Mr Faraday^s Reply to Dr John Davi/s Remarks. 41 



and others. Now, all these views differ one from another ; and 

 there are, I think, a dozen of them, and it is very likely that a 

 dozen more exist in print if I knew where to look for them ; yet 

 I have no doubt that if any- one of those above could be proved^ 

 by a sudden discovery, to be the right one, it would be includ- 

 ed by Dr Davy, and, as far as I can perceive, by myself also, 

 in Sir Humphry Davy's general statement. What ground is 

 there, therefore, for Dr Davy*'s remarks on this point ? 



In reference to another part of Dr Davy's observations, I may 

 remark, that I was by no means in the same relation as to scien- 

 tific communication with Sir Humphry Davy, after I became a 

 Fellow of the Royal Society in 1824, as before that period, and 

 of this I presume Dr Davy is aware. But if it had been other- 

 wise, I do not see that I could have gone to a fitter source for 

 information than to his printed papers. Whenever I have ven- 

 tured to follow in the path which Sir Humphry Davy has trod, 

 I have done so with respect and with the highest admiration of 

 his talents, and nothing gave me 'more pleasure in relation to 

 my last published paper, the Eighth Series, than the thought 

 that, whilst I was helping to elucidate a still obscure branch of 

 science,, I was able to support the views advanced twenty-eight 

 years ago, and for the first time, by our great philosopher. 



I have such extreme dislike to controversy, that I shall not 

 prolong these remarks, and regret much that I have been ob- 

 liged to make them. I am not conscious of having been un- 

 just to Sir Humphry Davy, to whom I am anxious to give all 

 due honour ; but, on the other hand, I feel anxious lest Dr 

 Davy should inadvertently be doing injury to his brother by at- 

 taching a meaning, sometimes of particularity and sometimes of 

 extension, to his words, which I am sure he would never him- 

 self have claimed, but which, on the contrary, I feel he has dis- 

 avowed in saying " that our philosophical systems are very im- 

 perfect," and in expressing his confidence " that they mtisi 

 change more or less with the advancement of science.'* On these 

 points, however, neither Dr Davy nor myself can now assume 

 to be judges, since with respect to them he has made us both 

 partisans. Dr Davy has not made me aware of any thing that I 

 need change ; and I am quite willing to leave the matter as it 

 stands in the printed papers before scientific men, with only this 



