Prof. Grove's Remarks on a Letter o/Prof. Daniell. 333 



energy of action has been still greater than that produced 

 with the apparatus of Mr. Daniell, since all the silver and the 

 lead contained in the ores, that is to say about one kilogramme 

 of silver and 100 kilogrammes of lead, were extracted in the 

 space of a few hours. 



I now leave it to the judgement of the reader which is in the 

 right, Mr. Daniell or myself; and it will then be seen whether 

 Jilial piety blinded me, or whether I have not rather been 

 actuated by the love of truth. 

 Paris, July 7, 1842. 



LVI. Remarks on a Letter of Professor Daniell contained in 

 the Philosophical Magazine for April. By W. R. Grove, 

 Esq., M.A.f F.R.S., Professor of Experimental Philosophy 

 in the London Institution. 



To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal. 

 Gentlemen, 



A LLO W me to request your insertion of a few remarks on 

 ■£*- a letter of Professor Daniell published in your Magazine 

 for April. Absence from London and occupations of other 

 than a scientific nature prevented my noticing it at the time ; 

 my attention has been recalled to the matter by its republi- 

 cation in the Annales de Chimie. 



A few words at the conclusion of this letter refer to me : 

 after stating that M. Becquerel has inadvertently described 

 my experiments as anterior to Mr. DanielFs, this gentleman 

 goes on to say, " Professor Grove has never spoken of his 

 battery but as the further application of principles which I 

 had previously deduced." 



It is perhaps of little moment to the public what principles 

 led me to the construction of the battery in question, but it 

 may be of some moment to me, as should I, by silence, be held 

 to assent to certain principles, I may be accused of contradic- 

 tion and inconsistency if in any future paper I should state 

 my adherence to others. M. Becquerel, again, in the 5th 

 volume of his Traite de V Electricite, describes my battery as 

 " Pile voltaique construite d'apres les principes exposes 

 dans les chapitres l er , &c .:" these chapters contain the papers 

 of M. Becquerel in respect of which he claims priority to 

 Mr. Daniell. It is obvious, that as M. Becquerel and Mr. 

 Daniell differ in their notions as to the principles of the con- 

 stant battery, I could not derive my battery from both, and 

 I have looked over my papers on this subject to see whether 

 I have expressly referred it to principles enounced by either 



