But the peace-maker was handling a delicate problem. He recognized this, but desired that the pioneer studies, then in progress might escape harsh polemics. This was difficult of realization for less than a month later fuel was added to the fire by Maclean, when in writing Mitchill, who had sent him Priestley's printed letter, he emphatically declared that The experiment with the zinc does not seem to be of more consequence than that with the iron and admits of an easy explanation on antiphlogistic principles. And he further insisted that the experiments of Priestley proved water to be composed "of hydrogene and oxygene." Four days later (July 20, 1798) Priestley wrote Mitchill that he had replaced zinc by red precipitate and did not get water on decomposing inflammable air with the precipitate. Again, August 23, 1798, he related to Mitchill that the modern doctrine of water consisting of _oxygene_ and _hydrogene_ is not well founded ... water is the basis of all kinds of air, and without it no kind of air can be produced ... not withstanding the great use that the French chemists make of scales and weights, they do not pretend to weigh either their _calorique_ or _light_; and why may not _phlogiston_ escape their researches, when they employ the same instruments in that investigation? There were in all eight letters sent by Priestley to Mitchill. They continued until February, 1799. Their one subject was phlogiston and its role in very simple chemical operations. The observations were the consequence of original and recent experiments, to which I have given a good part of the leisure of the last summer; and I do not propose to do more on the subject till I hear from the great authors of the theory that I combat in America; but adds,-- I am glad ... to find several advocates of the system in this country, and some of them, I am confident, will do themselves honour by their candour, as well as by their ability. This very probably was said as a consequence of the spirited reply James Woodhouse[6] made to the papers of Maclean. As known, Woodhouse worked unceasingly to overthrow the doctrine of phlogiston, but was evidently irritated by Maclean, whom he reminds-- You are not yet, Doctor, the conqueror of this veteran in Philosophy. This was a singularly magnanimous speech on Woodhouse's part, for he had been hurling sledgehammer blows without rest at the structure Priestley thought he had reared about phlogiston and which, he believed, most unassailable, so when in 1799 (July) Priestley began his reply to his "Antiphlogistian opponents" he took occasion to remark: I am happy to find in Dr. Woodhouse one who is equally ingenious and candid; so that I do not think the cause he has undertaken will soon find a more able champion, and I do not regret the absence of M. Berthollet in Egypt.