Discusses how to denote the positions of the celestial bodies in solar photographs. Advocates a system that shows differences of heliocentric longitude on the sides of the sun.

Helioautographs are beautiful. Advises keeping original plan for presentation. Says 'Clarke's' [Harvey Carlisle's] article on William Whewell in MacMillan's is satisfactory. Describes an 'absurd paragraph' regarding Whewell in François Moigno's Mondes.

Says the plan for the exhibition is ingenious. Discusses the 11 year cycle of sunspots and says the sun was spotless the previous day.

Congratulates WS on his recovery. Thanks him for the meteor observations. The evidence points to an 11 rather than a 10 year period [in sunspots?].

Thanks WS for describing Aristotle's and Richard Whately's observation of the great sensitivity of the eye's lateral portion. Congratulates WS on becoming Dean of Norwich. Draft discusses miracles and lists possible arguments against WS's idea that miracles are not a violation of nature

Discusses the sudden motion of some sunspots. Does not think planetary action is a very probable cause. Discusses upcoming conjunction of Venus and Jupiter.

Thanks WS for 'Genevieve' translation. Will not continue the Dante because a Terza Rima translation has been done previously. The sun is behaving oddly.

Describes the peculiar pairs of sunspots he has recently witnessed. Thinks the earth affected their appearance somehow. Is using the Julian calendar for dating observations.

Some photographs support the sudden disappearance of the spot on 17 Sept. Some photographs are misdated. The relation of Jupiter and sunspots suggests previously unknown interconnections in the solar system.

Is working on a compilation of the measures of double stars. If [Rudolf] Wolf's period of 11.11 years is correct, why should 1810-11, a minimum, mark the first observations of solar spots?

Sends [William Whewell's] 'Isle of Sirens' and an acknowledgement to it in 'skimble skamble Hexameters.' Is eager to receive solar photographs and will send others by Professor [George?] Morton.

Discusses discrepencies between his observations for September and WS's photograph. It seems the new spots result from Jupiter being in opposition.

Describes the similarities between JH's sketches and WS's photographs of sunspots. Has greater faith in own observations. Wishes WS would add Julian dates. Sends Professor [George?] Morton's photographs.

Asks whether WS has photographs of the sun for 21 and 22 April. Notes how curious sunspot activity has been. Doubts that such is reconcilable with the notion of 'meteoric in-falls.'

Is returning March heliographs. Discusses the appearance of the spots. Has not received the April heliographs.

Wants to compare Mr. Titterton's photographs of the spot groups to [Warren] de La Rue's. Has tried to determine if some localities regularly have spots.

The research shows no particularly 'maculiferous' area on the sun, but WS may, as WS requested, present 'data' to the R.A.S. Has noticed two new spots on helioautographs on 20 and 27 April.

Sends diagrams showing three new couplets of sunspots. The sun is entering a new phase of activity. Sends drawings made with a glass pen by his son Alexander.

Discusses the movement of the 'great group' of sunspots over the last six months. Asks WS to sign a certificate for his son [John].

Thanks WS for August 29 photographs. Is sending JH's son's [John's] certificate. Pities the 'fallen Emperor' [Napoleon III].