagation of truth may even be compared to those\n  causes in Nature which lie dormant for a time, but which in proper\n  circumstances act with the greatest violence. We are, as it were,\n  laying gunpowder, grain by grain, under the old building of error and\n  superstition, which a single spark may hereafter inflame, so as to\n  produce an instantaneous explosion; in consequence of which that\n  edifice, the erection of which has been the work of ages, may be\n  overturned in a moment, and so effectually as that the same foundation\n  can never be built upon again.\"\n\nThis paragraph became to the enemies of the Dissenters a common topic of\nallusion, and was read in the House of Commons as an unquestionable\nproof of the dangerous designs of that body with respect to the\nconstitution of this country. Hence the mischievous thinkers found no\ndifficulty in persuading the unthinking actors that the real intentions\nof the Dissenters were to destroy the churches.\n\nThat mischief was being deliberately planned in view of the coming\nanniversary was certainly known to not a few of those in authority, some\nof whom from their position were responsible for the order and good\ngovernment of the town. Some days before the outbreak a number of copies\nof a seditious hand-bill had been left in a public-house by an unknown\nperson, and this had been copied and circulated throughout the town,\ncausing a general ferment in the minds of the lowest class of the\npeople. Its character was such that the magistrates promptly offered a\nreward of one hundred guineas for the discovery of the Writer, Printer,\nPublisher or Distributer of the inflammatory hand-bill. But\nnotwithstanding that the Dissenters themselves afterwards offered an\nadditional reward of one hundred guineas, and the Government also\nproclaimed a further reward of one hundred pounds, no clue was ever\nobtained to the persons concerned in its preparation or distribution.\nSuch, however, was the feeling of apprehension in the minds of those who\nwere about to take part in the proposed celebration that it was\ndetermined to publish the following advertisement in the _Birmingham\nChronicle_:--\n\n\n              Birmingham Commemoration of the French Revolution.\n\n  \"Several hand-bills having been circulated in the town which can only\n  be intended to create distrust concerning the intention of the\n  meeting, to disturb its harmony and inflame the minds of people, the\n  Gentlemen who proposed it think it necessary to declare their entire\n  disapprobation of all such hand-bills and their ignorance of the\n  authors. Sensible themselves of the advantages of a Free Government,\n  they rejoice in the extension of Liberty to their Neighbours, at the\n  same time avowing, in the most explicit manner, their firm attachment\n  to the Constitution of their own Country, as vested in the Three\n  Estates of the King, Lords and Commons. Surely no _Free-born\n  Englishman_ can refrain from exulting in this addition to the general\n  mass of human happiness. It is the cause of _Humanity_, it is the\n  cause of the People.\n\n  \"Birmingham, _July 13, 1791_.\"\n\nWe learn from a letter in the same newspaper, written a few days later\nby Mr William Russell, Priestley's friend, and himself, with his family,\na sufferer in the events which followed, that in spite of this\ndisclaimer there was still good grounds for believing that evil was\nbrewing. He says that on the morning of the 14th many rumours of the\nprobability of a riot were brought to the friends of the meeting; and as\nthere was too much reason to think that means had been used to promote\none, they determined to postpone the intended dinner and prepared a\nnotice to that effect.\n\n  \"This,\" says Mr Russell, \"was sent to the printer, but before he had\n  composed it, Mr Dadley, the master of the hotel, attended, in\n  consequence of having the Dinner countermanded, and represented that\n  he was sure there was no danger of any tumult, and recommended that\n  the Dinner might be held as was intended; only proposing that the\n  gentlemen should take care to break up early, and then all danger\n  would be avoided. This measure was then adopted, and orders given to\n  the printer to suppress the hand-bill. Accordingly there was a meeting\n  of eighty-one gentlemen, inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood, at\n  the great room in the hotel, where they dined and passed the afternoon\n  with that social, temperate and benevolent festivity which the\n  consideration of the great event that has diffused liberty and\n  happiness among a large portion of the human race inspired.\"\n\nMr Russell continues:--\n\n  \"It is but justice to the liberality and public spirit of an\n  inglorious artist of this town to mention that he decorated the room\n  upon this occasion with three elegant emblematic pieces of sculpture,\n  mixed with painting, in a new style of composition. The central piece\n  was a finely executed medallion of His Majesty, encircled with a\n  Glory, on each side of which was an alabaster Obelisk; one exhibiting\n  Gallic Liberty breaking the bands of Despotism, and the other\n  representing British Liberty in its present enjoyment.\n\n  \"A truly respectable gentleman [Captain Keir], a member of the Church\n  of England, was chairman; others of that profession were of the\n  company, nor was a single sentiment uttered, or, I believe, conceived,\n  that would hurt the feelings of any one friend to liberty and good\n  government under the happy constitution we are blessed with in this\n  kingdom.\"\n\nThe mob, if they thought at all, thought otherwise. Although, we are\ntold, the utmost harmony prevailed at the festive board, and the company\ndispersed without the least disturbance, they found a considerable\nnumber of the populace assembled in the neighbourhood of Temple Row,\nevidently bent on mischief. The crowd remained in the vicinity of the\nhotel, their numbers gradually increasing, for a couple of hours after\nCaptain Keir and his friends had left. Whether the people expected\nPriestley to be of the company, and fancied he was being detained in the\nhotel on account of their threatening attitude, is uncertain. As a\nmatter of fact he had not been at the dinner. Suddenly the cry of\n\"Church and King!\" was raised, and at that signal every window in the\nfront of the hotel was promptly broken. Thereupon, as if by a common\nimpulse, or if as acting under direction, the crowd swept onwards to the\nNew Meeting, where Priestley preached; this they assailed, we are told,\nwith incredible fury. The New Meeting was erected in 1730: it was\ndescribed as a considerable pile, \"more remarkable for plainness and\nsimplicity than for any uncommon elegance of workmanship or superb style\nof decoration. The vestry contained a valuable collection of books for\nthe use of the Society which assembled there.\" The gates and doors were\nsoon burst open, the pews demolished, the cushions and fragments carried\nout and burnt in front of the building, and at length fire was carried\nin which consumed it to the outer walls. The mob was now roused to\nfrenzy. Some of the magistrates strove to quell the riot, and even those\nwho had connived at the outrage grew alarmed at the dangerous temper\nwhich they had roused. But the infuriated rabble by this time was\nthoroughly out of control, and no sufficient force was at hand to cope\nwith it. The Old Meeting-House was next demolished with the regularity\nof workmen employed for the purpose. A party armed with crow-bars,\nbludgeons, etc., tore down the pulpit, pews and galleries, and burnt\nthem in the burying-ground, afterwards setting fire to the body of the\nMeeting-house. The cry of \"Church and King!\" was again raised, and the\nrioters marched in a body to Fair Hill, about a mile from the town,\nwhere Priestley resided. His house was described by Aikin as \"a most\ncomfortable and pleasing retreat.\" \"Although,\" we are told, \"it belonged\nto a gentleman who was deservedly a favourite of the poor, yet because\nit was the dwelling of Dr Priestley it was doomed to destruction,\" and\nwas \"attacked with the most savage and determined fury.\" Priestley, when\nthe news was brought to him by his friend, Samuel Ryland, of the\ndestruction of the Meeting-Houses and of the impending attack on Fair\nHill, was playing backgammon with his wife, as was his custom after\nsupper. He could hardly be persuaded of the danger in which he stood,\nand it was with difficulty that Ryland hurried him and Mrs Priestley\ninto the chaise which was waiting at the door. He and his wife were then\nquickly driven to Showell Green, the residence of his friend, William\nRussell, leaving his son William Priestley, and some other young\npersons, with the servants to protect the property. What followed may\nbest be gleaned from the graphic narrative of Miss Martha Russell,\nwritten within a few days of the occurrence, but first published in _The\nChristian Reformer_ of 1835, Vol. II. p. 293:--\n\n  \"As we were at supper, Tolley, our footman, came in with a countenance\n  as pale as ashes, and told my father a messenger was just arrived to\n  inform him that a mob had collected and set fire to the New\n  Meeting-House, and were then employed in destroying the Old\n  Meeting-House also, and they declared their intention to come from\n  thence to Dr Priestley's house and then to ours, and that no\n  magistrate appeared or could be found to disperse them. Consternation\n  and alarm now filled our minds. My father ordered his horse, intending\n  to go and meet the mob, and search out the justices to quell it.\n  Whilst he was loading his pocket-pistols to carry with him, a chaise\n  drove up to the door with Dr and Mrs Priestley and Mr Samuel Ryland.\n  The latter had taken the alarm, and, procuring a chaise, had hurried\n  the Doctor and Mrs P. away from their house, fearing the mob would be\n  there immediately. So great was the panic he had felt and inspired\n  them with that they had secured nothing, but seemed as if happy and\n  fortunate in escaping with their lives. We all united in begging my\n  father not to leave the house, and urged the danger he would be in by\n  meeting such an ungovernable concourse of people, and that, being\n  alone, he could do nothing towards quelling them, and no doubt but our\n  friends in Birmingham would some of them exert themselves and stir up\n  the magistrates without his running such a risk. He would, however,\n  hear nothing of it, but declared 'he would be his own master that\n  night.' Seeing him resolved to go, Mrs Priestley requested him to\n  bring her a small box of money she had in her chamber, and Dr P.\n  wished for his pocket-book, which contained something of value, and\n  which he had left on the table in the parlour, so great was their\n  hurry and alarm.... We walked up and down the foot-road leading to\n  town in a dreadful state of suspense and apprehension, clearly\n  discerning the fire from the two Meeting-Houses, and distinctly\n  hearing the shouts of the mob....\n\n  \"In about three hours my father returned and informed us he went first\n  to Dr Priestley's house, where he found William Priestley, whom he\n  instructed to begin and move all the Doctor's manuscripts he thought\n  most likely to be valuable, by means of persons in the neighbourhood\n  whom my father had brought for that purpose, and on whom he could\n  rely, to a place in the vicinity he had fixed upon as secret and\n  secure. This he urged him to do as expeditiously and quietly as\n  possible, and to continue this employ, including also any other\n  valuables he recollected, till my father should send him word to stop,\n  not attending to any reports that might be brought him. My father then\n  rode on to town as far as Digbeth, and there meeting the mob, he tried\n  in vain to proceed. He met many of his friends, all of whom requested\n  him to return, telling him he did not hear the threats that were\n  uttered against him. At length, one of them, I believe Mr J. F----,\n  suddenly turned his horse, and giving him a cut with his whip, the\n  press was so great and the spirit of the horse so roused my father\n  found himself obliged in a manner to return. Arriving at Dr\n  Priestley's gate before the mob, he stationed himself withinside till\n  the mob came up, and then addressed them, endeavouring to induce them,\n  by fair words and money, to desist and return home. At first they\n  seemed a little pacified and inclined to listen, till one more loud\n  than the rest, and who had the appearance of a ringleader, cried out,\n  'Don't take a sixpence of his money: in the riots of '80 in London a\n  man was hanged for only taking sixpence.' They all then vociferated,\n  'Stone him, stone him!' and began to fling stones. My father then,\n  finding it rashness to brave two or three thousand men, turned his\n  horse and rode up to the house, telling William Priestley that he must\n  desist and take as much care of the house as he could, and advising\n  him to make all the doors and windows as secure as possible. He then\n  rode off home and informed us he did not think our house yet in\n  danger, but thought we had better remove with Dr and Mrs P. to Mr\n  Thomas Hawkes, about half a mile off, for fear we should be suddenly\n  surprised. During this time several messages were sent, and friends\n  came to warn us of our danger. All seemed to apprehend the mob would\n  visit us, and we had been advised to set out a barrel of ale on the\n  lawn, thus attempting to pacify them and persuade them to desist. This\n  done, and proper persons left to watch, we all walked up to Mr\n  Hawkes's. Here we found the family up and under great apprehension;\n  and here we soon heard the shouts of the mob at Dr Priestley's house\n  (and I shall never forget what dreadful and hideous shouts they were),\n  intermingled with a loud noise of battering against the walls, and\n  such a confusion of cries, huzzas, etc., as cannot be imagined. Soon\n  the flames burst forth, and then all seemed quiet. What were the\n  emotions of our minds at this moment no one can imagine unless they\n  had beheld our countenances and heard the broken, short sentences that\n  formed all the conversation which passed amongst us: yet the extreme\n  agitation of our minds did not prevent us from admiring the divine\n  appearance of the excellent Dr Priestley. No human being could, in my\n  opinion, appear in any trial more like divine, or show a nearer\n  resemblance to our Saviour, than he did then. Undaunted he heard the\n  blows which were destroying the house and laboratory that contained\n  all his valuable and rare apparatus and their effects, which it had\n  been the business of his life to collect and use. All this apparatus,\n  together with the uses he had made of them, the laborious exertions of\n  his whole life, were being destroyed by a set of merciless, ignorant,\n  lawless banditti, whilst he, tranquil and serene, walked up and down\n  the road with a firm yet gentle pace that evinced his entire\n  self-possession, and a complete self-satisfaction and consciousness\n  which rendered him thus firm and resigned under the unjust and cruel\n  persecution of his enemies; and with a countenance expressing the\n  highest devotion, turned as it were from this scene and fixed with\n  pure and calm resignation on him who suffered the administration of\n  this bitter cup. Not one hasty or impatient expression, not one look\n  expressive of murmur or complaint, not one tear or sigh escaped him;\n  resignation and a conscious innocence and virtue seemed to subdue all\n  these feelings of humanity.\n\n  \"About four o'clock my father returned and informed us that as the\n  fire had consumed the doctor's house the mob were nearly dispersed,\n  half drunk, having been up to their ankles in wine in his cellar,\n  where they had broke the necks off all the bottles and inundated the\n  cellar with that portion of their contents they could not drink; that\n  the fields round were now covered with these fiends sleeping from\n  drunkenness and fatigue, and that as day was now come he thought it\n  most likely they would disperse entirely, and that consequently we\n  might return home again. Accordingly we set off, and never shall I\n  forget the joy with which I entered our own gates once more.... A room\n  was prepared for the Doctor and Mrs P. We all looked and felt our\n  gratitude; but the Doctor appeared the happiest amongst us. Just as he\n  was going to rest, expressing his thankfulness in being permitted to\n  lie down again in peace and comfort, my father returned from Fair Hill\n  with the intelligence that they were collecting again, and their\n  threats were more violent than ever, that they swore to find Dr P. and\n  take his life. The chaise was now ordered with all speed, and instead\n  of the much-desired rest the Doctor and Mrs P. were obliged to dress\n  again and get into it, scarcely knowing whither to go. Mr Ryland\n  accompanied them, and it was thought most advisable to take a by-road\n  to Heath, where Mrs Finch, the Doctor's daughter, lived, near Dudley.\"\n\n  \"He remained at Heath Forge,\" says another account, \"until Saturday,\n  July 16th, meanwhile writing to Lindsey and to his sister, Mrs Crouch,\n  then living at Gildersome, fearing that she would receive false\n  accounts through the newspapers. On the afternoon of that day he set\n  off on horseback, with a servant, for Worcester, intending to catch\n  the London mail that evening. But the fugitives lost their way on the\n  Morfe, a common between Heath Forge and Bridgenorth, and wandered\n  about all night. They, however, reached Kidderminster safely in the\n  morning, and were met by Mr Ryland, who offered Priestley his own wig\n  and coat by way of disguise. But the doctor declined. He had on a coat\n  buttoned up to the chin, a wig and a cocked hat, with the point in\n  front, his usual dress out of doors. Mr Ryland accompanied Priestley\n  as far as Worcester, and arrived just in time to take a place for him\n  in the mail to London. He travelled all night, reaching London between\n  six and seven in the morning of Monday, July 18th, and went to his\n  friend Lindsey's in Essex Street, Strand.\"\n\nMiss Russell's apprehensions proved to be only too well-founded. Showell\nGreen was destroyed, as were Bordesley Hall and Moseley Hall, and other\nhouses in the vicinity of Moseley; Mr Ryland's house at Easy Hill, and\nMr Hutton's house in High Street and his country seat at Wash Wood\nHeath.\n\nOn Sunday the rioters proceeded to King's Wood, seven miles from\nBirmingham, and destroyed the meeting-house and the dwelling of the\nDissenting minister. For the greater part of three days the town was in\na state of siege, the majority of the shops were closed and business was\nat a stand-still. Attempts were made to organise a force of constables,\nbut the number got together was insufficient to cope with the mob, and\nin an effort to protect Mr Ryland's house the police were beaten after a\nsevere contest, and many were wounded. A number of the rioters lost\ntheir lives; one man was killed by the fall of a coping stone from\nPriestley's house and a number were wounded. At Easy Hill the drunken\nwretches in the cellars were overwhelmed by the falling in of the\nflaming roof, six were got out alive, but terribly burnt and bruised,\nwhilst ten dead bodies were dug out of the ruins.\n\nLate on Sunday night three troops of dragoons reached the town:--\n\n  \"Their arrival,\" says a contemporary chronicler, \"was announced by the\n  sound of their trumpets and the acclamations of the inhabitants.\n  Anxiety, which had been strongly depicted in every face during the\n  day, was succeeded by the smiles of joy and the congratulations of\n  neighbours. The town was illuminated, the rioters, conscious of their\n  delinquency, soon dispersed, and order was happily restored without\n  bloodshed.\"\n\nThe King, writing to Mr Secretary Dundas in approval of dragoons having\nbeen sent to Birmingham to quell the tumult, thus continues:--\n\n  \"Though I cannot but feel better pleased that Priestley is the\n  sufferer for the doctrines he and his party have instilled, and that\n  the people see them in their true light, yet I cannot approve of their\n  having employed such atrocious means of showing their discontent.\"\n\nFrom Mr Lindsey's house Priestley sent the following letter to the\n_Birmingham Chronicle_:--\n\n\n                \"To the Inhabitants of the Town of Birmingham.\n\n  \"My late Townsmen and Neighbours,--After living with you eleven years,\n  in which you had uniform experience of my peaceful behaviour, in my\n  attention to the quiet studies of my profession and those of\n  philosophy, I was far from expecting the injuries which I and my\n  friends have lately received from you. But you have been misled. By\n  hearing the Dissenters, and particularly the Unitarian Dissenters,\n  continually railed at, as enemies to the present government in Church\n  and State, you have been led to consider any injury done to us as a\n  meritorious thing, and, not having been better informed, the means\n  were not attended to. When the _object_ was right you thought the\n  _means_ could not be wrong. By the discourses of your teachers, and\n  the exclamations of your superiors in general, drinking confusion and\n  damnation to us (which is well known to have been their frequent\n  practice), your bigotry has been excited to the highest pitch, and\n  nothing has been said to you to moderate your passions, but everything\n  to inflame them; hence, without any consideration on your part or on\n  theirs, who ought to have known and taught you better, you were\n  prepared for every species of outrage, thinking that whatever you\n  could do to spite and injure us was for the support of Government, and\n  especially the Church. In _destroying us_ you have been led to think\n  _you did God_ and your country the most substantial _service_.\n\n  \"Happily the minds of Englishmen have a horror of _murder_, and\n  therefore you did not, I hope, think of _that_, though by your\n  clamorous demanding of _me_ at the hotel it is probable that at that\n  time some of you intended me some personal injury. But what is the\n  value of life when everything is done to make it wretched? In many\n  cases there would be greater mercy in dispatching the inhabitants than\n  in burning their houses. However, I infinitely prefer what I feel from\n  _the spoiling of my goods_ to the disposition of those who have misled\n  you.\n\n  \"You have destroyed the most truly valuable and useful apparatus of\n  philosophical instruments that perhaps any individual in this or any\n  other country was ever possessed of, in my use of which I annually\n  spent large sums, with no pecuniary view whatever, but only in the\n  advancement of science, for the benefit of my country and of mankind.\n  You have destroyed a library corresponding to that apparatus which no\n  money can re-purchase, except in a course of time. But what I feel far\n  more, you have destroyed _manuscripts_, which have been the result of\n  the laborious study of many years, and which I shall never be able to\n  recompose; and this has been done to one who never did, or imagined\n  you, any harm.\n\n  \"I know nothing more of the _hand-bill_, which is said to have enraged\n  you so much, than any of yourselves, and I disapprove of it as much,\n  though it has been made the ostensible handle of doing infinitely more\n  mischief than anything of that nature could possibly have done. In the\n  celebration of the French Revolution, at which I did not attend, the\n  company assembled on the occasion only expressed their joy in the\n  emancipation of a neighbouring nation from tyranny, without intimating\n  a desire of anything more than such an improvement of our own\n  Constitution, as all sober citizens, of every persuasion, have long\n  wished for. And though, in answer to the gross and unprovoked\n  calumnies of Mr Madan and others, I publicly vindicated my principles\n  as a Dissenter, it was only with plain and sober argument, and with\n  perfect good-humour. We are better instructed in the mild and\n  forbearing spirit of Christianity than ever to think of having\n  recourse to _violence_; and can you think such conduct as yours any\n  recommendation of your religious principles in preference to ours?\n\n  \"You are still more mistaken if you imagine that this conduct of yours\n  has any tendency to serve your cause or to injure ours. It is nothing\n  but _reason_ and _argument_ that can ever support any system of\n  religion. Answer your arguments and your business is done; but your\n  having recourse to _violence_ is only a proof that you have nothing\n  better to produce. Should you destroy myself, as well as my house,\n  library and apparatus, ten more persons of equal or superior spirit\n  and ability would instantly rise up. If these ten were destroyed one\n  hundred would appear; and believe me, that the Church of England,\n  which you now think you are supporting, has received a greater blow by\n  this conduct of yours than I and all my friends have ever aimed at it.\n\n  \"Besides, to abuse those who have no power of making resistance is\n  equally cowardly and brutal, peculiarly unworthy of Englishmen, to say\n  nothing of Christianity, which teaches us to do as we would be done\n  by. In this business we are the sheep and you are the wolves. We will\n  preserve our character, and hope you will change yours. At all events,\n  we return you blessings for curses, and pray that you may soon return\n  to that industry and the sober manners for which the inhabitants of\n  Birmingham were formerly distinguished.--I am, your sincere\n  well-wisher,\n                                                           J. Priestley.\n\n  \"London, _July 19, 1791_.\n\n  \"_P.S._--The account of the first toast at the Revolution Dinner in\n  the _Times_ of this morning can be nothing less than a malicious lie.