514 Sir D. Brewster on the Discovery of the Laiv qfSiomis. 



that I have made a number of attempts to verify the sugges 

 tion given in my last paper (III. 127. )» that an inverse indue 

 tion is produced by a galvanic current by a change in the di- 

 stance of the conductors, but without success. These attempts 

 were made before I had adopted the views given in this sec- 

 tion, and since then I have found (80.) a more simple expla- 

 nation of the alternation of the currents. 



93. In this Number of my Contributions, the phaenomena 

 exhibited by the galvanic apparatus have alone been discussed. 

 I have, however, made a series of experiments on the induc- 

 tion from ordinary electricity, and the reaction of soft iron on 

 currents, and I think that the results of these can also be re- 

 ferred to the simple principles adopted in this paper ; but they 

 require further examination before submitting them to the 

 public. 

 [Prof. Henry's 3rd Series appeared in L. & E. Phil. Mag. vol. xvi. p. 200]. 



LXXVII. Correction of an Error in Prof Dove's Letter on 



the Law of Storms. By Sir David Brewster, K.H. 



To Richard Taylor., Esq. 



Dear Sir, 



¥ OBSERVE in the Philosophical Magazine for November 



-^ 1840, a letter addressed to you on the Law of Storms, 



which contains the following passage: — 



" In an article upon Lieut.-Colonel Reid's law of storms 

 in the Edinburgh Review, I find my meteorological researches 

 again alluded to, but upon a distinct ground. The anony- 

 mous Reviewer, in his patriotic anxiety to satisfy his readers 

 of the purely British growth of this theory, allows that some 

 remarkable passages upon the subject had previously appeared 

 in the memoirs of the Berlin Professor, but that these are 

 mere ingenious speculations,^©?- they are no more. The term 

 passage, for a memoir (on barometric minima) of seven- 

 teen closely printed pages, strikes me as a little extraordinary, 

 but perhaps this arises from my imperfect acquaintance with 

 the nice distinctions of your language. I leave it to my En- 

 glish readers to determine, with what degree of justice results 

 deduced from a greater number of contemporary observations, 

 than (as I believe) had ever previously or have even since been 

 brought together, can be represented as no more than ingeni- 

 ous speculations." 



As the article on General Reid's law of storms in the 

 Edinburgh Review was written by me, I feel it necessary to 

 state that Professor Dove's name is not even once mentioned in 

 that Review, nor his labours in any way referred to. 



Had I been disposed to enter into any discussion respecting 



