520 Rev. W.V.Harcourt on Lord Brougham's statements 



With these things before the world, you even now ven- 

 ture to reiterate, as your final conclusion, this most unjusti- 

 fiable judgement — " It is undeniable that from less elaborate 

 experiments Mr. Watt had before Cavendish drawn the infer- 

 ence then so startling, that it required all the boldness of the 

 philosophic character to venture upon it, — the inference that 

 water was not a simple element, but a combination of oxygen 

 with inflammable air thence called hydrogen gas. That Mr. 

 Watt first generalised the facts so as to arrive at this great 

 truth, I think has been proved as clearly as any position in 

 the history of physical science. It is equally certain from the 

 examination of Mr. Cavendish's papers, and from the publica- 

 tion lately made of his journals, first, that he never so clearly 

 as Mr. Watt drew the inference from his experiments ; and 

 secondly, that though those experiments were made before 

 Mr. Watt's inferences, yet Mr. Cavendish's conclusion was 

 not drawn privately even by himself till after Mr. Watt's in- 

 ference had been made known to many others." — ! ! ! 



What friend of yours, my dear Lord, but must regret to see 

 a great man trifling with his own reputation by interfering in 

 subjects of which he thus betrays but too supei'ficial a know- 

 ledge? I sincerely lament, for my own part, that having once 

 been honoured by your regard, and having always respected 

 your talents, it should have fallen to me to presume in this 

 manner to rectify your misapprehensions. I declined to enter 

 into controversy with you, partly for old acquaintance sake, and 

 partly because I thought you on this question less responsible 

 than the official writer of the Institute of France. But you 

 would do battle with me; and your weapons were none of the 

 fairest : for instead of replying to my arguments, you did me 

 the injustice, without provocation, to compare the abilities of 

 the obscurest lover of science in England with one of the most 

 eminent of its cultivators in France. I know not that I shall 

 even now have convinced you that the meanest of our philoso- 

 phical chemists, in his own art, and in a just cause, may be more 

 than a match for the most learned judge of 'Patents, or even for 

 the ablest member of the "Institut" whose studies have lain in 

 another direction. A judge in a patent cause may see his way 

 well enough, no doubt, through intricate scientific questions, 

 if he is but prudent in his selection of authorities : but I do 

 not perceive that in this case you have abided by any autho- 

 rity better than your oian in 1803 *. You are even bold enough, 

 on the strength of such authority, to differ from a deceased 

 Secretary of the "Institut" itself, than whom few men were bet- 



* " I first stated that opinion in a published form in 1803-04," Edinburgh 

 Review, vol. iii. Lite of Lavoisier, p. 253. 



