ll. t. Ch. (

References and Notes ntbl pnt n th lhtt dplnt ll th prtl thr t rd fr r pprh 0. It hld b phzd tht, fr 1. H. n n, The Life and Letters of Faraday, 2 l,, vh, th t r fndntl prtl nd tht hl nn, Grn C,, ndn, 86, t r pnd f th h plx pttrn f fr 2. , ndll, Faraday as a Discoverer, nn, Grn ld b d t nt fr "ltv ffnt" nd fr th rlrt C., ndn, 868, f rtl. . . , Gldtn, , Mlln, ndn, . . A, Faraday as a Natural Philosopher, Unvrt f 82, Ch, Ch, I, , 4. Sn I rd th ppr t th ACS, I hv xnd ll th 2. . Gdn nd , , d., Faraday Rediscovered, vl f th Mechanics Magazine nd d nt fnd th lttr Mlln, ndn, 8, Gldtn ntnd. t hv nfd th zn th . G, Cntr, Michael Faraday: Sandemanian and Scientist, nthr jrnl tht I hv nt dvrd. Mlln, ndn, , . S, , hpn, Michael Faraday: His Life and Work, Mlln, Yr, Y, 88, 6. . Mrtn, d,, Faraday's Diary (1820-1862),7 l., ll, L, Pearce Williams is John Stambaugh Professor of the ndn, 6. History of at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850 . . . Wll, Michael Faraday, A Biography, Chpn and is author of "Michael Faraday, A Biography" and "The ll, ndn, 6, Origins of Field Theory" He has also edited two volumes of 8. M. rd, Experimental Researches in , l,, "The Selected Correspondence of Michael Faraday" Qrth, ndn, 88, l , p, . 9. Ibid., l, 2, p. 286. 10. Ibid. . , vh n 8thntr t h dp tdnt f tnn ph. pzzld vr th prbl f th lln f th nfntl hrd t tht tn hd td AAAYS EECIO O E OYA n th t r f h Opticks, Infnt hrdn nt ptbl SOCIEY: A EUAIO I EOAY th ltt, vh ntd tht th rvrl f tn n lln ld hv t b ntntn, rltn n th brd June Z. Fullmer, Ohio State University, and Melvyn C. ntn tht th t lldn t ld h b n n ppt Usselman, University of Western Ontario drtn t th nt f lln. lv th prbl, v h ptd t ntr f fr, th n trl pnnt. On Thursday, 8 January 1824, the meeting of the Royal Society h rv bl rph th ttrtv nd rplv fr td had, as one order of business, a ballot to elect (or not) Michael th h n t n tr f dtn fr th t ntr, r Faraday to the Fellowship of the Society. According to bv th ln r rplv th bl t r ttrtv, At established custom, in the absence of the President, Sir Humphry dtn OA, th fr b pttll rplv, prvntn Davy, the Vice President of the Society, Sir , t pnt fr bn n th pl, th prrvn th trl presided (1), He was flanked by the two secretaries, William prprt f pntrblt, At , th ttrtv fr trn nt th T. Brande and Taylor Combe. After opening formalities, one hprbl f nvrl rvttn. nt nd r tbl pnt of the secretaries read the names of those candidates whose fr t t n th fr ll rt dplnt C n certificates for Fellowship had been newly presented. Sir Everard then asked the Fellows if the Society wished to elect these candidates immediately, (certain members of the nobility and other distinguished folk were always accorded "instant" Fellowship - for example, Prince Christian of Denmark on 6 June 1822; , Secretary of State, on 5 December 1822) or ballot for them after their certificates had been displayed over a ten-meeting period. At this juncture Sir Everard announced that the Society would be balloting on the question of Fellowship for Michael Faraday. His certificate had been displayed for the appropriate length of time and had received 29 supporting signatures. After inviting comments from the Fellows about the candidate, Sir Everard demon- strated the ballot-box to be empty before handing it to the Assistant Secretary, John Hudson, who carried it from Fellow to Fellow, Each Fellow registered his vote by choosing either 8 ll. t, Ch. ( a white or black marble from one of the attached bags and dropping it into the box. This noisy, disruptive process continued while the Secretary read to the group the learned paper selected for presentation that day. When the ballot box had made its rounds, Sir Everard counted the votes. Faraday's election had been nearly unanimous, there being but a single black ball in the "nay" drawer. Still, the business of making Faraday a Fellow was not yet concluded, for at the next sitting of the Society (15 January 1824), with Sir , P.R.S., in the chair, Faraday paid his admission Fee "and the usual sum in lieu of Annual Contributions," and "signed the Obligation in the Charter Book". Sir Humphry then shook his hand, and Faraday officially became "F,R,S". The election result must have been very gratifying for Faraday, for the period preceding the election had been a stressful one, Membership in the Royal Society meant a lot to him, since it certified that he was an accomplished natural philosopher whose researches merited the attention of the world's scientific community, In 1838 when Spring-Rice, Chancellor of the Exchequer, asked Faraday why he had received a pension (granted in 1835) from the Crown, what titles had he? Faraday replied: "One title namely, that of F.R.S., was sought and paid for; all the rest [and there were many] were spontaneous offerings of kindness and goodwill from the bodies named" (2). Faraday's unguarded response shows how distressing the process had been. What price had he Michael Faraday paid? What had his fight for recognition of his scientific (After a painting by T, Phillips) abilities cost him? In the early stages Faraday's election had not been a worlds, one dying, the other struggling to be born, faced foregone conclusion, During the eight months comprising the genuine threats which forced him into intensive lobbying for ten "regular" meetings of his candidacy, there had been rumors votes. By the day of his election, however, his success was that Faraday's scientific achievements owed much to unac- assured. knowledged contemporaries, On 30 May 1823, an angry Sir Consider first the atmosphere within the Royal Society. Humphry Davy had ordered Faraday to remove his certificate. The death of Sir in June of 1820 provided an Throughout the period the prevailing sentiment within the opportunity to institute changes within the Society (4). The Society was to reduce the number of Fellows by restricting the reformers aimed primarily to make the Society more scientific, intake of new members (3), Faraday, caught on the cusp of two chiefly by increasing the proportion of members actively engaged in the and by achieving a stronger voice for IG. OYA SOCIEY EOWS,UME those members in the governance of the Society, Quantitative analysis of the composition of the fellowship reveals the br 600 magnitude of the problem, As shown in figure 1, total membership in the Society had increased continuously from a 400 low of 119 in 1698 to 659 in 1830 (5). Though the majority of the Fellows were "cultivators" of science, only about 30% of 00 them could be loosely termed "scientific" Fellows (figure 2)

