Priestley tells us that at this time he knew very little chemistry, but he thinks that this was a good thing, else he might not have been led to make so many new discoveries as he did afterwards make.

Experimenting with fixed air, he found that water could be caused to dissolve some of the gas. In 1772 he published a pamphlet on the method of impregnating water with fixed air; this solution of fixed air in water was employed medicinally, and from this time we date the manufacture of artificial mineral waters.

The next six years of Priestley's life (1773-1779) are very important in the history of chemistry; it was during these years that much of his best work on various airs was performed. During this time he lived as a kind of literary companion (nominally as librarian) with the Earl of Shelburne (afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne.) His wife and family—he had now three children—lived at Calne, in Wiltshire, near Lord Shelburne's seat of Bowood. Priestley spent most of the summer months with his family, and the greater part of each winter with Lord Shelburne at his London residence; during this time he also travelled in Holland and Germany, and visited Paris in 1774.

In a paper published in November 1772, Priestley says that he examined a specimen of air which he had extracted from saltpetre above a year before this date. This air "had by some means or other become noxious, but," he supposed, "had been restored to its former wholesome state, so as to effervesce with nitrous air" (in modern language, to combine with nitric oxide) "and to admit a candle to burn in it, in consequence of agitation with water." He tells us, in his "Observations on Air" (1779), that at this time he was altogether in the dark as to the nature of this air obtained from saltpetre. In August 1774, he was amusing himself by observing the action of heat on various substances—"without any particular view," he says, "except that of extracting air from a variety of substances by means of a burning lens in quicksilver, which was then a new process with me, and which I was very proud of"—when he obtained from red precipitate (oxide of mercury) an air in which a candle burned with a "remarkably vigorous flame." The production of this peculiar air "surprised me more than I can well express;" "I was utterly at a loss how to account for it." At first he thought that the specimen of red precipitate from which the air had been obtained was not a proper preparation, but getting fresh specimens of this salt, he found that they all yielded the same kind of air. Having satisfied himself by experiment that this peculiar air had "all the properties of common air, only in much greater perfection," he gave to it the name of dephlogisticated air. Later experiments taught him that the same air might be obtained from red lead, from manganese oxide, etc., by the action of heat, and from various other salts by the action of acids.

Priestley evidently regards the new "dephlogisticated air" simply as very pure ordinary air; indeed, he seems to look on all airs, or gases, as easily changeable one into the other. He always interprets his experimental results by the help of the theory of phlogiston. One would indeed think from Priestley's papers that the existence of this substance phlogiston was an unquestioned and unquestionable fact. Thus, he says in the preface to his "Experiments on Air:" "If any opinion in all the modern doctrine concerning air be well founded, it is certainly this, that nitrous air is highly charged with phlogiston, and that from this quality only it renders pure air noxious.... If I have completely ascertained anything at all relating to air it is this." Priestley thought that "very pure air" would take away phlogiston from some metals without the help of heat or any acid, and thus cause these metals to rust. He therefore placed some clean iron nails in dephlogisticated air standing over mercury; after three months he noticed that about one-tenth of the air in the vessel had disappeared, and he concluded, although no rust appeared, that the dephlogisticated air had as a fact withdrawn phlogiston from the iron nails. This is the kind of reasoning which Black described to his pupils as "mere waste of time and ingenuity." The experiment with the nails was made in 1779; at this time, therefore, Priestley had no conception as to what his dephlogisticated air really was.

Trying a great many experiments, and finding that the new air was obtained by the action of acids on earthy substances, Priestley was inclined to regard this air, and if this then all other airs, as made up of an acid (or acids) and an earthy substance. We now know how completely erroneous this conclusion was, but we must remember that in Priestley's time chemical substances were generally regarded as of no very definite or fixed composition; that almost any substance, it was supposed, might be changed into almost any other; that no clear meaning was attached to the word "element;" and that few, if any, careful measurements of the quantities of different kinds of matter taking part in chemical actions had yet been made.

But at the same time we cannot forget that the books of Hooke and Mayow had been published years before this time, and that twenty years before Priestley began his work on airs, Black had published his exact, scientific investigation on fixed air.

Although we may agree with Priestley that, had he made himself acquainted with what others had done before he began his own experiments, he might not have made so many new discoveries as he did, yet one cannot but think that his discoveries, although fewer, would have been more accurate.

We are told by Priestley that, when he was in Paris in 1774, he exhibited the method of obtaining dephlogisticated air from red precipitate to Lavoisier and other French chemists. We shall see hereafter what important results to science followed from this visit to Lavoisier.

Let us shortly review Priestley's answer to the question, "What happens when a substance burns in air?"

Beginning to make chemical experiments when he had no knowledge of chemistry, and being an extremely rapid worker and thinker, he naturally adopted the prevalent theory, and as naturally interpreted the facts which he discovered in accordance with this theory.

When a substance burns, phlogiston, it was said, rushes out of it. But why does rapid burning only take place in air? Because, said Priestley, air has a great affinity for phlogiston, and draws it out of the burning substance. What then becomes of this phlogiston? we next inquire. The answer is, obviously it remains in the air around the burning body, and this is proved by the fact that this air soon becomes incapable of supporting the process of burning, it becomes phlogisticated. Now, if phlogisticated air cannot support combustion, the greater the quantity of phlogiston in air, the less will it support burning; but we know that if a substance is burnt in a closed tube containing air, the air which remains when the burning is quite finished at once extinguishes a lighted candle. Priestley also proved that an air can be obtained by heating red precipitate, characterized by its power of supporting combustion with great vigour. What is this but common air completely deprived of phlogiston? It is dephlogisticated air. Now, if common air draws phlogiston out of substances, surely this dephlogisticated air will even more readily do the same. That it really does this Priestley thought he had proved by his experiment with clean iron nails (see p. 60).

Water was regarded as a substance which, like air, readily combined with phlogiston; but Priestley thought that a candle burned less vigorously in dephlogisticated air which had been shaken with water than in the same air before this treatment; hence he concluded that phlogiston had been taken from the water.

After Cavendish had discovered (or rather rediscovered) hydrogen, and had established the fact that this air is extremely inflammable, most chemists began to regard this gas as pure or nearly pure phlogiston, or, at least, as a substance very highly charged with phlogiston. "Now," said Priestley, "when a metal burns phlogiston rushes out of it; if I restore this phlogiston to the metallic calx, I shall convert it back into the metal." He then showed by experiment that when calx of iron is heated with hydrogen, the hydrogen disappears and the metal iron is produced.