\n  To prove this a list of the toasts, with an account of all the\n  proceedings of the day, will soon be published. The first of these was\n  _The King and Constitution_, and they were all such as the friends of\n  liberty, and of the true principles of the Constitution, would\n  approve.\"\n\nOne of the earliest letters of sympathy he received was from his\nsteadfast friend and benefactor, Wedgwood. It was written from Weymouth,\nat that time the most fashionable seaside watering-place in England, and\ncondoled with him on the \"irreparable loss\" he had \"sustain'd from the\nbrutality, or rather let us hope the temporary insanity\" of his\nneighbours.\n\n  \"If they had arisen merely from the ungovern'd madness of a mob from\n  the lowest order of our species, one would then lament all its effects\n  like those of a storm or hurricane, but if there is reason to believe\n  that the rabble were acted upon and encouraged to such proceedings by\n  those who should be their superiors, one cannot but perceive the too\n  evident spirit of the times, or of the place at least, by which you\n  and so many of your worthy neighbours have suffered.\"\n\nWedgwood then earnestly begs his friend to let him know how he can be of\nservice to him:--\n\n  \"Instruct me in the means of doing it and I shall esteem it as one of\n  the strongest instances of your friendship.\"\n\nPriestley's reply was written from the house of his son-in-law, William\nFinch, Heath Forge, Birmingham, and was as follows:--\n\n  \"Your very kind and sympathising letter was very acceptable to me. The\n  shock was no doubt very great, but I thank God I have been able to\n  bear it without any loss of health, or, indeed, of spirits. I begin to\n  suffer most from want of employment and absence from my family, which\n  indeed is irksome to me. My wife behaved with the greatest heroism at\n  the time, but continuing in the neighbourhood, and hearing continually\n  of the bad spirit that prevails in the place, I perceived that her\n  mind began to be affected by it. She cannot remove, as my daughter\n  expects to be brought to bed in about a month, and she cannot bear\n  that her mother should be absent at the time. This circumstance adds\n  much to my difficulty. Could we go together to some distant place for\n  a month we should be much more comfortable. One good thing has already\n  come out of this evil--I have a kind letter from Mr John Wilkinson\n  inviting us to any house of his, and bidding me not to regard any\n  losses that money can repair.\"\n\nHis brother-in-law promptly sent him \u00a3500 after the riots, and\nsubsequently transferred to him \u00a310,000 in the French funds. As these\nwere afterwards nonproductive he afterwards gave him an annuity of \u00a3200.\n\nImmediately after the riots he received a great number of addresses and\ntestimonials from his theological and philosophical admirers, and an\naddress transmitted by Condorcet was sent to him from the French Academy\nof Sciences.\n\nOne of the earliest letters he dispatched from London was to Keir, under\ndate July 22, 1791.\n\n\n                              Priestley to Keir.\n\n  \"I am very happy to see a copy of your letter to the printer of the\n  _Birmingham Chronicle_, and in return enclose copies of my 'Address to\n  the Inhabitants of Birmingham,' and of Mr Russell's 'Account of the\n  Proceedings on July 14th.' Both these have been in the London papers\n  and I have just sent yours to the printer of the _Morning Chronicle_.\n\n  \"I am happy to hear that all is quiet with you now, but when it will\n  be proper for me to come to you I cannot tell. I fear not before the\n  next Lunar Society. Whether I shall ever have it in my power to\n  collect another apparatus for experiments is quite uncertain, as\n  indeed is, in a great measure, my settling again at Birmingham, though\n  there is no place in the world that I should prefer to it.\n\n  \"The extra copies of my last paper for the _Philosophical\n  Transactions_ are printed, and I shall soon send some to Mr Galton to\n  be presented to each of the members of the Lunar Society.\n\n  \"I beg my compliments to them, and as long as I live I shall with much\n  satisfaction think of our many happy meetings.\"\n\nIn a letter to Wedgwood, dated four days later, he sends two copies of\nhis paper, and says:--\n\n  \"I fear I shall not soon be able to furnish materials for another.\n  Indeed, what I shall do, or where I shall settle, is uncertain. I\n  shall, however, continue at Birmingham _if possible_, and resume all\n  my pursuits, in which case I must thank you for a fresh stock of\n  _retorts_, tubes, etc., etc., etc. This invasion of the Goths and\n  Vandals I little foresaw, and hope it will never be repeated, as I\n  fancy the _experiment_ will not be found to answer.\"\n\nThe next letter to Keir, dated July 29, 1791, is interesting as throwing\nfurther light upon the causes of the riots:--\n\n  \"I never thought of returning to Birmingham till my friends there\n  should think it safe and, on their accounts, advisable; and this, I\n  now begin to fear, will not be so soon as you intimate. However, I am\n  ready to attend the first summons, and earnestly wish it may be before\n  the next Lunar Society. But your meeting must not depend upon this\n  event.\n\n  \"With this I send each of you a copy of my late, and I fear _last_,\n  paper for the _Philosophical Transactions_. I shall always recollect,\n  with peculiar satisfaction and regret, our many cheerful and improving\n  meetings; and if not a constant, shall indulge the hope of being an\n  occasional, attendant.\n\n  \"You were certainly a better judge than I was of the _spirit of the\n  times_. But even you could not have expected such brutal excesses as\n  have taken place; and yet I am willing to hope much from _time_, from\n  your seasonable letter, and the representations of the more calm and\n  reasonable members of the Church of England, if not from the\n  interposition of Government and the execution of the laws, in which I\n  _wish_ for moderation.\n\n  \"I lately dined with Mr Sheridan, who said I should meet Mr Fox.[15]\n  He, however, was prevented from attending, but desired Mr Sheridan to\n  say that he wished to take the matter up in whatever manner we should\n  think proper, by motion in the House on the subject. They conceive\n  that the encouragement given to this High Church spirit by the Court\n  arises from their willingness to crush Mr Fox, who has taken our part,\n  and that they hoped by these measures to intimidate us into silence.\n\n  \"This I can hardly think to be the case, and I am unwilling to connect\n  our cause with that of any political party; since upon the face of it,\n  as you have clearly shown, it is wholly of a religious nature.\n  However, I said there would be time enough to take our measures before\n  the next meeting of Parliament.\"\n\nDr Withering, himself a sufferer, hastened to express his sympathy.\nPriestley replied to his letters as follows:--\n\n  \"Your generous contribution towards the re-establishment of my\n  philosophical apparatus cannot but give me satisfaction, though I am\n  sorry to be so burdensome to my friends, especially my\n  fellow-sufferers, among whom you are ranked. But what the country will\n  do towards indemnifying us appears very distant and uncertain, and my\n  claims will be liable to the greatest uncertainty, as the _proof_ that\n  may be required of my losses cannot be given.\n\n  \"I am happy to find that your alarms and sufferings have no more\n  affected your spirit and health than my own did mine, and that we may\n  so soon expect your third volume.[16]\n\n  \"It will be a considerable time, with every assistance that money can\n  afford, before I can be at work again, and hardly ever to so much\n  advantage as at Birmingham. Such assistance from philosophical friends\n  I should in vain look for here, and as long as I live I shall look\n  back with pleasure and regret to our Lunar meetings, which I always\n  enjoyed so much and from which I derived so much solid advantage. If I\n  could find the same _intelligence_ in any club of Philosophers here, I\n  could not find the same _frankness_ which is the charm of all society.\n\n  \"I have nearly printed _An Appeal to the Public_ on the subject of the\n  late riot, and shall direct the printer to deliver you a copy.\n\n  \"I am sensible that it will more exasperate my enemies, but it is\n  addressed to our common judges, and may conciliate _them_, at least in\n  a course of time.\n\n  \"I have lately written to Mr Watt, and desired him, or the Lunar\n  Society as a body, to make a proposal to those who act for the\n  country. I hope you will see the propriety of it and contribute to its\n  effect.\"\n\nThe _Appeal_ evidently cost Priestley much pains in its composition.\nPart of it was sent in sheets to his intimate friends in Birmingham,\nnotably Dr Withering, Mr Galton and Mr Russell, who conferred together\nand with Captain Keir as to the advisability of publishing it. Like him\nthey were sensible that it would certainly more exasperate his enemies.\nCaptain Keir endeavoured to dissuade him from its publication, at least\nin its proposed form, saying that it would \"irritate his professed\nenemies, and furnish them with a new source of abuse,\" and that he\nfeared that \"Government would become more remiss in prosecuting the\nmagistrates and in protecting the Dissenters in future if they should\nmeet with any passage that would give them offence.\"\n\nOn learning the opinion of his friends Priestley wrote to Wedgwood:--\n\n  \"I have desired the printer to send you a copy of my _Appeal_ on the\n  subject of the riots, in order to have your opinion and advice with\n  respect to publishing of it. Several of my friends in Birmingham,\n  viz., Dr Withering, Mr Keir and Mr Galton, think that it had better be\n  suppressed, or published with many alterations by way of softening.\n  Others, and especially my friends here, are for its speedy\n  publication, or about the time of the meeting of Parliament. In this\n  state of suspense I beg your perusal of it and your free opinion. I\n  think that if I write at all it should not be with less spirit than I\n  have usually shown, and that there is nothing more violent or\n  offensive in _this_ than in several of my preaching publications. But\n  as others are interested in the event of this publication I am willing\n  to be advised by them.\"\n\nOn August 24, 1791, at the Warwick Assizes, John Green, John Clifton and\nBartholomew Fisher were indicted for that they, with one William Jones,\nat large, with others, to the number of fifty and more, did, on the 15th\nof July, unlawfully and riotously assemble and with force of arms begin\nto pull down the dwelling-house of Joseph Priestley, LL.D. The jury\nfound Green and Fisher guilty and Clifton not guilty.\n\nJohn Stokes, for beginning to pull down the Old Meeting-House in\nBirmingham, was acquitted, on account of the defects in the indictment.\nThe following was Baron Perryn's sentence:--\n\n  \"Prisoners, you have been convicted by very human and attentive juries\n  of the enormous crimes of setting fire to and destroying the houses\n  and property of your fellow-subjects in a manner as wanton as it was\n  unprovoked. Your cry of 'Church and King!' was nothing but a pretext\n  to commit depredation and robbery. The Law and Constitution is a\n  sufficient shield to protect the Church and the sacred person of His\n  Majesty and all his good subjects in their lives and property.\n\n  \"At the same time the Law possesses sufficient energy and vigour to\n  make examples of those bad citizens who wickedly and wantonly violate\n  it.\n\n  \"You, miserable criminals, are of that number, and it is necessary\n  that your lives should atone for your crimes, as a public example. You\n  must therefore be removed from this world; and I most earnestly\n  recommend you to employ the short space of time which will be allowed\n  to you to make your peace with your offended Creator, who alone can\n  grant that mercy which you must not expect from your country.\"\n\nPriestley's own account of these proceedings, as given in his _Memoirs_,\nis very na\u00efve and even studiously dispassionate. He says:--\n\n  \"About two years before I left Birmingham, the question about the\n  'Test Act' was much agitated both in and out of Parliament. This,\n  however, was altogether without any concurrence of mine. I only\n  delivered, and published, a sermon on the 5th of November 1789,\n  recommending the most peaceable method of pursuing our object. Mr\n  Madan, however, the most respectable clergyman in the town, preaching\n  and publishing a very inflammatory sermon on the subject, inveighing\n  in the bitterest manner against the Dissenters in general and myself\n  in particular, I addressed a number of 'Familiar Letters to the\n  Inhabitants of Birmingham' in our defence. This produced a reply from\n  him and other letters from me. All mine were written in an ironical\n  and rather a pleasant manner, and in some of the last of them I\n  introduced a further reply to Mr Burn, another clergyman in\n  Birmingham, who had addressed to me 'Letters on the Infallibility of\n  the Testimony of the Apostles concerning the Person of Christ,' after\n  replying to his first set of letters, in a separate publication.\n\n  \"From these small pieces I was far from expecting any serious\n  consequences. But the Dissenters in general being very obnoxious to\n  the Court, and it being imagined, though without any reason, that I\n  had been the chief promoter of the measures which gave them offence,\n  the clergy, not only in Birmingham but through all England, seemed to\n  make it their business, by writing in the public papers, by preaching\n  and other methods, to inflame the minds of the people against me. And\n  on occasion of the celebration of the anniversary of the French\n  Revolution, on July 14, 1791, by several of my friends, but with which\n  I had little to do, a mob, encouraged by some persons in power, first\n  burned the meeting-house in which I preached, then another\n  meeting-house in the town, and then my dwelling-house, demolishing my\n  library, apparatus and, as far as they could, everything belonging to\n  me. They also burned, or much damaged, the houses of many Dissenters,\n  chiefly my friends.\n\n  \"The criminality of the magistrates and other principal High Churchmen\n  at Birmingham in promoting the riot remains acknowledged. Indeed, many\n  circumstances which have appeared since that time show that the\n  friends of the Court, if not the Prime Ministers themselves, were the\n  favourers of that riot, having, no doubt, thought to intimidate the\n  friends of liberty by the measure.\"\n\n\"The years following the riot of 1791,\" wrote Mr Matthew Devonport Hill,\n\"witnessed various displays of hostile sentiment. In preparation for a\nmunicipal dinner shortly after that event, of which a member of the\npowerful and wealthy party opposed to French principles bore the cost,\nthe list of guests accustomed prior to the outbreak to be invited on\npublic occasions had been sedulously cleared of adverse elements. By\ninadvertence, however, the name of Dr Parr was retained; and the sturdy\ndivine, although he must have surmised that he would be the only\nrepresentative of his opinions, duly obeyed the summons. The cloth being\ndrawn, the Chairman proposed, as the Doctor no doubt expected, the toast\nof 'Church and King.'\n\n\"Parr instantly started to his feet, proclaiming in a stern voice his\ndissent. 'No, sir,' said he, 'I will not drink that toast. It was the\ncry of Jacobites; it is the cry of incendiaries. It means a Church\nwithout the Gospel, and a King above the Law!'\"\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X\n\n\n  Determines to leave England--His arrival in America--Settles at\n  Northumberland--His closing days--His death.\n\nPriestley's position in London for some time after his arrival there was\nvery insecure, and so apprehensive were his friends of further outrage\nthat it was thought necessary to provide him with a disguise and to\narrange a plan of escape in case the house should be attacked. At first\nhe was not allowed to appear in the streets. Ultimately he was moved to\nTottenham, where he spent a month.\n\nIn the middle of October a house was taken for him in Hackney, but it\nwas with difficulty that the landlord, who feared his property would be\ndemolished, was persuaded to accept him as a tenant. Here, however, he\nproceeded to build himself a laboratory, and in a letter to Thomas\nWedgwood, of October 18, 1791, he says:--\n\n  \"As soon as convenient I shall be obliged to your father if he will\n  supply me, as usual, with such retorts as you make, viz., earthen\n  tubes closed at the end and open, and some with two necks. Small\n  _retorts_, _evaporating-dishes_, _mortars_ and _levigators_. Perhaps\n  your servants here can tell me the price at which I must estimate\n  those that were destroyed by the riot. I must soon give in an account\n  of my losses, and I fear that some person on your part must attend at\n  Warwick to attest the value. Mr Nairn, Mr Parker and others have\n  promised to attend. But I have prepared [proposed] a conference\n  between my appraiser and those for the county in London, which, if\n  they be disposed to do justice, will save much trouble and expense.\n\n  \"Whether I shall be invited to succeed Dr Price is uncertain. Many\n  apprehend public disturbance in consequence of my coming. I could not\n  get a house let in my own name. A friend took it in his. I have,\n  however, very handsome proposals from France, particularly the offer\n  of a house completely furnished, two miles from Paris, and another\n  polite invitation from Toulouse, to take up my residence in the South\n  of France in 'a monastery which reason has recovered from\n  superstition.'\"\n\nPriestley's claim for damages amounted to \u00a33628, 8s. 9d. Hutton says his\nreal loss was upwards of \u00a34500 (Jewitt's _Life of Hutton_, p. 255). The\nCourt allowed \u00a32502, 18s. In the town of Birmingham property to the\nvalue of \u00a350,000 was destroyed, of which sum \u00a326,961, 2s. 3d. was\nfinally paid by a rate on the Hundred, in which Birmingham is included\n(Sam Timmins, _Trans. Midl. Inst._, 1875).\n\nLindsey, writing to his friend, Alexander of Yarmouth, under date\nOctober 15, 1791, mentioning Priestley, says:--\n\n  \"He is very well, and with his wonted cheerfulness, which has never\n  forsaken him. Sunday last he preached for me for the first time since\n  he has been expelled by fire and destruction out of his own place of\n  worship, and he does me that favour to-morrow again. He has at last,\n  though very reluctantly, and much to the concern of his late beloved\n  people, given up the thought of continuing the pastoral office among\n  them, as the exercise of it would not probably be consistent with his\n  personal safety and liberty; such is the temper of his many\n  adversaries still, and so hostile to him.\"\n\nThe managers of other Dissenting chapels had not the courage of Lindsey\nand begged that he would refrain from preaching to their congregations.\nEventually he was invited to take the position formerly occupied by his\nfriend Price.\n\nThe rancour of his enemies now broke out afresh, and the most persistent\nefforts were made to damage and disparage him in the eyes of his\ncongregation. His friends in the neighbourhood were advised to move\ntheir effects to some place of greater safety, as it was common rumour\nthat his house was to be attacked on the succeeding anniversary of the\nBirmingham riot. His servants were afraid to remain for any length of\ntime with him, and the tradespeople hesitated to take his custom. He was\nseveral times burnt in effigy along with Tom Paine. Coloured caricatures\nof him, of the grossest and coarsest kind, in which he was described as\n\"the treacherous rebel and Birmingham rioter\" were scattered broadcast.\nInsulting letters, in some of which he was likened to Guy Fawkes or the\ndevil himself, were sent to him from all parts of the country, even from\nmen calling themselves ministers of the Gospel. In one of these he was\nthreatened with being burned alive before a slow fire. The Rev. Dr\nTatham, Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford, whose biographer compared him\nwith Warburton (\"There is much of the same rough, unpolished strength in\nhis language\"), thus addressed him:--\n\n  \"Long have you been the Danger of this country, the Bane of its\n  Polity, and the Canker-worm of its Happiness. Long, too long, have\n  your Principles tended to bereave it of its Religion, its\n  Constitution, and consequently of its King.\"\n\nBurke, to his everlasting shame, inveighed against him in the House of\nCommons, and many of his associates in the Royal Society shunned him.\n\nHis position in the Society became eventually so irksome that he\nwithdrew from it, as he explains in the preface to his _Observations and\nExperiments on the Generation of Air from Water_, which he published in\npamphlet form at Hackney, with a dedication to the members of the Lunar\nSociety.\n\nIn a letter to Withering, written from Clapton, October 2, 1792, he\nsays:--\n\n  \"... One of the things that I regret the most in being expelled from\n  Birmingham is the loss of your company and that of the rest of the\n  Lunar Society. I feel I want the spur to constant exertion which I had\n  with you. My philosophical friends here are cold and distant. Mr\n  Cavendish never expressed the least concern on account of anything I\n  had suffered, though I joined a party with which he was, and talked\n  with them some time. I do not expect to have much intercourse with any\n  of them.\n\n  \"I have, however, nearly replaced my apparatus, and intend not to be\n  idle. I have already made some experiments relating to the _doctrine\n  of phlogiston_, and when I have made a few more shall probably write\n  something on the subject. I am surprised at the confidence with which\n  the French chemists write; but I cannot yet learn what they have to\n  object to my last paper in the _Philosophical Transactions_....\n\n  \"I was in hopes to have been able to pay my friends of Birm. a visit\n  long before this time, but was always discouraged, so that I have now\n  given up the thoughts of it, and must content myself with seeing as\n  many of them as I can here.... I do not, however, think I shall\n  continue here long. Though unwillingly, I shall some time hence follow\n  my son to France. But as I can _do_ nothing there I will stay here as\n  long as I can.\"\n\nTo what lengths the Government were determined to go was seen in their\nbanishment, in 1793, of Thomas Fyshe Palmer, a gentleman of a highly\nrespectable and opulent family in Bedfordshire, to Botany Bay for seven\nyears, because he had been concerned in publishing a paper in favour of\nParliamentary Reform; and in their treatment of Mr Winterbotham, a\nCalvinistic minister of Plymouth Dock, on account of his political\nopinions. The mock trial of Mr Winterbotham at Newgate and the four\nyears' imprisonment which followed it, created a wide-spread feeling of\nindignation and alarm, and many families were constrained to leave the\ncountry in disgust. Among them was Priestley's friend and\nfellow-sufferer, the worthy Mr Russell, who on his way to Boston, New\nEngland, was captured with his family by a French privateer and thrown\ninto prison in Brest.\n\nPriestley, at length, also determined to follow them. It was however\nwith the greatest reluctance that he came to that decision. It meant\nparting from affectionate and devoted friends to whom he was warmly\nattached, whose zeal to serve him and to minister to his wants far\noutweighed the hatred of those who sought to cover him with oblivion. It\nmeant too the relinquishment in large measure of his philosophical\npursuits since he could not hope to procure elsewhere the same\nfacilities for inquiry that he enjoyed here. More than all it seemed to\nmean the relinquishment of what was still dearer to him--his active\nefforts in the propagation of Unitarianism. Lastly it meant in all human\nprobability a lasting severance from the daughter to whom he was so\ntenderly attached. He was largely guided to his decision by\nconsideration for his sons, since, as he says, he found that the bigotry\nof the country in general made it impossible for him to place them here\nwith any advantage. His second son, William, had been some time in\nFrance, but on the breaking out of the troubles in that country he had\nembarked for America, where his two brothers, Joseph and Henry, met him.\nThey had a project of founding a settlement near the head of the\nSusquehanna in Pennsylvania, and several of Priestley's friends at home,\namong them Mr William Russell of Birmingham, a leader of the New\nMeeting-House, were directly interested in the scheme.\n\nPriestley at length decided to throw in his lot with his sons, and in\nthe preface to his _Fast and Farewell Sermons_, which he delivered to\nhis Hackney congregation on the eve of his departure, he gave his\nreasons for leaving the country:--\n\n  \"After the riots in Birmingham it was the expectation, and evidently\n  the wish of many persons, that I should immediately fly to France or\n  America. But I had no consciousness of guilt to induce me to fly from\n  my country. On the contrary, I came directly to London, and instantly,\n  by means of my friend, Mr Russell, signified to the King's ministers\n  that I _was_ there and ready, if they thought proper, to be\n  interrogated on the subject of the riots.