1822.] Sixth Edition of his Sj/sfem of Chemistty. 253 



attacks upon Berzelius and Gay-Lussac, which, if they meant 

 any thing, went to accuse them of similar conduct, 1 had no 

 reason to be surprised at his advancing such an accusation 

 against me. But this does not preclude the necessity on my 

 part of vindicating my character. 



*^ Dr. Thomson's attacks on the exalted reputation of the 

 President of the Royal Society have long excited our surprise 

 and indignation, and as we observe them still persevered in, and 

 still unanswered, we shall use our humble endeavours to expose 

 their injustice and futihty." — (Review, p. 122.) 



This impudent assertion the assertor knew to be false 

 when he made it, and has betrayed his knowledge in the 

 very review in which it is contained. It is false that I have 

 ever made any attack either on the character or reputation 

 of Sir H. Davy. On the contrary, I have always been in the 

 habit of reckoning him among the number of my friends. I 

 have always spoken of his talents and of his labours with that 

 respect which I felt for them, and have always been proud 

 to think that his discoveries have reflected a lustre upon the 

 country in which they originated. As an Editor of a journal, 

 and as a chemical writer, 1 have laid it down as a rule, to be 

 impartial ; and never to allow my private feelings, whatever they 

 were, to influence my judgment. This conduct, in which I 

 mean to persist, and in which I shall always glory, has drawn 

 upon me, it seems, the formidable resentment of Mr. Brande, 

 who has magnanimously volunteered to expose it to the obloquy 

 of the scientific world. The accusations are seven in number* 

 I shall examine them one by one. The reader will observe that 

 these accusations, which fill a considerable portion of the 

 Review, have nothing to do with the merits of my System of 

 Chemistry. They have been pulled in head and shoulders by 

 the Reviewer as topics on which he thought that he could 

 descant with some pathos and effect, I feel obliged to him for 

 his accusations. Satisfied that my conduct as an author and an 

 editor will bear the strictest scrutiny, and that these accusations 

 v/ill only tend to raise my character instead of injuring it, I shall 

 proceed to exaniine the validity of each. 



1. 1 have stated that " Sir H.Davy has embraced the Dalto- 

 nian theory with some modifications and alterations of terms ; 

 but his notions are not quite so perspicuous as those of Mr. 

 Dalton, and they do not appear to me so agreeable to the prin- 

 ciples of sound philosophy." — {Annals of Philosophy, ii. 33.) 



I cannot for my part conceive any thing more innocent than 

 this passage, and am unable to discover the attack upon Davy, 

 which it seems lies concealed in it. I was warranted in saying 

 that Davy had embraced the principles of Dalton, because 1 

 knew it to be the fact. Both Dr. WoUaston and Sir H. Davy 

 will recollect a long conversation which we had on the subject, 

 after dining at the "Royal Society Club in the summer of 1S07* 



