1822.] C.’s Reply to D. 217 
however able or severe it might have been, and however difficult 
to have been answered, that examination would have given me 
much pleasure. The mental effort required to meet a powerful 
argument, though great, is invigorating to the mind, and health- 
ful; and gives it that tone and elastic energy which is no incon- 
siderable enjoyment; but the toil of dissecting and exposing a 
vast mass of misstatement and misrepresentation, though less 
difficult to accomplish, is merely laborious, fatiguing, and dis- 
gusting ; and I fear the exposition will be found so by your 
readers. There still, however, remain one or two topics which 
D. has used for declamation, which will claim a few observa- 
tions. 
The first which I would notice is the boast that Mr. H. has 
compared his theory with so many experiments, and has pre- 
dicted the phenomena of so many new and untried cases. Pro- 
bably the credit which is claimed for Mr. H. in his prophetic 
character may not be readily granted, as long as the cases 
remain new and untried. It is, however, by no means extraor- 
dinary, that he should be able by his theory plausibly to explain 
many phenomena. Seriously to publish any hypothesis which 
was evidently incompetent to account for any of the phenomena 
of nature, would prove the writer not foolish, but insane ; it is, 
therefore, to be expected, that every theory should afford an 
explanation of some class of experiments or observations. But 
that which may properly be demanded of it is, that it should 
besides be consistent with all the phenomena of nature ; for if 
its truth be clearly contradicted by any one fact, that is sufficient 
to prove its incorrectness. In my former paper, I pointed out » 
many cases in which facts were inconsistent with the theory ; 
and in this, I have endeavoured to show that they still remain 
unexplained. But Mr. H. himself admits that his theory opposes 
conclusions drawn by other writers, though the observations on 
which they are founded are exceedingly numerous. Thus he 
does not hesitate to conclude, that if two in volume of hydrogen 
unite with one in volume of oxygen to form water, the atoms of 
oxygen will be double in number those of hydrogen. (Annals, 
June, 1821, p. 403.) Yet that conclusion is opposed by almost all 
the ablest chemical writers. 
The manner in which the coincidence between the theory and 
those experiments with which it accords is produced is so singu- 
lar, that it will deserve a few moments’ examination. ‘ On the 
supposition,” says Mr. H. “ that mercury and water are homoge- 
neous fluids, | have found from the best experiments I can pro- 
cure, that the ratio of the numeratoms of mercury and water is 
about equal to that of 1 to 2; and the ratio of the magnitudes of 
the particles equal to about that of 27 to 1; and, therefore, the 
ratio of their diameters, supposing them similar, about that of 3 
tol. This greater numeratom of the water is indicated by the 
mean temperature of the mixture of equal parts of mercury and 
