The Correspondence of MiChAEL FArAdAy - IET Digital Library

TheCorrespondence ofMichael FaradayVolume 6, 1860–1867Edited byFrank A J L JamesPublished by the Institution of Engineering and Technology

TheCorrespondence ofMICHAEL FARADAYVolume 6

TheCorrespondence ofMICHAEL FARADAYVolume 6November 1860–August 1867Undated lettersAdditional letters for volumes 1–5Letters 3874–5053Edited byFrankAJLJamesPublished by the Institution of Engineering and Technology

Published by The Institution of Engineering and Technology, London, United KingdomThe Institution of Engineering and Technology is registered as a Charity in England & Wales(no. 211014) and Scotland (no. SC038698).© 2012 The Institution of Engineering and TechnologyFirst published 2012This publication is copyright under the Berne Convention and the Universal CopyrightConvention. All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research orprivate study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means,only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographicreproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright LicensingAgency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publisherat the undermentioned address:The Institution of Engineering and TechnologyMichael Faraday HouseSix Hills Way, StevenageHerts, SG1 2AY, United Kingdomwww.theiet.orgWhile the editor and publisher believe that the information and guidance given in this work arecorrect, all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when making use of them.Neither the author nor publisher assumes any liability to anyone for any loss or damage causedby any error or omission in the work, whether such an error or omission is the result ofnegligence or any other cause. Any and all such liability is disclaimed.The moral rights of the author to be identified as author of this work have been asserted by himin accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this product is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-0-86341-957-7 (hardback)ISBN 978-1-84919-115-9 (PDF)Typeset in India by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd, ChennaiPrinted in the UK by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham, Wiltshire

ContentsPlatesviiConcluding PrefaceixAcknowledgementsxiEditorial Procedures and AbbreviationsxvIntroductionxxvBiographical RegisterxlvThe Correspondence1860–1867 1Undated Letters 495Additional letters for volumes 1–5 559Previous Publication of Letters 831Bibliography 835Index 857

To Joasia with love

Plates1. Faraday by flashlight, 6 May 1864 Frontispiece2. James Timmins Chance 53. William Crookes 184. Gustav Kirchhoff, Robert Bunsen and Henry Roscoe 675. John Hall Gladstone 1986. Edward Frankland 2607. Benjamin Vincent 3248. Henry Bence Jones 4019. John Tyndall 41410. Hampton Court 48411. Jane Barnard 48812. Laying of wreaths on Faraday’s grave, 49220 September 1931

Concluding PrefaceI commenced editing Michael Faraday’s correspondence around about 1986with the aim of publishing the first volume in time for the bicentenary ofhis birth in 1991 – an aim that was achieved. The subsequent four volumesappeared in 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2008. The initial research for the project wassupported by a grant from the then Institution of Electrical Engineers administeredthrough their Archives Committee. As time grew closer to publishingvolume one, thought was given at various meetings about how best to do this.It was at one of these meetings, at some point in the late 1980s, that I first heardthe term ‘compact disc’, then a relatively new format and restricted to music,as a possible format for publication. Having trained in a department wherethe correspondences of Isaac Newton and Henry Oldenburg were publishedin paper volumes by Rupert and Marie Hall, I quickly vetoed that proposal.As a research assistant in the late 1970s to Magda Whitrow, who sadlydied earlier this year, on the project to edit the ISIS Cumulative Bibliography(6 volumes, London, 1971–1984), we were vaguely aware that this wouldprobably be the last major bibliography to be prepared using camera readycards typed with IBM golf ball machines, although such machines at thetime did epitomise the future as portrayed by Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 film AClockwork Orange. I don’t think, however, that any of us were expecting thetransformation of scholarship that has been wrought over the past 30 yearsor so by the development of information and communication technology.In my case volume one was produced on an Amstrad with a 20MB harddisc memory (then considered enormous) with the text format coded by symbolssuch as «r», «b», «ni» and many others – a practice that survived downto this volume. The text was then handed over to the publisher on ten largefloppy discs, with hard copy photographs of the drawings and plates. Thencame a Mac laptop and now the Royal Institution’s centralised network whichis PC based. Of course each system had different operating systems whichentailed translation of all my files and for which I must acknowledge the goodoffices of David Gooding at the University of Bath for doing this. Volume five,by contrast to volume one, was handed over entirely electronically on a CD(!)and this volume on a memory stick.

xThe development of information and communication technology hasnot only altered the mode of production of the volumes (although not thefinal product) but also how research is conducted. Instead of waiting a monthor more for postal correspondence to deliver photocopies of manuscripts,email attachments allowed images of documents to be sent far more quickly,sometimes within a day. Electronic catalogues of archives provided referencesto letters which could not have been located using paper-based catalogues andthis goes a long way to account for many of the 306 letters that should havebeen published in earlier volumes. Although carrying out electronic searchesdid slow down the speed of editing, I nevertheless felt it incumbent on me thatI should do a thorough electronic check of the archives and this did produce anumber of letters including some from sources which had already providedletters – on occasion this was due to a paper catalogue only indexing thewriter but not the recipient.But the aspect of information technology which really slowed downpublication has been the proliferation of high-quality databases which nowprovide practical access to information that even 20 years ago would havebeen inconceivable. At that time it was possible, but prohibitively time consuming,to search through British births, marriage, death and, especially,census records, as well as newspapers, but one needed to have a very goodidea of what one was looking for and where. Now all these databases andmany others can be searched. But this does take time and as the accuracy oftranscriptions and machine-read text can leave much to be desired, locatinginformation at times could be very time consuming. But this process, amongother things, has drastically reduced, compared with earlier volumes, thenumber of people referred to as ‘unidentified’.With this volume the project is now complete, though I am sure furtherletters will turn up as soon as the memory stick is handed over!FAJLJRoyal Institution, June 2011

AcknowledgementsIt is with great pleasure and gratitude that I again thank the Institution of Engineeringand Technology (formerly the Institution of Electrical Engineers) forthe financial support without which the project to locate, copy and edit allextant letters to and from Faraday would not have been possible. Furthermore,I thank them for the support which made possible the publication ofthis volume. I am grateful to the Royal Institution for the provision of allthe essential support they have given for this work and to my friends andcolleagues there for their unceasing support and interest. It is also a pleasureto acknowledge the British Academy for a grant which supported MsMarysia Hermaszewska to make the initial transcriptions of most of the letterspublished here.I thank the following institutions and individuals for permission topublish the letters to and from Faraday which are in their possession: TheRoyal Institution (and for plates 1 to 11); the Institution of Engineeringand Technology (and for plate 12); the Elder Brethren of Trinity Housefor the letters in the London Metropolitan Archives; the British LibraryManuscript Department; the Syndics of Cambridge University Library and,for the letters in the archives of the Royal Greenwich Observatory, theDirector of the Royal Greenwich Observatory; the Trustees of the WellcomeTrust; Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington; the President andCouncil of the Royal Society; the Houghton Library, Harvard University;the Oeffentliche Bibliothek der Universität Basle; the American PhilosophicalSociety Library, Philadelphia; the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and LadyFairfax-Lucy for letters deposited in the Somerville collection; the PierpontMorgan Library, New York; Library and Information Centre, Royal Societyof Chemistry; the Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library;Mr Dennis Embleton: the Archives de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris;Glasgow City Archives; Mr Herbert Obodda; the John Rylands UniversityLibrary of Manchester; the Archives of the Science Museum Library, London;the Wordsworth Trust, Dove Cottage; Mrs Elizabeth M. Milton; the CollegeArchives, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London; theTrustees of the National Library of Scotland; the Athenaeum Club, London;Biblioteca Panizzi, Reggio Emilia; Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript

xiiLibrary, University of Georgia Libraries; the Huntington Library, California;King’s College, London; Lehigh University; Natural History Museum,London; Mrs Rosalind Brennand; the Royal Society of Arts; the Society ofAntiquaries; Somerset Record Office; the Harry Ransom Humanities ResearchCenter, University of Texas at Austin; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei;Aberdeen University Library; Brunel Institute, SS Great Britain Trust; theTrustees of the British Museum; the Bibliothèque Publique et Universitaire,Geneva; Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts deBelgique; Chemical Heritage Foundation; Chicago University Library; EdinburghUniversity Library; the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine,Boston; the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; Mr George W.Platzman; Miss Jan Reid; Mr Keith Stait-Gardner; the National Art Library;the National Research Council Canada; University of Newcastle upon TyneLibrary; Mr Peter Michael Giles; Russian Academy of Sciences; the Directorof the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; the Royal College of Surgeons; the RoyalHumane Society; Heinz Archive and Library, National Portrait Gallery; StAndrews University Library; Herr K.W. Vincentz; the late Mr and Mrs S.Aida; the Handschriftenabteilung, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz,Berlin; University of Kentucky, Lexington; Birmingham UniversityLibrary; William Salt Library; Dr Y. Watanabe; Dr Anthony Turner; AmericanUniversity; the British Astronomical Association; the Bavarian Academy ofSciences; Berlin-Brandenburgischen Ackdemie der Wissenschaften; the BerkshireRecord Office; Boston Public Library; California Institute of Technology;Mr Chris O’Brien; the Cornwall Record Office; the College of Physicians ofPhiladelphia; Cornell University; Columbia University Library; D.H. Weinglassand M. Carbonell; Mr Donald K. Wilson; Mr David N. Holt; DukeUniversity Medical Library; Durham County Record Office; Exeter UniversityLibrary; The Garrick Club; Mr Hal Kass; the Geological Society; Håndskriftafdelingen,Det Kongelige Bibliothek, Copenhagen; Mr Herbert Pratt;Hampshire Record Office; Harvard University Archives; Mr John Herschel-Shorland; Mr Jeff Weber; Liebig Museum, Giessen; Lambeth Palace Library;Ms Markella Pervanas-Aktar; the National Archives of Scotland; the NielsBohr Library; the National Library of Australia; Northumberland RecordOffice; New York Botanical Garden Library; Philadelphia College of Pharmacyand Science; Mr Paul Heier; The Royal Astronomical Society; RensselaerPolytechnic Institute; the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; ProfessorRyan Tweney; Salford Archives Centre; Mrs Sheila Elliott; SignaturesGallery; Seeley G. Mudd Library; the Surrey Record Office; the State Libraryof New South Wales, Mitchell Library; the Master and Fellows of TrinityCollege Cambridge; Mr Timothy Giles; Torquay Natural History Society; UniversitätsbibliothekLeipzig; University College, London; Swansea University;University of East Anglia; University of North Carolina; University of Tennessee,Knoxville; Wigan Archives; Mr William Craig Willan; Herr WolfgangKlose; Worcester Polytechnic Institute. All Crown copyright material in

xiiiThe National Archives and elsewhere is reproduced by permission of theController of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.I wish to thank the staff of all the institutions listed above for helpingme locate the letters to and from Faraday in their possession and in mostcases providing me with photocopies and answering follow-up questions.Particular thanks should go the Collections and Heritage Team at the RoyalInstitution, Ms Anne Locker and her staff at the Institution of Engineeringand Technology, Mr Keith Moore and his staff at the Royal Society and MrAdam Perkins of Cambridge University Library.Although the following institutions do not have any Faraday lettersin their archives published in this volume, I thank them for answeringqueries concerning this volume: Dundee University Archives, RedbridgeLocal Studies and Archives, the Institution of Civil Engineers, Friends’ House,Freemason’s Hall, the Scottish Register Office, the Principal Registry of theFamily Division of the High Court (in High Holborn), the General RegisterOffice, the London Library, the National Gallery, Camden Local Studies andArchives Centre, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, and the Cityof Westminster Archives Centre.Many friends and colleagues have helped in locating letters and dealingwith queries and I wish to thank the following particularly: Dr MariE.W. Williams, Professor John Krige, Dr Shigeo Sugiyama and ProfessorSharon Ruston for doing the initial ground work of locating Faradayletters in Paris, Geneva, Japan and Grasmere respectively. I thank DrJ.V. Field (for general help with the Greek and Latin (for which I alsothank Professor Vivian Nutton) and for answering various art, historicaland other queries), Mr J.B. Morrell (for help relating to the BritishAssociation and John Phillips), Dr Gloria Clifton (for information on thescientific instrument trade), M. François Mousnier-Lompré (for informationon his ancestor Armand Masselin), Herr Michael Barth (for discussionson the reception of Faraday’s work in the German-speaking countries),Professor Larry J. Schaaf (for discussions on the history of photography),Professor W.H. Brock (for help with Liebig and Crookes related queries), MrMichael Harrison and Mr Stephen Rigden (for obtaining Charles Anderson’srecords from the Royal Hospital Chelsea), Mr Dave Padley (for informationon London water companies), Dr Kai Torsten Kanz (for informationon German chemistry), Professor Alice Jenkins (for discussionson nineteenth century science and literature), Professor Michael Hunter(for Boyle-related queries), Professor Peter Bowler (for help with materialin Belfast), Dr R.G.W. Anderson (for help with material in Edinburgh),and Professor David Knight (who acted as a court of final appeal forobscurities).I thank Professor Geoffrey Cantor and Professor Ryan Tweney fortheir valuable advice over the years, for many stimulating discussions onFaraday and for searching out many Faraday letters which might otherwise

xivhave escaped my attention, especially Tweney who regularly reported whenFaraday letters appeared on the internet. Together with Dr Sophie Forgan, Ialso thank them for their many helpful comments on the introduction.Furthermore, it is with great pleasure that I acknowledge the help andhospitality I have received from many members of Faraday’s extended family.In particular, Mr Michael A. Faraday (for providing me with additional informationto that contained in his and the late Dr Joseph E. Faraday’s Faradaygenealogy) and Miss Mary Barnard (who provided me with a detailedgenealogy of the Barnard family whose traditional business of gold and silversmithingshe continues). I also thank Mrs Isobel Blaikley for continuingto ferret out material from the rest of her family and for introducing me tovarious members. These are too numerous to mention fully here, but in thisvolume I should particularly like to note the generosity of Mr Martin Conybearein securing the donation to the Royal Institution of the album of Faradayletters and images that belonged to his family.At this point I would usually thank Professor David Gooding for allhis advice, help, inspiration and friendship over the very many years that Ihave been working on Faraday. Unfortunately, after a long and painful illness,he died in December 2009 (Cantor and James (2010); Tweney (2010)). It is amatter of huge regret to me that he did not live to see the completion of thefinal volume of Faraday’s correspondence, a project in part inspired by himand on which he provided me with enormous encouragement and help overthe years.Finally, but not least, I thank my son Christopher (not yet born when theproject began) for translating the letters from the French and my wife, Joasia,for checking those translations and once again translating the letters from theItalian.

