PETER PORCUPINE'S PERSECUTION oJ PRIESTLEY* LYMAN C. NEWELL Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
Priestley was a dissenter in religion and a democrat i n politics at a time when these beliefs were unpopular. In his speeches, pamphlets, sermons, and books (except scientific books) he aroused the opposition of leaders i n both church and state. Moreover, he was disputatious by nature, not violent, but persistent. He nagged his o p ponents. Hence he was constantly subjected to persecution, especially during the lust twenty years of his life. After the riots i n Birmingham, the persecution became so
discomforting and unbearable that he emigrated from England to America. However, he did not change his views on religion and, especially, on politics, nor did he modify his methods of expression. Hence he was persecuted i n the "land of the free." This paper gives a n acount of a vicious attack on "the honest heretic" by a n English refugee named Cobbett, who accomplished his purpose by writing a pamphlet under the pen-name of Peter Porcupine.
+ + +
T
HE persecution of Priestley by ardent adherents of the government and the established church of his native country is a matter of detailed record. He was also subjected to persecution very soon after his arrival in America, and this persecution was inflicted by the same type of enemy as in Great Britain. The attack was made through a pamphlet entitled "Observations on the Emigration of Dr. Joseph Priestley." The pamphlet was written by an anonymous scribbler, who concealed his identity under the alliterative and suggestive pseudonym of Peter Porcupine. Suhsequently, Peter Porcupine was discovered to be an Englishman named William Cobbett. A copy of this rare pamphlet came into my possession
* Presented before the Division of History of Chemistry at the of the Ame+ican Chemical Society, New Orleans, 83rd La.,March 28 to April 1. 1932.
recently, and after a critical examination I concluded that an account of this distressing experience of Priestley should be added to the accessible literature dealing with the history of chemistry in America. In considering Priestley's experiences in both England and America we must remember certain fundamental facts. Chemistry was his avocation. Theology was his vocation. He was a theologian by education and training, and' a persistently disputatious dissenter. Also he was a democrat, literally an uncompromising advocate of the rights of the people of all countries. Moreover, he was a prolific writer in these two fieldstheology and politics-and published an appalling array of books and pamphlets setting forth his own views and opposing those of his adversaries. Consequently9 for many years he was in continuous conflict with the government and the established church of
151
Great Britain. We must likewise remember that Priestley lived at a time when the world was involved in a bitter struggle; liberty was being born. We pass over Priestley's early contacts in education, theology, and science, emphasizing merely the fact that he early became a dissenting minister who spent his spare time performing experiments in natural philosophy, the greater and more important part being in chemistry. In 1767 Priestley went to Leeds as the minister of Mill Hill Chapel. The congregation was "liberal, friendly, and harmonious," so Priestley said, and he at once threw himself whole-heartedly into this work. He renewed his theological studies and launched again
into controversies in theology and politics to such an extent that he acquired a notoriety for the advocacy of "heterodox principles in religion and advanced ideas in politics." He remained in Leeds six years and left to become a companion and literary adviser of Lord Shelburne. The next seven or eight years were fruitful for chemistry. But Priestley became uneasy. He longed for a more active life among the people. So he relinquished his position with Lord Shelburne in 1780 and soon afterward became the minister of a group of dissenters in Birmingham known as the New M e e t i n g a n event called by Priestley "the happiest of my life." Priestley's work in Birmingham ended abruptly and disastrously in 1791 through an outbreak known as the Birmingham riots. For many years he had been a conspicuous advocate of liberalism in theology and politics, and a pestiferous agitator of disputed questions. This persistent opposition to church and king
made Priestley obnoxious to divines and statesmen. He had done much to irritate both parties, especially whiie in Birmingham. When the French Revolution broke out Priestley expressed sympathy for the people and continued to show his interest in their cause. He was not an advocate of violence, and he did not approve of unrestrained personal liberty, but he did favor free speech in politics and religion. On July 14, 1791, the second anniversary of the fall of theBastille was observed by a dinner in Birmingham sponsored by the liberalminded citizens. Priestley did not attend the dinner nor did he write the seditions handbill which had been widely distributed early in July. Nevertheless the people associated him with these events and similar ones. A mob pillaged and burned the New