364 
LEEDS CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION. 
in the same way be considered as the true reflection of chemical philosophy, there was 
little doubt that the future historians of the science would speak of the present time as 
the era of theoretical anarchy. All the leadiug chemists of the day are convinced that 
the nomenclature and notation which have hitherto served the purposes of the science 
are totally inadequate to the rational expression of the immense accumulation of facts 
with which they had now to deal; but it was much easier to observe defects than to 
remedy them, though there was never any lack of persons who considered themselves 
equal to any emergency. Fully cognizant of the evils resulting from the present con¬ 
fusion in nomenclature, the Chemical Society appointed a Committee three or four years 
ago, to consider and report on the subject, with a view to the production of some uni¬ 
form system which should be sufficiently elastic to adapt itself to the future without 
ignoring the past. This much-desired report, however, was not forthcoming as yet, nor 
was there really much probability of its making its appearance, for it happened, most 
unfortunately for the interests of the science, that several of the leading members of the 
Committee had peculiar and diverse theories and opinions of their own. This confusion 
in the head of the body-chemical had a most prejudicial influence on the subordinate 
members of that body, and produced general debility of the whole system. Now this 
was exceedingly unpleasant, and much to be regretted, but it was hard to say how it 
could well be helped. We had the misfortune to live at the time when chemistry was 
in a transition state, when change seemed inevitable, and we must for a while accommo¬ 
date ourselves to this abnormal condition of things as best we may. Of the evil effects 
of hasty innovation there had been but too many examples of late ; and every unsuccessful 
attempt added to the confusion. Without much corresponding advantage, the names of 
many familiar substances had been so changed, inverted, and distorted as to render them 
scarcely recognizable. 
A few years ago a chemist would have almost laughed in your face if you had ques¬ 
tioned his ability to define the terms “ acid ” and “ base,” but he would be a bold man 
who would now dare to say, in a company of advanced chemists, that he knew r exactly 
what the terms meant. He might venture to mention oil of vitriol as acid, because it 
has a sour taste, because it combines with bases to form salts, etc., but he would at 
once be told that many acids are not sour, and that oil of vitriol is itself a salt, being in 
fact sulphate of hydrogen. If in his innocence he happened to speak of chemical combina¬ 
tion to a thorough-going disciple of Gerhardt, he would be coolly and perhaps pityingly 
informed that there is no such thing as chemical combination, but that all chemical change 
is a process of substitution, and that the dual system of Berzelius has, after a long and 
useful life, died a natural death. He would be told, too, that the atomic theory of 
Dalton, after sixty years of excellent service, was exploded and had vanished into thin 
air, for no one with any pretensions to science believed in either atoms or centres of 
force. If one who mastered the elements of chemistry a dozen years ago purchases a 
new manual of the science with the view' of posting himself up in the most recent re¬ 
searches, he will find great difficulty in understanding either the names or formulae used, 
unless he chooses to undergo the labour of making himself acquainted with the parti¬ 
cular system favoured by the author. As had already been said, this abnormal con¬ 
dition of things is the inevitable consequence of the transition state of chemistry; but 
still in presence of so much disagreement among those best able to judge, outsiders w r ere 
quite justified in being doubtful and suspicious of sweeping attempts at innovation. New, 
complete, cut-and-dried systems were seldom found to work well in practice, and there 
could be little doubt that reform in this direction must be gradual to be safe. The lan¬ 
guage used by Lavoisier, when speaking of the alchemists, might, with some degree of 
propriety, be applied to some of the present race of scientific theorists. He said, “ It 
was difficult for them to impart to their readers that which they did not possess them¬ 
selves,—just and true ideas. They used an enigmatical language which was peculiar to 
them, which often had one meaning for the adepts and another for the vulgar, and 
which was neither clear nor exact to the one nor the other.” But, however this might 
be, it was the duty of all interested in the healthy development and sound progress of 
chemistry to subject to close scrutiny every hypothesis offered, so as to prevent needless 
disorganization if not retrogression ; to examine how far it would remove the anomalies 
which at present trouble chemists, and to what degree it would be capable of extension 
to meet the unknown requirements of the future. Above all things there must be a de¬ 
termination to resist extensive changes until there is something like unanimity among 