Editorial Procedure andAbbreviationsAll letters to and from Faraday which have been located in either manuscriptor in printed form have been included in chronological order of writing. Theterm letter has been broadly construed to include not only extracts from letterswhere only these have survived but also reports on various matters whichFaraday submitted to institutions or individuals. What has not been includedare scientific papers written in the form of a letter, although letters which weredeemed worthy of publication, subsequent to their writing, are included as areletters to journals, newspapers etc. Letters which exist only in printed paraphraseform have not been included. Letters between members of Faraday’sfamily, of which there are relatively few, are included as a matter of course.Of letters between other third parties only those which had a direct effect onFaraday’s career or life are included; the large number of letters which simplysay what an excellent lecturer, chemist, philosopher, man, etc, Faraday was,or the letters that are critical of him, are not included.The aim has been to reproduce, as accurately as the conventions oftypesetting will allow, the text of the letters as they were written. The onlyexceptions are that continuation words from one page to the next have notbeen transcribed and, as it proved impossible to render into consistent typesetform the various contractions with which Faraday and his correspondentstended to terminate their letters, all the endings of letters are spelt out in fullirrespective of whether they were contracted or not. Crossings out have notbeen transcribed, although major alterations are given in the notes.It should be stressed that the reliability of the texts of letters found onlyin printed form leaves a great deal to be desired as a comparison of anyletter in Bence Jones (1870a, b) with the original manuscript, where it hasbeen found, will reveal. The punctuation and spelling of letters derived fromprinted sources has been retained.As with volumes four and five, this volume contains a number of lettersbetween Faraday and John Tyndall. Most of these letters now only exist inthe form of typescripts prepared by Tyndall’s widow, Louise, as part of herproject to write a life of her husband that was never completed. Only a very

xvifew original manuscripts of these letters have been found. Obvious minortypographical errors (for instance ‘thw’ for ‘the’) have been silently corrected.Otherwise the same editorial policy has been adopted for these typescripts asfor the rest of the correspondence.Many of the letters that Faraday received from the Board of Trade havebeen found only in the form of press copies retained by the Board which arenow in The National Archives. The original letters would have included aprinted heading (giving the address of the Board), salutation and a phrase forthe opening sentence. Judging by other letters found in the Board’s papers,the opening sentence would have begun with something to the effect ‘I amcommanded by my Lords of the Board of Trade to’. Since there was somevariation in the printed texts of these letters, no attempt has been made tosuggest what the precise wording for any of the letters published here mighthave been.Each letter commences with a heading which gives the letter number,followed by the name of the writer and recipient, the date of the letter and itssource. There is, occasionally, a fifth line in the heading in which is given thenumber that Faraday allotted to a letter. He only numbered letters to providehimself with a reminder of the order of a particular series of letters whichusually referred to some matter of controversy; in this volume Faraday onlynumbered those letters between him and the table turner Thomas Sherratt.The postmark is only given when it is used to date a letter or to establish thatthe location of the writer was different from that of the letterhead.The following symbols are used in the text of the letters:[some text] indicates that text has been interpolated.[word illegible] indicates that it has not been possible to read a particularword (or words where indicated).[MS torn] indicates where part of the manuscript no longer exists(usually due to the seal of the letter being placed there)and that it has not been possible to reconstruct the text.[sic]reconstructs the text where the manuscript has been torn.indicates that the peculiar spelling or grammar in the texthas been transcribed as it is in the manuscript. The use ofthis has been restricted as much as possible to rare cases.Hence, for example, the spellings of ‘untill’ is not followedby [sic].[blank in MS] indicates where part of the text was deliberately left blank.The following abbreviations are used in the texts of the letters:BABDCBDCLBachelor of ArtsBachelor of DivinityCompanion of the Order of the BathDoctor of Civil Law [also given as LLD occasionally]

xviiDMFEFMFRSHCHMCHRHKGKHLHMAMDMEMPMSNBNLPRSPSCRRARHRIRMRNRSSASCTBTHUS(A)USNDeputy Master [of Trinity House]Friday EveningForeign Member [of the Royal Society]Fellow of the Royal SocietyHampton CourtHer Majesty’s CommissionersHer or His Royal HighnessKnight of the GarterKnight of the Royal Guelphic OrderLighthouseMaster of ArtsMedical DoctorMagneto-ElectricMember of ParliamentManuscriptNorth Britain [i.e. Scotland]Northern Lighthouse [Commissioners]President of the Royal SocietyPublic Schools CommissionRoyalRoyal AcademyRoyal HighnessRoyal InstitutionRoyal Military [Academy]Royal NavyRoyal SocietySociety of ArtsSub-committee [for the glass project]Trinity BoardTrinity HouseUnited States (of America)United States NavyPostcodes, based on compass points such as W, SW as well as EC (EastCentral) etc, were used in London by the Post Office.Britain did not decimalise its currency until 1971 and is still halfheartedlytrying to metricate its weights and measures, although in scientificand technical writings this latter has been largely completed. During the nineteenthcentury the main unit of currency was the pound (£) which was dividedinto twenty shillings (s) of twelve pennies (d) each. The penny was furthersub-divided into a half (halfpenny) and a quarter (called a farthing). A sumsuch as, for example, one pound, three shillings and sixpence could be written

xviiias 1-3-6 with or without the symbols for the currency values. Likewise twoshillings and six pence could be written as 2/6; this particular coin could becalled half a crown. There was one additional unit of currency, the guinea,which was normally defined as twenty one shillings. There is no agreed figureby which the value of money in the nineteenth century can be multipliedto provide a modern equivalent, but in 1861 £50 would secure the servicesof a good cook for a year, The Times cost 4d, entry to Madame Tussauds 1s,and it was possible to secure a second-class steam ship passage to New Yorkfor £14.The following table provides conversion values for the units used inthe correspondence and their value in modern units. For mass only theAvoirdupois system is given as that was most commonly used. But it is importantto remember that both the Apothecaries’and Troy systems were also usedto measure mass and that units in all these systems shared some of the samenames, but different values. For conversion figures for these latter (and alsofor other units not given here) see Darton and Clark (1994).TemperatureTo convert degrees Fahrenheit (F) to degrees Centigrade (C),subtract 32 and then multiply by 5/9.Length1 inch (in or ") = 2.54 cm1 foot (ft or ’) = 12 inches = 30.48 cm1 yard (yd) = 3 feet = 91.44 cm1 fathom = 2 yards = 1.83m1 mile = 1760 yards = 1.6 kmVolume1 cubic inch (ci) = 16.38 cc1 pint = 4 gills = 0.568 litre1 gallon = 8 pints = 4.54 litre1 cubic foot (cf) = 28.32 litre1 bushel = 8 gallons = 36.3 litre1 chaldron = 36 bushels = 1306.8 litreMass1 grain (gr) = 0.065 g1 ounce (oz) = 28.3 g1 pound (lb) = 7000 grains= 16 ounces = 0.453 kg1 stone = 14 pounds = 6.3 kg1 hundredweight (cwt) = 112 pounds = 50.8 kg1 ton = 20 cwt = 1.02 tonne

xixThe NotesThe notes aim to identify, as far as has been possible, individuals, papers andbooks which are mentioned in the letters, and to explicate events to whichreference is made (where this is not evident from the letters). In correspondence,writers when discussing individuals with titles used those titles, butas British biographical dictionaries use the family name this is given, wherenecessary, in the notes.The biographical register identifies all those individuals who are mentionedin three or more letters (in either text or notes). The register provides abrief biographical description of these individuals and an indication of wherefurther information may be found. No further identification of these individualsis given in the notes. Those who are mentioned in one or two lettersare identified in the notes. While information contained in the genealogiesof various Sandemanian families has been invaluable, this information hasbeen checked against that available in the General Register Office (GRO) andScottish Register Office (SRO). In these cases, and others, where the GRO orSRO is cited, the year of death is given followed by the age at death. If thisagrees with information derived from other sources, then the year of birth isgiven in preference to the age.References in the notes in the form of Faraday (1861c) refer to thebibliography; the following abbreviations are used to cite other sources ofinformation:ACACABADBAlKLANBAOBxCPDABDBFDBIDHBSDQBDSBEIERGDAGDMMGROAlumini CantabrigiensesAppletons’ Cyclopedia of American BiographyAllgemeine Deutsche BiographieAllgemeines Künster-LexikonAmerican National BiographyAlumni OxoniensesBoase Modern English Biography, volume xComplete PeerageDictionary of American BiographyDictionnaire de Biographie FrançaiseDizionario Biografico degli ItalianiDictionnaire Historique et Biographique de la SuisseDictionary of Quaker Biography (typescript in Friends’House London and Haverford College Pennsylvania)Dictionary of Scientific BiographyEnciclopedia ItalianaEncyclopedia of the RenaissanceGrove Dictionary of ArtGrove Dictionary of Music and MusiciansGeneral Register Office

xxHPLUINBUNDBNNBWNRAxODNBPODPxRI MMRNLSROVBMDWWWxHistory of ParliamentLessico Universale ItalianoNouvelle Biographie UniverselleNeue Deutsche BiographieNieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch WoordenboekNational Register of Archives, report number xOxford Dictionary of National BiographyPost Office Directory (see below)Poggendorff Biographisch-Literarisches Handwörterbuch,volume xGreenaway et al. (1971–6). This is followed by date of meeting,volume and page numberRévai Nagy LexikonaScottish Register OfficeVictoria Births, Deaths and MarriagesWho Was Who, volume xReports of lectures in the daily and weekly newspaper press and referencesto plays, poems and pieces of music are given only in the notes.From 1851 the Royal Institution published accounts of the Friday EveningDiscourses in its Proceedings. These reports are listed in the bibliography andwhen cited in notes, indication is made that these were Discourses. Referencesto the Gentlemens’ Magazine and the Annual Register (which has novolume number after 1863) are likewise given only in the notes. The followingdirectories are cited in the notes:Crockford Clerical Directory (Crockford)Medical DirectoryNavy ListImperial CalendarPost Office Directory (POD)Royal KalendarCitations to these directories, unless otherwise indicated, refer to theedition of the year of the letter where the note occurs. These directories universallymake the claim to contain up-to-date and complete information. Thiswas frequently far from the case and this explains apparent discrepancieswhich may occur.Faraday’s Diary. Being the various philosophical notes of experimental investigationmade by Michael Faraday, DCL, FRS, during the years 1820–1862 andbequeathed by him to the Royal Institution of Great Britain. Now, by order ofthe Managers, printed and published for the first time, under the editorial supervisionof Thomas Martin, 7 volumes and index, London, 1932–6 is cited asFaraday, Diary, date of entry, volume number and paragraph numbers, unlessotherwise indicated.

xxiFaraday’s ‘Experimental Researches in Electricity’ are cited in the normalway to the bibliography, but in this case the reference is followed by‘ERE’ and the series and paragraph numbers, unless otherwise indicated.Two of Faraday’s papers (1852b, 1855a) were published in the PhilosophicalMagazine, as he regarded them as ‘of a speculative and hypothetical nature’(1852b, p.401), but in them he continued the paragraph numbering of his‘Experimental Researches’ published in the Philosophical Transactions. To helplocate references within these papers, I have allocated them the series numbers29a and 29b respectively and they are thus cited in the notes in squarebrackets.John Tyndall’s manuscript diary, in the Archives of the Royal Institution(RI MS JT/2/1-12), is cited as Tyndall, Diary, followed by date and reference.The typescript of the diary of Thomas Archer Hirst, in the Archives ofthe Royal Institution (RI MS JT/2/32/a-e), is cited as Hirst, Diary, followedby date and reference.The diary of Herbert McLeod, published as James (1987), is cited asMcLeod Diary, followed by the date of entry.Manuscript abbreviationsThe following are used to cite manuscript sources where the primary abbreviationis used twice or more. (NB Reference to material in private possessionis always spelt out in full.) These abbreviations are used in both the letterheadings and the notes:AC MSANLAPSAS MSAUL MSBI MSBLBMBod MSBPRE MSBPUG MSBRAI ARBCHFChULadd MSMS EgAthenaeum Club ManuscriptAccademia Nazionale dei LinceiAmerican Philosophical SocietyAcadémie des Sciences ManuscriptAberdeen University Library ManuscriptBrunel Institute, SS Great Britain Trust, ManuscriptBritish Libraryadditional ManuscriptEgerton ManuscriptBritish MuseumBodleian Library ManuscriptBiblioteca Panizzi, Reggio EmiliaBibliothèque Publique et Universitaire de GenèveManuscriptBibliothèque royale Albert Ier, Académie royalede BelgiqueChemical Heritage FoundationChicago University Library

xxiiDUAEUL MSFACLMFM MSGCA MSHL HUHL UGHunt MSIC MSIET MSJRULMKCLLMALUNALNHMNLS MSNRCC ISTINULPMLRASARBGKRCSRGORHSRI MSDundee University ArchivesEdinburgh University Library ManuscriptFrancis A. Countway Library of MedicineFitzwilliam Museum ManuscriptGlasgow City Archives ManuscriptHoughton Library, Harvard UniversityHargrett Library, University of GeorgiaHuntington Library ManuscriptImperial College ManuscriptHPHuxley PapersInstitution of Engineering and Technology(formerly the Institution of Electrical Engineers)ManuscriptSCSpecial Collection2 David James Blaikley Collection3 S.P. Thompson CollectionJohn Rylands University Library of ManchesterKing’s College, LondonLondon Metropolitan ArchivesLehigh UniversityNational Art LibraryNatural History MuseumNational Library of Scotland ManuscriptNational Research Council Canada Institute forScientific and Technology InformationNewcastle University LibraryPierpont Morgan Library, New YorkRussian Academy of Sciences ArchivesRoyal Botanic Gardens, KewRoyal College of SurgeonsRoyal Greenwich Observatory6 Airy papersRoyal Humane SocietyRoyal Institution ManuscriptF1Faraday lettersA, D, E, F, G Letters from FaradayH, I, K Faraday’s portrait albumsL, N Miscellaneous letters to and fromFaradayF2 Faraday’s experimental notebooksF4 Faraday’s notes of lecturesF5 Apparatus booksF Petty cash bookF8 Faraday’s copy of Davy’s biography

