Mr. Faraday on the Condensation of the Gases, Sc. 523 
round its axis; that fact was discovered by M. Ampére, at a 
later date; and even after I had discovered the rotation of the 
wire round the magnet as a centre, and that of the magnet 
round the wire, I could not succeed in causing the wire to 
revolve on its own axis*. ‘The result which Wollaston very 
philosophically and beautifully deduced from his principles, 
and which he tried to obtain in the laboratory, was, that 
wires could be caused to roll, not by attraction and repulsion 
as had been effected by Davy+t, but by a tangential action, ac- 
cording to the principles which had been already made known 
to the public as his (Dr. W.’s) by Mr. Brandet. 
What Sir Humphry Davy says in his printed paper § is this: 
«¢ T cannot with propriety conclude without mentioning a cir- 
cumstance in the history of the progress of electro-magnetism 
which, though well known to many Fellows of this Society, has, 
I believe, never been made public, namely, that we owe to 
the sagacity of Dr. Wollaston the first idea of the possibility 
of the rotations of the electro-magnetic wire round its axis by 
the approach of a magnet; and I witnessed early in 1821 an 
unsuccessful experiment which he made to produce the effect 
in the laboratory of the Royal Institution.” This paper being 
read on the 6th of March 1823, was reported on the first of the 
following month in the Annals of Philosophy, N.S., vol. v. 
p- 304; the reporter giving altogether a different sense to 
what is conveyed by Sir Humphry Davy’s printed paper, and 
saying that “ had not an experiment on the subject made by 
Dr. W. in the laboratory of the Royal Institution, and wit- 
nessed by Sir Humphry failed, merely through an accident 
which happened to the apparatus, he would have been the dis- 
coverer of that phenomenon ||.” 
I have an impression that this report of the paper was first 
made known tome by Sir Humphry Davy himself, but afriend’s 
recollection makes me doubtful on this point: however, Sir 
Humphry, when first he adverted to the subject, told me it 
was inaccurate and very unjust; and advised me to draw up 
a contradiction which the Editor should insert the next month. 
I drew up a short note, and submitting it to Sir Humphry 
he altered it and made it what it appears in the May Number 
of the Annals of Philosophy, N.S. vol. v. page 391, as from the 
Editor, all the parts from “but writing only” to the end being 
Sir Humphry’s; and I have the manuscript in his hand-writing 
inserted as an illustration into my copy of Paris’s Life of Davy. 
* Quart. Journ. of Science, vol. xii. p. 79. + Phil. Trans. 1821, p.17. 
{ Quart. Journ., vol. x. p. 363. § Phil. Trans. 1823, p. 158. 
|| In justice to the reporter, I have sought carefully at the Rapal Sdciety’s 
for the original manuscript, being the paper which he heard read ; but it 
cannot be found in its place. 
