98 Mr. Parkes’ Reply to Dr. Henry respecting the [Fex. 
science with an equal hand; it is a duty which they owe to the 
public, and which they ought to discharge with the strictest justice 
and impartiality ; but this is very far from being the case. When 
any article of this kind does appear, it is generally so contracted 
that one cannot help reading in the pages the directions that the 
writers have received from the editor, ‘‘ not to make the article too 
long.” Even in a work professedly philosophical the editor a short 
time back having allowed himself to propose a mathematical query 
from one of his correspondents, thought it necessary to accompany 
it with a short note, requesting those who might be disposed to 
answer it, “ to be as concise as possible in their reply.” AN this 
does not happen because the editors of reviews would not prefer 
scientific discussions to the miserable ‘ limping poetry” which fre- 
quently fill their pages; but because (if we may be allowed the 
expression) the mathematics are out of fashion ; and for the sake of 
extending the sale of their respective works they administer to the 
bad taste of their readers, instead of using their influence to cor- 
rect it. 
The Annals of Philosophy does not fall under this censure. It is, 
Sir, apparently your wish to correct this defect, and to stimulate 
our mathematicians to action; and it is on this account that [ have 
ventured to address to you this letter, not without hopes that you 
may be induced to give it insertion in your Journal, and that it may 
fall under the observation of some one more competent than myself 
to remove that stigma which at present attaches to the scientific 
character of Great Britain. B, 
Articte II, 
Reply to Dr. Henry’s Letter respecting the Introduction of Bleach- 
ing by Oxymuriatic Acid. By Mr. Samuel Parkes, F.L.S. &c. 
(To Dr. Thomson.) 
SIR, 
Berne at a great distance from home when Dr. Henry’s letter 
respecting a part of my Chemical Essays was published in your 
Annals of Philosophy, it was not in my power to avail myself of 
your last number to make my reply. In that letter Dr. Henry 
doubts the correctness of that part of the essay on bleaching (see 
essay xii. vol. iv.) in which I have stated that the first application of 
the oxymuriatic acid for the purpose in question was by Messrs. 
Milnes, of Aberdeen, and contends that this merit belongs to other 
persons, and especially to his father, Mr. ‘Thomas Henry, of Man- 
chester. 
Being aware of the many obligations which the public owe to 
Dr. Henry, I confess myself greatly prejudiced in favour of every 
thing which has proceeded from his pen, and consequently feel not 
: 
: 
: 
