Mr. Pulteney feconded the motion. The Lord Advocate of Scotland oppofed the motion, as being inexpedient, and not being the act of the people, but only of the clergy, of Scotland. He apprehended the motion infringed on the fpirit of the Articles of the Union. The Master of the Rolls, Mr. Dundas, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, fpoke in oppofition to the motion; Mr. Anftrutber, Sir A. Ferguson, and Mr. Fox, in favour of it; and, upon a divifion, the numbers were, Ayes 62, Noes 149. H. OF LORDS. May 11. The final hearing of the Scotch caufe, in which Sir John Henderfon, bart. was appellant, and Robert Bruce Henderfon, Efq. refpondent. It respects the feudal poffeffions of the barony of Earif hill, in the county of Fife, and confe quently gives a title to vote for the Scots Peerage. Affirmed the judgment of the Court of Seffion. In the Commons, the fame day, the order of the day, for going into a Committee on the Quebec bil, being read, Mr. Hobart took the chair. Upon the claufe being read for dividing the province into Upper and Lower Canada, a converfation took place, in which Mr. Huey, Mr. Powys, Mr. Fox, Lord Sheffield, Mr. Sheridan, Alderman Watfon, and Mr. Francis, took a part against the divifion, as injurious particularly to the British fettlers, who would be har raffed, in confequence thereof, in Lower Canada, by an establishment of the Canada commercial law. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended, that the divifion was a fundamental principle of the bill, and calculated for the happiness and profperity of the people. Several other claufes were debated; after which, the chairman was directed to report progrefs, and afk leave to fit again: after which, the Houfe adjourned. H. OF LORDS. May 12. In a Committee of Privileges, heard counfel further in the cafe of Lord Ochiltree. In the Commons, the fame day, Mr. Grey moved for a Committee to enquire into the prefent practice and effect of imprisonment for debt. Mr. Burke feconded the motion.' The Attorney General concurred with the motion, as the likel eft mode of getting at that mafs of evidence which was abfolutely necessary to enable gentlemen to form a proper and adequate idea of the fubject. The learned Gentleman lamented the fituation of the debtor, and the unfortunate creditor, who might be fwindled out of his property, and kept at arm's length by the fwindler; who, at the fame time, rioted in gaol on his property. To relieve the one and the other, and to punish the knave, was, he believed, the object of the prefent motion; and, under that opinion, he fhould give it his affiftance, but was ftill afraid that it must be a work of time, and that, if it could be brought to a degree of maturity, in an advanced period of the next fiflion, it was as much as could reafonably be expected. Mr. Burke fupported the motion, on the ground of humanity, national honour, induftry, and found policy. The motion paffed unanimously. Mr. Powys brought up the report of the Felons bill. Mr. Mainwaring objected to it; and moved, that it fhould be taken into confideration on that day three months; which was put and carried. H. OF LORDS. May 13. The royal affent was given, by commillion, to feveral bills. Lord Portcheller moved, "That an humble addrefs be prefented to his Majefty, that he would be graciously pleafed to order an account to be laid before that Houfe, of the ftate of the war in India." Lord Carlife feconded the motion, fupported by Lords Stormont and L.agbborough; and it was itrenuously oppofed by the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Montrofe, Lords Mulgrave and Greaville, and negatived without a divifion. Lord Portcheffer then moved for a copy of the minute of the Council of Bengal, intimating the intention of Earl Cornwallis to proceed to take upon hun the conduct of the war; and of the minute of the Council of Mr. Speeke and Mr. Cooper, members of the Council, fignifying their confent to the meature. Or dured. In the Commons, the fame day, the order of the day was moved to be read, for the House going into a Committee on on the bill for granting a reward, in certain cafés, on the conviction of felons. The Speaker wifhed to inform the Houfe, that the intent of the bill was, to amend an act of the 6th of Queen Anne, which granted, in certain cafes, a reward of 401. on conviction of felony. The Lords, however, by the prefent bill, had taken upon themselves fo far the difpofal of the public money as to lower, according to circumstances, the rewards offered by that act. The Mofer of the Rolls moved, That the Houfe refolve itfelf into a Commit tee on the faid bill this day three months. The motion was agreed to, and the bill, confequently, loft. The Mafier of the Rolls then moved for leave to bring in a fimilar bill, as he thought the intention of the Judges extremely wife, in withing for the diferetion of granting the rewards in fuch cafes as to them might feem proper. Several gentlemen fpoke in favour of the bill, and leave was accordingly given to bring it in. The Houfe then went into a Committee of Ways and Means; in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer propofed the following alterations in the duties on bills of exchange:-Bills amounting to 21. and up to five guineas, to pay the old duty of three pence; from five guineas up to 30l. fix pence. Bills not pavable on demand, whether above or below five guineas, fix pence; from 50l. to col. one filling; from 100l. to 200l. one filling and fix pence; and 200l. and upwards, two fhillings. He then propofed, that the re-iffuing of promiffory-notes fhould be legal, paying fix pence duty for a five-guinea note, and fo in proportion. His next propofition was an alteration in the receipt-tax, viz. two pence upon all receipts from 40s. to zol.; four pence from 20l. to 50l.; and fix pence from gol. and upwards. He concluded by moving, "That all the duties on bills of exchange, promiflory-notes, and receipts, fhould no longer be paid, or payable." The refolutions were put, and agreed to, and the report ordered to be receiv ed on Monday. precedents relative to the trial of Warren Haftings, Esq.; Lord Portchefter rofe, for the purpose of making a motion, which might bring the queftion fully and fairly before the Houfe; and would therefore, without further preface, move, "That a meffage be fent to the Commons, to inform them, that the Lords were ready to pro ceed in the trial of Warren Haftings, Efq." The Lord Chancellor was against this mode of proceeding; he was of opinion, that the grave and proper mode would be to refer the report to the confideration of a Committee of the whole House. Lord Hawk/bury, withing the bufinefs to be referred to the Committee, moved the previous question. Lord Radnor moved, "that the Judges be fummoned to give their opinion upon the queftion of recognizances being in force." were Lord Mulgrave was for the continuance of the impeachment, as Lords Grenville, Stormont, Loughborough, Guildford, and the Bishop of Salisbury. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Kenyon, Marquis of Lansdowne, and Lord King, were for going into a Committee; they contended that impeachments did abate by a diffolution. A very long debate was maintained by the above Noble Lords until three o'clock in the morning, turning princi pally upon the report of precedent. The queftion being called for, their Lordships divided, first upon Lord Radnor's motion, which was negatived by, Contents 20, Non-contents 70. The previous question, moved by Lord Hawkesbury, was then put upon the original motion, and negatived by a divifion of, Contents 18, Non-contents 66. Lord Portchefler's motion, "that the mellage be fent to the Commons," &c. was then carried without a divifion; and it was ordered, that the trial of Warren Haftings, efq. be proceeded with in Westminster-hall on Monday next. In the Commons, the fame day, the expiring laws and the pawnbrokers bills were read the third time, and pailed. Mr. Ald. Watfon brought up a propot from the Governor and Directors of the Bank, of the loan of 500,000l. for the ufe of the publick, on fuch conditions as would enable them to pay dis vidends; which was accepted. (To be continued.) 36. A Treatife on Air, containing new Experiments and Thoughts on Combustion; being a fall Investigation of Mr. Lavoifier's Syftem; and proving, by fome ftriking Experiments, its erroneous Principles: with Strictures upon the chemical Opinions of fame eminent Men. By Richard Bewley, M. D. THE HE pleafure which we felt upon the fird opening of this work, and a confequent perufal of the very animated and well-written dedication to the Royal Society, in which the author appears to fit down with a determined refolution to fupport the theories and opinions of Dr. Harrington on the fubject of the atmosphere, and the various doctrines which are fo intimately connected therewith, the importance of which hath long been confpicuous to us, was not a little allayed, upon our further progrefs, by the harsh and far caftic reflexions which he fo frequently tafts upon several names of the greatest eminence in the chemical world. What ever cause Dr. Harrington himself may have for feeling fore and tender in confequence of the apparent neglect which he hath experienced, or the piracies which his philofophical volumes have fuflained, we cannot conceive why Dr. Bewley, who is very little, if at all, known in the literary world, and who, from his ardent and defultory manner, we fhould apprehend to be a very young writer, fhould, upon his first debut, rush at once into a nett of chemical hornets, who, no doubt, will defend the trash of their opinions with as much zeal and animofity as if they were poffeffed of the rich and genuine honey of science. We cannot help, indeed, upon this occafion, exclaiming, "Mild and gentle "spirit of the benevolent Bewley, whi"ther art thou fled?" But it hath been fuggefted to us, by a younger brother, though, we believe, a much older and more flagitious of fender in the craft and mystery of reviewing, that probably no fuch perfon as Dr. Bewley exifts. To this we can fay nothing; but, from the fpirit of the work before us, we cannot doubt but he will foon be known ;-indeed, from another quarter we have heard that he is at prefent very