\n\n  \"Ill-treated as I thought I had been, not merely by the populace of\n  Birmingham, for they were the mere tools of their superiors, but by\n  the country in general, which evidently exulted in our sufferings, and\n  afterwards by the representatives of the nation, who refused to\n  inquire into the cause of them, I own I was not without deliberating\n  upon the subject of emigration; and several flattering proposals were\n  made to me, especially from France, which was then at peace within\n  itself and with all the world; and I was at one time much inclined to\n  go thither, on account of its nearness to England, the agreeableness\n  of its climate, and my having many friends there.\n\n  \"But I likewise considered that if I went thither I should have no\n  employment of the kind to which I had been accustomed; and the season\n  of active life not being, according to the course of nature, quite\n  over, I wished to make as much use of it as I could. I therefore\n  determined to continue in England, exposed as I was not only to\n  unbounded obloquy and insult, but to every kind of outrage; and after\n  my invitation to succeed my friend Dr Price I had no hesitation about\n  it....\"\n\nHe then goes on to show how insecure his position was, and how\nimpossible it was to follow his avocations in peace, in face of the\nodium and insult he continually met with:--\n\n  \"These facts not only show how general was the idea of my particular\n  insecurity in this country, but what is of much more consequence, and\n  highly interesting to the country at large, an idea of the general\n  disposition to rioting and violence that prevails in it, and that the\n  Dissenters are the objects of it. Mr Pitt very justly observed, in his\n  speech on the subject of the riots at Birmingham, that it was 'the\n  effervescence of the public mind.' Indeed, the effervescible matter\n  has existed in this country ever since the civil wars in the time of\n  Charles I., and it was particularly apparent in the reign of Queen\n  Anne. But the power of Government under the former princes of the\n  House of Hanover prevented its doing any mischief. The late events\n  show that this power is no longer exerted as it used to be, but that\n  on the contrary there prevails an idea, well or ill founded, that\n  tumultuary proceedings against Dissenters will not receive any\n  effectual discouragement.\n\n  \"After what has taken place with respect to Birmingham, all idea of\n  much hazard for insulting and abusing the Dissenters is entirely\n  vanished; whereas the disposition to injure the Catholics was\n  effectually checked by the proceedings of the year 1780. From that\n  time they have been safe, and rejoice in it. But from the year 1791\n  the Dissenters have been more exposed to insult and outrage than ever.\n\n  \"The necessity I was under of sending my sons out of this country was\n  my principal inducement to send the little property that I had out of\n  it too; so that I had nothing in England besides my library, apparatus\n  and household goods.\n\n  \"By this I felt myself greatly relieved, it being of little\n  consequence where a man already turned sixty ends his days. Whatever\n  good or evil I have been capable of is now chiefly done; and I trust\n  that the same consciousness of integrity which has supported me\n  hitherto will carry me through anything that may yet be reserved for\n  me. Seeing, however, no great prospect of doing much good, or having\n  much enjoyment here, I am now preparing to follow my sons; hoping to\n  be of some use to them in their present unsettled state, and that\n  Providence may yet, advancing in years as I am, find me some sphere of\n  usefulness with them.\"\n\nHe then goes on to deal with the charge that he was a factious,\npolitical parson who preached sedition:--\n\n  \"As to the great odium that I have incurred, the charge of _sedition_,\n  or my being an enemy to the constitution or peace of my country, is a\n  mere pretence for it; though it has been so much urged that it is now\n  generally believed, and all attempts to undeceive the public with\n  respect to it avail nothing at all. The whole course of my studies\n  from early life shows how little _politics_ of any kind have been my\n  object. Indeed, to have written so much as I have in _theology_, and\n  to have done so much in _experimental philosophy_, and at the same\n  time to have had my mind occupied, as it is supposed to have been,\n  with factious politics, I must have had faculties more than human.\"\n\nIt is true, he says, he wrote a pamphlet \"On the State of Liberty in\nthis Country\" at the time of Wilkes's election for Middlesex, and at the\nrequest of Franklin he wrote an address to the Dissenters on the subject\nof the approaching rupture with America; but he has nothing to reproach\nhimself with on that score, and posterity agrees with him. His\nconnection with the Marquis of Lansdowne was in no sense political.\n\"Although,\" he says, \"I entered into almost all his views, as thinking\nthem just and liberal, I never wrote a single political pamphlet, or\neven a paragraph in a newspaper, all the time that I was with him, which\nwas seven years.\"\n\nHe had never preached a political sermon in his life, unless such as he\nbelieved all Dissenters usually preached on the 5th of November in\nfavour of civil and religious liberty may be said to be political. Even\non those occasions he had never advanced any sentiment that would have\nmade him until then obnoxious to the administration of this country. The\ndoctrines he adopted when young, and which were even popular then\n(except with the clergy, who were at that time generally disaffected to\nthe family on the throne), he could not now abandon merely because the\ntimes were so changed that they had become unpopular and the expression\nof them hazardous.\n\nAlthough he did not disapprove of societies for political information,\nhe never was a member of one, nor did he ever attend any public meeting\nif he could decently avoid it.\n\n  \"If, then, my real crime has not been _sedition_, or _treason_, what\n  has it been? For every _effect_ must have some adequate _cause_, and\n  therefore the odium that I have incurred must have been owing to\n  something in my declared sentiments or conduct that has exposed me to\n  it. In my opinion it cannot have been anything but my open hostility\n  to the doctrines of the Established Church, and more especially to all\n  civil establishments of religion whatever. This has brought upon me\n  the implacable resentment of the great body of the clergy; and they\n  have found other methods of opposing me besides _argument_ and that\n  use of the _press_ which is equally open to us all. They have also\n  found an able ally and champion in Mr Burke, who (without any\n  provocation except that of answering his book on the French\n  Revolution) has taken several opportunities of inveighing against me\n  in a place where he knows I cannot reply to him, and from which he\n  also knows that his accusation will reach every corner of the country\n  and consequently thousands of persons who will never read any writings\n  of mine. They have had another, and still more effectual vehicle of\n  their abuse in what are called the _treasury newpapers_, and other\n  popular publications.\n\n                                . . . . . . .\n\n  \"I could, if I were so disposed, give my readers many more instances\n  of the bigotry of the clergy of the Church of England with respect to\n  me which could not fail to excite in generous minds equal indignation\n  and contempt: but I forbear. Had I, however, foreseen what I am now\n  witness to, I certainly should not have made any attempt to replace my\n  library or apparatus, and I soon repented of having done it. But this\n  being done, I was willing to make some use of both before another\n  interruption of my pursuits.... I hoped to have had no occasion for\n  more than one, and that a final, remove. But the circumstances above\n  mentioned have induced me, though with great and sincere regret, to\n  undertake another, and to a greater distance than any that I have\n  hitherto made.... And I trust that the same good Providence which has\n  attended me hitherto, and made me happy in my present situation, and\n  all my former ones, will attend and bless me in which may still be\n  before me. In all events the will of God be done.\n\n  \"I cannot refrain from repeating again that I leave my native country\n  with real regret, never expecting to find anywhere else society so\n  suited to my disposition and habits, such friends as I have here\n  (whose attachment has been more than a balance to all the abuse I have\n  met with from others), and especially to replace one particular\n  Christian friend, in whose absence I shall, for some time at least,\n  find all the world a blank. Still less can I expect to resume my\n  favourite pursuits with anything like the advantages I enjoy here. In\n  leaving this country I also abandon a source of maintenance which I\n  can but ill bear to lose. I can, however, truly say that I leave it\n  without any resentment or ill-will. On the contrary, I sincerely wish\n  my countrymen all happiness; and when the time for reflection (which\n  my absence may accelerate) shall come they will, I am confident, do me\n  more justice. They will be convinced that every suspicion they have\n  been led to entertain to my disadvantage has been ill founded, and\n  that I have even some claim to their gratitude and esteem. In this\n  case I shall look with satisfaction to the time when, if my life be\n  prolonged, I may visit my friends in this country; and perhaps I may,\n  notwithstanding my removal for the present, find a grave (as I believe\n  is naturally the wish of every man) in the land that gave me birth.\"\n\nAs the time of his departure drew near his friends vied with each other\nin their expressions of esteem and affection and many evidences of their\nregret were offered to him. Among these was a silver inkstand from some\nof his admirers in the University of Cambridge, on which was an\ninscription of their sorrow \"that this expression of their esteem should\nbe occasioned by the ingratitude of their country.\"\n\nOn April 8, 1794, Priestley and his wife set sail from London, and\narrived at New York on June 4.\n\nOn the way out he wrote some _Observations on the Cause of the Present\nPrevalence of Infidelity_, which he prefixed to a new edition of his\n_Letters to the Philosophers and Politicians of France_.\n\nAlas! one of the most distinguished of those philosophers and\npoliticians was even then no more. Coffinhal had pronounced his\njudgment, declaring \"the Republic has no need of men of science,\" and\nwhilst Priestley was on the high seas his great protagonist, Lavoisier,\nmore unfortunate even than he, met his death on the scaffold.\n\n  \"Such was the treatment bestowed upon the best of their citizens by\n  two nations which considered themselves as without exception the most\n  civilised and enlightened in the world!\"\n\nPriestley was well received in New York, many people meeting him on\nlanding, and he was presented with addresses of welcome from various\nsocieties. After a stay of about a fortnight he proceeded to\nPhiladelphia and received an address from the American Philosophical\nSociety, and by a unanimous vote of the trustees was offered the\nProfessorship of Chemistry in the University of Philadelphia.\n\nIn the following July, in order to escape from the heat of the city, he\nmoved to Northumberland, a town about a hundred and thirty miles\nnorth-west of Philadelphia and situated at the confluence of the\nnorth-east and west branches of the Susquehanna, near to which place his\neldest son, together with certain other persons, mainly Englishmen,\nprojected a settlement. Priestley himself had no pecuniary interest, as\nhas been stated, in the undertaking, and he was not consulted in its\nformation, nor had he even decided to join it if carried into effect. We\nlearn from his son's account that the scheme of settlement was not to be\nconfined to any particular class or character of men, religious or\npolitical. It was set on foot to be, as it were, a rallying point for\nthe English, who were at that period emigrating to America in great\nnumbers, and who, it was thought, would be more happy in society of the\nkind they had been accustomed to than they would be if dispersed through\nthe whole of the States.\n\nOwing to disagreements among the projectors, the scheme of the\nsettlement fell through. Priestley, however, who was charmed with the\nbeauty of its situation and the nature of its surroundings, determined\nto settle at Northumberland. Although at that time remote from any\nconsiderable town it was obviously destined to become a great\nthoroughfare. It was apparently healthy and less enervating, at least in\nsummer time, than Philadelphia. Living was cheaper there than in that\ncity, and he would be more free from care and more at liberty to follow\nhis own pursuits than if burdened with the responsibilities of teaching.\nLastly, his poor wife, who had never recovered from the shock of the\nBirmingham riots, needed rest and quiet. On these grounds, therefore, he\ndecided to decline the offer of the Professorship at Philadelphia, as\nwell as an invitation to take charge of an Unitarian congregation at New\nYork, and to spend his remaining days in peace and retirement on the\nbeautiful spot he had chosen. The year before his death he was offered\nthe principalship of the University of Pennsylvania in succession to Dr\nEuen, but this office also he declined.\n\nOn his first settling at Northumberland in 1795 he was mainly occupied\nwith his theological and metaphysical studies. During this year he\npublished the work which had occupied him during his voyage from\nEngland, his _Fast and Farewell Sermons_, some tracts in defence of\nUnitarianism, and the third part of his _Letters to a Philosophical\nUnbeliever_, in answer to Paine's _Age of Reason_, and he continued his\n_Church History from the Fall of the Western Empire to the Reformation_.\nIn the house he had first occupied, which was barely sufficient in size\nto contain the family, he had little opportunity or convenience for\ndoing experimental work.\n\nStill, he made some observations on the analysis of air, and continued\nhis inquiries on the generation of air from water.\n\nHaving determined to make Northumberland his home, he proceeded to build\na house more suitable to his needs and pursuits, and, as his letters of\nthe period show, its planning and arrangement gave him much thought and\ngreatly interested him.\n\nThe house, which still exists, is similar in character to many\nmiddle-class American houses built in the country, a plain substantial\nerection, covered with match-boarding and fitted with jalousies, and to\nthe front a loggia or verandah. The laboratory is a small building to\nthe side, partially shaded by a large, wide-spreading tree.\n\nIn the autumn of this year he lost his youngest son, Henry, a bright and\nintelligent youth, of whom he was remarkably fond. This loss greatly\naffected him, for he had hopes that the young man would follow him in\nhis theological and philosophical pursuits, to which he had shown an\ninclination. The death of his son was even more profoundly felt by his\nwife, whose health and spirits now began rapidly to decline, and she too\npassed away a few months later.\n\n  \"Through life,\" says her son, \"she had been truly a helpmeet for him;\n  supporting him under all his trials and sufferings with a constancy\n  and perseverance truly praiseworthy, and who, as he himself, in noting\n  the event in his diary, justly observes, 'was of a noble and generous\n  mind, and cared much for others and little for herself through life.'\"\n\nAt about this period he preached and printed another of his defences of\nUnitarianism and completed his _Church History_, and began the\ncompilation of his last treatise in defence of phlogiston.\n\nHe spent the spring of 1796 in Philadelphia, where he delivered a series\nof lectures on the evidences of revelation to crowded audiences,\nincluding most of the members of the United States Congress, at that\ntime sitting in Philadelphia, and of the executive officers of the\nGovernment. He delivered a second series on the same subject in the\nspring of the following year, but with less success, partly owing, his\nson imagines, to the novelty of the thing having passed away, and partly\nfrom prejudices that began to be excited against him on account of his\nsupposed political principles. In reality Priestley took even less\ninterest in the politics of America than he had done in those of his own\ncountry. He seldom read the debates in Congress, and beyond Adams and\nJefferson he knew few of the leading politicians. He never attended a\npolitical meeting or took part directly or indirectly in an election,\nand excepting an article in a newspaper called \"Aurora,\" or \"Maxims of\nPolitical Arithmetic,\" and signed \"A Quaker in Politics,\" he wrote\nnothing on the subject of politics. At that period political feeling ran\nhigh and politics were the one subject of conversation, and to some\nextent, therefore, he could not escape their discussion, but it was\nnoticed that he always argued on the side of liberty. As regards British\npolitics his speculations went no further than a reform in Parliament,\nsuch as that which was accomplished less than thirty years after his\ndeath. He had no desire to see changed the constitution of the kingdom\nas vested in King, Lords and Commons.\n\n  \"He used frequently to say,\" says his son, \"and it was said of him,\n  that though he was an Unitarian in religion he was in that country a\n  Trinitarian in politics. When he came to America he found reason to\n  change his opinions, and he became a decided friend to the general\n  principles and practice of a completely representative Government,\n  founded upon universal suffrage, and excluding hereditary privileges,\n  as it exists in this country. This change was naturally produced by\n  observing the ease and happiness with which the people lived, and the\n  unexampled prosperity of the country.\"\n\nBut in his feelings he was still an Englishman. He never was\nnaturalised, saying that as he had been born and had lived an Englishman\nhe would die one, let what might be the consequence.\n\nTowards the end of 1797 his new library and laboratory were finished,\nhis books once more arranged and much of his old apparatus installed. He\nfound workmen in Northumberland who could repair his instruments and\nmake such new ones as he wanted. He was thus able to resume the kind of\nlife he led at Birmingham, spending much of the day in the laboratory or\nalternately in his study, sometimes engaged on experimental philosophy,\nat other times in the composition of the theological works which seemed\nto flow in an unending stream from his pen. He delighted to walk in his\ngarden and to view the beautiful prospect it afforded him of the river\nand the distant landscape. He had, too, a kindly interest in the whole\ncommunity, and noted with pleasure the many little improvements going\nforward in and about the town. There was no apparent abatement in the\nvigour of his mind or in the keenness and enthusiasm with which he\nfollowed the extraordinary expansion of the science he loved so well\nduring the opening years of the nineteenth century. In a letter to\nHumphry Davy, then at the outset of his brilliant career, he says:--\n\n  \"It gives me peculiar satisfaction that, as I am far advanced in life\n  and cannot expect to do much more, I shall leave so able a\n  fellow-labourer of my own country in the great fields of experimental\n  philosophy.... I rejoice that you are so young a man; and perceiving\n  the ardour with which you begin your career I have no doubts of your\n  success.\"\n\nThe following letter to his old friend Mrs Barbauld, with whom he kept\nup a correspondence to the last, gives some account of his condition at\nthis time:--\n\n  \"Dear Madam,--This will, I hope, be delivered, as it will be conveyed\n  by my son. How happy should I think myself to wait on you and Mr\n  Barbauld in person. Should there be a _peace_, I do promise myself\n  that pleasure, but at present this great blessing seems to be at a\n  great distance. How many melancholy changes have taken place since I\n  left England, and among these is the death of Dr Enfield, a man at\n  least ten years younger than me, and to appearance more healthy. I am\n  also much alarmed at the accounts I receive of your brother [Dr John\n  Aiken], whom I left in perfect health, but the last were rather more\n  favourable. His life is of great value, both to his relatives,\n  acquaintances and the world at large, few men having been more\n  usefully employed. I am willing to hope he is yet reserved for more\n  usefulness.\n\n  \"When I compare the perturbed state of Europe with the quiet of this\n  place I wish all my friends were here, provided they could find\n  sufficient employment to be happy; but if they be like myself they\n  must be content to be idle, except so far as they can make themselves\n  employment in their closets. My library and laboratory sufficiently\n  occupy me, and of common society I have as much as I want. A few more\n  _rational Christians_ to form a society would make this place a\n  paradise to me, and this would be wanting in many parts of England.\n\n  \"It is a pleasure to be in a place that is continually and visibly\n  improving, and this is the case here to an astonishing degree. In\n  every year we find a very sensible difference, and in all probability\n  improvements of all kind will go on more rapidly than ever. Nature has\n  done everything that can be done for any place. Perhaps you have seen\n  the views of it taken by Miss Daich. They are not by any means too\n  flattering.\n\n  \"Could I have my daughter here I should be happy indeed. But this, I\n  fear, is not likely to be accomplished, owing to the strange obstinacy\n  and prejudice of Mr Finch. Her trials must be very great, but she is\n  naturally cheerful, and has a strong sense of _religion_, which, I\n  hope, will support her. This, sufficiently impressed, will make us\n  equal to everything. Your kindness to her affects me much. _A friend\n  in need is a friend indeed._ Something will, I hope, be done for her\n  before my son returns, but what it can be I do not know. Her uncle has\n  some proposal to make to my son in her favour, but the obstinacy of Mr\n  Finch may defeat everything.\n\n  \"You have obliged me very much by the exquisite little poem you sent\n  me. I hope you will add to the obligation by the communication of the\n  fragment on the 'Game of Chess,' or any other little piece you may\n  think proper to send me. You had no copy of your first poem to my\n  wife, or I should value _that_ above any other, and also the little\n  poem you wrote on the birth of Joseph.\n\n  \"I shall always be very happy to hear from you; and, with my best\n  respects to Mr Barbauld, I am, dear Madam, yours sincerely,\n                                                           J. Priestley.\n\n  \"Northumberland, _Dec. 23, 1798_.\n  \"Mrs Barbauld, Hampstead,\n        near London.\"\n\nHis son has given us a faithful picture of his closing years and of the\nserenity of the evening of his life.\n\n  \"For the last four years of his life he lived under an administration,\n  the principles and practice of which he perfectly approved, and with\n  Mr Jefferson, the head of that administration, he frequently\n  corresponded, and they had for each other a mutual regard and esteem.\n  He enjoyed the esteem of the wisest and best men in the country,\n  particularly at Philadelphia, where his religion and his politics did\n  not prevent his being kindly and cheerfully received by great numbers\n  of opposite opinions in both, who thus paid homage to his knowledge\n  and virtue.\"\n\nIn 1800 he put together his last scientific work, and the one which he\nregarded as the crown of all his efforts, _viz._, his _Doctrine of\nPhlogiston Established_. It can never be said of Priestley that he was\nto one thing constant never: versatile as he was, and with an\nextraordinary capacity for adaptation and change in matters of\nphilosophy and theological doctrine, he was ever constant to phlogiston.\n\nDuring the spring of 1801, whilst on a visit to Philadelphia, he had an\nattack of fever from which he never wholly recovered. It left him\npredisposed to the fever and ague at that time prevalent at\nNorthumberland and he had a succession of attacks which weakened him\ngreatly. Nevertheless, his spirits were uniformly good and his\ncomplacency and cheerfulness of manner never left him; and although he\nwas incapable of taking much physical exercise and had to give up\nworking in his garden, he spent a considerable amount of time in his\nlaboratory, experimenting with all the enthusiasm and eagerness of his\nmost active period with the newly-discovered pile of Volta, and sending\nhis results to _Nicholson's Journal_.\n\nIn 1802 he was enabled to send his _Church History_ to press, owing to\nthe action of his friends in England, who, unknown to him, had set a\nsubscription on foot sufficient to cover the expense of publication.\n\nAlthough he was obviously failing in strength, owing to gastric\ntroubles, he continued to work on either in his study or in his\nlaboratory. He sent a couple of papers to the American Philosophical\nSociety on scientific subjects, and he published an essay on _Jesus and\nSocrates Compared_. In the November of 1803 it was evident that his end\nwas approaching. Still he struggled on, hoping by careful attention to\nhis diet he might still see the spring. He told the physician who\nattended him that if he could but patch him up for six months longer he\nshould be perfectly satisfied, as he should in that time be able to\ncomplete the printing of his works. So precarious did he consider his\nlife that he took the precaution of transcribing one day in longhand\nwhat he had composed the day before in shorthand, that he might by that\nmeans leave the work complete as far as it went should he not live to\nfinish the whole.