Showing 5 results

Collingwood - JH has got WW's proofs and gives his suggestions for improving his tide paper for the Admiralty Manual [John Herschel ed., Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry, 1849]. He has not yet got Frederick Beechey's proofs. Does WW 'think 1 or 2 days enough in a quite strong locality to decide that the tides are regular?' JH gives his view of Neptune's orbit.

JH cannot alter Frederick Beechey's paper without his request and he does not know his address.

32 Harley Street - JH does not think that WW's and Frederick Beechey's two forms of tide registry are inconsistent 'only that they are each a more condensed abstract of the other with some additional matter in the way of conclusions drawn'. Beechey provides two forms, of which, WW's form can be filled in from the second -''Registry of tides -...for the month''. WW thanks JH for his political economy concerning the question of exchanges and currency: 'I think you and Jacob [William Jacob] overestimate the 'wear and tear'. There is a distinction - Fair wear and tear is I apprehend very small and as for what is lost by unfair it is only lost to the coin but not to the stock of Bullion in the country as it goes forthwith...into the melting pot and thence into the market'. JH wants WW's notion of a decimal coinage.

32 Harley Street - JH did not mean to imply that the observer using WW's tide paper in the Admiralty Manual [John Herschel ed., Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry, 1849] should be familiar with all WW's tide papers in the Phil. Trans., but that his tide registry table cannot be at once and simply filled in from observation. It is a registry of results. Each entry is a conclusion from many readings of the tide gage and the clock'. If WW does not approve of Frederick Beechey's forms then he should give some other form. For the methodical observation of the heights and time of high and low water it is best to have printed forms.

32 Harley Street - JH thinks both WW's and Frederick Beechey's respective forms for tide registry liable to mistakes [John Herschel ed., Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry, 1849]. He therefore proposes an alternative version which he has enclosed.