“The conviction,” he said, “upon my mind is, that Mr. George Stephenson, of Killingworth Colliery, is the person who first discovered and applied the principle upon which safe lamps may be constructed; for whether the hydrogen gas is admitted through capillary tubes, or through the apertures of wire-gauze, which may be considered as merely the orifices of capillary tubes, does not, as I conceive, in the least affect the principle.” The opposition thus started very quickly gathered strength, and by appeals to local prejudice and to ignorance a degree of heat and even animosity was imported into the question, which served no other purpose than to confuse the true issue. At an adjourned meeting of the coal-owners held on October 11th, 1816, Mr. William Brandling moved-- “That the meeting do adjourn, until by a comparison of dates it shall be ascertained whether the merit of the safety lamp belongs to Sir Humphry Davy, or to Mr. George Stephenson.” Although Mr. Brandling failed to convince the meeting, it becomes necessary in the interests of truth and justice to examine the grounds upon which George Stephenson--a man of undoubted genius, and of an integrity as blameless as that of Davy, and who, as the pioneer of railway enterprise, subsequently acquired a fame as high and as deserved as that of the great chemist--has claims to be regarded as an inventor of the safety lamp. In equity, it must be admitted that the question is not merely a question of dates, for in assigning merit in a matter of this kind the calmer judgment of posterity is not wholly swayed by priority of date; it looks to circumstances, conditions, motives, and it apportions its meed of approbation accordingly. The glory of Priestley as an independent discoverer of oxygen is in nowise dimmed by the circumstance that Scheele is now known to have discovered it before him. It cannot be truthfully asserted that Davy was not an independent inventor of the safety lamp. What has to be determined is, has George Stephenson any such claim? Stephenson’s claim has been ably and temperately stated by Dr. Smiles in his biography of George Stephenson, in “The Lives of the Engineers,” but an unbiassed review of the evidence will convince most people that, however certain it may be that the Killingworth engine-tenter was an independent searcher after a method of protecting a flame, it is equally certain that he was not the discoverer of the true principle on which the safety lamp is constructed, and that the lamp associated with his name, although it bears the impress of the crude ideas with which he started, owes its real merit to the discoveries of Davy. This controversy and the feeling it gave rise to greatly exasperated Davy, and his anger is manifested in his letters at the time. The action of the Brandlings he seemed to think was inspired by the most unworthy motives. As to his rival, he says:--