He seemed, therefore, to have a large experimental basis for his answer to the question, "What happens when a substance burns?" But at a later time it was proved that iron was also produced by heating the calx of iron with carbon. The antiphlogistic chemists regarded fixed air as composed of carbon and dephlogisticated air; the phlogisteans said it was a substance highly charged with phlogiston. The antiphlogistic school said that calx of iron is composed of iron and dephlogisticated air; the phlogisteans said it was iron deprived of its phlogiston. Here was surely an opportunity for a crucial experiment: when calx of iron is heated with carbon, and iron is produced, there must either be a production of fixed air (which is a non-inflammable gas, and forms a white solid substance when brought into contact with limewater), or there must be an outrush of phlogiston from the carbon. The experiment was tried: a gas was produced which had no action on limewater and which was very inflammable; what could this be but phlogiston, already recognized by this very property of extreme inflammability? Thus the phlogisteans appeared to triumph. But if we examine these experiments made by Priestley with the light thrown on them by subsequent research, we find that they bear the interpretation which he put on them only because they were not accurate; thus, two gases are inflammable, but it by no means follows that these gases are one and the same. We must have more accurate knowledge of the properties of these gases.

The air around a burning body, such as iron, after a time loses the power of supporting combustion; but this is merely a qualitative fact. Accurately to trace the change in the properties of this air, it is absolutely necessary that exact measurements should be made; when this is done, we find that the volume of air diminishes during the combustion, that the burning body gains weight, and that this gain in weight is just equal to the loss in weight undergone by the air. When the inflammable gas produced by heating calx of iron with carbon was carefully and quantitatively analyzed, it was found to consist of carbon and oxygen (dephlogisticated air), but to contain these substances in a proportion different from that in which they existed in fixed air. It was a new kind of air or gas; it was not hydrogen.

This account of Priestley's experiments and conclusions regarding combustion shows how easy it is in natural science to interpret experimental results, especially when these results are not very accurate, in accordance with a favourite theory; and it also illustrates one of the lessons so emphatically taught by all scientific study, viz. the necessity of suspending one's judgment until accurate measurements have been made, and the great wisdom of then judging cautiously.

About 1779 Priestley left Lord Shelburne, and went as minister of a chapel to Birmingham, where he remained until 1791.

During his stay in Birmingham, Priestley had a considerable amount of pecuniary help from his friends. He had from Lord Shelburne, according to an agreement made when he entered his service, an annuity of £150 a year for life; some of his friends raised a sum of money annually for him, in order that he might be able to prosecute his researches without the necessity of taking pupils. During the ten years or so after he settled in Birmingham, Priestley did a great deal of chemical work, and made many discoveries, almost entirely in the field of pneumatic chemistry.

Besides the discovery of dephlogisticated air (or oxygen) which has been already described, Priestley discovered and gave some account of the properties of nitrous air (nitric acid), vitriolic acid air (sulphur dioxide), muriatic acid air (hydrochloric acid), and alkaline air (ammonia), etc.

In the course of his researches on the last-named air he showed, that when a succession of electric sparks is passed through this gas a great increase in the volume of the gas occurs. This fact was further examined at a later time by Berthollet, who, by measuring the increase in volume undergone by a measured quantity of ammonia gas, and determining the nature of the gases produced by the passage of the electric sparks, proved that ammonia is a compound of hydrogen and nitrogen, and that three volumes of the former gas combine with one volume of the latter to produce two volumes of ammonia gas.

Priestley's experiments on "inflammable air"—or hydrogen—are important and interesting. The existence of this substance as a definite kind of air had been proved by the accurate researches of Cavendish in 1766. Priestley drew attention to many actions in which this inflammable air is produced, chiefly to those which take place between acids and metals. He showed that inflammable air is not decomposed by electric sparks; but he thought that it was decomposed by long-continued heating in closed tubes made of lead-glass. Priestley regarded inflammable air as an air containing much phlogiston. He found that tubes of lead-glass, filled with this air, were blackened when strongly heated for a long time, and he explained this by saying that the lead in the glass had a great affinity for phlogiston, and drew it out of the inflammable air.

When inflammable air burns in a closed vessel containing common air, the latter after a time loses its property of supporting combustion. Priestley gave what appeared to be a fairly good explanation of this fact, when he said that the inflammable air parted with phlogiston, which, becoming mixed with the ordinary air in the vessel, rendered it unable to support the burning of a candle. He gave a few measurements in support of this explanation; but we now know that the method of analysis which he employed was quite untrustworthy.

Thinking that by measuring the extent to which the phlogistication (we would now say the deoxidation) of common air was carried by mixing measured quantities of common and inflammable airs and exploding this mixture, he might be able to determine the amount of phlogiston in a given volume of inflammable air, he mixed the two airs in glass tubes, through the sides of which he had cemented two pieces of wire, sealed the tubes, and exploded the mixture by passing electric sparks from wire to wire. The residual air now contained, according to Priestley, more phlogiston, and therefore relatively less dephlogisticated air than before the explosion. He made various measurements of the quantities of dephlogisticated air in the tubes, but without getting any constant results. He noticed that after the explosions the insides of the tubes were covered with moisture. At a later time he exploded a mixture of dephlogisticated and inflammable airs (oxygen and hydrogen) in a copper globe, and recorded the fact that after the explosion the globe contained a little water. Priestley was here apparently on the eve of a great discovery. "In looking for one thing," says Priestley, "I have generally found another, and sometimes a thing of much more value than that which I was in quest of." Had he performed the experiment of exploding dephlogisticated and inflammable airs with more care, and had he made sure that the airs used were quite dry before the explosion, he would probably have found a thing of indeed much more value than that of which he was in quest; he would probably have discovered the compound nature of water—a discovery which was made by Cavendish three or four years after these experiments described by Priestley.

Some very curious observations were made by Priestley regarding the colour of the gas obtained by heating "spirit of nitre" (i.e. nitric acid). He showed that a yellow gas or air is obtained by heating colourless liquid spirit of nitre in a sealed glass tube, and that as the heating is continued the colour of the gas gets darker, until it is finally very dark orange red. These experiments have found an explanation only in quite recent times.

Another discovery made by Priestley while in Birmingham, viz. that an acid is formed when electric sparks are passed through ordinary air for some time, led, in the hands of Cavendish—an experimenter who was as careful and deliberate as Priestley was rapid and careless—to the demonstration of the composition of nitric acid.