xxiiiRLSARS MSRSARSC MSSAL MSSISM MSSoROSPKSuROTNAGGBGMHDJTLeRI 4RI CGPapers of W.R. GroveGuard BookMinutes of General MeetingPapers of Humphry DavyPapers of John TyndallTS Typescript volumes/1 Correspondence/2 Tyndall’s diary/3 Tyndall’s notebooksLecture recordsMinutes of the Journal CommitteeCorrespondence, GeneralRedbridge Local Studies and ArchivesRoyal Society Manuscript241 Faraday’s diploma book364 Glass Committee bookBaCertCMCMB 71CMB 90dHSMCMMD MSDDBJ7HO73HO107MTPRO30Barrett PapersCertificate of Fellow electedCouncil Minutes (printed)Glass Committee bookMinutes of Committee of PapersHerschel papersMiscellaneous CorrespondenceMiscellaneous ManuscriptsRoyal Society of ArtsRoyal Society of Chemistry ManuscriptSociety of Antiquaries Library ManuscriptSmithsonian Institution LibraryDibner CollectionScience Museum Library ManuscriptSomerset Record OfficeStaatsbibliothek Preussischer KulturbesitzDokumentensammlung DarmstaedterF 1 e 1831(2). Autograph I/1478/23Surrey Record OfficeThe National Archives, Kew(formerly the Public Record Office)Fitzroy papersRecords of the Royal Commission onPublic Schools1841 and 1851 CensusMarine Department of the Board ofTrade recordsPapers deposited in The National Archives

xxivUB MSUKLULBULCUP VPLUTAWIHM MSWSLWTDCYULPROB11 Wills granted probate between 1384 and 1858RG4 and 5 Registers of dissenting churchesRG91861 CensusRG10 1871 CensusRG11 1881 CensusRG12 1891 CensusRG13 1901 CensusWO97 Records of the Royal Hospital ChelseaUniversität Basle ManuscriptNSNachlass SchoenbeinUniversity of Kentucky, LexingtonUniversity Library, BirminghamUniversity Library, CambridgeAdd MS 7655 Maxwell PapersAdd MS 7656 Stokes PapersUniversity of Pennsylvania Van Pelt LibraryHarry Ransom Humanities Research Center,The University of Texas at AustinWellcome Institute for the History ofMedicine ManuscriptWilliam Salt LibraryWordsworth Trust, Dove CottageYale University Library

IntroductionThis volume includes 731 letters to and from Michael Faraday (and his immediatefamily) written between November 1860 and his death nearly sevenyears later on 25 August 1867, just under a month short of his seventy-sixthbirthday. It also contains 143 letters that have proved impossible to date and306 letters from the period covered in volumes one to five, but which had notbeen located when those volumes were published. In total 82.5% of the lettersin this volume are previously unpublished.Despite lacking information about dates, some of the undated lettersnevertheless do provide helpful insights into Faraday’s life and work. Forexample, in a letter to Hopwood, Faraday explicitly dealt with the importantissue of his opposition to the atomic theory 1 whilst in a letter to EdwardHawkins he intriguingly referred to the chemical treatment of the Lewis chesspieces purchased by the British Museum in the 1830s 2 . Moreover, many ofthe letters that relate to the period covered in earlier volumes are of greatinterest in casting additional light on the development of Faraday’s career.Most important, perhaps, is an 1836 letter to a friend from his youth, BenjaminAbbott which helps to identify many, but not all, of Faraday’s early circle offriends 3 as does an 1818 letter to John Huxtable 4 . A couple of letters writtenthe previous year to Thomas Winkworth 5 provide further information onFaraday’s activities in the 1810s. Other insights into his life during that decadeare contained in correspondence with Edward Daniel Clarke about the latter’spaper on his work with the blowpipe published in the Quarterly Journal ofScience that Faraday edited while William Thomas Brande was away 6 .Correspondence from the 1820s sheds fresh light on Faraday’s role inestablishing the Athenaeum Club, where he served as its first secretary, andconfirms the enormous amount of work which this entailed 7 . Although hequickly passed this position onto his friend Edward Magrath, he continuedhis connection with the club, including an 1841 letter in which he gave hisopinion on the poor quality of leather for bookbinding compared to ‘formeryears’ 8 – presumably a very rare reference to his own apprenticeship. Other1820s letters deal with his practical work on the Millbank Penitentiary 9 , theoptical glass project 10 and various engineering projects connected with MarcBrunel and his son Isambard 11 .

xxviThere are also letters that provide background to Faraday’s course oflectures on ‘Chemical Manipulation’ delivered during the first half of 1827 atthe London Institution 12 and which he turned into his only book conceived assuch 13 ; moreover, there is a letter about later editions and translations 14 . Thislecture course at the London Institution was unique and thereafter, due topressure of time, he lectured only at the Royal Institution and to the cadets atthe Royal Military Academy, Woolwich (which does not figure greatly here 15 ).Thus throughout the 1830s and beyond he declined invitations to lecture atplaces such as the Manchester Royal Institution 16 , the Belgrave Literary andScientific Institution 17 and elsewhere 18 . Faraday similarly did not accept aninvitation to contribute an article to the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana 19 .Several letters pertain to the evolution of Friday Evening Discoursesat the Royal Institution, including one to Marc Brunel written very shortlyafter their establishment in which Faraday described them as ‘a sort of sociallecture’ 20 . However, most of these letters dealt with mundane administrativematters relating to the Discourses, including the exhibitions in thelibrary 21 .Although by the end of the 1820s Faraday had ceased his involvementwith the project for improving optical glass 22 , his time was, nevertheless,fully occupied and he continued, for instance, to undertake routine chemicalanalyses, until the mid-1830s 23 . His financial situation improved followinghis appointment as the first Fullerian Professor of Chemistry at the RoyalInstitution in 1833 24 and as scientific adviser to Trinity House, the English andWelsh lighthouse authority, in 1836. He was thus able to cease undertakingpaid professional miscellaneous chemical analyses, although he would lateroccasionally undertake this kind of work for public benefit 25 or for friends 26 ,but not for payment.The 1830s was, above all, a decade of remarkable productivity in his scientificresearch, starting with his discovery of electro-magnetic induction on29 August 1831. Indeed, so committed was he to pursuing his programme ofresearch that in 1836 he instructed the porters at the Royal Institution that hewould see no one on Tuesday, Thursday or Saturday or after four in the afternoonon other days of the week, a rule which could on occasion be a source ofembarrassment 27 . Following a period in the early 1840s when he reflectedon how best to achieve his research aims, he recommenced an extendedperiod of experimentation and theorising following his discovery in 1845of the magneto-optical effect and diamagnetism, phenomena that Faradaydemonstrated to the Council of the Royal Society 28 and also to friends andcolleagues in the Royal Institution 29 .By 1860, with his fundamental scientific discoveries, his enormousattractiveness and popularity as a lecturer and his work for the state, Faradaywas widely acknowledged as one of the most famous men of the day,a reputation which continued to grow after his death and indeed downto the present 30 . During the 1860s his fame continued to be recognised

xxviiinstitutionally by, for example, the University of Cambridge conferring anhonorary doctorate on him on 9 June 1862 31 and shortly afterwards, at theinstigation of his old friend Carlo Matteucci, now Minister of Public Instructionof the newly unified Italy, King Victor Emanuel II conferred a Knighthoodof St Maurice and Lazarus on Faraday 32 . In 1866 the Society of Arts awardedits Gold Albert Medal to him. By that time Faraday was too unwell to beable to attend an award ceremony at the Society and so a group of Councilmembers visited him on 16 June 1866 in order to make the presentation 33 .Faraday’s inability to attend the presentation is indicative of the predominanttone of his letters during the 1860s, with aging, his withdrawalfrom duties and ultimately with impending death. Yet he remained remarkablyactive for much of this period, lecturing and experimenting until 1862(albeit at a much diminished level), undertaking the duties of Elder of theLondon Sandemanian Church until 1864 and of Scientific Adviser on lighthousesto Trinity House and the Board of Trade, and continuing to work forthe Royal Institution which despite Faraday’s best efforts, retained him untilthe end.His decline in health and the shedding of his responsibilities are reflectedin the steady reduction of the number of letters each year:1861 1831862 1661863 1371864 981865 551866 23 (of which only six were from Faraday)1867 10 (of which none were from Faraday)During these years around 270 letters (or 37% of the total) dealt with lighthousematters including correspondence with the Birmingham glassmaker,James Chance, the Deputy Master of Trinity House, William Pigott, and itsSecretary and Assistant Secretary, Peter Berthon and George Herbert and theAssistant Secretary of the Board of Trade, Thomas Farrer. At the Royal Institution,Faraday’s main correspondents remained Henry Bence Jones, JohnBarlow (and his wife Cecilia), Edward Frankland, John Tyndall and BenjaminVincent. Faraday continued corresponding with a number of figuresoutside these two areas, but of course some of these letters dealt with RoyalInstitution and lighthouse service matters. These correspondents included:George Airy, Angela Burdett Coutts, Auguste De La Rive, Warren De LaRue, J.B.A. Dumas, William Snow Harris, John Herschel, Justus Liebig,Carlo Matteucci, James Clerk Maxwell, Harriet Moore, John Percy, JuliusPlücker, L.J.A. Quetelet, Henry Enfield Roscoe, Edward Sabine, ChristianSchoenbein, James South and William Thomson. But most of these exchangestailed off rapidly in the 1860s due either to Faraday’s decline or that of thecorrespondent.

xxviiiDuring the 1860s and the six years following Faraday’s death manyof his long-standing friends, colleagues and correspondents died includingEdward Magrath (1861), Benjamin Collins Brodie (1862), Samuel HunterChristie (1865), William Whewell (1866), William Thomas Brande (1866), hislong-term assistant Charles Anderson (1866), William Snow Harris (1867),James South (1867), Cecilia Barlow (1868), Julius Plücker (1868), ChristianSchoenbein (1868), Carlo Matteucci (1868), David Brewster (1868), John Barlow(1869), John Herschel (1871), Charles Babbage (1871), William VernonHarcourt (1871), Auguste De La Rive (1873), Justus Liebig (1873) and HenryBence Jones (1873).Two other deaths particularly affected Faraday. The first, which distressedthe entire nation, was the very unexpected demise of Prince Albert on14 December 1861 at the age of forty-two. Faraday had taken the lead in drawingthe Prince into the Royal Institution and the Prince had been instrumentalin securing for him the Grace and Favour House at Hampton Court whereFaraday lived for much of the 1860s 34 . Faraday immediately instructed thehousekeeper for the lower windows of the Royal Institution to be closed as amark of respect ‘upon this sad death of our Prince’ 35 . Writing, on black-edgedpaper, at the beginning of 1862 to Ernst Becker, the Prince’s German secretary,Faraday commented ‘We remember him more as a man than a Prince.He exalted his rank far more than it exalted him’ 36 . Such expressions of sympathydoubtless lay behind Queen Victoria ensuring that Faraday was sent acopy of Albert’s Principal Speeches at the start of 1863 37 . The second death thatespecially affected Faraday was that of his younger sister Margaret Barnard,his last surviving sibling, and fellow member of the Sandemanian Church, on14 October 1862, just a month short of her sixtieth birthday 38 . Faraday, elevenyears older, had played a role in her upbringing, helped with her educationby teaching her to read and write 39 , and she was the mother of Faraday andSarah Faraday’s favourite joint niece, Jane Barnard, who had been living permanentlywith them since at least 1851. Faraday entered an unusually longperiod of mourning for his sister and used black-edged paper for his lettersuntil March 1863 40 .As in the previous volumes there are several letters which refer toFaraday’s roles in the Sandemanian Church, although their quantity doesnot adequately reflect the importance of the church in his life. On 21 October1860 he had been elected, for the second time, an Elder of the LondonChurch 41 . As a consequence, Faraday had some responsibility in overseeingthe move of the church from Paul’s Alley in September 1862, where it had beenlocated since 1785, to Barnsbury, a move regretted by Sarah 42 . As an Elder,Faraday officiated at the church, delivered exhortations, baptised infants andvisited other Sandemanian meeting houses. These included Newcastle (inAugust 1861, which had just acquired a new building 43 , and the followingspring 44 ), Old Buckenham in Norfolk (August and September 1862 and againin 1864 45 ) and Glasgow and Dundee during the first half of August 1863 46 .

