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 role 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.

The Church History continued to hold Priestley's first thought. He was a busy student, occupied with a diversity of interests and usually cheerful and eager to follow up new lines of endeavor. The arrival of vessels from the home country was closely watched. Books and apparatus were brought by them. While, as observed, he was singularly cheerful and happy, he confessed at times that

my character as a philosopher is under a cloud.

Yet, this was but a momentary depression, for he uttered in almost the same breath—

Everything will be cleared up in a reasonable time.

Amid the constant daily duties he found real solace in his scientific pursuits; indeed when he was quite prepared to abandon all his activities he declared of his experiments that he could not stop them for

I consider them as that study of the works of the great Creator, which I shall resume with more advantage hereafter.

He advised his friends Lindsey and Belsham—

I cannot express what I feel on receiving your letters. They set my thoughts afloat, so that I can do nothing but ruminate a long time; but it is a most pleasing melancholy.

Far removed from European events he was nevertheless ever keen and alert concerning them. Then the winter of 1797 appears to have been very severe. His enforced confinement to home probably gave rise to an introspection, and a slight disappointment in matters which had formerly given him pleasure. For example, he puzzled over the fact that on his second visit to Philadelphia, Mr. Adams was present but once at his lectures, and remarks—

When my lectures were less popular, and he was near his presidentship, he left me, making a kind of apology, from the members of the principal Presbyterian Church having offered him a pew there. He seemed to interest himself in my favour against M. Volney, but did not subscribe to my Church History ... I suppose he was not pleased that I did not adopt his dislike of the French.

When January of 1798 arrived his joy was great. A box of books had come. Among them was a General Dictionary which he regarded as a real treasure. Reading was now his principal occupation. He found the making of many experiments irksome and seemed, all at once, "quite averse to having his hands so much in water." Presumably these were innocent excuses for his devotion to the Church History which had been brought up to date. Furthermore he was actually contemplating transplanting himself to France. But with it all he wrote assiduously on religious topics, and was highly pleased with the experimental work he had sent to Dr. Mitchill (p. 85).

He advised his friends of the "intercepted letters" which did him much harm when they were published. They called down upon him severest judgement and suspicion, and made him—

disliked by all the friends of the ruling power in this country.

It may be well to note that these "intercepted letters" were found on a Danish ship, inclosed in a cover addressed to

DR. PRIESTLEY, IN AMERICA

They came from friends, English and French, living in Paris. They abounded

with matter of the most serious reflection.... If the animosity of these apostate Englishmen against their own country, their conviction that no submissions will avert our danger, and their description of the engines employed by the Directory for our destruction, were impressed as they ought to be, upon the minds of all our countrymen, we should certainly never again be told of the innocent designs of these traitors, or their associates—

The preceding quotation is from a booklet containing exact copies of the "intercepted letters."

In the first of the letters, dated Feb. 12, 1798, the correspondent of Priestley tells that he had met a young Frenchman who had visited Northumberland

and we all rejoiced at the aggreeable information that at the peace you would not fail to revisit Europe; and that he hoped you would fix yourself in this country (France). Whether you fix yourself here or in England, (as England will then be) is probably a matter of little importance ... but we all think you are misplaced where you are, though, no doubt, in the way of usefulness—

The editor of the letters annotates usefulness thus:

Dr. Priestley is in the way of usefulness in America, because he is labouring there, as his associates are in Europe, to disunite the people from their government, and to introduce the blessings of French anarchy.

These "intercepted letters" in no way prove that Dr. Priestley was engaged in any movement against his native land or against his adopted country. However, the whole world was in an uproar. People were ready to believe the worst regarding their fellows, so it is not surprising that he should have declared himself "disliked."

He alludes frequently to the marvelous changes taking place in the States. Everything was in rapid motion. Taxes were the topic of conversation on all sides.

To divert his philosophizing he busied himself in his laboratory where many "original experiments were made." He avoided the crowd. There was too great a party spirit. Indeed, there was violence, so he determined not to visit Philadelphia. He sought to escape the "rancorous abuse" which was being hurled at him—

as a citizen of France.

One must read his correspondence to fully appreciate Priestley during the early days of 1799. What must have been his mental condition when he wrote Lindsey—

As to a public violent death the idea of that does not affect me near so much

and

I cannot express what I feel when I receive and read your letters. I generally shed many tears over them.

There was no assurance in financial and commercial circles. The hopes of neither the more sober, nor of the wild and fanatic reformers of humanity could be realized, and they got into such a war of hate and abuse that they themselves stamped their doctrines false.

Priestley was out of patience with the public measures of the country. He disliked them as much as he did those of England, but added

Here the excellence of the Constitution provides a remedy, if the people will make use of it, and if not, they deserve what they suffer.

The Constitution was a favorite instrument with him. A most interesting lecture upon it will be found among the Discourses which he proposed delivering in Philadelphia. This never occurred.

The Academy he expected to see in operation failed for support. The walls were raised and he feared it would go no further. The Legislature had voted it $3000, but the Senate negatived this act. He thought of giving up the presidency of it.

He wrote Dr. Rush that he was quite busy with replies to Dr. Woodhouse's attack on his confirmation of the existence of phlogiston, (p. 88). He relished his discussions with Woodhouse and was confident that eventually he would "overturn the French system of chemistry." He further remarked to Rush—

Were you at liberty to make an excursion as far as these back woods I shall be happy to see you, and so would many others.

But at that particular moment Rush was too much engaged in combating yellow fever, which again ravaged Philadelphia, and all who could, fled, and the streets were "lifeless and dead." The prevalence of this fearful plague was a potent factor in Priestley's failure to visit the City during the year—the last year of a closing Century which did not end in the prosperity anticipated for it in the hopeful months and years following the war. It seemed, in many ways, to be the end of an era. Washington died December 14, 1799, and the Federalists' tenure of power was coming to a close. The Jeffersonians, aided by eight of the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, won the victory, amid outbursts of unprecedented political bitterness. It was, therefore, very wise that the Doctor remained quietly at home in Northumberland with his experiments and Church History.

The new Century—the 19th—found our beloved philosopher at times quite proud of the success he had with his experiments and full of genuine hope that "phlogiston" was established; and again dejected because of the "coarse and low articles" directed against him by the prints of the day. To offset, in a measure, the distrust entertained for him because of the "intercepted letters" he addressed a series of Letters to the inhabitants of Northumberland and vicinity. These were explanatory of his views. At home they were most satisfying but in the city they brought upon him "more abuse." And, so, he translated a passage from Petrarch which read—

By civil fueds exiled my native home, Resign'd, though injured, hither I have come. Here, groves and streams, delights of rural ease; Yet, where the associates, wont to serve and please; The aspect bland, that bade the heart confide? Absent from these, e'en here, no joys abide.

And these were incorporated in his brochure.

Having alluded to the Letters addressed to the Northumberland folks, it may be proper to introduce a letter which Priestley received from Mr. Jefferson, whom the former was disposed to hold as "in many respects the first man in this Country:"

Philadelphia, Jan. 18, 1800.