Meeting House-Priestley's church. Then the rioters hurried to Priestley's house and destroyed the building and much of its contents, including valuable manuscripts, books, and apparatus. Priestley and his wife barely escaped with their lives. After taking temporary refuge with some friends, they went to London. One of the sequels of this disaster was the payment of about £2500 to Priestley in settlement of his claim for damages. The Birmingham riots continued for several days and were finally quelled by the military. However, the calamity did not alter Priestley's views toward church and state. In a letter written October 3, 1791, he speaks of "acknowledging but one law-giver in the church, and a submission in all events to His authority in opposition to everything human." "We have much to fear," he continues, "from the rising spirit of bigotry, encouraged by the clergy, and I fear the court too." Nor did the riots sober his enemies. Priestley was often burned in effigyand several scandalous cartoons of him were printed. Open threats of violence were made; landlords were reluctant to let him live in their houses; servants refused to continue in his employ; certain members of the Royal Society, once his friends, now shunned him. The only aid and comfort came from dissenting ministers and a few scientific workers. One authority says, "the King and Church party did everything in their power to make his existence impossible." He preached for a time in Hackney, assembled some apparatus for a laboratory in this place, and tried to continue his experiments in chemistry. But renewed threats of violence made his position untenable, even dangerous. So he left England, and joined his sons in Northumberland, Pennsylvania, where he lived contentedly until his death, February 6, 1804. Priestley and his wife sailed for America on April 8, 1794, and after an unpleasant voyage arrived in New York on the evening of June 4. They were met by their son Joseph and his wife who conducted them to a nearby lodging house, which had been the headquarters of Generals Howe and Clinton. Priestley's arrival in America was a conspicuous event. The daily papers had published notices of his departure from England and in some way had obtained advance information about his arrival. As a result
representatives of different organizations prepared addresses of welcome in time for delivery soon after his arrival. One New York newspaper, the American Daily Adve~tiser,published an editorial from which we quote two significant paragraphs: The name of Joseph Priestley will be long m e m b e r e d among all enlightened people; and there is no doubt that England will one day regret her ungrateful treatment to this venerable and illustrious man. His persecutions in England have presented t o him the American Republic as a safe and honourable retreat in his declining years; and his arrival in this city calls upon us t o testify our respect and esteem far a man whose whole life has been devoted t o the sacred duty of diffusing knowledge and happiness among nations. The citizens of united America know well the honourable distinction that is due to virtue and talents; and while they cherish in their hearts the memory of Dr. Franklin as a philosopher, they will be proud to rank among the list of their illustrious fellow citizens the name of Dr. Priestley.
Within the next few days, in f a d in one or two cases on the morning following their arrival, the Priestleys were visited by Governor Climton, Dr. Prevost, Bishop of New York, representatives of the principal merchants, and deputations from political, educational, and scientific societies. Several organizations presented addresses of welcome which Priestley graciously acknowledged. These addresses and the replies of Priestley led to the abusive attack upon him by William Cobbett who, as stated above, under the pseudonym of Peter Porcupine wrote the pamphlet entitled "Observations on the Emigration of Dr. Joseph Priestley." Inasmuch as the addresses and replies were the cause of the persecution of Priestley by Peter Porcupine, it is highly desirable to consider them in detail. A committee representing the Democratic Society of the City of New York after bidding Priestley welcome to these "shores of Liberty and Equality" and referring to the despotism of the governments of the old world said :
....
we consider the persecution with which you have been pursued by a venal Court and an imperious and uncharitable priesthood as an illustrious proof of your personal merit and a lasting reproach t o that Government from the grasp of whme tyranny you are so happily removed.
Priestley in his reply spoke of the unsettled condition of Europe, due to tyrannies originating in a degeneration of the spirit of liberty, and continued thus:
I rejoice in finding an asylum from persecution in a country in which these abuses have come to a natural termination, and have produced another system of Liberty founded on such wise principles, as, I trust, will guard it against all future abuses; . . . . that protection from violence which laws and government promise in all countries, but which I have not f m d in my own, I doubt not I shall find with you . .
..
