This is a modern-English version of Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of Its Causes, originally written by Babbage, Charles.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
REFLECTIONS ON THE DECLINE OF SCIENCE IN ENGLAND,
AND ON SOME OF ITS
CAUSES.
By Charles Babbage
DEDICATION.
HAD I INTENDED TO DEDICATE THIS VOLUME, I SHOULD HAVE INSCRIBED IT TO A NOBLEMAN WHOSE EXERTIONS IN PROMOTING EVERY OBJECT THAT CAN ADVANCE SCIENCE REFLECT LUSTRE UPON HIS RANK. BUT THE KINDNESS OF HIS NATURE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PAINED AT HAVING HIS NAME CONNECTED WITH STRICTURES, PERHAPS TOO SEVERELY JUST. I SHALL, THEREFORE, ABSTAIN FROM MENTIONING THE NAME OF ONE WHO WILL FEEL THAT HE HAS COMMANDED MY ESTEEM AND RESPECT.
HAD I MEANT TO DEDICATE THIS VOLUME, I WOULD HAVE INSCRIBED IT TO A NOBLEMAN WHOSE EFFORTS IN ADVANCING EVERY CAUSE THAT CAN FURTHER SCIENCE REFLECT GLORY ON HIS STATUS. HOWEVER, HIS KIND NATURE MIGHT HAVE BEEN HURT BY HAVING HIS NAME ASSOCIATED WITH CRITICISMS THAT MAY BE PERCEIVED AS TOO HARSH. THEREFORE, I WILL AVOID MENTIONING THE NAME OF SOMEONE WHO WILL KNOW THAT HE HAS EARNED MY ESTEEM AND RESPECT.
C. BABBAGE.
C. Babbage.
DORSET STREET, MANCHESTER SQUARE, 29th April, 1830.
DORSET STREET, MANCHESTER SQUARE, April 29th, 1830.
PREFACE.
Of the causes which have induced me to print this volume I have little to say; my own opinion is, that it will ultimately do some service to science, and without that belief I would not have undertaken so thankless a task. That it is too true not to make enemies, is an opinion in which I concur with several of my friends, although I should hope that what I have written will not give just reason for the permanence of such feelings. On one point I shall speak decidedly, it is not connected in any degree with the calculating machine on which I have been engaged; the causes which have led to it have been long operating, and would have produced this result whether I had ever speculated on that subject, and whatever might have been the fate of my speculations.
I have little to say about why I've decided to publish this volume; I believe it will ultimately contribute to science, and without that belief, I wouldn’t have taken on such a thankless task. It’s unfortunately true that it might create some enemies, a sentiment that several of my friends share, though I hope what I’ve written won’t justify those feelings. One thing I want to be clear about is that this work is not at all related to the calculating machine I’ve been working on; the reasons that led to this have been at play for a long time and would have resulted in this outcome regardless of whether I had ever thought about that topic or what might have happened to my ideas.
If any one shall endeavour to account for the opinions stated in these pages by ascribing them to any imagined circumstance peculiar to myself, I think he will be mistaken. That science has long been neglected and declining in England, is not an opinion originating with me, but is shared by many, and has been expressed by higher authority than mine. I shall offer a few notices on this subject, which, from their scattered position, are unlikely to have met the reader's attention, and which, when combined with the facts I have detailed in subsequent pages, will be admitted to deserve considerable attention. The following extract from the article Chemistry, in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, is from the pen of a gentleman equally qualified by his extensive reading, and from his acquaintance with foreign nations, to form an opinion entitled to respect. Differing from him widely as to the cause, I may be permitted to cite him as high authority for the fact.
If anyone tries to explain the views expressed in these pages by blaming them on some personal circumstance of mine, I think they’ll be mistaken. The fact that science has been neglected and is in decline in England isn’t an idea I came up with; it’s a sentiment shared by many and has been voiced by authorities higher than mine. I’ll share a few observations on this topic, which are likely to be overlooked due to their scattered nature, and when combined with the facts I discuss in later pages, I believe they will deserve significant attention. The following excerpt from the article on Chemistry in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana comes from someone who is well-read and knowledgeable about other nations, making his opinion worthy of respect. Although I disagree with him on the cause, I feel justified in citing him as a credible authority on the matter.
"In concluding this most circumscribed outline of the History of Chemistry, we may perhaps be allowed to express a faint shade of regret, which, nevertheless, has frequently passed over our minds within the space of the last five or six years. Admiring, as we most sincerely do, the electro-magnetic discoveries of Professor Oersted and his followers, we still, as chemists, fear that our science has suffered some degree of neglect in consequence of them. At least, we remark that, during this period, good chemical analyses and researches have been rare in England; and yet, it must be confessed, there is an ample field for chemical discovery. How scanty is our knowledge of the suspected fluorine! Are we sure that we understand the nature of nitrogen? And yet these are amongst our elements. Much has been done by Wollaston, Berzelius, Guy-Lussac, Thenard, Thomson, Prout, and others, with regard to the doctrine of definite proportions; but there yet remains the Atomic Theory. Is it a representation of the laws of nature, or is it not?"—-CHEMISTRY, ENCYC. METROP. p.596.
"In wrapping up this brief overview of the History of Chemistry, we might be allowed to express a hint of regret, which has often crossed our minds over the past five or six years. While we genuinely admire the electro-magnetic discoveries of Professor Oersted and his followers, we still worry, as chemists, that our field has faced some neglect as a result. At least, we've noticed that during this time, quality chemical analyses and research have been scarce in England; yet, it must be acknowledged that there’s a vast area for chemical discovery. How limited is our understanding of the elusive fluorine! Are we certain we grasp the nature of nitrogen? And yet these are among our elements. Much has been accomplished by Wollaston, Berzelius, Guy-Lussac, Thenard, Thomson, Prout, and others regarding the principle of definite proportions; however, the Atomic Theory remains. Is it a reflection of natural laws, or not?"—-CHEMISTRY, ENCYC. METROP. p.596.
When the present volume was considerably advanced, the public were informed that the late Sir Humphry Davy had commenced a work, having the same title as the present, and that his sentiments were expressed in the language of feeling and of eloquence. It is to be hoped that it may be allowed by his friends to convey his opinions to posterity, and that the writings of the philosopher may enable his contemporaries to forget some of the deeds of the President of the Royal Society.
When this book was nearly finished, the public learned that the late Sir Humphry Davy had started a work with the same title, and that his thoughts were shared with deep emotion and eloquence. Hopefully, his friends will let his views reach future generations, and that his writings will help his peers to overlook some of the actions of the President of the Royal Society.
Whatever may be the fate of that highly interesting document, we may infer his opinions upon this subject from a sentiment expressed in his last work:—
Whatever happens to that really interesting document, we can guess his views on this topic from a thought he shared in his last work:—
"—But we may in vain search the aristocracy now for philosophers."——"There are very few persons who pursue science with true dignity; it is followed more as connected with objects of profit than those of fame."—SIR H. DAVY'S CONSOLATIONS IN TRAVEL.
"—But we might search the aristocracy in vain for philosophers now."——"Only a few people engage with science with real dignity; it's pursued more for profit than for prestige."—SIR H. DAVY'S CONSOLATIONS IN TRAVEL.
The last authority which I shall adduce is more valuable, from the varied acquirements of its author, and from the greater detail into which he enters. "We have drawn largely, both in the present Essay, and in our article on LIGHT, from the ANNALES DE CHEMIE, and we take this ONLY opportunity distinctly to acknowledge our obligations to that most admirably conducted work. Unlike the crude and undigested scientific matter which suffices, (we are ashamed to say it) for the monthly and quarterly amusement of our own countrymen, whatever is admitted into ITS pages, has at least been taken pains with, and, with few exceptions, has sterling merit. Indeed, among the original communications which abound in it, there are few which would misbecome the first academical collections; and if any thing could diminish our regret at the long suppression of those noble memoirs, which are destined to adorn future volumes of that of the Institute, it would be the masterly abstracts of them which from time to time appear in the ANNALES, either from the hands of the authors, or from the reports rendered by the committees appointed to examine them; which latter, indeed, are universally models of their kind, and have contributed, perhaps more than any thing, to the high scientific tone of the French SAVANS. What author, indeed, but will write his best, when he knows that his work, if it have merit, will immediately be reported on by a committee, who will enter into all its meaning; understand it, however profound: and, not content with MERELY understanding it, pursue the trains of thought to which it leads; place its discoveries and principles in new and unexpected lights; and bring the whole of their knowledge of collateral subjects to bear upon it. Nor ought we to omit our acknowledgement to the very valuable Journals of Poggendorff and Schweigger. Less exclusively national than their Gallic compeer, they present a picture of the actual progress of physical science throughout Europe. Indeed, we have been often astonished to see with what celerity every thing, even moderately valuable in the scientific publications of this country, finds its way into their pages. This ought to encourage our men of science. They have a larger audience, and a wider sympathy than they are perhaps aware of; and however disheartening the general diffusion of smatterings of a number of subjects, and the almost equally general indifference to profound knowledge in any, among their own countrymen, may be, they may rest assured that not a fact they may discover, nor a good experiment they may make, but is instantly repeated, verified, and commented upon, in Germany, and, we may add too, in Italy. We wish the obligation were mutual. Here, whole branches of continental discovery are unstudied, and indeed almost unknown, even by name. It is in vain to conceal the melancholy truth. We are fast dropping behind. In mathematics we have long since drawn the rein, and given over a hopeless race. In chemistry the case is not much better. Who can tell us any thing of the Sulfo-salts? Who will explain to us the laws of Isomorphism? Nay, who among us has even verified Thenard's experiments on the oxygenated acids,—Oersted's and Berzelius's on the radicals of the earths,—Balard's and Serrulas's on the combinations of Brome,—and a hundred other splendid trains of research in that fascinating science? Nor need we stop here. There are, indeed, few sciences which would not furnish matter for similar remark. The causes are at once obvious and deep-seated; but this is not the place to discuss them."—MR. HERSCHEL'S TREATISE ON SOUND, printed in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA METROPOLITANA.
The last authority I’ll mention is more valuable due to the diverse expertise of its author and the greater detail he provides. "We have drawn extensively, both in this Essay and in our article on LIGHT, from the ANNALES DE CHEMIE, and we take this opportunity to openly acknowledge our gratitude to that wonderfully managed publication. Unlike the rough and unrefined scientific content that often suffices, (which we are embarrassed to admit) for the monthly and quarterly entertainment of our fellow countrymen, whatever is included in its pages has at least been carefully considered, and, with few exceptions, has real merit. In fact, among the original articles that appear in it, there are few that wouldn’t be out of place in the top academic collections; and if anything could lessen our sadness over the long suppression of those remarkable memoirs, which are meant to enhance future volumes of that of the Institute, it would be the expert summaries that appear from time to time in the ANNALES, either from the authors themselves or from the reports issued by the committees assigned to review them; which, indeed, are universally exemplary and have likely contributed more than anything else to the high scientific standards of French scholars. What author wouldn’t strive to do their best when they know that if their work has merit, it will be promptly reviewed by a committee that will delve deeply into its meaning; grasp it, no matter how complex; and, not satisfied with merely understanding it, explore the ideas it leads to; present its findings and principles in new and surprising ways; and apply their entire knowledge of related topics to it? We should also acknowledge the very valuable Journals of Poggendorff and Schweigger. Less exclusively national than their French counterpart, they provide a view of the current progress of physical science across Europe. Indeed, we have often been amazed at how quickly anything even moderately valuable from the scientific publications of this country makes its way into their pages. This should encourage our scientists. They have a larger audience and a broader support network than they might realize; and regardless of how discouraging the widespread superficial knowledge on a range of topics, and the nearly universal indifference toward deep knowledge in any one among their fellow countrymen, may be, they can be assured that not a single discovery or valuable experiment goes unnoticed, but is swiftly repeated, verified, and discussed in Germany, and, we can add, in Italy as well. We wish this obligation were mutual. Here, whole areas of continental discoveries remain unexamined and even almost completely unknown, even by name. It's futile to hide the sad truth. We are quickly falling behind. In mathematics, we have long since fallen behind and given up a fruitless chase. In chemistry, the situation isn’t much better. Who can tell us anything about Sulfo-salts? Who will explain the laws of Isomorphism to us? And who among us has even confirmed Thenard’s experiments on oxygenated acids,—Oersted's and Berzelius's on the elements of the earth,—Balard's and Serrulas's on the combinations of Brome,—and a hundred other remarkable lines of research in that captivating science? And we shouldn’t stop here. There are, indeed, few sciences that wouldn’t provide material for similar comments. The reasons are clear and deeply rooted; but this isn’t the right place to discuss them."—MR. HERSCHEL'S TREATISE ON SOUND, printed in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA METROPOLITANA.
With such authorities, I need not apprehend much doubt as to the fact of the decline of science in England: how far I may have pointed out some of its causes, must be left to others to decide.
With such authorities, I don't need to worry too much about the fact that science is declining in England: how much I've identified some of its causes is something others will have to determine.
Many attacks have lately been made on the conduct of various scientific bodies, and of their officers, and severe criticism has been lavished upon some of their productions. Newspapers, Magazines, Reviews, and Pamphlets, have all been put in requisition for the purpose. Odium has been cast upon some of these for being anonymous. If a fact is to be established by testimony, anonymous assertion is of no value; if it can be proved, by evidence to which the public have access, it is of no consequence (for the cause of truth) who produces it. A matter of opinion derives weight from the name which is attached to it; but a chain of reasoning is equally conclusive, whoever may be its author.
Many recent criticisms have been directed at the actions of various scientific organizations and their leaders, with harsh judgments aimed at some of their work. Newspapers, magazines, reviews, and pamphlets have all been used for this purpose. Some of these have faced backlash for being anonymous. If a fact needs to be supported by testimony, then anonymous claims hold no value; if it can be demonstrated with evidence accessible to the public, it doesn’t matter who presents it for the sake of truth. The weight of an opinion comes from the name attached to it, but a logical argument is equally valid, regardless of who the author is.
Perhaps it would be better for science, that all criticism should be avowed. It would certainly have the effect of rendering it more matured, and less severe; but, on the other hand, it would have the evil of frequently repressing it altogether, because there exists amongst the lower ranks of science, a "GENUS IRRITABILE," who are disposed to argue that every criticism is personal. It is clearly the interest of all who fear inquiries, to push this principle as far as possible, whilst those whose sole object is truth, can have no apprehensions from the severest scrutiny. There are few circumstances which so strongly distinguish the philosopher, as the calmness with which he can reply to criticisms he may think undeservedly severe. I have been led into these reflections, from the circumstance of its having been stated publicly, that I was the author of several of those anonymous writings, which were considered amongst the most severe; and the assertion was the more likely to be credited, from the fact of my having spoken a few words connected with one of those subjects at the last anniversary of the Royal Society. [I merely observed that the agreement made with the British Museum for exchanging the Arundel MSS. for their duplicates, (which had just been stated by the President,) was UNWISE;—because it was not to be expected that many duplicates should be found in a library like that of the Museum, weak in the physical and mathematical sciences: that it was IMPROVIDENT and UNBUSINESSLIKE;—because it neither fixed the TIME when the difference was to be paid, in case their duplicates should be insufficient; nor did it appear that there were any FUNDS out of which the money could be procured: and I added, that it would be more advantageous to sell the MSS., and purchase the books we wanted with the produce.] I had hoped in that diminutive world, the world of science, my character had been sufficiently known to have escaped being the subject of such a mistake; and, in taking this opportunity of correcting it, I will add that, in the present volume, I have thought it more candid to mention distinctly those whose line of conduct I have disapproved, or whose works I have criticised, than to leave to the reader inferences which he might make far more extensive than I have intended. I hope, therefore, that where I have depicted species, no person will be so unkind to others and unjust to me, as to suppose I have described individuals.
