Again, in the December issue of the Freemason's Magazine (1881), he presented a most interesting, readable and succinct historical sketch of our science which concludes as follows:
"Thus chemistry is become an entirely new science. It is no longer confined to the laboratory of the arts: it has extended its flights to the sublimest heights of philosophy, and pursues paths formerly regarded as impenetrable mysteries. Placed forever in the elevated rank it now holds, rich with all its new conquests, it is become the science most adapted to the sublime speculations of philosophy, the most useful in advancing all the operations of the arts, and the most rational for scientific amusement. Exact in its process, sure in its results, varied in its operations, without limits in its applications and its views, severe and geometrical in its reasoning, there is scarcely any human occupation which it does not enlighten, and upon the perfection of which it may not have great influence. It bestows great enjoyment to every class of individuals: and who would not be ambitious of becoming acquainted with a science which enlightens almost every species of human knowledge?"
Imagine for a moment the effect of such an enthusiastic proclamation of the powers of chemistry on the readers of the Magazine! It would be and no doubt was contagious, with the consequence that our science was called upon to aid infant industries. Cutbush was far-visioned and dreamed of the development of our Country's national resources. He had the spirit of Woodhouse, Seybert and others, who, too, were actuated for our Country's welfare, for its development physically and spiritually, and how better could this be accomplished than through the medium of science, and in large measure by chemical science?
In his historical resume Cutbush mentions some
"of the philosophers who have ... cultivated and enriched the new theory of chemistry with discoveries which will forever give immortality to their names, we have to notice Aikin, Babington, Bancroft, Beddoes, Blagdon, Cavendish, Chenevix, Crichton, Cruickshank, Davy, Lord Dundonald, Lord Dundas, Fordyce, Garnett, Hatchett, Henry, Higgins, Hope, Howard, Kirvan, Bishop of Llandaff, Murray, Nicholson, Pearson, Tennant, Tilloch, Thompson, Wedgwood, and Wollaston; and Achard, Crell, Gilbert, Gren, Goetling, Humboldt, Hermbstadt, Klaproth, Lowitz, Richter, Scherer, Tromsdorff, Westrumb, Wiegleb, Bertholet, Chaptal, Fourcroy, Lagrange, Guiton, Van Mons, Proust, Sequin, Vauquelin, etc., etc."
To the modern chemist these names probably represent little. Perhaps a few sound familiar, but the majority are unknown to him. For instance, who would be apt to say much about the Bishop of Llandaff, who wrote to Henry, author of one of the earliest and most delightful texts:
Cambridge, Oct. 28, 1787."
"Sir—
"Allow me to return you my thanks of the obliging manner in which you conveyed to me the kind notice, which the Literary and Philosophical Society were pleased to take of my essay; and to assure you at the same time that it will give me great pleasure to be acquainted with a gentleman who is so eminently distinguished for his skill in chemistry, as you have shewn yourself to be. I have been told by good authority, of an odd fact relative to calcined mercury, the fact is this: A bottle which contained some calcined mercury which had been purchased in London was left standing without its cork for near thirty years without being looked at. When it was examined, the greater part of it was revivified.
"I have the honour to be, Sir,