100 Mr. Parkes’ Reply to Dr. Henry respecting the (Fes. 
I well know the Gentleman, now a Member of Parliament, who. 
related the circumstance to me, and am positive that he would not 
have deceived me. I did not know of the Manchester meeting, 
otherwise that also would have been mentioned. My friend cer- 
tainly did his part towards preventing the intended monopoly, and 
I have recorded the fact; but I was not bound, at the distance of 
30 years, to discover what means other persons adopted to effect the 
same purpose. 
It is also necessary for me to observe, that when Dr. Henry was 
complaining that in the Cyclopedia “ far too little is said of the 
‘part which was taken by Mr. Watt in the application of Berthollet’s 
important discovery,” he ought to have done me the justice to re- 
mark that this was not the case in the history of the progress of the 
new bleaching which I had published. 1 have reason to say that 
this should have been done, because a person who had read Dr. 
Henry’s letter has assured me that he actually conceived the Doctor 
had charged me with having kept Mr. Watt in the back ground as 
much as others had done before me. All, however, that it will be 
necessary for me to say in my own vindication is, that I have not 
only repeated what had been before published respecting the 
attempts of this Gentleman to promote the success of the new 
process, but have positively stated it as my opinion (see p. 55) 
** that Mr. Watt was the first person in Great Britain who intro- 
duced science into the bleaching process; for that before his con- 
nexion with Mr. Macgregor, whose daughter he had married, the 
whole operation of bleaching was merely the effect of observation 
and practice, &c. &e.”’ This is surely another instance in which 
my account materially differs from that of which Dr. Henry com- 
plains. Indeed, if the Doctor will have the goodness to look again 
at the representation in the Cyclopedia, and then read my relation, 
I flatter myself that he will find the two narrations to be as different 
as two accounts of the establishment of any process can well be. 
I perfectly agree with Dr. Henry that “ it is the duty of the 
historian of the arts first to make himself master of the facts, and 
then to detail them with fairness and impartiality.” In writing the 
history of the art and science of bleaching in this country, I do 
presume that I have acted in strict conformity to this rule; for when 
I had obtained the information I wanted respecting the introduction 
of the oxymuriatie bleaching into Scotland, I toek the precaution, 
at the suggestion of the Gentleman who had given me the intelli- 
gence, of sending to Professor Copland a copy of the matter which 
I intended to print on this subject, being fearful that during the 
lapse of nearly 30 years some important circumstance might have 
escaped the memory of my informant. The Professor’s answer, 
which I here subjoin, entirely corroborates the representation which 
I had before received, and had already given, in the body of the 
essay now under consideration. 
The letter is dated Marischal College, Aberdeen, April 27, 1814, 
in which, after some introductory matter, he says, “ 1 approve 
—————— ee errerl err ere ee 