Maybe it would be better for science if all criticism were acknowledged. It would certainly make criticism more developed and less harsh; however, on the flip side, it could often hold it back completely, due to a certain "GENUS IRRITABILE" among the lower ranks of science, who tend to argue that every critique is personal. Those who fear scrutiny clearly have an interest in promoting this idea as much as possible, while those whose only goal is the truth shouldn’t worry about even the toughest examination. Few things distinguish a philosopher as much as the calmness with which they respond to criticisms they believe are undeservedly harsh. I’ve been led to these thoughts by the public statement that I was the author of several of those anonymous essays, which were considered some of the harshest; this claim was more likely to be believed because I had made a few remarks related to one of those topics at the last anniversary of the Royal Society. [I simply pointed out that the agreement made with the British Museum to exchange the Arundel MSS. for their duplicates (which the President had just mentioned) was UNWISE; because it was unrealistic to think many duplicates would be found in a library like the Museum, which is weak in physical and mathematical sciences: that it was IMPROVIDENT and UNBUSINESSLIKE; because it didn’t specify when the difference would be paid if their duplicates turned out to be insufficient; nor was it clear that there were any FUNDS available to gather the money: and I suggested it would be better to sell the MSS. and buy the books we needed with the proceeds.] I had hoped that in the small world of science, my reputation was well enough established to avoid such a misunderstanding; and in seizing this opportunity to correct it, I will add that, in this volume, I felt it was more straightforward to clearly mention those whose actions I have disapproved of or whose works I have criticized, rather than leaving it to the reader to make inferences that could be much broader than I intended. Therefore, I hope that where I’ve described categories, no one will be so unkind towards others and unfair to me as to believe I’m describing individuals.
With respect to the cry against personality, which has been lately set up to prevent all inquiry into matters of scientific misgovernment, a few words will suffice.
With regard to the outcry against individuality, which has recently emerged to shut down any investigation into issues of scientific mismanagement, a few words will do.
I feel as strongly as any one, not merely the impropriety, but the injustice of introducing private character into such discussions. There is, however, a maxim too well established to need any comment of mine. The public character of every public servant is legitimate subject of discussion, and his fitness or unfitness for office may be fairly canvassed by any person. Those whose too sensitive feelings shrink from such an ordeal, have no right to accept the emoluments of office, for they know that it is the condition to which all must submit who are paid from the public purse.
I feel as strongly as anyone about not just the inappropriateness, but also the unfairness of bringing personal character into these discussions. However, there's a principle that's too well established to require my commentary. The public character of every public servant is a valid topic for discussion, and their suitability or unsuitability for office can be reasonably examined by anyone. Those whose overly sensitive feelings can't handle such scrutiny have no right to accept the benefits of office, as they understand that this is the expectation for all who are paid from public funds.
The same principle is equally applicable to Companies, to Societies, and to Academies. Those from whose pocket the salary is drawn, and by whose appointment the officer was made, have always a right to discuss the merits of their officers, and their modes of exercising the duties they are paid to perform.
The same principle applies to companies, societies, and academies. Those who pay the salary and appoint the officer always have the right to discuss their officers' qualifications and how they carry out the duties they're being paid to perform.
This principle is equally applicable to the conduct of a Secretary of State, or to that of a constable; to that of a Secretary of the Royal Society, or of an adviser to the Admiralty.
This principle applies just as much to the actions of a Secretary of State as it does to those of a constable; it is relevant for a Secretary of the Royal Society as well as an adviser to the Admiralty.
With respect to honorary officers, the case is in some measure different. But the President of a society, although not recompensed by any pecuniary remuneration, enjoys a station, when the body over which he presides possesses a high character, to which many will aspire, who will esteem themselves amply repaid for the time they devote to the office, by the consequence attached to it in public estimation. He, therefore, is answerable to the Society for his conduct in their chair.
With regard to honorary officers, the situation is somewhat different. But the President of a society, even though they don’t receive any financial compensation, holds a position that many aspire to if the society has a good reputation. Those individuals will feel that the time they spend in the role is well worth it because of the respect it garners in the public eye. Therefore, he is accountable to the Society for his actions in that position.
There are several societies in which the secretaries, and other officers, have very laborious duties, and where they are unaided by a train of clerks, and yet no pecuniary remuneration is given to them. Science is much indebted to such men, by whose quiet and unostentatious labours the routine of its institutions is carried on. It would be unwise, as well as ungrateful, to judge severely of the inadvertencies, or even of the negligence of such persons: nothing but weighty causes should justify such a course.
There are several organizations where secretaries and other officers have very demanding responsibilities, without any support from a team of clerks, and yet they receive no financial compensation. Science owes a lot to these individuals, whose quiet and unassuming efforts keep the routine of its institutions running smoothly. It would be unwise, as well as ungrateful, to harshly judge the oversights or even the carelessness of these people; only significant reasons should warrant such criticism.
Whilst, however, I contend for the principle of discussion and inquiry in its widest sense, because I consider it equally the safeguard of our scientific as of our political institutions, I shall use it, I hope, temperately; and having no personal feelings myself, but living in terms of intercourse with almost all, and of intimacy with several of those from whom I most widely differ, I shall not attempt to heap together all the causes of complaint; but, by selecting a few in different departments, endeavour to convince them that some alteration is essentially necessary for the promotion of that very object which we both by such different roads pursue.
While I argue for the principle of discussion and inquiry in its broadest sense, as I believe it is vital to the safety of both our scientific and political institutions, I will approach this topic with restraint. I don’t have personal grievances, and I engage with almost everyone and have close relations with several who hold views very different from mine. Instead of listing all the issues, I will select a few from various areas to show that some changes are urgently needed to further the shared goal we are both pursuing through such different approaches.
I have found it necessary, in the course of this volume, to speak of the departed; for the misgovernment of the Royal Society has not been wholly the result of even the present race. It is said, and I think with justice, in the life of Young, inserted amongst Dr. Johnson's, that the famous maxim, "DE MORTUIS NIL NISI BONUM," "appears to savour more of female weakness than of manly reason." The foibles and the follies of those who are gone, may, without injury to society, repose in oblivion. But, whoever would claim the admiration of mankind for their good actions, must prove his impartiality by fearlessly condemning their evil deeds. Adopt the maxim, and praise to the dead becomes worthless, from its universality; and history, a greater fable than it has been hitherto deemed.
I felt it was necessary, throughout this book, to talk about those who have passed away; the mismanagement of the Royal Society isn’t solely the fault of the current generation. It’s been said, and I believe it’s true, in the biography of Young included among Dr. Johnson's works, that the famous saying, "DE MORTUIS NIL NISI BONUM," seems to reflect more of a feminine weakness than a masculine rationale. The flaws and foolishness of those who are gone can, without harming society, remain forgotten. However, anyone seeking the admiration of others for their good deeds must demonstrate fairness by openly condemning their wrongdoings. If we adopt this saying, then praise for the deceased loses its value due to its universality; and history becomes an even bigger myth than it has been regarded until now.
Perhaps I ought to apologize for the large space I have devoted to the Royal Society. Certainly its present state gives it no claim to that attention; and I do it partly from respect for its former services, and partly from the hope that, if such an Institution can be of use to science in the present day, the attention of its members may be excited to take steps for its restoration. Perhaps I may be blamed for having published extracts from the minutes of its proceedings without the permission of its Council. To have asked permission of the present Council would have been useless. I might, however, have given the substance of what I have extracted without the words, and no one could then have reproached me with any infringement of our rules: but there were two objections to that course. In the first place, it is impossible, even for the most candid, in all cases, to convey precisely the same sentiment in different language; and I thought it therefore more fair towards those from whom I differed, as well as to the public, to give the precise words. Again: had it been possible to make so accurate a paraphrase, I should yet have preferred the risk of incurring the reproach of the Royal Society for the offence, to escaping their censure by an evasion. What I have done rests on my own head; and I shrink not from the responsibility attaching to it.
Maybe I should apologize for the lengthy space I’ve devoted to the Royal Society. Its current state doesn’t really merit that attention, and I’ve done it partly out of respect for its past contributions and partly out of hope that if such an institution can still be helpful to science today, the members might be inspired to take steps for its revival. I might be criticized for publishing excerpts from the minutes of its meetings without the approval of its Council. Asking the current Council for permission would have been pointless. I could have shared the essence of what I’ve extracted without the exact wording, and then no one could have accused me of breaking any rules. However, there were two reasons against that approach. First, it’s impossible, even for the most honest, to always convey the exact same sentiment in different words, so I thought it was fairer to those I disagreed with, as well as to the public, to present the exact phrasing. Furthermore, even if I could have crafted an accurate paraphrase, I would still prefer to risk criticism from the Royal Society for the offense rather than evade their censure through avoidance. What I’ve done is my own responsibility, and I’m not afraid to accept that.
If those, whose mismanagement of that Society I condemn, should accuse me of hostility to the Royal Society; my answer is, that the party which governs it is not the Royal Society; and that I will only admit the justice of the accusation, when the whole body, becoming acquainted with the system I have exposed, shall, by ratifying it with their approbation, appropriate it to themselves: an event of which I need scarcely add I have not the slightest anticipation.
If those whose mismanagement of that Society I criticize accuse me of being against the Royal Society, my response is that the group running it is not the Royal Society. I will only accept the fairness of the accusation when the entire body learns about the system I have revealed and approves it as their own. I hardly need to mention that I have no expectation of that happening.
CONTENTS
REFLECTIONS ON THE DECLINE OF SCIENCE IN ENGLAND
CHAPTER I. ON THE RECIPROCAL INFLUENCE OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION.
CHAPTER II. OF THE INDUCEMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS TO CULTIVATE SCIENCE.
SECTION 1. PROFESSIONAL IMPULSES.
SECTION 2. OF NATIONAL ENCOURAGEMENT.
SECTION 3. Of Encouragement from Learned Societies.
CHAPTER III. GENERAL STATE OF LEARNED SOCIETIES IN ENGLAND.
CHAPTER IV. STATE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY IN PARTICULAR.
SECTION 1. MODE OF BECOMING A FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
SECTION 2. OF THE PRESIDENCY AND VICE-PRESIDENCIES.
SECTION 3. OF THE SECRETARISHIPS.
SECTION 4. OF THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS.
SECTION 5. OF THE UNION OF SEVERAL OFFICES IN ONE PERSON.
SECTION 6. OF THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY.
SECTION 7. OF THE ROYAL MEDALS.
SECTION 8. OF THE COPLEY MEDALS.
SECTION 9. OF THE FAIRCHILD LECTURE.
SECTION 10. OF THE CROONIAN LECTURE.
SECTION 11. OF THE CAUSES OF THE PRESENT STATE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
SECTION 12. OF THE PLAN FOR REFORMING THE SOCIETY.
SECTION 1. OF MINUTE PRECISION.
SECTION 2. ON THE ART OF OBSERVING.
SECTION 3. ON THE FRAUDS OF OBSERVERS.
CHAPTER VI. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN ENGLAND.
SECTION 1. OF THE NECESSITY THAT MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY SHOULD
SECTION 2. OF BIENNIAL PRESIDENTS.
SECTION 3. OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE COLLEGES OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS
SECTION 4. OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE ROYAL INSTITUTION ON THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
SECTION 5. OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
CONTENTS
REFLECTIONS ON THE DECLINE OF SCIENCE IN ENGLAND
CHAPTER I. ON THE RECIPROCAL INFLUENCE OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION.
CHAPTER II. OF THE INDUCEMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS TO CULTIVATE SCIENCE.
SECTION 1. PROFESSIONAL IMPULSES.
SECTION 2. OF NATIONAL ENCOURAGEMENT.
SECTION 3. Of Encouragement from Learned Societies.
CHAPTER III. GENERAL STATE OF LEARNED SOCIETIES IN ENGLAND.
CHAPTER IV. STATE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY IN PARTICULAR.
SECTION 1. MODE OF BECOMING A FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
SECTION 2. OF THE PRESIDENCY AND VICE-PRESIDENCIES.
SECTION 3. OF THE SECRETARISHIPS.
SECTION 4. OF THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS.
SECTION 5. OF THE UNION OF SEVERAL OFFICES IN ONE PERSON.
SECTION 6. OF THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY.
SECTION 7. OF THE ROYAL MEDALS.
SECTION 8. OF THE COPLEY MEDALS.
SECTION 9. OF THE FAIRCHILD LECTURE.
SECTION 10. OF THE CROONIAN LECTURE.
SECTION 11. OF THE CAUSES OF THE PRESENT STATE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
SECTION 12. OF THE PLAN FOR REFORMING THE SOCIETY.
SECTION 1. OF MINUTE PRECISION.
SECTION 2. ON THE ART OF OBSERVING.
SECTION 3. ON THE FRAUDS OF OBSERVERS.
CHAPTER VI. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN ENGLAND.
SECTION 1. OF THE NECESSITY THAT MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY SHOULD
SECTION 2. OF BIENNIAL PRESIDENTS.
SECTION 3. OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE COLLEGES OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS
SECTION 4. OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE ROYAL INSTITUTION ON THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
SECTION 5. OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
REFLECTIONS ON THE DECLINE OF SCIENCE IN ENGLAND,
AND ON SOME OF ITS
CAUSES.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
It cannot have escaped the attention of those, whose acquirements enable them to judge, and who have had opportunities of examining the state of science in other countries, that in England, particularly with respect to the more difficult and abstract sciences, we are much below other nations, not merely of equal rank, but below several even of inferior power. That a country, eminently distinguished for its mechanical and manufacturing ingenuity, should be indifferent to the progress of inquiries which form the highest departments of that knowledge on whose more elementary truths its wealth and rank depend, is a fact which is well deserving the attention of those who shall inquire into the causes that influence the progress of nations.
It’s hard to ignore for those qualified to assess and who have had the chance to look into the state of science in other countries, that in England, especially regarding the more challenging and abstract sciences, we lag behind not only other nations of similar standing but also several that are less powerful. It’s remarkable that a country renowned for its mechanical and manufacturing skills should be so indifferent to the advancement of research that represents the highest levels of knowledge, which in turn depends on more basic truths that support its wealth and status. This is an important point for anyone looking into what drives the progress of nations.
To trace the gradual decline of mathematical, and with it of the highest departments of physical science, from the days of Newton to the present, must be left to the historian. It is not within the province of one who, having mixed sufficiently with scientific society in England to see and regret the weakness of some of its greatest ornaments, and to see through and deplore the conduct of its pretended friends, offers these remarks, with the hope that they may excite discussion,—with the conviction that discussion is the firmest ally of truth,—and with the confidence that nothing but the full expression of public opinion can remove the evils that chill the enthusiasm, and cramp the energies of the science of England.
To track the gradual decline of mathematics, and along with it the top fields of physical science, from Newton's era to now is a job for historians. It’s not for someone who, after engaging enough with the scientific community in England to notice and regret the shortcomings of some of its greatest figures, and to see through and lament the behavior of its so-called supporters, shares these thoughts in hopes of sparking discussion—with the belief that discussion is the strongest supporter of truth—and with the assurance that only the open expression of public opinion can eliminate the issues that stifle enthusiasm and limit the potential of science in England.
The causes which have produced, and some of the effects which have resulted from, the present state of science in England, are so mixed, that it is difficult to distinguish accurately between them. I shall, therefore, in this volume, not attempt any minute discrimination, but rather present the result of my reflections on the concomitant circumstances which have attended the decay, and at the conclusion of it, shall examine some of the suggestions which have been offered for the advancement of British science.
The reasons behind the current state of science in England, as well as some of its effects, are so intertwined that it's hard to clearly separate them. So, in this book, I won't try to break it down in detail but will instead share my thoughts on the related factors that have contributed to the decline. At the end, I will look into some of the proposals that have been made for improving British science.
