No summary available.
No summary available.
Many thanks for his beautiful ballad.
Letter to [Edinburgh Philosophical] Journal calling attention to 1809 article by [Paul] Erman of Berlin, which some say anticipated JH's 1824 Bakerian lecture on 'Motions produced in fluid conductors when transmitting the Electric current.' JH compares both papers, admits Erman's priority on some theoretical points but claims originality for JH's experiments.
Received [?]'s inquiry of 1 Feb. Lists all biographical notices pertaining to William Herschel. Comments in detail on biography and philosophy of WH in David Brewster's Edinburgh Review.
Defends William Herschel's views against charges of hostility to religion. Describes his father as 'a sincere believer in, and worshipper of, a benevolent, intelligent, and superintending Deity....","L
Regrets missing JH's visit. Refers JH to [Charles] König for admission to Department of Natural History at the British Museum.
Packets will be sent Saturday by Smith, Elder & Co., so that the one for [Caroline] Herschel will not be late for Mr. Köhler.
JH is correct, and TY's 'little man is wrong.' Moon's apparent angular motion increases as spectator moves closer.
Sending copies of his Éloge on William Herschel, and requesting some information regarding his publications.
The work Smith is referring to is third edition of Candolle and Lamarck's "Flore Française" [(1815)]; corrects error in description of 'Rubus glandulosus'; uncertain if Smith's specimen is the same as their common plant; observations.
Engraving of a middle-aged Carl Linnaeus. Inscription in pencil on bottom of page: "given by Mr Brightwell 1826. Taken from a bust in the Royal Gardens in Stockholm by J M Johnson, 1824".