A Reply to the Quarterly Review. 13 
In entering upon an enquiry which I have endeavoured to keep within the 
limits of broad, tangible, and easily demonstrable facts, what qualities would 
common sense ask forin an investigator? Would an investigation be considered 
trustworthy were it conducted by a chemical dreamer who could spin off theory 
by the hour, and cover acres of paper with chemical symbols, but who in a 
laboratory would be unable to perform the simplest analysis, or build up a 
piece of chemical apparatus? Let it not, however, be supposed that I am 
unmindful of the philosophical and fructifying labours of Hofmann, Williamson, 
and others, in the field of Chemical Philosophy. But with reference to this 
enquiry, surely it should be conducted by one “who is trustworthy in an 
enquiry requiring technical knowledge for its successful condué.” 
The reviewer assumes that the phenomenon of the suspension of heavy bodies 
in the air, the up and down movements of a wooden board, and the registration 
of the varying tension on a spring balance, are psychical, not physical ; 
and he lays down a dictum that in such matter-of-fa& results which I have 
obtained, one’s own eyes must not be trusted, for in such a case “ seeing is 
anything but believing.” To show my unfitness for ascertaining the weight 
of a piece of wood, he accuses me of being ignorant of the knowledge of 
Chemical Philosophy! He does, however, from his Olympian height, 
condescendingly admit that my ability is technical, that I have made 
creditable use of my very limited opportunities, and intimates that I am 
trustworthy as to any inquiry which requires technical knowledge for its 
successful conduct. Now what does he mean by all this? I always thought 
that these qualities which are so contemptuously accorded me were just those 
of the highest value in this country. What has chiefly placed England in the 
industrial position she now holds but technical science and special researches ? 
But my greatest crime seems to be that I am a “ specialist of specialists.” 
I a specialist of specialists! This is indeed news to me, that I have confined 
my attention only to one special subject. Will my reviewer kindly say 
what that subject is? Is it general chemistry, whose chronicler I have 
been since the commencement of the ‘Chemical News” in 1859? Is it 
Thallium, about which the public have probably heard as much as they 
care for? Is it Chemical Analysis, in which my recently published 
* Selec Methods” is the result of twelve years’ work? Is it Disinfection 
and the Prevention and Cure of Cattle Plague, my published report on 
which may be said to have popularised Carbolic Acid? Is it Photography, on | 
the theory and practice of which my papers have been very numerous? Is it 
the Metallurgy of Gold and Silver, in which my discovery of the value of Sodium 
in the amalgamation process is now largely used in Australia, California, and 
South America ? Is itin Physical Optics, in which department I have space only 
to refer to papers on some Phenomena of Polarised Light, published before I 
was twenty-one; to my detailed description of the Spectroscope and labours 
with this instrument, when it was almost unknown in England; to my 
papers on the Solar and Terrestrial Spectra; to my examination of the 
Optical Phenomena of Opals, and construction of the Spectrum Microscope ; 
to my papers on the Measurement of the Luminous Intensity of Light; 
and my description of my Polarisation Photometer? Or is my speciality 
Astronomy and Meteorology, inasmuch as I was for twelve months at the 
