On the Alkali in the Animal Fluids. 323 



turally occur ; 1. What are the proof's of soda-muriate of 

 platina? 2. What are tlie proofs that soda muriate of 

 platina was from free soda, and not from muriate of s'id;i? 



To omit nothing supposed to be favourable to the adverse 

 party, it must be noticed that " the carbonaceou'^ alkaline 

 mass" above spoken of after fusion, did not deliquesce on 

 exposure to even damp air. T never met with such a re- 

 sult, at least with expectorated matters and dropsical fluids j 

 and if no deliquescence took place with the salts of serum, 

 it is not unreasonable to account for it from the very small 

 proportion, probablv not one fourth of a grain, or at most 

 half a grain of alkali in the whole mass ; and this by 

 fusion might be united to form a compound unknown. 



To the inferences of my adversary I also object ; that it 

 is assumed without testimony, that alcohol dissolved a large 

 proportion of muriate of potash. It is I believe admitted 

 (but it may be an error) that this menstruum dissolves 

 none at all: but if this be an error, I demand the proof. 



2. It was not admitted as I reasoned that acetate of soda 

 is non-deliquescent, and therefore the proof I offered of the 

 alkali being potash from the deliquescent property of the 

 acetate was eagerly seized to expose my ignorance, by ex- 

 Uilingly exclaiming that I had committed a palpalde error.- 

 I acknowledged that I had taken for granted, with most 

 chemists, what I subsequently adaiitted was not a fact: but 

 I am now in a doubtful state of mind with respect to this 

 property : for Professor Berzelius oontideutly assures me 

 that he found by repeated experiments acetate of soda to be 

 uniformly non-deliquescent ; and on observing that in my 

 experiment T had found it otherwise, we agreed that j-to- 

 bably the different results were o.vmg to the soda 1 used 

 containing a proportion, however minute, of potash, and 

 which I could not perceive by tartaric acid; whereas that 

 he used was exempt. If liiis be true, it will be a stronger 

 proof that the alkali is potash, than the united testimonies 

 to prove thai it is soda. 



3. Dr. Marcet argues, that from principle it may be in- 

 ftrrcd that soda and not potash is the iiuprtgnating alkiti, 

 because the latter attracts muriatic acid more strongly than 

 the former. This is true in the circumstance of simple 

 elective attraction : but any rcMS uiiuji from this law when 

 more than one menstruum is present and two or more bases, 

 is fallacious; especially when the diflerenl substances pre- 

 sent are not certainly known : and here I must observe that 

 1 liave never conirmijlated potash as exisimg in an uncom- 

 bincd blalc iu tlju amojal fluids, but iij reality in coiubma- 



X 2 lioa 



