From William Snow Harris   22nd March /63

6 Windsor Villas | 22nd March /63

My dear Tyndall,

Professor William Thomson has never replied to my challenge to state where or when I ever affirmed that the heating effect of the ordinary electrical discharge was proportional to the quantity of electricity simply—nor has he so far as I know ever substantiated or repeated his statement, but has passed the matter by in silence, neither has Professor Whewell¹ or Mr Joule or any of those to whom I alluded in my letter in the Philosophical Magazine² thought it worth while to shield themselves in any way from the charge of misrepresentation I brought against them, which as gentlemen and men of honour I think they were bound to do. I have a great love for science and for scientific men, but I have a still greater regard for character and honourable dealing. I can safely say for myself that if I had unintentionally misrepresented either the gentlemen in question as they have misrepresented me and the facts had been made clear to me I should not have rested in my bed before I had made some amends and acknowledged my error. I am glad to find you read my letter which I think you will admit is a fair appeal to Mr Thomson’s sense of justice.

Joule was evidently misled upon the subject, and he might certainly have made amends to me with a very good grace. I confess I am very sorry he did not, because his not having done so has left an unfavourable impression on my mind relative to him.

I quite agree with you that personal canvassing for the Royal Society is very undesirable and should not be ever resorted to, but I think you will charitably discriminate between what may be called a general canvass and a submitting to a few friends the pretentions of an individual to consideration: now I wish you particularly to understand, that, I have never solicited a vote in favor of my friend Phipson,³ or was that the object of my notice of him to you,⁴ I only desired to submit to you certain facts relative to his standing in the philosophical world leaving you to your own judgment upon the question. I do assure you that the very last idea which would enter my mind would be to ask of you to support Dr Phipson in the way of a personal favor to myself.

I really could not have paid so bad a compliment to a person whom I so much respect and regard as yourself. I think you will see upon reflection that it is by no means an unfair step to put a few friends in possession of certain facts bearing on the claims of a candidate for the Royal Society, leaving them to their own unbiased judgment in dealing with the question. I have done this with Dr Phipson with three or four of my friends and no more, which I think cannot be called canvassing in the legitimate sense of that word, if something of this kind be not done by the friends of a candidate, his claims may be possibly passed by in silence, so that I hope you will understand that I by no means wish you to take any step whatever in favor of Dr. Phipson, except upon your dispassionate consideration of his merits; I think I have very good grounds for my recommendation of him—I met with him about five years since in Paris on the occasion of my going to Cherbourg at the request of the Minister of Marine and the Emperor to fit my lightning conductors in the French Frigate “L’Imperieuse”⁵ Dr. Phipson was then engaged with Moigno in bringing out “Cosmos” a periodical French Journal.⁶ He was an ardent student and much esteemed by Members of the Institute. I had a very high character of him from many influential quarters—his modest unassuming manners and zeal in literary and scientific pursuits had won golden opinions in his favor. I regret to find by your letter⁷ that his chemistry does not find great favour with your chemical friends but after all a great deal of that may arise from difference of opinion on some particular subjects and should certainly not militate against him upon consideration of his pretentions as a whole, such discrepancies have arisen before in the case of many deserving men—but I will say no more on this subject, I only beg of you to acquit me of any attempt to influence your decision unfairly relative to the election of Dr Phipson into the Royal Society.

I have read with very great pleasure and interest your paper on “Radiation through the Earth’s Atmosphere”⁸ it contains a great many observations and remarks of singular value to me and I may perhaps trouble you with a short communication on the subject, there is a good deal certainly of debatable ground in it, more especially as relates to the constitution of aqueous vapour, and the existence of atoms and molecules and the wide spaces between⁹

RI MS JT/1/TYP/2/478–9
LT Typescript Only