^i54 On Mr. Chenevix' Attack [Aipmif 



displayed a degree of acuteness and exactness, and a talent fot 

 observation, which do him infinite honour* But let us notice 

 Mr. Chenevix's principal objections in their order. 



1. These characters, it seefns, are too easy for the philoso- 

 pher, and may be acquired with too muck facility for the man of 

 science. They do well enough to discriminate minerals from 

 one another, and are very fit for the miner who has no other 

 object ; but they are below the dignity of the philosopher. — * 

 This is the first time, I will venture to say, that the facility of a 

 method was thrown against it as a reproach. I admit the object 

 tion of Mr. Chenevix in all its force ; the Wernerian method is 

 much easier than the Haliyan ; and have no doubt that this is 

 one reason why it has been so generally preferred. 



2. Mr. Chenevix reproaches Werner for discarding the use of 

 instruments, and for affirming that the senses alone are quite 

 sufficient to enable us to distinguish minerals from each other 

 Vv'ith the utmost certainty. The truth of the assertion Mr. 

 Chenevix fully admits; but he thinks it quite unphilosophical to 

 confide in the senses, and requires the mineralogist to call in the 

 aids furnished by natural philosophy and chemistry, and to avail 

 himself of the numerous instruments which are employed in 

 these sciences. — I plead guilty to this accusation in its whole 

 force ; and have little to offer in vindication of the senses. 

 Thus much, however, I will say. The sole object of mineralogy 

 is to enable us to discriminate minerals. Now if one man offers 

 to teach us a method of doing so by the assistance of our senses 

 alone, while another insists upon our calling in the assistance of 

 chemistry and mechanical philosophy, and upon our providing 

 an expensive set of philosophical instruments, I for my part will 

 embrace the first offer, and leave Mr. Chenevix and the philoso-^ 

 phers to accept the second. 



3. The account of the Wernerian use of colour given by Mr. 

 Chenevix is quite inaccurate, as he may learn from the observa-^ 

 tions which have been made on the subject in a preceding part 

 of this paper. 



4. The account which he gives of Werner's character, ive'ight 

 or specific gravity^ is also inaccurate ; as he may see by consult- 

 ing the treatise on the external characters published by Weaver, 

 or by Professor Jameson . 



5. But the most violent attack is made upon the Wernerian 

 mode of describing crystals. 



For my own part, I have no hesitation in saying, that I con-' 

 sider the mode of describing crystals adopted by Hairy as greatly 

 superior, in every respect, to the mode adopted by Werner* 

 Haliy has confined himself to the examination of this single 

 character, and he has brought our knowledge of it to a singular 

 and unlooked-for perfection. His matheiimticai theory of 



