it appears, then, from the irrefragable testimony of dates, that a very great proportion of thre chemical facts and theories ascribed to Lavoisier, is not his. The nature of carbonic acid; the acquisition of weight by metals during calcination; the nature of the atmosphere; the composition and analysis of water; the whole theory of caloric, were well known, before he had ever written upon these subjects. Yet these are the great fundamental points upon which the chemical theory of the last century chiefly rests; and every one of these is English. The just claims and merits of Lavoisier are the following, and no more. 1st, He proved the diamond to be charcoal; but he was mistaken in supposing those two substances to be identical. Besides, this is a mere insulated fact, very interesting, it is true, with regard to those two substances, but wholly independent of any general theory. 2d, From the experiments of Priestley, in which nitrous gas was evolved from nitric acid, and nitric acid again formed when nitrous gas was mixed with oxygen, he drew the obvious conclusion, that nitric acid was composed of nitrous gas and oxygen. 3d, He overthrew the influence of phlogiston in chemical phenomena, and ascribed to the new substances, and their combinations, the effects which had till then been attributed to an imaginary agent. 4th, He united in one single work the experiments and deductions of others, with so much. order and perspicuity, that his Elements of Chemistry' will ever remain a model of logical composition, whatever be the modifications which the science may undergo. 5th, He devised many new and ingenious experiments; he diversified those which had before been executed; he imagined some new instruments, the whole with great sagacity; and he was indefatigable in the pursuit of science. His assumption of oxygen, however, as the universal acidifying principle, has been proved to be erroneous. It was, indeed, admitted too lightly, and in despite of too many contradictions then known, and to which further experiments have added many more; and it is remarkable, that the only branch of the general system really appertaining to Lavoisier is now fast mouldering into dust; while all that has been devised by our own great countrymen is daily growing to greater strength and solidity.

Until Lavoisier had become acquainted with the new truths elicited in Britain, he had given no earnest of his future fame, though surely of an age to show much more than promise. Then, indeed, his mind was fired, and his intellect, or his ambition, expanded. In original experiment he always remained inferior to Black, Cavendish, Priestley, and many others. In powers of induction Black was his superior, and much more so

Cavendish; and we think we are acting with great liberality, nay with tenderness to his past fame, when, taking an average of fact and theory, we admit that the labours of any one of the three British philosophers above named, have contributed much more to the progress of Chemistry, than all the experiments and conclusions of Lavoisier taken together; and consequently, that more than three-fourths of that science, in its modern state, are British, and one-fourth is his. We have dilated upon this subject, because it is recent, striking, and characteristic of both nations; the one of which is always encroaching, and the other too indifferent to fame. At least, it may help to make them better known to each other, and to the world.

Among the last surviving contemporaries of Lavoisier is Mr Berthollet, a native of Savoy, but claimed by the French; and who has added more philosophical investigations to the science, than any of his adopting countrymen, during near thirty years; and who is not less distinguished by his talent, than by the candour and rectitude with which he champions scientific justice.

The discoveries which of late years threaten the subversion of the chemical system, falsely called Lavoisier's, have altogether originated in Britain; and any claim the French may urge, except that of having repeated, confirmed, and slightly modified them, is unfounded. Those discoveries are owing principally to a more powerful engine than was before possessed; and to the brilliant imagination of Sir H. Davy, who has most successfully wielded it. We will not enter into the details of recent chemistry; but we confidently state that, most particularly in the philosophy of the science, Britain could produce a living list, twice as long as that of France, and of equally celebrated names. The atomic theory, the union of elements in definite proportions, expressible in integral numbers to form compound bodies, is a discovery wholly British.

This rapid sketch, which the unceasing assertion of the French, that they are the most scientific of nations, has induced us to give, and which we consider not as complete, but as just, must make the scientific superiority of Britain undoubted. But what is still more gratifying, is, that our preeminence is greatest, and most indisputable, precisely in those branches of science which demand the highest powers of intellect, as well as in those whose applications are the most valuable to society-mathematics (excepting the present moment); astronomy; natural philosophy; medicine; consulting, and, at present, operative surgery-and chemistry;-while the French can pretend to rivality in those branches only which depend upon a smaller portion of less powerful mind. The grand combinations all are

ours-moral, intellectual and physical; and at this day, as two thousand years ago, we merit the preference which one of the ablest of the Romans, Agricola, as reported by his own son-inlaw, Tacitus, gave to British genius, over that of the Gauls.

We must now proceed to our second charge, the little diffusion of knowledge in France.

of

The ruling passion of the French nation, that to which they perpetually sacrifice, is always to appear to advantage; and, unfortunately for themselves, they too generally bound their views to the attainment of this single end. But, while the inordinate desire to dazzle and to captivate is militating against their true happiness and well-being, it answers the purpose seducing unsuspecting nations into an opinion of their superiority. Thus it is that the splendour and brilliancy with which they have contrived to surround the knowledge of a few, has very generally diffused the belief, that the nation at large is particularly scientific and instructed. But, to judge soundly, it must be remembered, that, in France, glory is the condiment to the whole feast of life; and that the trumpet of fame is that which makes the sweetest music to their ears. Science,

in the hands of the French, is like every thing else. It fills a page of history, and adorns their tale. But, for this end, there is no necessity that it should be general. A legion of well-informed men, but who make no discoveries, does not cut such a figure in the world as a single hero of the crucible, who forces nature in her entrenchments. We do not wish to depreciate either state of knowledge, for we rejoice to find it upon any terms; but we do think, that one thousand persons of moderate general instruction form a better, a wiser, and a happier community, than nine hundred and ninety-nine ignorant, and one discoverer. Nay more, it is probable, that, among one thousand persons of moderate general instruction, there will be more discoveries, than among ten, or twenty, or twice twenty, of the deeply learned.

