On Animal Fluids, 289 



I have also made a number of other interesting observa- 

 tions on horses and oxen, vv'hich are likewir^e used in 'Mov- 

 ing machines : but as I am now wailing for observaiions 

 of^this kind, which other persons are making according to 

 my plan, I shall reserve what I have to say respecting them 

 for a second memoir. 



XLIT. A Rejoinder to a Paper puUished i?i the Philosophi- 

 cal Maoaziue, by Dr Marckt, on the Animal Fluids, 

 By George Pearson, M.D. F.R,S., ^c. 



To Mr, Tilloch. 



Sip, Jdv a severe accident I have been prevented From 

 writing the paper which I proposed in my Communication 

 honourably inserud in your Journal for January last. 

 ^Meanwhile an answer to that Communication has been 

 published by Dr. Marcet*. 



Before I redeem mv pledge of oflTering some remarks on 

 Dr. Marcet's Memoir', I fee! myself called upon by what 

 I consider to be the true interests of S'.ience to reply to his 

 intervening answer. This gentleman cannot be more 

 averse from polemical writmg than I am, nor have more 

 cogent motives of private advantage by being otherwise 

 employed ; but unless I were to avail myself of the plea of 

 a celebrated philosopher, who asserted that his regard for 

 truth was si> great that he would not part with it lest it 

 should be ill "treated by mankind, I have no option con- 

 sistently with public duty. The feelings of either party 

 nnist however regulate their future conduct. For myself, 

 I can only promise that I shall not consider it as a point of 

 honour, to contend for the last word. 



In the answ er which has been adilressed to me, Dr. Marcet 

 has set forth evidence from his memoir, still under ex- 

 amination, to maintain that soda in an uncombmed state, 

 and iKit potash, exists in the ammal fluids ; as I trust 1 have 

 legitimately proved according to facts hitheito discovered. 

 As mv honourable Opponent has still not contravened the 

 most decisive parie of the evidence in support of my alle- 

 gations, I am spared the pains of again di-plaving it ; so 

 that I have only to comment on the evidence ne brings 

 forward in justification. In my remarks, pei'iaps, I cannot 

 entirely avoid repetition of objection'^ already produced. 

 The first kind of proof that soda and not potash is present, 



♦ S«e {he Philciophical Magazine for February last, 



again 



