in morals, were Scrupulous in their adherence to ortho- doxy. But he did not confine himself to dealing with churchmen: his object was to obtain for the dissenters what he considered t<> be their rights, and in the pur- suit of which he published about twenty volumes. He attacked certain positions relating to the dissenters in
Blackstone's Commentaries with a vigor and acri ny
whi.h seems to have surprised his adversary. At the same nine he wa- avowedly partial to the French Revo- lution, and as be was a man of strong speech and sting- in- pen, he soon excited the hatred of the High-Church and Tory party. The agitation of the populace had already found vent in riots, and in the month of July Dr. Priestley's house, library, manuscripts, (and cost)} apparatus were committed to the Barnes by an angry-
mob. His papers, torn in scraps, carpeted the roads around his desolated home, ami he was exposed to great personal danger. He quitted Birmingham foi' Hack- ney, where he became the successor of his deceased friend Dr. Price (q. v.), and so far as m >ney could restore what he had lost, it was liberally given. Uut his sentiments were unchanged, and he was none the less outspoken because of misuse; and at last, conceiving himself to be insecure against popular rage, he embarked for America. In the United States he was received with enthu- siasm a- a martyr to republican principles. He was offered a professor's chair in Philadelphia, which, how- ever, he declined— for, notwithstanding bis unparalleled attainments, he modestly felt the want of an early sys- tematic training in the sciences— and, retiring t" Nor- thumberland, he wa> soon again absorbed in his studies. But even here before long he was in the midst of hitter controversy. He had contemplated no difficulty in form- ing a Unitarian congregation in America: but in this he was greatly disappointed. He found that the majority disregarded religion, and those who paid any attention to it were more afraid of his doctrines than desirous of hearing them. I'y the American government, the for- mer democratic spirit of which had subsided, he was looked upon as a spy in the interest of France. The democracy he espoused was unpalatably French, the in- consistency of his religious doctrines laid him open to ridicule, and. as he could not long remain silent, a host of critics was soon arrayed against him. His liter writings were mostly in defence of his doctrines and discoveries, and his experiments in America did not prove as successful as those ol bis earlier years. To tin- day of his death he continued to pursue his literary and scientific pursuits with as much ardor as he had shown at any period of his active life. He died Feb. G, 1804, expressing the satisfaction he derived from the con- sciousness of having led a useful life and the confidence lie felt in a future state ill a happy immortality. When his death became known in Paris, his ,/,,,., was read by Cuvier before the National Institute.
Priestley has given us his autobiography down to March 24, 1795. He was a man of irreproachable moral and domestic character, remarkable for zeal, for truth, I patience, and in his maturer years for serenity of tem- per. He appears to have been fearless iii proclaim- ing his convictions, whether theological, political, or [scientific. Few men in modem times have written so | much, or with such facility; yet he seldom spent more than six or eight hours a day in any labor which re- quired much mental exertion. A habit of regularity ex- tended itself to all his studies. He never read a hook without determining in his own mind when he would finish it; and at the beginning of every year he arranged the plan of his literary pursuits and scientific researches. He labored under a great defect, which, however, was not a very considerable impediment to bis progn --. I le sometimes lost all ideas both of persons and things with which he had been conversant, 1 1 < • always did imme- diately what he had to perform. Though he rose early and despatched his more serious pursuits in the morn- ing, yet he was as well qualified for mental exertion at one time of the day as at another. All seasons were equal to him, early or late, before dinner or after. He could also write without inconvenience by the parlor
tin-, with his wife and children about him. and occasion- ally talking to them. In his family he ever maintained the worship of God. See the Mi ■ i -. . . ntinued by his sou. with observations by T. Cooper; also / ij'> by John Corry (1805); and by Riitl (1832).
Rarely has a man been more \ ariously estimated than Priestley. In Blackwood | 1885) he was characterized as "a shallow scholar.au empirical philosopher — who Btumbled on his discoveries and lacked the logical ca- pacity t" usefully apply them a malcontent politician, and a heretical religionist." Dr. Parr, on the contrary, speaks of Priestley's attainments as numerous without ' a parallel, his talents as superlatively great, ami his
PRIESTLEY
585
PRIESTLEY