260 Mr. M 'Mullen, on the Existence of Chlorine 



been washed, and referred both to a bystander, who immedi- 

 ately detected the odour of chlorine in the former, but not in 

 the latter. He then proceeds to show that the specimens of 

 manganese which he had made the subject of this experiment 

 contained a portion of lime, and he infers that the black oxide 

 of manganese consequently contains muriate of Hme. 



Mr. Phillips asserts that I have been misled by erroneous 

 experiments. My reply is, that the experiment to which he 

 refers, and which I have recapitulated, was carefully made, 

 and is truly and faithfully detailed. In what, then, is it erro- 

 neous ? It is not incompatible with that which he has produced 

 as a refutation of it, inasmuch as he did not wait the result for 

 which the perusal of my statement should have prepared him, 

 and which he clearly should not have anticipated. He states 

 that chlorine was not evolved from washed manganese at the 

 instant when sulphuric acid was affused upon it. This is not 

 a contradiction of my statement : I affirmed that, after washed 

 manganese had been exposed to the action of sulphuric acid 

 for a very considerable period, I distinctly observed the evolu- 

 tion of chlorine, and that for twelve months afterwards, under 

 the circumstances detailed, this continued to be the case : — all 

 this I deliberately re-assert. I have frequently met with spe- 

 cimens of manganese which, upon the first affusion of sulphuric 

 acid, gave off chlorine ; but in general, as far as my experience 

 goes, this is not the case : were it of uniform occurrence, and 

 that the mixture of sulphuric acid and oxide of manganese 

 rendered chlorine evident to the smell, the fact could not have 

 remained unnoticed till now. 



The observations of Mr. Phillips, to which I now refer, did 

 not come into my hands till about three weeks ago. It fortu- 

 nately happened that I had still preserved the specimen of 

 washed manganese upon which sulphuric acid had been affused, 

 under the circumstances already recapitulated, and it occurred 

 to me that this would afford occasion, as decisive as I could 

 desire, to put the accuracy of my original experiment, and the 

 conclusions drawn from it, to further proof I am bound to 

 premise that this specimen of manganese, after having been in 

 the first instance washed and subjected to the action of sul- 

 phuric acid, as already mentioned, has ever since remained in 



