occasion when Lavoisier himself admits that he received the information. M. Berthelot does not contradict it, but, instead, he asperses the moral character of Blagden. This method of treating a witness whose evidence cannot be rebutted is apt, when unsuccessful, to recoil on him who attempts it. It is perfectly true that Blagden interpolated the famous passage in Cavendish's memoir :

During the last summer, also, a friend of mine gave some account of them [the experiments] to M. Lavoisier, as well as of the conclusion drawn from them. . . . But at that time, so far was M. Lavoisier from thinking any such opinion warranted that, till he was prevailed upon to repeat the experiment himself, he found some difficulty in believing that nearly the whole of the two airs could be converted into water.

This passage, however, was inserted with Cavendish's knowledge and consent, and by his assistant and amanuensis, who happened to be the very man who had a personal knowledge of the facts. Assuming the statement to be true, where is the immorality of the proceeding?

Everything that we can learn authoritatively concerning Blagden goes to show that he was an upright and honourable man. Sir Joseph Banks has testified to his abilities and integrity. Dr. Johnson spoke of his copiousness and precision of communication, with the characteristic addition: "Blagden, sir, is a delightful fellow." Laplace, Cuvier, Berthollet, and Benjamin Delessert were among his friends.' He was rich, and

1 Many of the letters of Berthollet to Blagden are still in existence. In one of these, dated "19 Mars, 1785," he writes from Paris :-"L'on s'est beaucoup occupé ici ces derniers tems de la belle découverte de Mr. Cavendish, sur la composition de l'eau: Mr. Lavoisier a tàché de porter sur cet objet toute l'exactitude dont il est susceptible. . . . Mr. Lavoisier veut répéter l'expérience en faisant brûler l'air dephlogistiqué dans le gas inflammable, et il y a apparence qu'alors on n'aura point d'acide nitreux, selon les belles observations de Mr. Cavendish." Is this language consistent with the belief that Berthollet, who must have known the facts, regarded Lavoisier as the real discoverer of the compound nature of water?

was understood to have speculated to profit in the French funds. For thirteen years he was a Secretary of the Royal Society, and in 1792 he was knighted for his services to science. Every year he spent a considerable time on the Continent, and was frequently in Paris. The gossip of the period states that he aspired to the hand of Madame Lavoisier, who preferred Count Rumford. He died in Berthollet's house at Arcueil, on 26th March 1820. In an obituary notice in the Moniteur of 22nd September 1820, M. Jomard testifies to his benevolence and generosity, and states that none of his countrymen have done more justice to the labours and discoveries of the French, or have contributed more than he to the happy relations which have subsisted for six years (1814-20) between the savans of the two countries." By his will he provided liberally for his scientific friends: Berthollet, the daughter of Madame Cuvier, and the daughter of Count Rumford each received £1000; and Laplace £100, "to purchase a ring." M. Berthelot asperses the character, not only of Blagden, but also of his countrymen, by his insinuations. Would he have us believe that Berthollet, Cuvier, and Laplace would extend their friendship to, and receive pecuniary benefits from, one whom they believed had foully stabbed their compatriot in the back? It is surely incumbent on M. Berthelot, on every ground, either to substantiate his implications or to withdraw them.

M. Berthelot makes the gratuitous assumption that I am ignorant of the work of Monge. Whether I am or not is altogether beside the mark. There is, indeed, no question of Monge. Monge distinctly disclaims priority to Cavendish, nor did he attempt to establish a right to be considered an independent discoverer of

the true nature of water. In his memoir, "Sur le Résultat de l'Inflammation du Gas inflammable et de l'Air dephlogistiqué dans les Vaisseaux Clos," he tells us that the experiments recorded in it were made in June and July 1783, and repeated in October of the same year. "I did not then know," he adds, "that Mr. Cavendish had made them several months before in England, though on a smaller scale; nor that MM. Lavoisier and Laplace had made them about the same time at Paris in an apparatus which did not admit of as much precision as the one which I employed." I fail to see what M. Berthelot gains by his reference to Monge.

A

M. Berthelot reproaches Priestley and Cavendish for their adherence to phlogistonism. I say it with all respect-but is it seemly for M. Berthelot, of all men, to cast this stone? Is not he himself an exemplification of that conservatism which he deplores? generation ago the doctrine of Avogadro became the corner-stone of that edifice of which M. Berthelot asserts that Lavoisier laid the foundations. Indeed, the introduction of that doctrine effected a revolution hardly less momentous than that of which Lavoisier was the leader. But what has been M. Berthelot's consistent attitude towards this teaching? We can illustrate it by a single example. He is the sole teacher in Europe of any position who continues to symbolise the constitution of that very substance of which he claims that Lavoisier discovered the composition by a formula which is as obsolete as any conception of phlogistonism.

VIII

MICHAEL FARADAY

A REVIEW OF DR. BENCE JONES'S "LIFE AND LETTERS OF FARADAY." -MANCHESTER GUARDIAN, 1870.

MICHAEL FARADAY, one of the greatest experimental philosophers of this or indeed of any other century, was born at Newington, in Surrey, on the 22nd September 1791. Shortly after the birth of Michael, their third child, his parents settled permanently in London; but through the continued ill-health of the father, who was a blacksmith by trade, the family were always in straitened circumstances. During the distress of 1801 they received public relief, and to the little Michael one loaf of bread was given each week, and it had to serve him for that length of time. Of his mother Faraday always spoke in the most affectionate terms, and to her care and solicitude may be attributed the great influence which his home had upon his character. Although unable to enter into his occupations, she was exceedingly proud of her son; so much so that Faraday asked his wife not to talk to his mother so much about him or his honours, saying she was quite proud enough of him, and it would not be good for her. Poor as the parents were, they managed to afford their children some little school learning, and Michael obtained the rudiments of reading, writing, and arithmetic at a common day

school. When twelve years old the young Faraday went on trial for a year as an errand-boy to Mr. George Riebau, a bookseller and bookbinder in Blandford Street, near Manchester Square. He tells us "that it was his duty, when he first went, to carry round the papers that were lent out by his master. Often on a Sunday morning he got up very early and took them round, and then he had to call for them again; and frequently, when he was told the paper was not done with, 'You must call again,' he would beg to be allowed to have it, for his next place might be a mile off, and then he would have to return over the ground again, losing much time and being very unhappy if he was unable to get home to make himself neat, and to go with his parents to their place of worship." The Faradays were members of a Sandemanian congregation, and to this sect Faraday adhered throughout his life, and for many years was an elder of their chapel.

We are told that in after-life the remembrance of his earliest occupation was often brought to the mind of Faraday. One of his nieces said that he rarely saw a newspaper-boy without making some kind remark about him. "I always feel a tenderness for those boys," he said on one occasion, "because I once carried newspapers myself."

The year of probation having expired, Faraday was apprenticed to his master, who, as it is written in the indentures, required no premium in consideration of his previous faithful service. The young Faraday was by no means precocious in disposition, but his great originality of mind quickly showed itself. Few books passed under his hands without his obtaining some knowledge of their contents. Watts On the Mind, he said, first made him think, and Mrs. Marcet's Conversa