Many observations were made by Priestley on the effects of various airs on growing plants and living animals; indeed, one of his customary methods of testing different airs was to put a mouse into each and watch the effects of the air on its breathing. He grew sprigs of mint in common air, in dephlogisticated air (oxygen), and in phlogisticated air (nitrogen, but probably not pure); the sprig in the last-named air grew best, while that in the dephlogisticated air soon appeared sickly. He also showed that air which has been rendered "noxious" by the burning of a candle in it, or by respiration or putrefaction, could be restored to its original state by the action of growing plants. He thought that the air was in the first instance rendered noxious by being impregnated with phlogiston, and that the plant restored the air by removing this phlogiston. Thus Priestley distinctly showed that (to use his own words) "it is very probable that the injury which is continually done to the atmosphere by the respiration of such a number of animals as breathe it, and the putrefaction of such vast masses, both of vegetable and animal substances, exposed to it, is, in part at least, repaired by the vegetable creation." But from want of quantitative experiments he failed to give any just explanation of the process whereby this "reparation" is accomplished.

During his stay in Birmingham, Priestley was busily engaged, as was his wont during life, in writing metaphysical and theological treatises and pamphlets.

At this time the minds of men in England were much excited by the events of the French Revolution, then being enacted before them. Priestley and some of his friends were known to sympathize with the French people in this great struggle, as they had been on the side of the Americans in the War of Independence. Priestley's political opinions had, in fact, always been more advanced than the average opinion of his age; by some he was regarded as a dangerous character. But if we read what he lays down as a fundamental proposition in the "Essay on the First Principles of Civil Government" (1768), we cannot surely find anything very startling.

"It must be understood, whether it be expressed or not, that all people live in society for their mutual advantage; so that the good and happiness of the members, that is the majority of the members of any state, is the great standard by which everything relating to that state must be finally determined. And though it may be supposed that a body of people may be bound by a voluntary resignation of all their rights to a single person, or to a few, it can never be supposed that the resignation is obligatory on their posterity, because it is manifestly contrary to the good of the whole that it should be so."

Priestley proposed many political reforms, but he was decidedly of opinion that these ought to be brought about gradually. He was in favour of abolishing all religious State establishments, and was a declared enemy to the Church of England. His controversies with the clergy of Birmingham helped to stir up a section of public opinion against him, and to bring about the condemnation of his writings in many parts of the country; he was also unfortunate in making an enemy of Mr. Burke, who spoke against him and his writings in the House of Commons.

In the year 1791, the day of the anniversary of the taking of the Bastille was celebrated by some of Priestley's friends in Birmingham. On that day a senseless mob, raising the cry of "Church and King," caused a riot in the town. Finding that they were not checked by those in authority, they after a time attacked and burned Dr. Priestley's meeting-house, and then destroyed his dwelling-house, and the houses of several other Dissenters in the town. One of his sons barely escaped with his life. He himself found it necessary to leave Birmingham for London, as he considered his life to be in danger. Many of his manuscripts, his library, and much of his apparatus were destroyed, and his house was burned.

A congregation at Hackney had the courage at this time to invite Priestley to become their minister. Here he remained for about three years, ministering to the congregation, and pursuing his chemical and other experiments with the help of apparatus and books which had been supplied by his friends, and by the expenditure of part of the sum, too small to cover his losses, given him by Government in consideration of the damage done to his property in the riots at Birmingham.

But finding himself more and more isolated and lonely, especially after the departure of his three sons to America, which occurred during these years, he at last resolved to follow them, and spend the remainder of his days in the New World. Although Priestley had been very badly treated by a considerable section of the English people, yet he left his native country "without any resentment or ill will." "When the time for reflection," he says, "shall come, my countrymen will, I am confident, do me more justice." He left England in 1795, and settled at Northumberland, in Pennsylvania, about a hundred and thirty miles north-west of Philadelphia. By the help of his friends in England he was enabled to build a house and establish a laboratory and a library; an income was also secured sufficient to maintain him in moderate comfort.

The chair of chemistry in the University of Philadelphia was offered to him, and he was also invited to the charge of a Unitarian chapel in New York; but he preferred to remain quietly at work in his laboratory and library, rather than again to enter into the noisy battle of life. In America he published several writings. Of his chemical discoveries made after leaving England, the most important was that an inflammable gas is obtained by heating metallic calces with carbon. The production of this gas was regarded by Priestley as an indisputable proof of the justness of the theory of phlogiston (see pp. 63, 64).

His health began to give way about 1801; gradually his strength declined, and in February 1804, the end came quietly and peacefully.

A list of the books and pamphlets published by Priestley on theological, metaphysical, philological, historical, educational and scientific subjects would fill several pages of this book. His industry was immense. To accomplish the vast amount of work which he did required the most careful outlay of time. In his "Memoirs," partly written by himself, he tells us that he inherited from his parents "a happy temperament of body and mind;" his father especially was always in good spirits, and "could have been happy in a workhouse." His paternal ancestors had, as a race, been healthy and long-lived. He was not himself robust as a youth, yet he was always able to study: "I have never found myself," he says, "less disposed or less qualified for mental exertion of any kind at one time of the day more than another; but all seasons have been equal to me, early or late, before dinner or after."

His peculiar evenness of disposition enabled him quickly to recover from the effects of any unpleasant occurrence; indeed, he assures us that "the most perfect satisfaction" often came a day or two after "an event that afflicted me the most, and without any change having taken place in the state of things."

Another circumstance which tended to make life easy to him was his fixed resolution, that in any controversy in which he might be engaged, he would frankly acknowledge every mistake he perceived himself to have fallen into.

Priestley's scientific work is marked by rapidity of execution. The different parts do not hang together well; we are presented with a brilliant series of discoveries, but we do not see the connecting strings of thought. We are not then astonished when he tells us that sometimes he forgot that he had made this or that experiment, and repeated what he had done weeks before. He says that he could not work in a hurry, and that he was therefore always methodical; but he adds that he sometimes blamed himself for "doing to-day what had better have been put off until to-morrow."

Many of his most startling discoveries were the results of chance operations, "not of themes worked out and applied." He was led to the discovery of oxygen, he says, by a succession of extraordinary accidents. But that he was able to take advantage of the chance observations, and from these to advance to definite facts, constitutes the essential difference between him and ordinary plodding investigators. Although he rarely, if ever, saw all the bearings of his own discoveries, although none of his experiments was accurately worked out to its conclusion, yet he did see, rapidly and as it appeared almost at one glance, something of their meanings, and this something was enough to urge him on to fresh experimental work.

