64 WATT. 



Fourthly, That Mr. Watt's theory was well known among 

 the members of the Society, some months before Mr. Ca- 

 vendish's statement appears to have been reduced into 

 writing, and eight months before it was presented to the 

 Society. We may indeed go further, and affirm, as another 

 deduction from the facts and dates, that as far as the evi- 

 dence goes, there is proof of Mr. Watt having first drawn 

 the conclusion, at least that no proof exists of any one 

 having drawn it so early as he is proved to have done. 



Lastly, That a reluctance to give up the doctrine of phlo- 

 giston, a kind of timidity on the score of that long-estab- 

 lished and deeply rooted opinion, prevented both Mr. Watt 

 and Mr. Cavendish from doing full justice to their own 

 theory ; while M. Lavoisier, who had entirely shaken off 

 these trammels, first presented the new doctrine in its 

 entire perfection and consistency. 



All three may have made the important step nearly at 

 the same time, and unknown to each other ; the step, 

 namely, of concluding from the experiment, that the two 

 gases entered into combination, and that water was the 

 result ; for this, with more or less of distinctness, is the in- 

 ference which all three drew. 



But there is the statement of Sir Charles Blagden, to 

 show that M. Lavoisier had heard of Mr. Cavendish's draw- 

 ing this inference before his (M. Lavoisier's) capital experi- 

 ment was made ; and it appears that M. Lavoisier, after 

 Sir C. Blagden's statement had been embodied in Mr. 

 Cavendish's paper and made public, never gave any contra- 

 diction to it in any of his subsequent memoirs which are to 

 be found in the Memoires de 1' Academic, though his own 

 account of that experiment, and of what then passed, is 

 inconsistent with Sir Charles Blagden's statement. 



But there is not any assertion at all, even from Sir C. 

 Blagden, zealous for Mr. Cavendish's priority as he was, 

 that Mr. Watt had ever heard of Mr. Cavendish's theory 

 before he formed his own. 



Whether or not Mr. Cavendish had heard of Mr. Watt's 

 theory previous to drawing his conclusions, appears more 

 doubtful. The supposition that he had so heard, rests on 

 the improbability of his (Sir Charles Blagden's) and many 

 others knowing what Mr. Watt had done, and not com- 