Dear Sir—

I thank you for the pamphlets (Letters) you were so kind as to send me. You will know what I thought of them by my having before sent a dozen sets to Virginia, to distribute among my friends; yet I thank you not the less for these, which I value the more as they came from yourself.

The papers of Political Arithmetic, both in yours and Mr. Cooper's pamphlets, are the most precious gifts that can be made to us; for we are running navigation-mad, and commerce-mad, and Navy-mad, which is worst of all. How desirable it is that you should pursue that subject for us. From the porcupines of our country you will receive no thanks, but the great mass of our nation will edify, and thank you.

How deeply have I been chagrined and mortified at the persecutions which fanaticism and monarchy have excited against you, even here! At first, I believed it was merely a continuance of the English persecution; but I observe that, on the demise of Porcupine, and the division of his inheritance between Fenno and Brown, the latter (though succeeding only to the Federal portion of Porcupinism, not the Anglican, which is Fenno's part) serves up for the palate of his sect dishes of abuse against you as high-seasoned as Porcupine's were. You have sinned against Church and King, and therefore can never be forgiven. How sincerely I have regretted that your friend, before he fixed a choice of position, did not visit the valleys on each side of the blue range in Virginia, as Mr. Madison and myself so much wished. You would have found there equal soil, the finest climate, and the most healthy air on the earth, the homage of universal reverence and love, and the power of the country spread over you as a shield; but, since you would not make it your Country by adoption, you must now do it by your good offices.

Mr. Livingston, the Chancellor of New York, so approved the "Letters" that he got a new edition of them printed at Albany.

The following letter to this same gentleman, although upon another subject than the "Letters" is not devoid of interest. It has come into the writer's hands through the kind offices of Dr. Thomas L. Montgomery, State Librarian of Pennsylvania:

Sir,

I think myself much honoured by your letter, and should have thought myself singularly happy if my situation had been near to such a person as you. Persons engaged in scientific pursuits are few in this country. Indeed, they are not very numerous anywhere. In other respects I think myself very happy where I am.

I have never given much attention to machines of any kind, and therefore cannot pretend to decide concerning your proposal for the improvement of the fire engine. It appears to me to deserve attention. But I do not for want of a drawing see in what manner the steam is to be let into the cylinder, or discharged from it. There would be, I fear, an objection to it from the force necessary to raise the column of mercury, and from the evaporation of the mercury in the requisite heat. I have found that it loses weight in 70 deg. Fahrenheit. If the mercury was pure, I should not apprehend much from the calcination of it, though, as I have observed, the agitation of it in water, converts a part of it into a black powder, which I propose to examine farther.

If travelling was attended with no fewer inconveniences here than it is in England, I should certainly wait upon you and some other friends at New York. But this, and my age, render it impossible, and it would be unreasonable to expect many visitors in this back woods.

I shall be very happy to be favoured with your correspondence, and am,

Sir,

Yours sincerely,

J. PRIESTLEY

Northumberland April 16, 1799.

In this period Thomas Cooper was convicted of libel. He was thrown into prison. Priestley regarded him as a rising man in the Country.[7] He said the act was the last blow of the Federal party "which is now broke up."

Priestley's daughter, in England, was ill at this time. Her life was despaired of and tidings from her were few and most distressing, but the Doctor maintained a quiet and calm assurance of her recovery.

Subsequent correspondence between Mr. Jefferson and Priestley had much in it about the new College which the former contemplated for the State of Virginia. Indeed, the thought was entertained that Priestley himself might become a professor in it, but his advanced age, he contended forbade this, although he was agreeable to the idea of getting professors from Europe.

Here, perhaps, may well be included several letters, now in possession of the Library of Congress, which reveal the attitude of Dr. Priestley toward President Jefferson, who was indeed most friendly to him:

Dear Sir—

I am flattered by your thinking so favourably of my pamphlets, which were only calculated to give some satisfaction to my suspicious neighbours. Chancellor Livingston informs me that he has got an edition of them printed at Albany, for the information of the people in the back country, where, he says, it is so much wanted. Indeed, it seems extraordinary, that in such a country as this, where there is no court to dazzle men's eyes a maxim as plain as that 2 and 2 make 4 should not be understood, and acted upon. It is evident that the bulk of mankind are governed by something very different from reasoning and argument. This principle must have its influence even in your Congress, for if the members are not convinced by the excellent speeches of Mr. Gallatin and Nicolas, neither would they be persuaded tho one should rise from the dead.

It is true that I had more to do with colleges, and places of education, than most men in Europe; but I would not pretend to advise in this country. I will, however, at my leisure, propose such hints as shall occur to me; and if you want tutors from England, I can recommend some very good ones. Were I a few years younger, and more moveable, I should make interest for some appointment in your institution myself; but age and inactivity are fast approaching, and I am so fixed here, that a remove is absolutely impossible, unless you were possessed of Aladin's lamp, and could transport my house, library, and laboratory, into Virginia without trouble or expense.

On my settlement here the gentlemen in the neighbourhood, thinking to make me of some use, set on foot a college, of which I gave them the plan, and they got it incorporated, and made me the president; but tho I proposed to give lectures gratis, and had the disposal of a valuable library at the decease of a learned friend (new, near so), and had it in my power to render them important service in various ways, yet, owing I suspect, in part at least, to religious and political prejudices, nothing more has been done, besides marking the site of a building these five years, so that I have told them I shall resign.

I much wish to have some conversation with you on social subjects; but I cannot expect that the Vice President of the United States should visit me in my shed at Northumberland, and I cannot come to you. I intended on my settling here to have spent a month or so every winter at Philadelphia, but the state of the times, and various accidents, have a little deranged my finances, and I prefer to spend what I can spare on my experiments, and publication, rather than in travelling and seeing my friends.

With the greatest respect, I am, Dear Sir, Yours sincerely, J. PRIESTLEY.

Northumberland Jan. 30, 1800.

Dear Sir—

I enclose my thoughts on the subject you did me the honour to propose to me. Your own better judgment will decide concerning their value, or their fitness for the circumstances of your College. This may require a very different distribution of the business from that which I here recommend.

I thank you for your care to transmit a copy of my works to Bp. Madison. He, as well as many others, speaks of the increasing spread of republican principles in this country. I wish I could see the effects of it. But I fear we flatter ourselves, and if I be rightly informed, my poor Letters have done more harm than good. I can only say that I am a sincere well wisher to this country, and the purity and stability of its constitution.

Yours sincerely, J. PRIESTLEY.

Northumberland May 8, 1800.

HINTS CONCERNING PUBLIC EDUCATION

Persons educated at public seminaries are of two classes. One is that of professional men, and physicians and divines who are to be qualified for entering upon their professions immediately after leaving the college or university. The other is that of gentlemen, and those who are designed for offices of civil and active life. The former must be minutely instructed in everything adding to their several professions, whereas to the latter a general knowledge of the several branches of science is sufficient. To the former, especially that of Medicine, several professors are necessary, as the business must be subdivided, in order to be taught to advantage. For the purpose of the latter fewer professors are wanted, as it is most advisable to give them only the elements of the several branches of knowledge, to which they may afterwards give more particular attention, as they may have a disposition or convenience for it.

