Answer to Mr. John Farey Sen. and to Dr. JolmMurray. 105 



lamp was used in the Bagilt colliery, and some were ordered from 

 Mr. Newman of Lisle-street, by Mr. Roscoe, to whom I submitted 

 Mr. N.'s address ; but such has been either only occasional, or 

 used in such parts of the mine as were too alarming to be disre- 

 garded. I would not for a moment be understood to impeach 

 either the prudence or precaution of Mr. Edward Roscoe, whose 

 attention and care are highly honourable to him. 



Mr. Farey senior cannot say I took him by surprise in the letter 

 inserted in " The Carlisle Patriot," as I dispatched to him the 

 paper which contained it. For what purpose he has kept it out 

 of sight for about a twelvemonth, 1 cannot even conjecture ; nor 

 can I divine for what end it is now introduced. I may here 

 state, that at this period I had not seen Sir H. Davy's safe-lam}, 

 nor was aware of the extent of its application. It was then in 

 infancy, and I only obtained a confused ^nd indistinct idea of 

 its structure and properties through the mediumof the press; but 

 when I received one, and passed it through explosive atmospheres, 

 and saw its simplicity and its efficacv, and proved its " mighti- 

 ness," I became a convert, and believed. All other lamps asso- 

 ciated with this, notwithstanding Dr. Murray's seif-complacent 

 opinion, are bubbles in the comparison — " Hyperion to a satyr." 

 Mr. Farcy's latter paragraph is pitiful, very pitiful. 



Dr. John Murray commences his paper Viitli observing, that 

 I was not aware of its being taken from The Transactions of the 

 Royal Society of Edinburgh. There is nothing to warrant thi? 

 conclusion — I questioned the propriety of making this a leading 

 article in the Amials of Philosophy; and as for t!ie violtnce of- 

 fered to Dr. John Murray, judge ye : — In reply to the article in 

 the " Edinburgh Star," I ex|jhiined and gave in ansvi'er a satis- 

 factory rejoinder. In concluding, I remarked — " It must be evi- 

 dent that the Doctor, feeling himself anticipated, is sore upon the 

 sultject. This is the punctnm saliens." Such is the violence 

 I have done to the person and character of Dr. Murray! Con- 

 fident that my reply was most conclusive, Dr. J. Murray antici- 

 pates in his paper an answer', but he excuses himself fiom no- 

 ticing it. This is an easy way of getting rid of his dilemma. Why 

 does Dr. Murray conhtie himself to remarks respecting the struc- 

 ture of the CHIMNEY, which I admit in the first case was not so 

 fcimple as that afterwards adopted, and desc ribed in your last 

 number? The other suggestions are quite indcj)cudenr of the 

 question, and have nothing to do whatever with the jjosition, " A 

 lamp might be made air-tisiht and fed by a flexil)ie tuhe from 

 the floor of the mine ; the carburettcd hydrogen being ligliterand 

 ascending would occujn'thc upper part, and thus could not enter 

 the tube." And yet, with this language before him, lie ajfects 

 to deny that I have anticipated him in suggesting the structure 



of 



