

1814.] Higgins on the Atomic Theory, &c. 53 



conceive, therefore, that I shall contribute in no inconsiderable 

 degree to promote the object of the author by giving an account of 

 it here ; which will make its existence known to the chemical 

 world in general very speedily. 



The book itself consists of 172 octavo pages; there is, besides, 

 an Appendix of eight pages, very strongly resembling Mr. Nash's 

 letter irr the Philosophical Magazine, and confirming some sus- 

 picions which had struck me respecting the source from which the 

 statements in that letter had originated. 1 shall in the first place 

 endeavour to give my readers a notion of the work itself, and then 

 consider the Appendix. 



The book itself consists of three parts, not very intimately con- 

 nected with each other. 1. Copious quotations from his former 

 work, published in 1789. These quotations are modernized in the 

 language, and adapted to the present chemical nomenclature. I 

 have not taken the trouble to compare them with the original ; but 

 as far as I can judge from recollection, they seem to be pretty fair 

 translations of the passages in the Comparative View. The object 

 of these quotations is to show that Mr. Higgins, in the Comparative 

 View, established three points: 1. That chemical substances unite 

 atom to atom. 2. That when an atom of any body, a, combines 

 with two atoms of another body, I; it retains one atom of b with 

 twice the force that it does two atoms. In like manner it retains 

 one atom of h with thrice the force that it does three atoms, and 

 with four times the force that it does four atoms. 3. That in his 

 work, entitled, Comparative View, he pointed out the method of 

 determining the weight of atoms, and did every thing that Mr. 

 Dalton did, and a great deal more. 



" I cannot," he observes, " with propriety or delicacy, directly 

 say that Mr. Dalton is a plagiarist, although appearances are against 

 him. Probably he never read my book ; yet it appears extraordi- 

 nary that a person of Mr. Dalton's industry and learning should 

 neglect one of the few works that was expressly written on the 

 subject of theory. At the time it was published, there were one 

 thousand copies of it sold, and it was the principal means of putting 

 an end to the controversy already alluded to [the phlogistic contro- 

 versy), which otherwise might not be determined for many years." 

 P. 10. 



In another place he says—" Mr. Dalton's work is read, mine had 

 been laid aside as soon as the controversy which gave rise to it 

 ceased ; and at that time the theory in question was not understood, 

 nor did I expect it would for a considerable time. I calculated upon 

 the middle of the present century. Probably it would have lain by 

 since (till then), if it had not been for the genius and industry of 

 Mr. Dalton." P. 17. 



Now I do not know what opinion Mr. Higgins may form of these 

 two passages, but to me they appear rather inconsistent with each 

 Other. if the doctrine in question was clearly taught in Mr. 

 Higgins ' Comparative View, how came it not to be understood"' 



