4\6 On the Origin of ilia Atomic Theory. 



mists, as far as my knowledge goes, acquainted with it, before Mr, 

 Higgins pointed it out to Sir H. Davy as containing the outline 

 of the Atomic Theory." 



I will now pass over part of tlie quotation, and come to the 

 conclusion of it. 



" For niv own part, as 1 have already said. I met with a copy 

 of the book bv accident, in the year l/OS, when I was a student 

 at the University of Edinburgh ; I read it at that time in a cur- 

 sory manner, and never looked at it again till Davy's note ap- 

 Jpeared. I then read it again; and told Davy at the time, that 

 I could not find the Atomic Theory in it. I put the question 

 soon afterwards both to Dr. Henry and Mr. Dalton, and both 

 of them assured me they never saw the book." 



Now Dr. Henry published his Epitome of Chemistry in 1801, 

 long before Dalton laid hold of my Atomic Theory; and he quotes 

 from my Comparative Fkwy second edition, in the 64th page 

 of his bonk. 



The same quotation is given in his fifth edition of the same 

 work, published in 1S05, page Ifi'J. In short, he quotes from 

 my Comparative View in every work of his that 1 have seen. 



How will the Doctor get over this ? — what could be his motive 

 to advance such an erroneous statement ? It was evidently to 

 defend Dalton against the suspicion of plagiarism : for he was 

 aware, if Henry should be known to be acquainted with the 

 work, that Dalton his neighbour and intimate friend could not 

 be a stranger to it. My Comparative View passed through two 

 editions in the course of two years, although it was printed and 

 published at my own expense; therefore it could not be so much 

 neglected^s the Doctor wishes to intimate. But suppose a .sin- 

 gle copy of it had not been -sold, it would not take away from 

 the merit of the work. 



But the most remarkable feature of the Doctor's conduct on 

 this subject is, that after having endeavoured to give^every part 

 of the Atomic Theory which is registered in my work to those 

 authors which I have emmieratcd, lie at once transfers it bapk 

 again to Dalton, in his history of tlie Atomic Theory as the fun- 

 damental principles of estimating the weight of atoms and mole- 

 cules. 



What inconsistency! what prevarication ! 

 I ckim nothing l)Ut what appears in my Comparative View; 

 and it is very evident that the definite proportions in which ele- 

 mentary particles unite are there stated for the first time: and 

 I defy the Doctor to adduce a single instance to the contrary, 

 from any work that appeared before or after mine, except that 

 of Dalton's, Then the simple question is — to which of us it be- 

 longs ? 



But 



