The following dates I have extracted from Mr. Hodgson's letter, and the Newcastle Chronicle :–

• On the 15th of October, Sir H. Davy acknowledges the receipt of the fire-damp.
• On the 19th, he informs Mr Hodgson that he had discovered that explosion will not pass through small tubes.
• On the 25th, he announces the same fact to the Chemical Club of London.
• On the 30th, he describes a Lamp on the principle of tubes above and below.
• On the 9th of November, Sir H. Davy announces his Tube Lamp to the Royal Society; v. Newcastle Chronicle, Dec. 23d.
• The Morning Chronicle of December 18th, announced the application of the wire gauze by Sir H. Davy; v. Newcastle Chronicle, Dec. 23d.

In a subsequent communication by Sir H. Davy, and dated Newcastle, Sept. 9th, 1816, are the following observations :–

"whenever workmen, &c. are exposed to such highly explosive mixtures, double gauze lamps should be used, or a Lamp in which the circulation of air is diminished, by a tin plate reflector placed in the inside, or a cylinder of glass reaching as high as the double wire, with an aperture in the inside. Such Lamps, likewise, may be more easily cleaned than the simple wire gauze Lamp, for the smoke may be wiped off in an instant from the tin plate or glass."

To the above facts and dates, I have now only to request the attention of the public; begging them particularly to observe, that without adverting to the time when I first embraced the idea, the principle upon which the Tube Lamp is constructed was published, and a plan of it shewn early in September, and that it was actually buring in the mine on the 21st of October. That Sir Humphrey Davy does not announce his discovery of the fact, that explosion will not pass down tubes, till the 19th of October, in a private letter to Mr. Hodgson, that my double perforated plate Lamp was certainly ordered some time before the 24th of November, tried in the mine on the 30th of the same month; and that the earliest notice I had of Sir H. Davy having applied wire gauze for the sane purpose, was, from the Newcastle Chronicle of the 23rd of December.

Upon the important variation recommended in some cases by Sir H. Davy, in his communication of the 9th of September, 1816, which renders his Lamp the same as mine, both in construction and principle, it is unnecessary for me to dwell. In the judgement that will be pronounced upon this statement, I feel the greatest confidence. This at least, I trust, I shall have credit for, that in this publication I have been actuated solely by a justifiable attention to my own reputation, and a sincere desire to have the truth investigated, and not by any disgraceful feeling of envy at the rewards and honours which have been bestowed upon a gentleman who has directed his talents to the same object, and whose reputation is too well established to be injured by me, even if I had the baseness to attempt it.

I may be permitted to add, that many gentlemen have already publicly declared their opinion in my favour, and I have the authority of one of them, to whom I submitted the above statement, to add, that at the first meeting of the Coal Trade where the subject was mentioned, and some testimony of gratitude proposed to Sir H. Davy, he called upon the friends of that eminent chemist to state in what his Lamp differed from mine in point of principle, which was not even attempted to be done. I understand, at the same meeting; a gentleman, eminent for his sucess in mechanical pursuits, declared his conviction that a Lamp similar to Sir Humphrey Davy's must have followed mine, had he never directed his attention to the subject. On this strong assertion no comment was made, and the result was, a vote to me of 100 guineas.

The refusal of two subsequent meetings summoned for the purpose of bestowing some mark of approbation on Sir H. Davy, to enter upon an investigation of dates and facts, was justified by many gentlemen on the ground that they did not meet for that purpose, but merely to testify their approbation of a gentleman whose exertions in this interesting pursuit had been attended with considerable success: of such a determination, what right had I to complain? But when at the second meeting, the expression of "the invention of his Safety Lamp" was altered to "his invention of the Safety Lamp," I felt myself called upon to assert my claims; and, I trust I have now done it in a way not to offend any man of liberal feelings particularly those to whom I already feel myself so much indebted, and who, declining the unpleasant task of weighing the comparative merit of competitors in the field of science, generously resolved to reward each individual who had exerted his talents in their service.