ON THE KATURE OF OXIMURATIC GAS. 311 



Repeating this experiment, 1 obtained a similar result: Repeated witU 

 but, as the decomposition of the salt with effervescence was jg^^^ij"*^ 

 occasioned by nitric acid, 1 did not hastily draw the con- 

 clusion, that carbonic acid gas was directly formed without 

 tbe intervention of water. 



Prosecuting the inquiry I ascertained the existence of an A new acici 

 acid gas, consisting of oxirauriatic gas and carbonic oxide, Kasj^^hich oc- 

 whieh combined with ammonia, and formed a neutral salt, effervescence, 

 that was not decomposed hy acetic acid, but with efferves- 

 cence by nitric acid', and which, in all its characters, was as 

 essentially different from a mixture of carbonate and muri- 

 ate of ammonia, as the new gas itself was from a mixture of 

 the carbonic and muriatic acid gasses. Hence I inferred, 

 that the effervescence Mr. Murray observed was owing to 

 tbe decomposition of the new ammoniacal salt, formed, I 

 conceived, in his experiment ; and that he would have ob- 

 served no effervescence, had he used the acetic acid instead 

 of the nitric. 



But Mr, Murray was not satisfied with this explanation, x^e explana- 

 He still continued to assert, that the production of carbonic tion not satis- 

 acid in his experiment ** was estabUshed beyond the possibi- Mu°[][y.° 

 lity of doubt." 



I grant, that the effervescence is owing to the disengage- The carbonic 

 tnent of carbonic acid gas. But I deny, that the carbonic ^^id evolved 

 acid gas had previously existed in the ammoniacal salt. If Q^^\y gxist in 

 this salt was a mixture of carbonate and muriate of ammo- the salt, 

 uia, it would have effervesced with the acetic, as well as with 

 the nitric acid. And I maintain, that the results of my ex- 

 periment did in no way warrant the liberty, which Mr. Mur- 

 ray has taken with them, of asserting, that they confirmed 

 his statement respecting the direct formation of carbonic 

 acid gas. 



I shall silently pass over the general reasoning advanced \fr. Murray 



by Mr. Murray, in favour of the conclusion he drew from his would not 



• 1 i 1 i- r I ^1 T nvtQ drawn 



experiments on the mutual action ot the three gasses, 1 tjjg inference 



have only to observe,, thatl have made the experiment, and ^^ did, had he 



have given an account of it in a paper sent to the Royal So- j^j.jj^ 



ciety on the new gas, and that the result of it was a mixture 



of the new gas and of muriatic gas. I repeat, that Mr. 



Murray would not have inferred the formation of carbonic 



acid 