The Tammany Society about a week after Priestley arrived sent a committee and presented him with an address of welcome of nearlv a thousand words. In it the Society mentions Priestley's "industrious pursuit of knowledge" and his "numerous discoveries in Nature," calls him a "friend of mankind," "asserter of the rights of conscience and the champion of civil and religious liberty," and expresses regret for the destruction of his philosophical apparatus, library, and manuscripts by the "spoilers." Specific and somewhat fulsome emphasis is laid upon America as an asylum for the man who has been so persecuted by state and church that a t an advanced age he was compelled to flee from his native land. . . 3 munhy lor whose improvement in virtue and k n o w l c d ~ you hm.e I Y ~ K disintcrrstrdly idmured, for which its rewards we ingratitude, injustice, and banishment.
PRIESTLEY
AUTOGRAPHFROM
THE
AUTHOR'S COLLECTION
Priestley's reply contains some significant passages, which we should interpret, as far as "Tammany" is concerned, from the standpoint of 1794, not of 1932 or some years prior thereto! He said at first:
-~
-
I- think mmelf ereatlv honoured. -~ ~-. ,flvine . as I do. from ill treatment in my native country,on account of my attachment to the cause of civil and religious liberty, to k rcccived with the eonKratuhtions of "a Society of Freemen associated to cultivate the love of liberty, and the enjoyment of a happy Republican government."
After referring graciously to the venerable ancestors of "Tammany," he said: Their sirenuous exertions and yours now give me that asylum which a t my time of life is peculiarly grateful to me, who only wish t o continue unmolested those pursuits of various literature to which, without having ever entered into any political connexions, my life has heen devoted.
He concluded by declaring his regret at the prevailing political conditions in England and his hope that whatever was imperfect might be removed. The Associated Teachers in the City of New York presented a message full of sympathy and respect, and expressed the hope "of sharing in some degree that patronage of science and literature which it has ever been your delight to afford." We quote one remarkable paragraph: Our mast ardent wisbes attend you, good Sir, that you may find in this land a virtuous simplicity, a happy recess from the intriguing politics and vitiating refinements of the European world: that your patriotic virtues may add to the vigour of our happy Constitution and that the blessings of this country may he abundantly remunerated into your person and your family.
Priestley was deeply touched by this genuine greeting and his reply, though brief, was a sincere reciprocation. Here are some condensed extracts. A welcome to this country from my fellow labourers in the
. ...
...
peculiarly grateful to me. . In instruction of youth is some form or other this [teaching] has been my employment and delight; and my principal object in flying for an asylum to this country is that I may, without molestation, pursue my favourite studies. And if I had an opportunity of making a choice of an employment f a what remains of adive exertion in my life, it would be one in which I should. as I hone I have hitherto done. contribute with you, to advance the cause of science, of virtue, and of religion.
....
There were only a few scientific societies in America a t the time of Priestley's arrival. One of these, the Medical Society of the State of New York, presented an address of 'welcome through its president! In the address he expressed:
... .
real joy, in receiving among us, a gentleman whose labours have contributed so much to the diffusion and establishment of civil and religious liberty, and whose deep researches into the true prindples of natural philosophy have derived [contributed] so much im~rovementand real benefit. not o d v t o the sciences of chemist& and medicine, but the varidus other g,ts, all of which are necessary t o the ornament and utility of human We.
In his reply Priestley said:
. ..
. To continue, without fear of molestation, on account of the most open profession of any sentiments, civil or religious, those ~ u r s u i t which s vou are sensible have for their obiect the advantaw "~ of d l mankind, . . . . ir my principal motive for laving a country in which that tranquility and scnsr. of security which scientifiwl pursuits require cannot bc had; . . ~
. .
~~
The Republican Natives of Great Britain and Ireland, sensing keenly the conditions under which Priestley spent the last four years of his life in England, presented a fervid address in which they not only welcomed Priestley to the country having the only form of government "worthy the wisdom of man to project, or to which his reason should assent." They also took advantage of the opportunity of his arrival to express their disapproval of "the corrupt and tyrannical government" of Great Britain and of the existence of slavery in America. Priestley's reply was not emotional but it was precise in its denunciation of the civil and religious policies of Great Britain. He refers in the beginning to the preference they have for the freedom under the government of the United States over the restrictions imposed by the government of their former country. Then he says : 'Chert [in Grcat Britain1 all liberty of wcech and of the press as far as policies are concerned is at an end, and a spirit 01 intuleranw m nmttrrs of religion is almost as high ss in the time of the f t u a N Here . . every man enjoys invaluable liberty of speaking and writing whatever he pleases
..