\n\nWith the beginning of 1804 his weakness had greatly increased. In his\ndiary for January 31 he notes:--\"Ill all day--not able to speak for\nnearly three hours.\" Still he rose, dressed and shaved himself (which he\nnever omitted doing every morning till within two days of his death),\nwent to his laboratory and lit his fire, but found his weakness so great\nthat he was obliged to get back to his study. During the next and\nfollowing days he was better, and was able to see to the correction of\nhis proof-sheets, but on February 4 he took to his bed, although he was\nable to read and look over a sheet of proof and to check the Greek and\nHebrew quotations.\n\n  \"In the course of the day,\" says his son, \"he expressed his gratitude\n  in being permitted to die quietly in his family, without pain, with\n  every convenience and comfort he could wish for. He dwelt upon the\n  peculiarly happy situation in which it had pleased the Divine Being to\n  place him in life, and the great advantage he had enjoyed in the\n  acquaintance and friendship of some of the best and wisest men in the\n  age in which he lived, and the satisfaction he derived from having led\n  a useful as well as a happy life.\"\n\nIn the evening he had his grandchildren brought to his bedside, saying\nit gave him great pleasure to see the little things kneel. After prayers\nthey wished him a good-night and he gave each his blessing, exhorting\nthem all to continue to love each other.\n\n  \"And you, little thing,\" speaking to the youngest, \"remember the hymn\n  you learned: 'Birds in their little nests agree.' I am going to sleep\n  as well as you; for death is only a good long sleep in the grave, and\n  we shall meet again.\"\n\nHe lingered through the night, and in the early morning requested his\nson to take down some additions and alterations he wished inserted in\nhis proofs, dictating as clearly and distinctly as he had ever done in\nhis life. When these were read to him he said, \"That is right; I have\nnow done.\" Shortly afterwards he put his hand to his face and breathed\nhis last so easy that those who were sitting close to him hardly\nperceived he had passed away.\n\nWhat was mortal of him now rests in a little hill-side cemetery\noverlooking the beautiful river. The spot is marked with a simple\nheadstone on which is engraven--\n\n                                   To\n                           the memory of the\n                       Revd. Dr JOSEPH PRIESTLEY,\n                         who departed this life\n                         on the 6th Feby. 1804.\n                           Anno. \u00c6tatis LXXI.\n\n  \"Return unto thy rest, O my soul, for the\n  Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee.\n  I will lay me down in peace and sleep till\n  I awake in the morning of the resurrection.\"\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XI\n\n\n  Priestley as a man of science--His characteristics as a\n  philosopher--_Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of\n  Air_--His discovery of the influence of vegetation on vitiated\n  air--Atmospheric air not elementary--His researches on nitric\n  oxide--Eudiometry--Nitrous oxide--Discovers hydrogen\n  chloride--Prepares oxygen from nitre (1771)--Isolates ammonia\n  gas--Discovers sulphur dioxide--Dephlogisticated air\n  (oxygen)--Discovers silicon fluoride--Intra-diffusion of\n  gases--Respiration--Priestley's opinions of the value of experimental\n  science in education--Discovers nitrosulphuric acid--Notes the\n  constancy of composition of the atmosphere--Prepares chlorine--Sound\n  in \"air\"--Experiments relating to phlogiston--The seeming conversion\n  of water into air--Watt and the compound nature of water--Discovers\n  sulphuretted hydrogen--Priestley's confession of faith in phlogiston.\n\nPriestley's position in the history of science mainly rests on his\ndiscoveries in pneumatic chemistry. The course of inquiry which he began\nat Leeds was continued by him, with characteristic assiduity and\nconspicuous success, at Calne, and his labours added largely to the\nnumber of the aeriform bodies which were clearly recognised as distinct\nsubstances, essentially differing from each other, and not merely\nmodifications of a common principle, modified or affected by properties\nmore or less fortuitous and accidental. The old idea of the nature of\n\"air\" had its origin in the doctrine of the Four Elements. It is\nPriestley's merit that he, more than any man of his time, contributed to\nthe overthrow of this conception as the basis of a philosophical system\nof the constitution of the material universe. Although Priestley could\nnot be unmindful that his claim to scientific fame was to be found in\nthe succession of volumes which he called _Experiments and Observations\non Different Kinds of Air_, the very title suggests that he, at all\nevents in the outset, was hardly conscious of the magnitude and true\nsignificance of his work. Priestley was in no real sense a speculative\nphilosopher: he was indeed pre-eminently the type of man whom Hobbes\ndisparaged as an \"experimentarian philosopher,\" and an experimentarian\nphilosopher he remained to the end of his days. He was aware of his\nlimitations, and many passages from his works, and especially from his\ncorrespondence, might be quoted in proof of this fact. His simple,\nunaffected candour was indeed one of the charms of his character and the\nsecret of much of his influence. It is reflected in every page of his\nscientific writings. His own discoveries, taken collectively, did more\nthan those of any one of his contemporaries to uproot and destroy the\nonly generalisation by which his immediate predecessors had sought to\ngroup and connect the phenomena of chemistry, but he was wholly unable\nto perceive this fact. A patient and industrious observer, absolutely\ntruthful, and, as he hoped and believed, unbiassed and impartial, he was\nnevertheless entirely lacking in the higher qualities of the imagination\nor in that power of divination which is the characteristic of men of the\ntype of Newton. The contrast between Priestley--the social, political\nand theological reformer, always in advance of his times, receptive,\nfearless and insistent; and Priestley the man of science--timorous and\nhalting when he might well be bold, conservative and orthodox when\nalmost every other active worker was heterodox and progressive--is most\nstriking. And yet, such is the irony of circumstance, Priestley's name\nmainly lives as that of a chemical philosopher. When men have desired to\ndo him honour, and have sought to perpetuate his memory by statues in\npublic places, he is generally represented as making a chemical\nexperiment. In reality, great as Priestley's merit is as an\nexperimentarian philosopher, his greater claim on our regard and esteem\nrests upon his struggles and his sufferings in the cause of civil,\npolitical and religious liberty.\n\nThe years which Priestley spent at Calne constitute the most fruitful\nperiod of his scientific career. Practically all that he did in the way\nof solid achievement and of addition to the armoury of science was\neffected during that time. Although, after leaving Lord Shelburne, he\ncontinued to pursue scientific inquiry with his wonted zeal and\nindustry, doubtless adding thereby to his fame among his contemporaries,\nposterity has set the true measure of appreciation to his later efforts.\nHe doubtless made many hundreds of experiments in connection with more\nor less well-defined trains of inquiry; nevertheless, it cannot be\nmaintained that during his subsequent period he added many first-rate\nfacts to our knowledge, or indeed discovered any facts at all comparable\nin importance with those he ascertained during his life in Wiltshire. On\nthe contrary, what he did observe--as for example the seeming conversion\nof water into air--too frequently led him astray and was the cause of\nerror to himself and others. Thus Watt's claim to be considered as an\nindependent, if not the first and true, discoverer of the real chemical\nnature of water is based upon Priestley's experimental blunders. Watt\nwas undoubtedly accurate in his surmise, but the surmise was right in\nspite of, and not by reason of, Priestley's experimental evidence.\nPriestley recorded his experiments with such fulness that it is now easy\nto perceive where he went wrong. He was constantly on the verge of a\ndiscovery, sometimes indeed of a discovery of cardinal importance, but\nas constantly it eluded his grasp. The experiments on the seeming\nconversion of water into air might have led him, when he got over his\nchagrin on the detection of the real cause of his error, to the\nrecognition of the underlying truth in it, namely, the principle of the\ndiffusion of gases. He was, of course, familiar with the fact that the\nvarious gases he discovered, or which were known to him, differed in\nrelative density, and he knew perfectly well that they tended to escape\nfrom the bottles in which they were contained if these were uncovered\nand freely exposed to the air. But, so far as we can learn, he never\nseems to have pondered on these facts, or noted their connection with\nthe phenomena he observed in the course of his many experiments with\nWedgwood's retorts, and of the interchange of the water vapour he\nintroduced into them with the gases of the fire which heated them. And\nyet, had he perceived even a glimmer of the truth he had sufficient\nmeans at his disposal, and sufficient knowledge from his own work and\nthat of his contemporaries, to make the great step which it was reserved\nto Graham to accomplish half a century later.\n\nWhilst the chief importance of the _Experiments and Observations on\nDifferent Kinds of Air_ is that it is Priestley's _magnum opus_, to his\nbiographer it has the additional interest of affording an insight into\nthe personal character and intellectual attributes of its author. Few\nwriters on scientific subjects have ever taken their readers so\ncompletely into their confidence as Priestley. Whatever he knows or\nthinks he tells: doubts, perplexities, blunders are set down with the\nmost refreshing candour; one forgives the prolixity and occasional\ntediousness, even the little touches of self-satisfaction, in view of\nthe transparent honesty of purpose, the single-minded pursuit of truth\nfor its own sake, wholly apart from preconception or bias of dogma which\nshine on every page. As key-notes to character, even the dedications and\nprefaces to the several volumes have their peculiar value and charm, as\nevidence of the workings of an ingenuous mind.\n\nThe publication of the six volumes comprising the original work--the\nedition of greatest value to Priestley's biographer--extended from 1775\nto 1786. Although the space at our disposal precludes any attempt at a\nfull account of the contents, it is necessary to set these out in such\ndetail as may serve to afford a just idea of their value, and with such\ncomment as may be necessary to elucidate their significance.\n\nIn the preface to the first volume, which made its appearance in 1775,\nwith a dedication to Lord Shelburne, Priestley thinks it necessary to\nexplain why he has decided, contrary to his original intention, but with\nthe approbation of the President and of his friends in the Royal\nSociety, not to send them any more papers on the subject of \"Air\" at\npresent but to make immediate publication of all he has done with\nrespect to it. In view, he says, of the rapid progress that has been\nmade and may be expected to be made in this branch of knowledge,\n\"unnecessary delays in the publication of experiments relating to it are\npeculiarly unjustifiable.\"\n\n  \"When, for the sake of a little more reputation, men can keep brooding\n  over a new fact, in the discovery of which they might possibly have\n  very little real merit, till they think they can astonish the world\n  with a system as complete as it is new, and give mankind a prodigious\n  idea of their judgment and penetration, they are justly punished for\n  their ingratitude to the fountain of all knowledge, and for the want\n  of a genuine love of science and of mankind in finding their boasted\n  discoveries anticipated and the field of honest fame pre-occupied by\n  men who, from a natural ardour of mind, engage in philosophical\n  pursuits, and with an ingenuous simplicity immediately communicate to\n  others whatever occurs to them in their inquiries.\"\n\nPriestley's productions, from the very nature of the case make no\npretensions to completeness.\n\n  \"In completing one discovery we never fail to get an imperfect\n  knowledge of others of which we could have no idea before, so that we\n  cannot solve one doubt without creating several new ones.\"\n\nHe farther observes that a person who means to serve the cause of\nscience effectually must hazard his own reputation so far as to risk\neven _mistakes_ in things of less moment.\n\n  \"Among a multiplicity of new objects and new relations some will\n  necessarily pass without sufficient attention; but if a man be not\n  mistaken in the principal objects of his pursuits he has no occasion\n  to distress himself about lesser things.\n\n  \"In the progress of his inquiries he will generally be able to rectify\n  his own mistakes; or if little and envious souls should take a\n  malignant pleasure in detecting them for him and endeavouring to\n  expose him, he is not worthy of the name of a philosopher if he has\n  not strength of mind sufficient to enable him not to be disturbed at\n  it. He who does not foolishly affect to be above the failings of\n  humanity will not be mortified when it is proved that he is but a\n  man.\"\n\nHe made it a rule to disclose the real views with which he made his\nexperiments. Although, he says, by following a contrary maxim he might\nhave acquired a character of greater sagacity, he thought that two good\nends were secured by his method--one as tending to make his narrative\nmore interesting, and the other as encouraging other adventurers in\nexperimental philosophy by showing them that by pursuing even false\nlights real and important truths may be discovered, and that in seeking\none thing we often find another. He believes, however, that he writes\nmore concisely than is usual with those who publish accounts of their\nexperiments, and in thus refraining from swelling his book \"to a pompous\nand respectable size\" he trusts he will earn the gratitude of those\nphilosophers who, having but little time to spare for _reading_, which\nis always the case with those who _do_ much themselves, will thereby be\nkept not too long from their own pursuits. He then comments on what he\njustly considers the amazing improvements in natural knowledge which\nhave been made within the century, and contrasts these with the\ncomparative poverty as regards scientific results of the many preceding\nages, which yet abounded with men who had no other object but study; and\nhe rejoices to think that this rapid progress of knowledge, extending\nitself not this way or that way only, but in all directions, will be the\nmeans of extirpating all error and prejudice and of putting an end to\nall undue and usurped authority in the business of religion as well as\nof science.\n\n  \"It was ill policy in Leo the Tenth to patronise polite literature. He\n  was cherishing an enemy in disguise. And the English hierarchy (if\n  there be anything unsound in its constitution) has equal reason to\n  tremble even at an air-pump or an electrical machine.\"\n\nHe regrets that the rich and great in this country, unmindful of the\nexample of Bacon, give less attention to these matters than do men of\nrank and fortune in other countries: he contrasts the pleasure of the\npursuit of science with the pains and penalties of the pursuit of\npolitics.\n\n  \"If extensive and lasting fame be at all an object, literary, and\n  especially scientifical, pursuits are preferable to political ones in\n  a variety of respects.... If extensive usefulness be the object,\n  science has the same advantage over politics. The greatest success in\n  the latter seldom extends farther than one particular country and one\n  particular age, whereas a successful pursuit of science makes a man\n  the benefactor of all mankind and of every age. How trifling is the\n  fame of any statesman that this country has ever produced to that of\n  Lord Bacon, of Newton, or of Boyle; and how much greater are our\n  obligations to such men as these than to any other in the whole\n  _Biographia Britannica_.\"\n\nIt would be interesting to know the sentiments of Lord Shelburne, then\nin the cold shade of retirement, as he perused these passages, and\nwhether he realised the truth of the little homily from his \"tame\nphilosopher.\"\n\nThe preface is followed by an introduction, in which Priestley gives a\nrapid and confessedly imperfect survey of the state of knowledge\nconcerning \"air\" prior to 1774. He gives to Boyle the credit of first\nclearly recognising that elastic fluids exist differing essentially from\nthe air of the atmosphere, but agreeing with it in the properties of\nweight, elasticity and transparency. But he also points out that two\nremarkable kinds of factitious air had long been known to miners, viz.,\n_choke damp_, which is heavier than air, which lies at the bottom of\npits, extinguishes flame and kills animals; and the other, called _fire\ndamp_, which is lighter than common air, is found, therefore, near the\nroofs of subterraneous places and is liable to take fire and explode\nlike gunpowder. \"The word _damp_ signifies _vapour_ or _exhalation_ in\nthe German and Saxon languages.\"\n\n  \"Air of the former kind, besides having been discovered in various\n  caverns, particularly the Grotta del Cane in Italy, had also been\n  observed on the surface of fermenting liquors, and had been called\n  _gas_ (which is the same with _geist_, or _spirit_) by Van Helmont and\n  other German chemists; but afterwards it obtained the name of _fixed\n  air_, especially after it had been discovered by Dr Black of Edinburgh\n  to exist, in a fixed state, in alkaline salts, chalk, and other\n  calcareous substances.\"\n\nBlack's work is dealt with in half a dozen lines, and a passing\nreference is made to Macbride and Brownrigg. A very imperfect account is\ngiven of the work of Hales, although it is stated that \"his experiments\nare so numerous and various that they are justly esteemed to be the\nsolid foundation of all our knowledge of this subject.\" This section\nconcludes with the mention of Cavendish's determinations of the relative\nweights of fixed air (carbon dioxide), and inflammable air from metals\n(hydrogen), and of Lane's observations that water charged with carbonic\nacid will dissolve iron, \"and thereby become a strong chalybeate.\"\n\nPriestley was the last man in the world to seek to disparage the work of\nhis predecessors or to minimise what was due to them. In reality he had\nthe intention, as he distinctly states, to write at his leisure the\nhistory and present state of discoveries relating to air, in a manner\nsimilar to his _History of Electricity_, and of the _Discoveries\nRelating to Vision, Light and Colours_, when no doubt he would have done\nfull justice to all concerned. In the meantime he gives only such\nparticulars as are necessary, in his judgment, to the understanding of\nhis own work.\n\nThe remaining section of the introduction deals with his method of\nexperimenting and with the apparatus he employed. It is of historical\ninterest as containing a description of that most useful article of\nchemical furniture, his well-known pneumatic trough. He explains its use\nand gives details of his modes of manipulation. What an advance these\nwere in simplicity, ingenuity and convenience can only be fully realised\nby comparing his methods with those of Hales. Not the least of\nPriestley's services to science were the improvements he effected in\nthat section of operative chemistry which is concerned with the\npreparation, collection and storage of gaseous substances.\n\nThe main body of the volume is divided into two parts--the first dealing\nwith observations made in and before 1772, the second with observations\nmade in the year 1773 and in the beginning of 1774. In the outset\nPriestley finds himself at a disadvantage in regard to the only terms at\nthat time in vogue for the factitious airs, viz., _fixed_, _mephitic_\nand _inflammable_, which, he rightly says, are not sufficiently\ncharacteristic and distinct. Strictly speaking, any two of these terms\nmight be applied to any one of the \"airs\" then known. The inflammable\nair from metals, as well as choke damp, is noxious, and therefore\nmephitic, as is fixed air, and since the inflammable airs are,\napparently, capable of being imbibed by certain substances they may\nequally be considered fixable. The term _fixed air_ had, however,\nacquired a distinctive meaning, and rather than introduce a new term or\nchange the signification of an old one, he would, with his\ncontemporaries, restrict the term to the air which had been made the\nsubject of Black's memorable investigation. The first paper in this\nsection deals with fixed air; it is practically a reprint of that in the\n_Phil. Trans._ and which has already been described in sufficient\ndetail. In the course of his experiments he says he once thought that\nthe readiest method of procuring fixed air, and in sufficient purity,\nwould be to heat pounded lime-stone in a gun barrel, \"making it pass\nthrough the stem of a tobacco pipe or a glass tube carefully luted to\nthe orifice of it.\"\n\n  \"In this manner I found that air is produced in great plenty; but,\n  upon examining it, I found to my great surprise that little more than\n  one half of it was fixed air, capable of being absorbed by water; and\n  that the rest was inflammable, sometimes very weakly, but sometimes\n  pretty highly so.\"\n\nHe surmised that this \"air\" must come from the iron, and yet, he noted,\nit differed from the ordinary inflammable air from iron by the\nremarkable blue colour of its flame, and he concludes that \"this\ninflammable principle may come from some remains of the animals from\nwhich it is thought that all calcareous matter proceeds.\" Priestley, we\nnow know, had incidentally converted some of the fixed air into the only\nother oxide of carbon, but he failed to appreciate the significance of\nhis observation, and the credit of the discovery of carbon monoxide\nbelongs to Cruikshank.\n\nIn his next paper on \"Air in which Candles have burned,\" Priestley made\na discovery of the very highest importance. He had attempted to verify\nwithout success the allegation by the Count de Saluce, made in the\nmemoirs of the Philosophical Society of Turin, that air vitiated by the\ncombustion of candles could be restored by exposure to cold.\n\n  \"Though this experiment failed,\" he says, \"I have been so happy as by\n  accident to have hit upon a method of restoring air which has been\n  injured by the burning of candles, and to have discovered at least one\n  of the restoratives which Nature employs for this purpose. It is\n  _vegetation_. This restoration of vitiated air, I conjecture, is\n  effected by plants imbibing the phlogistic matter with which it is\n  overloaded by the burning of inflammable bodies. But whether there be\n  any foundation for this conjecture or not, the fact is, I think,\n  indisputable.\"\n\nHe then proceeds to give an account of his observations on the growing\nof plants in confined air which led to his discovery.\n\n  \"One might have imagined,\" he says, \"that since common air is\n  necessary to vegetable as well as to animal life, both plants and\n  animals had affected it in the same manner; and I own I had that\n  expectation when I first put a sprig of mint into a glass jar standing\n  inverted in a vessel of water: but when it had continued there for\n  some months I found the air would neither extinguish the candle, nor\n  was it at all inconvenient to a mouse, which I put into it.... Finding\n  that candles would burn very well in air in which plants had grown a\n  long time, and having had some reason to think that there was\n  something attending vegetation which restored air that had been\n  injured by respiration, I thought it was possible that the same\n  process might also restore the air that had been injured by the\n  burning of candles.\n\n  \"Accordingly, on the 17th of August 1771, I put a sprig of mint into a\n  quantity of air in which a wax candle had burned out, and found that\n  on the 27th of the same month another candle burned perfectly well in\n  it. This experiment I repeated, without the least variation in the\n  event, not less than eight or ten times in the remainder of the\n  summer.\n\n  \"Several times I divided the quantity of air in which the candle had\n  burned out into two parts, and putting the plant into one of them left\n  the other in the same exposure, contained also in a glass vessel\n  immersed in water, but without any plant, and never failed to find\n  that a candle would burn in the former but not in the latter.... This\n  remarkable effect does not depend upon anything peculiar to _mint_,\n  which was the plant that I always made use of till July 1772; for on\n  the 16th of that month I found a quantity of this kind of air to be\n  perfectly restored by sprigs of _balm_, which had grown in it from the\n  7th of the same month.\n\n  \"That this restoration of air was not owing to any aromatic effluvia\n  of these two plants not only appeared by the _essential oil of mint_\n  having no sensible effect of this kind, but from the equally complete\n  restoration of this vitiated air by the plant called _groundsel_,\n  which is usually ranked among the weeds and has an offensive smell.\n  Besides, the plant which I have found to be the most effectual of any\n  that I have tried for this purpose is _spinach_, which is of quick\n  growth, but will seldom thrive long in water.