IS 11. J ti'iggins on the Atomic Theonj, &c. 65 



author of so ingenious a work would still resume his chemical 

 labours, which might be so useful to the science. I am happy to 

 perceive that this expectation is now likely to be fulfilled. 



Mr. Higgins says that he was as well acquainted with metallic 

 oxides when he published his Comparative View as he is at present. 

 Now this may he the case, as I do not know how Mr. Higgins has 

 spent his time during the last fifteen years. But in that case he has 

 a great deal to learn before he can bring his promised System to be 

 an adequate representation of the present state of the science. 



With respect to the combination between Mr. Dalton, myself, 

 and some others unknown, to deprive Mr. Higgins of his discove- 

 ries, at which he hints in his Appendix, I cannot avoid expressing 

 my astonishment that such a notion could have been taken up by 

 anv man of common sense. Had the theory been claimed by the 

 late Mr. Cavendish, or by any man of rank and influence, such an 

 allegation might have had some plausibility. But Mr. Dalton is 

 neither a man of rank nor influence. He is a Quaker, who has 

 supported himself for many years in Manchester by teaching ma- 

 thematics and arithmetic, and by giving occasional lectures on 

 chemistry. 1 do not believe that his income amounts to one third 

 of that of Mr. Higgins. Of course his influence ought, one would 

 think, to be proportional. He is, indeed, highly esteemed by all that 

 know him, for his suavity of manners, integrity of conduct, open- 

 ness, ingenuity, and invention. My first knowledge of him was in 

 consequence of an attack (rather rude I thought at the time) which 

 lie made upon me in Nicholson's Journal. I never saw him till 

 ' 1.SU4, and I have only been twice with him since ; once at Edin- 

 burgh, where he gave a course of five lectures in my class-room ; and 

 once in Manchester, when I spent a considerable portion of two 

 days in his company. 1 wrote the note which has occasioned all 

 this discussion because 1 thought Sir H. Davy treated Mr. Dalton 

 harshly and unjustly in the notes to which 1 have formerly alluded. 

 1 was not ignorant of the reasons which prepossessed Davy against 

 him. and his notes struck me as something like an attempt to crush 

 him by the superior weight of his own name and situation. I own 

 I felt rather hurt at this, which appeared to be somewhat allied to 

 oppression ; and I thought myself entitled to notice it, because Sir 

 H. Davy elevated myself at Mr. Dalton's expense. 1 ascribed 

 Davy's notice of Mr. Higgins being the author of the atomic 

 theory to the same cause that induced him to write the first note; 

 and as the opinion had been noticed by Ber/elius, I thought it in 

 Some measure incumbent on me to notice it; and, as far as I 

 could, to set Ber/elius right on the subject ; never dreaming that i 

 vva< to be attacked by the Formidable pen of Mr. Nash, and the 

 pathetic insinuations of Mr. Higgins. But notwithstanding all 

 that has happened, I do not repent of the steps I have taken. My 

 object was to Mipport a man of merit, who I thought was unjustly 

 used. I do not wish to quarrel with any man, far less with a man 

 whose geniug and abilities 1 esteem. But if the alternative be held 

 Vol. IV. \ 1. I. 



