212 Dr. Hare on the Difference between 



integral, as a decided denial of my statement. In my reply 

 I observed that a direct process of integration always leads to 

 the singular solution at the same time with the general solu- 

 tion, thereby showing that the general result of the investiga- 

 tion does really furnish every possible solution in accordance 

 with what I had said. Is it not, then, evident that the subject 

 of singular solutions was utterly useless as an objection to my 

 remark, that Professor Young had not sufficiently examined 

 the matter, and that his expression, that I had done myself 

 a "wanton injustice," was not justifiable on the score either 

 of accuracy or of propriety ? 



I hereby close my remarks on this subject for the present. 

 It is obvious that Professor Young, instead of applying his own 

 mind to the discussion of the points at issue, has all along 

 rested his evidence and opinions on a misinterpretation of au- 

 thorities. I do not suppose I should have written these brief 

 and concluding observations for the readers of the Journal, had 

 I not felt myself imperatively called upon to notice the tone of 

 assumption and dictation that prevails throughout his last let- 

 ter. He ought not lo be unconscious of the fact, that personal 

 sarcasms and presumptuous language are not the generally 

 received indications of a strong supply of argument or of a 

 sincere desire after the development of truth. 



London, August 13, 1836. 



XLIV. An Exami7iation of the Question, ixhcther the Discor- 

 dancy between the Characteristics of Mechatiical Electricity, 

 arid the Galvanic or Voltaic Fluid, can arise from Difference 

 of Intensity and Qiiantity ; with some Observations in Favour 

 oj the Existence of an Electro-motive Power independently 

 of Chemical Reaction, but cooperating therewith : respectfully 

 submitted to the British Association for the Advancement of 

 Science. By R. Hare, M.D., Prof essor of Chemistry in the 

 University of Pennsylvania.*^ 



1 N one of the papers, giving an account of Faraday's recent 

 * valuable researches in electricity, for copies of which I 

 have been indebted to the flattering attention of the author, 

 I find the following language : 



" Hence arises still further confirmation, if any were re- 

 quired, of the identity of common and voltaic electricity; and 

 that the differences of intensity and quantity are quite siffcient 

 to account for what were supposed to be their distinctive quali- 

 ties f." And elsewhere referring to Cavendish, as the author 

 of this opinion, it is alleged that it " only requii-es to be un- 



• Reprinted from a pamphlet privately circulated by the Author, 

 f [See Lond. and Edinb, Phil. Mag., vol. iii. p. 363. — Edit.] 



