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 Royai 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- 
btated 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 482. 
— Translator. 
BEC. SER. 19 
