losing my subject, 1 was too much indebted to him for much previous kindness to think of saying that that was mine which he said was his. But observe (for my sake) that Sir Humphry Davy nowhere states that he told me what he expected, or contradicts the passages in the first paper of mine which describe my course of thought, and in which I claim the development of the actual results.
All this activity in the condensing of gases was simultaneous with the electro-magnetic affair already referred to, and I had learned to be cautious upon points of right and priority. When therefore I discovered in the course of the same year that neither I nor Sir Humphry Davy had the merit of first condensing the gases, and especially chlorine, I hastened to perform what I thought right, and had great pleasure in spontaneously doing justice and honour to those who deserved it [1]. I therefore published on the 1st of January of the following year (1824), a historical statement respecting the liquefaction of gases[2], the beginning of which is as follows:—"I was not aware at the time when I first observed the liquefaction of chlorine gas, nor until very lately, that any of the class of bodies called gases had been reduced into the fluid form; but having during the last few weeks sought for instances where such results might have been afforded without the knowledge of the experimenter, I was surprised to find several recorded cases. I have thought it right, therefore, to bring these cases together, and only justice to endeavour to secure for them a more general attention than they appear as yet to have gained." Amongst other cases the liquefaction of chlorine is clearly described[3]. The value of this statement of mine has since been fully proved; for upon Mr. North more's complaint ten years after, with some degree of reason, that great injustice had been done to him in the affair of the condensation of gases, and his censure of the conduct of Sir H. Davy, Mr. Faraday, and several other philosophers for withholding the name of the first discoverer,"
- ↑ Monge and Clouet had condensed sulphurous acid probably before the year 1800. North more condensed chlorine in the years 1805 and 1806.
- ↑ See page 124
- ↑ See page 131.
elsewhere, he never says that he had informed me of his expectations. In this, Sir Humphry Davy's negative, and Dr. Paris's positive testimony perfectly agree.
