J 822.] Sixth Edition of his System of Chemistry , 255 



refute them if they were futile, and to benefit by them if well 

 founded. 



So far from supposing that I was injuring Davy, or endeavour- 

 ing to detract from his merits, I conceived that 1 was doing him 

 a service ; and most persons in his situation would have been 

 of the same opinion. How far my objections were well founded, 

 it is not for me to say ; but almost immediately afterwards 

 Davy himself rejected his first lamp, and invented another, much 

 superior to it in every respect. 



Against this new lamp, I never in the Annals of Philosophy 

 stated a single objection of my own, nor, as far as I recollect, of 

 any other person. It is true indeed that a furious contro- 

 versy respecting the person who had the merit of first in- 

 venting the miner's safety lamp, immediately arose, and va- 

 rious papers, written by the parties, were admitted into my 

 journal. I acted with the utmost impartiality: as a proof of 

 this, I may state that I received abundance of anonymous letters 

 accusing me of partiality to Davy, to Stevenson, and to Clanny. 

 I saw very early that the whole had become a party question, 

 and that motives quite different from a regard to truth animated 

 the disputants. The papers were inserted without any comment 

 on my part ; and as soon as I saw that they contained nothing 

 but mutual recriminations, I stopped them altogether. One of 

 the last, if not the very last, inserted was by Mr. Children. I 

 happened to be in Cornwall when this paper was sent to my pub- 

 lisher. I had left materials for two successive numbers. The 

 consequence was that Mr. Children's paper could not be inserted 

 till after my return to London. When I reached home 1 found 

 a letter from that gentleman complaining that his paper had been 

 withheld from the public, and written in a style very different 

 from what is usually to be found in a letter from one gentleman 

 to another. Of this letter I took no notice. It gave me infor- 

 mation for the first time, that Davy and his friends thought that 

 I was hostile to his lamp. 



My conduct then with regard to this controversy was fair and 

 honourable. I was actuated by no hostility to Davy ; but 

 thought myself obliged to deal exactly the same justice to all 

 claimants. That I discharged my duty as an editor with the 

 most rigid impartiality appears from this, that all the controver- 

 siahsts accused me ofpartiahty to their adversaries. 



3. I am accused of garbling and disfiguring Davy's researches 

 on flame. '* The whole spirit of the original memoir has been 

 dissipated. What remains is a mere caput mortuum, calculated 

 to convey the most inadequate ideas of Sir H. Davy's discove- 

 ries." — (Review, p. 131.) 



What answer can be given to this impudent assertion ? To 

 this paper of Davy I have devoted three pages, a greater space 

 than is occupied by the account of potassium, or of the compo- 

 sition of muriatic acid, or indeed any topic discussed in the 



