Note 15 — MEMOIRS OF Dr. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY. [WRITTEN BY HIMSELF.]

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.

T. C.