64 Dr. Turner'^ Elements of Chemistry, 



The second part of Dr. Turner's work is said to comprise 

 ^* Inorganic Chemistry," and therefore embraces a very ex- 

 tensive field of inquiry. To the arrangement we have 

 already objected; and many of the typographical and verbal 

 errors that occur, have been noticed in a contemporary 

 Journal, so that we shall chiefly attend to the details of the 

 sections. 



Under the head *« Affinity," some of the leading facts 

 and doctrines of chemical attraction are perspicuously set 

 forth; but we could have wished that a variety of exploded 

 opinions and erroneous notions had been altogether passed 

 over, as they occupy space which might have been better 

 employed, and can never prove of any other use to the stu- 

 dent than to show him the errors and fallacies to which acute 

 philosophers are sometimes liable. Of this kind, espe- 

 cially, are Berthollet's notions upon the subject of affinity. 

 The doctrine of definite proportion is, on the whole, well and 

 clearly explained ; but it would have been much better 

 and clearer, had Dr. Turner confined himself to facts, and 

 meddled less with opinions concerning their cause ; he is 

 moreover, in many respects, historically inaccurate. He 

 ascribes much to Dalton that honestly belongs to Higgins; — 

 is much too merciful to Berzelius and his Canons ; and 

 lenient beyond all endurance to the plagiarisms of *' Dr. 

 Thomson's admirable Treatise on the first Principles of Che- 

 mistry." 



In the third and following sections, the simple non-metallic 

 substances are described in an order of arrangement which 

 must be very perplexing to the student ; otherwise the details 

 are well given, except that here and there the line between 

 theory and fact is not sufficiently marked. Thus we are 

 told that " hydrogen is exactly 16 times lighter than oxygen, 

 and therefore that 100 cubic inches must weigh il±liL, or 



2.118. Its specific gravity is consequently 0.0694, as stated 

 some years ago by Dr. Prout." Now this is a theoretical 

 deduction, founded upon the specific gravity and constitution 

 of ammonia, (and not upon the composition of water,) and 

 probably correct as applied to jjure hydrogen ; — but if we 

 weigh the gas, as usually obtained, even with the utmost 

 caution, and of the utmost purity, we shall never procure it 

 so light as here stated, notwithstanding all the learning and 

 argument that our worthy friend. Dr. Thomas Thomson, has 

 issued upon the subject in his various essays in the Annals, 

 and in his magnum opus. We also object to the stress 

 which is often laid upon the whims of individuals, and upon 