Although we now condemn Priestley's theories as quite erroneous, yet we must admire his undaunted devotion to experiment. He was a true student of science in one essential point, viz. Nature was for him the first and the last court of appeal. He theorized and speculated much, he experimented rapidly and not accurately, but he was ever appealing to natural facts; and in doing this he could not but lay some foundation which should remain. The facts discovered by him are amongst the very corner-stones on which the building of chemical science was afterwards raised.

So enthusiastic was Priestley in the prosecution of his experiments, that when he began, he tells us, "I spent all the money I could possibly raise, carried on by my ardour in philosophical investigation, and entirely regardless of consequences, except so far as never to contract any debts." He seems all through his life to have been perfectly free from anxiety about money affairs.

Priestley's manner of work shows how kindly and genial he was. He trained himself to talk and think and write with his family by the fireside; "nothing but reading aloud, or speaking without interruption," was an obstruction to his work.

Priestley was just the man who was wanted in the early days of chemical science. By the vast number, variety and novelty of his experimental results, he astonished scientific men—he forcibly drew attention to the science in which he laboured so hard; by the brilliancy of some of his experiments he obliged chemists to admit that a new field of research was opened before them, and the instruments for the prosecution of this research were placed in their hands; and even by the unsatisfactoriness of his reasoning he drew attention to the difficulties and contradictions of the theories which then prevailed in chemistry.

That the work of Priestley should bear full fruit it was necessary that a greater than he should interpret it, and should render definite that which Priestley had but vaguely shown to exist.

The man who did this, and who in doing it really established chemistry as a science, was Lavoisier.

But before considering the work of Lavoisier, I should like to point out that many of the physical characters of common air had been clearly established in the later years of the seventeenth century by the Honourable Robert Boyle. In the "Sceptical Chymist," published in 1661, Mr. Boyle had established the fact that air is a material substance possessed of weight, that this air presses on the surface of all things, and that by removing part of the air in an enclosed space the pressure within that space is diminished. He had demonstrated that the boiling point of water is dependent on the pressure of the air on the surface of the water. Having boiled some water "a pretty while, that by the heat it might be freed from the latitant air," he placed the vessel containing the hot water within the receiver of an arrangement which he had invented for sucking air out of an enclosed space; as soon as he began to suck out air from this receiver, the water boiled "as if it had stood over a very quick fire.... Once, when the air had been drawn out, the liquor did, upon a single exsuction, boil so long with prodigiously vast bubbles, that the effervescence lasted almost as long as was requisite for the rehearsing of a Pater noster." Boyle had gone further than the qualitative fact that the volume of an enclosed quantity of air alters with changes in the pressure to which that air is subjected; he had shown by simple and accurate experiments that "the volume varies inversely as the pressure." He had established the generalization of so much importance in physical science now known as Boyle's law.

The work of the Honourable Henry Cavendish will be considered in some detail in the book on "The Physicists" belonging to this series, but I must here briefly allude to the results of his experiments on air published in the Philosophical Transactions for 1784 and 1785.

Cavendish held the ordinary view that when a metal burns in air, the air is thereby phlogisticated; but why is it, he asked, that the volume of air is decreased by this process? It was very generally said that fixed air was produced during the calcination of metals, and was absorbed by the calx. But Cavendish instituted a series of experiments which proved that no fixed air could be obtained from metallic calces. In 1766 inflammable air (hydrogen) was discovered by Cavendish; he now proved that when this air is exploded with dephlogisticated air (oxygen), water is produced. He showed that when these two airs are mixed in about the proportion of two volumes of hydrogen to one volume of oxygen, the greater part, if not the whole of the airs is condensed into water by the action of the electric spark. He then proceeded to prove by experiments that when common air is exploded with inflammable air water is likewise produced, and phlogisticated air (i.e. nitrogen) remains.

Priestley and Cavendish had thus distinctly established the existence of three kinds of air, viz. dephlogisticated air, phlogisticated air, and inflammable air. Cavendish had shown that when the last named is exploded with common air water is produced (which is composed of dephlogisticated and inflammable airs), and phlogisticated air remains. Common air had thus been proved to consist of these two—phlogisticated and dephlogisticated airs (nitrogen and oxygen). Applying these results to the phenomenon of the calcination of metals, Cavendish gave reasons for thinking that the metals act towards common air in a manner analogous to that in which inflammable air acts—that they withdraw dephlogisticated and leave phlogisticated air; but, as he was a supporter of the phlogistic theory, he rather preferred to say that the burning metals withdraw dephlogisticated air and phlogisticate that which remains; in other words, while admitting that a metal in the process of burning gains dephlogisticated air, he still thought that the metal also loses something; viz. phlogiston.

That Cavendish in 1783-84 had proved air to consist of two distinct gases, and water to be produced by the union of two gases, must be remembered as we proceed with the story of the discoveries of Lavoisier.

Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, born in Paris in 1743, was the son of a wealthy merchant, who, judging from his friendship with many of the men of science of that day, was probably of a scientific bent of mind, and who certainly showed that he was a man of sense by giving his son the best education which he could obtain. After studying in the Mazarin College, Lavoisier entered on a course of training in physical, astronomical, botanical and chemical science. The effects of this training in the accurate methods of physics are apparent in the chemical researches of Lavoisier.

At the age of twenty-one Lavoisier wrote a memoir which gained the prize offered by the French Government for the best and most economical method of lighting the streets of a large city. While making experiments, the results of which were detailed in this paper, Lavoisier lived for six weeks in rooms lighted only by artificial light, in order that his eyesight might become accustomed to small differences in the intensities of light from various sources. When he was twenty-five years old Lavoisier was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences. During the next six years (1768-1774) he published various papers, some on chemical, some on geological, and some on mathematical subjects. Indeed at this time, although an ardent cultivator of natural science, he appears to have been undecided as to which branch of science he should devote his strength.

The accuracy and thoroughness of Lavoisier's work, and the acuteness of his reasoning powers, are admirably illustrated in two papers, published in the Memoirs of the Academy for 1770, on the alleged conversion of water into earth.