bufily occupied in compofing a CHEMICAL DUNCIAD. But, whatever may be his prefent pursuits, or wherever he may at prefent refide, we think the learned Do&or, we mean the author of that Review, has little. reafon to complain of the tricks of authorship, in which, during a literary war. fare of more than 20 years, he hath been himself fo deeply engaged. Perhaps the learned Doctor is not fenfible of the been himself indulging in the very intrick of authorship, in which he hath ftance to which we allude, viz. "the cogent reafons for declining to make 66 a regular analysis of Dr. Bewley's "Treatise on Air." To us, however, and to our readers, it may be matter of thefe cogent reafons may be. We are very curious enquiry to difcover what perfuaded, that, had a regular analyfis have appeared, which would have difbeen given, feveral quotations must covered that the true and very cogent which are held forth in The Analytical reajons are widely different from those Review. The work appears to be exprefly written with a view to fhew that, during the last twenty years, the learned Doctor, we mean the author of that Re, view, has been maintaining chemical opinions on the most important fubjects, which, however much they may have been celebrated, are diametrically oppo fite to truth; one of which, and perhaps by no means the leaft important, is, that the exiflence of animal life depends upon the DISCHARGE of phlogifton from the lungs during refpiration. Had a regular analysis of this work been given, it must, on the contrary, have appeared, that, during more than half of the above period, Dr. Harrington hath been demonftrating, in various publications, that the exiflence of animal life depends the atmosphere. upon the RECEPTION of phlogifton from Here, therefore, two opinions have been promulgated, on the truth or fallacy of either of which an immenfe va riety of chemical and philofophical deductions depends. Neither hall it, however, be our bufinefs, at prefent, to enter into a regular analyfis of Dr. Bewley's treatise; but, for the entertainment of our readers, we will felect a few quotations, which, we apprehend, will point out some of the many cogent reajons which may induce Dr. Priestley (we beg his pardon, we mean the author of the chemical criticifm to which we allude,) to wish, that by the influence of a mean, contemptible, and meretricious general cenfure, the publick may be prevented ✦See Analytical Review for May, 1791, P. 54 from fairly and openly canvalling the GINT. MAG. July, 1791. theories theories of Dr. Harrington, which he - Dr. Bewley, like the author whofe We were much entertained by the exhaufts all things, truth excepted, "ftrengthens thofe doctrines which are "founded upon juft principles." This we conceive to be one of the many cogent reafons which may have induced the learned Doctor, we mean the author of the chemical criticism to which we allude, to decline entering into a regular analyfis of Dr. B's publication. Dr. Bewley (p. 84) takes notice, as we have done before, that Dr. Harrington hath, in the most public, open, and candid manner, called upon Mr. Cavendifh, either to acknowledge the truth of his theory, or to defend his own: and we think, with him, that it certainly becomes that gentleman to do it publicly. This too may perhaps be one of the many cogent reafons; but we flatter ourfelves that it will operate in a different manner upon the mind of that honourable and truly refpectable character, who furely cannot ftill be ignorant of the important truths contained in the writings of Dr. Harrington. P. 116. Dr. Bewley, with much humour and fuccefs, ridicules the theory of Mr. Lavoifier, in the following paffage :-"Now, can Mr. Lavoifier, up"on the formation of pure air from fix"ed air, find the carbone, which ought to him a better manufactory, and one "more conformable to his hypothefis. "He fays, that water confifts of hydro gen and oxygen gaffes; and that these "gaffes, with the addition of carbone, "or charcoal, form alkohol, or spirits. "Now, as the river Seine produces Would but our aerial chemifts (he "obferves, p. 85) attend to reason, "every doubt about the truth of this "doctrine might be removed by the "following fact. The electrical fpark "will produce fixed air, when taken in "atmospherical air. Now, need I in- plenty of water, and as charcoal is a "form chemifts, that in moft combuf"cheap commodity, the tranfmutation "tions dephlogisticated air is turned to "of water into spirits would be a ma"fixed air; that when the combustion "nufactory that would turn to good " is more intenfe, it is turned to the ni-" account. This would lower the price "trous acid, as in the combuftion of "dephlogisticated and inflammable airs; "nay, Mr. Cavendish fays, he actually "turned atmospherical air into the ni"trous acid, and not fixed air, in this "fame experiment. Dr. Priestley, I "think, need not be told this, fince he "has followed Dr. Harrington in prov"ing it; though, from an illiberal po licy, he has omitted to mention that "gentleman's name: but time, which "of French brandy in Old England; 66 or, as feveral of our English chemifts "are no lefs