Intelligence and Miscellaneous Articles. 163 



by Lavoisier and Morveau was effected, not seventy, but about eighty 

 years after the analogous experiment of the Florentine academicians. 

 I am also quite aware that the spelling of the names of foreign che- 

 mists is sometimes erroneous, and that in a few instances, as a con- 

 sequence of the omission of certain words, the composition has been 

 rendered faulty. These errors, however, are, I believe, of small con- 

 sequence ; nor is their number unusually great, considering that the 

 volume extends to about 500 pages, and that, from much preoccu- 

 pation of time by other duties, I was unfortunately unable to pay 

 sufficient attention to the correcting of the press. Such as they are, 

 they, or at least the majority of them (some will no doubt escape 

 detection), have been carefully noted by myself and others (I have 

 had, for example, for a considerable time on my list of errata all those, 

 with a single exception, animadverted on by the reviewer, to which I 

 attach any importance) ; and from the next edition, which will, I 

 presume, shortly appear, as the book is very nearly out of print, 

 they will of course be excluded. 



Though very unwilling to add to the length of this communica- 

 tion, I must not omit adverting briefly to the criticism which has 

 been passed on the few remarks made by me in page 124 on the 

 origin of the heat and light attendant on combustion. These remarks 

 are pronounced by the reviewer to contain not only " a totally inade- 

 quate and therefore erroneous statement " of Lavoisier's views, but 

 to imply " what is directly contrary to facts well known to all who 

 have paid any attention to the history of chemistry— namely, that the 

 phlogistic theory held its ground long after it had been discovered 

 that combustible bodies increase in weight when burned, and that 

 this observation first came to be regarded as an objection to the 

 theory when it was shown by Lavoisier to be connected with the disap- 

 pearance of part of the atmosphere in which combustion takes place." 



In reply to this, I beg to say that the experiments of Ray and 

 Mayow constituted in my mind a full refutation of the Stahlian 

 theory ; for, after their publication, it became impossible to maintain 

 it except upon the absurd assumption that a principle existed in 

 inflammable bodies which conferred upon them levity instead of 

 weight. The abandonment indeed of a prevalent theory is, I am 

 aware, a slow process ; and it is quite possible that, notwithstanding 

 its obvious absurdity, the phlogistic hypothesis continued to be em- 

 ployed by some chemists until oxygen, and the part which it plays 

 in all ordinary cases of combustion, were discovered by Lavoisier. 

 It should, however, be recollected that I did not contemplate any- 

 thing like a complete discussion of the theories of combustion. 

 This is a topic merely glanced at incidentally in my ' Manual ;' and 

 my method of handling it may possibly be, with justice, described 

 as " inadequate." I deny that it is " erroneous." I also allege 

 that my statement of Lavoisier's views is substantially accurate; 

 but, instead of bandying contradictions with my anonymous adver- 

 sary, I would solicit the attention of the reader to the following 

 extract from vol. i. p. 184, of the eighth edition of Turner's 

 ' Chemistry,' brought out under the supervision of Liebig and 

 Gregory : — 



M2 