\"\n\nThe next paper on \"Inflammable Air\" is of slight importance, and indeed\nis full of errors. Priestley made no distinction between the inflammable\nair obtained by the action of acids on metals (hydrogen) and that formed\nby the destructive distillation of coal and other organic substances\n(marsh gas or carbonic oxide, or mixtures of the two), and his inability\nto distinguish these different gases accounts for many of the phenomena\nhe observed and which he confesses himself unable to explain. The most\nsagacious observation in the memoir has reference to the colour of the\nelectric spark in the different gases which he accurately describes.\n\nThe paper on \"Air Infected with Animal Respiration or Putrefection\" may\nbe considered as the complement of that on \"Air in which a Candle has\nburned out,\" and is no less valuable.\n\n  \"That candles will burn only a certain time in a given quantity of air\n  is a fact not better known than it is that animals can live only a\n  certain time in it; but the cause of the death of the animal is not\n  better known than that of the extinction of flame in the same\n  circumstances; and when once any quantity of air has been rendered\n  noxious by animals breathing in it as long as they could, I do not\n  know that any methods have been discovered of rendering it fit for\n  breathing again. It is evident, however, that there must be some\n  provision in Nature for this purpose, as well as for that of rendering\n  the air fit for sustaining flame; for without it the whole mass of the\n  atmosphere would, in time, become unfit for the purpose of animal\n  life; and yet there is no reason to think that it is, at present, at\n  all less fit for respiration than it has ever been. I flatter myself,\n  however, that I have hit upon two of the methods employed by Nature\n  for this great purpose. How many others there may be I cannot tell.\"\n\nOne of these methods he eventually finds to be, as in the first case,\nthe action of vegetation, and he proves by a number of decisive\nexperiments\n\n  \"that plants, instead of affecting the air in the same manner with\n  animal respiration, reverse the effects of breathing and tend to keep\n  the atmosphere sweet and wholesome when it is become noxious in\n  consequence of animals either living and breathing, or dying and\n  putrefying in it.\"\n\nThe other method he conceived to be the action of water, since he found\nthat by vigorous agitation with water, air which breathing had rendered\nnoxious could again be breathed for a further period.\n\n  \"I do not think it improbable but that the agitation of the sea and\n  large lakes may be of some use for the purification of the atmosphere,\n  and the putrid matter contained in water may be imbibed by aquatic\n  plants, or be deposited in some other manner.\"\n\nWhen a confined volume of common air is placed in contact with a mixture\nof iron filings and sulphur made into a paste with water, a certain\nportion of the air is imbibed by the paste. This fact was first observed\nby Hales. Priestley repeated the observation and found that about a\nfifth or rather more of the volume of the air was thus absorbed. He\nnoted that the residual \"air\" was rather lighter than common air, it had\nno action on lime-water and was exceedingly noxious to animals, by which\nis meant that it could not be breathed by them. Priestley had thus\nprepared nitrogen, but he failed to recognise the individuality of this\ngas.\n\nIn his _Statical Essays_ Hales makes mention of an experiment in which\ncommon air and air generated from pyrites by spirit of nitre made a\nturbid red mixture, and in which part of the common air was absorbed.\nThis phenomenon \"particularly struck\" Priestley, who, acting upon\nCavendish's hint that the red appearance was probably dependent \"upon\nthe spirit of nitre only\" and that the metals might answer as well as\npyrites, proceeded to investigate the action of nitric acid upon a\nnumber of the metals, and as the result of his inquiries he succeeded in\nisolating the gas we now know as _nitric oxide_, but which he termed\n_nitrous air_.\n\n  \"Though,\" he says, \"I cannot say that I altogether like the term,\n  neither myself nor any of my friends, to whom I have applied for the\n  purpose, have been able to hit upon a better.\"\n\nThis paper exhibits Priestley at his best. In it he describes all the\nmain properties of nitric oxide.\n\n  \"One of the most conspicuous properties of this kind of air,\" he says,\n  \"is the great diminution of any quantity of common air with which it\n  is mixed, attended with a turbid red, or deep orange colour, and a\n  considerable heat.... The diminution of a mixture of this and common\n  air is not an equal diminution of both the kinds, which is all that Dr\n  Hales could observe, but of about one fifth of the common air, and as\n  much of the nitrous air as is necessary to produce that effect; which,\n  as I have found by many trials, is about one half as much as the\n  original quantity of common air.\n\n  \"I hardly know any experiment that is more adapted to amaze and\n  surprise than this is, which exhibits a quantity of air which, as it\n  were, devours a quantity of another kind of air half as large as\n  itself, and yet is so far from gaining any addition to its bulk that\n  it is considerably diminished by it....\n\n  \"It is exceedingly remarkable that this effervescence and diminution,\n  occasioned by the mixture of nitrous air, is peculiar to common air,\n  or _air fit for respiration_, and, as far as I can judge from a great\n  number of observations, is at least very nearly, if not exactly, in\n  proportion to its fitness for this purpose; so that by this means the\n  goodness of air may be distinguished much more accurately than it can\n  be done by putting mice or any other animals to breathe in it.\n\n  \"This was a most agreeable discovery to me, as I hope it may be a\n  useful one to the public; especially as from this time I had no\n  occasion for so large a stock of mice as I had been used to keep for\n  the purpose of these experiments.\"\n\nPriestley here suggests the basis of a method of _Eudiometry_, or method\nof measuring the goodness of air, which in his hands, but more\nespecially in those of Cavendish, led to most important results. The\nquantitative analysis of the air may be said to have taken its rise from\nthe publication of Priestley's paper.\n\nIn the course of subsequent work on nitrous air Priestley had occasion\nto study its action on iron, whereby he says:--\n\n  \"A most remarkable and most unexpected change was made in the nitrous\n  air,\" the iron \"makes it not only to admit a candle to burn in it, but\n  enables it to burn with an _enlarged flame_.... Sometimes I have\n  perceived the flame of the candle, in these circumstances, to be twice\n  as large as it is naturally, and sometimes not less than five or six\n  times larger; and yet without anything like an _explosion_, as in the\n  firing of the weakest inflammable air.\"\n\nPriestley in this manner obtained _nitrous oxide_, the properties of\nwhich he subsequently studied in some detail.\n\nIn the paper which follows, _viz._, \"On Air infected with the Fumes of\nBurning Charcoal,\" he incidentally gains further insight into the nature\nof atmospheric air. By what he called throwing the focus of a burning\nmirror on charcoal suspended in air contained in a glass tube standing\nover water or mercury--a favourite method of his when he had occasion to\nheat a substance in a gas--he could observe the phenomena with great\nprecision. He noticed the formation of the fixed air and determined the\ndegree of diminution when the burning took place over water or over\nlime-water.\n\n  \"In this manner,\" he says, \"I diminished a given quantity of air\n  one-fifth. Air thus diminished by the fumes of burning charcoal not\n  only extinguishes flame, but is in the highest degree noxious to\n  animals; it makes no effervescence with nitrous air, and is incapable\n  of being diminished any farther by the fumes of more charcoal.... All\n  my observations show that air which has once been fully diminished ...\n  is not only incapable of any further diminution ... but that it has\n  likewise acquired _new properties_, most remarkably different from\n  those which it had before....\"\n\nBy heating pieces of lead and tin in air by means of a burning glass he\nobserved the formation of a metallic calx, the volume of air was\ndiminished, and it also \"was in the highest degree noxious and made no\neffervescence with nitrous air.\"\n\nThe real significance of these phenomena was, however, wholly\nunperceived by Priestley, and phlogiston, as usual, led him astray. He\nhad, of course, in all these experiments prepared _nitrogen_, and in a\nstate of sensible purity. He imagined, however, that he had simply\n\"phlogisticated\" the air, the phlogiston coming from the charcoal and\nthe metals, and that this phlogisticated air was imbibed by the water.\n\nAn experiment described by Cavendish led Priestley to study the action\nof \"Spirit of Salt\" (hydrochloric acid) upon copper. As Cavendish had\nalready stated, the gas so evolved \"lost its electricity by coming into\ncontact with water.\" By collecting the gas over mercury Priestley was\nable to study its properties more exactly. From certain anomalies in the\nexperiments he says:--\n\n  \"I concluded that this subtle air did not arise from the copper, but\n  from the spirit of salt; and presently making the experiment with the\n  acid only, without any copper, or metal of any kind, this air was\n  immediately produced in as great plenty as before; so that this\n  remarkable kind of air is, in fact, nothing more than the vapour, or\n  fumes of spirit of salt, which appear to be of such a nature that they\n  are not liable to be condensed by cold, like the vapour of water and\n  other fluids, and therefore may be very properly called an _acid air_,\n  or more restrictively the _marine acid air_.\"\n\nThe new gas discovered by Priestley we now call hydrogen chloride.\nOrdinary hydrochloric acid is simply an aqueous solution of it.\n\n  \"Water impregnated with it makes the strongest spirit of salt that I\n  have seen, dissolving iron with the most rapidity.... Iron filings,\n  being admitted to this air, were dissolved by it pretty fast, half of\n  the air disappearing and the other half becoming inflammable air, not\n  absorbed by water. Putting chalk to it, fixed air was produced.\"\n\nHe subsequently found that the marine acid air was more conveniently\nmade by the action of oil of vitriol upon common salt.\n\nFrom the \"miscellaneous observations\" with which this section of the\nvolume concludes, there can be little doubt that Priestley, without\nknowing it, had prepared oxygen gas from nitre as far back as 1771. The\naccounts he gives of the behaviour of the gas obtained by heating nitre\nin a gun-barrel plainly indicate this fact.\n\n  \"A candle,\" he says, \"not only burned but the flame was increased, and\n  something was heard like a hissing similar to the decrepitation of\n  nitre in an open fire.\" He also noted the effect of nitrous air upon\n  it and concludes that \"this series of facts relating to air extracted\n  from nitre appear to me to be very extraordinary and important, and in\n  able hands may lead to considerable discoveries.\"\n\nThe second section of the volume deals with experiments and observations\nmade in 1773 and the beginning of 1774, and opens with an account of the\ndiscovery of _ammonia gas_.\n\n  \"After I had made the discovery of the _marine acid air_, which the\n  vapour of spirit of salt may properly enough be called ... it occurred\n  to me that by a process similar to that by which this _acid_ air is\n  expelled from the spirit of salt an _alkaline_ air might be expelled\n  from substances containing volatile alkali.\n\n  \"Accordingly I procured some volatile spirit of sal ammoniac, and\n  having put it into a thin phial, and heated it with the flame of a\n  candle, I presently found that a great quantity of vapour was\n  discharged from it; and being received in a vessel of quicksilver,\n  standing in a basin of quicksilver, it continued in the form of a\n  transparent and permanent air, not at all condensed by cold; so that I\n  had the same opportunity of making experiments upon it as I had before\n  on the acid air, being in the same favourable circumstances....\n  Wanting, however, to procure this air in greater quantities, and this\n  method being rather expensive, it occurred to me that alkaline air\n  might probably be procured, with the most ease and convenience, from\n  the original materials, mixed in the same proportions that chemists\n  had found by experience to answer the best for the production of the\n  volatile spirit of sal ammoniac. Accordingly I mixed one-fourth of\n  pounded sal ammoniac with three-fourths of slaked lime; and filling a\n  phial with the mixture, I presently found it completely answered my\n  purpose. The heat of a candle expelled from this mixture a prodigious\n  quantity of alkaline air; and the same materials ... would serve me a\n  considerable time without changing....\"\n\nHe next studied the properties of the alkaline air. He found, of course,\nit was readily soluble in water.\n\n  \"Having satisfied myself with respect to the relation that alkaline\n  air bears to water, I was impatient to find what would be the\n  consequence of mixing this new air with the other kinds with which I\n  was acquainted before, and especially with _acid_ air; having a notion\n  that these two airs, being of opposite natures, might compose a\n  _neutral air_, and perhaps the very same thing with common air. But\n  the moment that these two kinds of air came into contact a beautiful\n  white cloud was formed, and presently filled the whole vessel in which\n  they were contained.... When the cloud was subsided there appeared to\n  be formed a solid _white salt_, which was found to be the common _sal\n  ammoniac_, or the marine acid united to the volatile alkali....\n\n  \"_Fixed air_ admitted to alkaline air formed oblong and slender\n  crystals.... These crystals must be the same thing with the volatile\n  alkalis which chemists get in a solid form by the distillation of sal\n  ammoniac with fixed alkaline salts....\n\n  \"Alkaline air, I was surprised to find, is slightly inflammable....\n\n  \"That alkaline air is lighter than acid air is evident from the\n  appearances that attend the mixture, which are indeed very beautiful.\n  When acid air is introduced into a vessel containing alkaline air, the\n  white cloud which they form appears at the bottom only and ascends\n  gradually. But when the alkaline air is put to the acid the whole\n  becomes immediately cloudy quite to the top of the vessel.\"\n\nUp to now Priestley had mainly confined himself to the narration of the\nnew _facts_ which he had discovered, barely mentioning any _hypotheses_\nthat occurred to him.\n\n  \"The reason why I was so much upon my guard in this respect was lest,\n  in consequence of attaching myself to any hypothesis too soon, the\n  success of my future inquiries might be obstructed. But subsequent\n  experiments having thrown great light upon the preceding ones, and\n  having confirmed the few conjectures I then advanced, I may now\n  venture to speak of my hypotheses with a little less diffidence.\n  Still, however, I shall be ready to relinquish any notions I may now\n  entertain if new facts should hereafter appear not to favour them.\"\n\nIn a paper on \"Common Air Diminished and made Noxious by Various\nProcesses\" he attempts to apply the current doctrine of phlogiston to\naccount for the various phenomena he has observed, and with what success\nmay be inferred from his conclusion\n\n  \"that in the precipitation of lime by breathing into lime-water, the\n  fixed air, which incorporates with lime, comes not from the lungs but\n  from the common air, decomposed by the phlogiston exhaled from them,\n  and discharged, after having been taken in with the aliment, and\n  having performed its function in the animal system.\"\n\nPriestley's attempts at theorising brought little satisfaction to him or\nto his readers. Indeed he says:--\n\n  \"I begin to be apprehensive lest, after being considered as a _dry\n  experimenter_, I should pass into the opposite character of a\n  _visionary theorist_.... In extenuation of my offence let it, however,\n  be considered that _theory and experiments_ necessarily go\n  hand-in-hand, every process being intended to ascertain some\n  particular _hypothesis_, which, in fact, is only a conjecture\n  concerning the circumstances or the cause of some natural operation;\n  consequently that the boldest and most original experimenters are\n  those who, giving free scope to their imaginations, admit the\n  combination of the most distant ideas; and that though many of these\n  associations of ideas will be wild and chimerical, yet that others\n  will have the chance of giving rise to the greatest and most capital\n  discoveries, such as very cautious, timid, sober and slow-thinking\n  people would never have come at.\n\n  \"Sir Isaac Newton himself, notwithstanding the great advantage which\n  he derived from a habit of _patient thinking_, indulged bold and\n  eccentric thoughts, of which his queries at the end of his book of\n  Optics are a sufficient evidence. And a quick conception of distant\n  analogies, which is the great key to unlock the secrets of Nature, is\n  by no means incompatible with the spirit of _perseverance_ in\n  investigations calculated to ascertain and pursue those analogies.\"\n\nAfter this _apologia_, Priestley gives the reins to his imagination, or\nrather he allows phlogiston to drive the halting, ambling thing for him,\nwith the result that he utterly loses his way and is eventually landed\ninto an impassable quagmire. It is not too much to say that not one of\nthe \"Queries, Speculations and Hints\" with which the volume closes has\nstood the test of time.\n\nThe second volume, which made its appearance towards the end of 1775, is\ndedicated to Sir John Pringle, at that time President of the Royal\nSociety. It opens, as usual, with a somewhat prolix but characteristic\npreface. But to his biographer Priestley's prefaces are not the least\ninteresting or valuable of his literary productions.\n\n  \"In a preface,\" he says, \"authors have always claimed a right of\n  saying whatever they pleased concerning themselves, and not to lose\n  this right it must now and then be exercised.\"\n\nIn this respect Priestley has championed the prerogatives of authors for\nall time. This particular preface begins with an expression of\nself-laudation for the little delay the writer made in putting the first\nvolume to the press.\n\n  \"In consequence of this considerable discoveries have been made by\n  people of distant nations; and this branch of science, of which\n  nothing, in a manner, was known till very lately, indeed now bids fair\n  to be farther advanced than any other in the whole compass of natural\n  philosophy.... And it will not now be thought very assuming to say\n  that by working in a tub of water or a basin of quicksilver we may\n  perhaps discover principles of more extensive influence than even that\n  of _gravity_ itself, the discovery of which, in its full extent,\n  contributed so much to immortalise the name of Newton.\n\n  \"Having been the means of bringing so many champions into the field, I\n  shall, with peculiar pleasure, attend to all their achievements, in\n  order to prepare myself, as I promised in the preface to my last\n  volume, for writing the _history_ of the campaign.\"\n\nAfter a delightfully _na\u00efve_ compliment to his own ability as an\naccumulator of facts, and to his merits as an \"instrument in the hands\nof Divine Providence ... concerning which I threw out some further hints\nin my former preface, which the excellent French translator was not\npermitted to insert in his version,\" he advances this testimony to his\nimpartiality as an historian:--\n\n  \"I even think that I may flatter myself so much, if it be any\n  flattery, as to say that there is not, in the whole compass of\n  philosophical writing, a history of experiments so truly _ingenuous_\n  as mine, and especially the section on the discovery of\n  dephlogisticated air, which I will venture to exhibit as a model of\n  the kind. I am not conscious to myself of having concealed the least\n  hint that was suggested to me by any person whatever, any kind of\n  assistance that has been given me, or any views or hypotheses by which\n  the experiments were directed, whether they were verified by the\n  result or not.\"\n\nThere is much else in the preface that might be quoted as illustrative\nof the character and mental attributes of its author. Priestley, the\nnatural philosopher, never forgot that he was a minister of religion,\nand that to him theology was the greatest and most important of all the\nsciences, and he cannot forbear even, in what he intended to be a\nscientific disquisition on purely natural phenomena, from inculcating\nhis belief in the divine origin of Christianity and his opinion\nconcerning the doctrine of purgatory and the worship of the dead.\n\nThe first chapter is concerned with the discovery of what its author\ncalled _Vitriolic Acid Air_, but which we now know as sulphur dioxide.\n\nPriestley imagined that as the liquid marine acid--that is hydrochloric\nacid--readily yielded an \"air\" on heating it might be that vitriolic\nacid, or oil of vitriol, would also afford a characteristic \"air\" when\ntreated in a similar manner. Acting upon a suggestion of Mr Lane he\nheated oil of vitriol with olive oil, when he readily obtained a new\nspecies of air, which he collected over mercury as he \"had been used to\ndo it with the marine acid air; and the whole process was as pleasing\nand as elegant.\" Priestley at once surmised that the olive oil worked by\ntransferring its phlogiston to the vitriolic acid, and he naturally\nconcluded that any substance rich in phlogiston would bring about the\nsame result. He next tried charcoal.\n\n  \"I put some bits of charcoal into my phial instead of the oil or other\n  inflammable matter which I had used before, and applying the flame of\n  a candle I presently found that the vitriolic acid air was produced as\n  well as in the former process, and in several respects more\n  conveniently, the production of air being equable, whereby the\n  disagreeable effect of a sudden explosion is avoided.... Finding that\n  a great variety of substances containing phlogiston enabled the oil of\n  vitriol to throw out a permanent acid air, I had some suspicion that\n  mere _heat_ might do the same, but I did not find that there was any\n  foundation for that suspicion.... But though I got no air from the oil\n  of vitriol by this process, air was produced at the same time in a\n  manner that I little expected, and I paid pretty dearly for the\n  discovery it occasioned. Despairing to get any air from the longer\n  application of my candles, I withdrew them, but before I could\n  disengage the phial from the vessel of quicksilver a little of it\n  passed through the tube into the hot acid, when instantly it was all\n  filled with dense white fumes, a prodigious quantity of air was\n  generated, the tube through which it was transmitted was broken into\n  many pieces, and part of the hot acid being spilled upon my hand\n  burned it terribly, so that the effect of it is visible to this day.\n  The inside of the phial was coated with a white saline substance, and\n  the smell that issued from it was extremely suffocating.\n\n  \"This accident taught me what I am surprised I should not have\n  suspected before, viz., that some _metals_ will part with their\n  phlogiston to hot oil of vitriol, and thereby convert it into a\n  permanent elastic air, producing the very same effect with oil,\n  charcoal, or any other inflammable substance.\n\n  \"Not discouraged by the disagreeable accident above mentioned, the\n  next day I put a little _quicksilver_ into the phial with the ground\n  stopple and tube, along with the oil of vitriol, when, long before it\n  was boiling hot, air issued plentifully from it, and being received in\n  a vessel of quicksilver appeared to be genuine vitriolic acid air,\n  exactly like that which I had procured before, being readily imbibed\n  by water and extinguishing a candle in the same manner as the other\n  had done....\n\n  \"After this I repeated the experiment with several other metals....\n  Copper treated in the same manner yielded air very freely, with about\n  the same degree of heat that quicksilver had required, and the air\n  continued to be generated with very little application of more heat.\"\n\nThe theory apart, this paper is as important as these on ammonia and the\nmarine acid air, and exhibits Priestley at his best. The observations he\nmakes concerning the main properties of the new gas and its solubility\nin water, its inability to burn and to support flame, its heaviness, its\npower to unite with ammonia, to be absorbed by charcoal and to liquefy\ncamphor, are all accurate.\n\n  \"Having hit upon a method of exhibiting some of the acids in the form\n  of air, nothing could be easier than to extend this process to the\n  rest.\"\n\nAccordingly he attempted to procure what he called the _vegetable acid\nair_ by heating \"exceedingly strong concentrated acid of vinegar,\" and\nstates that he succeeded in obtaining an air which extinguished the\nflame of a candle and was soluble in water. The paper is very short and\nis full of contradictions. In reality, as he subsequently found, he was\ndealing with vinegar largely adulterated with oil of vitriol. The\n\"vegetable acid air\" had no real existence.\n\nThe next paper in the series is the most important of the whole, and the\none of all others that has contributed most largely to Priestley's\nreputation. It is entitled \"Of Dephlogisticated Air, and of the\nConstitution of the Atmosphere,\" and deals with the discovery of oxygen.