254 Dr, Thomson's Answer to the Revieio of ike [April, 



Both Dr. Wollaston and myself attempted in vain to convince 

 Davy that the doctrine of definite proportions was not a chi- 

 mera. What led Davy aftierwards to embrace the doctrine, I 

 need not here state, though I am acquainted with the whole 

 history. If Mr. Brande has any curiosity on the subject, either 

 Dr. Wollaston or Mr. Davies Gilbert can inform him of the par- 

 ticulars. 



My statement then is the mere annunciation of a matter of 

 fact without any intention whatever of hurting the feehngs of 

 any one. I knew from Davy himself that he had no idea what- 

 ever of definite proportions till Mr. Dalton had made known the 

 outlines of his theory. Even five years after that period, Davy 

 had not embraced it ; and I was aware of the influence which 

 had at last induced him to adopt it. With the knowledge of all 

 these facts should I have acted honestly, if I had not stated that 

 the atomic theory originated with Dalton. Surely Sir H. Davy's 

 reputation, and his character as a chemist, stand sufficiently high 

 to render it unnecessary for him to seek to bolster up his repu- 

 tation by laying claim to the discoveries of others. Such con- 

 duct may be left for chemists like Mr. Brande, who, not being 

 in the way of adding much of their own to the stock of scicmce, 

 might have some excuse for attempting to pilfer from their 

 richer neighbours. But Sir H. Davy, who stands at the very 

 top of the list of British discoverers ; whose reputation is so high, 

 and so deservedly high ; whose inventive faculties are inexhaus- 

 tible, has no occasion for such pitiful conduct. So far from 

 supposing that I was doing him an injury by assigning the 

 honour of the atomic theory to him who was really entitled to it, 

 I never once doubted that he would himself admit the truth of 

 my statement ; and feel gratified for my supplying an omission 

 which he himself on reflection must have wished he had not made 

 — I mean the omission on his part of stating the origin of his 

 notions on the subject. 



When I stated that Davy's explanation of the atomic theory 

 was not so perspicuous as that of Dalton, I meant merely that 1 

 did not understand it so well. 



2. But " the full force of my hostility to Davy was exerted/' 

 it seems, ''in depreciating the miners' safety lamp." — (Review, 

 p. 122.) 



Now I deny that I ever depreciated it. I did indeed, when I 

 heard Davy's account of his first lamp read to the Royal Society, 

 express my opinion in my Journal that it could not be used with 

 safety. Whether this opinion was well or ill founded, I do not 

 know. Perhaps it may have been ill founded. But as I honestly 

 believed at the time that the lamp was hazardous, I think that f 

 was bound to state my reasons for this opinion to the public. 

 The lives of a great number of individuals were at stake. It 

 was, therefore, important to point out every conceivable objec- 

 •tion. It was Davy's business to examine these objections j to 



