Showing 27 results

Expresses his pleasure at receiving Sidgwick's letter, and at the news that the latter had joined the Free Christian Union. Reports that the anniversary meeting is that day or the next, but he is unable to attend. Hopes that Sidgwick will go. Expresses his anxiety in relation to the Church of England. Refers to Tyndale [John Tyndall?]'s theory on spiritualism, and observes that the Physical Science men 'seem to leave out of sight the fact that if they have no emotional side to their own nature, it is a very important element in the nature of most people.'

Explains that he has been too busy during the previous two months to read very much material that was not connected with his work. Declares a book by 'Miss Ogle', [Lady Verney] Stone Edge, to be 'a pretty and restful novel'. Refers also to The Lost Love, and to the fact that people say that it was written by a Lady Verney. States that [ ] B[ ] has taken up much of his time, because he has been reviewing him for the Theological Review. Asks Sidgwick if he has read a book called the French Revolution by Heinrich von Sybel [1867] History of the French Revolution].

Announces that he is going abroad with three or four of his pupils, and that Mr Paul is accompanying them; they start on Monday 3 August for the Rhine as far as Constance, and then maybe go by Munich and Prague to Dresden, where they intend to stay a fortnight, and get home about 10 September. Between that date and 12 October he hopes that Sidgwick will be able to visit them, and suggests that it would be nice if he came to Dresden. Tells him to come before 3 August if he is unable to come after their return, but is unsure when they will be able to receive him. Explains that one of his sisters is to be married, and is coming to stay, along with her fiancé. Tells Sidgwick to let him know when he can come.

Announces that he intends to come to visit her 'from the 4th to the 11th'. Reports that he is up in Trinity College, working, and that he feels very well after a pleasant visit to Oxford. Reports that William seemed in very good spirits, and that he was sleeping 'very fairly' and hunts every other day. Desires to hear the Rugby news, and asks who are the five old Rugbeians. Reports that he wrote a letter to the Times, but that it was not published. Reports that he received a letter from his nephew Martin, which was 'very nicely written and with that curious mixture of childish and prematurely adult phraseology that one sees in a precocious child'. Asks her to tell him when Mary is going to visit her, and supposes that Edward will be very busy all the vacation.

Asks his mother's opinion on 'the new Tennyson'. States that they [in Trinity College] regard it 'as rather an imposition on the part of the publisher - republishing the Morte d'Arthur...and having so few lines in a page.' Complains that it is as bad as one of Victor Hugo's novels. Refers to a reading of the poem called The Higher Pantheism by Tennyson himself at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society, and to Tyndall's reaction to it. Remarks on 'how busy Death has been' during the previous six months among those whom he knows. Reports that he has just heard of the death of one of the Clifton Masters called Cay.

Edinburgh - Is it true that Robert L. Ellis has died? Ever since JDF first met him some twenty years ago in Bath, 'I have felt a lively interest, amounting to a kind of fascination' in him. If he is dead 'I hope that some one who could do him justice will write a short memorial of him'. Has WW heard anything of a 'supposed discovery by Dr Tyndall [John Tyndall] in the theory of glaciers?' From what JDF has heard, it 'consists in showing the brittleness of ice and the facility of its reintegration. Now this I thought had been proved by me to be the cause of the 'veined structure' as resulting from the partial sliding of a infinity of bruised surfaces into which the ice is split when ever the differential velocity of the glacier is considerable'.

Edinburgh - References to Henri Victor Regnault's researches on steam and his formula are given in the Memoires de l'Academie des Sciences and occupy a whole volume printed in 1847. HVR's hygrometer [an instrument which measures the humidity of the air or other gases] is superior to Daniell's [John F. Daniell]: 'It acts by drawing air by aspiration through ether in a tube, whose exterior is silvered and receives the dew'. JDF has difficulty answering WW's question about the Polarity of Bismuth: 'My impression on reading Tyndall's paper was in his favour, but not quite confidently [John Tyndall. On the Existence of a Magnetic Medium in Space, 1855]. On the other hand I do not know what opinion Faraday has of late maintained. I confess that his language and that of Thomson (who is understood to agree with him) is almost metaphysically obscure and that Thomson in his later published correspondence with Tyndall seemed to me almost to admit the fact except in words'.

