On tie produ^ion of Azote frotn heated Water', "133 



inflead of dlfcovering the truth as a common bafis of union, became more and more 

 remote from each other in their conclufions. 



For my part I was no otherwife interefted in this difpute than to fupport the interefts 

 of truth. I am intimately perfuaded that the fyftem of Lavoifier is conformable to nature; 

 An experiment is announced to me which is faid to overthrow this fyftem totally. Let us 

 fee i let us examine \ let us repeat ; and if the fyftem be falfe, it is better to abandon it in 

 good time, ai Tofot to wait till it abandons us. Let us not be attached to fyftem, but 

 to truth ; and when nature fpeaks, let us liften to her voice in preference to Stahl or 

 Lavoifier, Defcartes or Newton. Whatever may be the rcfult of our experiments, we ftiall 

 not fail to profit. The thing of which we rifle the lofs being merely error, we cannot 

 be too defirous of undergoing it. 



Thus it was that I reafoned. I had learned by the hiftory of chemiftry that in all difputes 

 where the parties obtained oppofite refults from the fame experiments, there is an error in 

 the manner of expreffing themfelves, and that at the bottom both parties are in the right. 

 I was very much difpofed to think that the cafe before us was a queftion of this kind. 



I, therefore, propofed to myfelf the refolution of the following queftions : 



1. Are the vapours of boiling water changed into azote gas in their paflage through 

 ignited tubes ? 



2. In what circumftances does this change take place ? 



3. What is the caufe of this produ£lion of azote gas ? 



4. Are the experiments contrary to the fyftem of Lavoifier, or not ? 



I muft firft confefs, before I enter upon this difcuflion, that the manner in which the 

 production of azote gas had been explained, in fuppofing the external air to pafs through 

 the tubes, did not appear to me at all fatisfadlory. 



I had myfelf formerly adopted this explanation * ; but I very foon gave up an opinion 

 fo contrary to every thing we know of chemiftry. 



I am really concerned to fee this Improbable opinion maintained by chemifts of the 

 firft rank. But the hiftory of chemiftry fupplies us with many examples of the fame 

 nature. Before the immortal Lavoifier had profcribed the doftrine of phlogifton, the 

 Stahlians removed a leading difficulty of their fyftem in a manner abfolutely fimilar. The 

 oxide of mercury was put into a crucible, which was clofed in the moft accurate manner, 

 and then expofed to heat. Upon opening it after cooling, it was found to contain 

 running mercury. Now a redu£lion of this kind not being pofllble, according to the doc- 

 trine of Stahl, without the intermedium of phlogifton, the partizans of that doftrine 

 were afked for an explanation of a izQ. fo contrary to it. They replied, that the phlogifton 

 had paffed through the crucible to unite with the mercury. Even Bergmann and Scheele 

 were content with fo abfurd an explanation +, which proves that the fpirit of fyftem 

 mifleads the beft underftandings, and renders them ridiculous in the eyes of pofterity 



• Anfangsgrunde der Antiphlogiftifchen Chemie, fecond edition, page Xy-'-jo. 

 •)• Scheele Von luft und feuer, edition »f Leonhardi, page 4.2, 



Ta lefs 