When water is boiled for a long time in a glass vessel a considerable quantity of white siliceous earth is found in the vessel. This apparent conversion or transmutation of water into earthy matter was quite in keeping with the doctrines which had been handed down from the times of the alchemists; the experiment was generally regarded as conclusively proving the possibility of changing water into earth. Lavoisier found that after heating water for a hundred and one days in a closed and weighed glass vessel, there was no change in the total weight of the vessel and its contents; when he poured out the water and evaporated it to dryness, he obtained 20.4 grains of solid earthy matter; but he also found, what had been before overlooked, that the glass vessel had lost weight. The actual loss amounted to 17.4 grains. The difference between this and the weight of the earthy matter in the water, viz. three grains, was set down (and as we now know justly set down) by Lavoisier to errors of experiment. Lavoisier therefore concluded that water, when boiled, is not changed into earth, but that a portion of the earthy matter of which glass is composed is dissolved by the water. This conclusion was afterwards confirmed by the Swedish chemist Scheele, who proved that the composition of the earthy matter found in the water is identical with that of some of the constituents of glass.

By this experiment Lavoisier proved the old alchemical notion of transmutation to be erroneous; he showed that water is not transmuted into earth, but that each of these substances is possessed of definite properties which belong to it and to it only. He established the all-important generalization—which subsequent research has more amply confirmed, until it is to-day accepted as the very foundation of every branch of physical science—that in no process of change is there any alteration in the total mass of matter taking part in that change. The glass vessel in which Lavoisier boiled water for so many days lost weight; but the matter lost by the glass was found dissolved in the water.

We know that this generalization holds good in all chemical changes. Solid sulphur may be converted into liquid oil of vitriol, but it is only by the sulphur combining with other kinds of matter; the weight of oil of vitriol produced is always exactly equal to the sum of the weights of the sulphur, hydrogen and oxygen which have combined to form it. The colourless gases, hydrogen and oxygen, combine, and the limpid liquid water is the result; but the weight of the water produced is equal to the sum of the weights of hydrogen and oxygen which combined together. It is impossible to overrate the importance of the principle of the conservation of mass, first definitely established by Lavoisier.

Some time about the year 1770 Lavoisier turned his attention seriously to chemical phenomena. In 1774 he published a volume entitled "Essays Physical and Chemical," wherein he gave an historical account of all that had been done on the subject of airs from the time of Paracelsus to the year 1774, and added an account of his own experiments, in which he had established the facts that a metal in burning absorbs air, and that when the metallic calx is reduced to metal by heating with charcoal, an air is produced of the same nature as the fixed air of Dr. Black.

In November 1772 Lavoisier deposited a sealed note in the hands of the Secretary to the Academy of Sciences. This note was opened on the 1st of May 1773, and found to run as follows[4]:—

In his paper "On the Calcination of Tin in Closed Vessels, and on the Cause of Increase of Weight acquired by the Metal during this Process" (published in 1774), we see and admire Lavoisier's manner of working. A weighed quantity (about half a pound) of tin was heated to melting in a glass retort, the beak of which was drawn out to a very small opening; the air within the retort having expanded, the opening was closed by melting the glass before the blowpipe. The weight of retort and tin was now noted; the tin was again heated to its melting point, and kept at this temperature as long as the process of calcination appeared to proceed; the retort and its contents were then allowed to cool and again weighed. No change was caused by the heating process in the total weight of the whole apparatus. The end of the retort beak was now broken off; air rushed in with a hissing sound. The retort and contents were again weighed, and the increase over the weight at the moment of sealing the retort was noted. The calcined tin in the retort was now collected and weighed. It was found that the increase in the weight of the tin was equal to the weight of the air which rushed into the retort. Hence Lavoisier concluded that the calcination of tin was accompanied by an absorption of air, and that the difference between the weights of the tin and the calx of tin was equal to the weight of air absorbed; but he states that probably only a part of the air had combined with the tin, and that hence air is not a simple substance, but is composed of two or more constituents.

Between the date of this publication and that of Lavoisier's next paper on combustion we know that Priestley visited Paris. In his last work, "The Doctrine of Phlogiston established" (published in 1800), Priestley says, "Having made the discovery of dephlogisticated air some time before I was in Paris in 1774, I mentioned it at the table of Mr. Lavoisier, when most of the philosophical people in the city were present; saying that it was a kind of air in which a candle burned much better than in common air, but I had not then given it any name. At this all the company, and Mr. and Mrs. Lavoisier as much as any, expressed great surprise. I told them that I had got it from precipitatum per se, and also from red lead."

In 1775 Lavoisier's paper, "On the Nature of the Principle which combines with the Metals during their Calcination, and which augments their Weight," was read before the Academy. The preparation and properties of an air obtained, in November 1774, from red precipitate are described, but Priestley's name is not mentioned. It seems probable, however, that Lavoisier learned the existence and the mode of preparation of this air from Priestley;[5] but we have seen that even in 1779 Priestley was quite in the dark as to the true nature of the air discovered by him (p. 60).

In papers published in the next three or four years Lavoisier gradually defined and more thoroughly explained the phenomenon of combustion. He burned phosphorus in a confined volume of air, and found that about one-fourth of the air disappeared, that the residual portion of air was unable to support combustion or to sustain animal life, that the phosphorus was converted into a white substance deposited on the sides of the vessel in which the experiment was performed, and that for each grain of phosphorus used about two and a half grains of this white solid were obtained. He further described the properties of the substance produced by burning phosphorus, gave it the name of phosphoric acid, and described some of the substances formed by combining it with various bases.

The burning of candles in air was about this time studied by Lavoisier. He regarded his experiments as proving that the air which remained after burning a candle, and in which animal life could not be sustained, was really present before the burning; that common air consisted of about one-fourth part of dephlogisticated air and three-fourths of azotic air (i.e. air incapable of sustaining life); and that the burning candle simply combined with, and so removed the former of these, and at the same time produced more or less fixed air.

In his treatise on chemistry Lavoisier describes more fully his proof that the calcination of a metal consists in the removal, by the metal, of dephlogisticated air (or oxygen) from the atmosphere, and that the metallic calx is simply a compound of metal and oxygen. The experiments are strictly quantitative and are thoroughly conclusive. He placed four ounces of pure mercury in a glass balloon, the neck of which dipped beneath the surface of mercury in a glass dish, and then passed a little way up into a jar containing fifty cubic inches of air, and standing in the mercury in the dish. There was thus free communication between the air in the balloon and that in the glass jar, but no communication between the air inside and that outside the whole apparatus. The mercury in the balloon was heated nearly to its boiling point for twelve days, during which time red-coloured specks gradually formed on the surface of the metal; at the end of this time it was found that the air in the glass jar measured between forty-two and forty-three cubic inches. The red specks when collected amounted to forty-five grains; they were heated in a very small retort connected with a graduated glass cylinder containing mercury. Between seven and eight cubic inches of pure dephlogisticated air (oxygen) were obtained in this cylinder, and forty-one and a half grains of metallic mercury remained when the decomposition of the red substance was completed.

