my weakness (for such you will consider it) when, after giving you
reason to expect that I would accept the professorship of
Chemistry, if it was offered to me, I now inform you that I must
decline it.
Now and then he also advised him of such experiments as he was able to
do; for example--
I made trial of the air of Northumberland by the test of nitrous
air, but found it not sensibly different from that of England.
In the leisure he enjoyed his figure was often seen in Congress. He
relished the debates which at the time were on the Treaty with England.
He declared he heard as good speaking there as in the House of Commons.
He observed--
A Mr. Amos speaks as well as Mr. Burke; but in general the
speakers are more argumentative, and less rhetorical. And whereas
there are with you not more than ten or a dozen tolerable
speakers, here every member is capable of speaking.
While none of the letters to Priestley's friends mention a family event
of some importance the _American Advertiser_, February 13, 1796,
announced that
Mr. William Priestley, second son of the celebrated Dr. Joseph
Priestley, was married to the agreeable Miss Peggy Foulke, a young
lady possessed with every quality to render the marriage state
happy.
This occurred very probably just before the Doctor set forth from
Northumberland to make his first Philadelphia visit. It is singular that
little is said of the son William by the Doctor. Could it be that, in
some way, he may have offended his parent? In his _Memorial_ Rush,
writing in the month of March, 1796, noted:
Saw Dr. Priestley often this month. Attended him in a severe
pleurisy. He once in his sickness spoke of his second son,
William, and wept very much.
Busy as he was in spreading his religious tenets, in fraternizing with
congenial scientific friends, his thoughts would involuntarily turn back
to England:
Here, though I am as happy as this country can make me ... I do
not feel as I did in England.
By May, 1796, he had finished his discourses, although he proposed
concluding with one emphatically Unitarian in character. This was
expected by his audience, which had been quietly prepared for it and
received it with open minds and much approval.
On his return to Northumberland he promptly resumed his work on the
"Church History," but was much disturbed because of the failure of his
correspondents in writing him regularly, so he became particularly
active in addressing them. But better still he punctuated his
composition of sermons, the gradual unfolding of his Church History, and
religious and literary studies in general, with experimental
diversions, beginning with the publication (1796) of an octavo brochure
of 39 pages from the press of Dobson in Philadelphia, in which he
addressed himself more especially to Berthollet, de la Place, Monge,
Morveau, Fourcroy and others on "Considerations on the Doctrine of
Phlogiston and the Decomposition of Water." It is the old story in a
newer dress. Its purpose was to bring home to Americans afresh his
particular ideas. The reviewer of the _Medical Repository_ staff was
evidently impressed by it, for he said:
It must give pleasure to every philosophical mind to find the
United States becoming the theatre of such interesting discussion,
and then adds that the evidence which was weighty enough to turn such
men as Black and others from the phlogiston idea to that of Lavoisier--
has never yet appeared to Dr. Priestley considerable enough to
influence his judgment, or gain his assent.
Priestley, as frequently observed, entertained grave doubts in regard to
the constitution of metals. He thought they were "compounded" of a
certain earth, or calx, and phlogiston. Further he believed that when
the phlogiston flew away, "the splendour, malleability, and ductility"
of the metal disappeared with it, leaving behind a calx. Again, he
contended that when metals dissolved in acids the liberated "inflammable
air" (hydrogen) did not come from the 'decompounded water' but from the
phlogiston emitted by the metal.
Also, on the matter of the composition and decomposition of water, he
held very opposite ideas. The French School maintained "that hydrogenous
and oxygenous airs, incorporated by drawing through them the electrical
spark turn to _water_," but Priestley contended that "they combine into
_smoking nitrous acid_." And thus the discussion proceeded, to be
answered most intelligently, in 1797, by Adet,[5] whose arguments are
familiar to all chemists and need not therefore be here repeated. Of
more interest was the publication of two lectures on Combustion by
Maclean of Princeton. They filled a pamphlet of 71 pages. It appeared in
1797, and was, in brief, a refutation of Priestley's presentations, and
was heartily welcomed as evidence of the "growing taste in America for
this kind of inquiry." Among other things Maclean said of the various
ideas regarding combustion--"Becker's is incomplete, Stahl's though
ingenious, is defective; the antiphlogistic is simple, consistent and
sufficient, while Priestley's resembling Stahl's but in name, is
complicated, contradictory and inadequate."
