Chapter II: Part 2

In this free and happy country, those unalienable rights, which
the Author of Nature committed to man as a sacred deposit, have
been secured: Here, we have been enabled, under the favour of
Divine Providence, to establish a government of Laws, and not of
Men; a government, which secures to its citizens equal Rights, and
equal Liberty, and which offers an asylum to the good, to the
persecuted, and to the oppressed of other climes.

May you long enjoy every blessing which an elevated and highly
cultivated mind, a pure conscience, and a free country are capable
of bestowing.

And, in return, Priestley remarked.

IT is with peculiar satisfaction that I receive the
congratulations of my brethren of the Philosophical Society in
this City, on my arrival in this country. It is, in great part,
for the sake of pursuing our common studies without molestation,
though for the present you will allow, with far less advantage,
that I left my native country, and have come to America; and a
Society of Philosophers, who will have no objection to a person on
account of his political or religious sentiments, will be as
grateful, as it will be new to me. My past conduct, I hope, will
show, that you may depend upon my zeal in promoting the valuable
objects of your institution; but you must not flatter yourself, or
me, with supposing, that, at my time of life, and with the
inconvenience attending a new and uncertain settlement, I can be
of much service to it.

I am confident, however, from what I have already seen of the
spirit of the people of this country, that it will soon appear
that Republican governments, in which every obstruction is removed
to the exertion of all kinds of talent, will be far more
favourable to science, and the arts, than any monarchical
government has ever been. The patronage to be met with there is
ever capricious, and as often employed to bear down merit as to
promote it, having for its real object, not science or anything
useful to mankind, but the mere reputation of the patron, who is
seldom any judge of science. Whereas a Public which neither
flatters nor is to be flattered will not fail in due time to
distinguish true merit and to give every encouragement that it is
proper to be given in the case. Besides by opening as you
generously do an asylum to the persecuted and "oppressed of all
climes," you will in addition to your own native stock, soon
receive a large accession of every kind of merit, philosophical
not excepted, whereby you will do yourselves great honour and
secure the most permanent advantage to the community.

Doubtless in the society of so many worthy Philadelphians, the Priestleys were happy, for they had corresponded with not a few of them.

The longing for Northumberland became very great and one smiles on reading that the good Doctor thought "Philadelphia by no means so agreeable as New York ... Philadelphia would be very irksome to me.... It is only a place for business and to get money in." But in this City he later spent much of his time.

It was about the middle of July, 1794, that the journey to Northumberland began, and on September 14, 1794, Priestley wrote of Northumberland "nothing can be more delightful, or more healthy than this place."

Safely lodged among those dear to him one finds much pleasure in observing the great philosopher's activities. The preparation of a home for himself and his wife and the unmarried members of the family was uppermost in his mind. But much time was given to correspondence with loyal friends in England. Chief among these were the Reverends Lindsey and Belsham. The letters to these gentlemen disclose the plans and musings of the exile. For instance, in a communication to the former, dated September 14, 1794, he wrote:

The professor of chemistry in the College of Philadelphia is
supposed to be on his death-bed ... in the case of a vacancy, Dr.
Rush thinks I shall be invited to succeed him. In this case I must
reside four months in one year in Philadelphia, and one principal
inducement with me to accept of it will be the opportunity I shall
have of forming an Unitarian Congregation....

And a month later he observed to the same friend:

Philadelphia is unpleasant, unhealthy, and intolerably
expensive.... Every day I do something towards the continuation of
my Church History.... I have never read so much Hebrew as I have
since I left England....

He visited freely in the vicinity of Northumberland, spending much time in the open. Davy, a traveler, made this note:

Dr. Priestley visited us at Sunbury, looks well and cheerful, has
left off his perriwig, and combs his short grey locks, in the true
style of the simplicity of the country.... Dined very pleasantly
with him. He has bought a lot of eleven acres (exclusively of that
which he is building on), which commands a delightful view of all
the rivers, and both towns, i.e. Sunbury and Northumberland and
the country. It cost him 100£ currency.

It was also to Mr. Lindsey that he communicated, on November 12, 1794, a fact of no little interest, even today, to teachers of Chemistry in America. It was:

I have just received an invitation to the professorship of
chemistry at Philadelphia ... when I considered that I must pass
four months of every year from home, my heart failed me; and I
declined it. If my books and apparatus had been in Philadelphia, I
might have acted differently, but part of them are now arrived
here, and the remainder I expect in a few days, and the expense
and risk of conveyance of such things from Philadelphia hither is
so great, that I cannot think of taking them back ... and in a
year or two, I doubt not, we shall have a college established
here.

It was about this time that his youngest son, Harry, in whom he particularly delighted, began clearing 300 acres of cheap land, and in this work the philosopher was greatly interested; indeed, on occasions he actually participated in the labor of removing the timber. Despite this manual labor there were still hours of every day given to the Church History, and to his correspondence which grew in volume, as he was advising inquiring English friends, who thought of emigrating, and very generally to them he recommended the perusal of Dr. Thomas Cooper's

"Advice to those who would remove to America--"

Through this correspondence, now and then, there appeared little animadversions on the quaint old town on the Delaware, such as

I never saw a town I liked less than Philadelphia.