200 (6). In his caustic attack on the Royal Society in 1830, Augustus B. Granville wrote that he could find in the member-

00 ship only "thirty really illustrious men of science," all the rest being "either mere lookers on - indifferent spectators - or, at 0 most, cultivators of what beds of flowers they found in the rich 8 6 68 40 0 800 80 880 Yr garden of natural knowledge when they first entered it" (7). Furthermore, during Banks' tenure as president (1778-1820), — ntf nnntf scientific fellows had always been in a minority on the Council, ll. t. Ch. (

whose 21 members governed the Society (figure 3) (8). served as temporary President for the five months of the term which remained after Banks' death; Sir Humphry Davy succeeded him. Davy tried to institute the reforms most wanted by the scientific membership, the group to which he owed the near unanimity of his election (9), The reformers sought to decrease the influx of new members by scrutinizing the scientific credentials of candidates more closely than had been done in the past. If the members were doubtful of nddt worthiness, Davy encouraged them to cast negative votes at election time. His recommendation was initially heeded, for the number of new Fellows decreased in 1823 (10). In 1822 wrote that (11): — ntf nnntf I thn ltn hd bttr nt b prpd t prnt, I tld t v bt h, h f r ld hv n prnl fln bt th "rntn" f th l St, bn dr f bn t nd p vr nbl n th bjt. Wht h h ltl d n ll thrf, , h n r ndrnd, d f r th St h hd t fll fft ... bllt I dr n ll p prnl nld rnd h hhl drvn tht hnr, fr ln t tht hrp ntt nd dn f th rt f nd ll t b fl nd vlbl br. nddt. Faraday's worthiness can be further emphasized by com- Further, Davy had not hesitated to act autocratically when parison with others elected at about the same time. The four he thought it necessary. After the certificate of Sir Francis persons elected immediately before him were (15): Schuckburgh was introduced in December of 1823, Davy wrote at the top, "No qualifications mentioned" and across the n 82 Sr hn Mrr, ltr nrl bottom, "This certificate ought not to have been presented, 20 v. 82 hn l, ntr there being no qualifications mentioned, H.D." (12). Davy's v. nl Crll, dvn nd demand for qualifications could explain why Faraday waited thtn until 1823 before he sought election, for by that time he had 2 v. 82 A. Mrvn Str, M,A. (Oxn published more than scientific papers, three of them in the Philosophical Transactions (13), His publication record was and the four immediately following were: explicitly noted in the statement of qualifications accompany- ing his certificate (14): n. 824 Chrl Sdr, phn 22 n. 824 h Att, ntr Mr. Mhl rd, ntln nntl nvrnt n hl b, 824 Wll Wvll, phn n, nd thr f vrl ppr, hh hv bn pblhd n b. 824 v. Edrd Mltb, bhp

IG.2 OYA SOCIEY EOWS,ECE Election of such a scientifically undistinguished group illus- trated that, whatever the qualfications deemed requisite for successful election, they had not functioned to render many candidates ineligible. To the extent that the reformers within the Society had an impact on the election process, in Faraday's case their efforts would have been positive. Scientific support alone could guarantee election since a large majority of those who regularly attended meetings were science-minded. At least this was true if the science supporters were not themselves divided, Babbage, for one, pointed out how scientific bicker- ing could harm a candidate's chances (16):

... f [ nddt] A. . hd th d frtn t b prftl nnn b n ltrr r ntf hvnt, hvr ll, h t r f bn ltd ttr f r. If, n th thr hnd, h 20 ll. t. Ch. ( h nfrtntl rttn n n bjt nntd th n, r ppd t b ntd th n brnh f t, th br bn t nr ht h h dn t drv th hnr nd, nl h h prfl frnd, h h fr hn f bn blblld,

There was no evidence of such a split in Faraday's scientific backing, for the 29 signatures on his certificate showed impres- sive support from natural philosophers, physicians and sur- geons (17). Special importance attached to the first few names on the certificate because they represented Faraday's "proposers" and served as an advertisement of his suitability, Richard Phillips, who sponsored Faraday's application and arranged for the opening signatures, wrote with delight to Faraday shortly after the certificate was first hung: "Did it well I thinks -Wollaston,Children,Babington,Herschel" (18). In his reply, Faraday indicated his approval (19):

A thnd thn fr r ndn I am dlhtd th th Mr. rnd hd tld f t bfr I t r nt nd thht t pbl t b bttr,

The four leading sponsors represented different constituencies in the Royal Society: John G, Children, whose job at the Wll d Wlltn British Museum owed much to Davy's support, was Davy's long-time friend; Dr. William Babington was a member of the nt, b dplld, tht thrt ntr nd rltn f th "old guard" of the Society who viewed reform with suspicion, pndrbl nt b rvld t , tht trth t prtnt and John W. Herschel was the most highly-regarded of the t th dvnnt of ntrl nld brt frth n pbl younger, reform-minded Fellows. plndr nd plt th r f ndr tht hv lvd t Wollaston's name at the head of the list served two impor- tn. tant purposes. He had been President for a short period in 1820, and he was widely admired among the scientific Fellows for his Extending Oersted's ideas, Wollaston concluded that the support of reform, his scientific achievements, his intellect and magnetic power of an acted "circumferentially his independence, Nearly Davy's equal in international stature round its axis," and thus a current-carrying wire might be made he had, in fact, been the reformers' first choice as successor to to spin about its own axis under the influence of an external Banks, Wollaston championed individualism and readily (21) , In April 1821, he and Davy tried unsuccessfully admired ability in others. His name had also been first on John to achieve the predicted result at the . A few Dalton's certificate (Dalton, like Faraday a non-conformist, months later, and quite independently, Faraday discovered a had been made a Fellow in March 1822). Above all, Wollas- way to effect electromagnetic rotation; he sent the results for ton's prominent support laid to rest any suspicions that ill publication in October 1821 (22). Shortly thereafter, Faraday feelings remained from the Wollaston/Faraday misunderstand- began to hear rumours that he had failed to acknowledge ing over the discovery in 1821 of electromagnetic rotation. Wollaston's contributions. On the final day of his interim presidency in 1820, Wollas- The details of the drama that ensued are presented else- ton had delivered the discourse which accompanied the award- where; its denouement was important (23). Faraday had been ing of the Society's to Hans C, Oersted for his accused of stealing Wollaston's ideas, but Wollaston himself discovery of . In the oration, Wollaston believed Faraday to be innocent of any wrong-doing, for he praised the discovery with presidential grandiloquence (20): wrote to Faraday (24):