Lawyers are not supposed to be qualified for entering upon their professions at any place of public education. They are therefore to be considered as gentlemen to whom a general knowledge is sufficient. It is advisable, however, that when any subject, as that of Medicine, is much divided, and distributed among a number of professors, lectures of a more general and popular nature be provided for the other classes of students, to whom some knowledge of the subject may be very useful. A general knowledge, for example, of anatomy and of medicine, too, is useful to all persons, and therefore ought not to be omitted in any scheme of liberal education. And if in a regular school of medicine any of the professors would undertake this, it might serve as an useful introduction to that more particular and accurate knowledge which is necessary for practiced physicians.

The branches of knowledge which are necessary to the teachers of religion are not so many, or so distinct from each other, but that they may all be taught by one professor, as far as is necessary to qualify persons for commencing preachers. To acquire more knowledge, as that of the scriptures, ecclesistical history, etc. must be the business of their future lives. But every person liberally educated should have a general knowledge of Metaphysics, the theory of morals, and religion; and therefore some popular lectures of this kind should be provided for the students in general.

One professor of antient languages may be sufficient for a place of liberal education, and I would not make any provision for instruction in the modern languages, for tho the knowledge of them, as well as skill in fencing, dancing and riding, is proper for gentlemen liberally educated, instruction in them may be procured on reasonable terms without burdening the funds of the seminary with them.

Abstract Mathematics, and Natural Philosophy, are so distinct, that they require different teachers. One is sufficient for the former, but the latter must be subdivided, one for natural history, another for experimental Philosophy in general and a third for chemistry; in consequence of the great extension of this branch of experimental Philosophy of late years. The botany, mineralogy, and other branches of natural history are sufficiently distinct to admit of different professors, nothing more than a general knowledge of each of them, and directions for acquiring a more extended knowledge of them is necessary at any place of education.

Two or three Schools of Medicine I should think sufficient for all the United States for some years to come, but with respect to these I do not pretend to give any opinion not having sufficient knowledge of the subject. Places of liberal education in general should be made more numerous, and for each of them I should think the following professors (if the funds of the Society will admit of it) should be engaged, viz. (1) For the antient languages. (2) The Belles Lettres, including universal Grammar, Oratory, criticism and bibliography. (3) Mathematics. (4) Natural history. (5) Experimental Philosophy. (6) Chemistry, including the theory of Agriculture. (7) Anatomy and Medicine. (8) Geography and history, Law, and general policy. (9) Metaphysics, morals, and theology.

A course of liberal education should be as comprehensive as possible. For this purpose a large and well chosen library will be of great use. Not that the students should be encouraged to read books while they are under tuition, but an opportunity of seeing books, and looking into them, will give them a better idea of the value of them than they could get by merely hearing of them, and they would afterwards better know what books to purchase when they should have the means and the leisure for the perusal of them. A large collection of books will also be useful to the lecturer in bibliography and would recommend the seminary to the professors in general, and make it a desirable place of residence for gentlemen of a studious turn.

2. In order to engage able professors, some fixed salaries are necessary; but they should not be much more than a bare subsistence. They will then have a motive to exert themselves, and by the fees of students their emoluments may be ample. The professorships in the English universities, which are largely endowed, are sinecures; while those in Scotland, to which small stipends are annexed, are filled by able and active men.

3. It is not wise to engage any persons who are much advanced in life, or of established reputation for efficient teachers. They will not be so active as younger men who have a character to acquire. They will also better accommodate their lectures to the increasing light of the age, whereas old men will be attached to old systems, tho ever so imperfect. Besides, they are the most expert in teaching who have lately learned, and the minutae of science, which are necessary to a teacher, are generally forgotten by good scholars who are advanced in life, and it is peculiarly irksome to relearn them.

4. I would not without necessity have recourse to any foreign country for professors. They will expect too much deference, and the natives will be jealous of them.

5. Three things must be attended to in the education of youth. They must be taught, fed and governed and each of these requires very different qualifications. They who are the best qualified to teach are often the most unfit to govern, and it is generally advisable that neither of these have anything to do with providing victuals. In the English universities all these affairs are perfectly distinct. The tutors only teach, the proctors superintend the discipline, and the cooks provide the victuals.

Philadelphia, Apr. 10, 1801.

Dear Sir—

Your kind letter, which, considering the numerous engagements incident to your situation, I had no right to expect, was highly gratifying to me, and I take the first opportunity of acknowledging it. For tho I believe I am completely recovered from my late illness, I am advised to write as little as possible. Your invitation to pay you a visit is flattering to me in the highest degree, and I shall not wholly despair of some time or other availing myself of it, but for the present I must take the nearest way home.

Your resentment of the treatment I have met with in this country is truly generous, but I must have been but little impressed with the principles of the religion you so justly commend, if they had not enabled me to bear much more than I have yet suffered. Do not suppose that, after the much worse treatment to which I was for many years exposed in England (of which the pamphlet I take the liberty to inclose will give you some idea) I was much affected by this. My Letters to the Inhabitants of Northumberland were not occasioned by any such thing, tho it served me as a pretense for writing them, but the threatenings of Mr. Pickering, whose purpose to send me out of the country Mr. Adams (as I conclude from a circuitous attempt that he made to prevent it) would not, in the circumstances in which he then was, have been able to directly oppose. My publication was of service to me in that and other respects and I hope, in some measure, to the common cause. But had it not been for the extreme absurdity and violence of the late administration, I do not know how far the measures might not have been carried. I rejoice more than I can express in the glorious reverse that has taken place, and which has secured your election. This I flatter myself will be the permanent establishment of truly republican principles in this country, and also contribute to the same desirable event in more distant ones.

I beg you would not trouble yourself with any answer to this. The knowledge of your good opinion and good wishes, is quite sufficient for me. I feel for the difficulties of your situation, but your spirit and prudence will carry you thro them, tho not without paying the tax which the wise laws of nature have imposed upon preeminence and celebrity of every kind, a tax which, for want of true greatness of mind, neither of your predecessors, if I estimate their characters aright, paid without much reluctance.

With every good wish, I am, Dear Sir, Yours sincerely, J. PRIESTLEY.

P.S.

As I trust that Politics will not make you forget what is due to science, I shall send you a copy of some articles that are just printed for the Transactions of the Philosophical Society in this place. No. (5) p. 36 is the most deserving of your notice. I should have sent you my Defence of Phlogiston, but that I presume you have seen it.

June, 1802. To Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States of America.

Sir,

My high respect for your character, as a politician, and a man, makes me desirous of connecting my name, in some measure with yours while it is in my power, by means of some publication, to do it.

The first part of this work, which brought the history to the fall of the western empire, was dedicated to a zealous friend of civil and religious liberty, but in a private station. What he, or any other friend of liberty in Europe, could only do by their good wishes, by writing, or by patriot suffering, you, Sir, are actually accomplishing, and upon a theatre of great and growing extent.

