256 LAVOISIER. 



(' Mem. sur la Decomposition de 1'Eau par la Vegetation 

 des Plantes/ 1786,) yet he never gave a word of contra- 

 diction to Sir C. Blagden's statement. Indeed, that Sir 

 Charles must, if he related the experiment as M. Lavoi- 

 sier says he did, have also added the conclusion drawn 

 from it, is quite evident; he never could have given the 

 one without the other. If the unbelief of M. Lavoisier 

 was not a fact, it was a pure invention of Sir Charles, 

 which not only M. Lavoisier, but M. Laplace, M. Leroy, 

 and others, all present at the time, could at once have con- 

 tradicted. And here the reader cannot fail to recollect, 

 that a very similar circumstance attended Dr. Priestley's 

 communication of his discovery of oxygen to M. Lavoisier. 

 When the Doctor described the effect of this new gas in 

 enlarging the flame of bodies burnt in it, M. Lavoisier ex- 

 pressed his great surprise; yet he afterwards suppressed 

 all mention of his surprise, and of his having received the 

 account of the discovery from the real author. In the 

 case of Mr. Cavendish's experiment, he admits having 

 been told of it ; and suppresses all mention of the theory 

 having been at the same time imparted to him, and of 

 his own incredulity until he repeated the experiment and 

 convinced himself. 



It seems, therefore, quite certain, that in this case, as 

 in that of oxygen, M. Lavoisier's intrusion is clearly 

 proved; that he performed an experiment which another 

 had before, to his knowledge, contrived and made; that 

 he drew a conclusion from it, in substance the same with 

 the conclusion which others had drawn, and which he 

 had been apprized of, before he either produced the ex- 

 periment or reasoned upon its result ; that he related the 

 whole, both in his 'Memoirs,' and in his 'Elements, 3 as if 

 he had been the author of the discovery ; and that he 



