1S39.J 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



419 



A eommittee of tlie Society, of which Giliiiii was u aiember, made a 

 series ot experiments on the formation of nitric acid This committee, of 

 which Cavendish was chairman, proposed to convince tliosc who donlited 

 ol the existence of tlie acid in rpiestion, indicated incidi'ntally in tlie jiaper 

 of January, 1784, and then, at greater length, in a pajicr ol June, 1785. 

 These e\i)eiiments were execnted from the Cth of December, 1787, to the 

 lOth of March, 1788. The date of tlie reading of Cavendish's paper, is 

 the 17th of April, 1788. The reading and publication of this memoir fol- 

 lowed, then, at less than a month's interval, the conclusion of the e,xpe- 

 rinients. 



Kirwan made some objections against Cavendish's paper on the composi- 

 tion of water, on the 5th of February, 1784. The date of which Caven- 

 dish's answer was read, was the 4th of March, 1784. 



The experiments on the density of the earth, were carried on from the 

 5tb of August, 1797, to the ■J7th of May, 1798. The dale of reading the 

 pajicr is the ■27th of June, 1798. 



In the papers on tlie Eudiometer, the experiments quoted are of the 

 latter part of 1781, and the paper was only read in January, 1783. Here 

 the interval is greater than in the jircceding communications. But, from 

 the nature of the subject, it is jirobable that the author made fresh trials in 

 178-2. 



Every thing makes it probable that Watt conceived liis theory during the 



few moTitl 



he 



analog 



w uioiiuis or weeks preceding the month of April, 178.'!. It is certain that 

 ! considered his theory as his own property, for he makes no allusion to any 

 ...lalogons and anterior communication ; for he does not say that he had 

 heard that Cavendish liad arrived at the same conclusions. 



It cannot be believed that ISlagden would not have heard of the theory of 

 Cavendish, before the date of Watt's letter, if that theory had, in fact, i)re- 

 ceded the letter, and that he would not have hastened to point out ibis cir- 

 cumstance in the additions he made to his friend's ]iaper. 



In' conclusion, it is well to remark, that Watt dc]icjided entirely on Blagden 

 for correcting the proofs, and every thing relati\e to the publication oi his 

 paper. That apjiears from a letter of Blagden's still in existence. Watt 

 only saw his paper after it was printed. • 



• It is easy to perceive tliat tlieve i.s simie (litteiclice between llie case presented l>y 

 Brougliani and that by j\I. Ara'^o. The furmer is tlie pimlneliun ol a ^killnl ailvoeate, 

 engai;eii in a had cause, or one whieli.al an> late, he eimsideis doiihtlul ; « lio elidea- 

 vonrs, by a sopliislic aiipeal, to blind llie Jint^es by Ihe pailialcase lie lays beloie them. 

 M. Arago, on the other liainl, led awa>" by the i^iiis latiiiis of inainlainini; a paradox, 

 spares no asset lion, however basel_\ , and conlidently appeals to a witness, who is tar 

 Iroiii provin;; Ills cause. M.Arayo bohlly asseils, that lo Walt alone is tlie merit ot Ihe 

 inveiilion due. IJroitgliam endeavours to prove Uiat AVatt is equal to Cavendish, and 

 leaves it to others to imply that lo liitn tiloiie Wits all the el-edit due. — /\iitp of lh<- 

 translator. 



STONE FOR Tllli NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. 



Talks reftrrcd lo in Riporl in the Scjiltmbcr Journal, No. 24, page 331. 

 TABLE (D.) 



