8 Meldrum, Development of the Atomic Theory. 



could not bring himself to accept it.'' It was criticised 

 adversel}' by Dr. Bostock in Nicholson's Jo7irnal, and 

 Dalton, in reply, quoted in support of it analyses by 

 Dr. Bostock. He then remarks : — " A number of such 

 analyses as these would compel Dr. Bostock and others 

 of your chemical readers to examine the theory of chemical 

 combinations which I have offered to them with more 

 attention, than I fear they do. The present state of 

 chemical science imperiously demands it," ^■ 



In France, also, the theory was coldly received. 

 Berthollet naturally opposed it, for in its general tendency 

 it condemned his attempt to obliterate the distinction 

 between physical and chemical forces, and, in particular, 

 it was contradictory of his doctrine of chemical com- 

 bination in indefinite proportions (see the first paper of this 

 series). He considered Dalton's theory too hypothetical, 

 and his opposition had great influence. Gay-Lussac, 

 who had been his pupil, was unable to "rid himself of 

 preconceptions due to early training." In his famous 

 memoir, on the proportions by volume in which gases 

 combine, he remained an adherent of Berthollet. 



Gay-Lussac was always timid in matters of theory. 

 Such was his temperament. On one occasion he laid it 

 down that" in natural science, and, above all, in chemistry, 

 generalisation should come after, and not before, a minute 

 knowledge of each fact." " Such a man was not very 

 likely to subscribe to a doctrine like Dalton's, which 

 pj'oviised to transform the whole province of chemistry. 

 Gay-Lussac admitted the facts adduced by Dalton and 

 Thomson and Wollaston, and that was all. 



Gay-Lussac conceded to Dalton as much as he must, 

 and nothing more. From his own results it seems obvious 



■' Roscoe and Harden, op. cit. p. 153. 

 '' " N^icliohon'' s foiirnal. vol 29, p. 150, iSii. 

 ^1 Ann. Clii/n. I'liys.. vol. 11, p, 297, 1S19. 



