on the Discovery of the Composition of Water" 44-7 



most dislinguislied original observer in natural philosophy 

 which Great Britain possesses; and he is a philosopher whom 

 we delight to honour. As such we freely subjected his opi- 

 nions to criticism, as in similar circumstances we should feel 

 ourselves at liberty to do again ; but we shall have little diffi- 

 culty in satisfying Sir David himself, that in so doing, we did 

 not in the least overstep the bounds which are conceded to 

 impartial reviewers. 



The special charges brought against us are, — 



1st. That we declare Sir David Brewster to have been ac- 

 tuated by unworthy motives in deciding between the claims of 

 Watt and Cavendish as discoverers of the composition of 

 water. 



2ndly. That we represent him as having preferred Watt 

 where in truth he preferred Cavendish. 



The first charge is contained in the following statement : 

 " 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 scientific question, 

 interesting to the whole civilized world, ymn motives of na- 

 tional feelings — with sacrificing by a temporising verdict Ca- 

 vendish the Englishynan to V/att the Scotchman^ - -and, under the 

 pretence o^ dividing the merit, with assigning to my countryman 

 the lion's share,'' The italics are Sir David Brewster's. In 

 reply, we must be allowed to say, that we brought no such 

 charges against Sir David as he accuses us of having made. 

 Our statement was to the effect, that his attempt to mediate 

 between the partisans of Watt and Cavendish was to a great 

 extent unsuccessful, because he made a national — a Scotch- 

 and-English question, of the dispute as to the discovery of the 

 composition of water ; whilst he assigned the chief merit to his 

 countryman Watt. That he made a national question of it, 

 Sir David Brewster will not deny. Here are his own words. 

 We quote from his article on Watt, in the Edinburgh Review, 

 No. 142, p. 496 : — " We cannot conclude this part of our 

 subject without adverting to the discussion of it which ema- 

 nated from the chair of the British Association at Birming- 

 ham. We regret that such a meeting should have become the 

 arena of a controversy involving feelings so deeply personal, as 

 •well as national." The italics are our own. Here Sir David 

 Brewster surely declares that he considers the question a "na- 

 tional " one. In what sense he considers it such will appear 

 from a further statement: " Scotland will not soon forget the 

 attempt which was lately made, by one of the Council of the 

 British Association, to rob our illustrious countryman Dr. 