Could this dislike have been due to the fact that--

Probably in no other place on the Continent was the love of bright
colours and extravagance in dress carried to such an extreme.
Large numbers of the Quakers yielded to it, and even the very
strict ones carried gold-headed canes, gold snuff-boxes, and wore
great silver buttons on their drab coats and handsome buckles on
their shoes.

And

Nowhere were the women so resplendant in silks, satins, velvets,
and brocades, and they piled up their hair mountains high.

Furthermore--

The descriptions of the banquets and feasts ... are appalling.

John Adams, when he first came down to Philadelphia, fresh from
Boston, stood aghast at this life into which he was suddenly
thrown and thought it must be sin. But he rose to the occasion,
and, after describing in his diary some of the "mighty feasts" and
"sinful feasts" ... says he drank Madeira "at a great rate and
found no inconvenience."

It would only be surmise to state what were the Doctor's reasons for his frequent declaration of dislike for Philadelphia.

The winter of 1794-1795 proved much colder "than ever I knew it in England," but he cheerfully requested Samuel Parker to send him a hygrometer, shades or bell-glasses, jars for electrical batteries, and

a set of glass tubes with large bulbs at the end, such as I used
in the experiments I last published on the generation of _Air_
from water.

Most refreshing is this demand upon a friend. It indicates the keen desire in Priestley to proceed with experimental studies, though surroundings and provisions for such undertakings were quite unsatisfactory. The spirit was there and very determined was its possessor that his science pursuits should not be laid totally aside. His attitude and course in this particular were admirable and exemplary. Too often the lack of an abundance of equipment and the absence of many of the supposed essentials, have been deterrents which have caused men to abandon completely their scientific investigations. However, such was not the case with the distinguished exile, and for this he deserved all praise.

From time to time, in old papers and books of travel, brief notes concerning Priestley appear. These exhibit in a beautiful manner the human side of the man. They cause one to wish that the privilege of knowing this worthy student of chemical science might have been enjoyed by him. For example, a Mr. Bakewell chanced upon him in the spring of 1795 and recorded:

I found him (Priestley) a man rather below the middle size,
straight and plain, wearing his own hair; and in his countenance,
though you might discern the philosopher, yet it beamed with so
much simplicity and freedom as made him very easy of access.

It is also stated in Davy's "Journal of Voyage, etc."--

The doctor enjoys a game at whist; and although he never hazards a
farthing, is highly diverted with playing good cards, but never
ruffled by bad ones.

In May, 1795, Priestley expressed himself as follows:

As to the experiments, I find I cannot do much till I get my own
house built. At present I have all my books and instruments in one
room, in the house of my son.

This is the first time in all his correspondence that reference is made to experimental work. It was in 1795. As a matter of course every American chemist is interested to know when he began experimentation in this country.

In the absence of proper laboratory space and the requisite apparatus, it is not surprising that he thought much and wrote extensively on religious topics, and further he would throw himself into political problems, for he addressed Mr. Adams on restriction "in the naturalization of foreigners." He remarked that--

Party strife is pretty high in this country, but the Constitution
is such that it cannot do any harm.

To friends, probably reminding him of being "unactive, which affects me much," he answered:

As to the chemical lectureship (in Philadelphia) I am convinced I
could not have acquitted myself in it to proper advantage. I had
no difficulty in giving a general course of chemistry at Hackney
(England), lecturing only once a week; but to give a lecture every
day for four months, and to enter so particularly into the subject
as a course of lectures in a medical University (Pennsylvania)
requires, I was not prepared for; and my engagements there would
not, at my time of life, have permitted me to make the necessary
preparations for it; if I could have done it at all. For, though I
have made discoveries in some branches of chemistry, I never gave
much attention to the common routine of it, and know but little
of the common processes.

Is not this a refreshing confession from the celebrated discoverer of oxygen? The casual reader would not credit such a statement from one who August 1, 1774, introduced to the civilized world so important an element as oxygen. Because he did not know the "common processes" of chemistry and had not concerned himself with the "common routine" of it, led to his blazing the way among chemical compounds in his own fashion. Many times since the days of Priestley real researchers after truth have proceeded without compass and uncovered most astonishing and remarkable results. They had the genuine research spirit and were driven forward by it. Priestley knew little of the labyrinth of analysis and cared less; indeed, he possessed little beyond an insatiable desire to unfold Nature's secrets.

Admiration for Priestley increases on hearing him descant on the people about him--on the natives--

Here every house-keeper has a garden, out of which he raises
almost all he wants for his family. They all have cows, and many
have horses, the keeping of which costs them little or nothing in
the summer, for they ramble with bells on their necks in the
woods, and come home at night. Almost all the fresh meat they have
is salted in the autumn, and a fish called _shads_ in the spring.
This salt shad they eat at breakfast, with their tea and coffee,
and also at night. We, however, have not yet laid aside our
English customs, and having made great exertion to get fresh meat,
it will soon come into general use.

Proudly must he have said--

My youngest son, Harry, works as hard as any farmer in the country
and is as attentive to his farm, though he is only eighteen....
Two or three hours I always work in the fields along with my
son....

And, then as a supplement, for it was resting heavily on his mind, he added--

What I chiefly attend to now is my Church History ... but I make
some experiments every day (July 12, 1795), and shall soon draw up
a paper for the Philosophical Society at Philadelphia.