JDF encloses a letter he received from William Thomson [not present], in which he answers a question JDF put to him regarding 'Faraday's and Tyndall's views of the polarity of Bismuth. For myself I can attach no meaning to the magnetic of space per se' [John Tyndall. On the Existence of a Magnetic Medium in Space, 1855].

24 Bryanston Street, W.—Discusses the Cliffords’ health and movements. The doctors do not think that Willi should return to England yet. She and Fred think of coming to join them, perhaps with the children. Gives news of their present activities and engagements.

—————

Transcript

24 Bryanston Street W
June 13./78

Dearest Lucy

A great many thanks for 2 letters from Malta & Genoa w[hic]h I got the day before yesterday, & for the others from Malta w[hic]h I could not acknowledge as we had no address. We were thankful that Malta seemed to suit Willi & that you fell in with pleasant friends. It was a great pity that you had an accident & were laid up; how did it happen? I do hope you are quite right again. I hope you took your journey to Lugano very very quietly and that you will soon establish yourselves comfortably at Monte Generoso. Fred wrote to you yesterday to tell you of his interview with Dr Clark. He said that nothing he sh[oul]d like better than to order you home in August or so, it would be so good for Willi morally, but that unless he really improves in the next month it would be most imprudent. Both he & Dr Beatty agree that in his present state nothing wd be worse for Willi than an English climate. You know Fred & I have set our hearts upon joining you wherever you are when the time comes for our holiday, at the Rieder Alp or in Yorkshire or Scotland & I sometimes think that we might easily manage to bring out both our kids so as to enjoy them altogether—I mean Ethel & Alice & perhaps C. Alice too. We shd not bring Alice if we cd not bring Ethel too. Don’t you think it would make Willi happier to stay abroad if he were to see his little girl & have her for about 4 weeks? Everybody goes abroad in August & if you were to come home you would find all your friends scattered. We have been staying with Mrs Ritchie near Windsor for Whitsuntide, & they & the Douglas Freshfields are all thinking of going to the Rieder Alp with great enthusiasm. The Tyndalls would be close by at the Bel Alp. So that on the whole I cannot help thinking you would enjoy yourselves more in Switzerland in August than in Great Britain, & that I suspect would be the only month Willi would be allowed home.

The W. Colliers are in London for a week & ask after you. Also we have some Dutch people over here to entertain. We did so enjoy our holiday in the country & London feels most dreadfully stuffy & stale on coming back. It is a joy to breathe in the country. Fred will have told you about Walter’s lecture at the R.I. They went to St Julians for their holiday & the parents are in Paris. I am a great deal better, in fact quite well. We are to take our Dutchman & woman to the R.I. tomorrow to hear Prof. Dewar on the Liquefaction of Gases. An interesting article in Mind next month will be “An infant’s Progress in Language”—i.e. Alice’s, done by her dada. I do hope you will be happy at Monte Generoso & meet friends. Best love to yr old man & you. Ever dear Lucy yr affectionate

GHP.

Edinburgh - JDF is interested in what WW has to say regarding Barrow [Barrow and his Academical Times, 1859]. He is sorry to hear of Robert L. Ellis's very ill state. Is it true that Adams [Couch Adams] has accepted the mathematical chair at St. Andrews? There is endless talk on the improvement of the British universities and JDF thinks they 'may be materially improved; but the misfortune is that those who combine to make a clamour have few ideas in the least in common...I do not think however that the worst of us would do anything more ridiculous than Oxford has done with her associates'. Can WW advise him what to do regarding John Tyndall's 'papers which profess to rectify my theories about glaciers. I am not disposed now-a-days to enter into controversy if I can help it...and there is an especial difficulty in this case that Tyndall has gradually paved away so much of what was definitely controvertible in his earlier papers that one does not know where to hold him, the differences become so fine'. JDF would not therefore worry, but 'On the other hand I have been informed that he makes a considerable impression in London and that his repeated returns to the subject, and my silence, create an impression that he has obtained a victory'. Could WW find out what the prevalent opinion is?.

Dysart Cottage, Pitlochry, N.B. - JDF congratulates WW on his marriage to Lady Everina E. Affleck. 'Our university Bill lodges enormous powers in the hands of certain commissioners and courts. Thus far we think it a matter of some anxiety. But in Edinburgh the evil of town council domination and the absence of endowments have been so keenly felt, that we are nearly unanimous in favour of a change even although we cannot tell precisely how it is to work. We have much to gain and little to lose'. JDF agrees with WW's advice 'not to meddle with Dr Tyndall' [see JDF to WW, 1 April 1858]. In a recent lecture given by Tyndall at the Royal Institution, he 'has admitted the slender difference between his opinion and mine and on the whole has shown the wish to render me full justice'.