... b th vr prtnt rrh f rfr Ortd, vr Sir You seem to me t lbr ndr pprhnn f th ntt rltn tblhd btn ltrt nd nt. trnth f fln pn th bjt t hh lld. t hp tht th l f lht hh th b pn A t th pnn hh thr hv f r ndt, tht b th dn f n d n hh th ld tht hd hthrt vld r nrn, nt n nd f fll t rlf f n n fr r ht th hddn tr f lht nd ht, f ltrt nd nrrt f th tn f thr, t t tht hv ll. t. Ch. ( 2 n n t nrn rlf h bt th ttr. Sr . v nr, M 0,

Ultimately, , the man chiefly responsible for Elsewhere, Faraday had been more explicit (27): the whispering campaign against Faraday, was swayed to make an explicit promise to repair any damage that may have Sr , v tld I t t dn rtft. I rpld tht I been done, A few weeks after Faraday's certificate had been hd nt pt t p tht I ld nt t t dn, t pt p b posted, Warburton wrote him (25): prpr. thn d I t t prpr t t t dn, I nrd tht I n th ld nt d . hn h d, I Sr, I hv rd th rtl n th "l Inttt rnl" (vl, , rdnt ll t t dn, I rpld tht I r Sr . v ld p.288 n ltrnt rttn nd tht nn t nv d ht h thht fr th d f th l St, t tht I pprv f t nrrvdl, I b t tht, pn th hl, t tfd , I thn t ll r. Wlltn thr frnd. Bence Jones, in his biography of Faraday, reported that (28): vn vrhr dttd nd ntnd tht n th r f ntf rt r nttld t pl n th l St, I rd l d tht n f h prpr tld h tht Sr . v nvr rd t prvnt r ltn, nr hld I hv tn n pn hd ld fr n hr rnd th rtrd f Srt , t fr prt n prvt t pp , Wht I hld hv dn rn tht rd ht nt t b ltd, ld hv bn t t th pprtnt hh th prpn t bllt fr ld hv ffrdd t rr n pbl n thtprt While it is not possible to say precisely what transpired, it f r ndt t hh I bjtd. Of th I d n rt, hvn is possible to determine one catalyst for Davy's anger by nttd ntntn t f th fr h I n ld examining Faraday's activities after the quarrel, to see who had hr f t, nd t th rdnt hlf, to be pacified, Since Faraday noted that Davy reproached him Whn I t th n f th n h prn h nvr on 30 May, it appears likely that Warburton had spoken to tn hv pd, I hll tt tht bjtn t Davy about Faraday's candidacy at the meeting of the Royal ll r nd ht t b thdrn, nd tht I n h t frrd Society on 29 May. In his letter to Faraday on 8 July, r ltn, Warburton allowed that he had read Faraday's paper, which recounted why Faraday had not acknowledged Wollaston's Warburton could easily enough change his mind, but it took work on electromagnetic induction in his two publications of much effort to undo the damage his accusations had wrought. October and December, 1821. Thus Warburton learned that in We know that Davy had been moved, likely by Warburton, to 1821 Faraday had taken his first paper on electromagnetic oppose Faraday's election. In notes appended to a copy of a induction to Wollaston, prepared to ask him for permission to letter to Warburton, Faraday wrote (26: refer to his work - at the time unpublished - but had not found Wollaston at home, For the second paper he was able to get in 82. In rltn t v pptn t ltn t th l touch with Wollaston, who had by then witnessed some of St Faraday's newest experiments, Faraday asked Wollaston if he could refer to his work "in correction of the error of judgment in not having done so before." Wollaston's view, as Faraday recalled it, was as follows (29):

h prn tht h rnd n nd vr n (nnd tnt nth, nd hh I hv ntntl xprd t vrn hn tln n th bjt, tht h hd nt t d , r. Wlltn h ltl tld tht h nnt rllt th rd h d t th t tht rrdd hlf h fln r t hld nt b dn, rrdd , tht t hld, bt tht h dd nt tll . I n nl tht r t th t hld t tnl th flln rd, I ld rthr hld nt bt I t f r hv bn tn.

