Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley

by Joseph Priestley

In the preface I had expressed my belief of the doctrine of Philosophical Necessity, but without any design to pursue the subject, and also my great admiration of Dr. Hartley’s theory of the human mind, as indeed I had taken many opportunities of doing before. This led me to publish that part of his observations on man which related to the doctrine of association of ideas, detached from the doctrine of vibrations, prefixing three dissertations, explanatory of his general system. In one of these I expressed some doubt of the immateriality of the sentient principle in man; and the outcry that was made on what I casually expressed on that subject can hardly be imagined. In all the newspapers, and most of the periodical publications, I was represented as an unbeliever in revelation, and no better than an Atheist.

This led me to give the closest attention to the subject, and the consequence was the firmest persuasion that man is wholly material, and that our only prospect of immortality is from the christian doctrine of a resurrection. I therefore digested my thoughts on the subject, and published my Disquisitions relating to matter and spirit, also the subjects of Socinianism and necessity being nearly connected with the doctrine of the materiality of man, I advanced several considerations from the state of opinions in antient times in favour of the former; and in a separate volume discussed more at large what related to the latter, dedicating the first volume of this work to Mr. Graham, and the second to Dr. Jebb.

It being probable that this publication would be unpopular, and might be a means of bringing odium on my patron, several attempts were made by his friends, though none by himself, to dissuade me from persisting in it. But being, as I thought, engaged in the cause of important truth, I proceeded without regard to any consequences, assuring them that this publication should not be injurious to his Lordship.

In order, however, to proceed with the greatest caution, in a business of such moment, I desired some of my learned friends, and especially Dr. Price, to peruse the work before it was published; and the remarks that he made upon it led to a free and friendly discussion of the several subjects of it, which we afterwards published jointly; and it remains a proof of the possibility of discussing subjects mutually considered as of the greatest importance, with the most perfect good temper, and without the least diminution of friendship. This work I dedicated to our common friend Mr. Lee.

In this situation I published my Harmony of the gospels, on the idea of the public ministry of Jesus having continued little more than one year, a scheme which I first proposed in the Theological Repository; and the Bishop of Waterford having in his Harmony published a defence of the common hypothesis, viz. that of its having been three years, I addressed a letter to him on the subject, and to this he made a reply in a separate work. The controversy proceeded to several publications on both sides, in the most amicable manner, and the last Postscript was published jointly by us both. Though my side of the question was without any advocates that I know of, and had only been adopted by Mr. Mann, who seemed to have had no followers, there are few persons, I believe, who have attended to our discussion of the subject, who are not satisfied that I have sufficiently proved what I had advanced. This controversy was not finished until after my removal to Birmingham.

Reflecting on the time that I spent with Lord Shelburne, being as a guest in the family, I can truly say that I was not at all fascinated with that mode of life. Instead of looking back upon it with regret, one of the greatest subjects of my present thankfulness is the change of that situation for the one in which I am now placed; and yet I was far from being unhappy there, much less so than those who are born to such a state, and pass all their lives in it. These are generally unhappy from the want of necessary employment, on which account chiefly there appears to be much more happiness in the middle classes of life, who are above the fear of want, and yet have a sufficient motive for a constant exertion of their faculties; and who have always some other object besides amusement.

I used to make no scruple of maintaining, that there is not only most virtue, and most happiness, but even most true politeness in the middle classes of life. For in proportion as men pass more of their time in the society of their equals, they get a better established habit of governing their tempers; they attend more to the feelings of others, and are more disposed to accommodate themselves to them. On the other hand, the passions of persons in higher life, having been less controlled, are more apt to be inflamed; the idea of their rank and superiority to others seldom quits them; and though they are in the habit of concealing their feelings, and disguising their passions, it is not always so well done, but that persons of ordinary discernment may perceive what they inwardly suffer. On this account, they are really intitled to compassion, it being the almost unavoidable consequence of their education and mode of life. But when the mind is not hurt in such a situation, when a person born to affluence can lose sight of himself, and truly feel and act for others, the character is so godlike, as shews that this inequality of condition is not without its use. Like the general discipline of life, it is for the present lost on the great mass, but on a few it produces what no other state of things could do.[15]

[15] The account here given of Dr. Priestley’s connection with Lord Shelburne must be gratifying to every friend of science and literature, notwithstanding the subsequent separation. To such persons the character of a nobleman who like Lord Shelburne, devotes so much of his time, and so much of his income to the pursuits of knowledge, and the encouragement of those who eminently contribute to enlighten mankind, cannot but be interesting. Had he behaved dishonourably or disrespectfully to a man of Dr. Priestley’s high station in the literary world, it would have been an argument that science and literature were ineffectual to soften the pride of titled opulence and hereditary rank. But Ovid has observed justly, (ingenuas didicisse fideliter Artes, emollit mores nec sinit esse feros.)

It is right to mention an anecdote highly honourable to Lord Shelburne, on the authority of Dr. Priestley. At the conclusion of the treaty of peace in 1783, negotiated by Lord Shelburne while he was in the ministry, a strong opposition was expected, particularly from his former coadjutors who soon after the death of Lord Rockingham had seceded from Lord Shelburne’s administration. It was suggested to this nobleman, that it was customary for the minister for the time being to let it be understood among the mutes of the ministerial members, that they might expect the usual douceur for their votes on such an occasion. Some light might be thrown on the nature and quantum of this douceur, by the list of ministerial rewards distributed at the close of each session, as stated publicly to the house of Commons by the late Sir George Saville. Lord Shelburne without hesitation refused compliance; and declared that if his peace could not obtain the unbought approbation of the house, it might take its chance. The consequence was that although the address was carried in the Lords by 72 to 59 it was lost in the Commons by 224 to 208.

T. C.