128 Mr. JR. Phillips's Remarks [Feb. 



those of Cavendish ? Far from it. That you may not suppose 

 this is only my own prejudiced opinion, I refer you to the 

 opinion expressed by Dr. Thomas Thomson in his catalogue of 

 Lavoisier's writings, in the second volume of the Annals of 

 Philosophy. I remain, Sir, yours respectfully, 



Samuel F. Gray. 



Article XIV. 

 Remarks upon the preceding Answer. By R. Phillips, FRS. &c. 



(To Mr. Gray.) 



SIR, 



In the observations which I shall offer on your reply, I shall 

 confine myself as much as possible to matters of fact. I must, 

 however, confess, that I was completely in error respecting your 

 motive for adopting the arrangement which I criticised. Had I 

 known that you were assembling gum arabic, horns, henbane 

 leaves and eggs, as " farinaceous bodies," for the purpose of 

 exhibiting an absurdity, I should have congratulated you on the 

 success of your exertions ; but I think you should have ren- 

 dered your motive evident ; for the reader may imagine that you 

 are so unhappily circumstanced as really to suppose that eggs 

 are farinaceous, and oyster shells combustible. 



I know not from whence you have copied the definition of 

 chemistry which you attribute to Dr. Black ; there are two defi- 

 nitions given in his lectures, and both so unlike that which you 

 ascribe to him, that neither contains the word " cold." 



You admit that you have four times misstated the composition 

 of sulphuric acid, by assigning it ten atoms of water instead of 

 one atom ; but you say, that in p. 138 it is stated right. On 

 referring, I find that it " is supposed to consist of S* + water." 

 Now, according to the theory of " slips," of which you have 

 made so much use, I would ask, whether the pupil having four 

 times learned that oil of vitriol contains 10 atoms of water, he 

 would not be likely to conclude that at p. 138 the coefficient had 

 slipped out, rather than thatithad three times previously slippedinl 

 According, however, to Berzelius S 3 ■+• water, would express a 

 compound of three atoms of sulphur •+• one atom of water ; so 

 that I deny you having rightly stated the composition of sul- 

 phuric acid. 



I again assert that neither Thomson, Henry, nor Brande, men- 

 tions the existence of oxygen or nitricum in ammonia. It is not 

 necessary to quote at length : Dr. Thomson (System, vol. i. p. 

 225) says, it is " a compound of three atoms of hydrogen and 

 one atom of azote." Dr. Henry (Elements, vol. i. p. 401) also 