CHAPTER I. ON THE RECIPROCAL INFLUENCE OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION.
That the state of knowledge in any country will exert a directive influence on the general system of instruction adopted in it, is a principle too obvious to require investigation. And it is equally certain that the tastes and pursuits of our manhood will bear on them the traces of the earlier impressions of our education. It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that some portion of the neglect of science in England, may be attributed to the system of education we pursue. A young man passes from our public schools to the universities, ignorant almost of the elements of every branch of useful knowledge; and at these latter establishments, formed originally for instructing those who are intended for the clerical profession, classical and mathematical pursuits are nearly the sole objects proposed to the student's ambition.
The level of knowledge in any country clearly shapes the education system in place, and this is a principle that doesn’t need much proof. It’s also obvious that our interests and activities as adults are influenced by the impressions we received from our education earlier in life. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to think that part of the disregard for science in England can be traced back to our education system. A young man moves from public schools to universities with almost no knowledge of the basics of any useful subjects, and these universities, originally set up to educate future clergymen, primarily focus on classical studies and mathematics, which are often the main goals for students.
Much has been done at one of our universities during the last fifteen years, to improve the system of study; and I am confident that there is no one connected with that body, who will not do me the justice to believe that, whatever suggestions I may venture to offer, are prompted by the warmest feelings for the honour and the increasing prosperity of its institutions. The ties which connect me with Cambridge are indeed of no ordinary kind.
Much has been accomplished at one of our universities over the past fifteen years to enhance the study system; and I believe that everyone associated with this institution will agree that any suggestions I might propose come from a genuine desire for the honor and ongoing success of its programs. The connections I have with Cambridge are indeed unique.
Taking it then for granted that our system of academical education ought to be adapted to nearly the whole of the aristocracy of the country, I am inclined to believe that whilst the modifications I should propose would not be great innovations on the spirit of our institutions, they would contribute materially to that important object.
Taking it for granted that our educational system should cater to most of the country's aristocracy, I believe that while the changes I would suggest wouldn't be major departures from the essence of our institutions, they would significantly contribute to that important goal.
It will be readily admitted, that a degree conferred by an university, ought to be a pledge to the public that he who holds it possesses a certain quantity of knowledge. The progress of society has rendered knowledge far more various in its kinds than it used to be; and to meet this variety in the tastes and inclinations of those who come to us for instruction, we have, besides the regular lectures to which all must attend, other sources of information from whence the students may acquire sound and varied knowledge in the numerous lectures on chemistry, geology, botany, history, &c. It is at present a matter of option with the student, which, and how many of these courses he shall attend, and such it should still remain. All that it would be necessary to add would be, that previously to taking his degree, each person should be examined by those Professors, whose lectures he had attended. The pupils should then be arranged in two classes, according to their merits, and the names included in these classes should be printed. I would then propose that no young man, except his name was found amongst the "List of Honours," should be allowed to take his degree, unless he had been placed in the first class of some one at least of the courses given by the professors. But it should still be imperative upon the student to possess such mathematical knowledge as we usually require. If he had attained the first rank in several of these examinations, it is obvious that we should run no hazard in a little relaxing the strictness of his mathematical trial.
It is widely accepted that a degree awarded by a university should guarantee to the public that the holder possesses a certain level of knowledge. The advancement of society has made knowledge much more diverse than it used to be, and to cater to the different interests and preferences of those seeking our instruction, we now offer, in addition to mandatory lectures for all students, various other sources of information. These include numerous lectures on subjects like chemistry, geology, botany, history, and so on. Currently, it is up to the student to decide which and how many of these courses to take, and that should remain the case. However, it would be necessary to add that before earning their degree, each student should be evaluated by the professors whose lectures they attended. The students should then be divided into two classes based on their performance, and the names in these classes should be published. I propose that no young man should be allowed to receive his degree unless his name appears in the "List of Honours," and he must be placed in the first class of at least one of the courses taught by the professors. However, students should still be required to have the mathematical knowledge that we typically demand. If a student has excelled in several examinations, it's clear we could afford to ease the rigor of their mathematical assessment a bit.
If it should be thought preferable, the sciences might be grouped, and the following subjects be taken together:—
If it seems better, the sciences could be grouped, and the following subjects could be considered together:—
Modern History. Laws of England. Civil Law. Political Economy. Applications of Science to Arts and Manufactures. Chemistry. Mineralogy. Geology. Zoology, including Physiology and Comparative Anatomy. Botany, including Vegetable Physiology and Anatomy.
Modern History. Laws of England. Civil Law. Political Economy. Applications of Science to Arts and Manufacturing. Chemistry. Mineralogy. Geology. Zoology, including Physiology and Comparative Anatomy. Botany, including Plant Physiology and Anatomy.
One of the great advantages of such a system would be, that no young person would have an excuse for not studying, by stating, as is most frequently done, that the only pursuits followed at Cambridge, classics and mathematics, are not adapted either to his taste, or to the wants of his after life. His friends and relatives would then reasonably expect every student to have acquired distinction in SOME pursuit. If it should be feared that this plan would lead to too great a diversity of pursuits in the same individual, a limitation might be placed upon the number of examinations into which the same person might be permitted to enter. It might also be desirable not to restrict the whole of these examinations to the third year, but to allow the student to enter on some portion of them in the first or second year, if he should prefer it.
One of the big advantages of such a system would be that no young person would have an excuse for not studying, saying, as is often done, that the only subjects offered at Cambridge, classics and mathematics, aren't suited to their interests or future needs. Their friends and family would then reasonably expect every student to have excelled in SOME area. If there were concerns that this approach would lead to too many different interests in the same person, a limit could be set on how many exams an individual could take. It might also be a good idea not to confine all of these exams to the third year, but to let students take some of them in the first or second year if they prefer.
By such an arrangement, which would scarcely interfere seriously with our other examinations, we should, I think, be enabled effectually to keep pace with the wants of society, and retaining fully our power and our right to direct the studies of those who are intended for the church, as well as of those who aspire to the various offices connected with our academical institutions; we should, at the same time, open a field of honourable ambition to multitudes, who, from the exclusive nature of our present studies, leave us with but a very limited addition to their stock of knowledge.
By this arrangement, which wouldn't really interfere with our other assessments, I believe we could effectively keep up with the needs of society while still maintaining our authority and right to guide the studies of those preparing for the church, as well as those aiming for various roles in our academic institutions. At the same time, we'd also create opportunities for many individuals, who currently leave with only a small increase in their knowledge due to the limited nature of our existing studies.
Much more might be said on a subject so important to the interests of the country, as well as of our university, but my wish is merely to open it for our own consideration and discussion. We have already done so much for the improvement of our system of instruction, that public opinion will not reproach us for any unwillingness to alter. It is our first duty to be well satisfied that we can improve: such alterations ought only to be the result of a most mature consideration, and of a free interchange of sentiments on the subject, in order that we may condense upon the question the accumulated judgment of many minds.
Much more could be said about such an important topic for both the country and our university, but I just want to start the conversation for our own consideration and discussion. We have already made great strides in improving our educational system, so public opinion won’t criticize us for being hesitant to make changes. Our primary responsibility is to ensure we can improve: any changes should come from careful thought and open discussions on the topic, so we can gather the insights and opinions of many people.
It is in some measure to be attributed to the defects of our system of education, that scientific knowledge scarcely exists amongst the higher classes of society. The discussions in the Houses of Lords or of Commons, which arise on the occurrence of any subjects connected with science, sufficiently prove this fact, which, if I had consulted the extremely limited nature of my personal experience, I should, perhaps, have doubted.
It’s partly due to the shortcomings of our education system that scientific knowledge is almost nonexistent among the upper classes of society. The debates in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, which come up whenever scientific topics are discussed, clearly demonstrate this fact, which I might have doubted if I had only relied on my very limited personal experience.
CHAPTER II. OF THE INDUCEMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS TO CULTIVATE SCIENCE.
Interest or inclination form the primary and ruling motives in this matter: and both these exert greater or less proportionate influence in each of the respective cases to be examined.
Interest or inclination are the main driving forces in this matter, and both have varying degrees of influence in each of the cases to be looked at.
SECTION 1. PROFESSIONAL IMPULSES.
A large portion of those who are impelled by ambition or necessity to advance themselves in the world, make choice of some profession in which they imagine their talents likely to be rewarded with success; and there are peculiar advantages resulting to each from this classification of society into professions. The ESPRIT DE CORPS frequently overpowers the jealousy which exists between individuals, and pushes on to advantageous situations some of the more fortunate of the profession; whilst, on the other hand, any injury or insult offered to the weakest, is redressed or resented by the whole body. There are other advantages which are perhaps of more importance to the public. The numbers which compose the learned professions in England are so considerable, that a kind of public opinion is generated amongst them, which powerfully tends to repress conduct that is injurious either to the profession or to the public. Again, the mutual jealousy and rivalry excited amongst the whole body is so considerable, that although the rank and estimation which an individual holds in the profession may be most unfairly appreciated, by taking the opinion of his rival; yet few estimations will be found generally more correct than the opinion of a whole profession on the merits of any one of its body. This test is of great value to the public, and becomes the more so, in proportion to the difficulty of the study to which the profession is devoted. It is by availing themselves of it that men of sense and judgment, who have occasion for the services of professional persons, are, in a great measure, guided in their choice.
A large number of people driven by ambition or necessity to improve their lives choose a profession they believe will lead to success based on their skills. This classification of society into professions offers unique advantages. The team spirit often outweighs the jealousy that exists between individuals and helps some of the more fortunate members of the profession advance to better positions. On the flip side, any harm or insult directed at the most vulnerable is addressed or retaliated against by the entire group. There are also other benefits that might be more significant for the public. The number of people in the learned professions in England is so large that it creates a kind of public opinion among them, which strongly helps curb behavior that is harmful either to the profession or the public. Moreover, the mutual jealousy and competition among the whole group are so pronounced that even though an individual's status in the profession may be unfairly judged by their rivals, the overall opinion of the entire profession regarding the merits of any one member is generally quite accurate. This collective judgment is very valuable to the public and becomes even more significant with the complexity of the study related to the profession. It's by relying on this that sensible and discerning individuals, in need of professional services, are largely guided in their choices.
The pursuit of science does not, in England, constitute a distinct profession, as it does in many other countries. It is therefore, on that ground alone, deprived of many of the advantages which attach to professions. One of its greatest misfortunes arises from this circumstance; for the subjects on which it is conversant are so difficult, and require such unremitted devotion of time, that few who have not spent years in their study can judge of the relative knowledge of those who pursue them. It follows, therefore, that the public, and even that men of sound sense and discernment, can scarcely find means to distinguish between the possessors of knowledge, in the present day, merely elementary, and those whose acquirements are of the highest order. This remark applies with peculiar force to all the more difficult applications of mathematics; and the fact is calculated to check the energies of those who only look to reputation in England.
The pursuit of science in England isn't recognized as a separate profession like it is in many other countries. Because of this, it misses out on many of the benefits associated with professions. One of its biggest disadvantages stems from this situation; the subjects it deals with are so complex and demand such continuous dedication of time that few people who haven't spent years studying them can accurately assess the expertise of those who do. As a result, the public, including rational and discerning individuals, often struggles to tell the difference between those with only basic knowledge and those with top-tier expertise. This observation is particularly relevant for the more challenging areas of mathematics, and this reality tends to discourage those who are primarily seeking recognition in England.
As there exists with us no peculiar class professedly devoted to science, it frequently happens that when a situation, requiring for the proper fulfilment of its duties considerable scientific attainments, is vacant, it becomes necessary to select from among amateurs, or rather from among persons whose chief attention has been bestowed on other subjects, and to whom science has been only an occasional pursuit. A certain quantity of scientific knowledge is of course possessed by individuals in many professions; and when added to the professional acquirements of the army, the navy, or to the knowledge of the merchant, is highly meritorious: but it is obvious that this may become, when separated from the profession, quite insignificant as the basis of a scientific reputation.
Since we have no specific class solely dedicated to science, it's common for us to find ourselves needing to fill a position that requires significant scientific knowledge, but having to choose from amateurs or individuals who mainly focus on other areas and view science as a side interest. Many professionals possess a certain level of scientific understanding, and when combined with their expertise in the military, navy, or commercial fields, this knowledge is commendable. However, it's clear that when this knowledge is considered apart from the profession, it may not carry much weight in establishing a scientific reputation.
To those who have chosen the profession of medicine, a knowledge of chemistry, and of some branches of natural history, and, indeed, of several other departments of science, affords useful assistance. Some of the most valuable names which adorn the history of English science have been connected with this profession.
To those who have chosen to pursue a career in medicine, knowledge of chemistry, some areas of natural history, and several other fields of science provides useful support. Some of the most respected figures in the history of English science have been associated with this profession.
The causes which induce the selection of the clerical profession are not often connected with science; and it is, perhaps, a question of considerable doubt whether it is desirable to hold out to its members hopes of advancement from such acquirements. As a source of recreation, nothing can be more fit to occupy the attention of a divine; and our church may boast, in the present as in past times, that the domain of science has been extended by some of its brightest ornaments.
The reasons that lead people to choose the clerical profession aren't usually linked to science; and it's debatable whether it's a good idea to encourage its members with hopes of advancement based on such knowledge. As a form of leisure, nothing is better suited to engage a cleric's mind; and our church can proudly say, now as in the past, that some of its most outstanding figures have contributed to the field of science.
In England, the profession of the law is that which seems to hold out the strongest attraction to talent, from the circumstance, that in it ability, coupled with exertion, even though unaided by patronage, cannot fail of obtaining reward. It is frequently chosen as an introduction to public life. It also presents great advantages, from its being a qualification for many situations more or less remotely connected with it, as well as from the circumstance that several of the highest officers of the state must necessarily have sprung from its ranks.
In England, the legal profession appears to be the most appealing option for talented individuals because skills, along with hard work—even without support from influential people—are bound to be rewarded. It’s often chosen as a pathway to public life. It also offers significant benefits, as it qualifies individuals for various positions that are somewhat related to it, and several of the highest government officials typically come from this background.
A powerful attraction exists, therefore, to the promotion of a study and of duties of all others engrossing the time most completely, and which is less benefited than most others by any acquaintance with science. This is one amongst the causes why it so very rarely happens that men in public situations are at all conversant even with the commonest branches of scientific knowledge, and why scarcely an instance can be cited of such persons acquiring a reputation by any discoveries of their own.
A strong pull exists towards focusing on a study and responsibilities that take up all of one's time, which benefits less than most other areas from any knowledge of science. This is one of the reasons why it is so rare for people in public roles to be familiar even with the basic areas of scientific knowledge, and why there are hardly any examples of such individuals gaining a reputation from their own discoveries.
But, however consistent other sciences may be with professional avocations, there is one which, from its extreme difficulty, and the overwhelming attention which it demands, can only be pursued with success by those whose leisure is undisturbed by other claims. To be well acquainted with the present state of mathematics, is no easy task; but to add to the powers which that science possesses, is likely to be the lot of but few English philosophers.
But while other sciences might fit well with professional careers, there is one that, due to its extreme difficulty and the immense focus it requires, can only be successfully pursued by those whose free time isn't interrupted by other obligations. Being well-informed about the current state of mathematics is no simple feat, but contributing to the advancements of that field is something likely only a few English philosophers will achieve.
SECTION 2. OF NATIONAL ENCOURAGEMENT.
The little encouragement which at all previous periods has been afforded by the English Government to the authors of useful discoveries, or of new and valuable inventions, is justified on the following grounds:
The limited support that the English Government has provided to the creators of useful discoveries or new and valuable inventions in the past is justified for the following reasons:
1. The public, who consume the new commodity or profit by the new invention, are much better judges of its merit than the government can be.
1. The public, who use the new product or benefit from the new invention, are much better judges of its value than the government can be.