xxixIn Dundee on 9 August he preached the only exhortation of his that we havein its entirety 47 .As well as providing biblical references and advice for those about tomake their Confession of Faith 48 and general comments about the spiritualstate of the church 49 , Faraday also commented on the deaths of fellow Sandemaniansand members of the broader community associated with the church,many of whom were related in some way to him, including, of course, his sister.Jemima Hornblower and William Giles both died towards the end of 1861,Sarah Barker in 1865 whilst her husband Thomas (a Sandemanian Deacon)and Faraday’s sister-in-law, Charlotte Buchanan, both died the following year.The death of William Giles (a double cousin of the artist Samuel Palmer 50 )was of particular concern as this continued the tragedy of the Giles family 51 .His widow Ellen, a niece of Faraday’s, had been left with nine children, theyoungest under one. Faraday found work for the oldest, William BrantinghamGiles, in Frankland’s laboratory 52 and he subsequently made a career asan analytical chemist. William Giles’s brother, John (who was one of Palmer’smajor supporters), stepped in to assist other members of the family 53 .Faraday’s commitment to Sandemanianism informed his responses tothe discussions that were just beginning to take place during the 1860s onthe relationship between science and religion as well as his continuing irritationwith spiritualism. As noted at the end of the introduction to volumefive, Faraday was not present at the public discussion, held in Oxford on 30June 1860, between Samuel Wilberforce, Thomas Huxley and Joseph Hookerover the theological implications of the theory of organic evolution by naturalselection that Charles Darwin 54 had proposed. Although Faraday’s absencecan perhaps be seen as indicative that his scientific practice had become oldfashioned in approach and to some extent in content, nevertheless evolutiondoes not appear to have a been a major issue for him. And his onlyexplicit comment on the subject was that the evidence supporting evolutionwas ‘weak & feeble’ 55 , a view based as much on science as on his religiousbeliefs.During the early 1860s it was not Darwinism that brought the relationof science and religion into contention, but the various rows that rocked theAnglican church, especially the heresy trials stemming from the publicationof Essays and Reviews in 1860 56 . Such events prompted a group of junior staffand students at the Royal College of Chemistry to write their ‘Declaration ofthe Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences’ which they circulated forsignature by members of the scientific community. The ‘Declaration’ arguedthat, in the final analysis, the word of God written in the Bible would notbe found to conflict with the word of God written in the natural world. Thisdocument provoked considerable controversy for a number of reasons, thecauses of which can, in the main, be attributed to the youthful inexperienceof those who drafted and propagated the ‘Declaration’. For example, the factthat it was addressed to the Convocation of the Anglican Church prompted

xxxthe Irish mathematician and astronomer William Rowan Hamilton to referto it as a fortieth article of faith exclusively for scientific men. Moreover,some scientific figures, such as John Herschel, rejected the implied notionthat science encouraged infidelity. Hence many in the scientific community,including Faraday, who might have been expected to sign, declined, althoughDavid Brewster and more than 10% of the Fellowship of the Royal Societydid 57 .The initial strategy followed by the authors of the ‘Declaration’ was totry to secure the signature of prominent members of the scientific community,so as to encourage others to support it. Thus in mid-April 1864 the AssistantChemist at the College, Herbert McLeod (who frequently attended Discoursesat the Royal Institution), visited Faraday to invite him to sign: ‘He said thathe could not being a dissenter and as he did not think that the clergy of the[Anglican] church had any right to interfere in the matter. He said that ashe had once given his opinion on the matter in his lectures on education hedid not wish to take any more steps in the matter. He was very kind’ 58 .Hedeclined once more to sign the ‘Declaration’ when he was invited for a secondtime, this time by letter, and again he cited his 1854 lecture on education 59 , butadded ‘I am glad to see the names of so many who are to a certain degree likeminded’ 60 ; he had given a similar response the previous year to an enquiryfrom the Swiss theologian Jules Naville 61 .What did continue, however, to be a major issue for Faraday was spiritualism.In 1861 the Scottish-born American medium Daniel Home attractedfashionable audiences in London. These included James Emerson Tennentwho, as Secretary to the Board of Trade, Faraday knew quite well, and heinvited Faraday to attend one of Home’s séances. Usually when Faradayreceived such invitations, his reply was quite brusque as exemplified by hisresponses to Thomas Sherratt and the brothers Davenport 62 . But with Tennent,Faraday was much more polite and asked a series of searching questions.The séance did not however take place, which Tennent, possibly tactfully,attributed to the illness of Home’s wife 63 . Faraday was also restrained inhis criticisms of spiritualism when writing to Robert Cooper, the son of hisold friend, the chemist John Thomas Cooper 64 . Nevertheless, despite beingmore moderate in tone with those whom he knew, Faraday remained implacablyopposed to spiritualism and his feelings were perhaps most trenchantlyexpressed at the end of the letter declining the invitation to the Davenports’séance: ‘If Spirit communications not utterly worthless should happen to startinto activity I will leave the Spirits to find out for themselves how they canmove my attention. I am tired of them’ 65 .This feeling of weariness was not restricted just to spiritualism, but waspart of the more general tone of decline which was reflected in all of Faraday’sactivities during these years and can be seen in the complex relationship whichdeveloped between him and the Royal Institution. This change was contingentnot only on Faraday’s declining powers but also on the Royal Institution

xxxias it altered direction and Faraday sought to disengage himself from hisemployers, though with the fiftieth anniversary of his first appointment therefalling in 1863, this was emotionally difficult for both sides 66 .His appointment as a Sandemanian Elder in October 1860 entailed additionalwork and this may help explain why he and Sarah did not wish him todeliver the Royal Institution’s Christmas Lectures of 1860–1861. Because ofhis poor health, he had twice postponed the opening lecture of the previousseries 67 . But, as Sarah wrote to a nephew in mid-November 1860, because, forreasons of ill health, Barlow had resigned the Secretaryship of the Royal Institution,‘it was thought not good for your Uncle to give up any thing he couldkeep at the same time’ 68 . Presumably because he had not been expecting todeliver this series, Faraday, like all good lecturers, recycled his material fromearlier Christmas Lectures. At the start of his notebook for this series are thelecture cards from his Christmas Lectures of 1848–1849 and 1854–1855 as wellas the 1860–1861 series 69 . He gave permission for William Crookes to publishthe lectures first in the weekly Chemical News, which Crookes edited, and thenasabook–arepeat of the process that Crookes had undertaken for Faraday’s1859–1860 series on The Various Forces of Matter 70 . Thus was published TheChemical History of a Candle 71 , which is, arguably, the most popular sciencebook ever published; it has never subsequently been out of print in Englishand thus far has been translated into at least fifteen languages 72 .However, this was his final series of Christmas Lectures and to prevent arecurrence of the circumstances for the 1861–1862 series, Faraday, shortly afterturning seventy, wrote an explicit letter to the Managers resigning them 73 .Atthe same time he also took the opportunity to offer his resignation from allhis roles at the Royal Institution, but left that for the Managers to decidethe outcome. Bence Jones, the new Secretary of the Royal Institution, seemsto have raised an issue relating to Faraday’s offer which caused him someanxiety 74 . Quite what this was is not known, but it would not be the last timethan Bence Jones would create difficulties for Faraday. Indeed Tyndall in adiary entry written around the time of Faraday’s death commented ‘BenceJones is a man of warm affections; but they are strangely easily deflectedand converted into something very different from affection – They were soin the case of Faraday’ 75 . Whatever the problem, the Managers, nevertheless,accepted Faraday’s decision on the lectures but hoped that he would retainhis other roles 76 which he did. Tyndall immediately grasped the opportunityto take on the Christmas Lectures (although for the remainder of Faraday’slife he alternated with Frankland in their delivery). But, like the Managers,Tyndall was also concerned to retain Faraday’s close connection with theRoyal Institution and threatened his own resignation, especially if Faradayresigned in order to facilitate his promotion 77 .In this period Faraday played only a minor role in Friday Evening Discourses.When he ceased attending them is not clear and he continued to bean active participant until at least 6 May 1864 when he was photographed

xxxiiusing flash light 78 . As well as stepping down from the Christmas lectures, hewas also thinking of giving up delivering Discourses. At ‘On Platinum’ (22February 1861) he talked about retiring but ‘was very much cheered’ 79 , whichsuggests that he may well have intended this to be his last appearance at theRoyal Institution’s lecture bench. But because he failed to persuade either Airyor De La Rue to deliver a Discourse on the important subject of the total solareclipse that was visible from Spain on 18 July 1860 80 , in the end he deliveredit himself on 3 May 1861 81 using material provided by De La Rue 82 . His finalDiscourse, seems to come about following a pressing invitation from BenceJones 83 . For his final performance in the theatre of the Royal Institution on 20June 1862 84 , Faraday lectured on the gas furnace invented by Carl Siemenswhich he had seen working at Chance’s glass factory in Birmingham 85 .Since Faraday had not been able to retire from his administrative rolesat the Royal Institution, various high-level tasks continued to fall to him. Thedeath of the Prince Consort meant that there was a vacancy for the role ofVice-Patron of the Royal Institution, the obvious candidate being the Princeof Wales. Faraday sounded out Becker as to the feasibility of this idea in July1862, but the matter was not raised again until December, presumably becauseof the need to observe a full period of mourning before anything should beproposed officially 86 . In December the Managers deputed Faraday to raisethe matter again with Becker 87 who tried to see Faraday but he was then atBrighton. When they did finally meet, on 19 December, Faraday noted that ‘Heencouraged me’ 88 . Faraday then tried to pass the task of making the formalapproach to the President, the Duke of Northumberland, who declined onthe grounds that he would be at Alnwick for some weeks. He suggested thatFaraday do it himself 89 which he did on 5 January 1863 90 . The Comptrollerof the Prince of Wales’s household, William Knollys, replied on behalf of thePrince accepting the proposal, adding that it would give the Prince pleasureto ‘meet you again where he has listened to you before and derived so muchinstruction from your lectures’ 91 .That the Royal Institution was trying to retain the same personal linkwith the Royal Family that it had forged through Prince Albert is clear fromthe first visit of the Prince of Wales as Vice-Patron. At midday on 21 May 1863,the Prince, together with the Princess of Wales 92 , the Prince and Princess Louisof Hesse 93 and members of their household, came to the Royal Institution 94to hear Tyndall lecture on spectrum analysis and to sign the Register of Members.Faraday commented that ‘It will be a meeting like that first one we hadwith the Prince Consort’ 95 . This seems to have been a case of Faraday’s memoryletting him down since Tyndall’s lecture was a private one for the Princeof Wales and his party, not a Discourse, albeit special, for Members of theRoyal Institution which Prince Albert had attended in February 1849 96 . Nevertheless,Faraday couching the visit of the Prince of Wales in terms of PrinceAlbert’s first visit seems to be an attempt to retain the link with the past. ThePrince of Wales, though not as active as his father in the Royal Institution

xxxiiior indeed as interested in science, nevertheless undertook a limited numberof duties and wrote a kind letter of condolence to Sarah after Faraday’sdeath 97 .The striking element in all this was the crucial role that Faraday playedwhich suggests that the President and Managers had come to regard himas the leading, if not the dominant, figure at the Royal Institution, despitebeing an employee. Faraday even used his influence and the fact that he hadremained as Professor, as Director of the Laboratory and as Superintendentof the House to dissuade successfully, for the second time 98 , the Duke ofNorthumberland from resigning as President 99 , an office he had held since1842. By May 1864, however, it was clear that the Duke’s health was declining(he died on 12 February the following year) and this prompted Bence Jones tothink of Faraday as his successor, an idea that appalled Faraday. Bence Jonesfirst seems to have proposed this to Faraday at the Friday Evening Discourseon 27 May 1864. Writing to Bence Jones the following Tuesday, Sarah, clearlydistressed, described vividly the anxious mental state into which Faradayhad been thrown by the proposal; indeed they had calculated how they couldlive without his income from the Royal Institution (around £450 annually orjust under half his total earnings) ‘if we had to leave’ 100 . Such was Faraday’sanxiety and Sarah’s concern that she wrote to the other Elders of the LondonSandemanian Church asking for something to be done to relieve Faraday’s‘over anxious mind from pressure’ 101 . The outcome was that Faraday laiddown his Elder’s office on Sunday 5 June 1864 102 . Although both Sarah andJane Barnard would have had ‘great gratification … to have seen him in thePresident’s chair’ 103 , it was, as they knew, ‘quite inconsistent with all my[Faraday’s] life & views’ 104 . A number of issues were in play here: Faraday’sreluctance to take offices with significant power because of their corruptingnature, best illustrated by his declining the Presidency of the Royal Societytwice 105 ; second his belief that he was a servant of the Royal Institution andcould never be its master 106 ; and finally he no longer had the energy to continueto undertake his current duties, let alone take on new ones. This wouldalso account for his decision to resign the office of Elder in the SandemanianChurch at the same time.In the following months he sought to disengage himself from otheractivities, having already resigned from the not very onerous task of being amember of the University of London Senate in April 1863 107 . In particular heturned his attention to his lighthouse duties, but encountered the same kindof problems as he had at the Royal Institution since both Trinity House andthe Board of Trade wished to retain their association with one of the mostfamous figures of the nineteenth century for as long as possible.In 1836 Faraday had been appointed ‘Scientific adviser in experimentson Lights to the Corporation [of Trinity House]’ 108 . During the ensuing yearshe had undertaken an enormous quantity of work for them as evinced bythe letters published in volumes three to five and also by letters from the

xxxiv1830s and 1840 published in this volume relating to his first researches onphotometry, lamps and the quality control of lighthouse optics 109 .The first half of the 1860s was no different and much of the work Faradayundertook was a continuation of his lighthouse work of the 1850s. For exampleTrinity House asked for further advice on the limelight that had beendeveloped by William Fitzmaurice. Faraday was irritated with this workbecause he had to go over ground that he had previously covered 110 , butafter much effort he eventually advised that there was no need for TrinityHouse to undertake a final testing of Fitzmaurice’s system in a lighthouse,which they accepted 111 . On the other hand the limelight proposed by WilliamProsser was tested at the South Foreland lighthouse which Faraday visited. Inhis long report on the lamp 112 Faraday suggested that it should be observedfrom the sea – advice that Trinity House, once again, followed 113 .So far as electric light was concerned, where Faraday had been instrumentalin its installation and testing at South Foreland from late 1858 untilearly 1860 114 , it was installed in Dungeness lighthouse in early 1862 whichFaraday inspected on 12 and 13 February. On this visit he sailed out as faras the Varne lightship to make his observations. His subsequent report washighly complimentary: ‘when the Electric Light was restored, the glory roseto its first high condition’ 115 . Trinity House decided to retain the electric lightat Dungeness, but only there, and only to operate it if suitably qualified andtrained staff could be appointed. This, including the employment of a dedicatedengineer at an annual salary of £180 116 , had been done by May, andFaraday again visited Dungeness, examined the new keepers, and concludedthat everything was now ready ‘to establish the fitness or the contrary of Magnetoelectric light for lighthouse purposes’ 117 . Although it is not clear whenelectric light ceased to be used at Dungeness, its evident success during thefirst half of the 1860s prompted other inventors and manufacturers in bothBritain and France to propose other types of electric light, many of whichFaraday assessed for Trinity House 118 . This included discussing with LucyHoward de Walden the electrification of one of the lighthouses at PortlandBill 119 .There were, however, some novel aspects to Faraday’s work for TrinityHouse. For example he visited Birmingham several times to help the glassmakingbusiness of Chance Brothers develop a capability for manufacturinglighthouse quality glass and optical systems 120 and he struck up a close workingfriendship with James Chance. The other major addition to his lighthousework was on fog signals. The key figures here were the American inventorCeladon Daboll and the Irish astronomer Thomas Romney Robinson.The issue of fog horns became pressing during 1863 following the sinkingon 27 April of the SS Anglo Saxon off Cape Race (on the south-east coastof Newfoundland) with the loss of nearly 250 lives. The lighthouse therehad been built in 1856, without a fog signal, by the Board of Trade, whowere responsible for colonial lighthouses. The Associated Press (an American

