126 Reply to a Review in Brandes Journal of Science. 



acid with water " not being so " great" as the reviewer boldly 

 asserts. 



The third charge against O, namely, that of throwing out un- 

 worthy and unwarrantable insinuations against me, will be best 

 substantiated by a quotation of his own expressions. " We should, 

 have conceived it more decorous on the part of Dr. Granville, 

 finding the above preparation objectionable, as he has asserted it 

 to be, to have stated the objections to the Apothecaries' Company, 

 instead of pvhlishbig their process with a vieiv to depreciate it, 

 and to employ it as a vehicle of a pu(f-ohUque in favour of the 

 Doctor's chemist, Mr. Garden." 1 despise too much the indi- 

 vidual, who, without the slightest degree of evidence in support 

 of them, can assume and publish two such inferences, and direct 

 them against the moral rectitude of an author — to be disposed to 

 take anv other notice of the above disgraceful insinuations against 

 my character, than to express my utter astonishme?it, that you 

 should have suffered it to appear in your Journal ! Did you know 

 of any thing in my conduct during the six or eight years of our 

 acquaintance ; or any passage in my work which could have led 

 you to admit, for one instant, the propriety of the aspersions of 

 my reviewer ? The only passage that relates to Mr. Garden the 

 chemist, and which is contained in the same paragraph of my 

 •work, which seems to have given such mortal offence to O, is 

 this : " I have not had an opportunity of trying this acid (the 

 Apothecaries') as I am 'iatisfiedwith that which Mr. Garden pre- 

 pares for my patients." Is truth, then, synonymous with pnff- 

 oblique in the moral lexicon of my reviewer ? — As to its being 

 or not " more decorous" for me to have staed the objections I 

 entertained against their acid, to the Apothecaries' Company 

 themselves, instead of publishing those objections ; 1 have yet 

 to learu that that worshipful body have any claim to the services 

 of any physician. Let them look to their own business ; and see 

 that their own officers do their duty. O gives a sort of manifesto 

 in his review, from the Apothecaries' Company, in which they 

 declare, that they " have no secrets ;" if so, why should he feel 

 sore at mj having published their process of preparing the hy- 

 drocyanic acid ? and how, I would furthermore ask him, can the 

 publication of such a process '■^ depreciate it," as he rather awk- 

 wardly states, if the process be inherently perfect ? 



A 'ic\y more words on the subject of certain opinions ascribed 

 by the reviewer to yourself ; and on the defence set up by that 

 gentleman in favour of the Apothecaries' acid of IS 19 and 1820, 

 and I conclude. 



You arc said in the Review, to have reported to the Labora- 

 tory Committecof the Apothecaries' Society that, "having tried 



the 