2. The reward which arises from the sale of the commodity is usually much larger than that which government would be justified in bestowing; and it is exactly proportioned to the consumption, that is, to the want which the public feel for the new article.
2. The profit from selling the product is typically much greater than what the government would be reasonable in providing; and it directly relates to how much is consumed, which reflects the demand the public has for the new item.
It must be admitted that, as general principles, these are correct: there are, however, exceptions which flow necessarily from the very reasoning from which they were deduced. Without entering minutely into these exceptions, it will be sufficient to show that all abstract truth is entirely excluded from reward under this system. It is only the application of principles to common life which can be thus rewarded. A few instances may perhaps render this position more evident. The principle of the hydrostatic paradox was known as a speculative truth in the time of Stevinus; [About the year 1600] and its application to raising heavy weights has long been stated in elementary treatises on natural philosophy, as well as constantly exhibited in lectures. Yet, it may fairly be regarded as a mere abstract principle, until the late Mr. Bramah, by substituting a pump instead of the smaller column, converted it into a most valuable and powerful engine.—The principle of the convertibility of the centres of oscillation and suspension in the pendulum, discovered by Huygens more than a century and a half ago, remained, until within these few years, a sterile, though most elegant proposition; when, after being hinted at by Prony, and distinctly pointed out by Bonenberger, it was employed by Captain Kater as the foundation of a most convenient practical method of determining the length of the pendulum.—The interval which separated the discovery, by Dr. Black, of latent heat, from the beautiful and successful application of it to the steam engine, was comparatively short; but it required the efforts of two minds; and both were of the highest order.—The influence of electricity in producing decompositions, although of inestimable value as an instrument of discovery in chemical inquiries, can hardly be said to have been applied to the practical purposes of life, until the same powerful genius which detected the principle, applied it, by a singular felicity of reasoning, to arrest the corrosion of the copper-sheathing of vessels. That admirably connected chain of reasoning, the truth of which is confirmed by its very failure as a remedy, will probably at some future day supply, by its successful application, a new proof of the position we are endeavouring to establish.
It must be acknowledged that, as general principles, these are correct; however, there are exceptions that arise directly from the reasoning that led to them. Without delving deeply into these exceptions, it's enough to point out that all abstract truth is completely excluded from reward within this system. Only the application of principles to everyday life can be rewarded in this way. A few examples may clarify this point further. The principle of the hydrostatic paradox was understood as a theoretical truth during Stevinus's time (around 1600), and its application for lifting heavy weights has been discussed in basic natural philosophy texts and frequently demonstrated in lectures. Yet, it can be fairly seen as just an abstract principle until the late Mr. Bramah transformed it into a highly valuable and effective machine by replacing the smaller column with a pump. The principle of the convertibility of the centers of oscillation and suspension in the pendulum, discovered by Huygens over a century and a half ago, remained an elegant yet unused proposition until recently when, after being suggested by Prony and explicitly indicated by Bonenberger, it was leveraged by Captain Kater to create a very practical method for determining pendulum length. The gap between Dr. Black's discovery of latent heat and its elegant and successful application to the steam engine was relatively short, but it required the efforts of two exceptionally brilliant minds. The role of electricity in causing decompositions, while invaluable as a tool for chemical research, had not really been applied to practical life until the same brilliant mind that uncovered the principle used it, through remarkable reasoning, to prevent the corrosion of copper sheathing on ships. The strength of this interconnected reasoning, confirmed by its failure as a remedy, will likely one day provide, through its successful application, a new proof of the position we are trying to establish.
[I am authorised in stating, that this was regarded by Laplace as the greatest of Sir Humphry Davy's discoveries. It did not fail in producing the effect foreseen by Sir H. Davy,—the preventing the corrosion of the copper; but it failed as a cure of the evil, by producing one of an OPPOSITE character; either by preserving too perfectly from decay the surface of the copper, or by rendering it negative, it allowed marine animals and vegetables to accumulate on its surface, and thus impede the progress of the vessel.]
[I am authorized to state that this was seen by Laplace as the greatest of Sir Humphry Davy's discoveries. It successfully produced the effect anticipated by Sir H. Davy—preventing the corrosion of the copper; however, it failed as a solution to the problem by creating an opposite issue; either by preserving the copper's surface too well from decay or by making it negative, it allowed marine animals and plants to build up on its surface, thereby hindering the progress of the vessel.]
Other instances might, if necessary, be adduced, to show that long intervals frequently elapse between the discovery of new principles in science and their practical application: nor ought this at all to surprise us. Those intellectual qualifications, which give birth to new principles or to new methods, are of quite a different order from those which are necessary for their practical application.
Other examples could be given, if needed, to demonstrate that significant time often passes between the discovery of new scientific principles and their practical use; and this shouldn't surprise us at all. The intellectual skills that create new principles or methods are quite different from those required to apply them practically.
At the time of the discovery of the beautiful theorem of Huygens, it required in its author not merely a complete knowledge of the mathematical science of his age, but a genius to enlarge its boundaries by new creations of his own. Such talents are not always united with a quick perception of the details, and of the practical applications of the principles they have developed, nor is it for the interest of mankind that minds of this high order should lavish their powers on subjects unsuited to their grasp.
At the time Huygens discovered his beautiful theorem, it took not only a thorough understanding of the mathematics of his era but also a genius to push its limits with his own new ideas. Such talents don't always go hand in hand with a quick grasp of the details and practical applications of the principles they've created, nor is it beneficial for humanity for such brilliant minds to waste their abilities on topics that don't match their capabilities.
In mathematical science, more than in all others, it happens that truths which are at one period the most abstract, and apparently the most remote from all useful application, become in the next age the bases of profound physical inquiries, and in the succeeding one, perhaps, by proper simplification and reduction to tables, furnish their ready and daily aid to the artist and the sailor.
In math, more than in any other field, the most abstract truths that seem completely detached from practical use can, over time, become the foundation for serious scientific investigations. Later on, with the right simplification and organization into tables, these truths can provide regular and helpful support for artists and sailors.
It may also happen that at the time of the discovery of such principles, the mechanical arts may be too imperfect to render their application likely to be attended with success. Such was the case with the principle of the hydrostatic paradox; and it was not, I believe, until the expiration of Mr. Bramah's patent, that the press which bears his name received that mechanical perfection in its execution, which has deservedly brought it into such general use.
It might also happen that when such principles are discovered, the mechanical arts are not advanced enough to make their application likely to succeed. This was true for the hydrostatic paradox; and I think it wasn't until Mr. Bramah's patent expired that the press named after him achieved the mechanical precision in its execution that has rightfully made it widely used.
On the other hand, for one person who is blessed with the power of invention, many will always be found who have the capacity of applying principles; and much of the merit ascribed to these applications will always depend on the care and labour bestowed in the practical detail.
On the other hand, while one person may be gifted with the ability to invent, there will always be many who can implement those ideas; and much of the credit given to these implementations will depend on the effort and attention put into the practical details.
If, therefore, it is important to the country that abstract principles should be applied to practical use, it is clear that it is also important that encouragement should be held out to the few who are capable of adding to the number of those truths on which such applications are founded. Unless there exist peculiar institutions for the support of such inquirers, or unless the Government directly interfere, the contriver of a thaumatrope may derive profit from his ingenuity, whilst he who unravels the laws of light and vision, on which multitudes of phenomena depend, shall descend unrewarded to the tomb.
If it's important for the country to apply abstract principles in practical ways, it’s also crucial to encourage those few who can contribute to the body of truths that these applications are based on. Unless there are special institutions to support such researchers, or unless the government intervenes, the inventor of a thaumatrope may benefit from his creativity, while the one who discovers the laws of light and vision—on which countless phenomena rely—will go unrewarded to the grave.
Perhaps it may be urged, that sufficient encouragement is already afforded to abstract science in our different universities, by the professorships established at them. It is not however in the power of such institutions to create; they may foster and aid the development of genius; and, when rightly applied, such stations ought to be its fair and honourable rewards. In many instances their emolument is small; and when otherwise, the lectures which are required from the professor are not perhaps in all cases the best mode of employing the energies of those who are capable of inventing.
Perhaps it can be argued that there is already enough support for abstract science in our various universities, thanks to the professorships established there. However, these institutions cannot create geniuses; they can only nurture and support their development. When properly utilized, these positions should be a proper and honorable reward for talent. In many cases, the pay is low; and when it is not, the lectures required from the professor may not always be the best way to utilize the abilities of those who are capable of innovation.
I cannot resist the opportunity of supporting these opinions by the authority of one of the greatest philosophers of a past age, and of expressing my acknowledgments to the author of a most interesting piece of scientific biography. In the correspondence which terminated in the return of Galileo to a professorship in his native country, he remarks, "But, because my private lectures and domestic pupils are a great hinderance and interruption of my studies, I wish to live entirely exempt from the former, and in great measure from the latter."—LIFE OF GALILEO, p.18. And, in another letter to Kepler, he speaks with gratitude of Cosmo, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who "has now invited me to attach myself to him with the annual salary of 1000 florins, and with the title of Philosopher and principal Mathematician to his Highness, without the duties of any office to perform, but with most complete leisure; so that I can complete my treatise on Mechanics, &c."—p.31. [Life of Galileo, published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.]
I can't pass up the chance to back these views with the authority of one of the greatest philosophers from the past and to express my gratitude to the author of a fascinating piece of scientific biography. In the correspondence that led to Galileo returning to a teaching position in his home country, he notes, "But, because my private lectures and home students are a major hindrance and disruption to my studies, I wish to live completely free from the former, and largely from the latter."—LIFE OF GALILEO, p.18. In another letter to Kepler, he expresses appreciation for Cosmo, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who "has now invited me to join him with an annual salary of 1000 florins, and with the title of Philosopher and Chief Mathematician to his Highness, without any office duties to perform, but with complete leisure; so that I can finish my treatise on Mechanics, etc."—p.31. [Life of Galileo, published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.]
Surely, if knowledge is valuable, it can never be good policy in a country far wealthier than Tuscany, to allow a genius like Mr. Dalton's, to be employed in the drudgery of elementary instruction. [I utter these sentiments from no feelings of private friendship to that estimable philosopher, to whom it is my regret to be almost unknown, and whose modest and retiring merit, I may, perhaps, have the misfortune to offend by these remarks. But Mr. Dalton was of no party; had he ever moved in that vortex which has brought discredit, and almost ruin, on the Royal Society of England;—had he taken part with those who vote to each other medals, and, affecting to be tired of the fatigues of office, make to each other requisitions to retain places they would be most reluctant to quit; his great and splendid discovery would long since have been represented to government. Expectant mediocrity would have urged on his claims to remuneration, and those who covered their selfish purposes with the cloak of science, would have hastened to shelter themselves in the mantle of his glory.—But the philosopher may find consolation for the tardy approbation of that Society, in the applause of Europe. If he was insulted by their medal, he escaped the pain of seeing his name connected with their proceedings.] Where would have been the military renown of England, if, with an equally improvident waste of mental power, its institutions had forced the Duke of Wellington to employ his life in drilling recruits, instead of planning campaigns?
Surely, if knowledge is valuable, it can never be wise for a country far richer than Tuscany to have a genius like Mr. Dalton stuck doing the tedious work of basic education. [I share these thoughts not out of personal friendship for that admirable philosopher, whom I regret I barely know, and whose modest and humble talents I might risk offending with these comments. But Mr. Dalton wasn’t tied to any party; had he ever been caught up in that turmoil that has brought shame and nearly downfall to the Royal Society of England;—had he partnered with those who award each other medals and pretend to be tired of the burdens of office while requesting each other to hold on to jobs they’d be hard-pressed to leave; his great and remarkable discovery would have been presented to the government long ago. Mediocre individuals would have pushed his claims for compensation, and those who disguise their selfish motives with the guise of science would have rushed to bask in his accomplishments.—But the philosopher might find comfort in the delayed recognition from that Society through the praise of Europe. If he was insulted by their medal, at least he avoided the distress of seeing his name linked to their actions.] Where would England’s military glory have been if, with an equally careless use of intellectual resources, its institutions had forced the Duke of Wellington to spend his life training recruits instead of strategizing campaigns?
If we look at the fact, we shall find that the great inventions of the age are not, with us at least, always produced in universities. The doctrines of "definite proportions," and of the "chemical agency of electricity,"—principles of a high order, which have immortalized the names of their discoverers,—were not produced by the meditations of the cloister: nor is it in the least a reproach to those valuable institutions to mention truths like these. Fortunate circumstances must concur, even to the greatest, to render them eminently successful. It is not permitted to all to be born, like Archimedes, when a science was to be created; nor, like Newton, to find the system of the world "without form and void;" and, by disclosing gravitation, to shed throughout that system the same irresistible radiance as that with which the Almighty Creator had illumined its material substance. It can happen to but few philosophers, and but at distant intervals, to snatch a science, like Dalton, from the chaos of indefinite combination, and binding it in the chains of number, to exalt it to rank amongst the exact. Triumphs like these are necessarily "few and far between;" nor can it be expected that that portion of encouragement, which a country may think fit to bestow on science, should be adapted to meet such instances. Too extraordinary to be frequent, they must be left, if they are to be encouraged at all, to some direct interference of the government.
If we examine the facts, we’ll notice that the major inventions of our time aren't always coming from universities. The ideas of "definite proportions" and the "chemical effects of electricity"—high-level principles that have made their discoverers famous—didn't arise from the contemplation of scholars. This isn’t a criticism of those important institutions; it's simply a fact. Exceptional circumstances must come together, even for the greatest minds, to achieve remarkable success. Not everyone can be born, like Archimedes, when a new science is about to emerge; nor, like Newton, discover that the system of the universe was "without form and void," and reveal gravity, spreading that same undeniable brilliance that the Almighty Creator used to illuminate its physical matter. Only a few philosophers, at rare intervals, manage to take a science, like Dalton did, from the disorder of endless combinations and, by organizing it through numbers, elevate it to the status of an exact science. Achievements like these are inherently "rare;" it shouldn’t be expected that the support a country decides to give to science will be suitable for such exceptional cases. Because they are too unusual to happen often, if they are to be encouraged at all, it should be through some direct involvement from the government.
The dangers to be apprehended from such a specific interference, would arise from one, or several, of the following circumstances:—That class of society, from whom the government is selected, might not possess sufficient knowledge either to judge themselves, or know upon whose judgment to rely. Or the number of persons devoting themselves to science, might not be sufficiently large to have due weight in the expression of public opinion. Or, supposing this class to be large, it might not enjoy, in the estimation of the world, a sufficiently high character for independence. Should these causes concur in any country, it might become highly injurious to commit the encouragement of science to any department of the government. This reasoning does not appear to have escaped the penetration of those who advised the abolition of the late Board of Longitude.
The risks associated with such specific interference would come from one or more of the following factors: the social class from which the government is chosen might lack enough knowledge to judge for themselves, or to know whose judgment to trust. Alternatively, the number of people engaged in science may not be large enough to significantly influence public opinion. Even if this group is sizable, it might not have a strong enough reputation for independence in the eyes of society. If these issues occur in any country, it could be very harmful to place the support of science under any government department. This reasoning seems to have been understood by those who recommended the abolition of the former Board of Longitude.
The question whether it is good policy in the government of a country to encourage science, is one of which those who cultivate it are not perhaps the most unbiased judges. In England, those who have hitherto pursued science, have in general no very reasonable grounds of complaint; they knew, or should have known, that there was no demand for it, that it led to little honour, and to less profit.
The question of whether it's a good idea for a government to support science is one that those involved in it may not judge fairly. In England, those who have engaged in science so far generally have no valid reasons to complain; they knew, or should have known, that there was no real need for it, that it brought little recognition, and even less financial reward.
