[ 241 ] 



XXXVII. Olservations on Statemenls made ly Mr. Ricardo, 

 and others J " On the comparative Advantages of ilhiminating 

 by Gas produced from Oil and from Coal." By Mr. George 

 Lowe. 



To Mr. Tilloch. 



Dear Sir, — feo great is the interest excited at this time, 

 respecting the quahties of oil, during heating, boihng, or being 

 converted into gas, that scarcely does there ajjpear a single num- 

 ber of the scientific journals, in which the subject, in some shape 

 or other, is not to be found amongst its contents. There can be 

 little doubt, could we but visit the chemical laboratories through- 

 out this kingdom, that we should, in not a few, find some odori- 

 ferous trace of its being, or having been, the subject of inquiry. 

 So far then as the late memorable trials (which were at the time 

 too truly styled " the humiliation of science") may tend to a pa- 

 tient investigation of experimental chemistry, prior to the deli- 

 very of any public opinion on them, they may eventually subserve 

 the interests of science itself. 



Our increased knowledge of the gaseous compounds, arising 

 from the destructive distillation of oil and coal, is certainly much 

 indebted to the late judicial investigations, as from hence have 

 arisen numerous essays and papers, each inviting discussion on 

 the subject, in connexion with our truly national Invention of 

 gas illiimination. 



The (juestion arising out of these discussions, to which at this 

 time I wish more particularly to draw the attention of your 

 readers, is, " the comparative advantages of illuminating by gas 

 produced from oil, and from coal," this being the title of a paper 

 by Mr. Ricardo, which has just appeared in the 3rd number of 

 the Annals of Philosophy. 



So nearly allied is this attempt to run down coal gas, to the 

 train of argument adopted by the writer of an Essay on the same 

 subject, which appeared in the I4th number of the Quarterly 

 Journal (to which I replied in the 261st Number of the Philoso- 

 phical Magazine), that even the expressions in many instances are 

 alike ; of course the conclusions drawn are identical. Whether 

 or not the same hand which held a pen in the former was con- 

 cerned in the paper now under examination, matters little, as I 

 shall save myself and your readers the trouble of again discussing 

 assertions unsupported by fresh arguments, by referring them to 

 my former reply. In a word, I do not hesitate to maintain, that 

 by far the greater |)art of Mr. R.'s conclusion against the use of 

 coal gas in favour of oil gas, was drawn from distorted and er- 

 roneous data. 



Vol. 57. No. 27ti. Jpril 1S21. II h Let 