It is the boast of this country to have a constitution the most favourable to political liberty, and private happiness, of any in the world, and all say that it was yourself, more than any other individual, that planned and established it; and to this opinion your conduct in various public offices, and now in the highest, gives the clearest attestation.

Many have appeared the friends of the rights of man while they were subject to the power of others, and especially when they were sufferers by it; but I do not recollect one besides yourself who retained the same principles, and acted by them, in a station of real power. You, Sir, have done more than this; having proposed to relinquish some part of the power which the constitution gave you; and instead of adding to the burden of the people, it has been your endeavour to lighten those burdens tho the necessary consequence must be the diminution of your influence. May this great example, which I doubt not will demonstrate the practicability of truly republican principles, by the actual existence of a form of government calculated to answer all the useful purposes of government (giving equal protection to all, and leaving every man in the possession of every power that he can exercise to his own advantage, without infringing on the equal liberty of others) be followed in other countries, and at length become universal.

Another reason why I wish to prefix your name to this work, and more appropriate to the subject of it, is that you have ever been a strenuous and uniform advocate of religious no less than civil liberty, both in your own state of Virginia, and in the United States in general, seeing in the clearest light the various and great mischiefs that have arisen from any particular form of religion being favoured by the State more than any other; so that the profession or practice of religion is here as free as that of philosophy, or medicine. And now the experience of more than twenty years leaves little room to doubt but that it is a state, of things the most favourable to mutual candour, which is of great importance to domestic peace and good neighbourhood and to the cause of all truth, religious truth least of all excepted. When every question is thus left to free discussion, there cannot be a doubt but that truth will finally prevail, and establish itself by its own evidence; and he must know little of mankind, or of human nature, who can imagine that truth of any kind will be ultimately unfavourable to general happiness. That man must entertain a secret suspicion of his own principles who wishes for any exclusive advantage in his defence or profession of them.

Having fled from a state of persecution in England, and having been exposed to some degree of danger in the late administration here, I naturally feel the greater satisfaction in the prospect of passing the remainder of an active life (when I naturally wish for repose) under your protection. Tho arrived at the usual term of human life it is now only that I can say I see nothing to fear from the hand of power, the government under which I live being for the first time truly favourable to me. And tho it will be evident to all who know me that I have never been swayed by the mean principle of fear, it is certainly a happiness to be out of the possibility of its influence, and to end ones days in peace, enjoying some degree of rest before the state of more perfect rest in the grave, and with the hope of rising to a state of greater activity, security and happiness beyond it. This is all that any man can wish for, or have; and this, Sir, under your administration, I enjoy.

With the most perfect attachment, and every good wish I subscribe myself not your subject, or humble servant, but your sincere admirer.

J. PRIESTLEY.

Dear Sir,

As there are some particulars in a letter I have lately received from Mr. Stone at Paris which I think it will give you pleasure to have, and Mr. Cooper has been so obliging as to translate them for me, I take the liberty to send them, along with a copy of my Dedication, with the correction that you suggested, and a Note from the latter with which you favoured me concerning what you did with respect to the constitution, and which is really more than I had ascribed to you. For almost everything of importance to political liberty in that instrument was, as it appears to me, suggested by you, and as this was unknown to myself, and I believe is so with the world in general, I was unwilling to omit this opportunity of noticing it.

I shall be glad if you will be so good as to engage any person sufficiently qualified to draw up such an account of the constitutional forms of this country as my friends say will be agreeable to the emperor, and I will transmit it to Mr. Stone.

Not knowing any certain method of sending a letter to France and presuming that you do I take the liberty to inclose my letter to Mr. Stone. It is, however, so written that no danger can arise to him from it, into whatever hands it may fall.

The state of my health, though, I thank God, much improved, will not permit me to avail myself of your kind invitation to pay you a visit. Where ever I am, you may depend upon my warmest attachment and best wishes.

J. PRIESTLEY.

Northumberland Oct. 29, 1802.

P.S.

I send a copy of the Preface as well as of the Dedication, that you may form some idea of the work you are pleased to patronize.

Northumberland Jan. 25, 1803.

Dear Sir,

As you were pleased to think favourably of my pamphlet entitled Socrates and Jesus compared, I take the liberty to send you a defence of it. My principal object, you will perceive, was to lay hold of the opportunity, given me by Mr. B. Linn, to excite some attention to doctrines which I consider as of peculiar importance in the Christian system, and which I do not find to have been discussed in this country.

The Church History is, I hope, by this time in the hands of the bookseller at Philadelphia, so that you will soon, if my directions have been attended to, receive a copy of the work which I have the honour to dedicate to you.

With the greatest respect and attachment, I am

Dear Sir, Yours sincerely, J. PRIESTLEY.

Dear Sir,

I take the liberty to send you a second defence of my pamphlet about Socrates, on the 16th page of which you will find that I have undertaken the task you were pleased to recommend to me. On giving more attention to it, I found, as the fox did with respect to the lion, that my apprehensions entirely vanished. Indeed, I have already accomplished a considerable part of the work, and in about a year from this time I hope to finish the whole, provided my health, which is very precarious, be continued in the state in which it now is. I directed a copy of the tract on phlogiston to be sent to you from Philadelphia, and I shall order another, which, together with the inclosed papers, I shall be much obliged to you if you will convey to. Mr. Livingston. Please also to cast an eye over them yourself; and if you can with propriety promote my interest by any representation of yours, I am confident you will do it.

When you wrote to me at the commencement of your administration, you said "the only dark speck in our horizon is in Louisiana." By your excellent conduct it is now the brightest we have to look to.

Mr. Vaughan having applied to me for a copy of my Harmony of the Evangelists, which was not to be had in Philadelphia, and intimated that it was for you, my son, whose copy is more perfect than mine, begs the honour of your acceptance of it, as a mark of his high esteem, in which he has the hearty concurrence of

Dear Sir, Yours sincerely, J. PRIESTLEY.

Northumberland Dec. 12, 1803.

His European correspondents were informed that he was much engaged with religious matters. While his theological views were not received very graciously yet he found

some young men of a serious and inquisitive turn, who read my works, and are confirmed Unitarians.

In one of his communications to Lindsey, written in April 1800, he expresses himself in the following most interesting way relative to his scientific engagements. American men of science will welcome it: This is the message:

I send along with this an account of a course of experiments of as much importance as almost any that I have ever made. Please to shew it to Mr. Kirwan, and give it either to Mr. Nicholson for his journal, or to Mr. Phillips for his magazine, as you please. I was never more busy or more successful in this way, when I was in England; and I am very thankful to Providence for the means and the leisure for these pursuits, which next to theological studies, interest me the most. Indeed, there is a natural alliance between them, as there must be between the word and the works of God.

