The Sun.
London, England, 1867-09-16 00:00:00

OXIDE OF MANGANESE.

At a recent sitting of the British Association
(Section 8., Chemical Science), Mr. Walter Weldon
read the following paper on " A new Manufacturing
Process for the Perpetual Regeneration of the Oxide
of Manganese, used for the Liberation of Chlorine
from Hydrochloric Acid." Every process, previous
to that to be described in the present paper, by
which it has been attempted to regenerate oxide of
manganese from the residues of the manufacture of
chlorine has been peformed in the dry way, and has
thus required considerable time, and has involved
not only at least one—more or less troublesome and
costly—furnace operation, but also several removals
of the material from vessel to vessel and from place
to place, every such removal, of course, curtailing
more or less loss of material. The process, how-
ever, which is about to be described is performed in
the wet way, and may be completed, even when
operating on the largest scale, within as little as one
hour. Moreover, all the operations of the process
are performed in the same vessel as that in which
the oxide produced by it is afterwards employed
to react with hydrochloric acid, and from this
vessel or still the manganese is never removed,
so that it is entirely free from risk of loss by
removal, and as it is not subject to any other cause
of loss, a charge of Manganese, once put iiito a still,
when treated by this process, not only never needs
to be replaced, but never needs even to be added
to, while it will liberate an equivalent of chlorine
every few hours for literally any length of time.
The starting-point of any process for the regenera-
tion of the oxide of manganese employed in the
manufacture of chlorine, must of course be that
residue which is known as " still liquor," being that
which remains in the stills when oxide of manga-
nese and hydrochloric acid have been digested to-
gether until all the chlorine which the oxide is
capable of liberating from the acid has been libe-
rated and given off. When working with a native
oxide of manganese, the still liquor contains, in
addition to a quantity of proto-chloride of manga-
nese equivalent to the quantity of manganese which
has been dissolved, a considerable quantity of free
acid, and more or less chlorides of iron and other
bases, due to the native oxide of manganese being
always more or less associated with other oxides.
When working, however, with the artificial oxide
of manganese, produced as is about to be described,
the still-liquor scarcely contains anything what-
ever but proto-chloride of manganese, and the
new process consists simply in first adding an
equivalent of lime to this liquor, without removing
the liquor from the still, and then blowing atmo-
spheric air through the resulting mixture of pro-
toxide of manganese and solution of chloride of
calcium. The white protoxide is thereby rapidly
converted into a very dark-coloured higher oxide,
and when this product has been allowed to subside
from the solution of chloride of calcium in which it
was formed, and the greater part of that solution
has then been drawn off from it, it is ready to be
treated with hydrochloric acid, from which it then
liberates chlorine, with reproduction of exactly as
much proto -chloride of manganese as was commenced
with. From this point the very simple series of
operations described is repeated just as before, and
so on, over and over again, for any required number
of times. The manganese is thus constantly under-
going, always in one and the same vessel, a round
of recurring changes of state of combination, by
which it passes, first, from the state of proto-chloride
to that of protoxide, next from the state of protoxide
to that of a higher oxide, capable of liberating
chlorine from hydrochloric acid, then back again to
the state of protochloride, and so on continually.
As regards the richness of the oxide produced by the
process above described, sesquioxide is all that one
would have expected to obtain by means of it, but
it actually yields a richer than sesquioxide. Ses-
quioxide of manganese is, practically—at least from
a chlorine manufacturer's point of view----a mixture
or compound of about 55.5 per cent (being one equi-
valent) of binoxide with ab0u944.5 per cent. (being
also ono equivalent) of protoxide ; while the oxide
most frequently obtained by the process above de-
scribed contains about 65 per cent. of binoxide,
which is about the proportion of binoxide that would
be contained in a mixture or compound of three
equivalents of binoxide with two equivalents of pro-
toxide. The. richest native oxides of manganese
which clorine manufacturers have been in the habit
of using contain about 70 per cent. of binoxide, but
a native oxide is practically much less valuable, so
far as the manufacture of chlorine is concerned,
than au artificial oxide containing considerably less
oxygen. The reason is that in order to dissolve a
hard, compact anhycrous native oxide of manga-
nese, it has to be digested with a large excess of
acid, resulting in the production of a still liquor con-
taining a very large quantity of free acid, all of
which is practically lost; whereas a recently formed,
artificial, hydrated oxide, in an exceedingly minute
state of division, will dissolve in a bare equivalent
of acid, producing a still liquor containing no free
acid at all. Hence, whereas when using a7O per
cent. native oxide it is rarely found possible to ob.
tain in the free state more than one-sixth of the
Chlorine contained in the hydro chloric acid put into
the still, an artificial oxide of less even than 60 per
cent. will liberate fully one-third of the chlorine
contained in the acid put into the stills, and this in
far lea time: and at much less cost for labour and

