Had Professor Watts looked at the preface to the second volume (the two having been published separately, as the prefaces imply), he would have seen a second expression of my indebtedness "for their valuable criticisms, and for the trouble they have taken in checking the numerous statements of fact on which the arguments proceed"—no further indebtedness being named. A moment's comparison of the two volumes in respect of their accumulations of facts, would have shown him what kind of warrant there was for his interpretation.
Doubtless the Rev. Professor was prompted to make this assertion by the desire to discredit the work he was attacking; and having so good an end in view, thought it needless to be particular about the means. In the art of dealing with the language of opponents, Dr. Watts might give lessons to Monsignor Capel and Archbishop Manning.
December 28th, 1874.
In this passage as originally written (in 1862) they were described as incondensible; since, though reduced to the density of liquids, they had not been liquefied.
Here and hereafter the word "atom" signifies a unit of something classed as an element, because thus far undecomposed by us. The word must not be supposed to mean that which its derivation implies. In all probability it is not a simple unit but a compound one.
The name hydro-carbons was here used when these pages were written, thirty-four years ago. It was the name then current. In this case, as in multitudinous other cases, the substitution of newer words and phrases for older ones, is somewhat misleading. Putting the thoughts of 1862 in the language of 1897 gives an illusive impression of recency.