called, which concludes the subject, and which is dismissed in the brief limit of a page and a half. [p064] The second part of Dr. Turner’s work is said to comprise “Inorganic Chemistry,” and therefore embraces a very extensive field of inquiry. To the _arrangement_ we have already objected; and many of the typographical and verbal errors that occur, have been noticed in a contemporary Journal, so that we shall chiefly attend to the details of the sections. Under the head, “Affinity,” some of the leading facts and doctrines of chemical attraction are perspicuously set forth; but we could have wished that a variety of exploded opinions and erroneous notions had been altogether passed over, as they occupy space which might have been better employed, and can never prove of any other use to the student than to show him the errors and fallacies to which acute philosophers are sometimes liable. Of this kind, especially, are Berthollet’s notions upon the subject of affinity. The doctrine of definite proportion is, on the whole, well and clearly explained; but it would have been much better and clearer, had Dr. Turner confined himself to facts, and meddled less with opinions concerning their cause; he is moreover, in many respects, historically inaccurate. He ascribes much to Dalton that honestly belongs to Higgins;—is much too merciful to Berzelius and his CANONS; and lenient beyond all endurance to the plagiarisms of “Dr. Thomson’s admirable Treatise on the first Principles of Chemistry.”