industrious and ingenious "than Mr. Lavoisier, the Thames might be turned into good British "fpirits, which would render that arti "cle ftill cheaper. But, alas! this, I "am afraid, will fill be one of the "chemical defiderata. And as this kind "of chemistry will not effect fo much "good, an alarm may be fpread on the "other / "other hand. For, according to them, "water is formed of inflammable and oxygen gaffes, two bodies the moft "combuftible in nature. If, therefore, "they should be able to fet the Thames " on fire, London would again be in "danger of being reduced to afhes." Whether or no the learned Doctor has any ferious thoughts of carrying thefe principles into effect, is beft known to himself; but we certainly must acknowledge ourselves obliged to Dr. Bewley for thus accurately pointing out the tendency of thofe principles which the learned Doctor appears to have adopted; and whenever the real existence of Dr. Bewley can be afcertained in The Analytical Review, we have no doubt but the Legiflature will take proper measures to draw him from his prefent obfcurity. This too may be a cogent reason. Or poffibly the learned Doctor may take it amifs that Dr. Bewley fhould have afferted, p. 125, that the true, folid principles of chemistry "have been kicked out of doors, to "make room for the aërial flights of "modern chemifts." "Can any one poffibly be mistaken "(fays Dr. Bewley, p. 149) of this nitrous dephlogisticated air, even from "Mr. Kirwan's hiftory of it? Indeed, “after reading Dr. Harrington's ac4 count, it was impoffible for Mr. Kir"wan, or any other chemift, who was in the least acquainted with chemical "principles, to fuppofe it was dephlo. "gifticated: but that difpofition which "has been the ruling mark of our aërial "philofophers is, to make it a point not ❝ to name Dr. Harrington. What does "Mr. Kirwan do? He does not make "or call this air dephlogisticated, but calls it deacidified. We have got a "number of new terms into chemistry "from their extraordinary ideas of it. But I fuppofe he means by this, the "air is more neutralifed. Could he not have faid, agreeably to Dr. Harring"ton, more phlogifticated? But, even "to take his own term, deacidified, "what bodies were there to deacidify "it but the fulphur and alkaline air? "And as, according to their hypothefis, "air that will admit of the life of com"buftion (call it dephlogifticated, dea"cidified, or what they will) it is, they fay, the acefcent principle or principles of acidity. Then, muft not it appear to form a chafin in reafoning "to fuppofe that an air, which has got 44 Its acid taken from it, should, from 66 "that cause, become the acefcent prin"ciple? But fuch are their abfurdities." This too may be enumerated amongst the cogent reasons. And in p. 153 we apprehend that he has given another reafon equally cogent. "Can aerial "chemifts, after this review, pafs by "Dr. Harrington's theory as not de"ferving notice? If they do, it is evi"dent they are not willing (however "much convinced in their own minds) to acknowledge to the world that "they have been mistaken. But che"mical philofophers, who will not at "tend to truth, when it is told them, "do not deferve the name." But the limits of our Review will not permit us to particularize a twentieth part of the cogent reafons, which this publication affords, why the author of that criticifm which, we have here noticed may wish to decline giving a regular analysis of the work before us. We fhall therefore, at prefent, bring forward one more only, referving to ourfelves the privilege of recurring to others, as occafion may require, at fome future period. "I fhall now take a view (says Dr. Bewley) of thofe chemical writings with which Dr. Priestley has favoured the world fince the publication of Dr. Harrington's Letter. But the reader will allow me to make a previous obfervation; which is, that Dr. Priestley has been very careful not to mention that gentleman as a fellow-labourer. What reafon fhall we align for his filence? The question, I think, may be very easily answered. There is an oppofition of hypotheses; and, if Dr. Harrington's is the true one, Dr. Priestley's muft of confequence be falfe. However, not to mention the chemical doctrines of his antagonist is, in my opinion, very wrong; fair difcuffion is the best way to know who has truth on his fide. Let, then, the two hypothefes be candidly canvaffed by thofe of an impartial pab ick, who are able to ju 'ge. Will it be faid, in exte nuation, that Dr. Harrington's theory deferves no answer? Was any man, who in the least pretends to the name of a chemist, to make fuch an affertion, I fhould not fcruple confidently to affert, that he knows nothing of chemistry. "It is very poffible, after the ufage Dr. Harrington has met with, that my labours may receive the fame treatment. However that may be, I publicly call upon modern chemists (fome of whom deferve the highest praife, and whofe works will be efteemed as long as true fcience lafts,) not to shrink from the prefent investigation, but to come boldly to it. If they do not, their labours, inftead of promoting science, will rather retard it. For, |