Early in December of 1795 he entrusted a paper, intended for the American Philosophical Society to the keeping of Dr. Young, a gentleman from Northumberland en route for Europe. Acquainting his friend Lindsey of this fact, he took occasion to add--

I have much more to do in my laboratory, but I am under the
necessity of shutting up for the winter, as the frost will make it
impossible to keep my water fit for use, without such provision as
I cannot make, till I get my own laboratory prepared on purpose,
when I hope to be able to work alike, winter and summer.

Dr. Young carried two papers to Philadelphia. The first article treated of "Experiments and Observations relating to the Analysis of Atmospherical Air," and the second "Further Experiments relating to the Generation of Air from Water." They filled 20 quarto pages of Volume 4 of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. On reading them the thought lingers that these are the first contributions of the eminent philosopher from his American home. Hence, without reference to their value, they are precious. They represent the results of inquiries performed under unusual surroundings. It is very probable that Priestley's English correspondents desired him to concentrate his efforts upon experimental science. They were indeed pleased to be informed of his Church History, and his vital interest in religion, but they cherished the hope that science would in largest measure displace these literary endeavors. Priestley himself never admitted this, but must have penetrated their designs, and, recognizing the point of their urging, worked at much disadvantage to get the results presented in these two pioneer studies. Present day students would grow impatient in their perusal, because of the persistent emphasis placed on phlogiston, dephlogisticated air, phlogisticated air, and so forth. In the very first paper, the opening lines show this:

It is an essential part of the antiphlogistic theory, that in all
the cases of what I have called _phlogistication_ of _air_, there
is simply an absorption of the dephlogisticated air, or, as the
advocates of that theory term it, the oxygen contained in it,
leaving the _phlogisticated_ part, which they call _azote_, as it
originally existed in the atmosphere. Also, according to this
system, _azote_ is a simple substance, at least not hitherto
analyzed into any other.

No matter how deeply one venerates Priestley, or how great honor is ascribed to him, the question continues why the simpler French view was not adopted by this honest student. Further, as an ardent admirer one asks why should Priestley pen the next sentence:

They, therefore, suppose that there is a determinate proportion
between the quantities of oxygen, and azote in every portion of
atmospherical air, and that all that has hitherto been done has
been to separate them from one another. This proportion they state
to be 27 parts of oxygen and 73 parts of azote, in 100 of
atmospherical air.

Priestley knew that there was a "determinate proportion." He was not, however, influenced by quantitative data.

Sir Oliver Lodge said[4]--

Priestley's experiments were admirable, but his perception of
their theoretical relations was entirely inadequate and, as we
now think, quite erroneous.... In theory he had no instinct for
guessing right ... he may almost be said to have had a
predilection for the wrong end.

At present the French thought is so evident that it seems incomprehensible that Priestley failed to grasp it, for he continues--

In every case of the diminution of atmospherical air in which this
is the result, there appears to me to be something emitted from
the substance, which the antiphlogistians suppose to act by simple
absorption, and therefore that it is more probable that there is
some substance, and the same that has been called _philogiston_,
or the _principle of inflammability_ ... emitted, and that this
phlogiston uniting with part of the dephlogisticated air forms
with it part of the phlogisticated air, which is found after the
process.

Subsequently (1798), he advised the Society that he had executed other experiments which corroborated those outlined in his first two papers, adding--

Had the publication of your _Transactions_ been more frequent, I
should with much pleasure have submitted to the Society a full
account of these and other experiments which appear to me to
prove, that metals are compound substances, and that water has not
yet been decomposed by any process that we are acquainted with.
Still, however, I would not be very positive, as the contrary is
maintained by almost all the chemists of the age....

And thus he proceeds, ever doing interesting things, but blind to the patent results because he had phlogiston constantly before him. He looked everywhere for it, followed it blindly, and consequently overlooked the facts regarded as most significant by his opponents, which in the end led them to correct conclusions.

The experimental results in the second paper also admit of an interpretation quite the opposite of that deduced by Priestley. He confidently maintained that air was invariably generated from water, because he discovered it and liberated it from water which he was certain did not contain it in solution. He was conscientious in his inferences. Deeply did his friends deplore his inability to see more than a single interpretation of his results!

The papers were read before the American Philosophical Society on the 19th of February, 1796. Their author as they appear in print, is the Rev. Dr. J. Priestley. It is doubtful whether he affixed this signature. More probable is it that the Secretary of the Society was responsible, and, because he thought of Priestley in the rôle of a Reverend gentleman rather than as a scientific investigator.

Here, perhaps, it may be mentioned that the first, the very first communication from Priestley's pen to the venerable Philosophical Society, was read in 1784. It was presented by a friend--a Mr. W. Vaughan, whose family in England were always the staunchest of Priestley's supporters. And it is not too much to assume that it was the same influence which one year later (1785) brought about Priestley's election to membership in the Society, for he was one of "28 new members" chosen in January of that year.

There are evidences of marked friendliness to Priestley all about the Hall of the Society, for example his profile in Plaster of Paris, "particularly valuable for the resemblance" to the Doctor, which was presented in 1791; a second "profile in black leather" given by Robert Patterson, a President of the Society, and an oil portrait of him from Mrs. Dr. Caspar Wistar.

