[ 132 ] 



XXI. Dr. Prout's Reply to Dr. W. Charles Henry. * 



To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal, 

 Gentlemen, 



T N reply to Dr. C. Henry, I take the opportunity of stating, 

 -*- once for all, that I have neither time nor inclination to en- 

 ter into a controversy on any opinions advanced in my Bridg- 

 water Treatise. That these opinions would provoke discussion 

 I expected, and, indeed, rather wished, as such discussion 

 would be likely to lead to the truth — my great and only ob- 

 ject. Hypotheses and theories I care nothing about, further 

 than they are true ; and whoever can convince me that any 

 hypothesis which I have published is not true, will be esteemed 

 a friend. 



It is now nearly twenty years since a paper containing 

 views virtually founded on the hypothesis attacked by Dr. 

 Henry was published by me in your Journal f; and from 

 that time to the present I have seen no reason to doubt its 

 truth. With respect to the facts stated by Dr. Henry, most 

 of them (and, indeed, many more which he has not mentioned,) 

 are quite familar to me, as I presume they must be to every 

 one who has attended to the subject. Of his reasoning I shall 

 say nothing. Whether the point in question can, or cannot be 

 legitimately deduced from a comprehensive and correct view 

 of the principles, our mathematicians will soon decide. In 

 the mean time, however, I have no hesitation in stating, that 

 such a mass of evidence exists in favour of the hypothesis, 

 (which evidence, if no one else does, I may be induced at 

 some time to arrange and publish,) that nothing but a mathe- 

 matical demonstration that it cannot be true, will at pre- 

 sent convince me of its error. 



It only remains to state, that I have always adopted the 

 fundamental principle of atomic weights, or definite propor- 

 tions, established by Dr.Dalton; and have always reflected with 

 pride that this most important doctrine was first taught by an 

 Englishman : but that I never did adopt, and I fear, never shall 

 be able to adopt, some of the details of his " atomic theory." 

 Indeed I have always considered the atomic theory, as ex- 

 plained by Dr. Dalton, far less satisfactory and complete, as a 



* See our last Number, p. 33. — Edit. 



f See Annals of Philosophy, Old Series, vol. vi. and vii. (1815 and 1816) 

 " On the relation of the specific gravities of gaseous bodies, and the 

 weights of their atoms." This relation, it need scarcely be stated, is 

 founded on the hypothesis in question, understood, but not expressed. 