He was now at work apparently in his own little laboratory adjacent to his dwelling place. For more than a century this structure has remained practically as it was in the days of Priestley. In it he did remarkable things, in his judgment; thus refuting the general idea that after his arrival in America nothing of merit in the scientific direction was accomplished by him. The satisfactory results, mentioned to Lindsey, were embodied in a series of "Six Chemical Essays" which eventually found their way into the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. It is a miscellany of observations. In it are recorded the results found on passing the "vapour of spirit of nitre" over iron turnings, over copper, over perfect charcoal, charcoal of bones, melted lead, tin and bismuth; and there appears a note to the effect that in Papin's digester "a solution of caustic alkali, aided by heat, made a liquor silicum with pounded flint glass." There is also given a description of a pyrophorus obtained from iron and sulphur. More interesting, however, was the account of the change of place in different kinds of air, "through several interposing substances," in which Priestley recognized distinctly for the first time, the phenomena of gaseous diffusion. There are also references to the absorption of air by water, and of course, as one would expect from the Doctor, for it never failed, there is once more emphasized "certain facts pertaining to phlogiston." His friends were quite prepared for such statements. They thought of Joseph Priestley and involuntarily there arose the idea of phlogiston.

The little workshop or laboratory, in Northumberland, where these facts were gathered, will soon be removed to the Campus of Pennsylvania State College. It will be preserved with care and in it, it is hoped, will be gradually assembled everything to be found relating to the noble soul who once disclosed Nature's secrets in this simple primitive structure, which American chemists should ever cherish, and hold as a Mecca for all who would look back to the beginnings of chemical research in our beloved country.

How appropriate it would be could there be deposited in the little laboratory, the apparatus owned and used by Priestley, which at present constitutes and for many years past has formed an attractive collection in Dickinson College, (Pa.) There would be the burning lens, the reflecting telescope, the refracting telescope (probably one of the first achromatic telescopes made), the air-gun, the orrery, and flasks with heavy ground necks, and heavy curved tubes with ground stoppers—all brought (to Dickinson) through the instrumentality of Thomas Cooper, "the greatest man in America in the powers of his mind and acquired information and that without a single exception" according to Thomas Jefferson.

And how the Library would add to the glory of the place, but, alas! it has been scattered far and wide, for in 1816, Thomas Dobson advertised the same for sale in a neatly printed pamphlet of 96 pages. In it were many scarce and valuable books. The appended prices ranged quite widely, reaching in one case the goodly sum of two hundred dollars!

And as future chemists visit this unique reminder of Dr. Priestley it should be remembered that on the piazza of the dwelling house there assembled August 1, 1874, a group of men who planned then and there for the organization of the present American Chemical Society.

The "Essays," previously mentioned, will be found intensely interesting but they are somewhat difficult to read because of their strange nomenclature. Here is Priestley's account of the method pursued by him to get nitrogen:

Pure phlogisticated air (nitrogen) may be procured in the easiest and surest manner by the use of iron only—To do this I fill phials with turnings of malleable iron, and having filled them with water, pour it out, to admit the air of the atmosphere, and in six or seven hours it will be diminished ... what remains of the air in the phials will be the purest phlogisticated air (nitrogen).

Among his contributions to the scientific periodicals of the times there was one relating to the sense of hearing. It is a curious story. One may properly ask whether the singular facts in it were not due to defects in Priestley's own organs of hearing. The paper did not arouse comment. It was so out of the ordinary experimental work which he was carrying forward with such genuine pleasure and intense vigour.

Strong appeals were steadily coming from English friends that he return. While commenting on the pleasure he should have in seeing them he firmly declared that the step would not be wise. In short, despite all arguments he had determined to

remain where I am for life.

The prejudices against him were abating, although he said

that many things are against me; and though they do not shake my faith, they try it.

There had gathered a class of fourteen young men about him in the Northumberland home. They had adopted his Unitarian ideas. To them he lectured regularly on theology and philosophy. Those must have been inspiring moments. It was in this wise that the aged philosopher felt he was doing good and was most useful. He said that it was

a pretty good class of young men to lecture to.

Much time was given to his English correspondents. Them he advised of the rapid development of the States. He sent to some pictures of the country about him, and with much delight he referred to the fact that Jefferson, whom he ardently admired, was now, in the closing weeks of 1800, the President, and his associate—Aaron Burr, Vice-President. He announced to English friends that the late administration, that of John Adams, was

almost universally reprobated.

Mr. Jefferson, he insisted, "will do nothing rashly,"

His being president may induce me to visit the federal city, and perhaps his seat in Virginia.

The seat of government, as may be inferred, had been removed to Washington from Philadelphia. But to the latter center, which still offered many attractions, Priestley journeyed for the third time early in 1801. He was not especially desirous of making this third visit, but as his son and daughter came down a distance of 130 miles on business, he determined to accompany them. True, Congress was no longer there, but there were many interesting people about with whom he had great pleasure. With Bishop White, who was most orthodox and whom he saw frequently, he enjoyed much "Christian and edifying conversation." John Andrews was another favorite. He was a violent Federalist and informed Priestley that the latter

had done them (the Federalists) more mischief than any other man,

yet these two noble spirits lived in amity, and Priestley several times announced that Dr. Andrews was a Unitarian, which is not the thought today in regard to the latter.

It was an eventful year—this year of 1801. Much that was unexpected happened. It brought joy and it brought sorrow.

Perhaps it would be just as well to note the scientific progress of the Doctor during this year, for he gave forth the statement that he had succeeded in producing air by freezing water. This production of air was one of his earlier ideas (p. 62), and now he wrote—

The harder the frost was the more air I procured.

Further, he announced that on heating manganese (dioxide) in inflammable air

no water is formed,

and what is rather astounding, he was certain that azote consisted of hydrogen and oxygen.

To the Medical Repository, which he regarded highly, there was sent a rather thoughtful disquisition on dreams. In it the idea was expressed

that dreams have their seat in some region of the brain more deeply seated than that which is occupied by our waking thoughts.

A "Pile of Volta" had been sent out from England. It amused him and he studied it carefully when he was led to remark upon the theory of this curious process as follows:

The operation wholly depends on the calcination of the zinc, which suffers a great diminution in weight, while the silver is little affected, and all metals lose their phlogiston in calcination, therefore what remains of the zinc in metallic form in the pile and everything connected with that end of it, is supersaturated with phlogiston.

More need not be quoted. It was phlogiston and that only which occasioned the electric current. It may properly be added that in this connection he wrote:

It is said the inventor of the galvanic pile discovered the conducting power of charcoal, whereas it was one of my first observations in electricity, made in 1766.

Some additional attention to air was also given by him, and in so doing he reached the conclusion that

The diamond and charcoal of copper are, as nearly as possible, pure phlogiston.

One wonders how he could so persuade himself, for these bodies surely possessed weight. Why did he not rely more upon his balance?

With Woodhouse he discussed the product from passing water over heated charcoal. He had been endeavoring to refute certain statements made by Cruikshank. There is no question but that he had carbon monoxide in hand, and had it as early as 1799, and that he had obtained it in several different ways. Observe this statement:

I always found that the first portion of the heavy inflammable air, resulting from the passage of steam over heated charcoal was loaded with fixed air (CO_2), but that in the course of the process this disappeared, the remaining air (CO) burning with a lambent flame.

