Dr. Priestley's short Essay on the First Principles of Civil Government was published in 1768. In it he lays down as the foundation of his reasoning, that "it must be understood, 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 the majority of the members of any state, is the great standard by which every thing relating to that state must be finally determined; and though it may be supposed that a body of people may be bound by a voluntary resignation of all their rights to a single person or to a few, it can never be supposed that the resignation is obligatory on their posterity, because it is manifestly contrary to the good of the whole that it should be so." From this first principle he deduces all his political maxims. Kings, senators, and nobles, are merely the servants of the public; and when they abuse their power, in the people lies the right of deposing and consequently of punishing them. He examines the expediency of hereditary sovereignty, of hereditary rank and privileges, of the duration of parliament, and of the right of voting, with an evident tendency to democratical principles, though he does not express himself very clearly on the subject. Such were his political principles in 1768, when his book was published. They excited no alarm and drew but little attention; these principles he maintained ever after, or indeed he may be said to have become more moderate instead of violent. Though he approved of a republic in the abstract; yet, considering the prejudices and habits of the people of Great Britain, he laid it down as a principle that their present form of government was best suited to them. He thought, however, that there should be a reform in parliament; and that parliaments should be triennial instead of septennial. He was an enemy to all violent reforms, and thought that the change ought to be brought about gradually and peaceably. When the French revolution broke out he took the side of the patriots, as he had done during the American war; and he wrote a refutation of Mr. Burke's extraordinary performance. Being a dissenter, it is needless to say that he was an advocate for complete religious freedom. He was ever hostile to all religious establishments, and an open enemy to the church of England.