and Gunpowder Magazines. 371 



and which expressed his own view and that of the other mem- 

 bers of the Committee as to the efficacy of pointed conductors, 

 he adds : — 



" I have no private interest in the reception of my inventions 

 by the world, having never made, nor proposed to make, 

 the least profit by any of them. The King's changing his 

 pointed conductors for blunt ones is therefore a matter of small 

 importance to me. If I had a wish about it, it would be that 

 he rejected them altogether as ineffectual. For it is only 

 since he thought himself and family safe from the thunder of 

 heaven, that he dared to use his own thunder in destroying 

 his innocent subjects." 



Meanwhile Wilson was supported by all so-called loyal per- 

 sons, who took part in the King's resentment against his re- 

 volted subjects. The King, as hinted in Franklin's letter, is 

 said to have ordered blunt conductors to be affixed to his palace, 

 and even endeavoured to make the Royal Society rescind 

 its resolutions in favour of pointed conductors. His Majesty 

 is also said to have endeavoured personally to persuade Sir 

 John Pringle to use his influence in support of Wilson, but 

 that the President had properly replied that he could not re- 

 verse the laws and operations of Nature. To this the King 

 said, u Perhaps, Sir John, you had better resign." 



It has often been asserted that the suggestion thus put into 

 the King's mouth was never uttered. Dr. Kippis, F.R.S., 

 Pringle's friend and biographer, has been frequently cited in 

 proof of the denial. In reviewing a book of mine in the c Athe- 

 nasum,' the late Prof. De Morgan adopted this view, and we 

 exchanged friendly letters on the subject. The fact is that Dr. 

 Kippis uses very cautious language. He published in 1783 

 six discourses by Pringle delivered at the Royal Society, pre- 

 faced by a biographical sketch. After alluding to the annoy- 

 ance felt by his friend at the quarrel over the lightning- con- 

 ductors, he adds (p. lvii): — " Of this matter the present writer 

 of his life can assert nothing from personal knowledge ; for 

 though he was then in the habit of a strict intimacy with Sir 

 John Pringle, he never heard from him any suggestion of the 

 kind that has been mentioned." 



It must be borne in mind that Pringle was " Physician to 

 their Majesties," and that Dr. Kippis was a leading Unitarian 

 divine, whose pen was largely employed on the 'Annual 

 Register,' the Biograplda Britannica, and similar publications, 

 and that the position of Dissenters, and especially of Unita- 

 rians at the time, was by no means safe, as we learn from 

 the writings of Locke at an earlier, and from the treat- 

 ment of Franklin and Priestley at a later period. But what 



2 E 2 



