Part 4 (2/2)
Leaving this academy, Priestley went, in 1755, as a.s.sistant to the Dissenting minister at Needham, in Suffolk. Here he remained for three years, living on a salary of about 30 a year, and getting more and more into bad odour because of his peculiar theological views.
From Needham he moved to Nantwich, in Ches.h.i.+re, where he was more comfortable, and, having plenty of work to do, he had little time for abstruse speculations. School work engaged most of his time at Nantwich; he also began to collect a few scientific instruments, such as an electrical machine and an air-pump. These he taught his scholars to use and to keep in good order. He gave lectures on natural phenomena, and encouraged his scholars to make experiments and sometimes to exhibit their experiments before their parents and friends. He thus extended the reputation of his school and implanted in his scholars a love of natural knowledge.
In the year 1761 Priestley removed to Warrington, to act as tutor in a newly established academy, where he taught languages--a somewhat wide subject, as it included lectures on ”The Theory of Languages,” on ”Oratory and Criticism,” and on ”The History, Laws, and Const.i.tution of England.” He says, ”It was my province to teach elocution, and also logic and Hebrew.
The first of these I retained, but after a year or two I exchanged the two last articles with Dr. Aikin for the civil law, and one year I gave a course of lectures on anatomy.”
During his stay at Warrington, which lasted until 1767, Priestley married a daughter of Mr. Isaac Wilkinson, an ironmaster of Wrexham, in Wales. He describes his wife as ”a woman of an excellent understanding much improved by reading, of great fort.i.tude and strength of mind, and of a temper in the highest degree affectionate and generous, feeling strongly for others and little for herself, also greatly excelling in everything relating to household affairs.”
About this time Priestley met Dr. Franklin more than once in London. His conversation seems to have incited Priestley to a further study of natural philosophy. He began to examine electrical phenomena, and this led to his writing and publis.h.i.+ng a ”History of Electricity,” in the course of which he found it necessary to make new experiments. The publication of the results of these experiments brought him more into notice among scientific men, and led to his election as a Fellow of the Royal Society, and to his obtaining the degree of LL.D. from the University of Edinburgh. In the year 1767 Priestley removed to Leeds, where he spent six years as minister of Millhill Chapel.
He was able to give freer expression to his theological views in Leeds than could be done in smaller places, such as Needham and Nantwich. During this time he wrote and published many theological and metaphysical treatises.
But, what is of more importance to us, he happened to live near a brewery.
Now, the accidental circ.u.mstances, as we call them, of Priestley's life were frequently of the greatest importance in their effects on his scientific work. Black had established the existence and leading properties of fixed air about twelve or thirteen years before the time when Priestley came to live near the brewery in Leeds. He had shown that this fixed air is produced during alcoholic fermentation. Priestley knowing this used to collect the fixed air which came off from the vats in the neighbouring brewery, and amuse himself with observing its properties. But removing from this part of the town his supplies of fixed air were stopped. As however he had become interested in working with airs, he began to make fixed air for himself from chalk, and in order to collect this air he devised a very simple piece of apparatus which has played a most important part in the later development of the chemistry of gases, or pneumatic chemistry.
Priestley's _pneumatic trough_ is at this day to be found in every laboratory; it is extremely simple and extremely perfect. A dish of gla.s.s, or earthenware, or wood is partly filled with water; a shelf runs across the dish at a little distance beneath the surface of the water; a wide-mouthed bottle is filled with water and placed, mouth downwards, over a hole in this shelf. The gas which is to be collected in this bottle is generated in a suitable vessel, from which a piece of gla.s.s or metal tubing pa.s.ses under the shelf and stops just where the hole is made. The gas which comes from the apparatus bubbles up into the bottle, drives out the water, and fills the bottle. When the bottle is full of gas, it is moved to one side along the shelf, and another bottle filled with water is put in its place. As the mouth of each bottle is under water there is no connection between the gas inside and the air outside the bottle; the gas may therefore be kept in the bottle until the experimenter wants it. (See Fig.
1. which is reduced from the cut in Priestley's ”Air.”)
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 1.]
Priestley tells us that at this time he knew very little chemistry, but he thinks that this was a good thing, else he might not have been led to make so many new discoveries as he did afterwards make.
Experimenting with fixed air, he found that water could be caused to dissolve some of the gas. In 1772 he published a pamphlet on the method of impregnating water with fixed air; this solution of fixed air in water was employed medicinally, and from this time we date the manufacture of artificial mineral waters.
The next six years of Priestley's life (1773-1779) are very important in the history of chemistry; it was during these years that much of his best work on various airs was performed. During this time he lived as a kind of literary companion (nominally as librarian) with the Earl of Shelburne (afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne.) His wife and family--he had now three children--lived at Calne, in Wilts.h.i.+re, near Lord Shelburne's seat of Bowood. Priestley spent most of the summer months with his family, and the greater part of each winter with Lord Shelburne at his London residence; during this time he also travelled in Holland and Germany, and visited Paris in 1774.