Priestley was soon to discover, however, that the sentiments uttered in the last sentence work both ways. Continuing, Priestley expresses a belief that Great Britain will institute reforms which will eventuallv correct the evils resulting from an hereditary monarchical government. Then he says: I cunnatulate you, g~ntlrmcn,as you do me, on our arrival in a mnlntry in which rnrn who w~shwell t o their frllow citizens . are in no danger of being treated like the worst felons, as is now the case in Great Britain. Happy should I think myself in joining with you in welcoming t o this country every friend of liberty, who is exposed to danger from the tvrannv of the British Government, and who. while the" continue under k , must expect t o share in those calardities, which its present infatuation must, sooner or later, bring upon it.
..
It is evident even from these short extracts that Priestley expressed himself freely about the treatment meted out to him by representatives of the church and the government in England. Nor did he leave any doubt in the minds of his hearers about his own civil and religious views in general. Consequently, as already stated, Priestley was made the victim of a vicious attack by an anonymous writer, who, however, was soon found out to be W'iiam Cobbett concealed by the alliterative pen-name of Peter Porcupine. The immediate cause of Peter Porcupine's attack on Priestley was an article in a newspaper. This article was a reprint of the addresses presented to Priestley and his replies thereto. Cohbett yielded to a sudden impulse and wrote the pamphlet setting forth in picturesque, incisive language what he regarded as the villainous behavior of this exile Priestley, who by word and act was vilifying the country and government loved by Cobbett himself. This pamphlet, as stated above, is the one entitled "Observations on the Emigration of Dr. Joseph Priestley."
Before considering the pamphlet, let us find out something about William Cobbett, especially his career up to the time of Priestley's amval (June 4, 1794) and including the six years thereafter. William Cobbett (1762-1835) was horn a t Farnham in Surrey, England. His early days were spent on a farm and in the fields. As a lad he had no educational advantages. He left the farm a t the age of sixteen, went to London where he obtained employment as a
He supported himself by teaching English to French refugees, supplementing this work by translating books from and into this language. But being a political agitator, he could not restrain an impulse to attack all men who held views differing from his own. The Priestley pamphlet was his first outburst and it was quickly followed by others. He took the Federal side in American politics and over the signature of Peter Porcupine lashed American democracy and French republicanism in coarse and bitter language. In January, 1796, he began to publish a monthly tract called "The Censor." This was discontinued after eight numbers, and replaced by a daily newspaper named "Porcupine's Gazette," which was issued for about two years (end of 1799). He opened a bookstore at Philadelphia in July, 1796, and reprinted, published, and sold much of the current loyalist literature, chiefly the violent type. Being a fomenting factor in American political and civil life, he had to reap the consequences. He narrowly escaped conviction in one suit for libel, and was fined $5000 in another suit; the latter was brought by Dr. Benjamin Rush. His enemies in Philadelphia became so numerous and active that Cobbett transferred his business to New York, and started a new federal monthly, "The Rushlight." But by this time America became too hostile, and he departed for England in June, 1800. Going back to the pamphlet attacking Priestley, we take up more or less in detail the parts connected directly with Priestley. In the introduction Peter Porcupine gives certain reasons for writing the pamphlet. He says: When the amval of Doctor Priestley in the United States was first announced, I looked upon his emigration (like the proposed retreat of Cowley to his imaginary Paradise, the Summer Islands) as no more than the effect of that weakness, that delusive caprice, which too often accompanies the decline of life, and which is apt, by a change of place, to flatter age with a renovation of faculties, and a retum of departed genius. Viewing him as a man that sought repose, my heart welcomed him to the shores of peace, and wished him, what he certainly ought t o have wished himself, a quiet obscurity. But his answers to the addresses of the Democratic and other Societies a t New Yark, place him in quite a different light, and subject him t o the animadversions of a public, among whom they have been industriously propagated.
. . . . .
T l n E PAGEOF PETERPORCUPINE'S PAMPHLETIN WHICH HE ATTACKSJOSEPHPRIESTLEY (From the collection of Lyman C. Newell.)
copying-clerk to an attorney, but finding this task distasteful after a few months he enlisted in a line regiment. All his leisure hours were devoted to learning English grammar and reading English classics. He was soon promoted, and went with his regiment to Nova Scotia, where he continued his self-education. At the end of 1791 his regiment returned to England, and Cobbett obtained an honorable discharge. At this time (early in 1792), his activity in certain military matters and the threats of enemies caused him to flee to France. Getting into trouble again, he left France suddenly and emigrated to America (October, 1792).