\nIt begins in the following characteristic fashion:--\n\n  \"The contents of this section will furnish a very striking\n  illustration of the truth of a remark which I have more than once made\n  in my philosophical writings, and which can hardly be too often\n  repeated, as it tends greatly to encourage philosophical\n  investigations, viz., that more is owing to what we call\n  _chance_--that is, philosophically speaking, to the observation of\n  _events arising from unknown causes_ than to any proper _design_ or\n  preconceived _theory_ in this business. This does not appear in the\n  works of those who write _synthetically_ upon these subjects, but\n  would, I doubt not, appear very strikingly in those who are the most\n  celebrated for their philosophical acumen did they write\n  _analytically_ and ingenuously.\n\n  \"For my own part, I will frankly acknowledge that at the commencement\n  of the experiments recited in this section I was so far from having\n  formed any hypothesis that led to the discoveries I made in pursuing\n  them that they would have appeared very improbable to me had I been\n  told of them; and when the decisive facts did at length obtrude\n  themselves upon my notice it was very slowly, and with great\n  hesitation, that I yielded to the evidence of my senses. And yet, when\n  I reconsider the matter, and compare my last discoveries relating to\n  the constitution of the atmosphere with the first, I see the closest\n  and the easiest connection in the world between them, so as to wonder\n  that I should not have been led immediately from the one to the other.\n  That this was not the case I attribute to the force of prejudice\n  which, unknown to ourselves, biases not only our _judgments_, properly\n  so called, but even the perceptions of our senses; for we may take a\n  maxim so strongly for granted that the plainest evidence of sense will\n  not entirely change, and often hardly modify, our persuasions; and the\n  more ingenious a man is, the more effectually he is entangled in his\n  errors, his ingenuity only helping him to deceive himself by evading\n  the force of truth.\"\n\nHe then points out that there are few maxims in philosophy that have\nlaid firmer hold upon the mind than that air, meaning atmospherical air\n... is a _simple elementary substance_, indestructible and unalterable,\nat least as much so as water was supposed to be. Priestley, in the\ncourse of his inquiries, was soon satisfied that atmospherical air was\nnot an unalterable thing; that bodies burning in it, and animals\nbreathing it and various other chemical processes, so far alter and\ndeprive it as to render it altogether unfit for the purposes to which it\nis subservient; and he had discovered methods, particularly the process\nof vegetation, which tended to restore it to its original purity.\n\n  \"But,\" he says, \"I own I had no idea of the possibility of going any\n  further in this way and thereby procuring air purer than the best\n  common air.\"\n\nAs this paper is one of the classics of chemistry, as well as the chief\ncorner-stone in the monument which Priestley erected to himself, it is\nnecessary to examine it, as well as certain other papers which grew\nimmediately out of it, in some degree of detail.\n\nAfter a reference to a hypothesis of the origin and constitution of the\natmosphere which occurs among the \"Queries, Speculations and Hints\"\nabove referred to, and which is on a par with much in Priestley's\nspeculations, he proceeds to relate the circumstances which more\nimmediately led to the most important of all his discoveries. It was the\naccident of possessing a burning lens of \"considerable force,\" for want\nof which he could not possibly make many of the experiments that he had\nprojected.\n\n  \"But having afterwards procured a lens of twelve inches diameter and\n  twenty inches focal distance, I proceeded with great alacrity to\n  examine, by the help of it, what kind of air a great variety of\n  substances, natural and factitious, would yield, putting them into\n  vessels [short, wide, round-bottomed phials], which I filled with\n  quicksilver and kept inverted in a basin of the same. Mr Warltire, a\n  good chemist, and lecturer in Natural Philosophy, happening to be at\n  that time in Calne, I explained my views to him, and was furnished by\n  him with many substances, which I could not otherwise have procured.\n\n  \"With this apparatus, after a variety of other experiments, an account\n  of which will be found in its proper place on the 1st August 1774, I\n  endeavoured to extract air from _mercurius calcinatus per se_;[17] and\n  I presently found that, by means of this lens, air was expelled from\n  it very readily. Having got about three or four times as much as the\n  bulk of my materials, I admitted water to it, and found that it was\n  not imbibed by it. But what surprised me more than I can well express\n  was that a candle burned in this air with a remarkably vigorous flame,\n  very much like that enlarged flame with which a candle burns in\n  nitrous air exposed to iron or liver of sulphur,[18] but as I had got\n  nothing like this remarkable appearance from any kind of air besides\n  this particular modification of nitrous air, and I knew no nitrous\n  acid was used in the preparation of mercurius calcinatus, I was\n  utterly at a loss how to account for it.\n\n  \"In this case also, though I did not give sufficient attention to the\n  circumstance at that time, the flame of the candle, besides being\n  larger, burned with more splendour and heat than in that species of\n  nitrous air; and a piece of red-hot wood sparkled in it, exactly like\n  paper dipped in a solution of nitre, and it consumed very fast; an\n  experiment which I had never thought of trying with nitrous air.\n\n  \"At the same time that I made the above-mentioned experiment I\n  extracted a quantity of air with the very same property from the\n  common _red precipitate_[19] which, being produced by a solution of\n  mercury in spirit of nitre (nitric acid), made me conclude that this\n  peculiar property, being similar to that of the modification of\n  nitrous air above mentioned, depended upon something being\n  communicated to it by the nitrous acid; and since the _mercurius\n  calcinatus_ is produced by exposing mercury to a certain degree of\n  heat, where common air has access to it, I likewise concluded that\n  this substance had collected something of _nitre_, in that state of\n  heat, from the atmosphere.\n\n  \"This, however, appearing to me much more extraordinary than it ought\n  to have done, I entertained some suspicion that the mercurius\n  calcinatus on which I had made my experiments, being bought at a\n  common apothecary's, might, in fact, be nothing more than red\n  precipitate; though, had I been anything of a practical chemist, I\n  could not have entertained any such suspicion. However, mentioning\n  this suspicion to Mr Warltire, he furnished me with some that he had\n  kept for a specimen of the preparation, and which, he told me, he\n  could warrant to be genuine. This being treated in the same manner as\n  the former, only by a longer continuance of heat, I extracted much\n  more air from it than from the other.\n\n  \"This experiment might have satisfied any moderate sceptic; but,\n  however, being at Paris in the October following, and knowing that\n  there were several very eminent chemists in that place, I did not omit\n  the opportunity, by means of my friend Mr Magellan, to get an ounce of\n  mercurius calcinatus prepared by Mr Cadet, of the genuineness of which\n  there could not possibly be any suspicion; and at the same time I\n  frequently mentioned my surprise at the kind of air which I had got\n  from this preparation to Mr Lavoisier, Mr le Roy, and several other\n  philosophers, who honoured me with their notice in that city, and who,\n  I daresay, cannot fail to recollect the circumstance.\"\n\nThis last remark is significant in reference to a claim which was\nsubsequently put forward that the real discoverer of oxygen was\nLavoisier, and that he obtained it by heating mercuric oxide.[20]\n\nPriestley also obtained the same air from _red lead_, which, he says,\n\n  \"confirmed me more in my suspicion that the _mercurius calcinatus_\n  must get the property of yielding this kind of air from the\n  atmosphere, the process by which that preparation and this of red lead\n  is made being similar. As I never make the least secret of anything\n  that I observe, I mentioned this experiment also, as well as those\n  with the mercurius calcinatus and the red precipitate, to all my\n  philosophical acquaintance at Paris and elsewhere, having no idea, at\n  that time, to what these remarkable facts would lead.\" [Nitrous\n  oxide.]\n\nPriestley, on his return to England, made an experiment with Cadet's\npreparation, which he found to behave precisely like that he had\nprocured from Warltire. He observed that the new gas was only sparingly\nsoluble in water and that its power of causing a candle to burn with a\nstrong flame was in nowise diminished by agitation with water--facts\nwhich he said convinced him\n\n  \"that there must be a very material difference between the\n  constitution of the air from mercurius calcinatus and that of\n  phlogisticated nitrous air, [nitrous oxide] notwithstanding their\n  resemblance in some particulars.\"\n\nIt was not, however, until the following March (1775) (he having\nmeanwhile been intent upon his experiments on the vitriolic air [sulphur\ndioxide]), that he ascertained the real nature of the new air, and was\nled \"though very gradually ... to the complete discovery of the\nconstitution of the air we breathe.\" By trials with the nitrous air and\nwith mice he found that the new gas was eminently fit for respiration:\nnitrous air reduced its volume to a greater extent than in the case of\ncommon air, and a mouse lived longer in it than it would in the same\nvolume of common air.\n\n  \"Thinking of this extraordinary fact upon my pillow, the next morning\n  I put another measure of nitrous air to the same mixture, and to my\n  utter astonishment found that it was farther diminished to almost\n  one-half of its original quantity.\"\n\nPriestley now utterly missed his way for a time. He sought to get the\nnew air from the various oxides of lead, but the fetish of phlogiston\nagain led him wrong, and eventually by a train of reasoning which is\nfully set forth in the paper, but which need not here be repeated, there\nremained, he says, no doubt in his mind\n\n  \"but that _atmospherical air_, or the thing that we breathe, _consists\n  of the nitrous acid and earth_, with so much phlogiston as is\n  necessary to its elasticity; and likewise so much more as is required\n  to bring it from its state of perfect purity to the mean condition in\n  which we find it.\"\n\nPriestley's \"complete discovery of the constitution of the air we\nbreathe\" was thus wholly erroneous: he was very far indeed from having a\nclear conception of its real nature.\n\nPriestley's description of the main properties of oxygen is however\naccurate, and lecturers in chemistry are indebted to him for some\nstriking experimental illustrations of them.\n\n  \"I easily conjectured,\" he says, \"that inflammable air would explode\n  with more violence and a louder report by the help of dephlogisticated\n  than of common air; but the effect far exceeded my expectations, and\n  it has never failed to surprise every person before whom I have made\n  the experiment.... The dipping of a lighted candle into a jar filled\n  with dephlogisticated air is alone a very beautiful experiment. The\n  strength and vivacity of the flame is striking, and the heat produced\n  by the flame in these circumstances is also remarkably great....\n  Nothing would be easier than to augment the force of fire to a\n  prodigious degree by blowing it with dephlogisticated air instead of\n  common air.... Possibly _platina_ might be melted by means of it.\n\n  \"From the greater strength and vivacity of the flame of a candle, in\n  this pure air, it may be conjectured that it might be peculiarly\n  salutary to the lungs in certain morbid cases.... But perhaps we may\n  also infer from these experiments that though pure dephlogisticated\n  air might be very useful as a _medicine_, it might not be so proper\n  for us in the usual healthy state of the body: for, as a candle burns\n  out much faster in dephlogisticated than in common air, so we might,\n  as may be said, _live out too fast_, and the animal powers be too soon\n  exhausted in this pure kind of air. A moralist, at least, may say that\n  the air which Nature has provided for us is as good as we deserve....\n  Who can tell but that, in time, this pure air may become a fashionable\n  article in luxury. Hitherto only two mice and myself have had the\n  privilege of breathing it.\"\n\nAn experiment which Priestley says \"I had the pleasure to see at Paris,\nin the laboratory of Mr Lavoisier, my excellent fellow-labourer in these\ninquiries, and to whom, in a variety of respects, the philosophical part\nof the world has very great obligations,\" led him into a train of\ninquiry upon the action of nitric acid upon a wide range of organic\nsubstances, from which however no general results followed, in spite of\nmuch experimenting. He had at one time the idea that a fundamental\ndifference existed in the behaviour of animal and vegetable matter with\nrespect to nitric acid, but the observations were contradictory, and\nalthough it is readily possible to interpret the phenomena in the light\nof our present knowledge, they led Priestley to no definite conclusions.\n\nOf more importance is the work on the \"Fluor Acid Air\"--a substance\ndiscovered by \"Mr Scheele, a Swede; from which circumstance the acid is\noften distinguished by the name of the _Swedish acid_.\" Priestley sought\nto make the air by heating Derbyshire spar (fluor spar) with oil of\nvitriol in glass vessels,\n\n  \"as in the process of making spirit of nitre from saltpetre; and the\n  most remarkable facts that have been observed concerning it are, that\n  the vessels in which the distillation is made are apt to be corroded;\n  so that holes will be made quite through them; and that when there is\n  water in the recipient, the surface of it will be covered with a crust\n  of a friable stony matter.\"\n\nWhat Priestley actually produced by this method of experimenting was\nmore or less pure _silicon fluoride_, which he proceeded to collect, in\nhis usual fashion, over quicksilver.\n\n  \"I had no sooner produced this new kind of air but I was eager to see\n  the effect it would have on _water_, and to produce the stony crust\n  formed by their union, as described by Mr Scheele; and I was not\n  disappointed in my expectations. The moment the water came into\n  contact with this air the surface of it became white and opaque by a\n  _stony film_.... Few philosophical experiments exhibit a more pleasing\n  appearance than this, which can only be made by first producing the\n  air confined by quicksilver, and then admitting a large body of water\n  to it. Most persons to whom I have shown the experiment have been\n  exceedingly struck with it.... The union of this acid air and water\n  may also be exhibited in another manner, which to some persons makes a\n  still more striking experiment, _viz._, by admitting the air, as fast\n  as it is generated, to a large body of water resting on\n  quicksilver.... It is, then, very pleasing to observe that the moment\n  any bubble of air, after passing through the quicksilver, reaches the\n  water, it is instantly, as it were, converted into a stone; but\n  continuing hollow for a short space of time, generally rises to the\n  top of the water.... I have met with few persons who are soon weary of\n  looking at it; and some could sit by it almost a whole hour, and be\n  agreeably amused all the time.\"\n\nPriestley's attempts to explain the real nature of the _fluor acid air_\nwere, as may be expected, not very happy.\n\n  \"These appearances I explain by supposing that the vitriolic acid, in\n  uniting with the spar, is in part volatilised by means of some\n  phlogiston contained in it, so as to form a vitriolic acid air; and\n  there is also combined with this air a portion of the solid earthy\n  part of the spar, which continues in a state of solution till, coming\n  into contact with the water, the fluid unites with the acid, and the\n  earth is precipitated.\"\n\nThe third volume of the work was published in the early part of 1777,\nwith a dedication to Lord Stanhope. It opens, as usual, with the\ncharacteristically discursive preface, extending to thirty pages, in\nwhich the author apologises for the character of much in the volume. He\nis constrained to admit that numerous as his _facts_ are, \"few of them\nwill appear so brilliant in the eye of the _general scholar_\" as in\neither of the two former volumes, although he trusts they will \"be\nthought no less valuable by philosophers and chemists.\" Priestley, it\nwould seem, was conscious that he was beginning, as the phrase goes, \"to\nwrite himself out.\"\n\n  \"Lest my readers should be alarmed at this addition of one volume\n  after another on the same subject, I do assure them that I shall now\n  certainly give them and myself some respite, and deliver the torch to\n  anyone who may be disposed to carry it, foreseeing that my attention\n  will be sufficiently engaged by speculations of a very different\n  nature.... It will be a great satisfaction to me, after the part that\n  I have taken in this business, to be a _spectator_ of its future\n  progress, when I see the work in so many and so good hands, and\n  everything in so rapid and so promising a way.\n\n  \"On taking leave of this subject I would entreat the candour and\n  indulgence of my readers for any oversights they may discover in me as\n  a _philosopher_, or imperfections as a _writer_. I am far from\n  pretending to infallibility; but I have the satisfaction to reflect\n  that, imperfect as my works may be found to be, they are each as\n  perfect as I was able to make them....\n\n  \"Upon this, as upon other occasions, I can only repeat that it is not\n  my _opinions_ on which I would be understood to lay any stress. Let\n  the _new facts_, from which I deduce them, be considered as my\n  _discoveries_, and let other persons draw better inferences from them\n  if they can. This is a new and a wide field of experiment and\n  speculation, and a premature attachment to hypothesis is the greatest\n  obstruction we are likely to meet with in our progress through it; and\n  as I think I have been pretty much upon my guard myself, I would\n  caution others to be upon their guard too.\"\n\nThese passages evidently were written under the influence of the feeling\nof resentment with which he viewed the criticism to which his\nspeculations were subjected abroad. Fontana, Lavoisier and others were,\nindeed, zealously engaged in using Priestley's own _facts_ to destroy\nthe conception by which he explained them. An appeal to the balance was\nfelt to be necessary, and Priestley, as a logician, could not resist it.\nBut he was no quantitative chemist: the habits of a Cavendish were quite\nforeign to his genius: patient, scrupulous attention to numerical\naccuracy was not one of his characteristics: he was one of the most\nindustrious of experimenters--delighting, indeed, in manipulation for\nthe mere sake of it, but withal hasty and superficial. It is nowhere\nevident in his writings that his problems were attacked according to any\ncarefully-thought-out plan. He confesses indeed, on more than one\noccasion, he tested the inflammability of one of his numerous \"airs\"\n_because_ he had a lighted candle near him: had the candle not been\nlighted it would not have occurred to him to do it. Priestley was, in\nfact, a pioneer: he showed the existence of a new world for science, and\nhe himself roamed over a portion of it, like a second Joshua; but he had\nnot the experience or the aptitude to accurately map out even that\nfraction.\n\nThere is little in the third volume of permanent value. It is largely an\naccount of a series of disconnected observations on the action of nitric\nacid upon a variety of substances, which, however, led to no general\nconclusions. It is, however, certain that if Priestley could have\ninduced himself to follow up certain of his observations he would have\narrived at _facts_ of far greater importance than those he actually\nnarrates. \"_Speculation_,\" he said, by way of rejoinder to Lavoisier,\n\"is a cheap commodity. _New and important facts_ are most wanted, and\ntherefore of most value,\" and the new and important facts were within\nhis grasp if he had only reached out for them.\n\nAnother portion of the work is concerned with supplementary observations\non the gases treated of in the preceding volumes, partly by way of\ncorrection and partly additional. Here and there we have a suggestive\npassage, as in the paper on \"Experiments on the Mixture of Different\nKinds of Air that have no Mutual Action,\" in which he thus clearly\nindicates the principle of the intra-diffusion of gases.\n\n  \"The result of my trials has been this general conclusion: that when\n  two kinds of air have been mixed it is not possible to separate them\n  again by any method of _decanting_ or pouring them off, though the\n  greatest possible care be taken in doing it. They may not properly\n  _incorporate_, so as to form a _third species of air_, possessed of\n  new properties; but they will remain equally diffused through the mass\n  of each other; and whether it be the upper or the lower part of the\n  air that is taken out of the vessel, without disturbing the rest, it\n  will contain an equal mixture of them both.\"\n\nAnother suggestive paper is on \"Respiration and the Use of the Blood,\"\nwhich was read to the Royal Society on January 25, 1776, and appears in\nthe _Phil. Trans._, vol. lxvi. Priestley, of course, regarded\nrespiration as a _phlogistic process_, and \"that the use of the lungs is\nto carry off a putrid _effluvium_, or to discharge that phlogiston,\nwhich had been taken into the system with the aliment, and has become,\nas it were, _effete_, the air that is respired serving as a menstruum\nfor that purpose.\" This he thinks he has \"proved to be effected by means\nof the _blood_, in consequence of its coming so nearly into contact with\nthe air in the lungs, the blood appearing to be a fluid wonderfully\nformed to imbibe and part with that principle which the chemists call\nphlogiston, and changing its colour in consequence of being charged with\nit or being freed from it.\" The _facts_ in this paper are for the most\npart correctly stated, but the discoverer of oxygen led the world\nwoefully astray as to the part played by that gas in the phenomena of\nrespiration.\n\nThe fourth volume made its appearance in March 1779, with a dedication\nto Sir George Savile, who had rendered Priestley the service of\nintroducing him and his invention of soda-water to the notice of the\nAdmiralty. In the preface, which is commendably short, he makes some\nreference to the respite which he had promised himself and his readers,\nbut trusts, by way of extenuation, \"it may be sufficient to allege the\ninstability of human purposes and pursuits.\" He had intended to devote\nhimself to metaphysics.\n\n  \"But that kind of writing,\" he says, \"is a thing of a very different\n  nature from this. I can truly say ... that single sections in this\n  work have cost me more than whole volumes of the other; so great is\n  the difference between writing from the head only and writing, as it\n  may be called, from the hands.\"\n\nThe fact was Priestley could not keep away from his laboratory.\n\n  \"Having acquired a fondness for experiments, even slighter inducements\n  than I have had would have been sufficient to determine my conduct.\"\n\nThe preface is noteworthy for its plea for the position of experimental\nscience in the scheme of general education.\n\n  \"If we wish to lay a good foundation for a philosophical taste, and\n  philosophical pursuits, persons should be accustomed to the sight of\n  experiments and processes in early life. They should, more especially,\n  be early initiated in the theory and practice of _investigation_, by\n  which many of the old discoveries may be made to be really _their\n  own_; on which account they will be much more valued by them. And, in\n  a great variety of articles, very young persons may be made so far\n  acquainted with everything necessary to be previously known as to\n  engage (which they will do with peculiar alacrity) in pursuits truly\n  original.\"\n\nIn the course of some observations on the effect \"of impregnating oil of\nvitriol with nitrous acid vapour\" he discovered _nitrosulphuric acid_,\nthe so-called \"Leaden Chamber Crystals,\" whose properties and behaviour\nwith water he describes with accuracy and even eloquence. Of these\ncrystals he says: \"A more beautiful appearance can hardly be imagined,\nand I am afraid I shall never see the like again.\" He also noticed the\nformation of the dark brown compound which nitric oxide forms with a\nsolution of green vitriol, and adds:--\n\n  \"To determine whether the phenomena attending the impregnation of the\n  solution of green vitriol with nitrous air depended in any measure\n  upon the seeming _astringency_ of that solution ... I impregnated a\n  quantity of _green tea_, which is also said to be astringent, with\n  nitrous air, but no sensible change of colour was produced in it.\"\n\nHe several times noticed the deep blue liquid which nitrogen peroxide\nforms with cold water. He made many attempts to use nitric oxide as an\nantiseptic, especially for culinary purposes. But the gastronomic\nresults with fowls and pigeons were not to his liking, although he says,\n\"my friend Mr Magellan ... had not so bad an opinion of this piece of\ncookery as I had.