WATT. 67 



everything depends on the character of Mr. Cavendish, it 

 may be as well to repeat the disclaimer already very dis- 

 tinctly made of all intention to cast the slightest doubt 

 upon that great man's perfect good faith in the whole 

 affair ; I never having supposed that he borrowed from Mr. 

 Watt, though M. Arago, Professor Eobison,* and Sir H. 

 Davy, as well as myself, have always been convinced that 

 Mr. Watt had, unknown to him, anticipated his great dis- 

 covery. It is also said by Mr. Harcourt, that the late Dr. 

 Henry having examined Mr. Watt's manuscripts decided 

 against his priority. I have Dr. H.'s letter before me of 

 June 1820, stating most clearly, most fully, and most 

 directly, the reverse, and deciding in Mr. Watt's favour. 

 I must add, having read the full publication with fac-similes, 

 Mr. Harcourt has now clearly proved one thing, and it is 

 really of some importance. He has made it appear that in 

 all Mr. Cavendish's diaries and notes of his experiments, 

 not an intimation occurs of the composition of water having 

 been inferred by him from those experiments earlier than 

 Mr. Watt's paper of spring, 1783. 



* Encyc. Brit., vol. xviii., p. 808. This able and learned article enters 

 at length into the proofs of Mr. Watt's claims, and it was published in 

 1797, thirteen years before Mr. Cavendish's death. 