This published acknowledgment of Wollaston 's coopera- tion evidently mollified Warburton. It may even have caused him to regret questioning Faraday's integrity, or at least to rue rd pprt fr dntrtn th xtn f carrying those doubts to Davy, for Davy could not help but be "ltrnt rttn". offended by criticisms of his colleague. Every project on 22 ll. t, Ch. ( which Faraday had worked had Davy's blessing: at times the two men had worked side by side; at other times Faraday undertook experiments at Davy's behest, In addition, Davy patently groomed Faraday for Fellowship (as he had groomed his younger brother, Dr. , in much the same way) by suggesting avenues for his research, by editing his papers before they were to be read and published, and by frequently sponsoring Faraday's attendance at Royal Society meetings. His protdgé was in danger of being publicly accused of appro- priating another's scientific ideas. Moreover, that accusation would come from a man with power in the Royal Society, a Council member who had much preferred Wollaston over Davy as President. Davy had wanted the Presidency as badly as Faraday had wanted to be a Fellow. To gain that office, Davy had personally solicited votes and had ardently promised reform of the Society to Wollaston and his supporters. He was working very hard at the tasks reform required, with the result that his time for experimenting was limited. Now he was faced with the possibility that Warburton would rise before the entire group and in a bitter speech heap calumny on Faraday, and through him, on Davy. The only certain way to prevent that from happening was to insure that Faraday not come up for election. This could be done simply by removing Faraday's certificate. Humphry Davy Perhaps, after Warburton had suggested that Faraday lacked the moral character required of Royal Society candidates, On 28 July, when he had reason to write again, he signed Davy's well-known temper transformed a minor irritant into himself "I am Dear Mr, Faraday/very truly your friend &/well major confrontation, John Herschel, for example, had opposed wisher" (31). Davy's bid for the presidency of the Society in 1820 on the Perhaps Davy's anger was fueled by uncertainties he himself basis of perceived weaknesses in Davy's character (30): held about Faraday's conduct in their complementary re- searches on the liquefaction of gases, In the spring of 1823, h rn fr hn tht v hld b ppd r rndd when Davy was out of town on his annual fishing trip, Faraday ll n h prnl hrtr, hh d t b rrnt n th took advantage of the cold weather and some free time to work xtr, nd ptnt f pptn n h ntf v, nd ll "upon frozen ," which he said represented a "favourite f pr r pld n h hnd t pp rn rt n h n ln object" for his research, He used as his starting material ,.. [fr xpl] v, n nn f rzl rpnn t chlorine hydrate. a substance Davy had earlier identified as a dt h v n pl ntr f hlrn prnll compound. When Davy returned he asked Faraday what nnd t h, t xrt ll h nfln ( th t laboratory work he had in hand. Upon hearing Faraday's prr h rjtn, hn prpd, drn h t n Enlnd [n account, Davy suggested to him that he try heating the solid in v. 82] n hnrr Mbr f ,I. a closed tube. He did not tell Faraday what he expected to be the outcome. On carrying out Davy's suggestion, Faraday, Davy's antipathy toward Berzelius soon passed, however, somewhat to his amazement, found an oily yellow liquid and his signature was the first on Berzelius's certificate for produced. He repeated the experiment, now using a sealed, election as a Foreign Member of the Royal Society (first read -bent" tube, He was able to distill the liquid to one end and 26 November 1812). It is not improbable that his opposition subsequently identified it as liquid chlorine, Dr. John Ayrton to Faraday's candidacy evaporated just as quickly. After Paris, present when Faraday first performed the experiment, Faraday told Davy on 17 June that Wollaston had been con- reported in his biography of Davy that he told Davy at dinner sulted and had not contested Faraday's priority, Davy's anger that evening about the puzzling appearance of the liquid (2, appears to have dissipated, On 29 June, Davy, in a note to Paris' account, in addition to suggesting that Faraday left to his Faraday, hoped he would have "health and success during the own devices would have been led to make the experiment on summer"; he signed it, as he always had before, "very sincerely his own, also insinuated that Sir Humphry was a liar (: your friend and well-wisher." On 23 July he signed another note to Faraday, written in great haste, "your sincere friend." Upn ntnn th rtn [th dpprn f th ll Bull. t. Ch. ( 2 ld fr th ld, bnt tb hn t t pn] t Sr phr which he prepared for John Davy paralleled in a way his earlier v ftr dnnr, h pprd h rprd nd ftr f response to Warburton's charge. He first established a two- nt f pprnt btrtn, h d "I hll nr bt th part "diary", the initial section of which he titled "Electro- xprnt trr". ", the second, "Condensation of Gases". Eventu- ally he inserted both parts into his copy of Paris' biography. Paris' claim that Davy "appeared much surprised" slyly mis- The second part read as follows (35): represented the situation since, in Davy's brief addendum to Faraday's first paper on the liquefaction of the gases, Davy had Cndntn f pointed out (as had Faraday) that Faraday initially made the experiment at his suggestion. Davy also said he had antici- fr nt f th drt ld b prntd, th thr xpt pated liquefaction of the chlorine as one probable result. r d v nt t th .S. rd Faraday for his part said that he had "no doubt" that Davy had foreseen the result. v nrr rfr, ntl M 824 John Davy, a more reliable reporter than Paris about Sir Hurnphry, but also a man of exquisite sensitivity with respect Mr 82 M ppr n pd. hdrt hn. Qr r xv to his brother's reputation, was triggered to rebuttal by what Aprl 82 Paris had written, In his biography of Sir Humphry, John Davy Mr 82 Mn n fld hlrn rd Mr 82 hl declared (34): rn 82 p 60 Mr. rnd ,S, Mr 82 v nt t ppr rd Mr 82 hl .., th nt hh r, r h vn (f th ndntn f th rn 82 p 64 ] n h r prtl, nd, t ppr t , nrrt nd Mr 82 Mr, rnd nt t ppr Qr xv 4. njt, nd nt brn t b th pblhd ttnt thr f Mr, Aprl 82 rd r brthr ,.. r. r nrrtv prt t th rdr th 0 Apr 82 Mn n ndntn f vrl rd 0 prn, tht Mr, rd vr njtl trtd tht Sr Aprl 82 hl rn 82 p 8 phr v t dvnt f h ttn, nd ndvrd t Apr 82 v n ppl f ndn Mh Ant. rd pprprt t hlf prt f th rt f dvr t hh h Apr 82 hl rn 82 p n n nttld .., I rprd tht Mr, rd h nt M 82 v n hn f vl b ht rd M 82 frrd t d h jt. hl r, 82 p 204 r. 82 M trl Sttnt Qr r xv 22, This complaint galvanized Faraday to reflect again, now n 824 with the perspective gained by the passage of time and the 8 n 824 M Eltn ,,S. 8 n 824 n t death of Sir Humphry, on all of the events surrounding his rtft election to Fellowship. As a result he added some details to the written record about his relationship with Davy, The response This list of events, a product of Faraday's passion for accuracy and of his habitually meticulous approach to a problem, showed how the discovery of the liquefaction of chlorine plunged both Davy and Faraday into feverish activity as they sought to liquefy other gases. Faraday's second paper, "On the Condensation of Several Gases into Liquids," read to the Royal Society on 10 April, was supplemented by Davy with "On the Application of Liquids Formed by the Condensation of Gases as Mechanical Agents," read on 17 April. Davy further presented to the Society on I May his "Appendix to the Preceding Paper. On the Changes of Volume Produced in Gases in Different States of Density by Heat" (36). Faraday's memorandum seems to have been an outline for a formal account he meant to write. Unquestionably it provided part of the data for the long letter he wrote to Richard Phillips, subsequently published in (37), Faraday here revealed that he understood the full force of Paris' remarks, for he was at pains to show that while Sir Humphry Apprt d b rd n h xprnt n may have anticipated liquefaction, he had not so informed th lftn f . Faraday. Faraday suggested that "[p] erhaps he left me unac- 24 ll. t. Ch. ( quainted with ... [the results anticipated] to try my ability," accounts of several attempts to liquefy gases. At least one of conceivably because Davy had adopted such a strategy with them, that by the poet and inventor, Thomas Northmore (1766- him from time to time, Faraday wrote (38): 1851), in 1805 reported the successful liquefaction under compression of both chlorine (not, of course, called by that I hv n dbt tht h hd th [xpttn tht hlrn ld b name) and of sulfur dioxide, Nor had Northmore placed the lfd] nd thh prhp I rrttd ln bjt, I t report of his discovery where few would see it - Nicholson' s h ndbtd t h fr h prv ndn t thn f n Journal published his results in two parts (42). Northmore's tht tht n hh h d h. t observe (fr , third paragraph proffered a small surprise (42): tht Sr H. v nhr ttd tht h tld ht h xptd, r ntrdt th p n th frt ppr f n hh drb th I ntd [ d tht -the vr ffnt hh t pl r f thht, nd n hh I l th dvlpnt f th n th ndr th n prr f th tphr, tl rlt. All th tvt n th ndnn f ld ndr ndrbl ltrtn b th nfln f ndn ltn th th ltr nt ffr nd I hd lrnd t b tn"] ,,. t th lt hl prtr n th l Intttn, t pn pnt f rht nd prrt (8, ntln nntl nvrnt n th n, nd th h I thn nd n r f xprnt: h nt nl pprvd f Frank and revealing as his letter was, Faraday had not dn, bt d t thn t nt prbbl tht n xtnv fld acknowledged the existence and grace of Davy's compliment, ht th b pnd t ftr dvr. Davy wrote that his conjecture had "been proved by experi- ments made [by Faraday] with ... much industry and ingenuity, Until some time in 1804 the title "chemical operator" at the and which I have had the pleasure of communicating to the Royal Institution belonged to John Sadler (43). Because Davy Society" (39). Davy' s tribute was both deserved and deliberate appeared to have been unaware of Northmore's experiments - Faraday's experiments displayed to splendid advantage his (he had several opportunities for recall, since he read Faraday's inventiveness and his extraordinary ability in chemical ma- paper before it was presented to the Royal Society, he pre- nipulation, In addition, by assisting his colleague toward sented it, and he also corrected the proofs for Phil, Trans,) the Fellowship in the Royal Society, Davy also subtly enhanced conclusion is forced on us that Sadler had not mentioned the the reputation of the Royal Institution, an action which would incident to him, and that either Davy had not read the papers in hardly go unnoticed. As President of the Royal Society, he Nicholson' s Journal, or, if he had, he had forgotten them. could neither initiate nor sign Faraday's certificate, but he There is also the possibility that some sort of primitive recol- could aid his protégé's cause by providing, shortly before the lection of Northmore's results lingered in Davy's mind with- election, a deft testimonial to Faraday's scientific ability. out a direct association; perhaps that slight memory trace Davy's addenda did more than establish priority and praise inspired Davy to think that chlorine could be liquefied. Still, Faraday's ability. His brief notices enlarged the conceptual Davy's own conceptual easily could have led him to the base for the phenomena Faraday had observed. In 1823 same conclusion. In all fairness it must be recalled that Faraday had called Davy's note "important"; in 1836 he Northmore, unlike Faraday, employed fairly elaborate appara- acknowledged Davy's contribution by admitting that he "had tus and that he offered little in the way of explanation of what not reasoned so deeply as [Davy] appears to have done", a he had observed (44), The simplicity of Faraday's experimen- justifiable admission. Both of Faraday's liquefaction papers tal approach, heating substances in closed, bent tubes, beauti- were conceptually meagre. By initiating a discussion to ac- fully exploited Davy's and his conceptualization about the count for all