\" One cannot read Priestley's description of his\nmultifarious experiments without being struck with the number of\noccasions in which he just missed making discoveries of first-rate\nimportance. It is obvious that he had obtained chlorine without\nrecognising it, even before the news of Scheele's discovery reached this\ncountry. He had also prepared, without knowing it, phosphoretted\nhydrogen and phosphorous acid. At times, however, he can follow a clue\nwith remarkable perspicacity; as in his observation of the cause of the\n\"flouring\" of mercury, and in his discovery of a method of removing lead\nand tin from that metal.\n\nThe subject of \"dephlogisticated air\" naturally continued to interest\nhim, and he again returns to it in this volume, for he says:--\n\n  \"As it sometimes amuses myself it may perhaps amuse others to look\n  back with me to the several steps in the actual progress of this\n  investigation, some of which I overlooked in my last account of it.\"\n\nHe points out, as already stated, that he must have had the new gas in\nhis hands as far back as November 1771, having obtained it from nitre.\nHe admits that he had no particular view in making his crucial\nexperiment of August 1, 1774,\n\n  \"excepting that of extracting air from a variety of substances by\n  means of a burning lens in quicksilver, which was then a new process\n  with me, and which I was very fond of.\"\n\nHe explains how he was led to his speculation that \"this kind of air,\nand consequently of atmospherical air, which is the same thing but in a\nstate of inferior purity,\" consists \"of earth and spirit of nitre.\"\n\n  \"But,\" he adds, \"I have since seen reason to suspect that hypothesis,\n  plausible as it appears. Indeed, some of my late experiments would\n  lead me to conclude that there is no acid at all in pure air.\"\n\nHe then experiments with manganese, which Scheele, who independently\ndiscovered oxygen, had already employed, and finds that it yields the\nnew air both when heated alone or with oil of vitriol. The production of\noxygen from manganese was contrary to his expectations as the substances\nhe had hitherto used, the _precipitate per se_ and the _red lead_ and\nthe nitre, had all been subjected to \"the influence of the atmosphere,\"\nwhereas \"here was pure air from a substance which for anything that\nappeared had always been in the bowels of the earth, and never had had\nany communication with the external air.\" This led to the surmise that\npossibly the expulsion of dephlogisticated air from such mineral\nsubstances\n\n  \"might assist in sustaining subterraneous fires.... The solution of\n  the phenomena of subterraneous fires would certainly be much easier on\n  the supposition of their supplying their own _pabulum_, by means of\n  dephlogisticated air contained in substances exposed to their heat. I\n  therefore desired Mr Landriani, who being in Italy had a good\n  opportunity of making inquiries on the subject, to inform me whether\n  any of those substances, and particularly _manganese_ be found in\n  their volcanoes; and his answer makes it rather probable that those\n  fires are, in part, sustained by this means.\"\n\nThe ease with which nitre parts with its oxygen on heating furnished\nPriestley with the true explanation of its so-called \"detonation,\"\n\"concerning which,\" he says, \"the most improbable conjectures have been\nadvanced by the most eminent philosophers and chemists.\" After a\nreference to the hypothesis of Macquer, who assumes that what he calls\n\"a _nitrous sulphur_\" is produced, Priestley points out that\n\n  \"the doctrine of dephlogisticated air supplies the easiest solution\n  imaginable of this very difficult phenomenon. Let any person but\n  attend to the phenomena of the detonation of charcoal in nitre, and\n  that of dipping a piece of hot charcoal into a jar of dephlogisticated\n  air, and I think it will be impossible for him not to conclude that\n  the appearances are the very same and must have the same cause.\"\n\nOf all the quantitative exercises performed by Priestley, by far the\nmost numerous depended upon his application of nitric oxide to measure\nthe \"goodness\" of air.\n\n  \"When,\" he says, \"I first discovered the property of nitrous air as a\n  test of the wholesomeness of common air, I flattered myself that it\n  might be of considerable practical use, and particularly that the air\n  of distant places and countries might be brought and examined together\n  with great ease and satisfaction; but I own that hitherto I have\n  rather been disappointed in my expectations from it.... I gave several\n  of my friends the trouble to send me air from distant places,\n  especially from manufacturing towns, and the worst they could find to\n  be actually breathed by the manufacturers, such as is known to be\n  exceedingly offensive to those who visit them; but when I examined\n  those specimens of air in Wiltshire, the difference between them and\n  the very best air in this county, which is esteemed to be very good,\n  as also the difference between them and specimens of the best air in\n  the counties in which these manufacturing towns are situated, was very\n  trifling.... I have frequently taken the open air in the most exposed\n  places in this country at _different times of the year_, and in\n  different states of the _weather_, etc., but never found the\n  difference so great as the inaccuracy arising from the method of\n  making the trial might easily amount to or exceed.\"\n\nOther observers, less careful or more sanguine than Priestley, were,\nhowever, successful in detecting the differences which prejudice led\nthem to anticipate. Thus Signor Marsilio Landriani of Milan, whose name\nhas already been mentioned in connection with the theory of\nsubterraneous fires, in the course of a tour through Italy had the\nsatisfaction of convincing himself\n\n  \"that the air of all those places, which from the long experience of\n  the inhabitants has been reputed unwholesome, is found to be so to a\n  very great degree of exactness by the _eudiometer_.... The air of the\n  Pontine lakes, that of the Sciroccho at Rome (so very unwholesome),\n  that of the Campagna Romana, of the Grotto del Cane, of the Zolfatara\n  at Naples, of the baths of Nero at Baja, of the seacoast of Tuscany,\n  were all examined by me and found to be in such a state as daily\n  experience led me to expect.\"\n\nModern eudiometry, making use of methods of far greater precision than\nwere possible to Priestley, has confirmed his supposition that\natmospheric air is remarkably constant in composition, and that its\nwholesomeness depends upon other causes than the relative amount of the\ndephlogisticated air contained in it.\n\nPerhaps the most important of the many papers contained in this volume\nare those which relate to the \"Melioration of Air by the Growth of\nPlants,\" a subject to which Priestley gave attention, even whilst at\nLeeds, in 1771. In these papers he clearly proves that this\n\"melioration\" is connected with the green matter of leaves and that it\nis dependent upon sunlight. This observation is of fundamental\nimportance and attracted much attention.\n\nIn the fifth volume, which was published in the spring of 1781, with a\ndedication to Dr Heberden, when Priestley had moved to Birmingham, he\nagain returns to this subject. Practically all the experimental work to\nwhich it relates was done whilst he was with Lord Shelburne, and mainly\nat Calne. During the former parts of the summer of 1780 he suffered from\nan illness which greatly interfered with his work, although he thinks\nthat during his incapacity for making experiments his \"hints for the\nfarther prosecution of them are greatly accumulated.\" It cannot be said\nthat the five papers on the relations of vegetation to air, with which\nthe volume opens, added very materially to the fundamental fact which\nPriestley had discovered. They furnished, however, additional evidence\nof it and no doubt stimulated further inquiry. If his facts could not be\ncontroverted, his explanations and surmises were at least open to\nattack, and a number of observers, both here and abroad, busied\nthemselves with the problems of physiological botany thereby suggested.\n\nAs regards the subject of \"air\" in general, although a large number of\nisolated observations are recorded in somewhat tedious detail, no new\nfact of first-rate importance is apparent. The experiments are largely\nsupplementary to those in the preceding volumes and are for the most\nexplanatory or corroborative of them. Perhaps the most important are\nthose dealing with \"the production of nitrous air in which a candle will\nburn,\" by which is signified the gas we now know as nitrous oxide, but\nwhich Priestley eventually termed _dephlogisticated nitrous air_. The\nprocess he employed is no longer used in the production of this gas, but\nit sufficed in his hands to determine its individuality without doubt.\n\nPriestley's methods of experiment with his various \"airs\" were very\nuniform. He tried their solubility in water, their power of supporting\nor extinguishing flame, whether they were respirable, how they behaved\nwith acid and alkaline air, and with nitric oxide and inflammable air,\nand lastly how they were affected by the electric spark. He occasionally\nmade attempts to weigh them, but his determinations of their relative\ndensity were altogether untrustworthy. Indeed, it is evident from the\nterms in which he speaks of these efforts that he was conscious of their\ninadequacy. The result of submitting alkaline air (ammonia) to the\nelectric spark, whereby it is resolved into nitrogen and hydrogen,\nsurprised him not a little.\n\n  \"There are few experiments the _rationale_ of which I less pretend to\n  understand than the production of genuine and permanent inflammable\n  air from alkaline air by means of the electric spark.... One query on\n  this subject is, whence comes the phlogiston, which is certainly a\n  principal ingredient in the constitution of inflammable air. Alkaline\n  air, indeed, contains phlogiston, because in the manner in which I\n  have generally produced it, it is itself partially inflammable; but it\n  is not nearly so much so as the inflammable air which is produced by\n  means of it. Besides, it will appear by the following experiments that\n  the quantity of the inflammable air far exceeds that of the alkaline.\"\n\nAlthough Priestley clearly recognised the production of the inflammable\nair, \"in no respect to be distinguished from that which is extracted\nfrom metals by acids,\" and inferred it must come from the alkaline air\n(\"the production having its limits\"), he failed to detect the other\nconstituent of ammonia. His determination of the actual increase in\nvolume was inaccurate, and his attempt to explain the phenomenon wholly\nfallacious.\n\nAt the instigation of Mr Woulfe, whose name mainly lives in connection\nwith a useful piece of chemical apparatus, Priestley was encouraged to\nhope that he would\n\n  \"find something remarkable in the solution of _manganese_ in spirit of\n  salt. Mr Woulfe, however, in a very friendly manner, at the same time,\n  cautioned me with respect of the vapour that would issue from it, as\n  from his own experience he apprehended it was of a very dangerous\n  nature.... I cannot say that it was the apprehension of danger, but\n  rather having other things in view, that prevented my giving much\n  attention to the subject.\"\n\nPriestley's experiments led to no decisive result: he of course\nrecognised the\n\n  \"peculiar smell, exactly resembling that which is procured by\n  dissolving _red lead_ in the same acids.... On the application of heat\n  it was easy to perceive that air, or vapour, was expelled; but it was\n  instantly seized by the quicksilver.... This is a new field that is\n  yet before me.\"\n\nPriestley never occupied that field. It is tolerably certain that both\nWoulfe and he had unknowingly prepared _chlorine gas_, but the glory of\nits discovery belongs to Scheele.\n\nThe paper \"Of Sound in Different Kinds of Air\" is worth quoting as\nshowing Priestley at his best:--\n\n  \"Almost all the experiments that have hitherto been made relating to\n  _sound_ have been made in common air, of which it is known to be a\n  vibration, though it is likewise known to be capable of being\n  transmitted by other substances. There could be little doubt, however,\n  of the possibility of sound _originating_ in any other kind of air, as\n  well as being _transmitted_ by them; but the trial had not been\n  actually made, and I had an easy opportunity of making it.\n\n  \"Besides, the experiments promised to ascertain whether the\n  _intensity_ of sound was affected by any other property of the air in\n  which it was made than the mere _density_ of it. For the different\n  kinds of air in which I was able to make the same sound, besides\n  differing in specific gravity, have likewise other remarkable chemical\n  differences, the influence of which with respect to sound would, at\n  the same time, be submitted to examination.\n\n  \"Being provided with a piece of clock-work, in which was a bell, and a\n  hammer to strike upon it (which I could cover with a receiver, and\n  which, when it was properly covered up, I could set in motion by the\n  pressure of a brass rod going through a collar of leather), I placed\n  it on some soft paper on a transfer. Then taking a receiver, the top\n  of which was closed with a plate of brass, through which the brass rod\n  and collar of leathers was inserted, I placed the whole on the plate\n  of an air-pump, and exhausted the receiver of all the air that it\n  contained. Then removing this exhausted receiver, containing the piece\n  of clock-work, I filled it with some of those kinds of air that are\n  capable of being confined by water.... Then by forcing down the brass\n  rod through the collar of leathers I made the hammer strike the bell,\n  which it would do more than a dozen times after each pressure. And the\n  instrument was contrived to do the same thing many times successively\n  after being once wound up.\n\n  \"Everything being thus prepared, I had nothing to do, after filling\n  the same receiver with each of the kinds of air in its turn, but\n  receding from the apparatus, while an assistant produced the sound, to\n  observe at what distance I could distinctly hear it. The result of all\n  my observations, as far as I could judge, was that the intensity of\n  sound depends solely upon the _density_ of the air in which it is\n  made, and not at all upon any chemical principle in its constitution.\n\n  \"In inflammable air the sound of the bell was hardly to be\n  distinguished from the same in a pretty good vacuum; and this air is\n  ten times rarer than common air.\n\n  \"In fixed air the sound was much louder than in common air, so as to\n  be heard about half as far again; and this air is in about the same\n  proportion denser than common air.\n\n  \"In dephlogisticated air the sound was also sensibly louder than in\n  common air, and, as I thought, rather more than in the proportion of\n  its superior density; but of this I cannot pretend to be quite sure.\n\n  \"In all these experiments the common standard was the sound of the\n  same bell in the same receiver, every other circumstance also being\n  the same; the air only being changed by removing the receiver from the\n  transfer and blowing through it, etc.\"\n\nThe sixth and last volume appeared in 1786 with a dedication to William\nConstable, Esq., of Barton Constable.\n\nIn the preface Priestley is concerned to defend himself against the\ncharge that he occupies himself too much with Theology to the detriment\nof Natural Philosophy. Theology, he pleads, is his original and proper\nprovince, and for which, therefore, he may be allowed to have a\njustifiable predilection. But as with Metaphysics, so with Theology.\nNeither subject engrossed so much of his time as some persons imagined.\n\n  \"I am particularly complained of at present as having thrown away so\n  much time on the composition of my _History of the Corruptions of\n  Christianity_, and of the _Opinions Concerning Christ_. But I can\n  assure them, and the nature of the thing, if they consider it, may\n  satisfy them, that the time I must necessarily have bestowed upon the\n  experiments, of which an account is contained in this single volume,\n  is much more than I have given to the _six_, of which the\n  above-mentioned works consist, and to all the controversial pieces\n  that I have written in defence of the former of them. The labour and\n  attention necessary to enable me to write single paragraphs in this\n  work have been more than was requisite to compose whole sections or\n  chapters of the former.... Besides, these different studies so relieve\n  one another that I believe I do more in each of them, by applying to\n  them alternately, than I should do if I gave my whole attention to one\n  of them only.\"\n\nBut Priestley's main defence rests \"on the superior dignity and\nimportance of _theological studies_ to any other whatever.\" The whole\npreface must be read in the light of Priestley's altered circumstances\nand of his relations to the theological world, which, since his removal\nto Birmingham, had greatly increased in weight and importance. As\nalready stated, he regarded himself as ordained to champion the cause of\nreligion among the persons to whom his writings as a natural philosopher\nspecially appealed. The author of the _Institutes of Natural and\nRevealed Religion_ was the writer of the _Letters to a Philosophical\nUnbeliever_ and, in an age of unbelief, the doughty antagonist of\nGibbon. Otherwise the incongruous mixture of Theology and Natural\nPhilosophy, of which the preface is made up, seems inexplicable.\n\nTo the historian of chemistry the last volume of the series is hardly\nless interesting than any one of its predecessors, not so much as\naffording knowledge of new \"airs\" as by reason of Priestley's relation\nto the waning doctrine of phlogiston, and on account of the part that\nhis own work was playing, in spite of himself, in completing its\noverthrow. The volume indeed significantly opens with \"Experiments\nrelating to Phlogiston,\" a reprint with notes of his paper in the 73rd\nvolume of the _Philosophical Transactions_. Priestley truly says:--\n\n  \"There are few subjects, perhaps none, that have occasioned more\n  perplexity to chemists than that of _phlogiston_, or, as it is\n  sometimes called, the principle _of inflammability_. It was the great\n  discovery of Stahl that this principle, whatever it be, is\n  transferable from one substance to another, how different soever in\n  their other properties, such as sulphur, wood, and all the metals, and\n  therefore is the same thing in them all. But what has given an air of\n  mystery to this subject has been that it was imagined that this\n  principle, or substance, could not be exhibited except in combination\n  with other substances, and could not be made to assume separately\n  either a fluid or solid form. It was also asserted by some that\n  phlogiston was so far from adding to the weight of bodies that the\n  addition of it made them really lighter than they were before; on\n  which account they chose to call it _the principle of levity_. This\n  opinion had great patrons.\n\n  \"Of late it has been the opinion of many celebrated chemists, Mr\n  Lavoisier among others, that the whole doctrine of phlogiston has been\n  founded on mistake, and that in all cases in which it was thought that\n  bodies parted with the principle of phlogiston, they in fact lost\n  nothing, but on the contrary acquired something; and in most cases an\n  addition of some kind of air; that a _metal_, for instance, was not a\n  combination of two things, viz., an _earth_ and _phlogiston_, but was\n  probably a simple substance in its metallic state; and that the calx\n  is produced not by the loss of phlogiston, or of anything else, but by\n  the acquisition of air.\"\n\nHe then goes on to say that the arguments in favour of this opinion,\nespecially those which were drawn from the experiments of Lavoisier on\nmercury, were \"so specious\" that he owns he was much inclined to adopt\nit. But he was evidently loth to part company with a conception which\nhad hitherto been the central idea of his chemical creed, the very\nkey-stone of the structure which he was pleased to regard as his\nphilosophy. As an abstract conception, as the principle of levity, as\nsomething which was the negation of mass and which gravity repelled,\nphlogiston was eminently unsatisfactory. But what if phlogiston were an\nentity? A ponderable substance, no matter how light? In that case\nStahl's generalisation might still afford salvation. \"My friend, Mr\nKirwan\"--a clever, ingenious Irishman, with a nimble wit and a facile\npen--supplied the hint--\"Phlogiston was inflammable air\"--and Priestley\nby a series of experiments, faultless as to execution but utterly\nfallacious as to interpretation, persuades himself that Kirwan is right\nand that Mr Lavoisier's opinion and his \"specious arguments\" are\ntherefore to be discountenanced. The paper, in certain respects, is one\nof the most noteworthy of Priestley's productions. The experiments are\noriginal, ingenious and striking, but as an example of his inductive\ncapacity, or as an indication of its author's logical power, or of his\nability to try judicially the very issue he has raised, it is\nsignificant only of the profound truth of his own words that\n\n  \"we may take a maxim so strongly for granted that the plainest\n  evidence of sense will not entirely change, and often hardly modify,\n  our persuasions; and the more ingenious a man is, the more effectually\n  he is entangled in his errors, his ingenuity only helping him to\n  deceive himself by evading the force of truth.\"\n\nThe next paper in the volume, on \"The Seeming Conversion of Water into\nAir,\" is a record of experiments which cost Priestley much labour and\nthe Lunar Society, for a time, much mystification. Priestley eventually\ndetected the fallacy in the observation which originally induced him to\nbelieve that it was possible to transmute water into a permanently\nelastic fluid, but he got no further in his explanation than that air\nhas a faculty of passing through the pores of an earthern vessel \"by\nmeans of a power very different from that of pressure.\"\n\nThis and the third paper in the series are classical, and this partly by\nreason of, and partly in spite of, their blunders, for they are the\nrecord of the work upon which James Watt largely based his conjectures\nconcerning the real chemical nature of water, whereby his name has been\nassociated with that of Cavendish and Lavoisier as the true discoverer\nof its composition. In the course of his inquiry Priestley studied the\naction of steam upon red-hot iron by an arrangement generally similar to\nthat employed by Lavoisier, but his explanation of the phenomena is\nessentially different from that of the French chemist, as may be seen\nfrom the following quotation:--\n\n  \"Since iron gains the same addition of weight by melting it in\n  _dephlogisticated air_, and also by the addition of _water_ when\n  red-hot, and becomes, as I have already observed, in all respects the\n  same substance, it is evident that this air or water, as existing in\n  the iron, is the very same thing; and this can hardly be explained but\n  upon the supposition that water consists of two kinds of air, _viz._,\n  inflammable and dephlogisticated.\"\n\nThis, however, is how Priestley actually does explain it:--\n\n  \"When iron is melted in dephlogisticated air we may suppose that,\n  though part of its phlogiston escapes to enter into the composition of\n  the small quantity of fixed air which is then procured, yet enough\n  remains to form _water_ with the addition of the dephlogisticated air\n  which it has imbibed, so that this _calx_ of iron consists of the\n  intimate union of the pure _earth of iron_ and of _water_; and\n  therefore when the same calx, thus saturated with water, is exposed to\n  heat in inflammable air, this air enters into it, destroys the\n  attraction between the water and the earth, and revives the iron while\n  the water is expelled in its proper form.\n\n  \"Consequently, in the process with _steam_, nothing is necessary to be\n  supposed but the entrance of the water and the expulsion of the\n  phlogiston belonging to the iron, no more phlogiston remaining in it\n  than what the water brought along with it, and which is retained as a\n  constituent part of the water or of the new compound.\"\n\nNo more striking illustration of how a man's ingenuity may help him to\ndeceive himself could be given than is afforded by this passage.\nPriestley to the end of his days never got a just conception of the real\nchemical constitution of water.\n\nThe remaining papers call for little comment. In the course of some\nfurther inquiries Priestley discovered _sulphuretted hydrogen_, termed\nby him _sulphurated inflammable air_, and which he prepared by the\naction of oil of vitriol upon ferrous sulphide. This gas must of course\nhave been frequently obtained or perceived by him, and possibly by\nothers, as it is produced by a number of processes. Its characteristic\nsmell was associated with sulphur: it was thought to be nothing but\ninflammable air modified or polluted by the accidental presence of\nsulphur. It cannot be held that Priestley drew the same sharp\ndistinctions between the various kinds of inflammable air that we draw\nto-day. To us they are essentially different substances. Priestley,\nhowever, regarded them as in the main phlogiston combined or associated\nwith other substances which affected the character of their flames or\ngave them different properties. In his opinion they were essentially the\nsame. This fact serves to explain what is otherwise incomprehensible,\nand accounts for many of his mistakes.