His answers to the addresses of the New-York societies are evidently calculated to mislead and deceive the people of the United States. He there endeavours to impose himself on them for a sufferer in the cause of Liberty; and makes a canting profession of moderation, in direct contradiction to the conduct of his whole lie.
The newspaper article which started Cobbett on his polemical career was a reprint of the addresses offeredt o Priestley on his arrival in the United States, together with Priestley's replies. The addresses seemed to Cobbett full of "malicious attacks upon the monarchy and the monarch of England." The replies he regarded as "invectives against England" by the learned Doctor. Cobbett rallied at once to the defense of his native country and, as usual, his method of defense was t o take the offensive.
earliest piece of polemical writing. The argument is somewhat inconclusive and for the most part denunciation takes the place of logic. But this lack of logic does not impair the vigor of the writing, the point and pungency of the satire, and the skilful manipulation by which Priestley is made out a fool as well as a knave. The subject matter does not make severe calls upon Cobbett's powers as a pamphleteer. The "Observations" is all in one key. It lacks those personal digressions which added spice to his later pamphlets. But i t was sufficiently accentuated to attract wide attention, and by its publication Cobbett as Peter Porcupine leaped into the front rank of pamphleteers. Let us now consider extracts from this famous--or infamous-pamphlet. Peter Porcupine expresses his general contempt of the addresses and Priestley's replies thus: It is no more than justice t o say of these addresses, in the lump, tbat they are distinguished for a certain barrenness of thought and vulgarity of style, which, were we not in possession of the Doctor's answers, might be thought inimitable. If the parties were less known, one might be tempted to think that the addressers were dull by concert; and that by way of retaliation, the Doctor was resolved to be as dull as they. At least, if this was their design, nobody will deny but they have succeeded t o admiration. WILLIAMCOBBETT AS A R E C R U ~ (From a caricature by Gillray.)
In a few words, Priestley was to Cobbett not an English democrat seeking a republican harbor from English repression nor an English dissenter looking for a haven from English ecclesiasticism, but a traitor to the king and a foe to the established church. So Cobbett, under the pen-name of Peter Porcupine, poured the full torrent of his wrath upon Priestley. The pamphlet as first written comprised 62 pages. It was reprinted in various forms from 30 to 88 pages, the last named being the number in my copy of the third edition. It bore no author's name on the title page, and the short preface (6 pages) is signed merely "The Author." The date of the preface is February 8, 1795. The publisher was Thomas Bradford. Cobbett had some difficultyin finding a publisher in such an antiBritish city as Philadelphia. Matthew Carey, one of the leading booksellers and publishers, declined it, saying, much to the disgust of Cobbett: "No, my lad, I don't think it will suit." Bradford, who was Carey's rival, finally agreed to publish i t after omission of certain objectionable words in the title, Cobbett flatly refusing to alter a line of the pamphlet. Bradford scored one point, however. He left his own name off the title page of the 1st edition "for fear of his shop windows." But the pamphlet had such a large sale and was so well received, that Bradford put his name on the subsequent editions he issued. If we except "The Soldier's Friend," probably his production only in part, the "Observations on the Emigration of Dr. Joseph Priestley" is Cobbett's
Recalling that Priestley had written many books, was an accomplished linguist, and had taught school many years, there is a penetrating sting in the following rebuke by Peter Porcupine, who was an uneducated man and up to this time had written little and taught less : As t o his [Priestley's] talents as a writer we have only t o open our eyes t o be convinced that they are far below mediocrity. His style is uncouth and superlatively diffuse. Always involved in minutiae, every sentence is a string of parentheses, in finding the end of which, the reader is lucky if he does not lose the orooosition thev were meant to illustrate. I n short. the whole of his phraseolo&is entremely disgusting; t o which may be added. that even in point of grammar he is very often incorrect.
Regarding the general charge made by Priestley in his replies, Peter Porcupine says: The charge that tbe Doctor brings against his countty is, that i t has not afforded him protection. I t ought t o be remarked here, that there is a material difference between a government that does not a t all times afford sufficient protection, and one that is oppressive. However, in his answer t o the New-Yark addresses, he very politely acquiesces in the government and laws of England being oppressive also.