His appearance in person, when for the first time he sat among his colleagues of the Society, was on the evening of February 19, 1796--the night upon which the two papers, commented upon in the last few paragraphs were presented, although he probably did not read them himself, this being done by a friend or by the secretary. Sixteen members were present. Among these were some whose names have become familiar elsewhere, such as Barton, Woodhouse and others. Today, the presence in the same old Hall of a renowned scientist, from beyond the seas, would literally attract crowds. Then it was not the fashion. But probably he had come unannounced and unheralded. Further, he was speaking at other hours on other topics in the city.

It is not recorded that he spoke before the philosophers. Perhaps he quietly absorbed their remarks and studied them, although he no doubt was agreeably aroused when Mr. Peale presented

to the Society a young son of four months and four days old, being
the first child born in the Philosophical Hall, and requested that
the Society would give him a name. On which the Society
unanimously agreed that, after the name of the chief founder and
late President of the Society, he should be called Franklin.

In anticipation of any later allusion to Priestley's sojourn in Philadelphia be it observed that he attended meetings of the American Philosophical Society three times in 1796, twice in 1797, three times in 1801 and once in 1803, and that on February 3rd, 1797, he was chosen to deliver the annual oration before the Society, but the Committee reported that

they waited on Dr. Priestley last Monday afternoon, who received
the information with great politeness, but declined accepting of
the appointment.

This lengthy digression must now be interrupted. It has gone almost too far, yet it was necessary in order that an account of the early experimental contributions of the exile might be introduced chronologically. As already remarked, Americans are most deeply interested in everything Priestley did during his life in this country and particularly in his scientific activities.

On resuming the story of the routine at Northumberland in the closing months of the year 1795, there comes the cry from an agonized heart,--

We have lost poor Harry!

This was the message to a Philadelphia resident--a friend from old England. The loss, for such it emphatically was, affected the Doctor and Mrs. Priestley very deeply. This particular son was a pride to them and though only eighteen years old had conducted his farm as if he had been bred a farmer.

He was uncommonly beloved by all that worked under him.

His home was just outside of the borough of Northumberland. It was the gift of his father. His interment in "a plot of ground" belonging to the Society of Friends is thus described by Mr Bakewell:

I attended the funeral to the lonely spot, and there I saw the
good old father perform the service over the grave of his son. It
was an affecting sight, but he went through it with fortitude, and
after praying, addressed the attendants in a few words, assuring
them that though death had separated them here, they should meet
again in another and a better life.

The correspondence to friends in England was replete with accounts of lectures which were in process of preparation. They were discourses on the Evidences of Revelation and their author was most desirous of getting to Philadelphia that he might there deliver them. At that time this City was full of atheism and agnosticism. Then, too, the hope of establishing a Unitarian Church was ever in Priestley's thoughts. How delightful it is to read, February 12th, 1796--

I am now on my way to Philadelphia.

When he left it in 1794 he was rather critical of it, but now after three days he arrived there. It was

a very good journey, accompanied by my daughter-in-law, in my
son's Yarmouth waggon, which by means of a seat constructed of
straw, was very easy.

Yes, back again to the City which was the only city in this country ever visited by him. Although at times he considered going to New York, and even to Boston, Philadelphia was to become his Mecca. In it he was to meet the most congenial scientific spirits, and to the younger of these he was destined to impart a new inspiration for science, and for chemical science in particular. At the close of the three days' journey he wrote--

I am a guest with Mr. Russell.... We found him engaged to drink
tea with President Washington, where we accompanied him and spent
two hours as in any private family. He (Washington) invited me to
come at any time, without ceremony. Everything is the reverse of
what it is with you.

This was his first meeting with Washington. The spirit of the occasion impressed him. The democratic behavior of the great Federalist must have astonished him, if he ever entertained, as Lord Brougham would have us believe, a hostile opinion and thought him ungrateful because he would not consent to make America dependent upon France.

Priestley's eagerness to preach was intense, and happy must he have been on the day following his arrival, when his heart's wish was gratified. He preached in the church of Mr. Winchester--

to a very numerous, respectable, and very attentive audience.

Many were members of Congress, and according to one witness--

The Congregation that attended were so numerous that the house
could not contain them, so that as many were obliged to stand as
sit, and even the doorways were crowded with people. Mr.
Vice-President Adams was among the regular attendants.

All this greatly encouraged the Doctor. His expectations for the establishment of a Unitarian congregation were most encouraging. He declared himself ready to officiate every winter without salary if he could lodge somewhere with a friend. The regular and punctual attendance of Mr. Adams pleased him so much that he resolved on printing his sermons, for they were in great demand, and to dedicate the same to the Vice-President. He was also gratified to note that the "violent prejudice" to him was gradually being overcome. Today we smile on recalling the reception accorded the good Doctor in his early days in Philadelphia. We smile and yet our hearts fail to understand just why he should have been so ostracised. To confirm this it may be noted that on one occasion Priestley preached in a Presbyterian Chapel, very probably in Northumberland, when one of the ministers was so displeased--

that he declared if they permitted him any more, he would never
enter the puplit again.

And in 1794 on coming the first time to Philadelphia he wrote

There is much jealousy and dread of me.

How shameful and yet it was most real. Bakewell narrates that

"I went several times to the Baptist meeting in Second Street,
under the care of Dr. Rogers. This man burst out, and bade the
people beware, for 'a Priestley had entered the land;' and then,
crouching down in a worshiping attitude, exclaimed, 'Oh, Lamb of
God! how would they pluck thee from thy throne!'"