xxxvcompany who used Cape Race as a news exchange point between Europeand North America) had offered to install a fog signal designed by Dabollwhich was essentially a large trumpet with a vibrating tongue through whichair was pumped 121 . As Cape Race was prone to fog for nearly half of theyear, questions were asked in the House of Commons about the failure toprovide a fog signal and whether the government had refused permissionto install Daboll’s fog signal. The President of the Board of Trade, ThomasMilner-Gibson, replied that the colonial government had refused permissionto Associated Press as it was thought undesirable for the signal to be ownedby a foreign company and the Board had been unable to persuade the shipowners to pay for a signal either directly or via tolls 122 .Robinson was the first to propose a strategy to address the issue. Hisconcern with fog signals dated from 1860 when he had provided the RoyalCommission on Lighthouses with written evidence on the subject 123 . Subsequently,at the 1861 meeting of the British Association in Manchester,following a request from the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, a committee onfog signals was formed under Robinson’s chairmanship. Its other memberswere Charles Wheatstone, Henry Hennessy and John Hall Gladstone. At theManchester meeting Hennessy had presented a report on what was knownabout the transmission of sound through fog at sea 124 , while Gladstone, whohad been a member of the Royal Commission, undertook in the followingmonths a major study of the issues involved and on 13 March 1863 delivereda Friday Evening Discourse on the subject at the Royal Institution 125 . Laterthat year, very shortly after the sinking of the Anglo Saxon, the British Associationcommittee memorialised Milner-Gibson on the subject in the formof a letter from Robinson, dated 22 May 1863, though not sent for nearly amonth 126 . Robinson referred to the importance of fog signals, reviewed thevarious methods of fog signalling, the lack of knowledge about their respectiveeffectiveness and called on the government to investigate the issues andfind the best form of fog signal.The Board of Trade referred the memorial to Trinity House who sentit to Faraday. In his report Faraday agreed with the overall thrust of thememorial, but wrongly inferred that it was proposing to establish an inventionand discovery board, an idea he was very unhappy with: ‘The real mentaladvancement of science & discovery seems to me to belong to single mindsand not to a body of persons’ 127 . Furthermore, Faraday made it clear thatin view of his age and state of health that he could not be involved. Afterprompting, Robinson received the Board of Trade’s response on 14 Augustwhich enclosed Faraday’s report and the view of Trinity House that theywould be ‘earnestly desirous of obtaining an elucidation of the importantand comprehensive questions involved in the proposed inquiry, and will beready to cooperate in any measures which their Lordships [of the Board ofTrade] may desire to adopt for the attainment of that result’ 128 . At the endof August, Robinson presented the report of the committee to the Newcastle

xxxvimeeting of the British Association and expressed his unhappiness with thereply to the memorial. He interpreted Trinity House’s response as meaningthat they would not carry out their own investigations into fog signals andcriticised what he saw as Faraday’s negative view as stemming ‘from a dreadof the difficulty, the magnitude, and the expense of the investigation. Thesewe believe he exaggerates’ 129 .Faraday’s wish not to be involved with fog signals was not to be granted.Following the loss of the Anglo Saxon, Daboll saw an opportunity and cameto London in the autumn seeking to interest Trinity House in his invention.Faraday was asked to examine it in October 1863 130 and his reportapproved Daboll’s design and proposed that it should be trialled properlyand compared with other forms of fog signal 131 . Trinity House accepted thisrecommendation and it was agreed that the signal would be tested at Dungeness;Daboll sought to impress a sense of urgency by saying that he was ina hurry to return to America 132 .Before the trial was undertaken, Faraday, towards the end of October,read the Athenaeum’s report, published in early September 133 , of what Robinsonhad said at Newcastle and was horrified to find himself described asunfavourable to the aims of the memorial. He wrote to Robinson to complainand to ask that his report to Trinity House 134 be published with the memorialand Robinson’s report 135 . Robinson replied that he had not in fact statedthat Faraday was unfavourable and then quoted his own version of what hehad said (which was considerably softer than what was eventually publishedin the Annual Report of the British Association 136 ); he also pointed out that hehad never referred to establishing an invention and discovery board and thathe would see what could be done about publishing Faraday’s report 137 .Inthe middle of November Robinson wrote to Faraday to say that it had beendecided not to do as he wished and suggested that he write directly to theAthenaeum to deny that he held the views ascribed to him 138 .The day after this letter was written, the trial of Daboll’s signal took placeat Dungeness on 17 November 1863. Faraday and a party of Trinity HouseElder Brethren sailed from Dover that morning and although conditions werecalm 139 by lunchtime Faraday had become so incapacitated through sea sicknessthat he was unable to continue making observations. However, in hisshort report, he stated that ‘Long before that time however the superiority ofthe Daboll horn was very manifest’ 140 . As a result Trinity House agreed topay Daboll £500 subject to further trial and approval by the Board of Trade 141 .In his reply to Robinson, Faraday pointedly commenced and concludedhis letter by referring to these trials as the reason for his delay in replying. Hesaid that he would not write to the Athenaeum as he did not wish to engagein controversy 142 . Although both Faraday and Robinson conducted their correspondencein the most gentlemanly and friendly manner and Robinsonsought to play down their differences, Faraday would not let the matter drop.At the start of December he sent their correspondence to Milner-Gibson and

xxxviisuggested that Parliament should publish all the documents so that he couldbe ‘fairly reported’ 143 . Early in the new year Faraday was invited to a meetingwith Milner-Gibson to be held on 12 January 1864 144 . Unfortunately Faraday’svery brief note of this meeting 145 does not contain an account of the discussionand the Board of Trade file appears not to have survived. Since there wasno further correspondence between Robinson and Faraday, no publication ofFaraday’s report and indeed no further reference by Faraday to fog signalsin his correspondence, it would appear that the issues had been smoothedover. Robinson later wrote that had Faraday’s report been published it would‘have probably produced a very strong impression against him’ 146 .During the 1860s Faraday was quite clearly determined to keep workingand to continue serving the Royal Institution, Trinity House and the Board ofTrade. But it must have become increasingly apparent to all concerned that thiswas unsustainable. Bence Jones, one of a number of physicians who advisedFaraday, was convinced that the sea sickness he had suffered in Novemberhad caused lasting damage and by February 1864 had forbidden him fromgoing to sea again 147 – a ban which significantly affected Faraday’s ability tocontinue his lighthouse work as usual.Matters came to a head in the spring of 1865. On 1 March Faraday wroteto the Managers offering again to resign all his positions at the Royal Institutionand leave his rooms. They accepted his resignation as Director of theLaboratory, but asked him to retain his other duties. As an indication of theimpending transfer of responsibilities from Faraday to the younger generation,Tyndall and Frankland were henceforth invited to attend meetingsof the Managers 148 . The Managers’ decision to accept Faraday’s resignationas Director of the Laboratory indicated the Royal Institution’s intentionto increasingly undertake scientific research in the light of Bence Jones’s1862 Report on the past, present, and future of the Royal Institution, chiefly inregard to its encouragement of scientific research. Frankland was subsequentlyappointed Professor of Chemistry in 1863 and an appeal launched for fundsto build a new laboratory, though that was not constructed until the followingdecade 149 . It must have been evident to the Managers that by 1865 Faradaywas incapable of undertaking the work necessary to implement the Institution’sincreased emphasis on research. Indeed Faraday had not undertakenany experimentation since March 1862, when he had tried, unsuccessfully, todetermine whether magnetism could affect the behaviour of line spectra 150 .With Thomas Huxley, Tyndall and Frankland all holding chairs at theRoyal Institution, Faraday’s continuing occupation of his Professorship didnot deprive anyone else of a position. Moreover, although he did not deliverlectures, his retention by the Royal Institution ensured that the public continuedto associate it with the most famous natural philosopher of the day. TheManagers’ decision to keep Faraday in his role as Superintendent of the Houseis less easy to explain as that position did entail considerable administrativeeffort, and from 1866, the petty cash book was kept by Jane Barnard 151 . This

xxxviiitransfer of responsibility from Faraday to his family rather than to Tyndallled him to write a sharp note of protest to Bence Jones 152 .On 9 March 1865 Faraday wrote to Deputy Master of Trinity House,William Pigott, to resign the annual task of analysing chemically the red andwhite lead submitted with the tenders to supply the Corporation with paintfor its lighthouses 153 . This work had not been part of his original duties forTrinity House, having been added in 1850. For nearly a year Faraday hadclearly had it in mind to give up this part of his work, since in April 1864he had requested Trinity House to also send samples for analysis to the consultingchemist John Phillips 154 . Faraday concluded the letter to Pigott withan ambiguous sentence which could be read as suggesting that he wished toresign from Trinity House entirely. Pigott does seem to have read it this waysince he asked for a meeting 155 ; there appear to have been further meetingswith Pigott as well as correspondence and meetings with Phillips 156 , the outcomeof which was an agreement that future analyses would be undertakenby Phillips.However, in May 1865 Faraday wrote to Pigott asking to be relievedof his duties for Trinity House but ‘without my retiring altogether’ 157 .Asifthis request did not make matters difficult enough, the whole situation wascomplicated by the fact that the Board of Trade wanted to use the opportunityto press forward with its long-term ambition to consolidate control over thewhole of the British and colonial lighthouse service. Furthermore, Tyndallalso saw another opportunity to succeed Faraday. Because of the loss of somefiles in the papers of Trinity House and the Board of Trade, it is difficult toconstruct a precise narrative of what happened 158 .It would appear, however, that not much changed during 1865; in JuneFaraday commented on the specification for the dioptric apparatus for St Beeslighthouse, which proved to be his last report for Trinity House 159 . At the startof the following year, on 11 January 1866, Pigott, Faraday and Tyndall met atthe Royal Institution. It was agreed that Faraday would remain at his post,and the following day Tyndall saw Pigott at Trinity House where ‘he proposeda hundred a year as retaining fee, and said that the second hundredshould come for the special work done’ 160 . From then on Tyndall took overFaraday’s lighthouse work; indeed the next set of analyses of red and whitelead in February 1866 was undertaken by Tyndall ‘as assistant to ProfessorFaraday’ 161 rather than by Phillips. During 1866 Tyndall’s lighthouse workincluded advising on electrifying the Portland Bill lighthouse 162 , taking overthe supervision of the Dungeness electric light 163 (which produced a workloadthat Farrer described as ‘peculiarly heavy’ 164 ) and reporting on the opticsof St Bees 165 .Although Pigott had referred to Tyndall receiving payment for thiswork, it is not at all clear that he had the authority to offer this. In any caseTyndall was ‘ready to do all his [Faraday’s] work with or without pay’ 166 andno evidence has been found that Tyndall was actually paid by Trinity House

xxxixat this time. In May 1866 Tyndall met Farrer 167 and from then on he took overFaraday’s role at the Board of Trade working on colonial lighthouses, inspecting,for example, the apparatus for the Cay Sal lighthouse in the Bahamas 168 .For this he was paid and a sum of £100 was included in the Board of Tradeestimates for 1866. As Farrer commented, ‘When his [Faraday’s] health beganto fail Tyndall readily undertook the work for him and was to have £100 fornominally assisting Faraday – really for doing his work’ 169 .This left Faraday with no work to do, yet still receiving the combinedannual salary of £300 from Trinity House and the Board of Trade. Both lighthouseauthorities ‘thought that he [Faraday] fully deserved as a pension, thesmall payment which in the hands of a professional man would have beenthousands instead of hundreds’. Thus, probably shortly after Farrer’s meetingwith Tyndall, Faraday was persuaded, ‘with difficulty’ 170 to retain his payments.Despite feeling gratitude to Tyndall for his assistance 171 , Faraday wasreluctant to take money for no work. He then seems to have quite deliberatelywaited for Tyndall to leave for Switzerland at the beginning of July 1866 172before writing his letter of resignation to the Board of Trade 173 . Although Farrerlaid this resignation before Milner-Gibson, he quickly decided that thiswas not the best course of action and wrote asking Faraday to postpone adecision until Tyndall’s return 174 to which Sarah agreed 175 and no furtheraction was then taken 176 .In their 1867 estimate Trinity House submitted a request to the Boardof Trade for an additional £100 explicitly for Tyndall 177 , especially as theywere contemplating ‘working him harder’ 178 . Farrer took the opportunity andproposed to pay Tyndall £400 to act as scientific adviser not only for TrinityHouse and the Board of Trade but also for the Irish and Scottish lighthouseservices 179 , although he was very well aware of the political sensitivities inattempting to interfere with the work of the Stevenson family of engineersfor the Northern Lighthouse Board 180 , who duly complained 181 . At the sametime that the budget was being discussed, Faraday received on 16 March 1867his payment of £100 for the year from the Board of Trade. Sarah wrote again toFarrer ‘to bring this engagement to a close’ 182 , which, in the most diplomaticway possible, he declined to do; a situation she accepted 183 .By this time Faraday was in obvious decline. The last letter publishedhere and written entirely in his hand is dated 19 February 1866 184 , indicatinga sudden deterioration in his health. Three days later his brother-in-law,the artist George Barnard, purchased for £3.3.0 a grave for Faraday (and ultimatelyfor Sarah) in Highgate Cemetery 185 . This was located in unconsecratedground near the graves of other Sandemanians. The following week Barnardpurchased the adjoining plot which would be used for an enormous hipstoneto mark Faraday’s final resting place 186 .Nevertheless Faraday survived and the last letter we have with justhis signature is dated 23 July 1866 187 ; thereafter Sarah and Jane Barnarddealt with his correspondence. Yet in November 1866 they returned from

