384 B, M:s Answer to Mr. Murray s " Reply:' [May, 



Article XI. 



An Answer to Mr, Murray's " Repli/:* By B. M.'* 



(To the Editd" of the Annals of Philosophy.) 

 SIR, 



Mr. Murray is of opinion '* that it is neither expedient nor 

 profitable to exchange thrusts with a shadow." 1 admit the 

 propriety of this as a general rule, trusting you will for once 

 allow me to violate it by replying to Mr. Murray. 



This gentleman informs us, that the experiments which I have 

 already asserted and maintain to be fallacious, " comprise only 

 a very Jew selected from a very many on the subject in question, 

 and he drew his inferences from the combined aggregate, and 

 not from individual or insulated phenomena." 



The only meaning which I can discover in this passage is, 

 that although a part of a number of experiments may be inaccu- 

 rate, yet as they are accompanied by others, which may be 

 equally fallacious, inferences may be fairly deduced from the 

 whole. 



Mr. Murray has recommended magnetized steel liHngs in cases 

 of poisoning by corrosive subhmate, on the supposition that they 

 are more efficacious than those which are unmagnetized. This 

 klea is grounded on the assumption that unmagnetized steel is 

 incapable of effecting the decomposition of the muriate of mer- 

 cury. I have shown this idea to be incorrect, and quoted 

 various authorities and experiments to prove that steel is 

 capable of decomposing muriate of mercury without being mag- 

 netized. 



How has Mr. Murray answered this objection? Why, by stat- 

 ing that he " was not ignorant of the action of muriate of mer- 

 cury or nitrate of silver on steel which B. M. had presumed to 

 suppose." 



1 will repeat the grounds on which I rested my opinion 

 of Mr, Murray's ignorance of these facts. I allow they are not 

 good, but they are his own experiments. He says that " a 

 solution of permuriate of mercury was by the magnet soon 

 reduced into running mercury." Mr. Murray does not indeed 

 here say that common steel is incapable of producing this effect, 

 but he evidently supposes it by stating that he employed a 

 magnet. 



With respect to the action of steel upon nitrate of silver, the 

 evidence as to Mr. Murray's knowledge of the subject is com- 

 plete. He states that " fine Dutch steel wire was selected, 

 and proved to be non-magnetic. It was thrown into nitrate of 



* S«e Annalt of Philofophy^ present volume, p. 41 and 121. 



