Heply to a Review in Brandt's Journal of Science. 1 1 9 



3. *' And to advertise him of two or three samples of bad taste 

 which have probably escaped his notice." 



To which I then reply, seriatim. 

 Reply 1. The purely scientific part of the subject of Hydro- 

 cyanic Acid was not first brought before the British public 

 in the Quarterly Journal of Science; neither was its appli- 

 cation to the purposes of medicine first adverted to in that 

 Journal. 

 Proofs. A masterly account of the discoveries and investiga- 

 tions of Gay-Lussac on that subject was given in the An- 

 nals of Philosophy for December 1815, at which epoch 

 the Quarterly Journal was kot in existence ! And a pa- 

 j)er specifically ivrittenfor the Bristish public, respect- 

 ing the use of Prussic Acid as a medicine, was inserted in 

 the Medical Repository, two years and a half before the 

 subject was noticed in the Quarterly Journal. 

 Corollary. O's first asseveration, therefore, is " incorrect." 

 Reply 2. Of the one or two errors into which 1 am said to have 

 fallen by the reviewer, one only is mentioned, after all, bv 

 him ifi the course of his critique at page ^02, respecting 

 the specific gravity of prussic acid ; and that is not an error 

 of the author, but a typographical fault. 

 Proof. See the errata corrige prefixed to my work, in which 



that fault is actually rectified. 

 Corollary. O's first accusation against me, therefore, is *' un- 

 just." 

 Reply 3. Of the two or three samples of bad taste of which O 

 was anxious to " advertise me," one only is brought forward 

 by him in his review — and that one sample of bad taste is 

 only made to appear as such by artfully coupling together 

 two short garbled quotations from mV book. 

 Proof. The anecdote related in my book, from which the quo- 

 tations of the reviewer are taken, relates to a matter of 

 fact, which he has not dared to repeat; or what he has 

 called " bad taste/' would have aj)peared to be " plain 

 truth." 

 Corollary. O's conduct, therefore, is " wanting in candour." 

 After sketching a short and rapid account of the history of 

 prussic acid, takei\ in some instances, verbatim, though without 

 acknowledging it, from my work, the reviewer proceeds to as- 

 sert, page 401, that, 



1 . I have adverted to the history of that substance superficially. 



2. That 1 have given the diHerent processes for preparing the 

 acid without siiffidcnl remarks upon their principles. 



3. That I have |)a5sed judgement upon the merits of those 

 processes, not always tampered with mercy. 



To 



