FARADAY. 407 



and fact had connected the name of Wollaston with 

 these supposed interactions between magnets and cur- 

 rents. When, therefore, Faraday in October published 

 his successful experiment, without any allusion to 

 Wollaston, general, though really ungrounded, criti- 

 cism followed. I say ungrounded because, firstly, 

 Faraday's experiment was not that of Wollaston, and 

 secondly, Faraday, before he published it, had actually 

 called upon Wollaston, and not finding him at home, 

 did not feel himself authorised to mention his name. 



In December, Faraday published a second paper on 

 the same subject, from which, through a misappre- 

 hension, the name of Wollaston was also omitted. 

 Warburton and others thereupon affirmed that Wol- 

 laston's ideas had been appropriated without acknow- 

 ledgment, and it is plain that Wollaston himself, 

 though cautious in his utterance, was also hurt. 

 Censure grew till it became intolerable. ' I hear,' 

 writes Faraday to Ms friend Stodart, ' every day more 

 and more of these sounds, which, though only whispers 

 to me, are, I suspect, spoken aloud among scientific 

 men.' He might have written explanations and de- 

 fences, but he went straighter to the point. He wished 

 to see the principals face to face to plead his cause 

 before them personally. There was a certain vehemence 

 in his desire to do this. He saw Wollaston, he saw 

 Davy, he saw Warburton ; and I am inclined to think 

 that it was the irresistible candour and truth of 

 character which these viva voce defences revealed, as 

 much as the defences themselves, that disarmed resent- 

 ment at the time. 



As regards Davy, another cause of dissension arose 

 in 1823. In the spring of that year Faraday analysed 

 the hydrate of chlorine, a substance once believed to be 

 the element chlorine, but proved by Davy to be a 



27 