Certain addresses and Priestley's replies aroused the special ire of Peter Porcupine, oiz., those which were thoroughly anti-British. Thus Peter Porcupine says: I n his answer t o the address of "the republican natives of Great Britain and Ireland, resident a t New-York." he [Priestley] says: "the wisdom and happiness of republican governments, and the evils resulting from hereditary monarchial ones, cannot appear in a stronger light to you than they do t o me"; and yet this same man pretended an inviolable attachment to the hereditary monarchial government of Great Britain. Says he, by way of vindicating the principles of his club t o the people of Birmingham "the first toast tbat was drunk,was. 'the king and constituWhat! does he make a merit in England of having tion."'
toasted that which he abominates in America? Alas! Philosophers are but mere men! It is clear that a parliamentary reform was not the object: an after game was intended, which the vigilance of government, and the natural good sense of the people happily prevented; and the Doctor, disappointed and chagrined, is come here t o discharge his heart of the venom i t has been long collecting against his country. He tells the Democratic society that he cannot ~romiset o b e a better subject of this government than he has been of that of Great Britain. Let us hope that he intends us an agreeable disappointment, if not, the sooner he emigrates back again the better.
This address and reply evidently stirred Peter Porcupine deeply because in another place he says: But of all the addressers none seem so zealous on this subject as "the republican natives of Great Britain and Ireland." "While," say they, "we look back on our native country with emotions of pity and indignation, a t the outrages human nature has sustained, in the persons of the virtuous Muir and his patriotic associates; and deeply lament the fatal apathy into which our countrymen have fallen: we desire to be thankful t o the great author of our being, that we are in America and that i t has pleased him, in his wise providence, t o make these United States an Asylum, not only from the immediate tyranny of the British government, but also from those impending calamities, which its inneasing despotism, and multiplied iniquities, must infallibly bring down on a deluded and oppressed people." What an enthusiastic warm is here! No solemn league-and-covenant prayer, embellished with the nasal sweetness of the conventicle. was ever more affecting. Of all the English arrived in these States (since the war) no one was ever calculated to render them less service than Doctor Priestley; and what is more, perhaps no one (before or since, or even in the war) ever intended to render them less: his preference to the American government is all affectation: his emigration was not voluntary: he staid in England till he saw no hopes of recovering a lost reputation; and then, bursting with envy and resentment, he fled into what the Tammany society very justly call "banishment," covered with the universal detestation of his countrymen.
Tammany," too, receives a share of Peter Porcupine's satire. Thus he says: 8'
The Tammany society comes forward in boasting of their "venerable ancestors," and, says the Doctor in his answer: "Happy would our venerable ancestors have been to have found, etc." What! Were they the Doctor's ancestors too! I suppose be means in a figurative sense. But certainly, gentlemen, you made a fam pas in talking about your ancestors a t all. I t is always a tender subject, and ought t o be particularly avoided by a body of men "who disdain the shackles of tradition." You say that, in the United States, "there exists a sentiment of free and candid enquiry, which disdains the shackles of tradition, oreoarine a rich harvest of imorovement and the elorious triumoh Knowing the reli&us, or rather irrel&ous, principies of truth.' of the person [Priestley] t o whom this sentence was addressed, i t is easy to divine its meaning.
. .
