Reply to a Review in Brrwde's Journal nf Science. 121 



two cases it is given in a strain of eulogiuni — and in the 

 third no judgement is given at all ! 

 Proofs. Speaking of that of Scheele, I state, " By this method 

 the acid is obtained at an uniform degree of concentra- 

 tion ;" and again, " this acid is perfectly good for the 

 purpose of practice ; while, on the sui)ject of that of 

 Vauquelin, I affirm, " that the acid prepared according 

 to his method is of a proper strength for medicinal pur- 

 poses." 

 CoROLLARy. O's assertion, therefore, in this ca^e, is again 

 " wanting in candour." 

 And here I cannot help observing to you, my dear sir, that 

 this advocate for mercy so far forgets his own precepts, that 

 throughout the review of my work sentiments are uttered and ex- 

 presssions used that are very distantly allied, indeed, to that 

 heaven-born virtue. As a proof of this assertion, I need only 

 mention that the very processes of two such eminent chemists 

 as Scheele and Vauquelin, which lie affects to defend from my 

 unmerciful judgement, are, bv !iim, dismissed in the most pe- 

 remptory language of condemnation — the one as furnishing an 

 acid of' variable composition," the other for being " extremely 

 objectionable." 



Speaking of the very curious but difficult brancli of chemicni 

 inquiry, respectins:; the formation of prussic iicid by the combina- 

 tion of animal matter, contained in the third section of my book, 

 the reviewer says, that " I should eif.ier not have n;eddleu with 

 it, or given a clear epitome of what is known upon t'le subject." 

 In answer to which I have to observe, 



1st. That 1 have not meddled with the subject, which is still 

 involved in absolute oljscuiitv, any further than by repeating an 

 uucontrovertcd fact, wiiich, instead of being (UK.ted in a garbled 

 manner, should have been fairly transcribed l)y the reviewer : and 

 2dlv, That the whole of what is known on the subject of the for- 

 mation of Prussic Acid by the combination of animal matter, iv 

 detailed in the said section, although that all be iiut little, and 

 betray " a poverty in the land," as the reviewer poetically ex- 

 ))rcsses it. And I challenge him to point out any l)ook on che- 

 mistry in which more, or even as nuKh, is to be found on that 

 subject, that is not conjectural. 



Proofs. The very paragraph with which the section in ques- 

 tion of my work begins, and which the reviewer imper- 

 fectly (juotes, as unintelligible, is given in the identicrd 

 language of Berthollet,from whose Kiiai cL: Slafupie Clv- 

 mirjue it was collectcd--neither Thomson, nor .Murray, 

 nor Henry, nor Klaproth, nor Orfda, nor Lagrange, no — 

 nor even yourself, in yoin- matmal, have alluded to the in- 

 Vol..')7. No. 274. Fe^. 1821. Q quiiy 



