WATT. 393 



them not to be. His account, therefore, is not reconcilable 

 with Sir Charles Blagden's, and the latter was most probably 

 written as a contradiction of it, after Mr. Cavendish's paper 

 had been read, and when the Memoires of the Acade'mie were 

 received in this country. These Memoires were published 

 in 1784, and could not, certainly, have arrived when Mr. 

 Cavendish's paper \vas written, nor when it was read to the 

 Royal Society. 



But it is further to be remarked, that this passage of Mr. 

 Cavendish's paper in Sir Charles Blagden's handwriting, only 

 mentions the experiments having been communicated to Dr. 

 Priestley; they were made, says the passage, in 1781, and 

 communicated to Dr. Priestley ; it is not said when, nor is it 

 said that " the conclusions drawn from them," and which Sir 

 Charles Blagden says he communicated to M. Lavoisier in 

 summer 1783, were ever communicated to Dr. Priestley; and 

 Dr. Priestley, in his paper (referred to in Mr. Cavendish's), 

 which was read June 1783, and written before April of that 

 year, says nothing of Mr. Cavendish's theory, though he 

 mentions his experiment. 



Several propositions then are proved by this statement. 



first, That Mr. Cavendish, in his paper, read 1 5th January, 

 1784, relates te capital experiment of burning oxygen and 

 hydrogen gases in a close vessel, and finding pure water to be 

 the produce of the combustion. 



Secondly, That, in the same paper, he drew from this expe- 

 riment the conclusion that the two gases were converted or 

 turned into water. 



Thirdly, That Sir Charles Blagden inserted in the same 

 paper, with Mr. Cavendish's consent, a statement that the 

 experiment had first been made by Mr. Cavendish in summer 

 1781, and mentioned to Dr. Priestley, though it is not said 

 when, nor is it said that any conclusion was mentioned to Dr. 

 Priestley, nor is it said at what time Mr. Cavendish first drew 

 that conclusion. A most material omission. 



Fourthly, That in that addition made to the paper by Sir 

 Charles Blagden, he conclusion of Mr. Cavendish is stated to 

 be, that oxygen gas is water deprived of phlogiston; this 

 addition having been made after M. Lavoisier's memoir 

 arrived in England. 