That blame has been attributed to the government for not fostering the science of the country is certain; and, as far as regards past administrations, is, to a great extent, just; with respect to the present ministers, whose strength essentially depends on public opinion, it is not necessary that they should precede, and they cannot remain long insensible to any expression of the general feeling. But supposing science were thought of some importance by any administration, it would be difficult in the present state of things to do much in its favour; because, on the one hand, the higher classes in general have not a profound knowledge of science, and, on the other, those persons whom they have usually consulted, seem not to have given such advice as to deserve the confidence of government. It seems to be forgotten, that the money allotted by government to purposes of science ought to be expended with the same regard to prudence and economy as in the disposal of money in the affairs of private life.
It's clear that the government has been blamed for not promoting the country's science; and while that blame is mostly valid when it comes to past administrations, it’s not necessary for the current ministers, who rely heavily on public opinion, to lead the way. They can't ignore any expression of public sentiment for long. However, if any administration were to consider science important, it would be tough to make significant progress in today’s climate. This is because, on one hand, the upper classes generally lack a deep understanding of science, and on the other, the advisors they typically consult don’t seem to earn the government's trust with their advice. It seems overlooked that the funds allocated by the government for scientific purposes should be spent with the same care and consideration as money is in personal affairs.
[Who, for instance, could have advised the government to incur the expense of printing SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY copies of the Astronomical Observations made at Paramatta, to form a third part of the Philosophical Transactions for 1829, whilst of the Observations made at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, two hundred and fifty copies only are printed?
[Who, for example, could have recommended that the government spend money on printing SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY copies of the Astronomical Observations made at Paramatta, to make a third part of the Philosophical Transactions for 1829, while only TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY copies of the Observations made at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich are printed?]
Of these seven hundred and fifty copies, seven hundred and ten will be distributed to members of the Royal Society, to six hundred of whom they will probably be wholly uninteresting or useless; and thus the country incurs a constantly recurring annual expense. Nor is it easy to see on what principle a similar destination could be refused for the observations made at the Cape of Good Hope.]
Of these seven hundred and fifty copies, seven hundred and ten will be distributed to members of the Royal Society, to six hundred of whom they will probably be completely uninteresting or useless; and thus the country incurs a constantly recurring annual expense. Nor is it easy to see on what principle a similar destination could be denied for the observations made at the Cape of Good Hope.
To those who measure the question of the national encouragement of science by its value in pounds, shillings, and pence, I will here state a fact, which, although pretty generally known, still, I think, deserves attention. A short time since it was discovered by government that the terms on which annuities had been granted by them were erroneous, and new tables were introduced by act of Parliament. It was stated at the time that the erroneous tables had caused a loss to the country of between two and three millions sterling. The fact of the sale of those annuities being a losing concern was long known to many; and the government appear to have been the last to be informed on the subject. Half the interest of half that loss, judiciously applied to the encouragement of mathematical science, would, in a few years, have rendered utterly impossible such expensive errors.
To those who evaluate the national support of science based on its financial worth in pounds, shillings, and pence, I want to highlight a fact that, although widely recognized, still merits attention. Recently, the government discovered that the terms on which they had issued annuities were incorrect, leading to new tables being established by an act of Parliament. At that time, it was reported that these incorrect tables had resulted in a loss to the country of between two and three million pounds. Many were already aware that selling those annuities was a losing venture, yet the government seemed to be the last to find out. If half of the interest on half of that loss had been wisely invested in promoting mathematical science, it would have completely prevented such costly mistakes in just a few years.
To those who bow to the authority of great names, one remark may have its weight. The MECANIQUE COELESTE, [The first volume of the first translation of this celebrated work into our own language, has just arrived in England from—America.] and the THEORIE ANALYTIQUE DES PROBABILITES, were both dedicated, by Laplace, to Napoleon. During the reign of that extraordinary man, the triumphs of France were as eminent in Science as they were splendid in arms. May the institutions which trained and rewarded her philosophers be permanent as the benefits they have conferred upon mankind!
To those who respect the authority of prominent figures, one comment might hold some significance. The MECANIQUE COELESTE, [The first volume of the first translation of this renowned work into our language has just arrived in England from—America.] and the THEORIE ANALYTIQUE DES PROBABILITES were both dedicated by Laplace to Napoleon. During the time of that remarkable man, France achieved remarkable successes in both science and military. May the institutions that educated and honored her philosophers endure as long as the benefits they have brought to humanity!
In other countries it has been found, and is admitted, that a knowledge of science is a recommendation to public appointments, and that a man does not make a worse ambassador because he has directed an observatory, or has added by his discoveries to the extent of our knowledge of animated nature. Instances even are not wanting of ministers who have begun their career in the inquiries of pure analysis. As such examples are perhaps more frequent than is generally imagined, it may be useful to mention a few of those men of science who have formerly held, or who now hold, high official stations in the governments of their respective countries.
In other countries, it's been discovered and accepted that having a background in science is a plus for public positions. A person doesn't become a worse ambassador just because they've run an observatory or contributed to our understanding of living things through their discoveries. There are even examples of ministers who started their careers in pure analysis research. Since such examples are probably more common than many think, it might be helpful to point out a few of these scientists who have held or currently hold high official roles in their governments.
Country. Name. Department of Public Office. Science. France.. Marquis Laplace(1) Mathematics President of the Conservative Senate. France.. M.Carnot Mathematics Minister of War. France.. Count Chaptal(2) Chemistry Minister of the Interior. France.. Baron Cuvier(3) Comparative Minister of Anatomy, Public History Instruction Prussia.. Baron Humboldt Oriental Ambassador Languages to England Prussia.. Baron Alexander The celebrated Chamberlain to Humboldt Traveller the King of Prussia Modena. Marquis Rangoni(4) Mathematics Minister of Finance and of Public Instruction, President of Italian Academy of Forty. Tuscany. Count Fossombroni Mathematics Prime Minister (5) of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Saxony.. M. Lindenau(6) Astronomy Ambassador. (1) Author of the MECANIQUE COELESTE. (2) Author of TRAITE DE CHIMIE APPLIQUE AUX ARTS. (3) Author of LECONS D'ANATOMIE COMPAREE—RECHERCHES SUR OSSEMENS FOSSILES &c. &c. (4) Author of MEMORIA SULLE FUNZIONI GENERATRICI, Modena, 1824, and of various other memoirs on mathematical subjects. (5) Author of several memoirs on mechanics and hydraulics, in the Transactions of the Academy of Forty. (6) Author of TABLES BAROMETRIQUES, Gotha, 1809—TABULAE VENERIS, NOVAE ET CORRECTAE, Gothae, 1810—INVESTIGATIO NOVA ORBITAE A MERCURIO CIRCA SOLEM DESCRIPTAE, Gothae, 1813, and of other works.
Country. Name. Department of Public Office. Science. France.. Marquis Laplace(1) Mathematics President of the Conservative Senate. France.. M. Carnot Mathematics Minister of War. France.. Count Chaptal(2) Chemistry Minister of the Interior. France.. Baron Cuvier(3) Comparative Minister of Anatomy, Public History Instruction Prussia.. Baron Humboldt Oriental Ambassador Languages to England Prussia.. Baron Alexander The celebrated Chamberlain to Humboldt Traveler the King of Prussia Modena. Marquis Rangoni(4) Mathematics Minister of Finance and Public Instruction, President of Italian Academy of Forty. Tuscany. Count Fossombroni Mathematics Prime Minister (5) of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Saxony.. M. Lindenau(6) Astronomy Ambassador. (1) Author of the MECANIQUE COELESTE. (2) Author of TRAITE DE CHIMIE APPLIQUE AUX ARTS. (3) Author of LECONS D'ANATOMIE COMPAREE—RECHERCHES SUR OSSEMENS FOSSILES &c. &c. (4) Author of MEMORIA SULLE FUNZIONI GENERATRICI, Modena, 1824, and of various other papers on mathematical topics. (5) Author of several papers on mechanics and hydraulics, in the Transactions of the Academy of Forty. (6) Author of TABLES BAROMETRIQUES, Gotha, 1809—TABULAE VENERIS, NOVAE ET CORRECTAE, Gothae, 1810—INVESTIGATIO NOVA ORBITAE A MERCURIO CIRCA SOLEM DESCRIPTAE, Gothae, 1813, and other works.
M. Lindenau, the Minister from the King of Saxony to the King of the Netherlands, commenced his career as astronomer at the observatory of the Grand Duke of Gotha, by whom he was sent as his representative at the German Diet. On the death of the late reigning Duke, M. Lindenau was invited to Dresden, and filled the same situation under the King of Saxony; after which he was appointed his minister at the court of the King of the Netherlands. Such occurrences are not to be paralleled in our own country, at least not in modern times. Newton was, it is true, more than a century since, appointed Master of the Mint; but let any person suggest an appointment of a similar kind in the present day, and he will gather from the smiles of those to whom he proposes it that the highest knowledge conduces nothing to success, and that political power is almost the only recommendation.
M. Lindenau, the Minister from the King of Saxony to the King of the Netherlands, started his career as an astronomer at the observatory of the Grand Duke of Gotha, who sent him as his representative to the German Diet. After the death of the previous reigning Duke, M. Lindenau was invited to Dresden and took on the same role under the King of Saxony; later, he was appointed as the minister at the court of the King of the Netherlands. These kinds of events are rare in our own country, at least in modern times. While it’s true that over a century ago, Newton was appointed Master of the Mint, suggesting a similar appointment today would likely earn a few laughs from those you propose it to; it seems that deep knowledge often leads to little success, and political influence is the main qualification that matters.
SECTION 3. Of Encouragement from Learned Societies.
There are several circumstances which concur in inducing persons pursuing science, to unite together, to form societies or academies. In former times, when philosophical instruments were more rare, and the art of making experiments was less perfectly known, it was almost necessary. More recently, whilst numerous additions are constantly making to science, it has been found that those who are most capable of extending human knowledge, are frequently least able to encounter the expense of printing their investigations. It is therefore convenient, that some means should be devised for relieving them from this difficulty, and the volumes of the transactions of academies have accomplished the desired end.
There are several factors that lead people studying science to come together and create societies or academies. In the past, when philosophical instruments were scarce and the process of conducting experiments was not as well understood, this collaboration was almost essential. More recently, as science continually expands, it has become clear that those who are best equipped to advance human knowledge often struggle the most with the costs of publishing their research. Therefore, it is important to find ways to help alleviate this burden, and the publications from academies have successfully achieved this goal.
There is, however, another purpose to which academies contribute. When they consist of a limited number of persons, eminent for their knowledge, it becomes an object of ambition to be admitted on their list. Thus a stimulus is applied to all those who cultivate science, which urges on their exertions, in order to acquire the wished-for distinction. It is clear that this envied position will be valued in proportion to the difficulty of its attainment, and also to the celebrity of those who enjoy it; and whenever the standard of scientific knowledge which qualifies for its ranks is lowered, the value of the distinction itself will be diminished. If, at any time, a multitude of persons having no sort of knowledge of science are admitted, it must cease to be sought after as an object of ambition by men of science, and the class of persons to whom it will become an object of desire will be less intellectual.
There’s, however, another role that academies serve. When they’re made up of a select group of individuals who are renowned for their expertise, being included on their roster becomes a goal to strive for. This provides motivation to everyone involved in scientific pursuits, pushing them to work harder to achieve the sought-after recognition. It’s clear that this coveted status will be valued based on how hard it is to reach and the fame of those who hold it. Whenever the standards of scientific knowledge required to join these ranks are lowered, the value of the distinction itself will decline. If, at any point, a large number of people without any real knowledge of science are welcomed in, it will no longer be seen as a goal worth pursuing by serious scientists, and the group of people who desire it will be less intellectually capable.
Let us now compare the numbers composing some of the various academies of Europe.-The Royal Society of London, the Institute of France, the Italian Academy of Forty, and the Royal Academy of Berlin, are amongst the most distinguished.
Let’s now compare the membership numbers of some of the various academies in Europe. The Royal Society of London, the Institute of France, the Italian Academy of Forty, and the Royal Academy of Berlin are among the most notable.
Name Number of Number Population. Members of Country. of its Foreign Academy. Members 1. England. 22,299,000 685 50 2. France. 32,058,000 76 8 Mem. 100 Corr. 8. Prussia. 12,915,000 38 16 4. Italy.. 12,000,000 40 8
Name Number of Number Population. Members of Country. of its Foreign Academy. Members 1. England. 22,299,000 685 50 2. France. 32,058,000 76 8 Mem. 100 Corr. 3. Prussia. 12,915,000 38 16 4. Italy. 12,000,000 40 8
It appears then, that in France, one person out of 427,000 is a member of the Institute. That in Italy and Prussia, about one out of 300,000 persons is a member of their Academies. That in England, every 32,000 inhabitants produces a Fellow of the Royal Society. Looking merely at these proportions, the estimation of a seat in the Academy of Berlin, must be more than nine times as valuable as a similar situation in England; and a member of the Institute of France will be more than thirteen times more rare in his country than a Fellow of the Royal Society is in England.
It seems that in France, one person out of 427,000 is a member of the Institute. In Italy and Prussia, about one out of 300,000 people is a member of their Academies. In England, there is one Fellow of the Royal Society for every 32,000 residents. Based on these ratios, a position in the Academy of Berlin must be more than nine times as valuable as a similar role in England, and a member of the Institute of France is over thirteen times rarer in their country than a Fellow of the Royal Society is in England.
Favourable as this view is to the dignity of such situations in other countries, their comparative rarity is by no means the most striking difference in the circumstances of men of science. If we look at the station in society occupied by the SAVANS of other countries, in several of them we shall find it high, and their situations profitable. Perhaps, at the present moment, Prussia is, of all the countries in Europe, that which bestows the greatest attention, and most unwearied encouragement on science. Great as are the merits of many of its philosophers, much of this support arises from the character of the reigning family, by whose enlightened policy even the most abstract sciences are fostered.
As positive as this perspective is regarding the respect given to such positions in other countries, their relative rarity is not the most notable difference in the situations of scientists. If we examine the social standing of the scholars in different nations, in many of them we will find it to be high, and their positions rewarding. Right now, Prussia is perhaps the country in Europe that gives the most attention and relentless support to science. While many of its philosophers are incredibly talented, a lot of this backing comes from the nature of the ruling family, whose progressive policies help promote even the most theoretical sciences.
The maxim that "knowledge is power," can be perfectly comprehended by those only who are themselves well versed in science; and to the circumstance of the younger branches of the royal family of Prussia having acquired considerable knowledge in such subjects, we may attribute the great force with which that maxim is appreciated.
The saying "knowledge is power" can be fully understood only by those who are well-informed in science. The fact that the younger members of the Prussian royal family have gained significant knowledge in these areas helps explain why they value this saying so highly.
In France, the situation of its SAVANS is highly respectable, as well as profitable. If we analyze the list of the Institute, we shall find few who do not possess titles or decorations; but as the value of such marks of royal favour must depend, in a great measure, on their frequency, I shall mention several particulars which are probably not familiar to the English reader. [This analysis was made by comparing the list of the Institute, printed for that body in 1827, with the ALMANACH ROYALE for 1823.]
In France, the status of its scholars is very respectable and also profitable. If we look at the list of the Institute, we will find that few do not have titles or honors; however, since the value of such symbols of royal favor largely depends on how common they are, I will mention a few details that are likely not known to the English reader. [This analysis was made by comparing the list of the Institute, printed for that body in 1827, with the ALMANACH ROYALE for 1823.]
Number of the Members of the Total Number of each Class Institute of France who belong of the Legion of Honour. to the Legion of Honour. GrandCroix......... 3 80 GrandOfficier..... 3 160 Commandeur........ 4 400 Officier.......... 17 2,000 Chevalier......... 40 Not limited.
Number of the Members of the Total Number of each Class Institute of France who belong of the Legion of Honour. to the Legion of Honour. GrandCross......... 3 80 GrandOfficer..... 3 160 Commander........ 4 400 Officer.......... 17 2,000 Knight......... 40 Not limited.
