On the Origin of the Atomic Tlieory. 365 



tions. Mis style and arrangement is strong and perspicuous, al- 

 though we here and there meet with inaccuracies whicli denote 

 he is not yet familiarized to the art of com))ositio;i. The che- 

 mical reader vvill readilv form an idea of the facts contained in 

 the sections whose titles we liave eiunnerated. They consist iu 

 a great measure of those which we have already mentioned in an 

 account of the French edition of Kirwan on Phlogiston"^: the 

 statements however are verv different, and the elucidations both 

 of theory and matter of fact are in many instances original and 

 striking. We do not therefore hesitate to recommend this per- 

 formance of Mr. Higgins, as a work well deserving the attention 

 of chemists: but as it would lead ns too far into chemical dis- 

 quisition to follow him step by step in the enumeration of ficts 

 and di'^plav of a'-guments which cannot be abridged, we shall 

 conchule this article bv another quotation ; in which as much 

 appears to be said and done to establish the composition of 

 water against the lafe experiments of Dr. Priestley as the pre- 

 sent state of the subject appears capable of." 



In about twelve months after my book appeared, Dr. Priestley 

 was the only phlogistian in England, and he retained his old 

 tenets to the last moment of his life. I do not recollect the 

 e\act time Dr. Pilack recanted, it was after Kirwan. Mr. Kir- 

 wan, the formidable champion of the phlogistic doctrine, re- 

 nounced it as soon as he read my book, and declared in the 

 presence of many philosophical gentlemen now living in Dublin, 

 that it was that work «lone induced him to change his opinion, 

 and that nothing the French philosophers brought forward had 

 airy influence on him ; this appears from his notes in answer to 

 the Frencii at the end of the Enuiish translation. 



Dr. Thomson teils us in the fourth yolume of his Annals, 

 p, 54, that it was the answer of the French chemists to Mr. 

 Kirwaa's Essay on Phlogiston that decided this memorable con- 

 troversy. Nothing can be so incorrect or so unjust as this as- 

 sertion: for the answer was published before I wrote; and from 

 the foregoing stateme-it, which is a true one, it is evident that 

 it produced little or no effect ; and it appears by the extract 

 from the Analytical Review that my demonstrations were consi- 

 dered as original at the time I had written f. These were my 

 j)rincipal motives for introducing the foregoing subjects. 



But to return to the outlines of the Doctor's history. He at- 

 tributes, and very justly, the first rudiments of analytical che- 



• Tills edition contains tli<; answer of the Frciicli chemists to that work; 

 «'i(l that ib onewt" my |jrinci)i!il rcuboiib for inscriing it licrc, as will iinnie- 

 iiifilclv a|)[)car. 



t It alludes to llic Atomic S)itcui. 



niistry 



