In the preface I had expressed my belief of the doctrine of
_Philosophical Necessity_, but without any design to pursue the
subject, and also my great admiration of Dr. Hartley’s theory of
the human mind, as indeed I had taken many opportunities of doing
before. This led me to publish that part of his _observations on
man_ which related to the doctrine of association of ideas, detached
from the doctrine of vibrations, prefixing _three dissertations_,
explanatory of his general system. In one of these I expressed some
doubt of the immateriality of the sentient principle in man; and the
outcry that was made on what I casually expressed on that subject can
hardly be imagined. In all the newspapers, and most of the periodical
publications, I was represented as an unbeliever in revelation, and no
better than an Atheist.
This led me to give the closest attention to the subject, and the
consequence was the firmest persuasion that man is wholly material, and
that our only prospect of immortality is from the christian doctrine
of a resurrection. I therefore digested my thoughts on the subject,
and published my _Disquisitions relating to matter and spirit_, also
the subjects of _Socinianism_ and _necessity_ being nearly connected
with the doctrine of the materiality of man, I advanced several
considerations from the state of opinions in antient times in favour
of the former; and in a separate volume discussed more at large what
related to the latter, dedicating the first volume of this work to Mr.
Graham, and the second to Dr. Jebb.
It being probable that this publication would be unpopular, and might
be a means of bringing odium on my patron, several attempts were made
by his friends, though none by himself, to dissuade me from persisting
in it. But being, as I thought, engaged in the cause of important
truth, I proceeded without regard to any consequences, assuring them
that this publication should not be injurious to his Lordship.
In order, however, to proceed with the greatest caution, in a business
of such moment, I desired some of my learned friends, and especially
Dr. Price, to peruse the work before it was published; and the remarks
that he made upon it led to a free and friendly discussion of the
several subjects of it, which we afterwards published jointly; and it
remains a proof of the possibility of discussing subjects mutually
considered as of the greatest importance, with the most perfect good
temper, and without the least diminution of friendship. This work I
dedicated to our common friend Mr. Lee.
In this situation I published my _Harmony of the gospels_, on the idea
of the public ministry of Jesus having continued little more than one
year, a scheme which I first proposed in the Theological Repository;
and the Bishop of Waterford having in his _Harmony_ published a defence
of the common hypothesis, viz. that of its having been three years, I
addressed a _letter to him_ on the subject, and to this he made a reply
in a separate work. The controversy proceeded to several publications
on both sides, in the most amicable manner, and the last _Postscript_
was published jointly by us both. Though my side of the question was
without any advocates that I know of, and had only been adopted by
Mr. Mann, who seemed to have had no followers, there are few persons,
I believe, who have attended to our discussion of the subject, who are
not satisfied that I have sufficiently proved what I had advanced. This
controversy was not finished until after my removal to Birmingham.
Reflecting on the time that I spent with Lord Shelburne, being as a
guest in the family, I can truly say that I was not at all fascinated
with that mode of life. Instead of looking back upon it with regret,
one of the greatest subjects of my present thankfulness is the change
of that situation for the one in which I am now placed; and yet I was
far from being unhappy there, much less so than those who are born
to such a state, and pass all their lives in it. These are generally
unhappy from the want of _necessary_ employment, on which account
chiefly there appears to be much more happiness in the middle classes
of life, who are above the fear of want, and yet have a sufficient
motive for a constant exertion of their faculties; and who have always
some other object besides amusement.
I used to make no scruple of maintaining, that there is not only
most virtue, and most happiness, but even most true politeness in the
middle classes of life. For in proportion as men pass more of their
time in the society of their equals, they get a better established
habit of governing their tempers; they attend more to the feelings
of others, and are more disposed to accommodate themselves to them.
On the other hand, the passions of persons in higher life, having
been less controlled, are more apt to be inflamed; the idea of their
rank and superiority to others seldom quits them; and though they
are in the habit of concealing their feelings, and disguising their
passions, it is not always so well done, but that persons of ordinary
discernment may perceive what they inwardly suffer. On this account,
they are really intitled to compassion, it being the almost unavoidable
consequence of their education and mode of life. But when the mind is
not hurt in such a situation, when a person born to affluence can lose
sight of himself, and truly feel and act for others, the character is
so godlike, as shews that this inequality of condition is not without
its use. Like the general discipline of life, it is for the present
lost on the great mass, but on a few it produces what no other state
of things could do.[15]
[15] The account here given of Dr. Priestley’s connection with Lord
Shelburne must be gratifying to every friend of science and literature,
notwithstanding the subsequent separation. To such persons the
character of a nobleman who like Lord Shelburne, devotes so much of
his time, and so much of his income to the pursuits of knowledge,
and the encouragement of those who eminently contribute to enlighten
mankind, cannot but be interesting. Had he behaved dishonourably
or disrespectfully to a man of Dr. Priestley’s high station in the
literary world, it would have been an argument that science and
literature were ineffectual to soften the pride of titled opulence and
hereditary rank. But Ovid has observed justly, (_ingenuas didicisse
fideliter Artes, emollit mores nec sinit esse feros_.)
It is right to mention an anecdote highly honourable to Lord Shelburne,
on the authority of Dr. Priestley. At the conclusion of the treaty
of peace in 1783, negotiated by Lord Shelburne while he was in the
ministry, a strong opposition was expected, particularly from his
former coadjutors who soon after the death of Lord Rockingham had
seceded from Lord Shelburne’s administration. It was suggested to this
nobleman, that it was customary for the minister for the time being
to let it be understood among the mutes of the ministerial members,
that they might expect the usual douceur for their votes on such an
occasion. Some light might be thrown on the nature and quantum of
this douceur, by the list of ministerial rewards distributed at the
close of each session, as stated publicly to the house of Commons
by the late Sir George Saville. Lord Shelburne without hesitation
refused compliance; and declared that if his peace could not obtain
the unbought approbation of the house, it might take its chance. The
consequence was that although the address was carried in the Lords by
72 to 59 it was lost in the Commons by 224 to 208.