The conclusion drawn by Lavoisier from these experiments was that mercury, when heated nearly to boiling in contact with air, withdraws oxygen from the air and combines with this gas to form red precipitate, and that when the red precipitate which has been thus formed is strongly heated, it parts with the whole of its oxygen, and is changed back again into metallic mercury.

Lavoisier had now (1777-78) proved that the calces of mercury, tin and lead are compounds of these metals with oxygen; and that the oxygen is obtained from the atmosphere when the metal burns. But the phlogistic chemistry was not yet overthrown. We have seen that the upholders of phlogiston believed that in the inflammable air of Cavendish they had at last succeeded in obtaining the long-sought-for phlogiston. Now they triumphantly asked, Why, when metals dissolve in diluted vitriolic or muriatic acid with evolution of inflammable air, are calces of these metals produced? And they answered as triumphantly, Because these metals lose phlogiston by this process, and we know that a calx is a metal deprived of its phlogiston.

Lavoisier contented himself with observing that a metallic calx always weighed more than the metal from which it was produced; and that as inflammable air, although much lighter than common air, was distinctly possessed of weight, it was not possible that a metallic calx could be metal deprived of inflammable air. He had given a simple explanation of the process of calcination, and had proved, by accurate experiments, that this explanation was certainly true in some cases. Although all the known facts about solution of metals in acids could not as yet be brought within his explanation, yet none of these facts was absolutely contradictory of that explanation. He was content to wait for further knowledge. And to gain this further knowledge he set about devising and performing new experiments. The upholders of the theory of phlogiston laid considerable stress on the fact that metals are produced by heating metallic calces in inflammable air; the air is absorbed, they said, and so the metal is reproduced. It was obviously of the utmost importance that Lavoisier should learn more about this inflammable air, and especially that he should know exactly what happened when this air was burned. He therefore prepared to burn a large quantity of inflammable air, arranging the experiment so that he should be able to collect and examine the product of this burning, whatever should be the nature of that product. But at this time the news was brought to Paris that Cavendish had obtained water by burning mixtures of inflammable and dephlogisticated airs. This must have been a most exciting announcement to Lavoisier; he saw how much depended on the accuracy of this statement, and as a true student of Nature, he at once set about to prove or disprove it. On the 24th of June 1783, in the presence of the King and several notabilities (including Sir Charles Blagden, Secretary of the Royal Society, who had told Lavoisier of the experiments of Cavendish), Lavoisier and Laplace burned inflammable and dephlogisticated airs, and obtained water. As the result of these experiments they determined that one volume of dephlogisticated air combines with 1.91 volumes of inflammable air to form water.

A little later Lavoisier completed the proof of the composition of water by showing that when steam is passed through a tube containing iron filings kept red hot, inflammable air is evolved and calx of iron remains in the tube.

Lavoisier could now explain the conversion of a metallic calx into metal by the action of inflammable air; this air decomposes the calx—that is, the metallic oxide—combines with its oxygen to form water, and so the metal is produced.

When a metal is dissolved in diluted vitriolic or muriatic acid a calx is formed, because, according to Lavoisier, the water present is decomposed by the metal, inflammable air is evolved, and the dephlogisticated air of the water combines with the metal forming a calx, which then dissolves in the acid.

Lavoisier now studied the properties of the compounds produced by burning phosphorus, sulphur and carbon in dephlogisticated air. He found that solutions of these compounds in water had a more or less sour taste and turned certain blue colouring matters red; but these were the properties regarded as especially belonging to acids. These products of combustion in dephlogisticated air were therefore acids; but as phosphorus, carbon and sulphur were not themselves acids, the acid character of the substances obtained by burning these bodies in dephlogisticated air must be due to the presence in them of this air. Hence Lavoisier concluded that this air is the substance the presence of which in a compound confers acid properties on that compound. This view of the action of dephlogisticated air he perpetuated in the name "oxygen" (from Greek, = acid-producer), which he gave to dephlogisticated air, and by which name this gas has ever since been known.

Priestley was of opinion that the atmosphere is rendered noxious by the breathing of animals, because it is thereby much phlogisticated, and he thought that his experiments rendered it very probable that plants are able to purify this noxious air by taking away phlogiston from it (see p. 69). But Lavoisier was now able to give a much more definite account of the effects on the atmosphere of animal and vegetable life. He had already shown that ordinary air contains oxygen and azote (nitrogen), and that the former is alone concerned in the process of combustion. He was now able to show that animals during respiration draw in air into their lungs: that a portion of the oxygen is there combined with carbon to form carbonic acid gas (as the fixed air of Black was now generally called), which is again expired along with unaltered azote. Respiration was thus proved to be a process chemically analogous to that of calcination.

Thus, about the year 1784-85, the theory of phlogiston appeared to be quite overthrown. The arguments of its upholders, after this time, were not founded on facts; they consisted of fanciful interpretations of crudely performed experiments. Cavendish was the only opponent to be dreaded by the supporters of the new chemistry. But we have seen that although Cavendish retained the language of the phlogistic theory (see pp. 78, 79) as in his opinion equally applicable to the facts of combustion with that of the new or Lavoisierian theory, he nevertheless practically admitted the essential point of the latter, viz. that calces are compounds of metal and oxygen (or dephlogisticated air). Although Cavendish was the first to show that water is produced when the two gases hydrogen and oxygen are exploded together, it would yet appear that he did not fully grasp the fact that water is a compound of these two gases; it was left to Lavoisier to give a clear statement of this all-important fact, and thus to remove the last prop from under the now tottering, but once stately edifice built by Stahl and his successors.

