1815.] On Bleaching by Oxymuriatic Acid. 423 
“part of aseries, in which each of those gentlemen disclosed; un- 
reservedly to the other, the progress of his experiments in this new 
art. Ina letter dated Feb. 23, 1788, Mr. Watt states, that at 
that very time, 1500 yards of linen were bleaching by the new pro- 
cess under his directions ; and he desires that the circumstance may 
be stated to a meeting of the manufacturers and merchants of 
Manchester, then called by public advertisement, ‘to consider of a 
petition presented to Parliament by M. M. Bourbollon de Bonnueil 
and Co, concerning a liquid which whitens Jinen and cotton ina 
shorter time than the old method, and without the inconveniences 
and losses to which that method is liable.* 
At this meeting half a piece of calico was produced, which had 
been bleached immediately before by Messrs. Cooper, Baker, and 
Charles Taylor, by the new method; and at the same meeting, 
Mr. Henry produced, not indeed half a piece, but half a yard of 
calico, which he had just bleached by the oxymuriatic acid. What 
was wanting, however, in quantity, was made up by the quality of 
the work ; and the smaller specimen was declared to be superior in 
whiteness to the larger one. It was this'superiority that gave occa- 
sion to an application from one of the bleachers present (M. Ridg- 
way of Harwich) to Mr. Henry, to be instructed in the new pro- 
eess. And the instructions which he accordingly received, were 
the first step of a series of improvements carried on by Mr. R. and 
his son, with an ability and spirit of enterprise, which have raised 
their establishment to its present great extent and importance, 
Mr. Henry, also, besides instructing other persons, himself esta- 
blished a bleaching concern, which was afterwards abandoned, 
from no defect, however, of the processes carried on, but in con- 
sequence of the dishonourable conduct of a partner, and of the 
occupation of his own time in the practice of medicine. 
The event of the public meeting was, that in consequence of the 
facts stated in Mr. Watt’s letter, and of the testimony of Mr. 
Cooper (now of Carlisle College, America) and Mr. Henry, who 
were present, the members for the county were instructed to oppose 
the petition when presented to Parliament; and its prayer was ac- 
cordingly refused.t Having failed in this object, the next attempt 
* In this letter, Mr. Watt says ‘* I have, for more than a twelvemonth, been in 
possession and practice of a method of preparing a ‘iquor from common salt, 
which possesses bleaching qualities in an eminent degree; but, not being the 
inventor, | have not attempted to get a patent or exclusive privilege for it, And 
I have great reason to believe that the process of these gentlemen (Bourbollon 
and Co.) is the very same that I practise, and that they have learnt it from the 
same source, the inventor being an eminent chemist and philosopher at Paris.” 
It is evident, therefore, that all claims for priority, that have been hitherto ad- 
vanced in this country, must yield to that of Mr, Watt, whose actual employ- 
ae of the oxymuriatie aeid in bleaching dates from the beginning of the year 
+ This was the true reason of the rejection of the petition, and not, as Mr, 
Parkes states, (Essays, iv. 62), the opposition of a gentleman, who happened to 
be in the gallery of the House of Commons when the petition was brought for- 
ward. Mr, Watt, also, (who in making these efforts had no view whatever to his 
