186 On Mr. Moore junior's Reply. 



mercury in barometer and thermometer tubes, and the pro- 

 priety of exposing as small a surftice of the mercury as possible 

 to the air. It may explain, likewise, the difference of the 

 heights of the mercury in different barometers ; and seems to 

 indicate the propriety of reboiling the mercury in these instru- 

 ments after a certain lapse of time. 



Explanatioi of the Figure. 



A. The tube, of the usual diameter. 



B. The wire for communicating electricity. 



E. A small cyUnder of metallic foil, to place as a cap on 

 tubes not having the wire h, to make a coated surface. 



c. The surface of the quicksilver, or fused tin. 



D. The part of the tube to be exhausted by the stop-cock 

 F, after being filled by means of the same stop-cock, when 

 necessary, with hydrogen. 



G. The moveable tube connected with the air-pump. 



It is evident, that by introducing more mercury, the leg d 

 may be filled with mercury, and the stop-cock closed upon it, 

 so as to leave only a torricellian vacuum in the tube, in which 

 the mercury may be boiled. I have found that the experiment 

 tried in this way, offers no difference of result. 



XXXI. On Mr. John Moore Junior's " Reply." 



To theEditors of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal. 



Gentlemen, — X repeat that I see no necessity whatever for 

 7-epublishing on the part of Mr. John Moore junior that which 

 I had already done. The jmblic have nothing to do with 

 private intromissions. It was priority of publication which 

 secured for Sir H. Dayy the imperishable honom's attached to 

 his beautiful invention. It is this which is the standard of 

 appeal in science and art. 



I have given my reasons for rejecting the cumbrous and 

 troublesome modification obtruded. These reasons remain 

 inviolate. 



The " Reply " is a mere tissue of questions : fo urteen marks 

 of interrogation are interspersed ! A very convenient mode of 

 " reply," it must needs be confessed. For instance, I am 

 asked, " How is it that the individual becomes reanimated?" 

 This is introduced as a species of climax to a most disi?igc~ 

 nuous (I shall not term it wilful or malignant) perversion of 

 my language. Mr. Moore junior says, " Mr. Murray has 

 stated that the air undergoes no change whatever ! ! " Whereas 

 my words are, " the air undergoes no change whatever nnlil 

 natural respiration returns.'" There 



