JOSEPH PRIESTLEY. 103 



this led to the further admission that, so far as we can know, there 

 may be no difference between the substance of matter and the sub- 

 stance of spirit (" Disquisitions," p. 16). A step further would have 

 shown Priestley that his materialism was, in substance, very little dif- 

 ferent from the idealism of his contemporary, the Bishop of Cloyne. 



As Priestley's philosophy is mainly a clear statement of the views 

 of the deeper thinkers of his day, so are his political conceptions based 

 upon those of Locke. Locke's aphorism, that " the end of government 

 is the good of mankind," is thus expanded by Priestley : 



"It must necessarily be understood, therefore, whether it be expressed or 

 not, that all people live in society for their mutual advantage ; so that the good 

 and happiness of the members, that is, of the majority of the members, of any 

 state, is the great standard by which every thing relating to that state must 

 finally be determined." J 



The little sentence here interpolated, "that is, of the majority of the 

 members of any state," appears to be that passage which suggested to 

 Bentham, according to his own acknowledgment, the famous "greatest 

 happiness " formula, which, by substituting " happiness " for " good," 

 has converted a noble into an ignoble principle. But I do not call to 

 mind that there is any utterance in Locke quite so outspoken as the 

 following passage in the " Essay on the First Principles of Govern- 

 ment." After laying down, as " a fundamental maxim in all govern- 

 ments," the proposition that " kings, senators, and nobles," are " the 

 servants of the public," Priestley goes on to say : 



" But in the largest states, if the abuses of the government should at any 

 time be great and manifest ; if the servants of the people, forgetting their mas- 

 ters and their masters' interest, should pursue a separate one of their own ; if, 

 instead of considering that they are made for the people, they should consider 

 the people as made for them ; if the oppressions and violation of right should be 

 great, flagrant, and universally resented ; if the tyrannical governors should have 

 no friends but a few sycophants, who had long preyed upon the vitals of their 

 fellow-citizens, and who might be expected to desert a government whenever 

 their interests should be detached from it ; if, in consequence of these circum- 

 stances, it should become manifest that the risk which would be run in attempt- 

 ing a revolution would be trifling, and the evils which might be apprehended 

 from it were far less than those which were actually suffered, and which were 

 daily increasing ; in the name of God, I ask, what principles are those which 

 ought to restrain an injured and insulted people from asserting their natural 

 rights, and from changing or even punishing their governors that is, their ser- 

 vants who had abused their trust, or from altering the whole form of their 

 government, if it appeared to be of a structure so liable to abuse ? " 



As a Dissenter, subject to the operation of the Corporation and 

 Test Acts, and as a Unitarian, excluded from the benefit of the Toler- 

 ation Act, it is not surprising to find that Priestley had very definite 



1 " Essay on the First Principles of Government," second edition, 1771, p. 13. 