Glasgow - WT [later Lord Kelvin] attended Michael Faraday's lecture on Gravitation, and spoke to both him and John Tyndall: 'I made a slight attack on Tyndall by asking him to explain to me the distinction between a viscous solid and a plastic solid. He said that before the end of a year it would be very clear. Which ever word is the most appropriate is the best expression of your theory as I have always understood it. As to the clear and porous alternate layers proving the veined structure, I do not know whether you lay much stress on the explanation Tyndall quotes as yours. It may be true what Tyndall says - that it is occasioned by pressure but that is no explanation'. Many writers have assumed that pressure is the cause of the clearage in slate mountains: 'It is a real thing proved if Tyndall or any one else can prove the clearage surfaces to be perpendicular to the lines of maximum compression'. In diamagnetics WT holds that Weber [Wilhelm Weber] and Tyndall have illustrated by experiment conclusions deducible (and which I deduced in 1846) from Faraday's forces experienced by bismuth; that they have established no new conclusion'. Faraday does not seem to perceive the relation with Weber's phenomena and even doubts Weber's results; 'Tyndall's repetition of Weber's experiment (described in the Phil. Trans.) confirmed the results and removed the possibility of such doubts as Faraday had temporarily raised. Not one of these experiments touches the ultimate nature of the magnetic effect experienced by the substance of a piece of bismuth, since the resultant external action is necessaily the same whether air in the surrounding medium is unpolarised and bismuth severly, or the surrounding medium and the substance of the bismuth both polarised directly (like a 'paramagnetic') but the surrounding medium more so than the bismuth'. Many of Tyndall's experiments simply prove things that did not require proving: 'In reality no testing experiment has ever been made to distinguish between two hypothesis: and I agree (I believe) with Faraday in thinking the second the more probable of the two true (I had a good deal of this in a letter to Tyndall which he published in the Phil. Mag. April 1855)'. WT has been occupied chiefly with electrometers and electroscopes in the apparatus room.

Glasgow - WT feels 'very strongly inclined towards Faraday's view that the substance of a diamagnetic is polar like oxygen or iron, when near a magnet, but that it is less so than the surrounding medium'. John Tyndall 'is in error if he still supposes that either his experiments or Weber's, or any others yet made affords a test as to whether this hypothesis, or true hypothesis that bismuth and the like, have a polarity the reverse of that of iron in the same circumstances. The resultant external force between a diagmagnet and paramagnet is demonstrably the same which ever hypothesis is true; and those experiments are solely indicative of resultant external force' [see WT to James Forbes, 19 March 1857]. Perhaps Faraday doubted Weber's [Wilhelm Weber] experiment gave any other result and he certainly doubted the truth of the interpretation put on Weber's results. 'Tyndall's repetition of Weber's experiment I believe convinced Faraday that the result was genuine'. WT has written a short article in the Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal in May 1846, which 'contains principles and mathematical expressions, founded solely on what Faraday told me in his first paper, which lead in the most obvious way to the determination of all such forces as those which Weber and Tyndall observed'. WT describes what a (mechanical) explanation of electromagnetic induction would entail. Regarding 'Ampere's [André Ampere] theory of real motions in minute circular orbits or vortices, with axes on the whole set in the directions of the line of force, to account for magnetism, I think it is probably true. The magnetic optic discovery seems explicable on no other hypothesis. Since Foucault's [Jean Foucault] exhibition at Liverpool I have been much disposed to look on the gyroscope as an illustration of a magnet. It is of course difficult to see how a current ([?] of matter flowing) through a straight wire can induce among the thermal motions in the surrounding medium, eddies of which the axes are circles in planes perpendicular to the wire; and how eddies in a steel bar magnet with their axes on the whole parallel to its length can induce among the surrounding thermal motions, eddies rooted to the steel at each end...Still it is not beyond expectation that a definite mechanical explanation of such influences may be invented'. If this is done it simply shows that magnetic attraction is a product of pressure along the axes of eddies, caused by centrifugal force. An 'explanation of electromagnetic induction would have to be looked for by considering mechanically the effects produced by moving as whole, pieces of matter among the particles of which these are vortical motions with determined sets'. WT does 'not see how a momentary recoil in the surrounding matter can account for electromagnetic induction'. Nevertheless 'there may be lateral action at or near the boundaries of the conductor in its interior with a reaction causing the external induced current'. WT thinks 'Faraday must be right in supposing both electric action to be conducted through matter and by means of the matter through which it is conducted'. 'Is it credible that matter can act where it is not? Were not those of the schoolmen who demonstrated a universal Plenum right?' WT wonders whether WW can come up with any epithets for recent developments in electrostatics: 'I would like to be able to distinguish between systems in which the electricity to be tested is tried by one, and by two, independently electrified bodies'. He would also like names to distinguish electrometers.

