On the Atomic Theory. 407 
in 1789, in a work entitled “ Comparative View of the Phlogistic 
and Antiphlogistic Theories,” and which Mr. Dalton has on his 
side presented in his New System of Chemical Philosophy, and 
which generally has been called the theory of Mr. Dalton. 
The character of so distinguished a philosopher as Mr. Dalton 
will not allow us to suppose that he acted the part of a plagiarist 
towards Mr. Higgins. Still however we must in truth say, 
that the work cited of the latter contains in nearly the same ex- 
pressions the bases and the principal facts whieh Dalton brings 
forward ‘as the foundation of his theory, These two Savans 
have, therefore, arrived at the same result; but the work of 
Higgins remained little known, having appeared at a period when 
it was almost impossible to understand views so ingenious and 
novel in the theory of combinations, whilst on the other hand 
that of Mr. Dalton, dated only a few years back, attracted public 
attention, and the theory which he expounded had taken his 
name. 
Mr. Higgins (in the Philosophical Magazine) justifies his claim 
by citing a great number of passages from his old work, in which 
appear views exceedingly remarkable on the combinations of 
metals and oxygen; but particularly on the important facts re- 
specting the combinations of azote and oxygen. ‘That work 
being scarcely known in France, it is not surprising that, on the 
occasion of the theory proposed by Mr. Dalton, nobody should 
revert to the labours of Mr. Higgins; but what appears to us 
very astonishing is, that in England no person ever mentioned 
any thing about it; but above all, that Dr. Thomson, who knew 
the work of Mr. Higgins, should say in his Journal, in conse- 
quence of a work of Professor Berzelius on determinate pro- 
portions, that Mr. Higgins had only made known some remark- 
able facts on the combinations of gas in definite proportions ; but 
that Mr. Dalton was the first who generalized that® doctrine 
glanced at by Bergman, Cullen, Black, &c., and also determined 
the weights of the atoms of bodies”. 
Mr. Higgins, in drawing the attention of the public to his first 
work, has decidedly removed all doubts respecting the question 
of priority; but that does not diminish the importance of the 
work of Mr. Dalton, who arrived at the same results, and had 
developed them in so learned a manner. 
The theory of definite proportions is one of the most beauti- 
ful results to which one could hope chemistry should lead; one 
cannot arrive at it, like all the discoveries of the human mind, 
but by a suite of researches and a collection of a great number of 
* Dr. Thomson's conduct towards Mr. Higgins on the whole of this busi- 
ness appears very unfair and unjust, as Mr. iiggirs himself has shown in 
preceding numbers of the Philosophical Magazine.—Tr. 
Cc4 correct 