Priestley's religious views, a s just briefly intimated, receive the un$mpromising consideration of Peter Porcupine. Here are some significant extracts: Doctor Priestley professes t o wish for nothing but toleration: liberty of conscience. But let us contrast these moderate and disinterested ~rofessions with what he has advanced in some of his latest publications. I have already taken notice of the assertion in his letters t o the students of Hackney; "that the established church mud fall." I n his address to the Jews (whom by the bye. he seems t o wish t o form a coalition with) he says: "all the persecutions of the Jews have arisen from trinilarian, that is to
WILLIAMCOBBETT AS CLERKU F HIS RBGIMES~ (From e caricature by Gllrey.) say, Idolatrous Christians." Idolatrous Christians! It is the first time I believe these two words were ever joined together. Is this the language of a man who wanted only toleration, in a country where the established church, and the most part of the dissenters also, are professedly trinitarians? He will undoubtedly say that the people of this country are idolators too, for there is not one out of a hundred a t most, who does not h l y believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. You say, he has "long disinterestedly laboured for his country." 'Tis true he says so; but we must not believe him more disinterested than other reformers. If toleration bad been all he wanted: if he had contented himself with the permission of spreading his doctrines, he would have found this in England, or in almost any other country, as well as here. The man that wants only to avoid persecution, does not make a noisy and fastidious display of his principles, or attack with unbridled indecency, the religion of the country in which he lives. But the Doctor did not want to be remote from power or pafit either; for, in his sermon on the test laws, he proposes "to set apart one church for the dissenters in every considerable town. and a certain allotment of tifhes for their minister, proportioned to the number of dissenters in the district." A very modest and disinterested request truely! Was this man seeking peace and toleration only? He thinks these facts are unknown in America. After all his clamour against tithes, and his rejoicing on account of their abolition in France, he had no objection t o their continuing in England, provided he came in for a share. Astonishing disinterestedness!
Having been a teacher for many years, Priestley naturally appreciated the address of the Associated Teachers, but Peter Porcupine discounted this reciprocal courtesy. He says: I n the answer to the "associated teachers," the Doctor observes, that, classes of men, as well "as individuals, are a p t to form too high ideas of their own importance." Never was a juster
observation than this, and nwer was this observation more fully verified than in the parties themselves. The Doctor's self importance is sufficiently depicted in the quotation that I have given from his letter to the people of Birmingham; and as for the "associated teachers." how familiarly soever they may talk of "the intriguing politics and vitiating rehements of the European World," I must say, I think, they know but little of what passes in that world; or they never would have larded withsuch extravagant eulogiums, productions, which, in general, have been long exploded.
These extracts are sufficient to show the kind of persecution meted out by Peter Porcupine to Priestley for his political and religious views. But Priestley's work as a scientist did not escape the venom of this upstart in pamphleteering. Here is a short extract bearing on this point:
Of his scientific productions, I propose, in a little time, to give the public a short review; meanwhile I refer the curious reader to the publications of the royal society, of 1791 and 1792, and to Doctor Bewley's treatise an air. He will there see his system of chemistry and natural philosophy detected, exposed and defeated; and the "celebrated philosopher" himself accused and convicted of plagiarism. He will there find the key to the following sentence: "The Wtronage to he met with, in monarchical governments, is ever caprcihus, and as often employed to bear down merit as to promote it, having for its object, not science, or any thing useful to mankind, but the mere reputation of the patron, who is seldom any judge of science." This is the Language of every soured neglected author, from a sorry ballad monger to a doctor with half a dozen initials a t the end of his name.
The fmt edition of the "Obsenrations" contained only a little about the scientific work and standing of Priestley. Here and there the words "philosopher" and "philosophical experiments" were mentioned contemptuously. The only long statement is the one
just cited. However, the third edition, as stated on the title page of my copy, contains "many curious and interesting facts on the Subject, not known here, when the first edition was published." One of these "interesting facts" (?)is the charge that Priestley plagiarized the results of an experiment and emigrated from England to escape the terrible consequences of a "lost reputation" as a philosopher. Inasmuch as this is closely related to our interest in Priestley, the chemist, the statement as given by Peter Porcupine may properly be quoted at length. After stating that Priestley left Hackney under a cloud and was obliged to remove to Clapton where he could resume "some original enquiries," Peter Porcupine says: Elere then we see him (in the month of August, 1793) in quiet possession of every thing he wanted to enjoy. What thrn cuuld make him come