In the early part of the next year Dr. Frankland read a

discourse on potable water to the Chemical Society, in which

he attacked the ammonia-process, and described in detail

the rival process of his own, viz., the combustion-process of

JFrankland and Armstrong. To this attack we replied, criti-



AppESorx. 173

cising the rival prMess in the courao of our reply ; nud both 1
Dr. Franklftnd's discourse ami our reply to it are to be found ■
ill the Journal of .the Society for that year.
At that period, aa is pretty well known, there was a strong
prejudice in certain quarters against myself and my colleagues,
and that very spacious chemist, the late Dr. Mathiessen, is
reported to have characterised the situation by saying that
the new process had one fault, and only one, viz., that it was
invented by Wanklyn, Chapman, and Smith. The reader
who will take the trouble to read the blue book, with the
minntea of the evidence taken at that period by the Royal
Commission on water-supply, may learn what sort of an effect
this prejudice had upun those pereons who held chemical
appointments, when they came to give evidence oa water-
analysis. The same bine book also contains the analyses which
Bra. Fiankland and Odling represented as having been made
by the ammonia-proeess, and against which I found it my duty
to protest to the Royal Commiaaionera.
