232 Scientific Labors and Character of 



and to ascertain, as Davy did, that chlorine had properties and rela- 

 tions which could not be explained in accordance with existing tlieo- 

 ries, was to prove that these theories were either defective or errone- 

 ous, and were therefore to be either limited or discarded. 



But it was not merely on account of the reformation, which these 

 views of the nature and relations of chlorine carried into the science 

 of chemistry, that they have contributed to the advancement of that 

 science. As is common in able controversies, every corner of the 

 science was hunted for arguments in favor of one hypothesis or the 

 other ; new discoveries were made incidentally ; and various facts 

 before known, were more fully confirmed and illustrated. 



The manner in ivhich this great controversy was conducted be- 

 tween Sir Humphry Davy and Mr. Murray of Edinburgh, is worthy 

 ■of being particularly remarked. It is rare in any debate, to find the 

 parties so well matched, and both so able. Davy and Murray were 

 botii ingenious and accurate experimenters, and equally acute and 

 logical reasoners. They were both gentlemen ; and exhibited 

 throughout this protracted discussion, a rare example of courtesy and 

 §ood temper. Each had the right kind of obstinacy ; — not a deter- 

 mination to persist in error, but that perseverance which is founded 

 on a strong conviction of the truth, and which produces a correspond- 

 ing determination to support it. Davy had great obstacles to over- 

 come. The opinions of the chemical world were made up and set- 

 tled on this point, and settled against him. Several of the leading 

 chemists of the day had " made their book," and had thus entered 

 into bonds widi society to support the prevailing doctrine. Chemists 

 also being familiar with the explanations made on the old theory, for 

 that reason imagined them to be much simpler than the explanations 

 proposed. It generally happens in warm and protracted disputes, that 

 each of the parties is apt to think that the reason why his opponents 

 do not see his opinions to be true and incontrovertible, is owing either 

 to their obstinacy or want of penetration. Hence he is prone to re- 

 gard his antagonists with resentment or contempt ; not to see tilings 

 so plain argues stupidity ; not to acknoivledge what they cannot but 

 see, argues wilful obstinacy. We have not been able to find any- 

 thing of this temper in any of the controversial writings of Sir Hum- 

 phry Davy. 



Between Mr. Murray and Dr. John Davy there was, however, at 

 one time a litde jarring. The Doctor, after proving as he thought 

 the insufficiency of one of Mr. Murray's arguments, adds in a tone 