Scarcely had Priestley set foot in Philadelphia on his third visitation than the Port Folio, devoted usually to literature and biography, printed the following unkind words:

The tricks of Dr. Priestley to embroil the government, and disturb the religion of his own country, have not the merit of novelty.

To which the Aurora replied:

When Porcupine rioted in the filth of a debauched and corrupt faction in this city, no person experienced so much of his obscene and vulgar abuse as Dr. Priestley. There is not a single fact on record or capable of being shewn, to prove that Dr. Priestley was guilty of any other crime than being a dissenter from the church of England, and a warm friend of American Independence. For this he was abused by Porcupine—and Denny is only Porcupine with a little more tinsel to cover his dirt. It is worthy of remark, that after a whole sheet of promises of "literary lore" and "products of the master of spirits" of the nation—the first and second numbers of the Portable Foolery, are stuffed with extracts from British publications of an ordinary quality.

The attack of the Port Folio was most ungracious. It may have been due to irritation caused by the appearance of a second edition of Priestley's "Letters to the Inhabitants of Northumberland." Nevertheless the thoughtful and dignified men of the City—men who admired Priestley's broad catholic spirit and brave attitude upon all debatable questions, men who appreciated his scientific attainments, invited him to the following subscription dinner, as announced in the Aurora, March, 6th:

At 4 o'clock in the afternoon about one hundred citizens sat down to an elegant entertainment prepared by Mr. Francis to celebrate the commencement of the administration of Mr. Jefferson. The Governor honored the company with his presence. Several respectable Foreigners were invited to partake of the festival.... A variety of patriotic songs were admirably sung; and the following toasts were drank with unanimous applause.

1. The Governor of Pennsylvania

2. Dr. Priestley: The Philosopher and Philanthropist....

He was present and enjoyed himself, and sad must it have been to read on March 30th:

Some weeks ago, Dr. Priestley having caught cold by attending a meeting of the Philosophical Society on a wet evening, was taken ill of a violent inflammatory complaint which rendered his recovery for a long time dubious. We announce with sincere pleasure the returning health of a man, whose life hath hitherto been sedulously and successfully devoted to the interests of mankind.

He had, indeed, been very ill. The trouble was pleurisy. Dr. Rush was his physician. By his order the patient was bled profusely seven times. During this trying and doubtful period there came to him a cheery letter from President Jefferson who had only learned of his illness. Among other things the President wrote—

Yours is one of the few lives precious to mankind, and for the continuance of which every thinking man is solicitous. Bigots may be an exception.... But I have got into a long disquisition on politics when I only meant to express my sympathy in the state of your health, and to tender you all the affections of public and private hospitality. I should be very happy to see you here (Washington). I leave this about the 30th to return about the 25th of April. If you do not leave Philadelphia before that, a little excursion hither would help your health. I should be much gratified with the possession of a guest I so much esteem, and should claim a right to lodge you, should you make such an excursion.

But Priestley journeyed homeward on April 13th, and en route wrote the following letter, addressed to John Vaughan, Esq. 179 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa.:

April 17, 1801 Reading, Friday Evening

Dear Sir,

I have the pleasure to inform you, agreeably to your kind request, that we are safely arrived at this place, my daughter better than when we left Philadelphia, and as to myself, I feel just as well, and as able to bear any fatigue, as before my late illness. This, however, will always remind me of your friendly attentions, and those of your sister, if a thousand and other circumstances did not do the same, and of them all I hope I shall ever retain a grateful remembrance.

Along the whole road I am struck with the marks of an astonishing degree of improvement since I came this way four years ago. I do not think that any part of England is better cultivated, and at present the wheat is in a very promising state. I wish we may hear of that of England promising as well. Three years of such a scarcity is more than any country could bear, and you will believe me when I say that, if it was in my power, I would guard it not only from famine, but from every other calamity.

With my daughter's kindest remembrance, I am, as ever

Dear Sir Yours sincerely, J. PRIESTLEY.[8]

Resuming his correspondence with his numerous friends in England, he said:

My chief resource is my daily occupation.

He also wrote Dr. Rush his thanks for having advised him to read Noah Webster's Pestilential Disorders which follow the appearance of meteors and earthquakes, taking occasion also to excuse his opposition to blood-letting,—

I believe that I owe my life to your judicious direction of it. I shall never forget your so readily forgiving my suspicion, and my requesting the concurrence of Dr. Wistar after the third bleeding. It was his opinion as well as yours and Dr. Caldwell's, that my disorder required several more; and the completeness of my cure, and the speediness of my recovery, prove that you were right. In the future I shall never be afraid of the lancet when so judiciously directed.

To Rush he confided his doubts about his paper on Dreams. He cannot account for them, hence he has offered merely an hypothesis, and continues—

I frequently think with much pleasure and regret on the many happy hours I spent in your company, and wish we were not at so great distance. Such society would be the value of life to me. But I must acquiesce in what a wise providence has appointed.

His friends continued sending him books. And how joyously he received them. At times he would mention special works, as for example,—

Please to add Gate's Answer to Wall, and Wall's Reply; Sir John Pringle's Discourses and Life by Dr. Kippis; Chandler's Life of King David; Colin Milne's Botanical Dictionary, Botanic Dialogues, and other books of Natural History; Kirwan's Analysis of Mineral Waters; Crosby's History of English Baptists.

In one of his letters he observed—

A person must be in my situation ... to judge of my feelings when I receive new books.

Strangely enough a box of books was sent him to Carlisle (Pa.) and had been there for two years before he learned of it.

Perhaps a word more may be allowed in regard to the paper on Pestilential Disorders by Noah Webster. This was the lexicographer. Priestley thought the work curious and important, but the philosophy in it wild and absurd in the extreme. And of Rush he asks—

Pray is he (Webster) a believer in revelation or not? I find several atheists catch at everything favourable to the doctrine of equivocal generation; but it must be reprobated by all who are not.

Chemists will be glad to hear that

The annual expense of my laboratory will hardly exceed 50 pounds, and I think I may have done more in proportion to my expenses than any other man. What I have done here, and with little expense, will in time be thought very considerable; but on account of the almost universal reception of the new theory, what I do is not, at present, attended to; but Mr. Watt and Mr. Kier, as good chemists as any in Europe, approve of my tract on Phlogiston, and truth will in time prevail over any error.

And to another he said,

Having had great success in my experiments in this country ... I shall never desert philosophy.

The following year (1802) had several points of interest in connection with the good Doctor; for one, who has followed his career thus far, will wish to call him that.

Communications from the home country and from France, while not so numerous, were yet full of interesting news. His friend Belsham brought out his Elements of Philosophy of the Mind, and although Priestley paid it a most gracious tribute he did not hesitate to suggest alterations and additions of various kinds. His dearest friend Lindsey fell seriously ill this year. This gave him inexpressible anxiety and grief. As soon as Lindsey was, in a measure, restored the fraternal correspondence was resumed.

