3 Dr. Thomson's Answer [Jan. 



insciiptioa, as a memorial of the great prowess, the unimpeach- 

 able candour, and the gentlemanly feelings of their worthy 

 professor. It is true that it met with a small accident about six 

 weeks ago, while I was showing its capacity to a gentleman 

 who had called on purpose to make inquiry on the subject, after 

 the appearance of this most formidable review. The accident is 

 merely a trifling crack, not far from the mouth. In other 

 respects the flask is still entire, and is very much at the service 

 of the managers of the Andersonian Institution. Perhaps indeed 

 the crack may rather contribute to add to the value of the flask, 

 as it will render it still more emblematical of the illustrious re- 

 viewer whose mighty deeds it is intended to commemorate. 

 From the regard which the managers have lately manifested for 

 their worthy professor, I am led to believe that such a testimony 

 of his achievements would be most acceptable to them. 



A regard for veracity obliges me, though with regret, to contra- 

 dict one of the most brilliant statements in this part of the review. 

 The author informs us that he repeated my experiment ; but 

 that he took the precaution at the same time to insert a thermo- 

 meter into the flask containing the dilute sulphuric acid and 

 zinc, and that it stood 11° higher than the temperature of the 

 water in which the flask was plunged. Now in my experiments 

 24 hours elapsed before the zinc was fully dissolved. Had the 

 flask continued the whole of that time 11° above the water in 

 which it was plunged, the quantity of heat given out during the 

 solution of 130 grains of zinc must have been at least sufhcienl 

 to have heated six cubic inches of very dilute sulphuric acid 

 1500 degrees ! Had the reviewer paid any attention to the 

 account which I gave of my experiments, he would have seen 

 that I observed the temperature during the solution with the 

 mobt careful attention. The utmost rise when the experiments 

 were made in the way that I have described in my answer to 

 Mr. Rainy, did not exceed 1-^° ; and during a very considerable 

 portion of the time, there was no rise of temperature whatever. 



6. The reviewer roundly asserts that my table of the atomic 

 strength of muriatic acid was copied from one which it seems 

 he pubhshed in the Journal of Science for January, 1822. I 

 was a little startled at learning the existence of this table, of 

 which I was not aware till I saw it noticed in the review. 1 am 

 disposed to suspect that a theft has indeed ])een committed. 

 My table was exhibited to the students of chemistry in Glasgow 

 College (known to be a pretty numerous and annually increasing 

 body) for the first time during the winter session 1820-21. 

 Many copies of it were taken and dispersed. The review carries 

 internal evidence that the worthy Professor of the Andersonian 

 Institution is not a little upon the alert to know what is going 

 on in the College laboratory. Indeed I know from positive 

 information that he has more tUau once tampered with my 



