COUNT RtJMFORD. 



among us here would not be less hearty than it is now. 

 As things stand, national prejudice, if it existed, might 

 be expected to lean to Runiford's side. But no such 

 prejudice exists, and to write as if it did exist is a 

 mistake. In reference to myself, Dr. Ellis, gently but 

 stiU reproachfully, makes the following remark: 

 " Professor Tyndall, in his work on ' Heat/ has but 

 moderately recognised the claims and merit of Rum- 

 ford, when, after largely quoting from his essay, he adds, 

 * When the history of the dynamical theory of heat is 

 written, the man who, in opposition to the scientific 

 belief of his time, could experiment, and reason upon 

 experiment, as did Eumford in the investigation here 

 referred to, cannot be lightly passed over." ; In my 

 opinion, the most dignified and impressive way of 

 dealing with labours like those of Eumford, is to show 

 by simple quotations, well selected, what their merits 

 are. This I did in the book referred to by Dr. Ellis, 

 which was published at least eight years in advance of 

 his. But the expression of my admiration for Rum- 

 ford was not confined to the passage above-quoted, which 

 is taken from the appendix to one of my lectures. In 

 that lecture I drew attention to Rumford's labours in 

 the following words: "I have particular pleasure in 

 directing the reader's attention to an abstract of Count 

 Rumford's memoir on the generation of heat by friction, 

 contained in the appendix to this lecture. Rumford 

 in this memoir annihilates the material theory of heat. 

 Xothing more powerful on the subject has since been 

 written." 



But I must not go too far, nor suffer myself to dwell 

 with one-sided exclusiveness upon the merits of Rum- 

 ford. The theoretic conceptions with which he dealt 

 were not his conceptions, but had been the property of 

 science long prior to his day. This, I fear, was for- 