Much time was given by the Doctor to reading and preparing for the press the volumes of his Church History and Notes on the Scriptures. The printing was to be done in Northumberland. Some doubt was entertained as to whether he would have funds sufficient to pay for the publication, and when the urgent letters from friends tempted him to undertake a European trip he generally replied that he was too far advanced in life, that the general debility produced by pernicious ague rendered him unfit for extended travel, and then he offset the disappointment by saying that the expense of the voyage would more than suffice for the printing of one of his proposed four volumes of the Church History. This was a most complete, interesting and instructive work. Even today one profits by its perusal and an immense fund of worthwhile information and knowledge may be derived from even a cursory study of his Notes on the Scriptures.

The monotony of village life was broken by occasional letters from President Jefferson. These were most affectionate and also illuminating on national matters. Copies of these were sent to English friends with the injunction not to show them or permit them to fall into other hands.

Dr. Thomas Cooper was not with Priestley in this year (1802), being detained at Lancaster where the Assembly sat. Naturally Cooper made himself conspicuous, and Priestley prophesied a great future for him, providing that the jealousy entertained for foreigners did not prove too serious an obstacle.

Priestley took much pleasure at this period in his garden, and wrote,

Plants, as well as other objects, engage more of my attention than they ever did before.... I wish I knew a little more botany; but old, as I am, I learn something new continually.

Now and then he mentions a considerable degree of deafness, and sent to Philadelphia for a speaking trumpet, but cheerily adds,

I am, however, thankful that my eyes do not fail me.

Here and there occur plaints like these:

Though my philosophical labours are nearly over, I am glad to hear what is passing in that region in which I once moved, though what I then did seems for the present to be overlooked and forgotten. I am confident, however, as much as I can be of anything, that notwithstanding the almost universal reception of the new theory, which is the cause of it, it is purely chimerical, and cannot keep its ground after a sufficient scrutiny, which may be deferred, but which must take place in time. I am glad to find that Mr. Cruikshank in England, as well as chemists in France, begin to attend to my objections, though the principal of them have been published many years; but, as you say, many will not read, and therefore they cannot know anything that makes against the opinions they have once adopted. Bigotry is not confined to theology.

The experimental work for the year was not very great. Probably this was the result of his general physical weakness and in part it was due to his preoccupation with literary labours. However, he did write out his results, obtained on heating "finery cinders and charcoal" and thus emphasized the gaseous product of which he observes—

It cannot be denied, however, that this gaseous oxyd of carbon (CO) is inflammable ... and is essentially different from all other oxyds, none of which are combustible.

Along in the month of November he wrote a vigorous protest against Cruikshank's explanation of the mode of formation of carbon monoxide. In this polemic he of course threw into prominence his precious phlogiston, the presence of which seemed unnecessary—but this was not so thought by the Doctor, who also favored the Medical Repository with observations on the conversion of iron into steel, in which there is but a single reference to phlogiston, but unfortunately this single reference spoils the general argument and the correct and evident interpretation of the reaction. It reads as follows:

Iron is convertible into steel by imbibing only phlogiston from the charcoal with which it is cemented.

There are abundant correct observations. Their interpretation sadly enough is very false, all because of the persistent introduction of phlogiston where it was not essential.

Priestley advised Rush that because of an unhealthy season he had suffered very much from ague, and said,—

Tho' I was never robust, I hardly knew what sickness was before my seizure in Philadelphia, but the old building has since that had so many shocks, that I am apprehensive it will ere long give way. But I have abundant reason to be satisfied, and shall retire from life conviva satur.

Devotion to work was on the part of Priestley, something marvelous. As his son and daughter-in-law were drawn to Philadelphia in February, 1803, they carried their father with them. He was rather indisposed to this, yet he disliked remaining alone at home notwithstanding the printing of the Church History required considerable personal attention. The marvelous part of it all was that while in Philadelphia, on this his fourth and last visit, while he fraternized with congenial souls and even presented himself at various social functions, he yet found leisure to print his little volume entitled "Socrates and Jesus Compared," which gave much pleasure to President Jefferson, so much indeed that he hoped Priestley would,—

take up the subject on a more extended scale, and show that Jesus was truly the most innocent, most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that has ever been exhibited to man.

Jefferson's genuine approval of his effort was balm to Priestley's soul. He, of course, wrote Lindsey and Belsham about it; yes, copied the letter of Jefferson and sent the same to them with the comment,—

He is generally considered as an unbeliever. If so, however, he cannot be far from us, and I hope in the way to be not only almost, but altogether what we are.

It was February 28, 1803, that the august members of the American Philosophical Society resolved:

That this Society will dine together on Saturday next, and that J. B. Smith, Wistar, Williams, Hewson & Vaughan be a Committee to make the necessary arrangements for that purpose and to request Dr. Priestley's company, informing him that the Society are induced to make the request from their high respect for his Philosophical Labours & discoveries, & to enjoy the more particular pleasure of a social meeting—The Dinner to be prepared at the City Tavern or Farmer's Hotel.

It was this resolution which caused notices, such as the following to go out to the distinguished membership of the venerable Society—

Philadelphia, March 2, 1803

Sir: You are hereby invited to join the other members of the American Philosophical Society, in giving a testimony of respect, to their venerable associate Dr. Joseph Priestley, who dines with them on Saturday next at Francis' Hotel—Dinner on table at 3 o'clock.

C. Wistar J. Williams J. R. Smith T. T. Hewson J. Vaughan Committee

An answer will be called for tomorrow morning. DR. RUSH

It was a very dignified and brilliant company. Law, medicine, theology, science, commerce represented by very worthy and excellent gentlemen. And, among them sat the modest, unassuming, versatile Priestley. That he was happy in his surroundings there is ample reason to believe. He loved to be among men. He, too, was appreciated and eagerly sought because of his winning ways, his tolerance and liberality. He was moderately convivial though

He said that one glass of wine at dinner was enough for an old man, but he did not prescribe his own practice as an universal rule.

About eight weeks were spent in the City. On return to the dear country home the doctor took up his various duties and burdens, but the infirmities of age were often alluded to by him, and they no doubt delayed all of his work, which was further aggravated by a dangerous fall on his left hip and strain of the muscles of the thigh. He was extremely lame and for some time went about on crutches, which held him out of his laboratory. To him this was very trying. But he persisted. He was truly a splendid example for the younger aspirants for scientific honors. During the year he entered on a controversial article with his old friend Erasmus Darwin upon the subject of spontaneous combustion, and subsequently communicated to the Medical Repository an account of the conversion of salt into nitre. He had positive knowledge of this fact for quite a little while, and upon the occasion of a visit by Dr. Wistar, told the latter concerning this with the request that no mention be made of it, evidently that he might have opportunity for additional confirmation. However, very unexpectedly, Dr. Mitchill published something of a similar character, therefore Priestley believing that he ought "to acquaint experimentalists in general with all that I know of the matter," announced that in 1799 when experimenting on the formation of air from water,

having made use of the same salt, mixed with snow, in every experiment, always evaporating the mixture the salt was recovered dry. I collected the salt when I had done with it, and put it into a glass bottle, with a label expressing what it was, and what use had been made of it.

