1822.] Messrs. Young and Bird’s Reply to Mr. Winch. 247 
If these two substances, with the same onion-like smell, though 
roduced in quite a different way, are really the same, Tam 
inclined to consider the action of chlorine such as that this 
body combines with a// the hydrogen of the olefiant gas, allow- 
ing the sulphur and carbon to form a compound ; or that it com- 
bines only with a certain quantity of hydrogen, while the rest, 
together with the carbon, combines with sulphur. I obtained the 
same onion-like smell a short time ago by passing chlorine 
through a solution of sulphuret of potash in alcohol. In this 
case, and when chlorine was passed through sulphuret of potash, 
another interesting decomposition seemed likewise to take place, 
which, however, I must make the subject of a peculiar set of 
experiments. 
Arricte II. 
Reply to Mr. Winch. By G. Young, Esq. and J. Bird, Esq. 
(To the Editor of the Annals of Philosophy.) 
SIR, Whitby, Aug. 31, 1822. 
Nor being regular readers of your Annals, we did not know 
tilllast week that a letter appeared in your number for May, from 
the pen of N. J. Winch, Esq. animadverting on some passages in 
our Geological Survey of the Yorkshire Coast, and complaining 
that we have travelled out of our road for the purpose of writing 
strictures on his geological essays. 
Having no idea that we had done any injustice to Mr. Winch, 
or to other writers, whose mistakes we had ventured to correct, 
we are rather surprised to notice his complaints. In describing 
the strata of the Yorkshire coast, and their connexion with those 
of the county of Durham, we could not conceive that we were 
going out of our way by pointing out the errors of those who 
ad gone before us; on the contrary, we felt it to be a duty 
which we owed to truth and to the public. This duty we have 
endeavoured to discharge without any hostile feelings towards 
our fellow-labourers in the cause of science ; and that our remarks 
on Mr. Winch’s statements did not originate in any such feel- 
ings, might be inferred from our acknowledging an instance of 
his politeness, and from our referring our readers to his paper on 
the Geology of Durham and Northumberland for an account of 
the magnesian limestone, and the strata that succeed it.—(See 
our Geol. Survey, p. 166, 170.) 
On what ground Mr. Winch could consider our note respect- 
ng the organic remains in the limestone at Hartlepool as a 
reflection on his accuracy, we cannot tell. The most attentive 
