408 Scientific Intelligence. [May, 
and injustice to the author, respecting the honours of the atomic 
theory. 
Whether this author has obtained less honour from you than his 
due, respecting the atomic theory, I shall not inquire ; but that, in 
the above quotation, he arrogates much more than his due, respect- 
ing the theory of phlogiston, 1 mean to make appear in this paper. 
This famous view of the atomic theory, it seems, has been long 
out of print, so that we cannot hear it speak for itself; but its 
author informs us that it was an excellent treatise, and that the date 
of its publication was the year 1789. 
I have no need to question the accuracy of these statements in 
order to deprive this author of the sole honour of exploding the 
phlogistic doctrine. Before he preferred a claim to this honour, he 
ought to have known all the advances of chemical science in Europe 
and America. Seven or eight years before this author’s date of his 
theory, in 1781, Lavoisier had detailed, in the Memoirs of the 
Academy of Sciences at Paris, his discovery of the composition of 
water (Lavoisier’s Chemistry, chap. viii. Introduction); and early 
in 1789 his entire system, with the new nomenclature, was not only 
published in French, but also in an English translation. No che- ° 
mist who adopted this system would either need or find room for the 
doctrine of phlogiston. Lavoisier, therefore, not only lays claim, 
but lays a previous claim, to the honour of exploding the phlogistic 
doctrine. 
But, in justice to my Alma Mater and quondam teacher, I am 
induced to bring forward another prior claimant to this honour. As 
appears in his paper, this author dates his claim in 1789. I can 
inform him, however, that during the winter of 1786—1787, I 
attended the chemical lectures of Dr. Irvine in the University of 
Glasgow. At that time, 2.e. two years earlier than his own date 
of histheory, 1 can assure our author that, so far as the doctrine of 
the teacher, and the chemical creed of many of his pupils, could 
effect any thing, phlogiston was dismissed to the family vault of all 
the Capulets, to rest in peace with Elixir vite, Spiritus rector, 
Archeus, and their fellows. The opposite theory of combustion was 
fully and zealously stated and illustrated ; and also exemplified by 
the combustion of alcohol, phosphorus, and sulphur ; and in the ac- 
count of the manufacture of sulphurie acid, as well as in the com- 
bustion or calcination of metals. At the conclusion of the same 
course of lectures, Dr, Lrvine detailed also Lavoisier’s leading facts 
and views respecting the composition of water. Besides, this 
teacher did not state his views, in opposition to phlogiston, as new 
or recent, but as having been entertained for a considerable time. 
He also stated that, at this date (1786—7), the Professor of Che- 
nistry in Edinburgh had adopted the same views, and relinquished 
the phlog ristic theory. 
The other professors in Glasgow University soon followed Dr. 
Irvine in adopting the new doctrines on combustion. This eminent 