The disparity between the learned and the unlearned, in France, is greater than in any other part of Europe; and forms one of the striking and characteristic features of that vivacious nation. In the countries which may be considered as her rivals in science, England, for instance, and many parts of Germany, plain homely instruction is much more general, and more knowledge is diffused throughout society; consequently, a shorter interval divides the two conditions. In other nations, on the contrary, as Italy, Spain, &c. in which general knowledge and instruction are not so common, the sciences are far from being on the same brilliant footing as that which they have maintained

in France for nearly one century; and no scientific eclat induces a belief that those nations are learned. There is not any thing extraordinary in this proportion of learning to ignorance, in France. A similar condition of intellect is exemplified, in other nations not European; and to a much greater extent than it can be supposed to exist in this quarter of the globe, where the general state of society approaches nearer to equality of every kind, as well among nations, as among individuals. The Arabs, for instance, who highly honoured certain shades of intellect, were, with the exception of a very few, a nation of slaves, plunderers and banditti; ignorant of law or of justice; incapable of good government; living, judging, preaching by the sword; without a tincture of morality, and with little knowledge of the human heart. The hundred poets who accompanied the Caliph Aroun-el-Raschid in his pilgrimage to Mecca, did less to civilize and enlighten their countrymen, than did the disciples of Fohi or Confucius, to prepare the future wisdom of China, though the hundred poets may have dazzled with a brighter lustre.

We have often heard it asserted, even by our own countrymen, that the French have a greater taste for science than the English. We know not where this opinion could have had its source, except it be in the modesty, the despondency, or the ignorance, of some splenetic travellers, who prided themselves upon doing what they conceived a great act of justice, and gaining a notable triumph over prejudice, by thus untruly setting a rival nation above their own. But we would recommend to all such, still to keep some corner of their conscience for plain and simple truth. The French have indeed a greater taste for the splendour and renown of science, a more ambitious feeling of its fame and glory, than we have; but a less adequate sentiment of its real value of the enjoyments it procures, and of the blessings it diffuses. In France, one great emporium has been established, one brilliant focus, into which the whole light of the nation has been collected. The most distinguished men, in every branch of science were at all times to be found in that learned body, which, by the publicity of its meetings in a capital where all is show, by assuming the forms of a deliberating assembly, a supreme judicial council over the state of science, not merely in France, but in Europe, has raised itself to a degree of notice and celebrity, which no other modern academy has aspired to possess, by the like means. But our Royal Society is not the only luninary for our learned world to gaze upon. There is nothing theatrical in its forms. Its sittings are short, cold and pithy. There is no discussing, no debating. Its long accu

mulated merits must be sought for in the volumes it has published; and, from a comparison established upon such grounds, it has nothing to apprehend from all the learned societies of Europe.

The Institute of France may be far more truly said to contain the essence of French science, than the Royal Society of London can be said to contain that of Britain. Its number is limited; and every vacancy is supposed to be filled by the next most deserving scavant of the nation. It professes at all times to select the most learned men of the whole country, and none other, for its members. But the Royal Society is free, and open. Any well-informed, independent gentleman-any respectable, scientific artist, without reckoning how many superiors in science they may have-may become a Fellow of it; and admission into it is not considered as indispensable to reputation. With the exception of those who stand at the very head of science, and who, in the Institute, as elsewhere, are comparatively few, it would be much easier to form a dozen Royal Societies in Britain, than a second Institute in France. We do, indeed, possess many men of great talent and learning, who never thought of becoming members of the Royal Society; and we have many societies, chartered and otherwise, for the promotion of knowledge, in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, and various other cities of the United Kingdoms, that have contributed, in no less a proportion, to advance the study of the sciences. But, out of the pale of the Institute, and those who aspire at its honours, there is infinitely little; and out of Paris, and its emanations, no science, or next to

none.

The organization and nature of these two eminent bodies, are in perfect conformity with the minds and habits of the respective countries. The Royal Society of London has all the characteristics of an association which grew, uncontrolled, out of the acquirements of a free and enlightened people; and a cordial meeting of independent men, whom a congeniality of tastes and pursuits had drawn together. The Academy of France bears too many marks of a society the formation of which was demanded, not so much by the knowledge already attained, as by the ambition of that which was in expectancy; and it was nursed in the hotbeds of despotic vanity, before general science was ripe enough to require its existence. In England, the study of Astronomy, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, occupied the place which duly belongs to them in the progress of learning; and did not engage the attention of men,. until long after other branches, more connected with their hap