The explanation given by Lavoisier of combustion was to a great extent based on a conception of element and compound very different from that of the older chemists. In the "Sceptical Chymist" (1661) Boyle had argued strongly against the doctrine of the four "elementary principles," earth, air, fire and water, as held by the "vulgar chymists." The existence of these principles, or some of them, in every compound substance was firmly held by most chemists in Boyle's time. They argued thus: when a piece of green wood bums, the existence in the wood of the principle of fire is made evident by the flame, of the principle of air by the smoke which ascends, of that of water by the hissing and boiling sound, and of the principle of earth by the ashes which remain when the burning is finished.[6]

Boyle combated the inference that because a flame is visible round the burning wood, and a light air or smoke ascends from it, therefore these principles were contained in the wood before combustion began. He tried to prove by experiments that one substance may be obtained from another in which the first substance did not already exist; thus, he heated water for a year in a closed glass vessel, and obtained solid particles heavier than, and as he supposed formed from, the water. We have already learned the true interpretation of this experiment from the work of Lavoisier. Boyle grew various vegetables in water only, and thought that he had thus changed water into solid vegetable matter. He tells travellers' tales of the growth of pieces of iron and other metals in the earth or while kept in underground cellars.

We now know how erroneous in most points this reasoning was, but we must admit that Boyle established one point most satisfactorily, viz. that because earth, or air, or fire, or water is obtained by heating or otherwise decomposing a substance, it does not necessarily follow that the earth, or air, or fire, or water existed as such in the original substance. He overthrew the doctrine of elementary principles held by the "vulgar chymists." Defining elements as "certain primitive and simple bodies which, not being made of any other bodies, or of one another, are the ingredients of which all those called perfectly mixt bodies are immediately compounded, and into which they are ultimately resolved," Boyle admitted the possible existence, but thought that the facts known at his time did not warrant the assertion of the certain existence, of such "elements." The work of Hooke and Mayow on combustion tended to strengthen this definition of "element" given by Boyle.

Black, as we have seen, clearly proved that certain chemical substances were possessed of definite and unvarying composition and properties; and Lavoisier, indirectly by his explanation of combustion, and directly in his "Treatise on Chemistry", laid down the definition of "element" which is now universally adopted.

An element is a substance from which no simpler forms of matter—that is, no forms of matter each weighing less than the original substance—have as yet been obtained.

In the decade 1774-1784 chemical science was thus established on a sure foundation by Lavoisier. Like most great builders, whether of physical or mental structures, he used the materials gathered by those who came before him, but the merit of arranging these materials into a well-laid foundation, on which the future building might firmly rest, is due to him alone.

The value of Lavoisier's work now began to be recognized by his fellow-chemists in France. In 1785 Berthollet, one of the most rising of the younger French chemists, declared himself a convert to the views of Lavoisier on combustion. Fourcroy, another member of the Academy, soon followed the example of Berthollet. Fourcroy, knowing the weakness of his countrymen, saw that if the new views could be made to appear as especially the views of Frenchmen, the victory would be won; he therefore gave to the theory of Lavoisier the name "La chimie Française". Although this name was obviously unfair to Lavoisier, it nevertheless caused the antiphlogistic theory to be identified with the French chemists, and succeeded in impressing the French public generally with the idea that to hold to the old theory was to be a traitor to the glory of one's country. M. de Morveau, who held a prominent place both in politics and science, was invited to Paris, and before long was persuaded to embrace the new theory. This conversion—for "the whole matter was managed as if it had been a political intrigue rather than a philosophical inquiry"—was of great importance to Lavoisier and his friends. M. de Morveau was editor of the chemical part of the "Encyclopédie Méthodique;" in that part of this work which had appeared before 1784 De Morveau had skilfully opposed the opinions of Lavoisier, but in the second part of the work he introduced an advertisement announcing the change in his opinions on the subject of combustion, and giving his reasons for this change.

The importance of having a definite language in every science is apparent at each step of advance. Lavoisier found great difficulty in making his opinions clear because he was obliged to use a language which had been introduced by the phlogistic chemists, and which bore the impress of that theory on most of its terms. About the years 1785-1787, Lavoisier, Berthollet, Fourcroy and De Morveau drew up a new system of chemical nomenclature. The fundamental principles of that system have remained as those of every nomenclature since proposed. They are briefly these:—

An element is a substance from which no form of matter simpler than itself has as yet been obtained.

Every substance is to be regarded as an element until it is proved to be otherwise.

The name of every compound is to tell of what elements the substance is composed, and it is to express as far as possible the relative amounts of the elements which go to form the compound.

Thus the compounds of oxygen with any other element were called oxides, e.g. iron oxide, mercury oxide, tin oxide, etc. When two oxides of iron came to be known, one containing more oxygen relatively to the amount of iron present than the other, that with the greater quantity of oxygen was called iron peroxide, and that with the smaller quantity iron protoxide.

We now generally prefer to use the name of the element other than oxygen in adjectival form, and to indicate the relatively smaller or greater quantity of oxygen present by modifications in the termination of this adjective. Thus iron protoxide is now generally known as ferrous oxide, and iron peroxide as ferric oxide. But the principles laid down by the four French chemists in 1785-1787 remain as the groundwork of our present system of nomenclature.

The antiphlogistic theory was soon adopted by all French chemists of note. We have already seen that Black, with his usual candour and openness to conviction, adopted and taught this theory, and we are assured by Dr. Thomas Thomson that when he attended Black's classes, nine years after the publication of the French system of nomenclature, that system was in general use among the chemical students of the university. The older theory was naturally upheld by the countrymen of the distinguished Stahl after it had been given up in France. In the year 1792 Klaproth, who was then Professor of Chemistry in Berlin, proposed to the Berlin Academy of Sciences to repeat the more important experiments on which the Lavoisierian theory rested, before the Academy. His offer was accepted, and from that time most of the Berlin chemists declared themselves in favour of the new theory.

By the close of last century the teaching of Lavoisier regarding combustion found almost universal assent among chemists. But this teaching carried with it, as necessary parts, the fundamental distinction between element and compound; the denial of the existence of "principles" or "essences;" the recognition of the study of actually occurring reactions between substances as the basis on which all true chemical knowledge was to be built; and the full acknowledgment of the fact that matter is neither created nor destroyed, but only changed as to its form, in any chemical reaction.

Of Lavoisier's other work I can only mention the paper on "Specific Heats" contributed by Laplace and Lavoisier to the Memoirs of the Academy for 1780. In this paper is described the ice calorimeter, whereby the amount of heat given out by a substance in cooling from one definite temperature to another is determined, by measuring the amount of ice converted into water by the heated substance in cooling through the stated interval of temperature. The specific heats of various substances, e.g. iron, glass, mercury, quicklime, etc., were determined by the help of this instrument.

As we read the record of work done by Lavoisier during the years between 1774 and 1794—work which must have involved a great amount of concentrated thought as well as the expenditure of much time—we find it hard to realize that the most tremendous political and social revolution which the modern world has seen was raging around him during this time.