Number of Members of the Institute Total Number decorated with of the Order of St. Michel. that Order. Grand Croix....... 2 100 Chevalier......... 27 Amongst the members of the Institute there are,— Dukes................... 2 Marquis................. 1 Counts.................. 4 Viscounts................ 2 Barons.................. 14 —23 Of these there are Peers of France.......... 5
Number of Members of the Institute Total Number decorated with of the Order of St. Michel. that Order. Grand Croix....... 2 100 Chevalier......... 27 Among the members of the Institute, there are,— Dukes................... 2 Marquis................. 1 Counts.................. 4 Viscounts................ 2 Barons.................. 14 —23 Of these, there are Peers of France.......... 5
We might, on turning over the list of the 685 members of the Royal Society, find a greater number of peers than there are in the Institute of France; but a fairer mode of instituting the comparison, is to inquire how many titled members there are amongst those who have contributed to its Transactions. In 1827, there were one hundred and nine members who had contributed to the Transactions of the Royal Society; amongst these were found:—
We might, when looking through the list of the 685 members of the Royal Society, find more peers than in the Institute of France; however, a better way to compare them is to see how many titled members contributed to its Transactions. In 1827, there were one hundred and nine members who contributed to the Transactions of the Royal Society; among these were:—
Peer........................ 1 Baronets.................... 5 Knights..................... 5
Peer........................ 1 Baronets.................... 5 Knights..................... 5
It should be observed, that five of these titles were the rewards of members of the medical profession, and one only, that of Sir H. Davy, could be attributed exclusively to science.
It should be noted that five of these titles were awarded to members of the medical profession, while only one, that of Sir H. Davy, can be credited solely to science.
It must not be inferred that the titles of nobility in the French list, were all of them the rewards of scientific eminence; many are known to have been such; but it would be quite sufficient for the argument to mention the names of Lagrange, Laplace, Berthollet, and Chaptal.
It shouldn't be assumed that all the noble titles on the French list were solely the result of scientific achievements; while many were, it's enough for the argument to highlight the names of Lagrange, Laplace, Berthollet, and Chaptal.
The estimation in which the public hold literary claims in France and England, was curiously illustrated by an incidental expression in the translation of the debates in the House of Lords, on the occasion of His Majesty's speech at the commencement of the session of 1830. The Gazette de France stated, that the address was moved by the Duc de Buccleugh, "CHEF DE LA MAISON DE WALTER SCOTT." Had an English editor wished to particularize that nobleman, he would undoubtedly have employed the term WEALTHY, or some other of the epithets characteristic of that quality most esteemed amongst his countrymen.
The way the public views literary figures in France and England was interestingly highlighted by a casual remark in the translation of the debates in the House of Lords during His Majesty's speech at the start of the 1830 session. The Gazette de France mentioned that the address was introduced by the Duc de Buccleugh, "CHEF DE LA MAISON DE WALTER SCOTT." If an English editor wanted to point out that nobleman, he would certainly have used the term WEALTHY, or some other term that reflects the quality most valued among his countrymen.
If we turn, on the other hand, to the emoluments of science in France, we shall find them far exceed those in our own country. I regret much that I have mislaid a most interesting memorandum on this subject, which I made several years since: but I believe my memory on the point will not be found widely incorrect. A foreign gentleman, himself possessing no inconsiderable acquaintance with science, called on me a few years since, to present a letter of introduction. He had been but a short time in London; and, in the course of our conversation, it appeared to me that he had imbibed very inaccurate ideas respecting our encouragement of science.
If we look at the benefits of science in France, we’ll see they are much greater than those in our country. I really regret that I lost a very interesting note on this topic that I made several years ago, but I think my memory on this matter isn’t too far off. A foreign gentleman, who had a decent understanding of science, visited me a few years ago to deliver a letter of introduction. He had only been in London for a short time, and during our conversation, it seemed to me that he had some very misguided ideas about how we support science.
Thinking this a good opportunity of instituting a fair comparison between the emoluments of science in the two countries, I placed a sheet of paper before him, and requested him to write down the names of six Englishmen, in his opinion, best known in France for their scientific reputation. Taking another sheet of paper, I wrote upon it the names of six Frenchmen, best known in England for their scientific discoveries. We exchanged these lists, and I then requested him to place against each name (as far as he knew) the annual income of the different appointments held by that person. In the mean time, I performed the same operation on his list, against some names of which I was obliged to place a ZERO. The result of the comparison was an average of nearly 1200L. per annum for the six French SAVANS whom I had named. Of the average amount of the sums received by the English, I only remember that it was very much smaller. When we consider what a command over the necessaries and luxuries of life 1200L. will give in France, it is underrating it to say it is equal to 2000L. in this country.
Thinking this was a good opportunity to fairly compare the earnings of scientists in the two countries, I put a sheet of paper in front of him and asked him to write down the names of six Englishmen who, in his opinion, were the most recognized in France for their scientific reputation. I took another sheet of paper and wrote down the names of six Frenchmen who were best known in England for their scientific discoveries. We exchanged lists, and then I asked him to note the annual income for each name (as far as he knew) based on the positions held by those individuals. In the meantime, I did the same with his list, having to put a ZERO next to some names. The result of the comparison showed an average of nearly £1,200 per year for the six French scholars I had listed. I only recall that the average income for the English was significantly lower. When we consider what £1,200 can provide in terms of necessities and luxuries in France, it's an understatement to say it equates to £2,000 in this country.
Let us now look at the prospects of a young man at his entrance into life, who, impelled by an almost irresistible desire to devote himself to the abstruser sciences, or who, confident in the energy of youthful power, feels that the career of science is that in which his mental faculties are most fitted to achieve the reputation for which he pants. What are his prospects? Can even the glowing pencil of enthusiasm add colour to the blank before him? There are no situations in the state; there is no position in society to which hope can point, to cheer him in his laborious path. If, indeed, he belong to one of our universities, there are some few chairs in his OWN Alma Mater to which he may at some distant day pretend; but these are not numerous; and whilst the salaries attached are seldom sufficient for the sole support of the individual, they are very rarely enough for that of a family. What then can he reply to the entreaties of his friends, to betake himself to some business in which perhaps they have power to assist him, or to choose some profession in which his talents may produce for him their fair reward? If he have no fortune, the choice is taken away: he MUST give up that line of life in which his habits of thought and his ambition qualify him to succeed eminently, and he MUST choose the bar, or some other profession, in which, amongst so many competitors, in spite of his great talents, he can be but moderately successful. The loss to him is great, but to the country it is greater. We thus, by a destructive misapplication of talent which our institutions create, exchange a profound philosopher for but a tolerable lawyer.
Let’s now examine the prospects of a young man as he starts his journey in life, driven by an almost uncontrollable desire to immerse himself in the deeper sciences or, filled with the confidence of youth, believing that a career in science is where his talents will truly shine and earn him the recognition he desires. What are his options? Can even the bright spark of enthusiasm bring any color to the emptiness in front of him? There are no job openings in government; there’s no place in society that offers hope to motivate him on his challenging path. If he happens to be at one of our universities, there are a few positions within his own alma mater that he might aspire to in the distant future, but these are limited; and while the salaries linked to these roles are rarely enough to support an individual, they are almost never sufficient for a family. So, what can he say to his friends who urge him to pursue a career where they might be able to help him, or to select a profession where his skills can bring him a fair reward? If he lacks financial support, his options are effectively taken away: he HAS to abandon the path where his way of thinking and aspirations could lead to significant success, and he HAS to settle for law or another career where, despite his considerable abilities, he can only achieve moderate success among countless competitors. The loss for him is substantial, but it’s even greater for the country. This way, through a harmful misallocation of talent created by our institutions, we trade a brilliant philosopher for just an average lawyer.
If, on the other hand, he possess some moderate fortune of his own; and, intent on the glory of an immortal name, yet not blindly ignorant of the state of science in this country, he resolve to make for that aspiration a sacrifice the greater, because he is fully aware of its extent;—if, so circumstanced, he give up a business or a profession on which he might have entered with advantage, with the hope that, when he shall have won a station high in the ranks of European science, he may a little augment his resources by some of those few employments to which science leads;—if he hope to obtain some situation, (at the Board of Longitude, for example,) [This body is now dissolved] where he may be permitted to exercise the talents of a philosopher for the paltry remuneration of a clerk, he will find that other qualifications than knowledge and a love of science are necessary for its attainment. He will also find that the high and independent spirit, which usually dwells in the breast of those who are deeply versed in these pursuits, is ill adapted for such appointments; and that even if successful, he must hear many things he disapproves, and raise no voice AGAINST them.
If he has a modest fortune of his own and, driven by the desire for an everlasting legacy, yet not oblivious to the state of science in this country, decides to make a significant sacrifice for that ambition—if, in that situation, he gives up a business or career he could have started with advantage, hoping that once he achieves a prominent position in European science, he can slightly improve his financial situation through one of the few jobs that science offers—if he aims to get a position (like at the Board of Longitude, for example) [This body is now dissolved], where he can use his philosophical skills for the meager pay of a clerk, he will discover that more than just knowledge and a passion for science is needed to get there. He will also find that the high and independent spirit typically found in those deeply engaged in these fields is not suitable for such roles; even if he succeeds, he will have to hear many things he disagrees with and keep silent about them.
Thus, then, it appears that scarcely any man can be expected to pursue abstract science unless he possess a private fortune, and unless he can resolve to give up all intention of improving it. Yet, how few thus situated are likely to undergo the labour of the acquisition; and if they do from some irresistible impulse, what inducement is there for them to deviate one step from those inquiries in which they find the greatest delight, into those which might be more immediately useful to the public?
Thus, it seems that hardly anyone can be expected to pursue abstract science unless they have a private fortune and are willing to give up any intention of improving it. Yet, how few people in that position are likely to put in the effort to acquire it; and if they do feel some irresistible urge, what motivation do they have to stray even slightly from the inquiries that give them the most pleasure into those that might be more immediately beneficial to the public?
CHAPTER III. GENERAL STATE OF LEARNED SOCIETIES IN ENGLAND.
The progress of knowledge convinced the world that the system of the division of labour and of cooperation was as applicable to science, as it had been found available for the improvement of manufactures. The want of competition in science produced effects similar to those which the same cause gives birth to in the arts. The cultivators of botany were the first to feel that the range of knowledge embraced by the Royal Society was too comprehensive to admit of sufficient attention to their favourite subject, and they established the Linnean Society. After many years, a new science arose, and the Geological Society was produced. At an another and more recent epoch, the friends of astronomy, urged by the wants of their science, united to establish the Astronomical Society. Each of these bodies found, that the attention devoted to their science by the parent establishment was insufficient for their wants, and each in succession experienced from the Royal Society the most determined opposition.
The advancement of knowledge led people to believe that the division of labor and cooperation applied to science just as effectively as it had for improving manufacturing. The lack of competition in science created effects similar to those seen in the arts. Botanists were the first to realize that the scope of knowledge covered by the Royal Society was too broad to allow for adequate attention to their beloved field, so they founded the Linnean Society. After many years, a new science emerged, leading to the creation of the Geological Society. Later on, friends of astronomy, driven by the needs of their field, came together to form the Astronomical Society. Each of these groups found that the attention given to their science by the Royal Society was insufficient for their needs, and one after another faced strong opposition from the Royal Society.
Instituted by the most enlightened philosophers, solely for the promotion of the natural sciences, that learned body justly conceived that nothing could be more likely to render these young institutions permanently successful, than discouragement and opposition at their commencement. Finding their first attempts so eminently successful, they redoubled the severity of their persecution, and the result was commensurate with their exertions, and surpassed even their wildest anticipations. The Astronomical Society became in six years known and respected throughout Europe, not from the halo of reputation which the glory of its vigourous youth had thrown around the weakness of its declining years; but from the sterling merit of "its unpretending deeds, from the sympathy it claimed and received from every practical astronomer, whose labours it relieved, and whose calculations it lightened."
Established by the most forward-thinking philosophers, exclusively for the advancement of natural sciences, that esteemed group rightly believed that nothing could ensure the long-term success of these budding institutions more than discouragement and opposition at the outset. Seeing their initial efforts achieve remarkable success, they intensified their persecution, and the outcome matched their efforts, exceeding even their wildest expectations. Within six years, the Astronomical Society became recognized and respected across Europe, not due to the reputation from its vigorous youth overshadowing the frailty of its later years, but because of the genuine merit of "its humble actions, from the support it requested and received from every practical astronomer, whose work it assisted and whose calculations it eased."
But the system which worked so well is now changed, and the Zoological and Medico-Botanical Societies were established without opposition: perhaps, indeed, the total failure of the latter society is the best proof of the wisdom which guided the councils of the Royal. At present, the various societies exist with no feelings of rivalry or hostility, each pursuing its separate objects, and all uniting in deploring with filial regret, the second childhood of their common parent, and the evil councils by which that sad event has been anticipated.
But the system that worked so well is now changed, and the Zoological and Medico-Botanical Societies were established without any opposition; in fact, the complete failure of the latter society is perhaps the best proof of the wisdom that guided the councils of the Royal. Nowadays, the various societies exist without any feelings of rivalry or hostility, each pursuing its own goals, and all coming together to sadly regret the decline of their common parent and the poor decisions that led to this unfortunate situation.
It is the custom to attach certain letters to the names of those who belong to different societies, and these marks of ownership are by many considered the only valuable part of their purchase on entry. The following is a list of some of these societies. The second column gives the ready-money prices of the tail-pieces indicated in the third.
It’s common to add specific letters to the names of people who belong to different groups, and many see these symbols as the most worthwhile aspect of their membership. Below is a list of some of these groups. The second column shows the cash prices for the tail-pieces listed in the third.
SOCIETIES. Fees on Admission Appended including Composition Letters for Annual Payments. L. s. d. Royal Society............. 50 0 0 F.R.S. Royal Society of Edinburgh. 25 4 0* F.R.S.E. Royal Academy of Dublin... 26 5 0 M.R.I.A. Royal Society of Literature 36 15 0 F.R.S.Lit. Antiquarian............... 50 8 0 F.A.S. Linnean................... 36 0 0 F.L.S. Geological................ 34 15 0 F.G.S. Astronomical.............. 25 4 0 M.A.S. Zoological................ 26 5 0 F.Z.S. Royal Institution......... 50 0 0 M.R.I. Royal Asiatic.............. 31 10 0 F.R.A.S. Horticultural............. 43 6 0 F.H.S. Medico-Botanical.......... 21 0 0 F.M.B.S.
SOCIETIES. Admission Fees Attached including Subscription Letters for Annual Payments. L. s. d. Royal Society............. 50 0 0 F.R.S. Royal Society of Edinburgh. 25 4 0* F.R.S.E. Royal Academy of Dublin... 26 5 0 M.R.I.A. Royal Society of Literature 36 15 0 F.R.S.Lit. Antiquarian............... 50 8 0 F.A.S. Linnean................... 36 0 0 F.L.S. Geological................ 34 15 0 F.G.S. Astronomical.............. 25 4 0 M.A.S. Zoological................ 26 5 0 F.Z.S. Royal Institution......... 50 0 0 M.R.I. Royal Asiatic.............. 31 10 0 F.R.A.S. Horticultural............. 43 6 0 F.H.S. Medico-Botanical.......... 21 0 0 F.M.B.S.
[* The Royal Society of Edinburgh now requires, for composition in lieu of annual contributions, a sum dependent on the value of the life of the member.]
[* The Royal Society of Edinburgh now requires a payment based on the member's life value instead of annual contributions.]
Thus, those who are ambitious of scientific distinction, may, according to their fancy, render their name a kind of comet, carrying with it a tail of upwards of forty letters, at the average cost of 10L. 9s. 9d. per letter.
