ene_ and
_hydrogene_ is not well founded ... water is the basis of all
kinds of air, and without it no kind of air can be produced ...
not withstanding the great use that the French chemists make of
scales and weights, they do not pretend to weigh either their
_calorique_ or _light_; and why may not _phlogiston_ escape their
researches, when they employ the same instruments in that
investigation?

There were in all eight letters sent by Priestley to Mitchill. They
continued until February, 1799. Their one subject was phlogiston and
its role in very simple chemical operations. The observations were the
consequence

of original and recent experiments, to which I have given a good
part of the leisure of the last summer; and I do not propose to do
more on the subject till I hear from the great authors of the
theory that I combat in America;

but adds,--

I am glad ... to find several advocates of the system in this
country, and some of them, I am confident, will do themselves
honour by their candour, as well as by their ability.

This very probably was said as a consequence of the spirited reply James
Woodhouse[6] made to the papers of Maclean. As known, Woodhouse worked
unceasingly to overthrow the doctrine of phlogiston, but was evidently
irritated by Maclean, whom he reminds--

You are not yet, Doctor, the conqueror of this veteran in
Philosophy.

This was a singularly magnanimous speech on Woodhouse's part, for he had
been hurling sledgehammer blows without rest at the structure
Priestley thought he had reared about phlogiston and which, he believed,
most unassailable, so when in 1799 (July) Priestley began his reply to
his "Antiphlogistian opponents" he took occasion to remark:

I am happy to find in Dr. Woodhouse one who is equally ingenious
and candid; so that I do not think the cause he has undertaken
will soon find a more able champion, and I do not regret the
absence of M. Berthollet in Egypt.

Noble words these for his young adversary who, in consequence of
strenuous laboratory work, had acquired a deep respect and admiration
for Priestley's achievements, though he considered he had gone far
astray.

The various new, confirmatory ideas put forth by Priestley need not be
here enumerated. They served their day.

Dr. Mitchill evidently enjoyed this controversial chemical material, for
he