In the earlier days of the French Revolution, and in the time immediately preceding that movement, many minds had been stirred to see the importance of the study of Nature; but it was impossible that natural science should continue to flourish when the tyrant Robespierre had begun the Reign of Terror.

The roll of those who perished during this time contains no more illustrious name than that of Antoine Laurent Lavoisier. In the year 1794 Lavoisier, who had for some time acted as a fermier-général under the Government, was accused of mixing with the tobacco "water and other ingredients hurtful to the health of the citizens." On this pretext he and some of his colleagues were condemned to death. For some days Lavoisier found a hiding-place among his friends, but hearing that his colleagues had been arrested, he delivered himself up to the authorities, only asking that the death sentence should not be executed until he had completed the research in which he was engaged; "not" that he was "unwilling to part with life," but because he thought the results would be "for the good of humanity."

"The Republic has no need of chemists; the course of justice cannot be suspended," was the reply.

On the 8th of May 1794, the guillotine did its work; and in his fifty-first year Lavoisier "joined the majority." To the honour of the Academy of which he was so illustrious a member it is recorded that a deputation of his fellow-workers in science, braving the wrath of Robespierre, penetrated to the dungeons of the prison and placed a wreath on the grave of their comrade.

The period of the infancy of chemical science which I have now briefly described is broadly contemporaneous with the second half of the eighteenth century.

At this time the minds of men were greatly stirred. Opinions and beliefs consecrated by the assent of generations of men were questioned or denied; the pretensions of civil and ecclesiastical authorities were withstood; assertions however strongly made, and by whatever authority supported, were met by demands for reasons. In France this revolt against mere authority was especially marked. Led by the great thinker Voltaire, the French philosophers attacked the generally accepted views in moral, theological and historical matters. A little later they began to turn with eager attention and hope to the facts of external Nature. Physical science was cultivated with wonderful vigour and with surprising success.

In the sciences of heat and light we have at this time the all-important works of Fourier, Prévost and Fresnel; in geology and natural history we have Buffon and Cuvier; the name of Bichat marks the beginning of biological science, and chemistry takes rank as a science only from the time of Lavoisier.

From the philosophers an interest in natural science spread through the mass of the people. About the year 1870 the lecture-rooms of the great teachers of chemistry, astronomy, electricity, and even anatomy were crowded with ladies and gentlemen of fashion in the French capital. A similar state of matters was noticeable in this country. Dr. Black's lecture theatre was filled by an audience which comprised many young men of good position. To know something of chemistry became an essential part of the training of all who desired to be liberally educated.

The secrets of Nature were now rapidly explored; astonishing advances were made, and as a matter of course much opposition was raised.

In this active, inquiring atmosphere the young science of chemistry grew towards maturity.

Priestley, ever seeking for new facts, announcing discovery after discovery, attacking popular belief in most matters, yet satisfied to interpret his scientific discoveries in terms of the hypothesis with which he was most familiar, was the pioneer of the advancing science. He may be compared to the advance-guard sent forward by the explorers of a new country with orders to clear a way for the main body: his work was not to level the rough parts of the way, or to fill in the miry places with well-laid metal, but rather rapidly to make a road as far into the heart of the country as possible.

And we have seen how well he did the work. In his discovery of various kinds of airs, notably of oxygen, he laid the basis of the great generalizations of Lavoisier, and, what was perhaps of even more importance, he introduced a new method into chemistry. He showed the existence of a new and unexplored region. Before his time, Hooke and Mayow had proved the existence of more than one kind of air, but the chemistry of gases arose with the discoveries of Priestley.

Although Black's chief research, on fixed air and on latent heat, was completed fifteen or twenty years before Priestley's discovery of oxygen, yet the kind of work done by Black, and its influence on chemical science, mark him as coming after Priestley in order of development. We have seen that the work of Black was characterized by thoroughness and suggestiveness. The largeness of scope, the breadth of view, of this great philosopher are best illustrated in his discourses on heat; he there leads us with him in his survey of the domain of Nature, and although he tells us that hypotheses are a "mere waste of time," we find that it is by the strength of his imagination that he commands assent. But he never allows the imagination to degenerate into fanciful guesses; he vigorously tests the fundamental facts of his theory, and then he uses the imagination in developing the necessary consequences of these facts.

To Black we owe not only the first rigorously accurate chemical investigation, but also the establishment of just ideas concerning the nature of heat.

But Lavoisier came before us as a greater than either Priestley or Black. To great accuracy and great breadth of view he added wonderful power of generalizing; with these, aided by marked mental activity and, on the whole, favourable external circumstances, he was able finally to overthrow the loose opinions regarding combustion and elementary principles which prevailed before his time, and so to establish chemistry as one of the natural sciences.

At the close of the first period of advance we find that the sphere of chemistry has been defined; that the object of the science has been laid down, as being to find an explanation of the remarkable changes noticed in the properties of bodies; that as a first step towards the wished-for explanation, all material substances have been divided by the chemist into elements and compounds; that an element has been defined as any kind of matter from a given weight of which no simpler forms of matter—that is, no kinds of matter each weighing less than the original matter—have as yet been obtained; that the great principle of the indestructibility of matter has been established, viz. that however the properties of matter may be altered, yet the total mass (or quantity) remains unchanged; and lastly, we find that an explanation of one important class of chemical changes—those changes which occur when substances burn—has been found.

And we have also learned that the method by which these results were obtained was this—to go to Nature, to observe and experiment accurately, to consider carefully the results of these experiments, and so to form a general hypothesis; by the use of the mental powers, and notably by the use of the imagination, to develop the necessary deductions from this hypothesis; and finally, to try these deductions by again inquiring from Nature "whether these things were so."

Before the time which we have been considering the paths of chemical science had scarcely yet been trodden. Each discovery was full of promise, each advance displayed the possibility of further progress; the atmosphere was filled as with "a mighty rushing wind" ready to sweep away the old order of things. The age was an age of doubt and of freedom from the trammels of authority; it was a time eminently suited for making advances in natural knowledge.

In the unceasing activity of Priestley and Lavoisier we may trace the influence of the restlessness of the age; but in the quietness and strength of the best work of these men, and notably in the work of Black; in the calmness with which Priestley bore his misfortunes at Birmingham; in the noble words of Lavoisier, "I am not unwilling to part with life, but I ask time to finish my experiments, because the results will, I believe, be for the good of humanity"—we see the truth of the assertion made by one who was himself a faithful student of Nature—