Thus, those who seek scientific recognition can, as they wish, make their name like a comet, dragging along a tail of over forty letters, at an average cost of £10. 9s. 9d. per letter.
Perhaps the reader will remark, that science cannot be declining in a country which supports so many institutions for its cultivation. It is indeed creditable to us, that the greater part of these societies are maintained by the voluntary contributions of their members. But, unless the inquiries which have recently taken place in some of them should rectify the SYSTEM OF MANAGEMENT by which several have been oppressed, it is not difficult to predict that their duration will be short. Full PUBLICITY, PRINTED STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS, and occasional DISCUSSIONS and inquiries at GENERAL MEETINGS, are the only safeguards; and a due degree of VIGILANCE should be exercised on those who DISCOURAGE these principles. Of the Royal Society, I shall speak in a succeeding page; and I regret to add, that I might have said more. My object is to amend it; but, like all deeply-rooted complaints, the operation which alone can contribute to its cure, is necessarily painful. Had the words of remonstrance or reproof found utterance through other channels, I had gladly been silent, content to support by my vote the reasonings of the friend of science and of the Society. But this has not been the case, and after frustrated efforts to introduce improvements, I shall now endeavour, by the force of plain, but perhaps painful truths, to direct public opinion in calling for such a reform, as shall rescue the Royal Society from contempt in our own country, from ridicule in others.
Maybe the reader will notice that science can't be declining in a country that supports so many institutions for its advancement. It's commendable that most of these societies are funded by the voluntary contributions of their members. However, unless the recent investigations in some of them lead to a change in the MANAGEMENT SYSTEM that has held several back, it’s easy to predict that they won’t last long. Full TRANSPARENCY, PUBLISHED FINANCIAL REPORTS, and occasional DISCUSSIONS and inquiries at GENERAL MEETINGS are the only protections; and we should keep a close watch on those who oppose these principles. I will discuss the Royal Society on the next page; I wish I could say more. My goal is to improve it; but like all deeply-rooted issues, the process that truly helps can be painful. If the voices of protest or criticism had been raised through other means, I would have happily stayed quiet, glad to support the arguments of the friend of science and the Society with my vote. But that hasn't happened, and after failed attempts to introduce improvements, I will now try to use straightforward, albeit uncomfortable truths, to encourage public opinion to call for a reform that will save the Royal Society from being looked down upon in our own country and ridiculed elsewhere.
On the next five societies in the list, I shall offer no remarks. Of the Geological, I shall say a few words. It possesses all the freshness, the vigour, and the ardour of youth in the pursuit of a youthful science, and has succeeded in a most difficult experiment, that of having an oral discussion on the subject of each paper read at its meetings. To say of these discussions, that they are very entertaining, is the least part of the praise which is due to them. They are generally very instructive, and sometimes bring together isolated facts in the science which, though insignificant when separate, mutually illustrate each other, and ultimately lead to important conclusions. The continuance of these discussions evidently depends on the taste, the temper, and the good sense of the speakers. The things to be avoided are chiefly verbal criticisms—praise of each other beyond its reasonable limits, and contest for victory. This latter is, perhaps, the most important of the three, both for the interests of the Society and of truth. With regard to the published volumes of their Transactions, it may be remarked, that if members were in the habit of communicating their papers to the Society in a more finished state, it would be attended with several advantages; amongst others, with that of lightening the heavy duties of the officers, which are perhaps more laborious in this Society than in most others. To court publicity in their accounts and proceedings, and to endeavour to represent all the feelings of the Society in the Council, and to avoid permanent Presidents, is a recommendation not peculiarly addressed to this Society, but would contribute to the well-being of all.
I won’t comment on the next five societies on the list. However, I will say a few words about the Geological Society. It has all the freshness, energy, and enthusiasm of youth in the pursuit of a new science, and it has successfully tackled a challenging experiment by having discussions on each paper presented at its meetings. To say these discussions are very entertaining is just scratching the surface of the praise they deserve. They are usually quite informative, often connecting isolated facts in the science that, while insignificant on their own, illustrate each other and ultimately lead to important conclusions. The continuation of these discussions clearly depends on the taste, demeanor, and good judgment of the speakers. It’s important to avoid mainly verbal criticisms—excessive praise for one another and aiming for victory. The latter is probably the most crucial of the three, as it affects both the Society's interests and the truth. Regarding the published volumes of their Transactions, it can be noted that if members were accustomed to submitting their papers in a more polished form, it would bring several advantages, including easing the burdens of the officers, which are likely heavier in this Society than in most others. Seeking publicity in their reports and proceedings, striving to represent all the Society's sentiments in the Council, and avoiding permanent Presidents is a suggestion that isn’t unique to this Society but would benefit all societies.
Of the Astronomical Society, which, from the nature of its pursuits, could scarcely admit of the discussions similar to those of the Geological, I shall merely observe, that I know of no secret which has caused its great success, unless it be attention to the maxims which have just been stated.
Of the Astronomical Society, which, due to the nature of its activities, could hardly engage in discussions like those of the Geological, I will only note that I am not aware of any secret that has led to its significant success, except for the focus on the principles that have just been mentioned.
On the Zoological Society, which affords much rational amusement to the public, a few hints may at present suffice. The largeness of its income is a frightful consideration. It is too tempting as the subject for jobs, and it is too fluctuating and uncertain in its amount, not to render embarrassment in the affairs of the Society a circumstance likely to occur, without the greatest circumspection. It is most probable, from the very recent formation of this Institution, that its Officers and Council are at present all that its best friends could wish; but it is still right to mention, that in such a Society, it is essentially necessary to have men of business on the Council, as well as persons possessing extensive knowledge of its pursuits. It is more dangerous in such a Society than in any other, to pay compliments, by placing gentlemen on the Council who have not the qualifications which are requisite; a frequent change in the members of the Council is desirable, in order to find out who are the most regular attendants, and most qualified to conduct its business. Publicity in its accounts and proceedings is, from the magnitude of its funds, more essential to the Zoological than to any other society; and it is rather a fearful omen, that a check was attempted to be given to such inquiries at the last anniversary meeting. If it is to be a scientific body, the friends of science should not for an instant tolerate such attempts.
On the Zoological Society, which provides a lot of rational entertainment to the public, a few tips may now be enough. The size of its income is a concerning point. It’s too tempting as a target for corruption, and the amount is too unpredictable to avoid potential issues in the Society’s affairs without careful management. It’s likely, given the recent formation of this Institution, that its Officers and Council are currently all that its best supporters could hope for; however, it’s still important to note that in this type of Society, it is absolutely necessary to have business-minded people on the Council, as well as individuals with extensive knowledge of its activities. It is riskier in this Society than in others to give compliments by placing people on the Council who lack the necessary qualifications; a regular rotation of Council members is beneficial to identify those who are the most dedicated and capable of handling its operations. Transparency in its finances and activities is, due to the size of its funds, more crucial for the Zoological Society than for any other; it is rather alarming that there was an attempt to limit such inquiries at the last anniversary meeting. If it is to be a scientific organization, those who support science should not tolerate such attempts for even a moment.
It frequently happens, that gentlemen take an active part in more than one scientific society: in that case, it may be useful to derive instruction as to their merits, by observing the success of their measures in other societies.
It often happens that gentlemen participate actively in more than one scientific society; in that case, it can be helpful to evaluate their effectiveness by looking at how successful their initiatives are in other societies.
The Asiatic Society has, amongst other benefits, caused many valuable works to be translated, which could not have otherwise been published.
The Asiatic Society has, among other benefits, facilitated the translation of many valuable works that wouldn't have been published otherwise.
The Horticultural Society has been ridden almost to death, and is now rousing itself; but its constitution seems to have been somewhat impaired. There are hopes of its purgation, and ultimate restoration, notwithstanding a debt of 19,000L., which the Committee of Inquiry have ascertained to exist. This, after all, will not be without its advantage to science, if it puts a stop to HOUSE-LISTS, NAMED BY ONE OR TWO PERSONS,—to making COMPLIMENTARY councillors,—and to auditing the accounts WITHOUT EXAMINING EVERY ITEM, or to omitting even that form altogether.
The Horticultural Society has been nearly exhausted, but is now starting to revive; however, its structure seems a bit damaged. There’s hope for its recovery and ultimate revival, despite a debt of £19,000 that the Committee of Inquiry has confirmed. This situation might actually benefit science if it puts an end to HOUSE-LISTS created by just a couple of people, to appointing honorary councillors, and to auditing the accounts without checking every detail, or even skipping that process entirely.
The Medico-Botanical Society suddenly claimed the attention of the public; its pretensions were great—its assurance unbounded. It speedily became distinguished, not by its publications or discoveries, but by the number of princes it enrolled in its list. It is needless now to expose the extent of its short-lived quackery; but the evil deeds of that institution will long remain in the impression they have contributed to confirm throughout Europe, of the character of our scientific establishments. It would be at once a judicious and a dignified course, if those lovers of science, who have been so grievously deceived in this Society, were to enrol upon the latest page of its history its highest claim to public approbation, and by signing its dissolution, offer the only atonement in their power to the insulted science of their country. As with a singular inversion of principle, the society contrived to render EXPULSION* the highest HONOUR it could confer; so it remains for it to exemplify, in suicide, the sublimest virtue of which it is capable. [* They expelled from amongst them a gentleman, of whom it is but slight praise to say, that he is the first and most philosophical botanist of our own country, and who is admired abroad as he is respected at home. The circumstance which surprised the world was not his exit from, but his previous entrance into that Society.]
The Medico-Botanical Society suddenly caught the public's attention; its claims were grand—its confidence limitless. It quickly gained recognition, not for its publications or discoveries, but by the number of royals it signed up. There's no need to detail the extent of its brief deception, but the harmful actions of that institution will long contribute to the perception of our scientific establishments across Europe. It would be wise and dignified for those who love science and have been misled by this Society to record its greatest claim to public approval on the last page of its history by signing its dissolution, offering the only apology they can to the insulted science of their country. Just as, in a strange twist of principle, the society made EXPULSION* the highest HONOR it could bestow; so, it is now for it to demonstrate, through its own demise, the greatest virtue it can achieve. [* They expelled a gentleman who is justly regarded as the leading and most philosophical botanist in our country and who is respected at home as he is admired abroad. What surprised the world was not his leaving, but his earlier joining that Society.]
CHAPTER IV. STATE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY IN PARTICULAR.
As the venerable first parent of English, and I might perhaps say, of European scientific societies; as a body in the welfare of which, in the opinions of many, the interests of British science are materially involved, I may be permitted to feel anxiously, and to speak more in detail.
As the respected origin of English, and I might also say, of European scientific societies; as an organization that many believe plays a crucial role in the welfare of British science, I feel compelled to express my concerns and discuss this matter in more detail.
SECTION 1. MODE OF BECOMING A FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
I have no intention of stating what ought to be the qualifications of a Fellow of the Royal Society; but, for years, the practical mode of arriving at that honour, has been as follows:—
I don't plan to say what the qualifications for a Fellow of the Royal Society should be; however, for years, the way to achieve that honor has been as follows:—
A. B. gets any three Fellows to sign a certificate, stating that he (A. B.) is desirous of becoming a member, and likely to be a useful and valuable one. This is handed in to the Secretary, and suspended in the meeting-room. At the end of ten weeks, if A. B. has the good fortune to be perfectly unknown by any literary or scientific achievement, however small, he is quite sure of being elected as a matter of course. If, on the other hand, he has unfortunately written on any subject connected with science, or is supposed to be acquainted with any branch of it, the members begin to inquire what he has done to deserve the honour; and, unless he has powerful friends, he has a fair chance of being black-balled. [I understand that certificates are now read at the Council, previously to their being hung up in the meeting-room; but I am not aware that this has in the slightest degree diminished their number, which was, at the time of writing this note, TWENTY-FOUR.]
A. B. gets three Fellows to sign a certificate saying that he (A. B.) wants to become a member and is likely to be a useful and valuable one. This is submitted to the Secretary and displayed in the meeting room. After ten weeks, if A. B. is perfectly unknown for any literary or scientific achievement, no matter how small, he's pretty much guaranteed to be elected as a matter of course. On the other hand, if he has unfortunately written anything related to science or is thought to have knowledge in any area of it, the members start to question what he has done to deserve the honor; and unless he has influential friends, he risks being blackballed. [I understand that certificates are now read at the Council before they are displayed in the meeting room; but I'm not aware that this has significantly reduced their number, which was, at the time of writing this note, TWENTY-FOUR.]
In fourteen years' experience, the few whom I have seen rejected, have all been known persons; but even in such cases a hope remains;—perseverance will do much, and a gentleman who values so highly the distinction of admission to the Royal Society, may try again; and even after being twice black-balled, if he will a third time condescend to express his desire to become a member, he may perhaps succeed, by the aid of a hard canvass. In such circumstances, the odds are much in favour of the candidate possessing great scientific claims; and the only objection that could then reasonably be suggested, would arise from his estimating rather too highly a distinction which had become insignificant from its unlimited extension.
In my fourteen years of experience, the few people I've seen rejected have all been well-known figures; however, even in those cases, there is still hope. Perseverance can go a long way, and a gentleman who values the prestige of joining the Royal Society may try again. Even after being black-balled twice, if he is willing to express his desire to become a member for a third time, he might succeed with some strong campaigning. In these situations, the odds are significantly in favor of candidates with strong scientific credentials, and the only reasonable objection would be that he might overestimate the importance of a distinction that has become less significant due to its widespread availability.
It should be observed, that all members contribute equally, and that the sum now required is fifty pounds. It used, until lately, to be ten pounds on entrance, and four pounds annually. The amount of this subscription is so large, that it is calculated to prevent many men of real science from entering the Society, and is a very severe tax on those who do so; for very few indeed of the cultivators of science rank amongst the wealthy classes. Several times, whilst I have been consulting books or papers at Somerset House, persons have called to ask the Assistant-secretary the mode of becoming a member of the Royal Society. I should conjecture, from some of these applications, that it is not very unusual for gentlemen in the country to order their agents in London to take measures for putting them up at the Royal Society.
It should be noted that all members contribute equally, and the current requirement is fifty pounds. It used to be ten pounds for entrance and four pounds annually. This subscription amount is so high that it seems to deter many individuals with genuine scientific interest from joining the Society, and it puts a significant burden on those who do; very few in the field of science are among the wealthy. Several times, while I’ve been consulting books or papers at Somerset House, people have approached the Assistant Secretary to ask about how to become a member of the Royal Society. From some of these inquiries, I would guess that it’s not uncommon for gentlemen in the countryside to instruct their agents in London to arrange their membership at the Royal Society.
SECTION 2. OF THE PRESIDENCY AND VICE-PRESIDENCIES.
Why Mr. Davies Gilbert became President of the Royal Society I cannot precisely say. Let him who penned, and those who supported this resolution solve the enigma:
Why Mr. Davies Gilbert became President of the Royal Society, I can't say for sure. Let the person who wrote this, and those who backed this decision, figure out the mystery:
"It was Resolved,
"It was decided,"
"That it is the opinion of the Council that Davies Gilbert, Esq. is by far the most fit person to be proposed to the Society at the approaching anniversary as President, and that he be recommended accordingly."
"That the Council believes Davies Gilbert, Esq. is by far the most suitable candidate to be nominated to the Society at the upcoming anniversary as President, and that he be recommended for this role."
To resolve that he was a FIT person might have been sufficiently flattering: to state that he was the most fit, was a little hard upon the rest of the Society; but to resolve that he was "BY FAR THE MOST FIT" was only consistent with that strain of compliment in which his supporters indulge, and was a eulogy, by no means unique in its kind, I believe, even at that very Council.
To decide that he was a FIT person might have been pretty flattering; saying he was the most fit was a bit harsh on the rest of the Society, but claiming he was "BY FAR THE MOST FIT" was just in line with the kind of flattery that his supporters liked to use, and was a tribute that was definitely not one-of-a-kind, I think, even at that very Council.