The public prints flayed Rogers, and even the staid old Philosophical Society indicated to him that such conduct ill became a member of that august body. Accordingly humiliated he repented his error and in time became strongly attached to Priestley, concerning whom he told this story to a Mr. Taylor whose language is here given:

The Doctor (Priestley) would occasionally call on Dr. Rogers, and
without any formal invitation, pass an evening at his house. One
afternoon he was there when Dr. Rogers was not at home, having
been assured by Mrs. Rogers that her husband would soon be there.
Meanwhile, Mr. ----, a Baptist minister, called on Dr. Rogers, and
being a person of rough manners, Mrs. Rogers was a good deal
concerned lest he should say something disrespectful to Dr.
Priestley in case she introduced the Doctor to him. At last,
however, she ventured to announce Dr. Priestley's name, who put
out his hand; but instead of taking it the other immediately drew
himself back, saying, as if astonished to meet with Dr. Priestley
in the home of one of his brethren, and afraid of being
contaminated by having any social intercourse with him, 'Dr.
Priestley! I can't be cordial.'

It is easy to imagine that by this speech Mrs. Rogers was greatly
embarrassed. Dr. Priestley, observing this, instantly relieved her
by saying, and with all that benevolent expression of countenance
and pleasantness of manner for which he was remarkable, 'Well,
well, Madam, you and I can be cordial; and Dr. Rogers will soon be
with us, Mr. ---- and he can converse together, so that we shall
all be very comfortable.' Thus encouraged, Mrs. Rogers asked Dr.
Priestley some questions relative to the Scripture prophecies, to
which he made suitable replies; and before Dr. Rogers arrived,
Mr. ---- was listening with much attention, sometimes making a
remark or putting in a question. The evening was passed in the
greatest harmony, with no inclination on the part of Mr. ---- to
terminate the conversation. At last Dr. Priestley, pulling out his
watch, informed Mr. ---- that as it was _ten_ o'clock it was time
that two old men like them were at their quarters. The other at
first was not willing to believe that Dr. Priestley's watch was
accurate; but finding that it was correct, he took his leave with
apparent regret, observing that he had never spent a shorter and
more pleasant evening. He then went away, Dr. Priestley
accompanying him, until it became necesary to separate. Next
morning he called on his friend, Dr. Rogers, when he made the
following frank and manly declaration: 'You and I well know that
Dr. Priestley is quite wrong in regard to his theology, but
notwithstanding this, he is a great and good man, and I behaved to
him at our first coming together like a fool and a brute.'

Many additional evidences might be introduced showing that the Doctor was slowly winning his way among the people. It must also be remembered that not all of his associates were of the clerical group but that he had hosts of scientists as sincere and warm supporters. In Woodhouse's laboratory he was ever welcome and there must have met many congenial spirits who never discussed politics or religion. This was after the manner of the Lunar Society in Birmingham in which representatives of almost every creed came together to think of scientific matters. Hence, it is quite probable that Priestley's visit to Philadelphia was on the whole full of pleasure.

He was also in habits of close intimacy with Dr. Ewing, Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, and with the Vice-Provost, Dr. John Andrews, as well as with Dr. Benjamin Rush who had long been his friend and with whom he corresponded at frequent intervals after his arrival in America. To him Priestley had confided his hope of getting a college in Northumberland and inquired,--

Would the State give any encouragement to it?

To Rush he also wrote excusing

my weakness (for such you will consider it) when, after giving you
reason to expect that I would accept the professorship of
Chemistry, if it was offered to me, I now inform you that I must
decline it.

Now and then he also advised him of such experiments as he was able to do; for example--

I made trial of the air of Northumberland by the test of nitrous
air, but found it not sensibly different from that of England.

In the leisure he enjoyed his figure was often seen in Congress. He relished the debates which at the time were on the Treaty with England. He declared he heard as good speaking there as in the House of Commons. He observed--

A Mr. Amos speaks as well as Mr. Burke; but in general the
speakers are more argumentative, and less rhetorical. And whereas
there are with you not more than ten or a dozen tolerable
speakers, here every member is capable of speaking.

While none of the letters to Priestley's friends mention a family event of some importance the _American Advertiser_, February 13, 1796, announced that

Mr. William Priestley, second son of the celebrated Dr. Joseph
Priestley, was married to the agreeable Miss Peggy Foulke, a young
lady possessed with every quality to render the marriage state
happy.

This occurred very probably just before the Doctor set forth from Northumberland to make his first Philadelphia visit. It is singular that little is said of the son William by the Doctor. Could it be that, in some way, he may have offended his parent? In his _Memorial_ Rush, writing in the month of March, 1796, noted:

Saw Dr. Priestley often this month. Attended him in a severe
pleurisy. He once in his sickness spoke of his second son,
William, and wept very much.

Busy as he was in spreading his religious tenets, in fraternizing with congenial scientific friends, his thoughts would involuntarily turn back to England:

Here, though I am as happy as this country can make me ... I do
not feel as I did in England.

By May, 1796, he had finished his discourses, although he proposed concluding with one emphatically Unitarian in character. This was expected by his audience, which had been quietly prepared for it and received it with open minds and much approval.

