“Admiral Smyth, F.R.S., &c., &c., &c.”
Shortly afterwards I received a very friendly letter from Mrs. Smyth, the tenor of which will be sufficiently understood from what follows:—
“Hampstead, 20th January, 1865.
“Dear Mrs. Smyth,—Many thanks for your letter. Pray don’t let the Admiral withdraw himself from his present work. My theory can wait, or I may find an opportunity of consulting some other authority.
“Our kindest regards.
“Very truly yours,
“Rowland Hill.”
I accordingly, on the 14th February following, addressed a letter—similar to the one to Admiral Smyth—to my friend, Mr. Warren De La Rue, then President—as Admiral Smyth had once been—of the Astronomical Society; but although Mr. De La Rue took much trouble to ascertain whether my theory had, as he thought, been suggested before, it was not till long afterwards that he was able to give any definite information on the subject.
In a letter of July 9th, 1866, Mr. De La Rue drew my attention to a paper by Mr. Balfour Stewart in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which, in the opinion of Mr. De La Rue, “gives a very explicit enunciation” of the theory.
On referring to the paper in question (Vol. XXIII, part iii.), I found that it was read on the 18th April, 1864, and the following is an extract from a memorandum which I made on the subject:—“Indirectly, by showing a probable connexion between the maxima and minima of Sun-spots and the rotation of Jupiter about the Sun, and by suggesting that the periodic variations of the stars is caused by the rotation of large planets about them, Mr. Balfour Stewart has, I think, forestalled me.” Perhaps, however, I may be justified in doubting whether the enunciation here given is very explicit.