The following are related quotes:
“Boyle made a series of measurements with greater compressions until he bad reduced the volume to one quarter of its original value, and obtained a close agreement between the pressure observed and ‘what that pressure should be according to the hypothesis that supposes the pressures and expansions to be in reciprocal proportions’. Mariotte did not state the law until fourteen years after Boyle.”
— Joseph Thomson (1902), A Textbook of Physics, Volume One (pg. 124)
“The complicated history of the discovery of Boyle's law has only recently been disentangled by historians. It appears that the law was first proposed by two other British scientists, Henry Power and Richard Towneley, on the basis of their experiments, begun in 1653. They did not publish their results immediately, but after Boyle's first experiments on air pressure had been published in 1660, Power sent a paper describing the results of their joint work to his friend William Croone, in London. The title of the paper was ‘Additional Experiments Made at Towneley Hall, in the years 1660 and 1661, by the advice and assistance of that Heroick and Worthy Gentleman Richard Towneley’. But Power neglected to put his own name on the paper. Croone sent the paper to Boyle, forgetting to mention that Power was the author. Boyle was very careful to give proper credit for the information he had received, and in his monograph of 1662 replying to Linus, he stated that he had not realized that the simple relation PV = constant applied to his own data until Richard Towneley pointed it out. Later scientists, who read Boyle's works carelessly or not at all, assumed that Boyle had made the discovery all by himself.”
— Gerald Holton (1952), Physics: the Human Adventure (co-author: Stephen Brush) (pg. 270)
“Towneley, however, as far as Boyle knew, had not actually verified the ‘PV = c’ rule. And, since Boyle had no way of contacting Towneley, knowing when if ever Towneley would publish his views, or even if Towneley had the means to carry out experiments, Boyle decided to ‘present the reader with that which follow, wherein I had the assistance of the same person [Hooke], that I took notice of in the former chapter, as having written something about rarefaction’. Boyle relates further how Hooke, upon hearing Boyle mention ‘Towneley's hypothesis’, said that he had the year before experimented on that very subject with positive results. Boyle also mentions that Lord Brouncker, too, was doing some work in that area but had not achieved anything conclusive. Since the law was published in a book under Boyle's name, the law became generally known as Boyle's. However, as we have seen, within the very same book, Boyle disclaims being its discoverer and does instead credit the ‘same person, that I took notice of in the former chapter’, who was indeed none other than his assistant Hooke, with both thinking upon and verifying the hypothesis in question. A ‘Boyle side’ to the question of origination is, therefore, nonexistent, as Boyle himself testifies. Also, in his life of Boyle, More expresses the view that Boyle's law was actually more Hooke's than Boyle's.”
— F.F. Centore (1970), Robert Hooke’s Contributions to Mechanics (pg. 59)
“The credit for Boyle's law only began to be questioned within the twentieth-century history of science. Charles Webster [1965] argued that others, particularly Richard Towneley and his friend Henry Power, had experimented and hypothesized about what came to be known as ‘Boyle's law’ before Boyle. Boyle himself referred to ‘Towneley's hypothesis’ in the second edition of his work on the ‘spring of the air’ in 1661. More recently, Power's biographer Trevor Hughes has agreed with Webster. Hughes concluded that ‘Power and Towneley provided both experimental results and their interpretation, which guided Boyle to his experiments and conclusions, which have become accepted as ‘Boyle's Law’.’ Joseph Agassi, by contrast, has defended Boyle's claim to Boyle's law. Towneley merely served as Boyle's student assistant. It was generous of Boyle, first, to mentor Towneley, and secondly, to refer to Towneley at all. Furthermore, the entire affair illustrated how Boyle not only discovered the law, but invented the conventions by means of which discoveries could be quickly recorded in published essays. According to Agassi, ‘It was Boyle who instituted priority rules’ as a ‘means of prompting the advancement of learning (in accord with Bacon's proposals)’. By contrast, Power and Towneley neither rushed into print nor rushed to claim credit. ‘Why did Power refrain from publication?’ asked Agassi. ‘Certainly, if Power had discovered Boyle's law or Townley, the delay in publication looked odd’.”
— Vera Keller (2015), Knowledge and the Public Interest (pg. 247)