On his return to Northumberland he promptly resumed his work on the "Church History," but was much disturbed because of the failure of his correspondents in writing him regularly, so he became particularly active in addressing them. But better still he punctuated his composition of sermons, the gradual unfolding of his Church History, and religious and literary studies in general, with experimental diversions, beginning with the publication (1796) of an octavo brochure of 39 pages from the press of Dobson in Philadelphia, in which he addressed himself more especially to Berthollet, de la Place, Monge, Morveau, Fourcroy and others on "Considerations on the Doctrine of Phlogiston and the Decomposition of Water." It is the old story in a newer dress. Its purpose was to bring home to Americans afresh his particular ideas. The reviewer of the _Medical Repository_ staff was evidently impressed by it, for he said:

It must give pleasure to every philosophical mind to find the
United States becoming the theatre of such interesting discussion,

and then adds that the evidence which was weighty enough to turn such men as Black and others from the phlogiston idea to that of Lavoisier--

has never yet appeared to Dr. Priestley considerable enough to
influence his judgment, or gain his assent.

Priestley, as frequently observed, entertained grave doubts in regard to the constitution of metals. He thought they were "compounded" of a certain earth, or calx, and phlogiston. Further he believed that when the phlogiston flew away, "the splendour, malleability, and ductility" of the metal disappeared with it, leaving behind a calx. Again, he contended that when metals dissolved in acids the liberated "inflammable air" (hydrogen) did not come from the 'decompounded water' but from the phlogiston emitted by the metal.

Also, on the matter of the composition and decomposition of water, he held very opposite ideas. The French School maintained "that hydrogenous and oxygenous airs, incorporated by drawing through them the electrical spark turn to _water_," but Priestley contended that "they combine into _smoking nitrous acid_." And thus the discussion proceeded, to be answered most intelligently, in 1797, by Adet,[5] whose arguments are familiar to all chemists and need not therefore be here repeated. Of more interest was the publication of two lectures on Combustion by Maclean of Princeton. They filled a pamphlet of 71 pages. It appeared in 1797, and was, in brief, a refutation of Priestley's presentations, and was heartily welcomed as evidence of the "growing taste in America for this kind of inquiry." Among other things Maclean said of the various ideas regarding combustion--"Becker's is incomplete, Stahl's though ingenious, is defective; the antiphlogistic is simple, consistent and sufficient, while Priestley's resembling Stahl's but in name, is complicated, contradictory and inadequate."

Not all American chemists were ready to side track the explanations of Priestley. The distinguished Dr. Mitchill wrote Priestley on what he designated "an attempt to accommodate the Disputes among Chemists concerning Phlogiston." This was in November, 1797. It is an ingenious effort which elicited from Priestley (1798) his sincere thanks, and the expressed fear that his labours "will be in vain." And so it proved. Present day chemists would acquiesce in this statement after reading Mitchill's "middle-of-the-road" arguments. They were not satisfactory to Maclean and irritated Priestley.

In June 1798 a second letter was written by Priestley to Mitchill. In it he emphasized the substitution of zinc for "finery cinder." From it he contended inflammable air could be easily procured, and laid great stress on the fact that the "inflammable air" came from the metal and not from the water. He wondered why Berthollet and Maclean had not answered his first article. To this, a few days later, Mitchill replied that he felt there was confusion in terms and that the language employed by the various writers had introduced that confusion; then for philological reasons and to clarify thoughts Mitchill proposed to strike out _azote_ from the nomenclature of the day and take _septon_ in its place; he also wished to expunge hydrogene and substitute phlogiston. He admitted that Priestley's experiments on zinc were difficult to explain by the antiphlogistic doctrine, adding--

It would give me great satisfaction that we could settle the
points of variance on this subject; though, even as it is, I am
flattered by your (Priestley's) allowing my attempt 'to reconcile
the two theories to be ingenious, plausible and well-meant....
Your idea of carrying on a philosophical discussion in an amicable
manner is charming'....

But the peace-maker was handling a delicate problem. He recognized this, but desired that the pioneer studies, then in progress might escape harsh polemics. This was difficult of realization for less than a month later fuel was added to the fire by Maclean, when in writing Mitchill, who had sent him Priestley's printed letter, he emphatically declared that

The experiment with the zinc does not seem to be of more
consequence than that with the iron and admits of an easy
explanation on antiphlogistic principles.

And he further insisted that the experiments of Priestley proved water to be composed "of hydrogene and oxygene."

Four days later (July 20, 1798) Priestley wrote Mitchill that he had replaced zinc by red precipitate and did not get water on decomposing inflammable air with the precipitate. Again, August 23, 1798, he related to Mitchill

that the modern doctrine of water consisting of _oxygene_ and
_hydrogene_ is not well founded ... water is the basis of all
kinds of air, and without it no kind of air can be produced ...
not withstanding the great use that the French chemists make of
scales and weights, they do not pretend to weigh either their
_calorique_ or _light_; and why may not _phlogiston_ escape their
researches, when they employ the same instruments in that
investigation?

There were in all eight letters sent by Priestley to Mitchill. They continued until February, 1799. Their one subject was phlogiston and its rôle in very simple chemical operations. The observations were the consequence

of original and recent experiments, to which I have given a good
part of the leisure of the last summer; and I do not propose to do
more on the subject till I hear from the great authors of the
theory that I combat in America;

but adds,--

I am glad ... to find several advocates of the system in this
country, and some of them, I am confident, will do themselves
honour by their candour, as well as by their ability.

