Reflecting on the time that I spent with Lord Shelburne, being as a guest in the family, I can truly say that I was not at all fascinated with that mode of life. Instead of looking back upon it with regret, one of the greatest subjects of my present thankfulness is the change of that situation for the one in which I am now placed; and yet I was far from being unhappy there, much less so than those who are born to such a state, and pass all their lives in it. These are generally unhappy from the want of _necessary_ employment, on which account chiefly there appears to be much more happiness in the middle classes of life, who are above the fear of want, and yet have a sufficient motive for a constant exertion of their faculties; and who have always some other object besides amusement. I used to make no scruple of maintaining, that there is not only most virtue, and most happiness, but even most true politeness in the middle classes of life. For in proportion as men pass more of their time in the society of their equals, they get a better established habit of governing their tempers; they attend more to the feelings of others, and are more disposed to accommodate themselves to them. On the other hand, the passions of persons in higher life, having been less controlled, are more apt to be inflamed; the idea of their rank and superiority to others seldom quits them; and though they are in the habit of concealing their feelings, and disguising their passions, it is not always so well done, but that persons of ordinary discernment may perceive what they inwardly suffer. On this account, they are really intitled to compassion, it being the almost unavoidable consequence of their education and mode of life. But when the mind is not hurt in such a situation, when a person born to affluence can lose sight of himself, and truly feel and act for others, the character is so godlike, as shews that this inequality of condition is not without its use. Like the general discipline of life, it is for the present lost on the great mass, but on a few it produces what no other state of things could do.[15] [15] 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_.)