1816.] Introduction of Bleaching by Oxymuriatic Acid. 99 
a little hurt on reading the contents of his letter to you. In this he 
says, that my ‘ account of the introduction of the mode of bleach- 
ing by oxymuriatic acid into this country resembles so closely, in 
several respects, a statement published some years ago in Dr. Rees’s 
Cyclopedia, that it is probable the historical information of both 
was derived from the same source.” 
Had Dr. Henry read that part of the essay with more attention, 
he would have perceived that it was impossible that my information 
could have sprung from that source from whence Dr. Rees had ob- 
tained his materials for the Cyclopedia; because my narrative is 
written in direct opposition to that account, and in fact positively 
contradicts it. ‘The following passage, at p. 45 of the essay, is 
conclusive on this point: “ The Gentlemen of whom I now speak, 
and to whom Professor Copland communicated the information he 
had obtained, were the Messrs. Milnes, of the house of Gordon, 
Barron, and Co., of Aberdeen; and I have the utmost reason to 
believe, in opposition to an account lately given* in a very respect- 
able publication (meaning Dr. Rees’s Cyclopedia), that theirs was 
the first actual application of the oxymuriatic acid in Great Britain, 
to the purpose of bleaching either linen or cotton goods for sale.” 
Dr. Henry having, in his letter to Dr. Rees, related that “a 
meeting of the manufacturers and merchants of Manchester, then 
ealled by public advertisement to consider of a petition presented 
to Parliament by MM. Bourbollon de Bonnueil and Co.” was held, 
and that in consequence thereof “* the Members for the county 
were instructed to oppose the petition when presented to Parlia~ 
ment, and its prayer was accordingly refused,” adds in a note, 
*«'This was the true reason of the rejection of the petition, and 
not, as Mr. Parkes states, the opposition of a Gentleman who 
happened to be in the gallery of the House of Commons when 
the petition was brought forward.” The account which I give, 
p- 62, is shortly this: “ Fortunately one of the Gentlemen who 
first applied the oxymuriatic acid to the purposes of bleaching in 
this country, as mentioned at p. 44, happening to be in the gallery 
of the House of Commons at the time the application was made in 
behaif of these foreigners, he took immediate measures to inform 
the principal Members that this was not a new process, that he him- 
self had long ago prepared an article equally efficacious, and that 
he would be ready to substantiate the truth of his statement when 
required, Their purpose was thus defeated, and the Act was not 
obtained.” 
Here is the whole which I have said upon this point; and as far 
as it concerns the present subject, 1 am sure it is quite correct; for 
* When engaged in writing the essay on bleaching, I was entirely ignorant of 
the circumstance that Dr, Rees ina subsequent volume had corrected his former 
account of the history of oxymuriatic bleaching—had given the full merit to Mr, 
Henry, which the Doctor himself had claimed in behalf of his father—and, in the 
handsomest way possible, had done ample justice to all parties, See the article 
* Oxymuriatic Acid,” in vol, xxv, purt ii. 
