312 ON THE NATURE OF OXIMURIATIC GAS. 



acid gas, bad he used an acid, which did not decompose the 



new ammoniacal salt. 



Answer to Mr. Murray has attempted to point out an inconsistency 



Mr. Murray's ]^ ^y account of the new gas. He conceives, that it does 

 obi aci ion 01 an ^ , ^ , . . • 



hicohsistency ^^*' decorapose water J and consequently, that its anomonia- 



respecting tlie cal salt cannot, when acted on by an acid. This incqnsist- 

 nc%-. gas. ^^^y, j^ jjjeiely imaginary. The fact is, that the gas, imme- 



diately on coming into contact with the water, is decomposed, 

 and converted into the same gasses, that the apnmoniacal 

 compound yields when acted on by nitric acid; viz. the car- 

 bonic and rpurjatic. In my first notice of the gas I men-r 

 tioned its being apparently slightly absorbed by water, only 

 Qmong jts mo.^t obvious qua'ities, those which made the first 

 impression on me, atid led rae to consider it as a nevy sub- 

 stance, 

 to hi'; as?er- ; As the facts accumulate- in opposition to the old hypot 

 ^^";^|;,^,,^^Qj. thesis, Mr. Murray's faith in it seems proportionably tq 

 Davy's opiniqa strengthen. He speakg, witb .great confidence of what he 

 *^^^'^':'y'^'l"^' -^- conceives he has done,, .He says, " Mr. Davy's opinion, 

 '■• ^ which was first held -oiit as a genuine theory, admitting of no 



doubt as being a simple expression of facts, has been showri 

 to be a h}'pothetical explanation of phenomena. And as an 

 hypothesis not a single proof has been given of its truth," 

 Gould assertion supply thsj place of argument, Mr. Murray 

 certainly would carry his point, and effect all that he con- 

 peives he has already dqne. How he has shown Mr, Davy'§ 

 theorj' to be an hypothesis, I confess rnyself totally at a los^ 

 to understand. He has advanced po arguments, that have 

 not been answered; no experiments, the accuracy of which 

 has been admitted; and most of his after papers contain lit- 

 tle more thnn what appeared in his first. What 1 considered 

 Mr. Davy's theory I still continue to consider it. If it is 

 not an expression of facts, in all its essential parts, to thy 

 exclusion of hypothesis, t am greatly mistaken, 

 and to his re- Mr. Murray indirectly cht'.rges me vyith a want of can- 

 jnarkspnMr. dour, calmness, and forbearance, at the commencement of 

 the controversy. Let others decide, whether 1 deserve this 

 charge, and whether Mr. Murray himself does not, in some 

 measure, merit it. I aclj now ledge, that I attacked, in my 

 first paper, the old hypothesis with a little warmth, tliougb 



I 



Davy's style. 