In a paper published in November 1772, Priestley says that he examined a specimen of air which he had extracted from saltpetre above a year before this date. This air ”had by some means or other become noxious, but,” he supposed, ”had been restored to its former wholesome state, so as to effervesce with nitrous air” (in modern language, to combine with nitric oxide) ”and to admit a candle to burn in it, in consequence of agitation with water.” He tells us, in his ”Observations on Air” (1779), that at this time he was altogether in the dark as to the nature of this air obtained from saltpetre. In August 1774, he was amusing himself by observing the action of heat on various substances--”without any particular view,” he says, ”except that of extracting air from a variety of substances by means of a burning lens in quicksilver, which was then a new process with me, and which I was very proud of”--when he obtained from _red precipitate_ (oxide of mercury) an air in which a candle burned with a ”remarkably vigorous flame.” The production of this peculiar air ”surprised me more than I can well express;” ”I was utterly at a loss how to account for it.” At first he thought that the specimen of _red precipitate_ from which the air had been obtained was not a proper preparation, but getting fresh specimens of this salt, he found that they all yielded the same kind of air. Having satisfied himself by experiment that this peculiar air had ”all the properties of common air, only in much greater perfection,” he gave to it the name of _dephlogisticated air_. Later experiments taught him that the same air might be obtained from red lead, from manganese oxide, etc., by the action of heat, and from various other salts by the action of acids.
Priestley evidently regards the new ”dephlogisticated air” simply as very pure ordinary air; indeed, he seems to look on all airs, or gases, as easily changeable one into the other. He always interprets his experimental results by the help of the theory of phlogiston. One would indeed think from Priestley's papers that the existence of this substance phlogiston was an unquestioned and unquestionable fact. Thus, he says in the preface to his ”Experiments on Air:” ”If any opinion in all the modern doctrine concerning air be well founded, it is certainly this, that nitrous air is highly charged with phlogiston, and that from this quality only it renders pure air noxious.... If I have completely ascertained anything at all relating to air it is this.” Priestley thought that ”very pure air” would take away phlogiston from some metals without the help of heat or any acid, and thus cause these metals to rust. He therefore placed some clean iron nails in _dephlogisticated air_ standing over mercury; after three months he noticed that about one-tenth of the air in the vessel had disappeared, and he concluded, although no rust appeared, that the dephlogisticated air had as a fact withdrawn phlogiston from the iron nails. This is the kind of reasoning which Black described to his pupils as ”mere waste of time and ingenuity.” The experiment with the nails was made in 1779; at this time, therefore, Priestley had no conception as to what his _dephlogisticated air_ really was.
Trying a great many experiments, and finding that the new air was obtained by the action of acids on earthy substances, Priestley was inclined to regard this air, and if this then all other airs, as made up of an acid (or acids) and an earthy substance. We now know how completely erroneous this conclusion was, but we must remember that in Priestley's time chemical substances were generally regarded as of no very definite or fixed composition; that almost any substance, it was supposed, might be changed into almost any other; that no clear meaning was attached to the word ”element;” and that few, if any, careful measurements of the quant.i.ties of different kinds of matter taking part in chemical actions had yet been made.
But at the same time we cannot forget that the books of Hooke and Mayow had been published years before this time, and that twenty years before Priestley began his work on airs, Black had published his exact, scientific investigation on fixed air.
Although we may agree with Priestley that, had he made himself acquainted with what others had done before he began his own experiments, he might not have made so many new discoveries as he did, yet one cannot but think that his discoveries, although fewer, would have been more accurate.
We are told by Priestley that, when he was in Paris in 1774, he exhibited the method of obtaining dephlogisticated air from _red precipitate_ to Lavoisier and other French chemists. We shall see hereafter what important results to science followed from this visit to Lavoisier.
Let us shortly review Priestley's answer to the question, ”What happens when a substance burns in air?”
Beginning to make chemical experiments when he had no knowledge of chemistry, and being an extremely rapid worker and thinker, he naturally adopted the prevalent theory, and as naturally interpreted the facts which he discovered in accordance with this theory.
When a substance burns, phlogiston, it was said, rushes out of it. But why does rapid burning only take place in air? Because, said Priestley, air has a great affinity for phlogiston, and draws it out of the burning substance.
What then becomes of this phlogiston? we next inquire. The answer is, obviously it remains in the air around the burning body, and this is proved by the fact that this air soon becomes incapable of supporting the process of burning, it becomes phlogisticated. Now, if phlogisticated air cannot support combustion, the greater the quant.i.ty of phlogiston in air, the less will it support burning; but we know that if a substance is burnt in a closed tube containing air, the air which remains when the burning is quite finished at once extinguishes a lighted candle. Priestley also proved that an air can be obtained by heating _red precipitate_, characterized by its power of supporting combustion with great vigour. What is this but common air completely deprived of phlogiston? It is dephlogisticated air. Now, if common air draws phlogiston out of substances, surely this dephlogisticated air will even more readily do the same. That it really does this Priestley thought he had proved by his experiment with clean iron nails (see p. 60).
Water was regarded as a substance which, like air, readily combined with phlogiston; but Priestley thought that a candle burned less vigorously in dephlogisticated air which had been shaken with water than in the same air before this treatment; hence he concluded that phlogiston had been taken from the water.
<script>