XXIX. Observations connected with the Discovery of the Com- 

 position of Water. By Sir . David, .BjlBWSKfiB* ;^,-6£, 

 hi F.ILS,^ aftd V.P.R.S* Edin. ^\im:u\rii- \Wn vm ,'A'Au^'^d^ 

 iMTo ill </t, Tot SMharsk\Tfi^lWi iB«^r>-'.y|> rioih- 



I OBSERVE in the Number of the British Quarterly Re- 

 view ju8t published, a paragraph containing some very 

 unfounded and unjust assertions respecting the discussion 

 which took place some years ago on the subject of the disco- 

 very of the composition of water. The following is the para- 

 graph in which these assertions are contained : — 



" Sir David Brewster afterwards took up the subject (Edin. 

 Review, No. 142), and endeavoured to mediate between the 

 contending parties, but to little purpose. For he chose to con- 

 sider it as a question of national honour^ involving the rival 

 claims of Cavendish the Englishman and Watt the Scotch- 

 man, and wliilst he was xvilli?ig to divide the merit between 

 them, assigned to his countryman the lion's share." 



Without questioning the author's courtesy in attaching my 

 name to an anonymous review, when his object was to injure 

 my character and wound my feelings, I have no scruple in 

 giving the most pointed contradiction to every statement and 

 every insinuation contained in the preceding paragraph. I 

 use the word insinuation, because it is impossible to read the 

 paragraph in question without perceiving, in the language 

 employed, even if that language had been the vehicle of truth, 

 the reviewer's desire to infuse into his statement a bitter per- 

 sonality. But the assertions of the British Quarterly reviewer 

 are equally offensive with the language which conveys them. 

 He charges me, by name, with having decided a great scien- 

 tific question, interesting to the whole civilised world, from 

 motives of national feeling, — with sacrificing by a temporising 

 verdict Cavendish the Eiiglishman to Watt the Scotchman, — 

 and, under the pretence of dividing the merit, with assig?iing 

 to my countryman the lion's share. 



, ..Were I to seek an apology for these unfounded aspersions, 

 I should conjecture that the author had not read the review 

 which he thus misrepresents, for the very reverse of every 

 statement which he makes is true. In place of dividing the 

 merit of the discovery between the Englishman and the 

 Scotchman, and giving the lion's share to my countryman, / 

 have given the whole merit of the discovery to Cavendish the 

 Englishman, and have reserved only for Watt the Scotch- 

 man, the merit of the previous hypothesis, — a merit freely 

 given him by Cavendish himself, and one which no other 

 person ever claimed. 



02 



