DtfcuJJan relating tt the Stmnttan of Sodbury.- 95; 



Journal ; but wiflies them to be printed on a feparate leaf. But as fuch a leaf would, no 

 doubt, be confidered and preferved by all my readers as a part of the Journal, and as the. 

 general caufe of morality and fcience is involved in difcuflions of this nature, I have prefeired. 

 that an abridged ftatement fhould appear in the Journal itfelf. 



The papers I have received are: i. Letter from Dr. Beddoes, dated- April 24. 2. Letter, 

 from the Rev. Mr. Richardfon, of Bath, to Dr. Beddoes, dated 17 (I fuppofe April). 3. 

 Queftions to Mr. Notcutt, by Dr. Beddoes. 4. Mr. Notcutt's anfwer, dated April 21. 

 5. Queries to Mr, Davy, with his replies. Thefe papers were received yefterday, and by 

 this morning's poft I received a letter from Dr. Gibbes, dated April 26. In Mr. Richardfon's 

 letter it is ftated to be a mifreprefentation, that Mr. Notcutt pointed out feme fulphate of 

 ftrontian in bis (Mr. R's) colledion ; but he admits, that Mr. N. faid the fpecimen in queftion 

 might probably be fulphate of ftrontian; but Mr. Richardfon does not remember evcc 

 mentioning this conjedlure to Dr. Gibbes. — Mr. Notcutt in his letter admits, that Dr.- 

 Beddoes' llatement of Mr. N. having recognized the fulphate of ftrontian, is corred to the 

 beft of his recoiledtion ; that in a late conference with Mr. Richardfon, this laft gentleman had 

 affirmed, that Mr. Notcutt had notfpoken with certainty in giving his opinion of the fpecimen at 

 the time alluded to: uponwhich Mr. Notcutt obferves, that he cannot pretend to repeat exaftly 

 the words he may have ufed, but that it is evinced, that he felt the ftrongeft convidtion of 

 its being that fubftance, by his informing Dr. Beddoes, Mr. Clayfield, and others, immediately 

 upoa his return to Briftol, that it had. been found near Sodbury, as well as by his authorizing 

 the former to notice it in the volume of papers juft publiihed; that he,. Mr. Notcutt 

 (from Dr. Gibbes' knowledge, that confiderable quantities of the fame fubftances had been 

 difcovered near Briftol by Mr. Clayfield, and that Mr. Clayfield had long been engaged in a 

 courfc of experiments upon its analyfis, and that no official account of it was before the public), . 

 cannot account for his omitting to notice what was fo immediately connefted . with the 

 fubjeft of his paper, without fuppofing that he wifhed to take to himfelf more than the 

 merit of having analyzed the {pecimen from Sodbury. — Mr. Davy in his anfwers to the queries 

 propofed to him, ftates, that Mr. Notcutt, in a converfation previous to the publication of 

 Dr. Gibbes' experiment in the PhilofophicaL Journal, did inform him that fulphate of ftrontian 

 was found in large quantities near Sodbury ; and admits, that Mr. Notcutt had mentioned • 

 before that period, that he (Mr. Notcutt) had pofitively told Mr. Richardfon, that the 

 mineral in queftion was fulphate of ftrotian. And laftly, he partly admits and partly ftates, , 

 that Dr. Gibbes was prefent at converfations refpedling Mr. Clayfield's analyfis, who con- 

 fidentially communicated to him (facts or incidents) refpeding the fame mineral, in the fame 

 diftrift. And that Dr. Gibbes maft have known, that by publiftiing his anaJyfis prior to Mr. 

 Clayfield's, and without communicating it to him, he (Dr. G.) would be confidered as the 

 flrft difcoverer of the fulphate of ftrontian, to the prejudice of Mr. Clayfield, whofe name • 

 ought to have been mentioned. — The teftimony of Mr. Clayfield himfelf could not be obtained' 

 in time for Dr. Beddoes to fend it with the other papers, becaufe Mr. C. was then abfeht 

 from Briftol. 



On.. 