of the observed liquefaction phenomena, Davy and behavior of gases and liquids, Northmore's more enriched Faraday's experiments, cementing them firmly within elaborate attempts similarly exploited a conceptualization, but accepted scientific doctrine (40), it was one derived from an intellectual base of about 1800, Nonetheless, taken together, the papers still were incom- somewhat different from that of Faraday and Davy in 1823. plete, lacking what since has been called "der Anstand der The matter was, to all intent, closed in 1824, and Faraday Frage". Faraday's "Historical Statement Respecting the Li- won his F,R.S. However, in 1844 Faraday returned to the quefaction of Gases", published just a few days before his subject, presenting to the Society his observations "On the election, took care of the omission (41), (The appearance of the Liquefaction and Solidification of Bodies Generally Existing "Historical Statement" showed that it, together with Faraday's as Gases" (45). He admitted to a "constant desire on my mind two papers and Davy's three supplements, comprised the to renew the investigation", occasioned by the publication of totality of their research findings, Their great haste to publish papers by M. Thilorier, coupled "with considerations arising had led to the fragmentation,) His report stood as a tacit out of the apparent simplicity and unity of the molecular warning to himself, to Davy, and to all scientists - searching the constitution of all bodies when in the gaseous or vaporous state literature for prior pertinent accounts is an integral part of the ,,," Passage of 20 years had altered neither the tenor of research process. Faraday found that the literature yielded Faraday's papers nor the brilliance of his experimentation, but ll. t. Ch. ( 2 his conceptualizations had altered. "through his hands", and Davy saw and revised the printer's The events preceding Faraday's successful election must proofs for Phil, Trans.. Faraday saw these acts as a "great have been an anguished time for both Davy and Faraday, The kindness", saving him from committing "various grammatical months during which Faraday's certificate was posted saw mistakes", as well as removing "awkward expressions .,, difficulties arise between two decent men: both were ambi- which might also have remained." Yet, although Faraday and tious, both were proud, both were honorable, and both were Davy continued as colleagues, to Faraday it seemed as if they bound by codes of proper behavior. Those difficulties cast a had become colleagues on a different level. shadow over the balloting process of 8 January 1824. Davy Davy's actions were predictable and complexly motivated, could not risk being present, should Warburton, or one of his He did not want to create the impression that Royal Institution friends, change his mind and speak against Faraday - and men had taken over the scientific community. Faraday's Warburton by his own admission had, on 19 May 1823, told memorandum of events showed that Davy's resignation as several people of his objection to Faraday's election, Davy - Honorary Professor at the Royal Institution in May of 1824 was the embodiment of caution - did not go to the Royal Society part of the sequence played out over Warburton's charges. meeting that day. While Davy continued as President of the Royal Society Who cast the black ball? We may probably never know, but (Brande was Secretary) he was also working for the govern- we know some of the people it cannot have been. We know it ment on naval ship corrosion, a project he could not share with could not have been Davy, nor could it have been Wollaston, Faraday. It meant adopting a new level of behavior - Davy because both were absent for the voting. It could not have been could no longer afford to be Faraday's scientific intimate. Warburton, since he promised Faraday his support, We know Although one would be hard-pressed to think of a candidate also the names of 29 others who would not have black-balled more deserving of Fellowship in the Royal Society, or of one Faraday, those who had signed his certificate. We can say that less likely to have advanced his reputation at another's ex- whoever it was may have been moved by Warburton's first pense, Faraday's candidacy became entwined with the desire denunciation (46). for reform inflaming some of the Fellows. The events offer an Despite the happy outcome of the election, the events of the abrupt and unanticipated glimpse into the complex politics summer produced repercussions. Faraday, in a letter to War- operating within the Society, Whatever else might be said of burton on 29 August, in which he thanked him for his support, it, the Royal Society was not a placid, untroubled body solely described his own feelings. "Two months ago", Faraday wrote preoccupied with the generation and contemplation of scien- (47): tific knowledge. After the death of Sir Joseph Banks, reform became a continual irritant. Reform meant more than redress- I hd d p nd t b rjtd b th l St ing grievances of and astronomers; it also ll, ntthtndn th nld I hd tht n ld d meant recognition, within the Society and without, voiced or jt: nd, n th thn tt f nd, rjtn r rptn ld unvoiced, that the Society existed primarily to honor those hv bn ll ndffrnt t . tht I hv xprnd whose main occupation was science; and that being a "scien- fll th ndn nd lbrlt f r. Wlltn, hh h bn tist" (the word was not coined until 1841) meant pursuing a ntnt thrht th hl f th ffr, nd tht I fnd n "profession", Faraday belonged on the rolls of the Society xprn f dll trn nd nrl trd , I d because he was an accomplished and brilliant professional. lhtd b th hp I hv f bn hnrd b llhp th th When Davy wrote across Shuckburgh's certificate that it St ... was unacceptable "there being no qualifications mentioned", he wished to establish a fundamental tenet of professionaliza- Faraday got his wish:, no one could deny his scientific creden- tion, One measure of "qualification" - publication - especially tials. But what of Davy? In 1836 Faraday recalled (48): publication in the pages of Philosophical Transactions, paral- leled a measure used by the older, established professions, I b n n n th rltn t ntf ntn They committed their members to the public performance of th Sr phr v ftr I b fll f th l St certain rituals: administering the sacraments, for example, or bfr tht prd ,.. meting justice. That public performance, however, could not occur until an aspiring professional had undergone certain rites Faraday thought Davy now behaved guardedly in his presence, of passage and had met established standards for performance. if not downright cautiously. When Faraday said he had "paid For the practicing scientist, rites of passage were not clear cut, for" his Fellowship, he meant he had written a public apology In 1821 British law had spoken directly to the issue, deeming to Wollaston, he had mollified a crusty Warburton, and he had that were not to be regarded as "professionals", but lost Davy's closest scientific confidences. Still, outwardly were to be regarded as mechanics (49), The distinction arose things remained the same. Not only did Davy see and revise because it did not seem to the judges that chemists were privy Faraday's manuscripts, but they went to the Royal Society to a body of peculiar knowledge: some of them (Faraday had been a prominent witness in the widely-reported case) obvi- Mr f th f f Sr phr v, 2 l, ndn, 86, l, ously had not attended a university; some spoke with "barba- 2, pp. 26 8. rous" accents; some maintained suspect political affiliations; 2. . n Jones, h f nd ttr f rd, 2 Vols, 2nd some espoused unconventional religious beliefs, Above all, ed., Longmans, , 1870, Vol, 2, p. 97. scientific knowledge appeared to accrue to anyone who took 3. Others refer to the social context surrounding Faraday's the trouble to acquire it, frequently without guidance from election as a "web of conflicting loyalties and commitments", See D. established "professionals". Yet, the Royal Society, by asking Gooding and F. A. J. L. James, rd dvrd, Macmillan, that proposed Fellows exhibit certain "qualifications", had, in London, 1985, p. 7. away, asked for the public performance of a ritual - publication 4. D, P. Miller, h l St f ndn 8008: A of scientific work previously reviewed by "professional" peers. Std n th Cltrl lt f Sntf Ornztn, h., th, Such a requirement introduced a unique condition into the Unvrt f nnlvn, 8 l "tn tl Cp: Sr requirements for a "professional" scientist. Unlike the clergy- ph v rdn f th l St f ndn 820 man, for example, whose license to baptize, once granted, 82, rt. . t. S., 1983, 6, 1-47, endured, the professional natural philosopher or scientist had, 5. H, Lyons, h l St, 60040, Cambridge Uni- in effect, to continue to renew his license by asserting his versity r, Cbrd, 44, p, 4. proficiency anew with each publication. Faraday could not be 6. Ibd,, pp, 341-342. We have accepted for the purposes of our faulted on such a score, for he had several times offered up his argument the numbers reported by Lyons, even though his compila- "qualifications" for public scrutiny. tion h nhrnt n. r th prd 40860, h The professions, moreover, commonly claimed adherence ntd "ntt" ll ll trzd thtn, to a set of ethical or moral guidelines. When Warburton set out trnr, ht, pht, nnr, rvr nd hdr to challenge Faraday's candidacy, he raised questions about rphr, ntrntr nd ptn, phn nd rn, Faraday's honesty. Clearly Warburton, viewing the commu- btnt, lt, zlt nd ntrlt, Althh n nity of illustrious men of science from the periphery, saw it as rrl th f h nnt, thr n b lttl dbt tht h one whose members cleaved to acode of ethical behavior. That nbr rvl tht th "r" f n r nfnt nr he eventually publicly absolved Faraday indicated that he t n th l St ntl t lt th dth ntr. thought Faraday had operated within acceptable boundaries - . A. . Grnvll, Sn Wtht d, rntd fr th although Warburton, a hard man to shake from an opinion, Athr, ndn, 80, p. . declared that he was only marginally pleased with Faraday's 8. frn , p. 42. explanation and apologies. Faraday's difficulties around his . r n nl f th ntrvr rrndn v l election dissolved when he showed that he had, indeed, be- tn t th rdn n 820, th pf rfrn t th tn haved professionally and adhered to the established code of f th ntf "rfrr" . . Glbrt, "h Eltn t th behavior, Before the election 29 members were convinced (if rdn f th l St n 820,"t . . S.,1955, any of them ever had doubts); many more expressed their II , 262. conviction by voting for him on 8 January 1824. 0. frn , p.. The circumstances surrounding Faraday's election to the . rhl t bb, 26 Aprl 822, hn rhl ppr, Royal Society reveal an emerging consensus within its mem- l St f ndn lbrr. th rhl nd bb r bership. Scientific achievement was becoming a sufficient tv n th vnt n th ntf ll t rfr th criterion for election, In a few more decades it would become St, h "ltn" rfrrd t prbbl v. , , the only criterion, The aristocratic Fellows lost interest in ltn, ltd S n 828. science as it became increasingly specialized and less compre- 2. llhp rtft f Sr rn Shbrh, l hensible to the dilettante. The power of the President passed St rhv, Qtd n . , llr, "phr v, to the Council, which achieved a majority of scientific mem- frr," n S. n, d,, Sn nd th Sn f Gn: Std n bers within a few years of Faraday's election. The Royal phr v, Sn v, ndn, 80, p. 84. pt Society was on the verge, after a century and a half of existence, v dpprvl, Shbrh fll ltd n of becoming a "scientific" society, and Fellowship in it was to Mrh 824, t nth ftr rd ltn. be reserved for scientific professionals, . l St Ctl f Sntf pr (800 86, h l St, ndn, 86. ffr, r rlbl r, References and Notes ltd ttl f bt 0 pbltn A. E. ffr, Mhl rd: A t f h tr nd blhd Wrtn, Chpn 1, h nt f th ltn prdr bd n th rnl nd ll, ndn, 60. f th l St, l. III, 882 nd l. I, 4. Qtd n rfrn 2, l. , p. 4. 8282 n A, , Grnvll, h l St n th Ith . frn , p, 244. Cntr, nn t l, ndn, 86, p nd on J, v 6, C, bb, fltn n th ln f Sn n En ll. t. Ch. ( 2

