It is impossible to pass over this subject without a comment. Lavoisier was unquestionably indebted to Dr. Black for the support, if not for the suggestion, of the most brilliant part of his theory of combustion; and yet he attempted even to conceal the name of the discoverer of _latent heat_. How far Lavoisier was really culpable, and whether he did not intend to do full justice to all the claims of his predecessors, cannot now be known; as he was cut off in the midst of his career, while so many of his scientific projects remained unexecuted. From the posthumous works of Lavoisier, there is some reason for believing that, if he had lived, he would have done justice to all parties; but there is no doubt that Dr. Black, in the mean time, thought himself aggrieved by the publication of several of Lavoisier's papers in the "Mémoires de l'Académie," and that he formed the intention of doing himself justice, by publishing an account of his own discoveries: this intention, however, was unfortunately thwarted and prevented by bad health. But to return to the subject of nomenclature. Sir H. Davy continues--"The new nomenclature was speedily adopted in France; under some modifications, it was received in Germany; and, after much discussion and opposition, it became the language of a new and rising generation of chemists in England. It materially assisted the diffusion of the anti-phlogistic doctrine, and even facilitated the general acquisition of the science; and many of its details were contrived with much address, and were worthy of its celebrated authors." On the general adoption of this new theory of chemistry, it must be admitted that its authors displayed an intemperate triumph wholly unworthy of them. They held a festival, at which Madame Lavoisier, in the habit of a priestess, burnt the works of Stahl on an altar erected for the occasion, while solemn music played a requiem to his departed system! Sir Humphry Davy, in speaking of the merits of Lavoisier, observes that "he must be regarded as one of the most sagacious of the chemical philosophers of the last century; indeed, except Cavendish, there is no other enquirer who can be compared to him for precision of logic, extent of view, and sagacity of induction. His discoveries are few, but he reasoned with extraordinary correctness upon the labours of others. He introduced weight and measure, and strict accuracy of manipulation into all chemical processes. His mind was unbiassed by prejudice; his combinations were of the most philosophical nature; and in his investigations upon ponderable substances, he has entered the true path of experiment with cautious steps, following just analogies, and measuring hypotheses by their simple relations to facts."