232 iTATtJRE QF OXIMURIATIC ACID. 



the contrary of Mr. J. Davy's own account, that it does not; he states 

 V,' hich appeals, ineielj^, that it is very slowly absorbed by water. It is 

 therefore directly in the face of experimental evidence to 

 assume, that, wlien it is disengaged from its combination 

 with ammonia by an acid, it is eapable of decomposing wa- 

 ter ; his hypothesis to account for the disengagement of 

 carbonic acid fails to theground, and the obvious conclusion 

 must be admitted, that the carbonic acid has been formed 

 by the mutual action of the carbonic oxide, oximuriatic 

 acid, and hidrogen gasses, and that it exists in the conereta 

 ammoniacal salt. 



Mr. J. Davy will now perhaps perceive, that it was with 

 some justice, that I maintained the fact of the production of 

 carbonic acid in these experiments, and that I did not con- 

 sider it invalidated by what was stated in opposition to it. 

 Mr. J, Davy's He complains of an expression, which 1 employed in the 



complaint of c[ij,(.ussion on this point, that *' Messrs. Davys did not ob- 

 an expression . ... . . 



of Mr. Mur* tain carbonic acid in their experiments, because they did 



"y''* not look for it with sufficient care, or were not sufficiently 



aware of the sources of fallacy, by which its production might 

 be concealed." It would be easy to justify this, not only 

 from the results of my own experiments, in which carbonic 

 acid was uniformly formed ^ results now proved by Mr, J. 

 Davy's evidence to be correct ; but from a review of the 

 manner in which the results of the experiments to which 1 

 allude were examined. This 1 decline, however, as an in- 

 vidious task, unless urged to it by Mr. J. Davy, referring 

 rather to the brief observations, which I. have occasionally 

 offered on some of these experiments. Nor should 1 pro- 

 bably even have used this expression, had it not appeared 

 to me called for by the tone, which has been assumed in 

 this controversy, and the manner in which it has been con-- 

 ducted. If Mr. J. Davy will look back on its commence- 

 ment, he will find, I believe, my first paper written with a 

 degree of candour, to which it is not in his power to make 

 a single objection. It was impossible, if an opinion were at 

 all to be called in question, to have done so with more calm- 

 ness and forbearance. Mr. J. Davy thought proper to 

 take up the controversy in a very different spirit and style, 

 and rendered it necessary for me sometimes to introduce 

 * remark, which I should otherwise have avoided. 



Of 



