330 On the Gas Blowpipe. 



first papers, his motives had been less questionable. But why 

 does he not refer to his authorities ? In other cases he is very 

 particular in making such references. 



We all know, that with a view to recompo"?e water, Lavoisier 

 caused the gaseous constituents of this fluid to burn within a glass 

 globe, into which they entered by orifices remote from each other : 

 but if he ever caused them to burn at a common orifice in the 

 open air for the purpose of producing heat, wherefore is Dr. Clark 

 the first and only person to communicate the fact to the public? 

 How does it happen that there is.no account of the invention, or 

 of any results obtained by it, either in the elementary treatise of 

 that great man, or in any of the contemporary scientific journals ? 

 On the contrary, in the Elements just alluded to, Lavoisier treats 

 of the heat produced by oxygen gas, and carbon, as the highest 

 art could produce. 



Dr. Clark informs us that Dr.ThomGoii, now Professor of Che- 

 mistry at Glasgow, made experiments with the mixed gases seven- 

 teen years ago, but was induced to abandon the undertaking, in 

 consequence of accidents that happened to his apparatus. Can 

 any thing more fully display unfairness, than that aljortive ex- 

 periments, made subsequently to those in which I was successful, 

 should be adduced as subversive of njiy pretensions? 



Dr. Clark states that the Americans claim the invention on 

 account of experiments made by me in 1802. They were pub- 

 lished in 1802; my apparatus and my first experiments were 

 made in ISOl. 



Had Lavoisier, or any other person, availed himself of the heat 

 produced by the union of the gaseous elements of water, how 

 could the sagacious Dr. Thomson fail in his efforts to retrace a 

 path so well and recently trodden? or, if deriving any advantage 

 from the experiments either of the French philosopher, or those 

 which he so imperfectly tried, why did he conceal it when oc- 

 cupied during so many years in communicating to the world all 

 his chemical knowledge in five successive editions of his system? 



So far were Dr. Thomson's experiments, or his knowledge on 

 these subjects, from reacliing the facts discovered by me, that 

 he appears to have considered the authority of one name inade- 

 quate to establish what he vainly had endeavoured to effect. 

 Hence, until plagiarism had given them a new shape, and perhaps 

 a false gilding, they were totally overlooked in his compilations. 

 He neither treated of the pure earths as susceptible of fusion, nor 

 of platinum as susceptible of volatilization, until many years after 

 I had proved them to be so, and promulgated mv observations. 



Dr. Clark gives himself great credit for having first pointed out 

 the importance of employing the gases in such relative quantities 

 as might enable them fully to saturate each other. To me it 



would 



