ety that he had executed other
experiments which corroborated those outlined in his first two papers,
adding--

Had the publication of your _Transactions_ been more frequent, I
should with much pleasure have submitted to the Society a full
account of these and other experiments which appear to me to
prove, that metals are compound substances, and that water has not
yet been decomposed by any process that we are acquainted with.
Still, however, I would not be very positive, as the contrary is
maintained by almost all the chemists of the age....

And thus he proceeds, ever doing interesting things, but blind to the
patent results because he had phlogiston constantly before him. He
looked everywhere for it, followed it blindly, and consequently
overlooked the facts regarded as most significant by his opponents,
which in the end led them to correct conclusions.

The experimental results in the second paper also admit of an
interpretation quite the opposite of that deduced by Priestley. He
confidently maintained that air was invariably generated from water,
because he discovered it and liberated it from water which he was
certain did not contain it in solution. He was conscientious in his
inferences. Deeply did his friends deplore his inability to see more
than a single interpretation of his results!

The papers were read before the American Philosophical Society on the
19th of February, 1796. Their author as they appear in print, is the
Rev. Dr. J. Priestley. It is doubtful whether he affixed this signature.
More probable is it that the Secretary of the Society was responsible,
and, because he thought of Priestley in the role of a Reverend gentleman
rather than as a scientific investigator.

Here, perhaps, it may be mentioned that the first, the very first
communication from Priestley's pen to the venerable Philosophical
Society, was read in 1784. It was presented by a friend--a Mr. W.
Vaughan, whose family in England were always the staunchest of
Priestley's supporters. And it is not too much to assume that it was the
same influence which one year later (1785) brought about Priestley's
election to membership in the Society, for he was one of "28 new
members" chosen in January of that year.

There are evidences of marked friendliness to Priestley all about the
Hall of the Society, for example his profile in Plaster of Paris,
"particularly valuable for the resemblance" to the Do