1822.] Sixth Edition of his System of Chenmtryi 271. 



paper on the same subject soon after me, and on purpose to rec- 

 tify my analyses ; but his results deviate as far from the truth as 

 mine, and obviously from the same cause. 



The allegation by the Reviewer, that my analysis of oxalic 

 acid was inaccurate because my oxalic acid still retained 32-5 

 per cent, of water is disgracefully unjust. He must have known 

 that my experiments were not made upon oxalic acid, but upon 

 a dry oxalate. No water existed in the acid as I employed it, 

 and, therefore, none was to be deduced. My near approach to 

 truth in these experiments, notwithstanding the numerous diffi- 

 culties attending my method, afford unequivocal evidence of the 

 great care employed in the experiment. 



I may mention here that Berard in his paper denied the 

 existence of binoxalate of strontian. I have frequently formed 

 this salt since, as well as binoxalate" of barytas. They are both 

 crystaUizable and well defined salts. 



24. The Reviewer's observations on my analysis of chloride of 

 hme (p. 156) are so ridiculously absurd that it would be waste 

 of time to make a serious answer to them. Does he know so 

 Uttle of this substance as to suppose that chlorate of lime ever 

 does or can enter as a constituent into it? If he thinks so, I 

 would advise him to try a few experiments on the passage of 

 chlorine gas through dry lime. They would cure his petulance, 

 and give him some information on a subject about which he 

 obviously knows nothing. 



25. The Reviewer's remarks about the quantity of muriatic 

 acid gas absorbed by water (p. 157) are as usual very witty ; but 

 the wit does not affect me. I have given the result of my expe- 

 riments. Let him repeat them, and show them to be inaccurate, 

 and then sneer away and welcome. Till then I shall only say, 

 that it is easier to sneer than to experiment. 



26. The Reviewer's remarks on my account of the mode of 

 preparing chlorocyanic acid are shamefully unjust. 



27. I have now noticed all the Reviewer's attacks upon me 

 for want of knowledge, which seem entitled to any observation, 

 with the exception of two, which I cannot with propriety pass 

 over in silence. I must still, therefore, request the reader's 

 indulgence for a short time before I conclude. I shall first quote 

 the following paragraph from the Review : 



*' Mineralogy, which now begins to assume the systematic 

 aspect of the other parts of natural history, by the labours of 

 Werner, Haliy, Mohs, and Jameson, is here exhibited in a truly 

 chaotic state. He has no allusion whatever to the natural his- 

 tory method of Mohs, which promises to do for the study of 

 minerals what the sexual system did for plants ; enabling a 

 person on taking up a specimen to refer it to its peculiar class, 

 order, genus, and species, till he discovers its name and various 

 relations. His first chapter " On the Description of Minerals,'* 

 is copied from Prof. Jameson's Treatise on the External Charac- 