\n\nThe last paper in the volume, excluding the \"Supplementary\nObservations,\" has a special interest. It is entitled \"Observations\nrelating to Theory,\" and is in fact Priestley's Confession of Faith in\nthe doctrine which enslaved and misled him throughout the whole of his\nscientific career. But he makes it so hesitatingly and with so many\nreservations that one wonders why he is constrained to make it at all.\nHe appears to think, however, that it is expected of him.\n\n  \"It is always our endeavour, after making experiments, to generalise\n  the conclusions we draw from them, and by this means to form a\n  _theory_, or _system of principles_, to which all the facts may be\n  reduced, and by means of which we may be able to foretell the results\n  of future experiments.... In my former publications I have frequently\n  promised to give such a _general theory_ of the experiments in which\n  the different kinds of air are concerned, as the present state of our\n  knowledge of them will enable me to do. But, like Simonides with\n  respect to the question that was proposed to him concerning God, I\n  have deferred it from time to time; and indeed I am more than ever\n  disposed to defer it still longer, as I own that I am at present even\n  less able to give such a theory as shall satisfy myself than I was\n  some years ago; new difficulties having arisen, which unhinge former\n  theories, and more experiments being necessary to establish new ones.\n\n  \"Fluctuating, however, as the present state of this branch of\n  knowledge is, I do not think that I can, on this occasion, entirely\n  decline giving some observations of a theoretical nature, and though I\n  cannot pretend to perform the whole of my promise, I shall give a\n  summary view of what appears to me to be the constituent parts of all\n  the kinds of air with which we are acquainted, and a more particular\n  account of the hypothesis concerning phlogiston, which is at present\n  more an object of discussion than anything else of a theoretical\n  nature.\"\n\nPriestley then passes in review all the \"airs\" of which the chemistry of\nhis time had any knowledge, giving the _elements_ or constituent\nprinciples of which he imagined them to be composed.\n\nThe only kind of air that he thinks to be properly _elementary_, and to\nconsist of a simple substance, is _dephlogisticated air_, with possibly\nthe addition of the principle of heat, which, as it is not probable that\nit adds to the _weight_ of bodies, can hardly be called an _element_ in\ntheir composition.\n\n  \"Dephlogisticated air appears to be one of the elements of water, of\n  fixed air, of all the acids, and of many other substances which, till\n  lately, have been thought to be simple. The air of the atmosphere,\n  exclusive of a great variety of foreign impregnations, appears to\n  consist of dephlogisticated and phlogisticated air.\"\n\nAs regards _phlogisticated air_--the mephitic air of Rutherford, the\nazote of Lavoisier, the nitrogen of Chaptal--Priestley, reasoning from\nCavendish's work, concluded that it was probably not elementary, but\n\"that it consists of nitrous acid and phlogiston; this acid having\nalways been produced by decomposing it with ... dephlogisticated air.\"\n\nHe is conscious, however, of the insufficiency of this hypothesis, and\nsuggests\n\n  \"that the _acid principle_ is supplied by the dephlogisticated air,\n  while the nitrous air gives the base of the nitrous acid and\n  phlogiston; and then this [phlogisticated] air may perhaps be\n  considered as phlogiston combined not with all the necessary elements\n  of nitrous acid, but only what may be called the base of it, _viz._,\n  the dephlogisticated nitrous vapour, or something which when united to\n  dephlogisticated air will constitute nitrous acid.\"\n\n\"_Fixed air_ (carbonic acid) seems to be a compound of phlogiston and\ndephlogisticated air.\" In other words, carbonic acid and water have,\naccording to Priestley, \"the same elementary composition.\" \"It is\nsomething remarkable that two substances so different from each other as\n_fixed air_ and _water_ should be analysed into the same principles. But\nthere is this difference between them, that water is the union not of\npure phlogiston but of inflammable air and dephlogisticated air.\"\n\nOf the true nature of _inflammable air_, Priestley, as we have more than\nonce had occasion to point out, had only the vaguest notions.\n\n  \"Inflammable air,\" he says, \"seems now to consist of water and\n  inflammable air, which however seems extraordinary, as the two\n  substances are hereby made to involve each other, one of the\n  constituent parts of water being inflammable air, and one of the\n  constituent parts of inflammable air being water; and therefore, if\n  the experiments would favour it (but I do not see that they do so) it\n  would be more natural to suppose that water, like fixed air, consists\n  of phlogiston and dephlogisticated air in some different mode of\n  combination.\"\n\nThat Priestley to the last imagined that the various kinds of\ninflammable air known to him were at bottom one and the same substance,\nmodified or affected by other substances, accidental and unessential,\nmight be proved by a number of passages. He says with respect to\ninflammable air generally:--\n\n  \"There is an astonishing variety in the different kinds of inflammable\n  air, the cause of which is very imperfectly known. The lightest, and\n  therefore, probably, the purest kind seems to consist of phlogiston\n  and water only. But it is probable that _oil_, and that of different\n  kinds, may be held in solution in several of them, and be the reason\n  of their burning with a lambent flame, and also of their being so\n  readily resolved into fixed air when they are decomposed with\n  dephlogisticated air; though _why_ this should be the case I cannot\n  imagine.\"\n\n_Nitrous air_ (nitric oxide) he conceives to be a combination of a\ndephlogisticated nitrous air and phlogiston, and that by adding to it\ndephlogisticated air and water it is converted into nitrous acid.\n\n_Dephlogisticated nitrous air_ (nitrous oxide) he conceives may, like\ndephlogisticated air, be an elementary substance and to be formed by\ndepriving nitrous air of its phlogiston.\n\nThe various _acid airs_ (_e.g._, marine acid air, vitriolic acid air,\netc.) consist of the peculiar acids as vapours combined with phlogiston.\n\nThe _Alkaline air_ (ammonia) he thought to consist of inflammable air\nand phlogisticated air (nitrogen),\n\n  \"or of something capable of being converted into phlogisticated\n  air.... That water enters into the composition of alkaline air seems\n  necessary to be admitted, because it is decomposed into inflammable\n  air, which I cannot help thinking necessarily requires water. It\n  seems, however, clearly to be inferred ... that there is no occasion\n  to admit the _alkaline principle_ into the number of _elements_; the\n  _alkalinity_, as I may say, some way or other, arising from\n  phlogiston, or phlogisticated air, as _acidity_ arises from\n  dephlogisticated air.\"\n\nAfter these theoretical speculations, \"in which,\" he says, \"I fear I\nhave not communicated much light, though it is as much as I have been\nable to get,\" Priestley proceeds to make some observations relating to\n_phlogiston_, \"the existence of which is at present a great subject of\ndiscussion with philosophers; some maintaining that there is no such\nthing, and others holding the doctrine of Stahl on the subject.\"\n\n  \"According to Stahl, phlogiston is a real substance, capable of being\n  transferred from one body to another; its presence or absence making a\n  remarkable difference in the properties of bodies, whether it add to\n  their _weight_ or not. Thus he concluded that oil of vitriol deprived\n  of water, and united to phlogiston, becomes sulphur; and that the\n  calces of metals, by the addition of the same substance, become\n  metals.... What is now contended for is that in the oil of vitriol\n  changing into sulphur something is lost and nothing gained, and also\n  that a calx becomes a metal by the loss of air only. And did facts\n  correspond to this theory it would certainly be preferable to that of\n  Stahl, as being more simple; there being one principle less to take\n  into our account in explaining the changes of bodies. But I do not\n  know of any case in which phlogiston has been supposed to enter into a\n  body, but there is room to suppose that something does enter into\n  it....\n\n  \"What has been insisted upon, as most favourable to the exclusion of\n  phlogiston, is the revival of mercury without the addition of any\n  other substance from the precipitate _per se_. In this case it is\n  evident that mere _heat_ ... is sufficient to revive the metal. And as\n  what is expelled from this calx is the purest dephlogisticated air, it\n  has been said that mercury is changed into this calx by imbibing pure\n  air, and therefore becomes a metal again, merely in consequence of\n  parting with that air.\"\n\nThe dexterous Mr Kirwan, not long before he himself embraced the French\ndoctrine, furnished Priestley with an argument which satisfied him that\nthis cardinal fact can be accounted for without excluding phlogiston.\n\"Since therefore the supposition is exceedingly convenient, if not\nabsolutely necessary, to the explanation of many other facts in\nchemistry, it is at least advisable not to abandon it.\"\n\n  \"That calces do not become metals merely by parting with the air they\n  contain, is evident from my experiments on heating them in contact\n  with inflammable air, in which the inflammable air, or some necessary\n  part of it, is undoubtedly absorbed; and though a little moisture be\n  deposited in the process, it may well be supposed to be that which in\n  conjunction with phlogiston constituted the inflammable air. And what\n  can the other principle that is absorbed by the calx be but the same\n  thing which, when united to water, is recovered again from the metal\n  and found to be inflammable air having all the same properties with\n  that which was employed in the revival of it. Metals therefore are not\n  simple substances, but consist of their calces, and something else\n  which they take from inflammable air. And as the same may also be\n  taken from any combustible substance, it corresponds exactly to\n  Stahl's phlogiston, and therefore the doctrine of it is confirmed by\n  these experiments; that is, we must still say that in all combustible\n  substances there is a principle capable of being transferred to other\n  substances, which when united to the calces of metals makes them to be\n  metals, and which, united to oil of vitriol (deprived of its water)\n  makes it to be sulphur.\"\n\nThus was the ingenious man effectually entangled in his errors, his\ningenuity helping him to deceive himself by evading the force of truth.\nTo err is human. If Priestley saw through a glass darkly, and but dimly\ndiscerned the truth, he at least strove, so far as in him lay, to reach\nthe light. Posterity forgives, and may well forget, his errors in\ngrateful recognition of the many noble services he rendered to our\ncommon humanity, and in humbling recollection of the suffering and\nsacrifice with which those services were requited.\n\n\n\n\n                               FOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1]The Gregorian Calendar was not adopted in Great Britain until 1751.\n    In 1752 eleven days were left out of the Calendar, September 3rd\n    being counted the 14th. The change of style probably accounts for\n    the confusion in the various dates of Priestley's birth given by\n    different writers. In Chalmers's _General Biographical Dictionary_\n    the date is given as March 18; in Allen's _American Biographical and\n    Historical Dictionary_ and in Thomson's _History of the Royal\n    Society_ as March 24; Corry, in his _Life of Priestley_, gives March\n    24; Hoefer, in his _Histoire de la Chimie_, gives March 30, probably\n    following Dumas's _Philosophie de Chimie_; Cuvier, in his _Eloge_,\n    says that he was born near Bristol in 1728! In a letter to Wedgwood,\n    dated March 23, 1783, Priestley says in a postscript \"This day I\n    complete my half century.\"\n\n[2]T. Wemyss Reid, _Memoir of John Deskin Heaton_, p. 7 _et seq._\n\n[3]The \"Great Frost,\" as it was called, which, beginning on December 26,\n    1739, continued with the greatest intensity till February 17, 1740.\n    Above London Bridge the Thames was completely frozen over, and\n    numerous booths were erected on it for selling liquor, etc., to the\n    multitudes who daily flocked there.\n\n[4]_The Inquirer_, January 16, 1904.\n\n[5]Dr Andrew Kippis, an eminent Presbyterian, was the minister of the\n    Prince's Street Chapel, Westminster, and had at his disposal funds\n    which he could employ in assisting young ministers in their\n    education and first settlement. Priestley enjoyed his friendship\n    through life. Kippis, who was the editor of the _Biographia\n    Britannia_, was elected into the Royal Society in 1779, and served\n    on its council.\n\n[6]William Eyres of Warrington, who was one of the most remarkable\n    printers of his day, produced a number of works noted for their\n    typographic excellence and beauty. He printed, in addition to the\n    works above mentioned, the first editions of Mrs Barbauld's poems,\n    Gilbert Wakefield's _Lucretius_, and other well-known classics.\n\n[7]She was then sixty-two, and lived twenty years longer.\n\n[8]The lines were the well-known stanza:--\n\n    \"Life! We've been long together\n    Through pleasant and through cloudy weather;\n    'Tis hard to part when friends are dear,\n    Perhaps 'twill cost a sigh, a tear;\n    Then steal away, give little warning.\n        Choose thine own time;\n    Say not good-night, but in some brighter clime\n        Bid me good-morning.\"\n\n[9]He lies buried near Castlehead, in Cartmel, Lancashire, where his\n    monument, a pyramidal mausoleum containing some twenty tons of iron,\n    is a notable feature in the landscape. On it is the following\n    epitaph written by himself:--\n\n    \"Delivered from persecution of malice and envy here rests John\n    Wilkinson, Iron Master, in certain hopes of a better state and\n    heavenly mansion, as promulgated by Jesus Christ, in whose Gospel he\n    was a firm believer. His life was spent in action for the benefit of\n    man, and he trusts in some degree to the glory of God.\"\n\n[10]This portrait was formerly in the possession of Mrs Crouch,\n    Priestley's youngest sister, and, according to Mrs Bilbrough of\n    Gildersome (_n\u00e9e_ Ellen Priestley), was brought by Mrs Crouch,\n    \"along with the old family clock from her father's, Fieldhead, when\n    she came to live here in 1787.\" The picture was once placed in the\n    window of a carver and gilder's shop at Leeds, when Priestley\n    stopped to look at it in passing by. A woman happened to be doing\n    the same, and, on seeing him, exclaimed, \"Why, here's the fellow\n    himself!\" A photographic copy of it was presented to the subscribers\n    to the Stephen Statue in the Oxford Museum.\n\n[11]There is a pencil-drawing of the house, made by the son of Dr\n    Kenrick of Warrington, among the Yates papers in the possession of\n    the Royal Society.\n\n[12]The Chapel, or \"Meeting House\" as it was called in Priestley's time,\n    adjoined the Alms House Garth and was erected in 1673, after the\n    passage of the Act of Indulgence. It was pulled down in 1847 and the\n    present Mill Hill Chapel erected on its site.\n\n[13]\"_Lectures on the Memory of the Just._ A Series of Discourses on the\n    Lives and Times of the Ministers of Mill Hill Chapel, Leeds.\"\n\n[14]He had in John Lee, a native of Leeds and a man of about his own\n    age, who became Solicitor-General in 1782, a friend who offered to\n    further his interests in that matter. Priestley, in his\n    autobiography, says: \"Mr Lee showed himself particularly my friend\n    at the time I left Lord Shelburne, assisting me in the difficulties\n    with which I was then pressed, and continuing to befriend me\n    afterwards by seasonable benefactions.\"\n\n[15]Richard Brinsley Sheridan at that time represented Stafford in the\n    House of Commons. Both he and Fox sympathised with Priestley and\n    sought to secure him compensation for his losses.\n\n[16]Withering's _Botanical Arrangement_, 2nd Ed. 3 vols. 1792.\n\n[17]Mercuric oxide made by heating quicksilver in air.\n\n[18]Nitrous oxide: _see_ p. 182.\n\n[19]Mercuric oxide made by heating mercuric nitrate.\n\n[20]See the author's _Essays in Historical Chemistry_--\"Priestley,\n    Cavendish, Lavoisier and La R\u00e9volution Chimique.\"\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX\n\n\n                                   A\n  Aikin, Anna L\u00e6titia, 33, 43;\n      her poem _Corsica_, 70, 75.\n  Aikin, John, 32, 33, 36, 121.\n  Aikin, Lucy, 38.\n  _Air, Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of_, Priestley's\n          treatise on, 77, 103, 167 _et seq._\n  Air, Fixed, 175, 176;\n      Priestley's view of its nature, 220.\n  Air, Inflammable, 179, 220.\n  Alkaline Air (Ammonia), Priestley's isolation of, 185;\n      its properties, 186;\n      decomposition of by electricity, 210;\n      nature of, 221.\n  Ammonia Gas, Priestley's discovery of, 185;\n      its properties, 186.\n  Ammonium Sesquicarbonate, Synthesis of, by Priestley, 186.\n\n                                   B\n  Barbauld, Mrs (Anna L\u00e6titia Aikin), 33, 160.\n  Belloc, Madame, account of the Priestleys, 2;\n      of the times of Priestley, 5;\n      her account of Mrs Priestley, 49.\n  Bewley, Richard, his mephitic julep, 79.\n  Birmingham Riots of 1791, 120 _et seq._\n  Bolton, H. Carrington, his account of the Lunar Society, 96.\n  Boulton, Matthew, founds the Lunar Society of Birmingham, 94.\n  Boyle, Robert, his recognition that different elastic fluids exist,\n          174.\n  Bright, Henry A., his account of the Warrington Academy, 34.\n  Burke, Edmund, his denunciation of Priestley, 147.\n\n                                   C\n  Canton, John, his school, 9, 62.\n  \"Conversion of Water into Air, Seeming,\" Priestley's work on, 216.\n  _Corruptions of Christianity_, Priestley's, 106.\n\n                                   D\n  Darwin, Erasmus, his connection with the Birmingham Lunar Society, 94,\n          95.\n  Daventry Academy, 18.\n  Dephlogisticated Air (Oxygen), Priestley's discovery of, 184, 192 _et\n          seq._\n  _Doctrine of Phlogiston Established_, Priestley's last scientific\n          work, 162.\n\n                                   E\n  Edgeworth, Richard Lovell, his account of the Lunar Society, 96.\n  Electricity, History of, Priestley's, 63.\n  Enfield, William, 33, 43.\n  Eudiometry, 182, 207, 208.\n  Eyres, William, of Warrington, 38.\n\n                                   F\n  Faujar St Fond, his visits to Priestley, 103.\n  Fieldhead, 3.\n  Fluor Acid Air, 198.\n  Forster, John Reinhold, 33, 81.\n  Franklin Benjamin, 63, 91, 92;\n      his opinion of Priestley, 93.\n\n                                   G\n  Galton, Samuel, 94, 96.\n  Gases, diffusion of, 202.\n  \"General History of the Christian Church to the Fall of the Western\n          Empire,\" 109, 163.\n  Gordon, Rev. Alexander, his account of Priestley as a theologian, 109.\n\n                                   H\n  Harrison, Frederic, on Priestley, 1.\n  Horner, Leonard, his account of the Lunar Society, 102.\n  Hutton, Miss, her account of Priestley as a preacher, 105.\n\n                                   I\n  India-rubber, its use for erasing lead-pencil marks, 72.\n\n                                   J\n  \"Jesus and Socrates compared,\" Priestley's Essay, 163.\n\n                                   K\n  Keighley, Mrs Sarah, 3, 8, 12.\n  Keir, Captain, 94, 127.\n  Kippis, Dr Andrew, 24, 26.\n  Kirwan, Richard, 215, 223.\n\n                                   L\n  Lavoisier, his relations to the discovery of oxygen, 195, 196, 198,\n          201, 215.\n  \"Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever,\" Priestley's, 85.\n  Lindsey, Theophilus, his friendship for Priestley, 73, 106.\n  Lunar Society of Birmingham, 94 _et seq._\n\n                                   M\n  Magellan, or Magalh\u00e6ns, 84, 205.\n  Marine Acid Air (Hydrogen Chloride), Priestley's discovery of, 184.\n  \"Melioration of Air, by the Growth of Plants,\" Priestley's paper on,\n          208.\n\n                                   N\n  Nitrosulphuric Acid, discovery of, 204.\n  Nitrous Air (Nitric Oxide), Priestley's work on, 181;\n      his application of it to Eudiometry, 182;\n      nature of, 221.\n  Nitrous Acid, discovery of, 182;\n      nature of, 221.\n\n                                   O\n  Oxygen, Priestley's discovery of, 184, 192 _et seq._\n\n                                   P\n  Paoli, Pascal, 70 _et seq._\n  Parr, Dr Samuel, 113, 144.\n  Phlogisticated Air (Nitrogen), Priestley's theory of its constitution,\n          220.\n  Phlogiston, 98, 100, 162, 214, 222.\n  Pneumatic Trough, the, 176.\n  Price, Dr Richard, 61.\n  Pringle, Sir John, address on award of Copley Medal to Priestley, 80.\n  Priestley, Jonas, father of Joseph Priestley, 2.\n  Priestley, Joseph, his birth, 1;\n      ancestry, 2;\n      education, 8;\n      becomes an Arminian, 14;\n      goes to Daventry, 17;\n      his studies there, 18;\n      begins his _Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion_, 20, 68;\n      his \"thorn in the flesh,\" 21;\n      goes to Needham, 22;\n      his privations there, 23;\n      goes to Nantwich, 30;\n      starts a school, 31;\n      removes to Warrington, 32;\n      marries, 47;\n      is ordained, 49;\n      his _English Grammar_, 32, 51;\n      _Essay on Education_, 53;\n      _Lectures on History and General Policy_, 55;\n      his _Chart of Biography_, 60;\n      is made Doctor of Laws of Edinburgh, 60;\n      publishes his _History and Present State of Electricity_, 64;\n      goes to Leeds, 66;\n      becomes a Unitarian, 69;\n      _Theory and Practice of Perspective_, 72;\n      _History of Discoveries Relating to Vision, Light and Colours_,\n          73;\n      his literary characteristics, 74;\n      his invention of soda-water, 77 _et seq._;\n      is awarded the Copley Medal, 80;\n      becomes librarian to Lord Shelburne, 82;\n      visits the continent, 84;\n      his _Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit_, 86;\n      _Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air_, 77, 103;\n      leaves Lord Shelburne, 88;\n      removes to Birmingham, 93;\n      his merits as a preacher, 105;\n      his _History of the Corruptions of Christianity_, 106;\n      his merits as a theologian, 109;\n      his love of literature, 111;\n      his physical characteristics, 114;\n      his habits of life, 114;\n      his mental characteristics, 117;\n      destruction of his house at Birmingham, 120 _et seq._;\n      his address to the inhabitants of Birmingham, 134;\n      his account of the riots, 143;\n      succeeds Dr Price as minister at Hackney, 146;\n      withdraws from the Royal Society, 147;\n      determines to leave the country, 149;\n      his arrival in New York, 155;\n      settles in Northumberland, 155;\n      death of Mrs Priestley, 158;\n      his last days, 162;\n      his _Doctrine of Phlogiston Established_, 162;\n      his death, 164.\n  Priestley, Timothy, 2, 7.\n\n                                   R\n  Respiration, and the use of the Blood, Priestley's paper on, 203.\n  Robinson, Henry Crabb, his account of Mrs Barbauld, 46.\n  Russell, Martha, her account of the Birmingham Riots of 1791, 128.\n  Russell, William, 105, 126, 149.\n\n                                   S\n  Sal Ammoniac, Synthesis of, by Priestley, 186.\n  Scheele, an independent discoverer of Oxygen, 206;\n      discovers Chlorine, 211.\n  Schimmelpenninck's, Mrs, account of Priestley, 96.\n  Seddon, John, 34, 42.\n  Shelburne, Lord (Marquis of Lansdowne), 82.\n  Silicon Fluoride, Priestley's preparation of, 198;\n      its decomposition by water, 199.\n  Soda-water, invention of, 77.\n  Sound in Air, 211.\n  Sozzini, Fausto, 69, 108.\n  Stahl, author of the hypothesis of phlogiston, 222.\n  Sulphur dioxide (Vitriolic Acid Air), Priestley's discovery of, 190.\n  Sulphurated inflammable air (sulphuretted hydrogen), Priestley's\n          isolation of, 218.\n  Sulphuretted hydrogen, Priestley's isolation of, 218.\n\n                                   T\n  Taylor, Dr John, of Norwich, 36.\n  Theological Repository, the, 68, 105.\n  Turner, Matthew, teacher of chemistry at the Warrington Academy, 51,\n          76.\n\n                                   V\n  Vegetation, relation of to Air, Priestley's discovery of, 178, 208.\n  Vitriolic Acid Air (sulphur dioxide), Priestley's isolation of, 189.\n\n                                   W\n  Warrington Academy, the, 33 _et seq._\n  Water Controversy, the, 97.\n  Watt, James, his connection with the Lunar Society, 94;\n      discovery of Composition of Water, 97.\n  Wedgwood, Josiah, his friendship for Priestley, 55, 83, 137.\n  Wilkes and Liberty, Priestley's pamphlet on, 73, 152.\n  Wilkinson, John, 48, 138.\n  Wilkinson, Mary (Mrs Priestley), 49, 158;\n      Madame Belloc's account of her, 49.\n  Withering, Dr, 94, 101, 148.\n  Wordsworth, William, his admiration of Mrs Barbauld's literary work,\n          46.\n\n\n             _Colston & Coy. Limited, Printers, Edinburgh._\n\n\n\n\n                          Transcriber's Notes\n\n\n--Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook\n  is public-domain in the country of publication.\n\n--Created cover and spine images based on elements in the book.\n\n--Silently corrected a few palpable typos.\n\n--In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by\n  _underscores_.","title":"Joseph Priestley","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":70497}