PRICE 4d.
STAMPED sd.

fuel, than the native oxide requires for the libera-
-1 tion of half the quantity. The process which I have
had the honour to bring before the section thus not
only substitutes the cost of about 7s. worth of lime
and 33. worth of blowing for every six or seven
pounds which the manufacturer of bleaching powder
and other chloride products has hitherto had to
spend upon peroxide of manganese, but also enables
him to nearly double his productions of those pro-
ducts from a given quantity of hydrochloric acid.
A very animated discussion followed the reading
of this paper. Professor Williamson, Mr. R. C.
Olapham, and others suggested several questions as
to the practical working of the process, and these
were replied to by Mr. Weldon.
Professor Anderson regarded the communication
as one of great importance, other processes for
similar purposes being most elaborate, while this
WAS of the utmost simplicity. Other processes would
be very much hampered by the cost of manganese ;
but this process was one of extraordinary simplicity,
and must be of great advantage to the manufacturer.

The Houses of Parliament•

TO THE EDITOR OF TIIE TIMES.

Sir,—With reference to the long letter from Mr.
E. W. Pugin, which appeared in:the Times of the
7th inst., I wish to crave a very small portion of the
space it occupies.
Correspondence in the columns of a newspaper is
obviously not the fittest or most convenient way
either of. arriving at-a' clear exposition of facts or of
affording the public suitable means of forming a
correct dezision on the merits of such a case as the
present. Mr. Pugin at first addressed himself to the
Building News, then to the Pall Mull Gazette, to the
Sun, to the Globe, and possibly other papers which
I have not seen, and, lastly, to the Times, and the
letters inserted in each of these have not been con-
tinuous, have not invariably been the same, refer to
one another in a most perplexing way, and have
therefore formed an imperfect basis in each case for
the editorial comments, and a still more imperfect
one for the judgment of the public reader.
The letter in the Times of Saturday, for instance,
refers to letters in other papers from four or five
different persons, which are not reprinted, to which
Mr. Pugin alludes with some effrontery as helping
his case, but which if read in their entirety would
simply be found to demolish it. Exactly in the same
way in making his original claim he had the folly to
refer to certain gentlemen—Mr. Terrey, Mr. Tal-
bot Bury, and Mr. Wright—as persons able to cor-
roborate his statements, and they one and all took
the earliest opportunity of contradicting them
publicly.
Again, it should be noted that all the evidence
Mr. Pugin thinks he can draw from private letters
of my father in his possession is given in " extracts"
from those letters, which, if published complete,
might most probably give a totally different colour to
that which he thinks suits his views. The diary of
his father is also referred to and relied on by him as
furnishing evidence. This, of course, may be so,
but I have been credibly informed by one who
knew the late Mr. Pugin very well that he never
kept a diary in the proper meaning of the word,
though he may have made notes of special subjects
he desired to remember.

