[16] Except on nickel and cobalt, which are also para-magnetic metals. [17] For a graphic account by Hansteen of the circumstances of Oersted’s discovery, see Bence Jones’s “Life and Letters of Faraday,” vol. ii. p. 390. [18] “To the effect which takes place in this conductor [or uniting wire] and in the surrounding space, we shall give the name of the _conflict of electricity_.”... “From the preceding facts we may likewise collect that this conflict performs circles; for without this condition, it seems impossible that the one part of the uniting wire, when placed below the magnetic pole, should drive it towards the east, and when placed above it towards the west; for it is the nature of a circle that the motions in opposite parts should have an opposite direction.”--H. C. OERSTED, _Ann. of Phil._, Oct., 1820, pp. 273–276. [19] This is an error due to haste in writing. [20] See a paper by the author in the _Philosophical Magazine_ for June, 1895, entitled “Note on a Neglected Experiment of Ampère.” [21] Compare Dumas, “Éloge Historique de Michel Faraday,” p. xxxiii., who gives the above statement. Arago’s own account to the _Académie_ differs slightly. [22] This ring Faraday is represented as holding in his hand in the beautiful marble statue by Foley which stands in the Entrance Hall of the Royal Institution. The ring itself is still preserved at the Royal Institution amongst the Faraday relics. The accompanying cut (Fig. 4) is facsimiled from Faraday’s own sketch in his laboratory note-book. [23] Now in the possession of the author, to whom it was given by his kinswoman Lady Wilson, youngest daughter of Richard Phillips. [24] The day of the Annual Meeting and election of Council of the Royal Society. [25] This is a slip in the description; the momentary current induced in the secondary wire on making the current in the primary is _inverse_: it is succeeded by a momentary _direct_ current when the primary current is stopped. [26] This doubtless refers to Whewell, of Cambridge, whom he was in the habit of consulting on questions of nomenclature. [27] A man of fashion who had, without any claim to distinction, wormed himself into scientific society, posed as a savant, and had delivered a high-flown oration on botany at the Royal Institution. [28] The use of this term, as distinguished from production, to distinguish between the primary generation of a current in a voltaic cell, a thermopile, or a friction-machine, by chemical or molecular action, and its indirect production without contact or communication of any material sort, as by motion of a wire near a magnet or by secondary influence from a neighbouring primary current while that current is varying in strength or proximity, is exceedingly significant. Faraday’s own meaning in adopting it is best grasped by referring to p. 1 of the “Experimental Researches”:--