124 Jieply to a Review in Brande's Journal of Science. 



Perliaps some evidence of all these qualities is to be found in the 

 remaining part of the Review, relating to the most important as 

 well as to the largest portion of my work, which is dismissed in 

 ten lines and a half ! 



I am MOW arrived at that part of my reply, upon which I enter 

 willi feelings of great reluctance ; because it alike involves charges 

 of a heavy nature against tiie reviewer ; and obliges me, from a 

 sense of what is due to truth, publiciv to denv the correctness of 

 opinions said to be vour own. 



My charges against the reviewer are, 1. Misrepresentation, or 

 concealment of facts. 2. Ignorance of the subject on which he 

 has undertaken to pronounce. 3. Unworthy insinuations against 

 the author, whose l)ook he reviews. Each and all of which 

 charges, in pursuance of the plan I have followed throughout this 

 reply, I shall proceed to substantiate bv positive proofs : leaving, 

 however, to the pul)lic, the task of drawing, in this insbance, the 

 corollaries that must necessarily follow. 



The first charge, or that of misrepresentation or concealment 

 of facts, is supported by the following evidence : — 1 .The reviewer 

 tells his readers that the formula of Dr. Magendie for diluting 

 Gay Lussac's acid, is not given in my book (p. 402) ; whereas 

 the /flc/ is, that at page 20 of my Treatise / liaife inserted that 

 formula thus : " Dr. Magendie dilutes the concentrated acid of 

 Gay Lussac with six times its volume, or eight times and a half 

 its weight of distilled water." — 2. The reviewer, in the same pa- 

 ragraph, informs his readers that the number 9.20583 is quoted 

 by me as the " medium densitv" of Magendie's diluted acid ; 

 whereas the truth is, that I distinctly used the word tveight, 

 meaning the absolute weight, and not "the " medium density " of 

 a mixture of 8.5 of water and 0.70583 of concentrated acid. — 

 3. Tile reviewoi- says, 1 have " fallen into some sad errors re- 

 sj)ecting the specific gravity of tlie pure acid," and merrily and 

 triumphantly quotes a typographical fault by which 1 am made 

 absurdly t^ state the specific gravity of the "acid to be 70.583 ; 

 whereas in the errata, which everv candid reviewer would have 

 turned to on seeing such an absurd mistake, the printer's error 

 is actually rectified, and the specific gravity correctly given thus, 

 .70583. — 4. The reviewer states, " that the doctor insinuates, 

 though he must know better, that the acid sold at Apothecaries' 

 Hall is alivays turbid, yellowish and impure." This is not true. 

 The Doctor never expressed such an insinuation ; nor did he use 

 the two words " always" and "impure;" which the reviewer, 

 with utter disregard to propriety, has attributed to him, and has 

 even marked in italics. The following is the only passage in 

 which I passed any degree of condemnation on the acid prepared 

 at Ajjothccaries' Hall : " I know, besides, that the acid thus pre- 

 pared 



