Priestley in America | Page 3

his philosophical pursuits.
Best of all his friends were there, including those devoted to science.
Faujar St. Fond, a French geologist has recorded a visit to Priestley--
Dr. Priestley received me with the greatest kindness.... The building in
which Dr. Priestley made his chemical and philosophical experiments
was detached from his house to avoid the danger of fire. It consisted of
several apartments on the ground floor. Upon entering it we were
struck with a simple and ingenious apparatus for making experiments
on inflammable gas extracted from iron and water reduced to vapour.
If, only, all the time of Dr. Priestley in Birmingham had been devoted
to science, but alas, his "beloved theology" claimed much of it. He
would enter into controversy--he would dissent, and the awful hour was
advancing by leaps and bounds. The storm was approaching.
It burst forth with fury in 1791. The houses of worship, in which he
was wont to officiate, were the first to meet destruction, then followed
his own house in which were assembled his literary treasures and the

apparatus he had constructed and gathered with pains, sacrifice and
extreme effort. Its demolition filled his very soul with deepest sorrow.
Close at hand, the writer has a neat little chemical balance. It was
brought to this country by Priestley, and tradition has it, that it was
among the pieces of the celebrated collection of chemical utensils
rescued from the hands of the infuriated mob which sought even the
life of Priestley, who fortunately had been spirited or hidden away by
loyal, devoted friends and admirers. In time he ventured forth into the
open and journeyed to London, and when quiet was completely
restored, he returned to one of his early fields of activity, but wisdom
and the calm judgment of friends decided this as unwise. Through it all
Priestley was quiet and philosophical, which is evident from the
following story:
A friend called on him soon after the riots and condoled with him for
his loss in general, then mentioned the destruction of his books as an
object of particular regret. Priestley answered, "I should have read my
books to little purpose if they had not taught me to bear the loss of
them with composure and resignation."
But the iron had entered his soul. He could not believe that in his own
England any man would be treated as he had been treated. His country
was dear to him. He prized it beyond expression, but he could not hope
for the peace his heart craved. His family circle was broken, two of his
sons having come to America, so in the end, deeply concerned for his
life-companion's comfort, the decision to emigrate was reached, and
their faces were turned to the West.
In reviewing the history of chemistry the remark is frequently heard
that one blotch on the fair escutcheon of French science was placed
there when the remorseless guillotine ushered Lavoisier into eternity.
Was not the British escutcheon of science dimmed when Priestley
passed into exile? Priestley--who had wrought so splendidly! And yet
we should not be too severe, for an illustrious name--Count
Rumford--which should have been ours--was lost to us by influences
not wholly unlike those which gained us Priestley. Benjamin
Thompson, early in life abandoned a home and a country which his

fellow citizens had made intolerable.
Read Priestley's volumes on Air and on Natural Philosophy. They are
classics. All conversant with their contents agree that the experimental
work was marvelous. Priestley's discovery of oxygen was
epoch-making, but does not represent all that he did. Twice he just
escaped the discovery of nitrogen. One wonders how this occurred. He
had it in hand. The other numerous observations made by him antedate
his American life and need not be mentioned here. They alone would
have given him a permanent and honorable rank in the history of
chemistry. Students of the science should reserve judgment of Priestley
until they have familiarized themselves with all his contributions, still
accessible in early periodicals. When that has been done, the loss to
English science, by Priestley's departure to another clime will be
apparent.
His dearest friends would have held him with them. Not every man's
hand was against him--on the contrary, numerous were those, even
among the opponents of his political and theological utterances, who
hoped that he would not desert them. They regretted that he had--
turned his attention too much from the luminous field of philosophic
disquisition to the sterile regions of polemic divinity, and the still more
thorny paths of polemic politics....
from which the hope was cherished that he would recede and devote all
his might to philosophical pursuits.
A very considerable number ... of enlightened inhabitants, convinced of
his integrity as a man, sincerity as a preacher, and superlative merit as