An Inquiri/ into the Simple Bodies of Chemistry, 107 



ness by means of the additional ball and socket, that the French 

 plummet may be considered as being now scarcely necessary. 

 In my letter to the Secretary of the Institution of Civil En- 

 gineers, I pointed out the advantages which would result to 

 the surveyor were the theodolite provided with a second ball 

 and socket motion ; but no opportunity of trying this has as 

 yet occurred. 



Edinburgh, 1844. 



An Inquiry into the Nature of the Simple Bodies of Chemistry. 



By David Low, F.R.S.E., Professor of Agriculture in the 



University of Edinburgh. 



In a former Number we referred to this work, and we do so again, 

 in order that we may enter our early protest against certain attempts 

 that have been recently made, not to refute the arguments em- 

 ployed, but to run down the author. Fortunately for the interests 

 of truth and science, offences of this kind have now become rare. 

 Mr Low's argument will be best stated in his own words ; 



o 



" The greater number of substances with which we are conversant, are 

 derivable one from another, and are therefore termed Compound; but of 

 the numerous class which we term simple, many are similar to one ano- 

 ther with respect to their essential characters, and pass the one into the 

 other by scarcely perceptible gradations, nay, pass into those we term 

 compound, so that no line of natural division can be drawn between the 

 two classes. Yet we hold the one class to be derivative or compound^ 

 and the other to be derived from no other bodies ; but to be, as it were, 

 distinct products of nature, each formed of particles proper to itself. It 

 is not enough that we explain the meaning which we attach to the term 

 simple, as applied to these bodies, by saying that we hold them to be 

 simple, because we are unable, by the means at our command, to resolve 

 them into other bodies more simple. This is the mere expression of a 

 fact ; but even were the fact established beyond dispute, which it is not, 

 we should not be entitled to regard the bodies in question as simple, in 

 contradistinction to another class which we regarded as compound. 

 By the terms simple and compound, we indicate two Orders of bodies, 

 the most distinct, with respect to their chemical constitution, which we 

 can conceive to exist in nature. But there is no such distinction in the 

 chemical and physical characters of the bodies themselves, as can war- 

 rant us in assuming that they are distinct in their nature. The mere 

 circumstance of our inability to compose or decompose the substances 

 in the laboratory, furnishes, at the best, merely negative evidence. Su- 

 perior means of analysis, or a better use of the means we possess, may 



