54 Analyses of Books. [July, 



And if it was not understood, how should Mr. Dalton he accused 

 of plagiarism for teaching a doctrine which Mr. Higgins, and Mr. 

 Higgins only, was capable of knowing to be the same which he had 

 taught ? If Mr. Dalton was able to solve the enigma, his merit 

 was at least equal to that of Mr. Higgins; and as he thought proper 

 to communicate it to the world in an intelligible manner, chemists 

 in general are certainly indebted to him for the whole of the doc- 

 trine, even if it should prove true that this doctrine was previously 

 known to Mr. Higgins. 



As far as I have had an opportunity of judging, Mr. Higgins' 

 Comparative View was very little known to chemists in general till 

 Sir Humphry Davy published his note, claiming for it the discovery 

 of the atomic thtory. I myself met with a copy of it by accident 

 in 1798. I never met with a single person in Edinburgh who had 

 read it ; nor were any of the London chemists, as far as my know- 

 ledge goes, acquainted with it before Mr. Higgins himself pointed 

 it out to Sir H. Davy, as containing the outline of the atomic 

 theory. I have never seen any reference to it during the phlogistic 

 controversy ; and I always understood that the prevalence of the 

 Lavoiserian theory in Britain was owing entirely to the refutation of 

 Kirwan's Essay on Phlogiston by the French chemists. I would 

 not be understood by these observations to insinuate any thing 

 against the merit of Mr. Higgins' work, which I consider as a 

 highly ingenious and valuable production. It was partly owing to 

 the subject on which it was written, and partly to the time in which 

 it appeared, that so little notice was taken of this work. After a 

 controversial subject is finally decided, all books upon it of necessity 

 lose their interest, and are seldom looked at, The victory of the 

 antiphlogistians occasioned a kind of chemical interregnum in 

 Britain from 1790 to 1/9S or 1800. The new race of chemists 

 which then appeared had been educated in the antiphlogistic doc- 

 trine, and never of course would think of perusing a work expressly 

 written on that exploded controversy. For my own part, as I have 

 already said, I met with a copy of the book by accident in 1798, 

 when I was a student at the University of Edinburgh. 1 read it at 

 that time in a cursory manner, and never looked at it again till 

 Davy's note appeared. I then read it again, and told Davy at the 

 jfimo that I could not find the atomic doctrine in it. I put the 

 question soon afterwards both to Dr. Henry and Mr. Dalton, and 

 both of then) assured me that they had never seen the book. I 

 dare say both of them have now read it. 



After this discussion, which perhaps was unnecessary, but into 

 which I entered to show Mr. Higgins that he has perhaps overcal- 

 cuktted the effect produced by his book, and that his insinuations of 

 plagiarism are a little too strong, and a little too inconsistent, I 

 $.hall proceed in the next place to consider the three points which 

 he says he has established in his work. If I understand him rightly, 

 he considers himself a^ the first person who taught, 1. That bodies 

 vnite atom to atom. '2, That the strength of affinity is inversely 



