6 Dr. Thomsons Answer [Jan. 



as his own, without the least acknowledgment, abusing at the 

 same time the work to which he stands indebted for every thing 

 that he happens to know of the subject. 



3. It would serve no purpose to enter into any discussion 

 respecting; the reason why a volume of oxygen gas is equivalent 

 to two atoms, while a volume of hydrogen gas is only equivalent 

 to one, respecting which the reviewer has written so much, so 

 absurdly, and so inconsistently. In a former review he informed 

 the public, that this lavv^, which he sneered at as ridiculous, was 

 merely a blunder of mine, occasioned solely by my ignorance of 

 the common rules of arithmetic. Even yet it is obvious that he 

 does not understand the subject, though his confidence is 

 greatly softened down, and his arrogant ignorance rather better 

 concealed. He now tells us that it is the consequence of an 

 arbitrary convention among chemists in general. Should he 

 ever acquire chemical knowledge enough to take a general view 

 of Ihe combinations of gaseous bodies, he will find that instead 

 of an arbitrary convention, it is founded upon an important law 

 of nature. An arbitrary convention of chemists in general it 

 certainly is not, since it never has been admitted by BerzeUus 

 and his pupils, a pretty numerous, and surely a highly respect- 

 able body of chemists ; nor, so far as I know, by Sir Humphry 

 Davy. 



But much accurate information on the part of the reviewer, in 

 his present situation, and with his present feelings, is an acqui- 

 sition by no means probable. 



Qui dubitat, qui sspe rogat, inca dicta tenebit 

 Is, qui nil dubitat, nil capit iiide boni, 



is a maxim of old Lilly, which holds as truly in the present 

 day as when that celebrated pedagogue committed it to paper. 



4. Neither is it worth while to examine the arguments which 

 the reviewer brinos forward to show that hydrogen constitutes a 

 better atomic unit than oxygen. It is not of much consequence 

 what unit be adopted, provided chemists agree about the propor- 

 tions. I make oxygen unity because I Ihink proportions are 

 more intelligible the smaller the numbers are bj' which they are 

 represented ; but in the tables which constitute an appendix to 

 my late work, I have given both scales, to accommodate those 

 who prefer the hydrogen scale to the oxygen one. The argu- 

 ments of the reviewer could not fail to be amusing, knowing, as 

 I did, that he has been in the habit himself of making use of the 

 oxygen scale. Nothing, therefore, but the spirit of contradic- 

 tion, and the ambition of saying what he considered as smart 

 things, could have induced him in his review to embrace the 

 side which he has taken. When he says that hydrogen enters 

 into more numerous and more interesting combinations than 

 oxygen, the statement is in direct variance with our present 