This very probably was said as a consequence of the spirited reply James Woodhouse[6] made to the papers of Maclean. As known, Woodhouse worked unceasingly to overthrow the doctrine of phlogiston, but was evidently irritated by Maclean, whom he reminds--

You are not yet, Doctor, the conqueror of this veteran in
Philosophy.

This was a singularly magnanimous speech on Woodhouse's part, for he had been hurling sledgehammer blows without rest at the structure Priestley thought he had reared about phlogiston and which, he believed, most unassailable, so when in 1799 (July) Priestley began his reply to his "Antiphlogistian opponents" he took occasion to remark:

I am happy to find in Dr. Woodhouse one who is equally ingenious
and candid; so that I do not think the cause he has undertaken
will soon find a more able champion, and I do not regret the
absence of M. Berthollet in Egypt.

Noble words these for his young adversary who, in consequence of strenuous laboratory work, had acquired a deep respect and admiration for Priestley's achievements, though he considered he had gone far astray.

The various new, confirmatory ideas put forth by Priestley need not be here enumerated. They served their day.

Dr. Mitchill evidently enjoyed this controversial chemical material, for he wrote that he hoped the readers of the _Medical Repository_, in which the several papers appeared, would

participate the pleasure we feel on taking a retrospect of our
pages, and finding the United States the theatre of so much
scientific disquisition.

And yet, when in 1800, a pamphlet of 90 pages bearing the title "The Doctrine of Phlogiston established, etc." appeared there was consternation in the ranks of American chemists. Woodhouse was aroused. He absolutely refuted every point in it experimentally, and Dr. Mitchill avowed--

We decline entering into a minute examination of his experiments,
as few of his recitals of them are free from the _triune_ mystery
of phlogiston, which exceeds the utmost stretch of our faith; for
according to it, _carbon is phlogiston_, and _hydrogen is
phlogiston_, and _azote is phlogiston_; and yet there are not
_three_ phlogistons, but _one_ phlogiston!

It was imperative to submit the preceding paragraphs on chemical topics, notwithstanding they have, in a manner, interrupted the chronological arrangement of the activities of the Doctor in his home life. They were, it is true, a part of that life--a part that every chemist will note with interest and pleasure. They mean that he was not indifferent to chemistry, and that it is not to be supposed that he ever could be, especially as his visits to Philadelphia brought to his attention problems which he would never suffer to go unanswered or unsolved because of his interest in so many other things quite foreign to them. However, a backward look may be taken before resuming the story of his experimental studies.

It has already been said that the non-appearance of letters caused him anxiety. For instance he wrote Lindsey, July 28, 1796--

It is now four months since I have received any letter from you,
and it gives me most serious concern.

But finally the longed-for epistle arrived and he became content, rejoicing in being able to return the news--

I do not know that I have more satisfaction from anything I ever
did, than from the lay Unitarian congregation I have been the
means of establishing in Philadelphia.

For the use of this group of worshipers he had engaged the Common Hall in the College (University of Pennsylvania).

But amidst this unceasing activity of body and mind--very evidently extremely happy in his surroundings--he was again crushed to earth by the death of his noble wife--

Always caring for others and never for herself.

This occurred nine months after the departure of Harry. It was a fearful blow. For more than thirty-four years they had lived most happily together. The following tribute, full of deep feeling and esteem attests this--

My wife being a woman of an excellent understanding much improved
by reading, of great fortitude and strength of mind, and of a
temper in the highest degree affectionate and generous.... Also
excelling in everything relating to household affairs, she
entirely relieved me of all concern of that kind, which allowed me
to give all my time to the prosecution of my studies.

She was not only a true helpmate--courageous and devoted--but certainly most desirous that the husband in whom she absolutely believed should have nothing to interrupt or arrest the pursuits dear to him and in which she herself must have taken great but quiet pride, for she was extremely intelligent and original. Madam Belloc has mentioned

It is a tradition in the family that Mrs. Priestley once sent her
famous husband to market with a large basket and that he so
acquitted himself that she never sent him again!

The new house, partly planned by her, at the moment well advanced and to her fancy, was not to be her home for which she had fondly dreamed.

Priestley was deeply depressed but his habitual submission carried him through, although all this is pathetically concealed in his letters.

There were rumours flitting about that Priestley purposed returning to England. That his friends might be apprised of his real intentions the following letter was permitted to find its way into the newspapers:

Northumberland Oct. 4,
1796

My dear Sir,

Every account I have from England makes me think myself happy in
this peaceful retirement, where I enjoy almost everything I can
wish in this life, and where I hope to close it, though I find it
is reported, both here and in England that I am about to return.
The two heavy afflictions I have met with here, in the death of a
son, and of my wife, rather serve to attract me to the place.
Though dead and buried, I would not willingly leave them, and hope
to rest with them, when the sovereign disposer of all things shall
put a period to my present labours and pursuits.

The advantages we enjoy in this country are indeed very great.
Here we have no poor; we never see a beggar, nor is there a family
in want. We have no church establishment, and hardly any taxes.
This particular State pays all its officers from a treasure in the
public funds. There are very few crimes committed and we travel
without the least apprehension of danger. The press is perfectly
free, and I hope we shall always keep out of war.

I do not think there ever was any country in a state of such rapid
improvement as this at present; but we have not the same
advantages for literary and philosophical pursuits that you have
in Europe, though even in this respect we are every day getting
better. Many books are now printed here, but what scholars chiefly
want are old books, and these are not to be had. We hope, however,
that the troubles of Europe will be the cause of sending us some
libraries and they say that it is an ill wind that blows no
profit.

