232 Scientific Labors and Character of 
and to ascertain, ' as Davy did, that chlorine had properties and rela- 
tions which could not be explained in accordance with existing theo- 
ries; was to prove that these theories were either defective or errone- 
ous, and were therefore to be either limited or discarded. 
But it was not merely on account of the’ reformation, which these 
views of the nature and relations of chlorine carried into the science 
of chemistry, that they have contributed to the advancement of that 
science. As is common in able controversies, every corner of the 
science was hunted for arguments in favor of one hypothesis or the 
other ; new discoveries were made incidentally ; and various facts 
before known, were more fully confirmed and illustrated. 
-The® manner in which this great controversy was conducted be- 
tween Sir Humphry Davy and Mr. Murray of Edinburgh, is worthy 
of being particularly remarked. It is rare in-any debate, to find the 
parties so well matched, and both so able. Davy and Murray were 
both ingenious and accurate experimenters, and equally acute and 
logical reasoners. They were both gentlemen; and exhibited 
throughout this protracted discussion, a rare example of courtesy and 
good temper. Each had the right kind of obstinacy ;—not a deter- 
mination to persist in error, but that perseverance which is founded 
on a strong conviction of the truth, and which produces a correspond- 
ing determination to support it. Davy had great obstacles to over- 
come. The opinions of the chemical world were made up and set- 
tled on this point, and settled against him. Several of the leading 
chemists of the day had “made their book,” and had thus entered 
into bonds with society to support the prevailing doctrine. Chemists 
also being familiar with the explanations made on the old theory, for 
that reason imagined them to be much simpler than the explanations — 
proposed. It generally happens in warm and protracted disputes, that 
each of the parties is apt to think that the reason why his opponents 
do not see his opinions to be true and incontrovertible, is owing él 
to their obstinacy or want of penetration. Hence he is prone to re 
gard his antagonists with resentment or contempt; not to see things 
80 plain argues stupidity ; not to acknowledge what they cannot but 
see, argues wilful obstinacy. We have not been able to find any- 
~ thing of this temper in any of the controversial writings of Sir Hum- 
s Between Mr. Murray and Dr. Jobn Davy there was, however; “a 
a a litle jarring. The Doctor, after proving as he thought 
cle of one of Mr. Murray’s arguments, adds in a tone 
