in Dr. Thomson^s Answer to the Review of the [April, 



which I did, as soon as it was in my power, was to repeat 

 Dalton's experiment. I found it inaccurate. The whole struc- 

 ture immediately tumbled to the ground ; and I was led back to 

 the original opinion which I had stated in my paper onphosphu- 

 retted hydrogen gas. And those gentlemen who attended my 

 lectures the ensuing course will remember that I then gave the 

 composition of phosphorous and phosphoric acids precisely as 

 in my sixth edition. 



Davy's paper appeared soon after, and confirmed me in the 

 accuracy of my experiments. Still I was unable to reconcile the 

 analyses of Berzelius with this view of the composition of these 

 acids, and this induced me to express myself with some reserve 

 in the account of the composition of this acid which I gave in 

 that edition ; and I am of opinion (whatever the Reviewer may 

 say to the contrary) that such reserve and hesitation ought 

 always to be met with in elementary books, unless we can 

 clearly show that the results stated by one of the parties are 

 erroneous. 



It was only after I had made the experiments related in my 

 paper, which begins the New Series of the Annals, for January, 

 1821, that I was able to show that Berzelius's analysis of phos- 

 phate of lime is inaccurate. These experiments were necessary 

 before the subject could be considered as closed. 



My conduct during the whole of this discussion has been, I 

 think, just what it ought to have been. The hesitation and 

 uncertainty in which 1 remained till I obtained decisive evi- 

 dence, ought rather I think to be mentioned in my praise than 

 as a proof of want of consideration. 



Thus have I minutely examined all the accusations of the- 

 Reviewer, which affisct my character ; and I appeal to the can- 

 dour of the reader if they have not been shown to be every one 

 of them false, malignant, and disgraceful, to the accuser. 



As for my observations on the Council of the Royal Society, 

 to which the Reviewer alludes in so petulant a manner, I hwve 

 only to say that when I made them, I thought them just, and I 

 still continue of the same opinion. Asa Fellow of the Society, 

 I thought myself not merely entitled, but called upon, to notice 

 any little inadvertence on the part of the Council of the Society.. 

 I have reason to know that some of the gentlemen who were 

 members of the Council at the time, whom 1 have the happiness 

 to reckon among my friends, were not in the least hurt at what 

 I said. One gentleman indeed told me that he was displeased, 

 but he was not a member of the Council ; and I never have been 

 in the habit of regulating my conduct by his particular taste. 



! -'i Mi- ' 



III. Errors Jrom Ignoi'ance. 

 This part of the Review, had it been drawn up by a man of 

 skill and candour, might have been valuable. It is scarcely 

 possible for one practical chemist to review the labours of 