In the same way he speaks in this letter of some
one person to whom alone, with him, " all the facts
are known," but he does not venture to name this
important witness. He must pardon me for doubt-
ing if any such person exists at all, but if he does,
and if he knows all the facts, he will, I f,;el sure,
fail Mr. Pugin, as the above gentlemen have
done, and for the obvious reason that Mr. Pugin
is alleging what is " not a fact," though he may
have misled himself, or been misled, into thinking
it one.

The only way that I can conceive as being satis-
factory will be the inquiry that has been suggested
by the Royal Institute of British Architects, of
which all parties concerned (except, by the way, the
late Mr. Pugiii) were, or are members, and, pend-
ing this, I now content myself with reiterating in
the most positive manner my denial that the late
Mr. Pugin stood in any other relation to my father
than he has himself stated in his published letter of
the Gth of September, 1845, or that he was in any
sense " the architect of the New Palace at West-
minster."

I trust I may not have to trouble you with any
further request for space, and have the honour to be
your obedient servant,
CHARLES BARRY.
1, Westminster-chambers, Victoria-street,
Westminster, S.W., Sept. 9.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE "TIMES."

Sir,—Without questioning the very impartial
verdict, as matters stand, which you have pro-
nounced on the relations which existed between Sir
Charles Barry and Mr. Pugin in regard to the build-
ing of the Houses of Parliament, will you allow
me to suggest an explanation of what, as you justly
observe, seems so incredible—viz., that Pugin in
his lifetime should never have advanced his claims,
but, on the contrary, have quietly allowed Sir
Charles Barry to enjoy the credit of a work which
belonged exclusively to himself ?
The clue to this mystery, I am convinced, is
given in that letter of Sir Charles Barry's—pub-
lished in Mr. E. Welby Pugin's statement in the
Times on Saturday—in which he speaks of Pugin's
indifference to " filthy lucre," and of his readiness
cc to make a sacrifice for the glory of making the
Houses of Parliament the means of establishing for
the future what you believe," he writes to Pugin,
" the one and only true style of art." In these
words lies the secret of Sir Charles Barry's power
over Pugin. He knew his man, none better. He
knew the one idea of Pugin's life, the dream of
his youth, the aim of his manhood, was the
revival of Gothic architecture in England. To
this passionate enthusiasm he was ready to
sacrifice hope of personal fame, position, and
wealth. This disinterested enthusiasm was the key
to his character. With this key Sir Charles Barry
unlocked the treasures of Pugin's creative and
fertile mind, and turned them to his own account.
They who knew Pugin well are not in the least
surprised at what to others seems simply incredible;
on the contrary, they would have been far more
surprised, knowing the nature of the man, had
he not, without hesitation or regret, sacrificed
prospect of fame, of advancement in life, of wealth,
to the glory of seeing revived in England the art
which he loved, " if not wisely, yet too well."
This was the " glory" which Sir Charles Barry held
out before his eager eyes; this was the hope which
fired his imagination ; this was the " price " offered
and taken for his services. Pugin was not a man
to do things by halves ; if he once put his hand
to the plough, even though another man's, he would
never draw it back. Fascinated,w giltohrytl,r
which
hich Sir
gloryof
reviving Gothic architecture—a "glory"
Charles Barry knew so well how to appeal to—and
having once offered up at this shrine hope of fame,
it was not in his nature to violate his understanding
with Barry by afterwards putting forward claims
to personal credit or emolument. Pugin was a
singularly unselfish man, and a man also, as every
one who has ever known him intimately and
there must be many such men still living—can con-
firm, of scrupulous and almost Quixotic delicacy.
Ile was just such a man as would serve Barry's
purpose. His genius, his enthusiasm, his lov.e of
his art for its own sake, his unworldliness, his
singular consideration for others and unexampled
generosity conspired to make him just the man
whom Barry stood in need of. There are many
men, unfortunately, who would act as Sir Charles
Barry seems to have acted, but there are, perhaps,
none who -would have acted as Pugin did. But
then Pugin was a genius, an enthusiast, an ex-
ceptional character, and not to be judged of as
other men, 'especially in business transactions.
What in ordinary men would be amply incredible