Dr. Hiulsoris Statement in reply to a Statement made by 

 Dr. Ajyohn in the London and Edinburgh Philosophical 

 Magazine for September 1836. 



To the Editors of the London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine. 



Stephen's Green, Dublin. 

 Gentlejien, 5th November, 1836. 



It was with reluctance I felt called on by Dr. Apjohn's statement in your 

 Magazine for September, to occupy the pages of your useful Journal by a 

 statement of the real facts of the case, feeling conscious that it could not 

 tend in any way to the progress of science ; 1 therefore freely acquiesce in 

 your reasons for excluding the discussion from the pages of your Journal. 

 As however, Dr. Apjohn's statement has been placed in the hands of your 

 readers, I feel I have a right that my reply should also be conveyed to them 

 in order to counteract anv unfavourable impressions which might arise from 

 his misrepresentations. I have therefore to request that you will permit 

 my statement to be stitched up with the Number for next Month. 



I am, &c., H. Hudson. 



DR. HUDSON'S STATEMENT, &c. 



Gentlemex, 



It was not without surprise that I read the paper of Dr. Apjohn, dated the 

 5th of July, and published in your Magazine for this month (September), 

 which purports to be a reply to certain statements contained in papers of 

 mine inserted in your 7th and Sth volumes. It was not without surprise, 

 because Dr. Apjohn had on the I'ith of the same month of July, in a printed 

 circular addressed to the Members of the Royal Irish Academy, (to whom 

 the discussion of the question pending between us had previously been con- 

 fined,) stated formally " that, as far as he was concerned, the controversy was 

 closed :" and without any intimation of, not merely his intention to transfer, 

 but of his having but one week before transferred the entire subject from 

 the members of the Academy to the public at large, by means of a paper 

 forwarded to your widely circulated Journal. I replied to that circular, also 

 taking leave of the controversy, leaving the question between us to be de- 

 termined, calmly, on the documents with which the members of the Aca- 

 demy had been furnished. 



In Dr. Apjohn's new paper in your last Number he excuses his transferring 

 this discussion to the public, by saying that " though it be contrary to his 

 original intention, he finds himself eventually in some degree compelled" to 

 it. He does not inform us how he became thus suddenly " compelled," nor 

 ha.s he subjoined any explanation of his suffering to appear in September his 

 paper on a controversy which he so solemnly renounced in July. 



But, however Dr. Apjohn may reconcile this proceeding to himself, he 

 certainly has imposed upon me the necessity of submitting, with your per- 

 mission, my statement of the facts to the same degree of publicity which he 

 hiis obtained for his. 



The question respecting the solution of the dew-point problem by means 

 of the wet bulb hygrometer having been proposed bv the British Association, 

 a good deal of attention wasexcited with respect to the subject; and, among 

 others, I had formed certain views with regard to it. On the 27th of October 

 18.34, Dr. Apjohn read to the Royal Irish Academy his paper on the theory 

 of tlie wet bulb hygrometer : I heard this paper read with pleasure, and oa 