kind, rntd fr th Athr, ndn, 80, p. , h f ht h rt , . llr, "v rphr: . h 2 ntr n th rtft r fll: Wll t n Sntf rph," Sn, 66, , 282, d Wlltn, hn Gr Chldrn, Wll bntn, hn . Ibd., l. 2, p. 20, rdr Wll rhl, hn Gllrd, hrd hl 4. v, rfrn , l. 2, p. 64. hn v rvn lp, Chrl bb, Grnt vd Yt, h Clb, Wll ndd prpr, bt n drtn t t rd h hd d h tr rt, Wll nl Cnbr, nr h h, trt. It l nll tht th nr v "jl" f nl Mr, hn t, tr Mr t, At zz rd. h td p ndd nt f ndd tnh Grnvll,nthnrdrll,hrdrn Sll, Gr nt tht rd hd nt flt plld t dfnd Sr phr, rn, nr Erl, Glbrt ln, Sth, v Glbrt, dtfl nr "brthr" ht b xptd t d. r. v nd brt nl, Alxndr Crhtn, hn Artn r, hn rdr rd r bnd b vrl t: nt nl hd th bn rhl nll, Chrl thtt, Stdrt, h dntt f h vl t th l Intttn, th ppr t hv bn trtd prpr vn n th brphl rtr (r n nt p ntlltll n bt th fhn b Sr phr. nn lttr n . A. , . , d., h Crrpndn f . Mr. I. M. MCb, brrn f th l Intttn, r Mhl rd, l. , Inttt f Eltrl Ennr, . l prvdd th p. 8, hllp t rd, M 82, , rfrn , lttr 6. M. rd, "On th Cndntn f Svrl G nt , p. . d", hl. rn., 82, , 88 . v, "On th . rd t hllp, M 82, bd,, lttr 6, p, 6. Appltn f d rd b th Cndntn f G M 20. W, . Wlltn, . . S,, Cpl Ard Sph, 0 v hnl Ant", hl. rn., 82, 113, 20 nd "Appndx t br 820, l St rnl , th rdn pr. On th Chn n l rdtd n G 2. frn 2, l. , p, 0. n frnt Stt f nt b t", Ibd., 20420, 22. M, rd, "On S EltrMntl Mtn, . M. rd, "On th tr f th Cndntn f th nd n th hr f Mnt", Qrt. . S., 822, 2, 4642. G, n pl t r. v, Intrdd b S r n tht f 2. S . r Wll, Mhl rd, Sn nd Eltrnt ttn," hl, M., 86, 8, 22. Shtr, Yr, , pp, 0 fr n xtnv dn 8. frn 2, l. , p. 8, f th vnt. Al fl fr t lbrl f prr r . . v, "On th Appltn f d rd b th rfrn 2, l. , p, 24. Cndntn f G Mhnl Ant," hl. rn, 82, 24. W. . Wlltn t M, rd, vbr 82. Qtd , 20, p, , n rfrn 2, l, , p, 0, Wll (rfrn 2 th 40. h rr r nt nt t pl tht rd "d" "hllnl ld" rpl r ll t nl rprnttv f r r. ntrdtn f th "bnt" ld tb fr htn Wlltn nrll tr, ftn ln, rtn tl. th hlrn hdrt ltnl xhbtd nptl ndr 2. , Wrbrtn t M. rd, 8 l 82. bd., p. 2. tndn pld th btfl prtnl plt. Wht Wrbrtn rfrrd t rd ppr "trl Sttnt "r" rd dn f th phnn h xpltd ptn Eltrnt ttn," pblhd n l 82 n th nd drbd. Qrtrl , S., 82, , 28822. h nrpt f th ppr n 4. M, rd, "trl Sttnt ptn th f th rd Clltn t th l Intttn br th flln tn f G," Qrt., . S., 82, 6, 22240 pblhd nr nt n rd hnd: "th hn t Wlltn bfr bn 824, prntd h d pnl ltrtn nd dlrd t t b 42. . rthr, "Exprnt n th rbl Efft prftl tftr", S rrtd, th trnrpt bnd th Whh l n th G, b Chn n thr btd, r rd p f h ppr fr hl. rn. nr Wrbrtn Eltv Attrtn, Whn Mhnll Cprd," r. t. tbr rhnt, phlphl rdl nd Wh pltn h hl. S. Art., 80, 2, 6 "Exprnt n Cndnd l frndhp th Wlltn r t f thr tl ntrt n G," bd., 806, , 226, l. Wrbrtn hd bn Wlltn hn brphr h 4. S . Sdlr, An Explntn f r Ud n Chtr, r nvr pprd, ndn: l Intttn (804 22 pp. Sdlr dntd 26. M, rd t , Wrbrtn, M 82, bd., p. 080. "Chl Oprtr t th l Intttn" n th ttl p W, G, 2. frn 2, pp. 40. rrnt hld th jb fr 804806. Sn n 80 rrnt 28. Ibd, ld nt hv bn rfrrd t "lt," n ll llhd rthr 2. Ibd, p. , xprntd nd dd th lftn prbl th Sdlr, 0. , , W. rhl M. Qtd n rfrn , p. 2. 44. A br ndnn pp, . t n prhpd l . v t rd, 2 n 82, 2 l 82 nd 28 l rvr rtr nh th, nd phn . rthr l 82, lttr ll n th lltn f th Intttn f Eltrl rprtd h r dn rd n h l t prvnt pbl njr Ennr, ndn. fr httrd l h fll rprt th rdr rj tht h 2. , A, r, f f Sr phr v, 2 l, Clbrn nd th prttd, ntl, ndn, 80. r brdrd nd nlrd ndt n 4, M. rd, "On th ftn nd Sldftn f 28 ll. t. Ch. 11 (