Not all American chemists were ready to side track the explanations of
Priestley. The distinguished Dr. Mitchill wrote Priestley on what he
designated "an attempt to accommodate the Disputes among Chemists
concerning Phlogiston." This was in November, 1797. It is an ingenious
effort which elicited from Priestley (1798) his sincere thanks, and the
expressed fear that his labours "will be in vain." And so it proved.
Present day chemists would acquiesce in this statement after reading
Mitchill's "middle-of-the-road" arguments. They were not satisfactory to
Maclean and irritated Priestley.
In June 1798 a second letter was written by Priestley to Mitchill. In it
he emphasized the substitution of zinc for "finery cinder." From it he
contended inflammable air could be easily procured, and laid great
stress on the fact that the "inflammable air" came from the metal and
not from the water. He wondered why Berthollet and Maclean had not
answered his first article. To this, a few days later, Mitchill replied
that he felt there was confusion in terms and that the language
employed by the various writers had introduced that confusion; then for
philological reasons and to clarify thoughts Mitchill proposed to strike
out _azote_ from the nomenclature of the day and take _septon_ in its
place; he also wished to expunge hydrogene and substitute phlogiston. He
admitted that Priestley's experiments on zinc were difficult to explain
by the antiphlogistic doctrine, adding--
It would give me great satisfaction that we could settle the
points of variance on this subject; though, even as it is, I am
flattered by your (Priestley's) allowing my attempt 'to reconcile
the two theories to be ingenious, plausible and well-meant....
Your idea of carrying on a philosophical discussion in an amicable
manner is charming'....
But the peace-maker was handling a delicate problem. He recognized this,
but desired that the pioneer studies, then in progress might escape
harsh polemics. This was difficult of realization for less than a month
later fuel was added to the fire by Maclean, when in writing Mitchill,
who had sent him Priestley's printed letter, he emphatically declared
that
The experiment with the zinc does not seem to be of more
consequence than that with the iron and admits of an easy
explanation on antiphlogistic principles.
And he further insisted that the experiments of Priestley proved water
to be composed "of hydrogene and oxygene."
Four days later (July 20, 1798) Priestley wrote Mitchill that he had
replaced zinc by red precipitate and did not get water on decomposing
inflammable air with the precipitate. Again, August 23, 1798, he related
to Mitchill
that the modern doctrine of water consisting of _oxygene_ and
_hydrogene_ is not well founded ... water is the basis of all
kinds of air, and without it no kind of air can be produced ...
not withstanding the great use that the French chemists make of
scales and weights, they do not pretend to weigh either their
_calorique_ or _light_; and why may not _phlogiston_ escape their
researches, when they employ the same instruments in that
investigation?
There were in all eight letters sent by Priestley to Mitchill. They
continued until February, 1799. Their one subject was phlogiston and
its rôle in very simple chemical operations. The observations were the
consequence
of original and recent experiments, to which I have given a good
part of the leisure of the last summer; and I do not propose to do
more on the subject till I hear from the great authors of the
theory that I combat in America;
but adds,--
I am glad ... to find several advocates of the system in this
country, and some of them, I am confident, will do themselves
honour by their candour, as well as by their ability.
This very probably was said as a consequence of the spirited reply James
Woodhouse[6] made to the papers of Maclean. As known, Woodhouse worked
unceasingly to overthrow the doctrine of phlogiston, but was evidently
irritated by Maclean, whom he reminds--
You are not yet, Doctor, the conqueror of this veteran in
Philosophy.
This was a singularly magnanimous speech on Woodhouse's part, for he had
been hurling sledgehammer blows without rest at the structure
Priestley thought he had reared about phlogiston and which, he believed,
most unassailable, so when in 1799 (July) Priestley began his reply to
his "Antiphlogistian opponents" he took occasion to remark:
I am happy to find in Dr. Woodhouse one who is equally ingenious
and candid; so that I do not think the cause he has undertaken
will soon find a more able champion, and I do not regret the
absence of M. Berthollet in Egypt.
Noble words these for his young adversary who, in consequence of
strenuous laboratory work, had acquired a deep respect and admiration
for Priestley's achievements, though he considered he had gone far
astray.
The various new, confirmatory ideas put forth by Priestley need not be
here enumerated. They served their day.
Dr. Mitchill evidently enjoyed this controversial chemical material, for
he wrote that he hoped the readers of the _Medical Repository_, in which
the several papers appeared, would
participate the pleasure we feel on taking a retrospect of our
pages, and finding the United States the theatre of so much
scientific disquisition.
