CAVENDISH AND LAVOISIER. 433 



. 



weighs exactly the same as the two gases burnt. Some 

 time after, Cavendish claims this result as his own, and 

 insinuates that he had communicated it verbally to the 

 Birmingham chemist. 



Cavendish infers from this similarity of weight, that 

 water is not a simple body ; yet he makes no mention of 

 a memoir deposited in the archives of the Royal Society, 

 in which Watt developed the same theory. It is true, 

 that at the day of publication the name of "Watt is no" 

 forgotten ; but it was not in the archives that the cele- 

 brated engineer's labours could be seen : they are declared 

 to have become known, by a recent reading, at the public 

 meeting. At the present day, however, it is perfectly 

 agreed that this reading followed, by several months,* 

 that of the memoir in which Cavendish alludes to it. 



On reaching the field of this serious discussion, Blagden 

 announces his firm intention to elucidate every thing, to 

 correct every thing. And in fact he did not draw back 

 from any accusation, from any inquiry into dates, as long 

 as the object was to insure to his patron and friend, Cav- 

 endish, a priority above the French chemist. But as 

 soon as his explanations concerned two of his country- 

 men, they became vague and obscure. He says : " In 

 the spring of 1783, Mr. Cavendish showed us that he 

 was led to conclude from his experiments, that water is 

 nothing but oxygen deprived of its phlogiston (that is to 

 say, deprived of its hydrogen). About the same time, the 

 news reached London, that Mr. Watt, of Birmingham, 

 had been led by some observations to a similar result." 

 This expression, about the same time, to speak in Mr. 



# This delay, it should be observed, was in consequence of Watt's 

 own request; his reason for so doing is shown in the note to page 432. 

 Translator. 



SEC. SEE. 19 