d Gnrll Extn G," hl. rn., 1845, , . 46. It nt pbl t lt ll th h dd ttnd th tn nd prtptd n th vt, n ttndn rtr nt pt. hr rrd f ll h nd n t, hvr, nd fr th pprprt ntr n th rnl f th l St fr 824, n th flln ll r n ttndn: Wll Wln, Sth (, Alxndr Crhtn (, hn Knl, h Yn, h , Grv htn, hrd hllp (, Edrd rhtn, Grnt vd Yt (, Edrd Sbn, hn rdr nll (, pl Chvllr, hr l rrd f th h r prnt fr th l f th l St dnn lb tht flld th tn, It ll (bt nt rtn tht th l vtd n rd ltn: r. Wll G, Mtn, Wlbrh, . Mrd, . . W. rhl (, W, Wln (, W. Mrdn, A. hntn, brt, pr, rnn (prbbl rnd, h n rd th ( hd nd rd rtft. h thr thn r. rn f th l Intttn fr prvdn th lt f n, 4. rd t Wrbrtn, 2 At 82. Qtd n rfrn 2, l. l, p. , 48. Ibd., p. 40, 4. , . llr, "hnl, Chtr nd th n Erl th Cntr Enlnd," hnl nd Cltr. 1980, 2,2.

June Z. Fullmer is Professor of History at Ohio State Univer- sity, Columbus, OH 43210 and is author of "Sir Humphry Davy' s Published Works". Melvyn C, Usselman is Associate Professor of at the University of Western Ontario, London, N6A 5B7, Ontario, Canada and is interested in the A lt thntr dt f rd th n fr h lf n modern replication of classic experiments in the history of th rn, t tht th btt n h h ltrn. chemistry. He is currently working on a biography of William thr ntt h ftn bn dptd vn pplr ltr, In Hyde Wollaston. ddtn t th thr lltrtn n th rtl nd th v n th frnt vr, t lt t ddtnl prd dt f rd ltr n r nn t xt.