xlHampton Court to live in the Royal Institution during the winter; there hewas able to read a new book on electricity by Robert Ferguson, although asJane Barnard admitted it was difficult to tell how much he understood 188 . Thefollowing month he expressed some limited interest in Frankland’s ChristmasLectures 189 and in June 1867 he was able to find a piece of heavy glass for Tyndallto use in a Discourse 190 . Having returned to Hampton Court later thatmonth 191 Bence Jones and Tyndall visited Faraday during his final weeks.Faraday moved peacefully towards the end and died on the afternoon ofSunday 25 August 1867 in his chair (now preserved in the Athenaeum Club)in his study at Hampton Court. Five days later his cortège left Hampton Courtat half past nine and stopped briefly at the Royal Institution to collect somemourners, though no members of the scientific community were invited 192 .Itthen moved to Highgate Cemetery where, according to his wish for a ‘strictlyprivate and plain’ funeral and in line with his Sandemanian beliefs, he wasburied with ‘no ceremony’ 193 .1. Letter 4678u.2. Letter 4668u.3. Letter 4877 (2: 917a).4. Letter 4756 (1: 82a).5. Letters 4754 (1: 79a) and 4755 (1: 80b).6. Letters 4748 (1: 65a), 4749 (1: 65b), 4750 (1: 67a), 4751 (1: 67b) and 4752 (1: 67c).7. Letters 4764 (1: 226a), 4765 (1: 227a), 4766 (1: 228a), 4767 (1: 228b), 4768 (1: 230a), 4769 (1:230b), 4770 (1: 230c), 4771 (1: 232a), 4772 (1: 232b and 4773 (1: 239a).8. Letter 4927 (3: 1343a).9. Letter 4763 (1: 213a).10. Letters 4776 (1: 254a), 4796 (1: 338a) and 4810 (1: 413a).11. Letters 4774 (1: 240a), 4782 (1: 281a), and 4793 (1: 328a).12. Letters 4788 (1: 310a), 4789 (1: 313a) and 4790 (1: 314a).13. Faraday (1827a).14. Letter 4883 (2: 933a).15. But see letters 4891 (2: 1023a), 4942 (3: 1565a) and 5005 (4: 2527a).16. Letter 4823 (1: 490a).17. Letter 4861 (2: 737b).18. Letter 4909 (2: 1207a).19. Letter 4779 (1: 268a).20. Letter 4782 (1: 281a).21. For example, letters 4805 (1: 390a), 4806 (1: 393a), 4846 (2: 639b) and 4848 (2: 642b).22. James (2010), 44-5.23. For example), letters 4759 (1: 115a), 4775 (1: 243a), 4794 (1: 332a), 4798 (1: 354a), 4800 (1:356a), 4801 (1: 363a), 4803 (1: 383a), 4804 (1: 388a), 4816 (1: 449a), 4819 (1: 469a), 4828 (1: 508a),4829 (1: 509a), 4834 (1: 517a), 4835 (1: 517b), 4836 (1: 517c), 4838 (1: 524a), 4851 (2: 679a) and 4860(2: 737a). See also letter 4932 (3: 1382a).24. Letter 4845 (2: 639a).25. For example, letters 4935 (3: 1405b), 4943 (3: 1571a) and 4947 (3: 1600a).26. For example, letter 4940 (3: 1499a).27. Letter 4877 (2: 917a).28. Letter 4961 (3: 1819a).29. Letters 4966 (3: 1853a) and 4967 (3: 1854a).30. Cantor (1996), James (2008), James (2010), 91–129.31. Letters 4175, 4180, 4186, 4187, 4189, 4192, 4224 and 4227.32. Letters 4222 and 4272.

33. Letter 4581.34. James (2010), 103–4.35. Letter 4115.36. Letter 4116.37. Helps (1862); letters 4293 and 4302.38. Letter 4236.39. Abbott to Faraday, 20 and 22 November 1814, letter 39, volume 1.40. Letter 4313.41. See Faraday to Vincent, 12 October 1860, letter 3862, volume 5.42. Letter 4218. See Cantor (1991), 41–2.43. Letter 4051. See Cantor (1991), 68.44. Letter 4174.45. Letters 4210, 4218 and 4492.46. Letters 4348, 4352 and 4353.47. R[orie] (1910).48. For example, letter 4016.49. For example, letter 4357.50. Samuel Palmer (1805–1881, ODNB). (Those discussed only in the introduction are identifiedin the notes here. All other individuals are identified in the appropriate place in this volume.)For the relationship see Palmer to Giles, 9 August 1880, in Lister (1974), 2: 1021–4.51. Letter 5031 (4: 2933a).52. Letter 4245.53. Letter 4206.54. Charles Robert Darwin (1809–1882, ODNB). Naturalist who lived at Downe in Kent. Forthe Oxford discussion see James (2005b).55. Letter 4381.56. Ellis (1980).57. Gay (2007). See also Brock and MacLeod (1976).58. McLeod, Diary, entry for 15 April 1864.59. Faraday (1854b).60. Letter 4478.61. Letters 4390 and 4399.62. Letters 4152 and 4500.63. Letters 4020 and 4022.64. Letter 4367. John Thomas Cooper (1790–1854, ODNB).65. Letter 4500.66. See, for instance, letter 4075.67. Faraday to Walker, 20 December 1859, letter 3696, volume 5.68. Letter 3882 and also letter 3893.69. RI MS F4 J21. Reproduced in James (2011).70. Faraday (1860).71. Faraday (1861c).72. See the introduction to James (2011) for a detailed discussion of the lectures, theirpublication and reputation.73. Letter 4075.74. Letter 4078.75. Tyndall, Diary, RI MS JT/2/10, p.416.76. RI MM, 4 November 1861, 11: 395–7.77. Letter 4089.78. See note 6, letter 4575. This is reproduced as plate 1.79. Faraday (1861a). McLeod, Diary, 22 February 1861.80. Letters 3907 and 3908.81. Faraday (1861b).82. Letter 3986 and 3988.83. Letter 4148.84. Faraday (1862).xli

xlii85. Letter 4154.86. Letters 4199 and 4200.87. Letter 4265.88. Letter 4266; see also letter 4267.89. Letter 4277.90. Letter 4284.91. Letter 4286.92. Princess Alexandra of Denmark (1844–1925, ODNB). Married the Prince of Wales on 10March 1863.93. Princess Alice (1843–1878, ODNB). Third child and second daughter of Queen Victoria andPrince Albert; married Prince Louis of Hesse (1837–1892) on 1 July 1862.94. The Times, 22 May 1863, p.9, col. d.95. Letter 4328.96. Clark to Faraday, 24 February 1849 and 26 February 1849, letters 2156 and 2157, volume 3.97. Letter 4604.98. Faraday to Northumberland, 10 February 1858, letter 3390, volume 5.99. Letter 4102.100. Letter 4462. For a detailed account of this episode see Cantor (1991), 277–80.101. Letter 4467.102. DUA Acc M/409/5/4, p.48.103. Letter 4467.104. Letter 4462.105. James (2010), 40.106. James (2002b).107. Letter 4321.108. Pelly to Faraday, 4 February 1836, letter 884, volume 2.109. Letters 4884 (2: 943a), 4887 (2: 969a), 4894 (2: 1057a), 4897 (2: 1092a), 4898 (2: 1114), (2:1190a), 4908 (2: 1299a), 4917 (2: 1301a), 4918 (2: 1312a) and 4919 (2: 1315a).110. Letters 4006 and 4077.111. Letter 4110.112. Letter 4070.113. Letter 4074.114. James (2010), 53–4.115. Letter 4138.116. Trinity House By Board, 14 January 1862, LMA CLC/526/MS 30010/43, p.487.117. Letter 4182.118. Including letters 4196, 4358 and 4365.119. Letters 4472 and 4482.120. Elton (2009), 226.121. Renton (2001), 23–6.122. The Times, 15 May 1863, p.7, col. a.123. Parliamentary Papers, 1861 [2793] XXV, volume 2, p.589.124. Hennessy (1861).125. Gladstone (1863).126. Robinson to Milner-Gibson, 22 May 1863, in Robinson (1863), 105–10.127. Letter 4344.128. Quoted in Robinson (1863), 110.129. Robinson (1863), 110.130. Letter 4379.131. Letter 4382.132. Letter 4396.133. Athenaeum, 5 September 1863, p.306.134. Letter 4344.135. Letter 4386.136. Robinson (1863), 110.137. Letter 4388.

xliii138. Letter 4402.139. The Times, 18 November 1863, p.12, col. e.140. Letter 4406.141. Trinity House By Board, 24 November 1863, LMA CLC/526/MS 30010/44, pp.390–91.142. Letter 4408.143. Letter 4414.144. Letter 4420.145. LMA CLC/526/MS 30108/4/137.146. Robinson to Tyndall, 12 February 1874, RI MS JT/1/R/33.147. Letter 4431.148. Letter 4531.149. James and Peers (2006), 161–2.150. Faraday, Diary, 12 March 1862, 7, p.465. This was the Zeeman effect which theDutch physicist Pieter Zeeman (1865–1943, DSB) discovered in 1896. He later acknowledgedFaraday’s ‘extraordinary prophetic insight’ in ‘Magneto-optics: Polarization of Light’, The Times,Supplement, 21 September 1931, p.xvii, cols. c–d.151. RI MS F5.152. Tyndall to Bence Jones, 4 January 1866, RI MS JT/1/TYP/3, p.795. On this see Forgan(1977), 70–71.153. Letter 4534.154. Letter 4442.155. Letter 4588.156. Letters 4540, 4541, 4546 and 4557.157. Letter 4548.158. Also those files which do exist contain unclear (to us) passages and Faraday by this timehad ceased keeping meticulous records.159. Letter 4552.160. Tyndall, Diary, RI MS JT/2/10, p.369. The dating of these events is based on Tyndall’sreference to ‘that very snowy Friday’. See The Times, 13 January 1866, p.12, cols. c–d.161. Trinity House Wardens, 20 February and 20 March 1866, LMA CLC/526/MS 30025/33.pp.303, 332–3.162. Tyndall report to Trinity House, 17 May 1866, LMA CLC/526/MS 30108/A2, p.71.163. Trinity House By Board, 29 May 1866, LMA CLC/526/MS 30010/45, p.475.164. Minute of 17 December 1866 by Farrer, TNA MT10/128, file H721.165. Tyndall report to Trinity House, 31 March 1866, LMA CLC/526/MS 30108/A2, pp.68–70.166. Minute of 28 March 1867 by Farrer, TNA MT10/128, file H721.167. Letter 4580.168. Minute of 27 July 1866 by Jemmett Browne, TNA MT10/128, file H7756.169. Minute of 17 December 1866 by Farrer, TNA MT10/128, file H721.170. Minute of 28 March 1867 by Farrer, TNA MT10/128, file H721.171. Letter 4580.172. Letter 4583.173. Letter 4584.174. Letter 4586.175. Letter 4587.176. See Farrer to Huxley, 3 January 1894, RI MS JT/1/F/17 for his version of events. Writtennearly thirty years later, Farrer’s recollection confirms the chronological sequence and the difficultyof dealing with Faraday, but wrote as if it had been conducted by meetings, though thetone of the letters and minutes suggest that it was done entirely by correspondence.177. Berthon to Farrer, 8 December 1866 and 7 March 1867, TNA MT10/128, file H721.178. Arrow to Farrer, 13 March 1867, TNA MT10/128, file H721.179. Minute of 28 March 1867 by Farrer, TNA MT10/128, file H721.180. Farrer to Arrow, 13 March 1867, TNA MT10/128, file H721.181. See the correspondence published in Parliamentary Papers, 1872 (258) XXXVI.182. Letter 4595.183. Letter 4596 and 4597.

xliv184. Letter 4577.185. Highgate Cemetery MS purchase record number 14485. For his health at this time see BenceJones (1870a),2: 479.186. Highgate Cemetery MS purchase record number 14497. On this see James (2010), 128.Plate 12.187. Letter 4584.188. Letter 4593.189. Letter 4594.190. Letter 4599.191. See Margery Reid’s account of Faraday’s final weeks in Bence Jones (1870a), 2: 480–81.192. Letter 4603 and Tyndall, Diary, RI MS JT/2/10, p.416.193. Highgate Cemetery MS Register of Burials, number 2839.