off to Amrrica so soon after) If he had d ~ t e r mined to stay, when exposed to every kind of obloquy and insult, what could make him fly away when no longer exposed to it? I t must be allowed that the Doctor's passion for controversy and persecution is such as would excuse a belief that he grew angry with the people for letting him alone; but candour obliges me to confess that this was not the case in the present instance; for, he was going on very diligently with his processes and his "original enquiries." Yes, reader, i t was these cnrsed "original enquiries" that did all the mischief. For, the Doctor being in the height of ~ which. them, happened to fall upon a W o m ~ n a uDISCOVERY, though erroneous was not original. However, all would yet have been safe, if he had kept it within the walls of his laboratory; but his communicative temper would not permit him to do this, wonderful discovery made its public ently and the unfort-te into the book-seller's shops on the 16th of November, 1793. This brought him a "New Y w ' s Gft" from Dodor Harrington, his old antagonist and his conqueror, as we shall see by the following extract from the gentleman's Magazine for May. 1794. "Dr. Priestley, Sir, for many years, had been acquiring a very high degree of fame o ' m his chemical and philosophical experiments. According to his awn account, i t was this great reputation which gave him so much ansequence in the eyes of the French philosophers, and which sanctioned his other pursuits. On the 16th of November last, he published a pamphlet in a very boasting and exulting style, informing the world, that he had made a most important discovery, that water was formed of dephlogisticated and phlogisticated airs; the same airs, and the same proportions, which your correspondent Doctor Harrington observes, that the Honourable Mr. Cavendish, from his mistaken experiments, considers as constituting the nitrous acid. The abnvdity of these opinions has been pointed out by Doctor Harrington in your Magazine for January and February last; in which i t is most clearly and satisfactorily shown in what manner Doctor Priestley was mistaken: proving a t the same time the real formation of the different airs, d i l a y i n g the very great futility and the errors of our modem chemistry; and a t the same time, bringing the very heavy charge of plagiarism upon Doctor Priestley." "As Dador Priestley, in his last pamphlet, announced his intentions of publishing again very soon, having materials for another by him, expressed apprehensions lest any person should interfere with him in these experiments, I expected every day to hear of the Doctor's vindicating himself and his opinions, answering the charges of Doctor Harrington, or acknowledging his philosophical mistakes. Instead of which, to my very great sururise. . . I am informed he is stealine off to America: thus leavinzhis antagonist master of the field, and only saying that the world may hear of him again in his chemical pursuits. This is certainly very diRerent from what he gave us reason to expect, when be announced to the world, is his ostentatious pamphlet, that we might expect t o hear regularly from him. But I think,you will
agree with me, that he has totally fled from his aerial chemistry, and. what is the most awkward and urtraordinarv thine of all. without one word of defence from the charges of philakphicai plagiarism." "It was not till Doctor Priestley received the New Year's Gift of your January and February Magazine, that he was in earnest about America. And, I am informed, that he was so mu* afraid that he should receive another from the same valuable work. that be got on hoard the ship the very evcning hefore the ? l a g zinc for the month of >larch made i t q appearance, although thr ship wa.5 not likely to sail immediately." Was i t a "hazarded assertion" then, to say that the great philosopher was accused and convicted of plagiarism, and that he stayed in England till be saw no hopes of recovering a lost reputation?
.
been able to find, that he ever replied in print or even made any entry in his publications. Students of Priestley and his times may profitably read the whole pamphlet written by Peter Porcupine, but in this paper enough has been presented to show that Priestley did not escape persecution by emigrating to America.
This charge of scientific plagiarism, or theft, or whatever one may call it, is false and can be dismissed at once without comment. Its very absurdity stamps it as unfounded. Priestley must have been deeply grieved by this whole unwarranted attack of Cobbett. However, contrary to his usual procedure, he made no public rejoinder. In fact, there is no record, as far as I have
BIBLIOGE4PHY - - -- - - - -- - -CARLYLE,E. I., "William Cobbett," Arnold Constable & Co., London, 1904 (Illustrated). G. K., "William Cobbett," Dodd, Mead & Co., CRESTERT~N, New York City, 1926. COBBETT. WILLIAM,"Life and Adventures of Peter Porcupine with other Records of his Early Career in England and America," The Nonesuch Press, London, 1927. COLE,GEORGE D. H., "The Life of William Cobbett." Harcourt. Brace & Co., New York City, 1924. MELVILLE,LEWIS, "The Life and Letters of William Cobbett in England and America," London: John Lane, The Bodley Head, New York: John Lane Company. Toronto: Bell & Cockbum, 1913, Vols. I & 11. SMITH, EDGAR FAHS, "Priestley in America, 1794-1804," P. Blakiston's Son & Co., Philadelphia, 1920. WATSON. JOANSELBY,"Biographies of John Wilkes and William Cobbett," William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh and London. 1870.
SOME ENGLISH PRIESTLEY MEMORABILIA
reproduced by courtesy of Lyman C . Newell