Refuting suggestions of Carlyle's hostility towards science.

Pitlochry, N.B. - JDF 'heard that Huxley's [Thomas Huxley] attack on the Bishop of Oxford in re Darwin [Charles Darwin]', at the BAAS meeting in Oxford, 'was most indecent'. What is JDF to do regarding John Tyndall's recently published book on glaciers? JT has implied that JDF suppressed Rendu's glacier theory in a way which 'is so cunningly constructed to mislead that I fear it will be inevitable for me to notice it'.

Pitlochry, N.B. - JDF thanks WW for the account of the eclipse he witnessed from Bayonne in Spain - 'certainly the most wonderful spectacle in nature'. He is 'greatly indebted' to WW for the advice he gave regarding John Tyndall and will act upon it [see JDF to WW, 14 July 1860]. He was going to write a reply in the Athenaeum - 'but I am now satisfied that this would provoke needless controversy the London Weekly Periodical critics are too many for me'. He will therefore write a pamphlet in the tone WW suggests - ''rather for the information of others than to justify myself'' [Reply to Professor Tyndall's Remarks in his Work 'On the Glaciers of the Alps' re. Rendu's 'Theorie des Glaciers', 1860]. He has had correspondence in support from Lyon Playfair even though he is 'a warm admirer of Tyndall', and M. De La Rene - 'an old acquaintance and correspondent of Rendu'. Will WW consider writing an article on the subject in the Quarterly Review 'which is not yet committed'.

Pitlochry, N.B. - JDF will shortly submit to WW his reply to John Tyndall [Reply to Professor Tyndall's Remarks in his Work 'On the Glaciers of the Alps' re. Rendu's 'Theorie des Glaciers', 1860]: 'If you find anything redundant, or unsatisfactory or out of temper, you will do me a favour by marking freely'. Did WW receive his letter in Paris, in which 'I ventured to suggest your writing an article on the glacier theory in the Quarterly, where the question is still open' [see JDF to WW, 31 July 1860]. He has received surprise support from John Moore Heath, 'with whom a year ago I had a rather unsatisfactory correspondence on the subject. He was then apparently on Tyndall's side. He now writes that Tyndall's own Book has fully convinced him that I am entirely in the right and he gives in his letter a masterly refutation of some of his alleged demonstrations against viscosity'.

Pitlochry - JDF understands WW's objections to reviewing [JDF asked him to review John Tyndall's book on glaciers. See JDF to WW, 19 Aug. 1860]: 'It was a mere suggestion on my part'. He will be sending WW his reply to Tyndall in two days time. JDF thinks it curious that the Athenaeum has not yet taken any notice of Tyndall's book. WW is to give any positive or negative comments he has on its content, style and length, and his view on the form in which it should be published.

Pitlochry - JDF is seeking more advice from WW regarding his reply to John Tyndall ['Reply to Professor Tyndall's Remarks in his Work 'On the Glaciers of the Alps' re. Rendu's 'Theorie des Glaciers'', 1860. See JDF to WW, 24 August 1860]. Should he notice the parts in Tyndall's text in which he attributes an equal share of JDF's glacier theory to Louis Agassiz.

Pitlochry - Thanks WW for all his corrections regarding his reply to John Tyndall ['Reply to Professor Tyndall's Remarks in his Work 'On the Glaciers of the Alps' re. Rendu's 'Theorie des Glaciers'', 1860. See JDF to WW, 24 August 1860]: 'I have availed myself of nearly all your suggestions and the pamphlet will be published without delay'. JDF has noticed 'a striking change in the tone of the Athenaeum towards Tyndall' which he cannot explain.