Biographical RegisterThis provides information on those individuals who are mentioned in threeor more letters in this volume.AIKIN, Arthur (1773–1854: ODNB): Chemist and Secretary of the Society ofArts, 1817–1839.AIRY, George Biddell (1801–1892, ODNB): Astronomer Royal at the RoyalGreenwich Observatory, 1835–1881.ALBERT EDWARD, Prince of Wales (1841–1910, ODNB): Eldest son ofQueen Victoria and Prince Albert. Prince of Wales, 1841–1901.ALBERT FRANCIS CHARLES AUGUSTUS EMANUEL, Prince (1819–1861, ODNB): Husband of Queen Victoria. Prince Consort from 1857.ANDERSON, Charles (d.1866, age 75, GRO): Having served for twentyoneyears in the Royal Artillery, he was promoted sergeant in 1827 (TNAWO97/1211/10/1). He joined Faraday on 3 December 1827 as assistant onthe project to improve optical glass (Bence Jones (1870a), 1: 398). After the endof the glass project, in 1830, Faraday paid him out of his own pocket (letter4523) before he was appointed Royal Institution Laboratory Assistant in 1832(RI MM, 5 November 1832, 8: 28).ANDERSON, Eliza Sarah (1844–1895, GRO): Daughter of Charles and AnnAnderson. Dressmaker.ARAGO, Dominique François Jean (1786–1853, DSB): French physicistand astronomer. Professor of Descriptive Geometry at Ecole Polytechnique.Director of the Paris Observatory. Co-editor of Annales de Chimie. PermanentSecretary of the Académie des Sciences from 1830.ARROW, Frederick (1818–1875, B1): Elder Brother of Trinity House from 1859and Deputy Master, June 1865 to 1875. Chaplin [1950], 33–5, 186.

xlviATHERSTONE, Edwin (1788–1872, ODNB): Writer and poet.BABBAGE, Charles (1791–1871, ODNB): Mainly worked on inventingmechanical calculating machines.BARLOW, née Law, Cecilia Anne (d.1868, age 72, GRO): Married JohnBarlow in 1824. See his entry in AC.BARLOW, John (1798–1869, AC): Secretary of the Lecture Committee at theRoyal Institution from 1841 and Secretary of the Royal Institution, 1843–1860.BARNARD, née Vincent, Anne Leighton (1838–1929, GRO): Daughter ofBenjamin and Janet Vincent. Married Vernor Barnard in 1866.BARNARD, Charlotte (1840–1915, GRO under Davis): Joint niece of Michaeland Sarah Faraday. Married Richard Hayton Davis in 1868.BARNARD, Ellen see VINCENT, Ellen.BARNARD, George (1807–1890, B4): Painter. Brother of Sarah Faraday.BARNARD, James Faraday (1837–1909, GRO): A joint nephew of Michaeland Sarah Faraday. Described as an engraver in the 1861 census, TNARG9/139, f.38, p.15.BARNARD, Jane (1832–1911, GRO): A joint niece of Michael and SarahFaraday. Lived with them at the Royal Institution from at least 1851. See1851 census, TNA HO107/1476, f.64.BARNARD, John (1797–1880, GRO): Son of Edward and Mary Barnard.Brother of Sarah Faraday. Silversmith. See Grimwade (1982), 431.BARNARD, Louisa (1840–1928, GRO under Moir): Daughter of Edward andCaroline Barnard. Made Confession of Faith in the Sandemanian Church on22 May 1859. DUA Acc M/409/5/4, p.55b.BARNARD, née Faraday, Margaret (1802–1862, GRO): Faraday’s youngersister. Married John Barnard, 14 March 1826.BARNARD, Margaret (1830–1910, GRO, death under Blaikley): A joint nieceof Michael and Sarah Faraday. Made Confession of Faith in the SandemanianChurch on 21 July 1861. DUA Acc M/409/5/4, p.56.

xlviiBARNARD, Mary Chater (d.1910, age 75, GRO): Daughter of Edward andCaroline Barnard. Made Confession of Faith in the Sandemanian Church on22 May 1859. DUA Acc M/409/5/4, p.55b.BARNARD, Rachel (1845–1929, GRO, death under Blaikley): A joint niece ofMichael and Sarah Faraday.BARRETT, William Fletcher (1844–1925, ODNB): Laboratory assistant in theRoyal Institution, 1863 to 1867.BAXTER, J.H.: Elder of Dundee Glasite Church.BECKER, Ernst (1826–1888, Pangels (1996)): German secretary of PrinceAlbert.BELL, B.: Unidentified.BENCE JONES, Henry (1814–1873, ODNB under Jones): Physician at StGeorge’s Hospital, 1846–1862. A Visitor, 1851–1853, then a Manager andSecretary, 1860–1873, of the Royal Institution.BENCE JONES, née Acheson, Millicent (d.1887, age 78, GRO): MarriedHenry Bence Jones in 1842 (see under his ODNB entry). She was lady byvirtue of being the daughter of an Earl.BERTHON, Peter Henry (d.1890, age 91, GRO): Secretary of Trinity House,1856–1867, Chaplin [1950], 183.BRANDE, William Thomas (1788–1866, ODNB): Professor of Chemistryat the Royal Institution, 1812–1852. Superintendent of Machinery, 1825–1852, and then of the Coining and Die Department, 1852–1866, at theRoyal Mint.BRAYLEY, Edward William (1802–1870, ODNB): Writer on science and asub-editor of the Philosophical Magazine, 1823–1845.BREWSTER, David (1781–1868, ODNB): Man of science who worked chieflyon optics. Principal of St Andrews University, 1838–1859 and then ofEdinburgh University, 1859–1868.BRODIE, Benjamin Collins (1783–1862, ODNB): Surgeon at St George’sHospital. President of the Royal Society, 1858–1861.

xlviiiBROWN, née Meredith, Hannah (d.1878, age 70, GRO): Companion ofAngela Georgina Burdett Coutts.BRUCE, James Richard (d.1864, age 51, GRO): Clerk in the EcclesiasticalCommission and Assistant Secretary of the Public School Commission.BRUNEL, Isambard Kingdom (1806–1859, ODNB): Civil engineer. Workedon the Great Western Railway, Great Eastern ship and many otherprojects.BRUNEL, Marc Isambard (1769–1849, ODNB): Civil engineer. Worked on theThames Tunnel.BUCHANAN, née Barnard, Charlotte (1805–1866, GRO): Sister of SarahFaraday and wife of George Buchanan who had returned to London fromEdinburgh by 1861. TNA RG9/135, f.13, p.26.BUCHANAN, George (c.1790–1852, ODNB): Scottish civil engineer andEdinburgh Glasite.BUCHANAN, George (1834–1902, Min. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., 1902, 150: 425–7):Son of Charlotte Buchanan (a sister of Sarah Faraday’s) and George Buchanan.Civil engineer who worked for the Madras Irrigation and Canal Company,1860–1863.BUCKLAND, née Morland, Mary (1797–1857, ODNB): Married WilliamBuckland in 1825.BUCKLAND, William (1784–1856, ODNB): Geologist. Dean of Westminster,1845–1856.BUNSEN, Robert Wilhelm Eberhard (1811–1899, DSB): Professor of Chemistryat the University of Heidelberg, 1852–1889.BURDETT COUTTS, Angela Georgina (1814–1906, ODNB): Philanthropistand heiress who lived at 1 Stratton Street (near Albemarle Street).CHAD, James (age 27 in 1861 census, TNA RG9/3465, f.106, p.9): Private inthe 12th regiment.CHANCE, née Ferguson, Elizabeth (d.1887, age 67, GRO): Married J.T.Chance in 1845. See his ODNB entry.

xlixCHANCE, James Timmins (1814–1902, ODNB): Birmingham glass manufacturer.CHRISTIE, Samuel Hunter (1784–1865, ODNB): Professor of Mathematicsat the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, from 1838. Secretary of the RoyalSociety, 1837–1854.CLARKE, Edward Daniel (1769–1822, ODNB): Appointed Professor ofMineralogy, University of Cambridge, in 1808.COLE, Henry (1808–1882, ODNB): Secretary of the Department of Scienceand Art.COOKE, Conrad William (1843–1926, J. Inst. Elec. Eng., 1926, 64: 1203): Civilengineer and E.W. Cooke’s second son.COOKE, Edward William (1811–1880, ODNB): Painter.COWAN: Unidentified Sandemanian.COXWORTHY, Franklin (d.1890, age 86, GRO): A clerk in the OrdnanceOffice (1851 census, TNA HO107/1571, f.315, p.6).CRAWFORD, William (d.1887, age 78, SRO): Glasgow wool merchant.CROOKES, William (1832–1919, ODNB): Former student at the RoyalCollege of Chemistry and journalist.CROSSE, née Berkeley, Cornelia Augusta Hewett (d.1895, age 68, GRO):Married Andrew Crosse in 1850. See under his ODNB entry.CRUM, Miss: Daughters of Walter Crum listed in NRA 41114. Mary GrayCrum (1832–1908), Jessie Graham Crum (1834–1913), Elizabeth Crum (1839–1923), Agnes Pollock Crum (1841–1866).CRUM, Walter (1796–1867, B1): Glasgow chemist and manufacturer. WilliamThomson’s father in law.CUMMINS, Henry Irwin (d.1885, age 61, AC): Rector of St Alban’s, WoodStreet, 1854–1885.DABOLL, Celadon Leeds (1818–1866, ACAB): Connecticut merchant andinventor.

lDANIELL, John Frederic (1790–1845, ODNB): Professor of Chemistry atKing’s College, London, 1831–1845. Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society,1839–1845.DAVENPORT, Ira Erastus (1839–1911, ANB): American spiritualist.DAVENPORT, William Henry Harrison (1841–1877, ANB): American spiritualist.DAVIS, Richard Hayton (d.1911, age 78, GRO): Chemist who married intothe Barnard family and lived mostly in Harrogate.DAVY, Humphry (1778–1829, ODNB): Professor of Chemistry at the RoyalInstitution, 1802–1812. Knighted 1812, created Baronet, 1818. Secretary of theRoyal Society, 1807–1812, President, 1820–1827.DEACON, née Reid, Caroline (1816–1890, Reid (1914)): Niece of SarahFaraday. Married Thomas John Fuller Deacon on 18 June 1846, GRO.DEACON, Constance (1847–1924, GRO under Cree): Daughter of Carolineand Thomas John Fuller Deacon.DEACON, née Barnard, Mary (1833–1910, GRO): Niece of Michael and SarahFaraday. Married William Matheson Deacon in 1860.DEACON, Thomas John Fuller (d.1901, age 78, GRO): Husband of CarolineDeacon. A managing clerk in a Newcastle ironmasters according to the 1861census (TNA RG9/3581, f.36, p.24).DEACON, William Matheson (1825–1891, Deacon (1899), 41): Merchantnavy captain. Married Mary Barnard in 1860.DE LA RIVE, Arthur-Auguste (1801–1873, DSB): Professor of General Physicsat Geneva from 1823 and, from 1825, of Experimental Physics. Swissambassador to London in 1850 and again in 1860.DE LA RUE, Warren (1815–1889, ODNB): Printer and amateur astronomer.DEVONSHIRE, William Cavendish, 7th Duke of (1808–1891, ODNB):Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, 1862–1891.DICKSON, James: Unidentified.

liD’ORSEY, Alexander James Donald (d.1894, age 82, AC): Chaplain andlecturer in English at Corpus Christi, Cambridge.DOUGLASS, James Nicholas (1826–1898, ODNB): Appointed chief engineerof Trinity House in 1862.DREW, James (d.1880, age 66, GRO): An Elder Brother of Trinity House,1851–1880, Chaplin [1950], 193.DRUMMOND, Thomas (1797–1840, ODNB): Officer in Royal Engineers.Worked on Ordnance Survey of Ireland. Under Secretary in Ireland, 1835–1840.DUBOSCQ, Jules (1817–1886, DBF): Scientific instrument maker in Paris.DUMAS, Jean-Baptiste-André (1800–1884, DSB): Professor of Chemistry atthe Sorbonne, 1841–1868. Member of the French Senate and Vice-President ofthe Imperial Council of Public Education.FARADAY, née Leighton, Margaret (d.1868, age 78, GRO): Widow of RobertFaraday whom she married in 1815. See Faraday to Abbott, 12 July 1815, letter53, volume 1.FARADAY, Robert (1788–1846, GRO): Brother of Faraday. Gas engineer.FARADAY, née Barnard, Sarah (1800–1879, GRO): Daughter of Edward andMary Barnard. Married Faraday on 12 June 1821.FARRER, Thomas Henry (1819–1899, ODNB): Assistant Secretary at theBoard of Trade responsible for the Marine Department, 1853–1865.FITZMAURICE, William Edward (1805–1889, The Times, 29 June 1889, p.6,col. d): Army officer and Conservative MP for Buckinghamshire, 1842–1847.FITZROY, Robert (1805–1865, ODNB): Naval officer and meteorologist to theBoard of Trade.FRANKLAND, Edward (1825–1899, ODNB): Professor of Chemistry at theRoyal Institution, 1863–1868 and at the Royal College of Chemistry, 1865–1885.FRESNEL, Augustin Jean (1788–1827, DSB): French physicist.

liiGILES, née Gray, Ellen (1821–1882, GRO):A niece of Faraday’s and widowof William Giles from 1861.GILES, John (1809–1880, TNA RG4/4662, f.0, GRO): Stockbroker and brotherof William Giles.GILES, William (1801–1861, GRO): Husband of Ellen Giles who died on 4October 1861. According to the 1861 census a member of the Stock Exchange,TNA RG9/140, f.7, p.9.GILES, William Brantingham (1846–1920, GRO): Son of William and EllenGiles. Analytical chemist.GLADSTONE, John Hall (1827–1902, ODNB): Chemist and member of theRoyal Commission on Lighthouses.GLAISHER, James (1809–1903, ODNB): Superintendent of the Magnetic andMeteorological Department at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, 1838–1874.GORDON, Robert (1796–1869, B5): Naval officer and Deputy Master ofTrinity House, 1858–1861.GREIG, née Graham, Agnes (d.1875, age 67, GRO): Married Woronzow Greigin October 1837.GROVE, William Robert (1811–1896, ODNB): Lawyer and man of science.Professor of Experimental Philosophy at the London Institution, 1841–1847.GULL, William Withey (1816–1890, ODNB): Physician at Guy’s Hospital,1856–1865.GURNEY, Goldsworthy (1793–1875, ODNB): Inventor.GYE, Frederick (1810–1878, ODNB): Manager of Covent Garden Opera, 1848–1878.HARCOURT, William Vernon (1789–1871, ODNB): One of the founders ofthe British Association. Incumbent of Wheldrake (1824–1834), Bishopthorpe(1835–1838) and Bolton Percy (1838–1861).HARRIS, William Snow (1791–1867, ODNB): Plymouth man of science whoworked on electricity, particularly lightning conductors.

liiiHAWKINS, Edward (1780–1867, ODNB): Keeper of Antiquities at the BritishMuseum, 1826–1860.HENRY, Joseph (1797–1878, ANB): Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,1846–1878.HENRY, William (1774–1836, ODNB): Manchester chemist.HERBERT, George (d.1866, age 49, GRO): Assistant Secretary at TrinityHouse, 1855–1865. Royal Kalendar.HERBERT, Jacob (d.1867, age 79, Gent.Mag., 1867, 3: 262): Secretary of TrinityHouse, 1824–1856. Chaplin [1950], 183.HERSCHEL, Alexander Stewart (1836–1907, ODNB): Second son of JohnHerschel; astronomer.HERSCHEL, John Frederick William (1792–1871, ODNB): Man of sciencewho worked on astronomy, chemistry and physics. Lived and worked atCollingwood near Hawkhurst from 1840. Master of the Mint, 1850–1855.HOFMANN, August Wilhelm (1818–1892, ODNB): Professor of Chemistryat the Royal College of Chemistry, 1845–1865.HOLLAND, Henry (1788–1873, ODNB): Fashionable physician. PhysicianExtraordinary to Queen Victoria from 1837 and Physician in Ordinary toPrince Albert from 1840.HOLMES, Frederick Hale (b.c.1812, TNA RG9/58, f.123, p.34): Professor ofChemistry at the Royal Panopticon of Science (Lit. Gaz., 23 July 1853, p.722)and one of the pioneers of electric light. See James (1997), 294.HORNBLOWER, Jemima Hanbury (d.1861, age 61, GRO): Ran a school inStamford Hill and was a Deaconess in the Sandemanian Church. Cantor(1991), 48.HUDSON, James (d.1859, age 55, B1): Assistant Secretary of the Royal Society,1826–1835. Secretary of the Royal Agricultural Society, 1838–1859.HUGHES, William (d.1870, age 64, GRO): Clerk of accounts of the RoyalInstitution, 1846–1870. RI MM, 30 November 1846, 9: 420; 6 February 1871,12: 355.

