On the Atomic Theory. ^^7 



tZ\\,e former, representing the predpltat.on o mercury and 



extraordinary; for "« ^^^ ?" ^T" ^ rLTLvt dei^^^^ his 

 reads or does not read. Da ton himself has never ^'^^^ 

 having read it-at least publicly. There is ^^^^^^^^l '^^\^ 

 article that I had not taken notice of in my observations on 

 same subject in the Encyclopaedia ^f """^"'J^S . Dal- 

 published in this Magazine. The writer ^e^l^ "^^^^^^^^^^^ 

 ion's book was published some time before f ^"^'f ~p,,. 

 the true spirit of the Atomic Theory ^^^^^^Vhave so m^uch 

 fectly understood at present, or else g-l^^^-^^^f^i'^o dif- 

 trouble to establish my claim. If Mi . J^alton s wo 

 ficult to be understood in the present davs ^^^^^^ ;.'^f °"„ ^"^„ore 

 wondered at, that the original should he by unnoticed in a 

 obscure age of chemical philosophy. , ^n the 



On lately casting my eyes over Di'- Wo"aston s pap 

 Synoptical Scale of Chemical Equiyalen s I observed som 

 marks on my theory, or, as he unjustly calls it, Dayton « theory 



merous deviations from this law of neutralization and cases ot 

 prevailing affinity dependent on ^ -^^f ^^no^^^^^^ 

 ingredient in a mixture of salts. But he was noi so ' m 



deL-i„g .he deBn^;-. "V^teTr/ount "hJw-^en^ 



r'u^Uesiratger'JoSr^^^^^ 



turate it, the quantity combined is then ^,\^^';^^^'7f J"^w of 



of the former, thus exhibiting a new modification of the law 



definite proportions rather than any exception to it. 



" The first instance in which the same body ^^^ ^^'Pf^^^^^ 

 unite with different doses of another, - /^f XrCa not ced 

 one of these doses is a simple multiple of the other, was noticea 



. The diagram and explanation may be seen also in my Essay on the 

 Atonuc Theory, page 158. ^y 