St. Andrew's - JDF is enjoying he new position and life at St. Andrew's: 'Altogether I feel that God has been very good to me'. He is grateful that WW still maintains an interest in the glacier question, and gives his views on two recent articles. JDF believes that his reply to John Tyndall 'has opened the eyes of some' ['Reply to Professor Tyndall's Remarks in his Work 'On the Glaciers of the Alps' re. Rendu's 'Theorie des Glaciers'', 1860. See JDF to WW, 24 August 1860].

Pitlochry, Perthshire - A railway is currently being built 'proceeding direct from Perth to Inverness. It is strange how one becomes accustomed to anything, and we all find an interest in seeing engineering difficulties overcome, and in studying a little the not unamiable character of the multitude of working men thrown amongst us'. JDF finds plenty of work to do at St. Andrew's - 'I have not found time heavy'. Has WW seen John Tyndall's recent publication, 'Mountaineering in 1857'?: 'I felt my blood rise some what at the audacity of the attempt to give Mr Hopkins the credit of discovering the mechanical action of glaciers on their rocky beds; a matter in which neither Mr Hopkins nor I have the smallest part, belonging as it does in its entirety to the Swiss school, and Dr Charpentier in particular. With a duplicity peculiar by his own Tyndall names De Charpentier, Agassiz etc in second rank to Hopkins, as if they had been his followers in this matter!!' JDF has written a reply to the book intended for the Athenaeum, but has decided against sending it.

Pitlochry, Perthshire - JDF declines WW's invitation to the BAAS meeting at Cambridge: 'In addition to the fatigue of the journey and the bustle of the occasion I should have to meet in the section with persons who look at me with unfriendly eyes, and with whom I have not now nerve personally to contend...I have withdrawn from the struggle, though I can defend by the pen what I believe to be true. At the Association, General Sabine, Mr Hopkins and Dr Tyndall will be in the ascendant, and I should feel uncomfortable; - possibly they might also'. JDF sends the letter [still attached] he had intended to send to the Athenaeum as a reply to Tyndall's recent book [see JDF to WW, 29 June 1862].

Pitlochry, Perthshire - JDF gives his answers to WW's questions. Firstly, 'crevasses' - 'it is now generally allowed...to have a very secondary importance in the theory of glacier motion'. The 'zig zag form of the glacier complicates matters very much by superimposing different systems'. JDF has always maintained that the direction of crevasses is perpendicular to the veined structure, which is often almost the same as perpendicular to the curves of motion. JDF gives an historical overview of the views of the principal scholars involved in glacier theory, and their views on glacier motion. Secondly, 'veined structure' - 'From the very first I affirmed that the veined structure 'appears' to be perpendicular to the lines of greatest pressure'. John Tyndall and William Hopkins simply reiterate this. 'Nor can I for the life of me make out that Tyndall has found or stated any physical reason why pressure produces the effect, beyond William Thomson's explanation of the fact, which I fear is too subtle to be true'. JDF has 'never pretended to be able to define with precision forms which on my theory of differential motion of a semifluid or plastic mass, the vents, producing by reattachment the veined structure, would assume'. He does not think anybody in this country - except perhaps William Thomson, George Stokes and maybe George Airy - 'could grapple with the problem. The quasi fluid pressure of a plastic mass and its comparatively small tangential resistance, cannot be left out of account'. JDF's mechanical principles are generally adequate to the explanation. Above all he relies on 'Plastic models, to the results of which (on this subject) my adversaries have never dared to allude'. The models show the forms of fluid motion and were reproduced by Tyndall in the Philosophical Transactions 'with an almost illusory acknowledgement to me'. However, his most impressive model in which powdered surfaces are 'broken up by tangential motion' and realigned into 'thread like bands' corresponding to those on glaciers, as well as possessing partial crevasses exactly perpendicular to them, 'have been kept studiously out of sight'. Tyndall and Hopkins no longer send him 'copies of papers or books in which I am most deeply interested, and in which my name is most freely used'.

Pitlochry, Perthshire - Has WW seen in the Philosophical Magazine for July, August and September a controversy involving John Tyndall and James Joule over 'a question of priority, much resembling Tyndall's advocacy of Rendu at my expense?' The dispute centres on the ''Dynamical theory of heat' or the 'convertibility of force' and the meteonic theory of the sun's heat'. Tyndall gives the credit of these theories to 'an unknown German physician named Mayer'. William Thomson and Joule 'are treated a good deal in the way I was'. Both have written replies, Joule in the Philosophical Magazine and Thomson in the Glasgow periodical called 'Good Words'. JDF gives a long quote from Thomson's piece.