EDUCATING THE JUDGMENT: FARADAY his ability to relate to his audience. Thirdly, and most impor- AS A LECTURER tantly for the purpose of this paper, will be his appeal to ideas and values that transcended the particular scientific topics he Geoffrey Cantor, University of Leeds discussed, Turning first to Faraday's lecturing skills we find that many Those who heard Faraday lecture unanimously declared of his auditors praised his eloquence and the clarity of his that he was a superb teacher. Moreover, they claimed that exposition, For example, one lay member of his audience attendance at his lectures - whether a Friday Evening Dis- noted that he was "Always clear in his statements and explana- course, a series on a specific topic, or a set of Juvenile Lectures tions" (I), Others, especially men of science, were particularly - was a memorable experience. While there was consensus on attracted to his judicious use of illustrative experiments. Thus these matters, his auditors differed in their reactions to Faraday the American electrician was impressed by and his style of lecturing, This diversity is worth exploring and Faraday's "inimitable tact of experimenting" while William in the ensuing discussion I shall divide assessments into three Crookes described Faraday's virtuosity as "a sparkling stream categories, starting with references to the specific skills he of eloquence and experimental illustration" (2). Likewise the deployed in the lecture theatre. The second group of comments Genevan scientist Auguste De la Rive commented on Fara- refer to the personal qualities he projected and particularly to day's ability to "combine animated and often eloquent Ian-