364: ort the st.w metais. 



n strict grammatical propriety to be translated -^ others/' 

 and not the other. And Fourcroy throughout his work 

 never hints at any suspicion of soda^ potash, and ammonia 

 being metallic. 

 Mr. Kerr's not Yon have quoted Mr. Kerr, but what he has said is not 

 .a guess. a suspicion or guess, but a statement of facts, which for 



many years have been known to be false, and which he has 

 never condescended to correct. Magnesia, according to 

 him, had been proved by Tondi and Ruprecht to be a we- 

 /allic oxide. Soda, he says, appears from some experi- 

 ments published in the Turin Transactions, to be a modifi- 

 cation of magnesia, therefore soda must be also a metallic 

 substance. Now here are no analogies brought forward, 

 nothing which can be called an hypothesis, but a mere plain 

 downright statemci^t of an err our. 

 Tondi and Ru- lama iiiile surprised at the view which you yoni*self 



precht's expe- j^j^^^ taken of Tondi's and Ruprecht's experiments. You 

 nments. , , 



state, that alkali was certainly present, but that the alloys 



were like phosphurets of iron. You do not refer to what 



the sagacious Klaproth has said after a minute examination 



of these results, Annales cle Chtmie, IX, page 287. " The 



pretended reduction of earths into metals, is nothing but a 



pure illusion ;" nor do you notice, that Savaresi, by a 



most elaborate and elegant series of experiments, proved, 



*' that they could be produced or not at pleasure, not in 



consequence of the presence or absence of alkali, or 



alkaline earths, but in consequence of the presence or 



absence of bone ashes." Annales de Chimle, IX, page 



156. 



Mr. Kerr. You certainly may find one authority, showing that al- 



most every " thing is metallic," deduced from the very 

 book which you have already quoted ;" for Mr. Kerr is 

 disposed to place charcoal, phosphorus, and sulphur, 

 amongst the metals, for the very reasons why they ought 

 to be excluded from this class of bodies. He says, *' why 

 should carbon, sulphur, and phosphorus, not be con- 

 sidered as metals, because their specific gravity, lustre, and 

 ductility, differ from the ][)odies called metals, which differ 

 so much in these respects amongst themselves?" 



i,Ten the There are no persons in general more ready to lay clairQ 