Writes in reply to Sidgwick's plea for a recommendation of a teacher. Observes that Sidgwick's difficulty is enhanced by the range of subjects which he requires the teacher to undertake. Suggests that he limit himself for the present 'to such subjects as can be taught in a real and healthy manner'. Claims that the back-bone of modern science is formed by chemistry and physics. Announces that he knows of one man who is likely to suit Sidgwick's requirements: a German, Dr Debus, who is a chemist, has a thorough knowledge of physics and is a good mathematician. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and an examiner of the University of London. He has been teaching boys in England for the previous fifteen years. Explains that he recommended him some time ago to a professorship at Sandhurst 'but they preferred an Englishman.'

Explains that Sidgwick's note was forwarded to him, and hopes that he understands the delay. Discusses the 'passable candidates' for a post referred to by Sidgwick. Claims that because of the size of the remuneration, he would get 'the pick of all the scientific men who have not any Professorship or similar appointment, provided other conditions suited.' Believes that the multiplicity of subjects to be taught could cause problems. Lays down who he believes are the actual classes of men 'who might become candidates'; [assistants] to professors, especially to [professors] of chemistry; medical men who have made a special study of some branch of science; '[G]eologists who have been educated at the school of [mines] and either are or have been employed on the Geological Survey'; Oxford and Cambridge men. Refers to academical degrees and claims that 'the only ones of any value in this respect are German degrees and the Science degrees of the University of London.' Discusses the difference between a B.Sc. and a D.Sc. Claims that he could mention individuals 'who have only lately got appointments elsewhere and who would have jumped at [the] office a short time ago'.

Believes that 'any one of the great scientific men who lives by his [ ] would have thought himself very lucky to get such a place [by] the age of 30, eg. Huxley, Tyndall etc.' Predicts that if Sidgwick advertises the post he will be certain to get a great many applications 'unless some great names should be put forward.' Thinks that Geology 'will be the rarest accomplishment as it is really rather a pursuit than a science or at any rate, it is the application of several sciences.' Thanks Sidgwick for sending Swinburne, and declares that he is glad Sidgwick's weight 'is on the side of the party who can admire even while holding their noses.'

Is aiming to be in the Alps on the 6th of July.

Belfast.—Refers to a visit to Lucy’s parents and to his activities at the British Association meeting. Fred’s letter has been praised. Sends sympathy to Fred’s legs.

(With an envelope.)

—————

Transcript

Belfast—Sunday

My dear Georgie

I am ashamed to have taken so long to thank you for your very kind letter and Fred’s. Just before I came here to the Brit. Ass. {1} we went to see our parents {2} who are staying at Worthing. I broke the matter gently to the papa after dinner by lifting a glass of wine and saying cheerfully “Well, here’s to our closer relationship.” He was however fond of billiards, and I have regretted ever since that I did not get on to that subject and say “By the way, talking of hazards, I understand that I am going to marry your daughter.” I must now get engaged to some other girl whose father is fond of billiards, in order to say that to him. Lucy says I have never properly proposed yet, so I am going to do it the day before; she says she will say no, which of course is immaterial; for if you begin by letting your wife have a will of her own in important questions of that sort, there is no knowing where you will stop. I shewed Fred’s letter to Tyndall, & Spencer, who passed it on to Huxley, and they were all delighted. This morning Corfield, Atchison & I went to Section 4, to hear Prof. Jellett preach; {3} it was the first time I had been in such a building since your wedding. Atchison nearly killed us by wanting to know if we could not go on the platform with our tickets (general committee, marked red). It was the only place where there was any room. Now I must go and post this or the Reception Room will be closed. Give my best love to Fred and my sympathies to his legs; and believe me

Yours always
Willi

[Direction on envelope:] Mrs Pollock | Gill’s Fernery {4} | Lynton | Barnstaple | Devon

—————

The envelope was postmarked at Belfast on 24 August 1874.

{1} A meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science was held at Belfast between 19 and 26 August 1874. See The Times.

{2} i.e. Lucy’s parents.

{3} Section 4 was probably the Section for Mathematical and Physical Science, over which Jellett had presided on previous days. See The Times.

{4} A fern nursery established by Edmund Gill in 1858.

79: Contains anecdote re Thomas Carlyle at Fryston.