1814.] On the Discovery of the Atomic Theory, 331 



that it was absolutely incumbent on me to notice them, as, if true, 

 they atfect not merely my reputation as a writer, but my character 

 as a man. 1 shall ex.imine them in succession ; but I beg leave, in 

 the first place, to notice Mr, Nash's last assertion, which seems to 

 be tacked to his paper by way of salvo. 



1 must however disclaim the benefit of this salvo, for in no 

 fewer than two places in his paper he has stigmatized my conduct 

 as dhingaiinms. Now the word dismgemtous in the English lan- 

 guage means uncandid. A man never can be uncandid except from an 

 unworthy motive. Therefore, if Mr. Nash's assertions cannot be re- 

 futed, I must be considered as guilty of acting from umvortliy motives. 

 Though what these motives can be, it would, I dare say, puzzle 

 Mr. Nash with all his ingenuity to conjecture. I do not claim the 

 discovery for myself. I have not even the honour of being per- 

 sonally acqiuiintcd with Mr. Higgins. I indeed saw him once, 

 about twelve years ago, and was introduced to him at that time by 

 Sir H. Diivy. Our conversation lasted only about five minutes, 

 and coiisisted merely in some information respecting the mineralogy 

 of Ireland, which I wanted to transmit to a friend of mine in. 

 France 1 have never seen him since. I am not aware of any 

 publications of his that have appeared since that period. It could 

 not therefore he a spirit of jealousy or revenge by which I was 

 actuated. In shoit, if the note which 1 have quoted above was 

 u/icandid, I must have written it from the mere abstract love of 

 falsehood ; for no other conceivable motive can be assigned. Novr 

 I will tell Mr. Nash why the note was written. It was written 

 solely for the information of Dr. Berzelius, who had no opportunity 

 of seeing Mr IJiggins's book, and who I thought might be misled 

 by the assertion of Sir Humphry Davy respecting the discovery of 

 the atomic theory. 



Let us now proceed to examine Mr. Nash's assertions one by one. 

 1. To the first allegation I plead guilty. I have certainly affirmed 

 that what I consider as the atomic theory was not established in 

 Mr. Higgins's book. And here is my reason. I have had that 

 book in my possession since the ytar 179^, and had perused it care- 

 fully ; yet 1 did not find any thing in it which suggested to me the 

 atomic theory. That a small hint would have been sufficient I 

 tliink pretty clear from this, that I was forcibly struck with Mr. 

 Dalton's statement in 1804, though it did not fill half an octavo 

 page : so much so indeed, that I afterwards published an account 

 of it ; and I still consider myself as the first person who gave the 

 world an outline of the Daltonian theory. I beg leave to put Mr. 

 Nash right respecting Sir H. Davy and Dr. Berzelius. Neither of 

 them has adopted what 1 conceive to be the atomic theory. Sir H. 

 Davy has written two very violent and 1 think liulccorous notes 

 agains^t it. I admit indeed that he has adopted a theory which 

 comes nearly to the same thing ; but he vehemently disclaims the term 

 atomic. Had Mr. Nash read the admirable paper on the cause of 

 chemical proportions in the second and third volumes of the Annals 



