Thomson's Si/stem of Chemistiy. 125 



tioned, not sufficient to compensate for the imperfections which 

 they may have displayed, while all the papers written by ano- 

 ther favoured individual, however numerous, however expensive, 

 however trifling, or however absurd, are sure to find a place in 

 the transactions of that learned body, we may give them credit 

 for many good qualities, but certainly not for impartiality. A 

 man of science, therefore, need be under no manner of uneasi- 

 ness, though his discoveries are refused a place in the Trans- 

 actions of the Royal Society*." 



It is not difficult to discover one source of Dr. Thomson's 

 animosity against that illustrious body, in addition to his desire 

 to be considered the most exact and impartial chemist of the 

 age. While its records hold forth to admiration, the disco- 

 veries and improvements of so many of his cotemporaries, they 

 do not present one memoir of his, which posterity will respect. 

 His paper on oxalic acid we shall consider in the sequel. It 

 would have been well for his reputation, had it been quietly 

 withdrawn; a favour permitted in 1816, to its fellow in error, 

 on phosphoric acid, and the phosphates. 



We also observe, that in all his recent communications to the 

 public, he carries to their utmost extent, into literature, Berthol- 

 let's principle of attraction, — that mass may compensate for 

 weakness of chemical force. The whole information contained 

 in his four papers on the specific gravities of the gases, and the 

 true weights of the atoms, might have been easily conveyed in 

 one-twentieth of the compass. 



This preliminary developement will enable us to understand 

 the composition of his System ; the following survey of which 

 we shall endeavour to render instructive to our readers, and 

 useful to chemical science. 



And, in the first place, we may apply to our modern atomist 

 Bacon's censure of his prototype Democritus. Ille enim ita ver- 

 satur in particulis rerum, ut fabricas fere negligat-f. In a cri- 

 tique on the preceding edition of Dr. Thomson's work, we 

 pointed out the want of systematic arrangement, and the ab- 

 surdity of his general divisions ; which, as we expected are 

 retained in the present. " This work, therefore," says he, 

 " will be divided into two parts : The first will comprehend the 

 science of chemistry, properly so called ; the second will con- 

 sist of a chemical examination of nature J." 



This distinction is preposterous in the extreme. All the phy- 

 sical sciences are merely examinations of nature, and the science 

 of chemistry, minutely so. His notions of chemistry must be 

 strangely confused, who thinks he can first construct the science, 



* Annals of Philosophy, Oct. 1820. pp. 296, 297. 

 + IVovuw Orgamim, Lib. I. Aph. 57. 

 j Sijsletn, I. 10. 