I sincerely wish, however, that your troubles were at an end, and
from our last accounts we think there must be a peace, at least
from the impossibility of carrying on the war.

With every good wish to my country and to yourself, I am, dear
sir,

Yours sincerely,

J. PRIESTLEY.

Gradually the news went forth that the Doctor contemplated a second visit to the metropolis--Philadelphia, the Capital of the young Republic. He wrote--

Having now one tie, and that a strong one, to this place
(Northumberland) less than I have had I propose to spend more time
in Philadelphia.

As long as he was capable of public speaking it was his desire to carry forward his missionary work,

but the loss of my fore teeth (having now only two in the upper
jaw) together with my tendency to stammering, which troubles me
sometimes, is much against me.

Accordingly in early January of 1797 he might have been found there. He alludes in his correspondence to the presence in the city of C. Volney, a French philosopher and historian, who had been imprisoned but regained liberty on the overthrow of Robespierre when he became professor of history in the _Ecole Normal_. Volney was not particularly pleased with Priestley's discourses, and took occasion some weeks later to issue

VOLNEY'S ANSWER TO PRIESTLEY

which was advertised by the _Aurora_ as on sale by the principal booksellers, price 6 cents.

He was exceedingly rejoiced at the flourishing state of the Unitarian Society and the manner in which its services were conducted.

On the occasion of his first discourse the English Ambassador, Mr. Lister, was in the audience and Priestley dined with him the day following.

Friends had prevailed upon Priestley to preach a charity sermon on his next Sunday, in one of the Episcopal churches, but in the end it was "delivered at the University Hall."

His mind was much occupied with plans for controverting infidelity,

the progress of which here is independent of all reasoning,--

so he published the third edition of his "Observations on the Increase of Infidelity" and an "Outline of the Evidences of Revealed Religion." In the first of them he issued a challenge to Volney who was

much looked up to by unbelievers here.

Volney's only reply was that he would not read the pamphlet. It was in these days that Priestley saw a great deal of Thomas Jefferson; indeed, the latter attended several of his sermons. The intercourse of these friends was extremely valuable to both. Jefferson welcomed everything which Priestley did in science and consulted him much on problems of education.

At the election in the American Philosophical Society in the closing days of 1796 there was openly discussed

whether to choose me (Priestley) or Mr. Jefferson, President of
the Society,--

which prompted the Doctor

to give his informant good reasons why they should not choose
_me_.

Naturally he listened to the political talk. He worried over the apparent dislike observed generally to France. He remarked

The rich not only wish for alliance offensive and defensive with
England ... but would have little objection to the former
dependence upon it,

and

The disposition of the lower orders of the people ... for the
French ... is not extinguished.

He was much annoyed by Peter Porcupine. The latter was publishing a daily paper (1799) and in it frequently brought forward Priestley's name in the most opprobrious manner, although Priestley in his own words--

had nothing to do with the politics of the country.

The Doctor advised friend Lindsey that

He (Porcupine) every day, advertizes his pamphlet against me, and
after my name adds, "commonly known by the name of the fire-brand
philosopher."

However, he flattered himself that he would soon be back in Northumberland, where he would be usefully engaged, as

I have cut myself out work for a year at least ... besides
attending to my experiments.

Mr. Adams had come into the Presidency, so Priestley very properly went to pay his respects and

take leave of the late President (Washington)

whom he thought in not very good spirits, although

he invited me to Mount Vernon and said he thought he should hardly
go from home twenty miles as long as he lived.

Priestley's fame was rapidly spreading through the land. Thoughtful men were doing him honor in many sections of the country, as is evident from the following clipping from a Portland (Me.) paper for March 27, 1797:--

On Friday the twenty-fourth a number of gentlemen, entertaining a
high sense of the character, abilities and services of the
Reverend Doctor JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, as a friend and promoter of true
science dined together at the Columbian Tavern, in commemoration
of his birth. The following toasts were given.

1. That Illustrious Christian and Philosopher, Joseph Priestley:
May the world be as grateful to him for his services as his
services are beneficial to the world.

2. May the names of Locke, Newton, Montesquieu, Hartley and
Franklin be had in everlasting remembrance.

3. The great gift of God to man, Reason! May it influence the
world in policy, in laws, and in religion.

4. TRUTH: May the splendour of her charms dissipate the gloom of
superstition, and expel hypocricy from the heart of man.

5. May our laws be supported by religion: but may religion never be
supported by law.

6. White-robed Charity: May she accompany us in all our steps and
cover us with a mantle of love.

7. Christians of all denominations: May they "love one another."

As it was a "feast of reason" the purest philanthrophy dignified
the conversation; and moderation and temperance bounded every
effusion of the heart.

It was in the summer of 1797 that he carried forward his work on Phlogiston, alluded to on p. 81. He understood quite well that the entire chemical world was against him but he was not able to find good reasons

to despair of the old system.

It must be remembered that in these days, also, he had Thomas Cooper with him. With this gentleman he discussed his scientific studies and with him also he carried on many arguments upon the burning subject of infidelity, about which he continuously wrote his friends in this country and in England. It was quite generally believed that Cooper was an infidel. Never, however, did their intimacy suffer in the slightest by their conflicting views.