Subsequently he treated this salt, after many applications of it, with sulphuric acid, when he remarked—

I was soon surprized to observe that red vapours rose from it.

An examination of another portion of the salt showed—

that when it was thrown upon hot coals ... it burned exactly like nitre.

So it was a conversion of sodium chloride into sodium nitrate. That this change must have come from the snow with which it had been dissolved, could not be doubted, and he further observed—

Now in the upper regions of the atmosphere ... there may be a redundancy of inflammable air ... and a proportion of dephlogisticated air. In that region there are many electrical appearances, as the aurora borealis, falling stars &c; in the lower parts of it thunder and lightening, and by these means the two kinds of air may be decomposed, and a highly dephlogisticated nitrous acid, as mine always was, produced. This being formed, will of course, attach itself to any snow or hail that may be forming ... confirming in this unexpected manner, the vulgar opinion of nitre being contained in snow.

This seems to be the last communication of this character which came from the Doctor's pen.

He was in despair relative to the academy which had ever been his hope for the College which in his early years in Northumberland he prayed might arise and in which he would be at liberty to particularly impart his Unitarian doctrines.

An interesting item relative to the Academy appeared in the Aurora for April 1st, 1803. It shows that State aid for education was sought in those early days. It is a report, and reads—

A REPORT of the Committee to whom was referred the Petition of Thomas Cooper, on behalf of the Northumberland Academy, praying legislative aid. The report states that Thomas Cooper appeared before the Committee and stated that upward of $4000 had been expended on the building appropriated to that institution. That the debts due thereon amounted in the whole to near $2000. That Dr. Joseph Priestley had the power of disposing of a very valuable library consisting of near 4000 volumes of scarce and well chosen books in various branches of literature and science, to any public seminary of learning in the United States, which library, the said Dr. Priestley was desirous of procuring as a gift to the Northumberland Academy, provided that institution was likely to receive substantial assistance from the legislature, so as to be enabled to fulfil the purposes of its establishment,

That the Trustees would have no occasion to ask of the legislature on behalf of that Academy, a subscription greater than a few individuals had expended, and were still ready and desirous of contributing thereto; and suggest it to your Committee, that if out of the monies due from the County of Northumberland to the State a sufficient sum was granted to exonerate the Academy from debt, no more would be wanted in the future to effect the purposes of that institution, than a sum equal in amount to the value of the library proposed to be furnished by Dr. Priestley; such value to be fixed by a person appointed for the purpose by the legislature.

The Committee was of the opinion that it would be expedient for the legislature to coincide with the suggestion of Thomas Cooper and so recommended to the Legislature. Their report was adopted, 39 to 31. It was strongly advocated by Jesse Moore, Esq., General Mitchell and N. Ferguson from the city. It was opposed by Jacob Alter from Cumberland, who declared that although there were a great many public schools and colleges and places of that kind scattered over the State, he never knew any good they did, except to breed up a set of idle and odious lawyers to plague the people!

At this particular time there still existed confiscated land from the sale of which revenue was derived, and this income it had been agreed upon should be devoted to the erection and support of academies throughout the State. Later this scheme was discontinued. But, Dr. Priestley was not so enthusiastic as formerly. He was occupied with the Church History, three volumes of which were in print, and it was expected that the fourth volume would follow shortly thereafter. However, his health was precarious. He could not eat meats, and lived chiefly on broths and soups, saying,—

The defect is in the stomach and liver, and of no common kind. If I hold out till I have finished what I have now on hand, I shall retire from the scene, satisfied and thankful.

This was written in August, and the Doctor stuck bravely to his literary labors. A few months later he wrote Lindsey,—

I really do not expect to survive you.

Yet, he also entertained the thought that he might,—

assist in the publication of a whole Bible, from the several translations of particular books, smoothing and correcting them where I can.

January of 1804 brought him many interesting, splendid and valuable books from friends in London. He was overjoyed on their arrival. Promptly he gave himself to their perusal because his deafness confined him to home and his extreme weakness forbade any excursions. Then the winter kept him from his laboratory, and his sole occupation was reading and writing. He entertained a variety of plans, proceeding with some but in the midst of these tasks of love—in the very act of correcting proof, he quietly breathed his last! It was Monday, February 6, 1804, that Thomas Cooper, the devoted friend of Priestley, wrote Benjamin Rush:—

Dear Sir:

Mr. Joseph Priestley is not at present in spirits to write to his friends, and it falls to my lot therefore to acquaint you that Dr. Priestley died this morning about 11 o'clock without the slightest degree of apparent pain. He had for some time previous foreseen his dissolution, but he kept up to the last his habitual composure, cheerfulness and kindness. He would have been 71 the 24th of next month. For about a fortnight there were symptoms of dropsy owing to general debility: about two days before his death, these symptoms disappeared, and a troublesome cough came on perhaps from a translation to the chest.

Yesterday he had strength enough to look over a revise of the Annotations he was publishing on the Old and New Testament, and this morning he dictated in good language some notices which he wished his son Mr. Priestley to add to his unpublished works. I am sure you will sincerely regret the decease of a man so highly eminent and useful in the literary and philosophical world, and so much presumably your friend.

Yes, the valiant old champion of a lost cause was no more. Two days before his death "he went to his laboratory"—but, finding his weakness too great, with difficulty returned to his room. Loyal to his science to the very end!

To American chemists he appeals strongly because of his persistent efforts in research. His coming to this country aroused a real interest in the science which has not waned in the slightest since his demise.

When the sad news reached the Hall of the American Philosophical Society, Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton was chosen to eulogize Priestley. This notable event took place on January 3rd, 1805. The Aurora reported:

Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton, one of the vice-presidents of the American Philosophical Society, having been previously appointed by the society to deliver an eulogium to the memory of their late associate, Dr. Joseph Priestley, the same was accordingly delivered in the First Presbyterian Church in this city, on Thursday the 3rd inst. before the society, who went in a body from their hall to the church, preceded by their patron, the governor of the state. Invitations were given on this occasion to the Revd. Clergy of the city; the college of Physicians; the Medical Society; the gentlemen of the Bar, with the students at Law; the trustees and faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, with their students in the Arts and in Medicine; the judges and officers of the federal and state Courts; the foreign ministers and other public characters then in the city; the mayor; aldermen and city councils: the trustees and session of the First Presbyterian Church; the directors of the City Library; the directors and Physicians of the Pennsylvania Hospital, of the Alms House, and of the Dispensary; the proprietor and Director of the Philadelphia Museum; and the contributors towards the Cabinet and Library of the Society. After the conclusion of a very interesting eulogium, the society returned their thanks to the orator, and requested a copy for the purpose of publication.

One's curiosity is quickened on thinking what Barton said in his address. Search in many directions failed to bring forth the Eulogium. It had been ordered to be printed in the Transactions of the Society. This was never done. But there was a minute (seven years later) in the meeting of the Society (Nov. 6, 1812) to the effect that