LAVOISIER. 257 



only told a part of the communication previously made 

 to him, leaving out if he did not suppress, the most import- 

 ant portion of the statement, the theory of the process. 



It is on the other hand certain, that from having 

 abandoned the phlogiston hypothesis, his theory of the 

 experiment was more distinctly and accurately given than 

 it had been by former reasoners who were hampered with 

 the errors of that doctrine ; although in the popular language 

 at the time, the composition and decomposition of water 

 was always spoken of as the discovery that had been 

 made. We must further allow, that M. Lavoisier added 

 a valuable experiment to the synthetical process of 

 Priestley and Cavendish, the analysis of water by passing- 

 its vapour or steam over hot iron filings, and finding that 

 the oxygen calcined the metal, while the other con- 

 stituent part escaped in the form of inflammable air ; an 

 experiment of excellent use after the more crucial trial 

 of the composition had been made, but wholly inconclu- 

 sive had it stood by itself/'' 



In the course of these inquiries, of the numerous 

 Memoirs to which they gave rise, and of the various dis- 

 cussions in which they involved him, M. Lavoisier, who 

 was so anxious, as we have seen, to obtain a share or 

 kind of partnership in the greatest discoveries of his time, 

 never showed any anxiety to distribute the praise where 

 it was really due, either among his contemporaries or 

 their immediate predecessors. It might have been thought 



* An admirable experiment similar to Mr. Cavendish's was per- 

 formed in June, 1783, by M. Monge, at Mezieres. The account 

 of it is given in the volume for 1783 ; and the author mentions in 

 a note both Lavoisier and Cavendish's experiments., stating that 

 they were performed on a smaller scale. 



S 