livHUXLEY, Thomas Henry (1825–1895, ODNB): Fullerian Professor of Physiologyat the Royal Institution, 1855–1858, 1865-1869 and Professor of NaturalHistory at the Royal School of Mines.HYEEN, N.: Unidentified.JERDAN, William (1782–1869, ODNB): Editor of the Literary Gazette, 1817–1850.KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, James Phillips (1804–1877, ODNB): Physician andeducationalist.KIRCHHOFF, Gustav Robert (1824–1887, DSB): Professor of Physics atHeidelberg, 1854–1875.KNOLLYS, William Thomas (1797–1883, ODNB): Treasurer and Comptrollerto the Prince of Wales, 1862–1877.LADD, William (1815–1885, B6): Scientific instrument maker of 11 and 12Beak Street.LANSDOWNE, Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 3rd Marquis of (1780–1863,ODNB): Prominent Whig politician.LEIGHTON, George Cargill (1826–1895, GRO): Printer. According to the1861 census he was manager and publisher of the Illustrated London News.(TNA RG9/197, f.12, p.20).LEIGHTON, John (1822–1912, ODNB): Artist, lecturer and traveller.LEIGHTON, Minnie Ross (1857–1878, GRO): Daughter of Charles RossLeighton (d.1861, age 39, GRO), modeller who was certified insane in June1859, and Louisa Leighton, née Newall (b.c.1830, TNA RG9/197, f.19, p.1),dressmaker. Elected to the Infant Orphan Asylum in late 1860, see CandidatesBook, RLSA 90/21/20/4, f.277.LIEBIG, Justus von (1803–1873, DSB): Professor of Chemistry at GiessenUniversity, 1825–1851. Moved to Munich in 1852. Worked especially onorganic and agricultural chemistry.LINDLEY, John (1799–1865, ODNB): Professor of Botany at UniversityCollege London, 1828–1860, and at the Royal Institution, 1835–1846.

lvLUBBOCK, John (1834–1913, ODNB): Banker, politician, and scientific writer.LYELL, Charles (1797–1875, ODNB): Geologist.MAGRATH, Edward (d.1861, age 70, GRO): Secretary of the AthenaeumClub, 1824–1855. Waugh [1894].MANBY, Charles (1804–1884, ODNB): Civil engineer and Secretary of theInstitution of Civil Engineers, 1839–1856.MARCET, née Haldimand, Jane (1769–1858, ODNB): Popular scientificwriter.MARTIN, John (1789–1854, ODNB): Historical and landscape painter. Healso worked on the disposal of London’s sewage.MATTEUCCI, Carlo (1811–1868, DSB): Italian physiologist and physicist.Appointed Italian Minister of Education in 1862.MAXWELL, James Clerk (1831–1879, ODNB): Professor of NaturalPhilosophy at Marischal College, Aberdeen, 1856–1860, and then at King’sCollege, London, until 1865.MILNER-GIBSON, Thomas (1806–1884, ODNB): Liberal MP for Ashtonunder-Lyneand President of the Board of Trade, 1859–1866.MOIGNO, François Napoleon Marie (1804–1884, NBU): French scientificwriter.MOORE, Harriet Jane (1801–1884, James (2001)): Painter and member of theRoyal Institution, 1852–1881.MÜLLER, Friedrich Max (1823–1900, ODNB): Taylorian Professor of ModernEuropean Languages, University of Oxford, 1854–1868.MURCHISON, Roderick Impey (1792–1871, ODNB): Retired Army officerand geologist.MURRAY, John (1808–1892, ODNB): Publisher of 50 Albemarle Street.NAPOLEON III (1808–1873, NBU): Emperor of France.NEWMAN, John (1783–1860, ODNB): Scientific instrument maker.

lviNISBET, Edward Parry (d.1899, age 89, GRO): An Elder Brother of TrinityHouse, 1857–1899, Chaplin [1950], 205.NOAD, Henry Minchin (1815–1877, ODNB): Lecturer in chemistry andelectricity in Bath and Bristol.NORTHUMBERLAND, Algernon Percy, 4th Duke of (1792–1865, ODNB):President of the Royal Institution, 1842–1865.PANIZZI, Anthony (1797–1879, ODNB): Principal Librarian of the BritishMuseum, 1856–1866.PARADISE, William (d.1866, age 78, GRO): Newcastle stationer and bookseller.Member of the Sandemanian Church. Cantor (1991), 68.PELLY, John Henry (1777–1852, ODNB): Deputy Master of Trinity House,1834–1852. Arrow (1868), 44.PEPYS, William Hasledine (1775–1856, ODNB): Man of science.PERCY, John (1817–1889, ODNB): Metallurgist in Birmingham and thentaught at Royal School of Mines, 1851–1879.PHILLIPS, George (1804–1892, ODNB): Orientalist. President of Queens’College, Cambridge from 1857 and Vice Chancellor of the University ofCambridge, 1861–1862.PHILLIPS, John Arthur (1822–1887, ODNB): Consulting chemist and metallurgist.PHILLIPS, Richard (1788–1851, ODNB): Chemist. Co-editor of the PhilosophicalMagazine 1826–1851 and curator of the Museum of Practical Geology,1839–1851.PICKERSGILL, Henry William (1782–1875, ODNB): Portrait painter.PIGOTT, William (d.1870, age 68, GRO): Deputy Master of Trinity House, 4June 1861 to 12 June 1865, Chaplin [1950], 33.PILCHER, John Giles and Jeremiah and Sons: Suppliers of red lead ofMorgan’s Lane, Tooley Street. POD.

lviiPLATEAU, Joseph Antoine Ferdinand (1801–1883, DSB): Professor ofPhysics at the University of Ghent, 1835–1872. Totally blind from 1843.PLÜCKER, Julius (1801–1868, DSB): Professor of Physics, 1847–1868, at theUniversity of Bonn.POLE, William (1798–1884, AO): Barrister and Treasurer of the RoyalInstitution, 1849–1865.POLLOCK, William Frederick (1815–1888, ODNB): A Master of the Court ofExchequer, 1846–1886.PONTIFEX, Edmund and William and WOOD: White lead suppliers ofMillwall, Poplar and Shoe Lane. POD.PROSSER, William: Unidentified.QUETELET, Lambert-Adolphe-Jacques (1796–1874, DSB): Astronomer at theBrussels Observatory from 1828 and Permanent Secretary of the BrusselsAcademy from 1834.REID, David (1792–1868, Reid (1914)): A brother-in-law of Sarah Faraday.Reid (1914) gives him as a silversmith, but White (1847), 114 also lists him asa chronometer and watchmaker in Newcastle.REID, Edward Ker (1821–1886, Fallon (1992), 244–7): Nephew of SarahFaraday, London silversmith and a Deacon of the London SandemanianChurch. Cantor (1991), 301.REID, Margery Ann (1815–1888, Reid (1914)): Niece of Sarah Faraday. Livedwith the Faradays at the Royal Institution between about 1826 and 1840.ROBINSON, Thomas Romney (1792–1882, ODNB): Director of the ArmaghObservatory, 1823–1882.ROGET, Peter Mark (1779–1869, ODNB): Physician and Secretary of theRoyal Society, 1827–1848.ROSCOE, Henry Enfield (1833–1915, ODNB): Studied chemistry at HeidelbergUniversity. Professor of Chemistry at Owens College, Manchester,1857–1885.

lviiiRYDER, Alfred Phillipps (1820–1888, ODNB): Royal Navy Officer andmember of Royal Commission on Lighthouses.SABINE, Edward (1788–1883, ODNB): Worked on terrestrial magnetism.Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society, 1845–1850, Treasurer, 1850–1861 andPresident, 1861–1871.SAUTTER, Louis (1825–1912, Sautter (1915)): Paris lighthouse constructorwho did work for Wilkins on Bishop Rock.SAVAGE, Alice: Housekeeper of the Royal Institution, 1865–1900. (RI MM, 3April 1865, 12: 102 and 7 May 1900, 15: 409).SAVAGE, Sarah (d.1865, age 57, GRO): Housekeeper of the Royal Institution,1835–1865. (RI MM, 19 July 1835, 8: 363-4 and 6 March 1865, 12: 97).SCHOENBEIN, Berta (1846–1927, Nolte (1999), 295): Daughter of ChristianFriedrich Schoenbein and Emilie Wilhelmine Luise Schoenbein.SCHOENBEIN, Christian Friedrich (1799–1868, DSB): Professor of Physicsand Chemistry at University of Basle, 1835–1852 and then Professor ofChemistry.SCHOENBEIN, née Benz, Emilie Wilhelmine Luise (1807–1871, Nolte(1999), 295): Married Christian Friedrich Schoenbein in 1835.SCHOENBEIN, Fanny Anna Franziska (1840–1921, Nolte (1999), 295):Daughter of Christian Friedrich Schoenbein and Emilie Wilhelmine LuiseSchoenbein.SCHOENBEIN, Wilhelmine Sophie (1838–1914, Nolte (1999), 294): Daughterof Christian Friedrich Schoenbein and Emilie Wilhelmine Luise Schoenbein.SHAKESPEARE, William (1564–1616, ODNB): Playwright.SHEEPSHANKS, John (1787–1863, ODNB): Businessman and art collector.SHERRATT, Thomas (d.1896, age 84, GRO): Historical line engraver andspiritualist.SIDNEY, Edwin (d.1872, age 74, B6): Rector of Little Cornard, 1847–1872 andlecturer at the Royal Institution and elsewhere.

lixSIDNEY, Eliza (d.1882, age 87, GRO): Wife of Edwin Sidney.SIEMENS, Carl Wilhelm (1823–1883, ODNB): German born electrical engineer.SMITH, Thomas (d.1898, RI MM, 7 March 1898, 15: 296): Royal Institutionhall porter, 1861–1889. (RI MM, 4 May 1861, 11: 375 and 4 November 1889,14: 208.)SOMERVILLE, olim Greig, née Fairfax, Mary (1780–1872, ODNB): Scientificwriter.SOUTH, James (1785–1867, ODNB): Astronomer whose observatory was inKensington.STEINHEIL, Karl August (1801–1870, DSB): Physicist and astronomer inMunich.STEVENSON, Thomas (1818–1887, ODNB): Scottish lighthouse engineer.STODART, James (1760–1823, English Cyclopaedia, 1857, 5: 734-6): Surgicalinstrument maker of 401 Strand.SULIVAN, Bartholomew James (1810–1890, ODNB). Naval Officer of theMarine Department of the Board of Trade, 1856–1865.TAYLOR, Richard (1781–1858, ODNB): Publisher and one of the editors ofthe Philosophical Magazine.TENNANT, James (1808–1881, ODNB): Professor of Geology at King’sCollege, London, 1853–1869.TENNENT, James Emerson (1804–1869, ODNB): Secretary of the Board ofTrade, 1852–1867.THOMSON, née Crum, Margaret (1827–1870, Smith and Wise (1989), 146):Married William Thomson in 1852.THOMSON, William (1824–1907, ODNB): Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge,1845–1852. Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Glasgow, 1846–1899.

lxTUDOR, Samuel and William: White lead suppliers of 166 and 167 UpperThames Street. POD.TURNER, Edward (1796–1837, ODNB): Professor of Chemistry at UniversityCollege, London, 1828–1837.TYNDALL, John (1820–1893, ODNB): Taught science at Queenwood College,1847–1848 and again 1851–1853. Studied at University of Marburg, 1848–1850.Professor of Natural Philosophy at the Royal Institution, 1853–1887. An editorof the Philosophical Magazine, 1854–1863.VICTOR EMMANUEL II, KING (1820–1878, NBU): King of Italy, 1861–1878.VICTORIA, QUEEN (1819–1901, ODNB): Queen of England, 1837–1901.VINCENT, Benjamin (1818–1899, B3): Elder of the London SandemanianChurch, 1849–1864. Assistant Secretary of the Royal Institution from 1848and Librarian, 1849–1889.VINCENT, née Barnard, Ellen (1823–1899, GRO): A niece of Sarah Faraday’swho became Benjamin Vincent’s second wife on 11 October 1864.VINCENT, née Nicoll, Janet Young (1811–1863, GRO): Benjamin Vincent’sfirst wife.WALKER, James (1781–1862, ODNB): Civil and marine engineer.WELCH, Alfred: Porter at the Royal Institution, 1862–1864 (RI MM, 7 July1862, 11: 445 and 4 April 1864, 12: 47).WERE, Thomas Narramore (1806–1895, B6): Elder Brother of Trinity House,1851–1895.WESTROPP, Berkeley (d.1859, age 61, GRO, O’Byrne (1849), 1276): Secretaryof the Royal Humane Society, 1830–1844. Royal Humane Society Annual Report,1844, p.24. Formerly a Royal Navy Lieutenant.WHEATSTONE, Charles (1802–1875, ODNB): Professor of ExperimentalPhilosophy at King’s College, London, 1834–1875. Worked on sound andelectricity.WHITELAW, George (d.1872, age 68, GRO): Publisher’s manager and anElder of the London Sandemanian Church. Cantor (1991), 302.

lxiWIEDEMANN, Gustav Heinrich (1826–1899, DSB): Professor of Physics atUniversity of Basle, 1854–1863.WILDE, Henry (1833–1919, ODNB): Manchester-based electrical engineer.WILKINS, William Crane (1813–1884, GRO): Lighthouse and patent lampmanufacturer of 24 and 25 Longacre.WÖHLER, Friedrich (1800–1882, DSB): Professor of Chemistry at Göttingen,1836–1882.