And yet, when in 1800, a pamphlet of 90 pages bearing the title "The
Doctrine of Phlogiston established, etc." appeared there was
consternation in the ranks of American chemists. Woodhouse was aroused.
He absolutely refuted every point in it experimentally, and Dr. Mitchill
avowed--
We decline entering into a minute examination of his experiments,
as few of his recitals of them are free from the _triune_ mystery
of phlogiston, which exceeds the utmost stretch of our faith; for
according to it, _carbon is phlogiston_, and _hydrogen is
phlogiston_, and _azote is phlogiston_; and yet there are not
_three_ phlogistons, but _one_ phlogiston!
It was imperative to submit the preceding paragraphs on chemical topics,
notwithstanding they have, in a manner, interrupted the chronological
arrangement of the activities of the Doctor in his home life. They were,
it is true, a part of that life--a part that every chemist will note
with interest and pleasure. They mean that he was not indifferent to
chemistry, and that it is not to be supposed that he ever could be,
especially as his visits to Philadelphia brought to his attention
problems which he would never suffer to go unanswered or unsolved
because of his interest in so many other things quite foreign to them.
However, a backward look may be taken before resuming the story of his
experimental studies.
It has already been said that the non-appearance of letters caused him
anxiety. For instance he wrote Lindsey, July 28, 1796--
It is now four months since I have received any letter from you,
and it gives me most serious concern.
But finally the longed-for epistle arrived and he became content,
rejoicing in being able to return the news--
I do not know that I have more satisfaction from anything I ever
did, than from the lay Unitarian congregation I have been the
means of establishing in Philadelphia.
For the use of this group of worshipers he had engaged the Common Hall
in the College (University of Pennsylvania).
But amidst this unceasing activity of body and mind--very evidently
extremely happy in his surroundings--he was again crushed to earth by
the death of his noble wife--
Always caring for others and never for herself.
This occurred nine months after the departure of Harry. It was a fearful
blow. For more than thirty-four years they had lived most happily
together. The following tribute, full of deep feeling and esteem attests
this--
My wife being a woman of an excellent understanding much improved
by reading, of great fortitude and strength of mind, and of a
temper in the highest degree affectionate and generous.... Also
excelling in everything relating to household affairs, she
entirely relieved me of all concern of that kind, which allowed me
to give all my time to the prosecution of my studies.
She was not only a true helpmate--courageous and devoted--but certainly
most desirous that the husband in whom she absolutely believed should
have nothing to interrupt or arrest the pursuits dear to him and in
which she herself must have taken great but quiet pride, for she was
extremely intelligent and original. Madam Belloc has mentioned
It is a tradition in the family that Mrs. Priestley once sent her
famous husband to market with a large basket and that he so
acquitted himself that she never sent him again!
The new house, partly planned by her, at the moment well advanced and to
her fancy, was not to be her home for which she had fondly dreamed.
Priestley was deeply depressed but his habitual submission carried him
through, although all this is pathetically concealed in his letters.
There were rumours flitting about that Priestley purposed returning to
England. That his friends might be apprised of his real intentions the
following letter was permitted to find its way into the newspapers:
Northumberland Oct. 4,
1796
My dear Sir,
Every account I have from England makes me think myself happy in
this peaceful retirement, where I enjoy almost everything I can
wish in this life, and where I hope to close it, though I find it
is reported, both here and in England that I am about to return.
The two heavy afflictions I have met with here, in the death of a
son, and of my wife, rather serve to attract me to the place.
Though dead and buried, I would not willingly leave them, and hope
to rest with them, when the sovereign disposer of all things shall
put a period to my present labours and pursuits.
The advantages we enjoy in this country are indeed very great.
Here we have no poor; we never see a beggar, nor is there a family
in want. We have no church establishment, and hardly any taxes.
This particular State pays all its officers from a treasure in the
public funds. There are very few crimes committed and we travel
without the least apprehension of danger. The press is perfectly
free, and I hope we shall always keep out of war.
I do not think there ever was any country in a state of such rapid
improvement as this at present; but we have not the same
advantages for literary and philosophical pursuits that you have
in Europe, though even in this respect we are every day getting
better. Many books are now printed here, but what scholars chiefly
want are old books, and these are not to be had. We hope, however,
that the troubles of Europe will be the cause of sending us some
libraries and they say that it is an ill wind that blows no
profit.
I sincerely wish, however, that your troubles were at an end, and
from our last accounts we think there must be a peace, at least
from the impossibility of carrying on the war.
With every good wish to my country and to yourself, I am, dear
sir,
Yours sincerely,