That Mr. Gilbert is a most amiable and kind-hearted man will be instantly admitted by all who are, in the least degree, acquainted with him: that he is fit for the chair of the Royal Society, will be allowed by few, except those who have committed themselves to the above-quoted resolution.
That Mr. Gilbert is a really friendly and kind man will be immediately recognized by anyone who knows him, even a little bit: that he is suited for the position of the Royal Society chair will be accepted by only a few, except for those who have already committed to the resolution mentioned above.
Possessed of knowledge and of fortune more than sufficient for it, he might have been the restorer of its lustre. He might have called round him, at the council board, those most actively engaged in the pursuits of science, most anxious for the improvement of the Royal Society. Instead of himself proposing resolutions, he might have been, what a chairman ought to be, the organ of the body over which he presides. By the firmness of his own conduct he might have taught the subordinate officers of the Society the duties of their station. Instead of paying compliments to Ministers, who must have smiled at his simplicity, he might have maintained the dignity of his Council by the dignity of knowledge.
Having enough knowledge and wealth, he could have been the one to restore its glory. He could have brought together those most involved in scientific pursuits, who cared deeply about improving the Royal Society. Instead of proposing resolutions himself, he could have been what a chairman should be—the voice of the body he leads. By demonstrating firm conduct, he could have taught the subordinate officers of the Society the responsibilities of their roles. Instead of flattering Ministers, who must have laughed at his naivety, he could have upheld the dignity of his Council through the dignity of knowledge.
But he has chosen a different path; with no motives of interest to allure, or of ambition to betray him, instead of making himself respected as the powerful chief of a united republic,—that of science,—he has grasped at despotic power, and stands the feeble occupant of its desolated kingdom, trembling at the force of opinions he might have directed, and refused even the patronage of their names by those whose energies he might have commanded.
But he has taken a different path; with no self-serving motives to entice him, or ambitions to lead him astray, instead of earning respect as the strong leader of a united republic—one of science—he has seized oppressive power and now occupies a ruined kingdom, trembling at the influence of opinions he could have shaped, and has even turned down support from those whose efforts he could have commanded.
Mr. Gilbert told the Society he accepted the situation for a year; and this circumstance caused a difficulty in finding a Treasurer: an office which he had long held, and to which he wished to return.
Mr. Gilbert informed the Society that he would accept the situation for a year; and this created a challenge in finding a Treasurer: a position he had held for a long time and to which he wanted to return.
Another difficulty might have arisen, from the fact of the late Board of Longitude comprising amongst its Members the PRESIDENT of the Royal Society, and three of its Fellows, appointed by the President and Council. Of course, when Mr. Gilbert accepted the higher situation, he became, EX OFFICIO, a Member of the Board of Longitude; and a vacancy occurred, which ought to have been filled up by the President and Council. But when this subject was brought before them, in defiance of common sense, and the plain meaning of the act of parliament, which had enacted that the Board of Longitude should have the assistance of four persons belonging to the Royal Society, Mr. Gilbert refused to allow it to be filled up, on the ground that he should not be President next year, and had made no vacancy.
Another issue may have come up because the former Board of Longitude included the PRESIDENT of the Royal Society and three of its Fellows, chosen by the President and Council. Naturally, when Mr. Gilbert took on the higher position, he automatically became a Member of the Board of Longitude, creating a vacancy that needed to be filled by the President and Council. However, when this matter was raised, contrary to common sense and the clear wording of the act of parliament—which stated that the Board of Longitude was to include four individuals from the Royal Society—Mr. Gilbert refused to let it be filled, arguing that he wouldn’t be President next year and there was no vacancy.
Next year Mr. Gilbert wished again to be President one other year; but the Board of Longitude was dissolved, otherwise we might have had some LOCUM TENENS to retire at Mr. Gilbert's pleasure.
Next year, Mr. Gilbert wanted to be President for another term, but the Board of Longitude was dissolved; otherwise, we might have had some temporary replacement to step down at Mr. Gilbert's request.
These circumstances are in themselves of trifling importance, but they illustrate the character of the proceedings: and it is not becoming the dignity of science or of the Society that its officers should be so circumstanced as to have an apparent and direct interest in supporting the existing President, in order to retain their own places; and if such a system is once discovered, doubt immediately arises as to the frequency of such arrangements.
These circumstances may seem minor, but they highlight the nature of the proceedings. It undermines the dignity of science and the Society for its officers to be in a position where they have a clear and direct interest in supporting the current President to keep their own positions. If this system is ever uncovered, it raises immediate questions about how often such arrangements happen.
SECTION 3. OF THE SECRETARISHIPS.
Whether the present Secretaries are the best qualified to aid in reforming the Society, is a question I shall not discuss. With regard to the senior Secretary, the time of his holding office is perhaps more unfortunate than the circumstance. If I might be permitted to allude for a moment to his personal character, I should say that the mild excellencies of his heart have prevented the Royal Society from deriving the whole of that advantage from his varied knowledge and liberal sentiments which some might perhaps have anticipated; and many will agree with me in regretting that his judgment has not directed a larger portion of the past deeds of the Councils of the Royal Society. Of the junior Secretary I shall only observe, that whilst I admit his industry, his perseverance, and his talents, I regret to see such valuable qualities exerted at a disadvantage, and that I sincerely wish them all the success they merit in situations more adapted for their developement.
Whether the current Secretaries are the best fit to help reform the Society is a question I won’t get into. As for the senior Secretary, the timing of his term may be more unfortunate than the situation itself. If I can briefly mention his personal character, I would say that his gentle qualities have prevented the Royal Society from fully benefiting from his diverse knowledge and open-minded views, which some may have expected. Many will agree with me in wishing his judgment had influenced more of the Royal Society's past actions. Regarding the junior Secretary, I simply want to point out that while I recognize his hard work, determination, and skills, I regret to see such valuable traits being underutilized, and I genuinely hope he finds success in roles that are better suited for his abilities.
There are, however, some general principles which it may be important to investigate, which relate to the future as well as to the past state of the office of Secretary of the Royal Society. Inconvenience has already arisen from having had at a former period one of our Secretaries the conductor of a scientific journal; and this is one of the points in which I can agree with those who now manage the affairs of the Society. [These observations were written previous to the late appointment, to which I now devote Section 6. Experience seems to be lost on the Council of the Royal Society.] Perhaps it might be advantageous to extend the same understanding to the other officers of the Society at least, if not to the members of its Council.
There are some general principles that are worth examining, which concern both the future and the past of the Secretary of the Royal Society. There have been issues in the past due to one of our Secretaries also being the editor of a scientific journal, and I agree with those currently overseeing the Society on this matter. [These comments were made before the recent appointment, which I will address in Section 6. It seems the Council of the Royal Society has not learned from experience.] It might be beneficial to have the same understanding applied to the other officers of the Society, if not to the members of its Council.
Another circumstance worthy of the attention of the Society is, to consider whether it is desirable, except in special cases, to have military persons appointed to any of its offices. There are several peculiarities in the military character, which, though they do not absolutely unfit their possessors for the individual prosecution of science, may in some degree disqualify such persons from holding offices in scientific institutions. The habits both of obedience and command, which are essential in military life, are little fitted for that perfect freedom which should reign in the councils of science. If a military chief commit an oversight or an error, it is necessary, in order to retain the confidence of those he commands, to conceal or mask it as much as possible. If an experimentalist make a mistake, his only course to win the confidence of his fellow-labourers in science, and to render his future observations of any use, is to acknowledge it in the most full and explicit manner. The very qualifications which contribute to the professional excellence of the soldier, constitute his defects when he enters the paths of science; and it is only in those rare cases where the force of genius is able to control and surmount these habits, that his admission to the offices of science can be attended with any advantage to it.
Another issue that the Society should consider is whether it’s a good idea, except in special cases, to appoint military people to any of its positions. There are several unique traits associated with military personnel that, while they don't completely disqualify them from pursuing science individually, might somewhat disqualify them from holding roles in scientific institutions. The habits of obedience and command that are crucial in military life aren't suited for the complete freedom that should exist in the discussions of science. If a military leader makes a mistake, they need to hide or downplay it as much as possible to maintain the trust of their team. In contrast, if a scientist makes an error, the best way to gain the trust of their colleagues and ensure that their future work is valuable is to admit it openly and honestly. The very traits that make a soldier professionally excellent turn into limitations when they enter the field of science, and it’s only in the rare instances where exceptional talent can overcome these traits that their involvement in scientific positions can be beneficial.
Another objection deserving notice, although not applying exclusively to the military profession, is, that persons not imbued with the feelings of men of science, when they have published their observations, are too apt to view every criticism upon them as a personal question, and to consider that it is as offensive to doubt the accuracy of their observations as it is to doubt their word. Nothing can be more injurious to science than that such an opinion should be tolerated. The most unreserved criticism is necessary for truth; and those suspicions respecting his own accuracy, which every philosophical experimenter will entertain concerning his own researches, ought never to be considered as a reproach, when they are kept in view in examining the experiments of others. The minute circumstances and apparently trivial causes which lend their influence towards error, even in persons of the most candid judgment, are amongst the most curious phenomena of the human mind.
Another objection worth noting, although it isn’t limited to the military profession, is that individuals who aren’t rooted in the mindset of scientists often view any criticism of their published observations as a personal attack. They tend to take it as offensive to question the accuracy of their findings, just as it would be to question their honesty. This attitude is extremely harmful to science. Open and honest criticism is essential for uncovering the truth, and the doubts that every serious researcher has about their own work should never be seen as an accusation when evaluating the experiments of others. The small details and seemingly minor factors that contribute to mistakes, even among those with the best judgment, are some of the most fascinating aspects of human thought.
The importance of affording every aid to enable others to try the merits of observations, has been so well expressed by Mayer, that I shall conclude these remarks with an extract from the Preface to his Observations:
The importance of giving everyone the support they need to test the value of observations has been so well articulated by Mayer that I will end these comments with a quote from the Preface to his Observations:
"Officii enim cujusque observatoris ease reor, de habitu instrumenti sui, de cura ac precautione, qua usus est, ad illud recte tractandum, deque mediis in errores ejus inquirendi rationem reddere publice, ut aliis quoque copia sit judicandi, quanta fides habenda conclusionibus ex nostris observationibus deductis aut deducendis. Hoc cum minus fecissent precedentis saeculi astronomi, praxin nimis secure, nimisque theoretice tractantes, factum inde potissimum est, ut illorum observationes tot vigiliis tantoque labore comparatae tam cito obsoleverint." P. viii.
"Every observer's role, as I see it, is to carefully handle their instruments, take proper care, and use precautions when making observations. They should also explain how they investigate errors so that others can judge how much trust to place in the conclusions drawn from our observations. Because the astronomers of the previous century did this less, treating practice too casually and too theoretically, their observations, which were gathered through so much effort and vigilance, quickly became outdated." P. viii.
There are certain duties which the Royal Society owes to its own character as well as to the public, which, having been on some occasions apparently neglected, it may be here the proper place to mention, since it is reasonable to suppose that attention to them is within the province of its Secretaries.
There are certain responsibilities that the Royal Society has to uphold not only for its own reputation but also for the public, which have sometimes seemed neglected. It may be appropriate to bring them up here, as it's reasonable to think that addressing them falls within the responsibilities of its Secretaries.
The first to which I shall allude is the singular circumstances attending the fact of the Royal Society having printed a volume of Astronomical Observations which were made at the Observatory of Paramatta (New South Wales), bearing the title of "The Third Part of the Philosophical Transactions for the Year 1829."
The first one I want to mention is the unique circumstances surrounding the Royal Society publishing a volume of Astronomical Observations made at the Observatory of Paramatta (New South Wales), titled "The Third Part of the Philosophical Transactions for the Year 1829."
Now this Observatory was founded at the private expense of a British officer; the instruments were paid for out of his purse; two observers were brought from Europe, to be employed in making use of those instruments, at salaries defrayed by him. A considerable portion of the observations so printed were made by these astronomers during their employment in his service, and some of them are personally his own. Yet has the Royal Society, in adopting them as part of its Transactions, omitted all mention, either in their title-page, preface, or in any part of the volume, of the FACT that the world owed these valuable observations to the enlightened munificence of Lieutenant-General Sir Thomas Brisbane; whose ardent zeal in the pursuit of science induced him to found, at his own private expense, an establishment which it has been creditable to the British Government to continue as a national institution. Had any kindred feelings existed in the Council, instead of endeavouring to shift the responsibility, they would have hastened to rectify an omission, less unjust to the individual than it was injurious to English science.
Now, this observatory was established entirely at the personal expense of a British officer; he paid for the instruments out of his own pocket. Two observers were brought over from Europe to operate these instruments, with their salaries also covered by him. A significant portion of the published observations was made by these astronomers during their time working for him, and some of them are personally his. However, the Royal Society, in including them in its Transactions, completely failed to mention, anywhere in the title page, preface, or any part of the volume, that the world owes these valuable observations to the generous support of Lieutenant-General Sir Thomas Brisbane. His passionate commitment to science led him to establish, at his own expense, an institution that it would have been honorable for the British Government to maintain as a national institution. If the Council had any similar sentiments, instead of trying to shift the blame, they would have quickly addressed this oversight, which was more unfair to the individual than harmful to British science.
Another topic, which concerns most vitally the character and integrity of the Royal Society, I hardly know how to approach. It has been publicly stated that confidence cannot be placed in the written minutes of the Society; and an instance has been adduced, in which an entry has been asserted to have been made, which could not have been the true statement of what actually passed at the Council.
Another topic that is crucial to the character and integrity of the Royal Society is difficult for me to discuss. It has been publicly stated that the written minutes of the Society are not trustworthy; an example has been given where an entry was claimed to have been made that could not accurately reflect what actually happened at the Council.
The facts on which the specific instance rests are not difficult to verify by members of the Royal Society. I have examined them, and shall state them before I enter on the reasoning which may be founded upon them. In the minutes of the Council, 26th November, 1829, we find—
The facts that the specific instance is based on are not hard to confirm by members of the Royal Society. I've looked into them and will present them before discussing the reasoning that can be derived from them. In the minutes of the Council, 26th November, 1829, we find—
"Resolved, that the following gentlemen be recommended to be put upon the Council for the ensuing year." [Here follows a list of persons, amongst whom the name of Sir John Franklin occurs [Sir John Franklin was absent from London, and altogether unacquainted with this transaction, until he saw it stated in the newspapers some months after it had taken place. That his name was the one substituted for that of Captain Beaufort I know, from other evidence which need not be produced here, as the omission of the latter name is the charge that has been made.], and that of Captain Beaufort is not found. [Any gentleman may satisfy himself that this is not a mistake of the Assistant Secretary's, in copying, by consulting the rough minutes of that meeting of the Council, which it might perhaps be as well to write in a rough minute-book, instead of upon loose sheets of paper; nor can it be attributed to any error arising from accidentally mislaying the real minutes, for in that case the error would have been rectified immediately it was detected; and this has remained uncorrected, although publicly spoken of for months. As there is no erasure in the list, one is reluctantly compelled to conjecture that the real minutes of that meeting have been destroyed.]]
"Resolved, that the following gentlemen be recommended to join the Council for the upcoming year." [Here follows a list of individuals, including the name of Sir John Franklin, who was absent from London and completely unaware of this event until he read about it in the newspapers several months later. I know that his name replaced that of Captain Beaufort from other evidence that doesn't need to be presented here, as the omission of Captain Beaufort’s name is the basis of the accusation made.], and Captain Beaufort's name is not listed. [Any gentleman can confirm that this was not a copying error by the Assistant Secretary by checking the rough minutes from that Council meeting, which it might be better to record in a rough minute-book instead of on loose sheets of paper; nor can it be blamed on any mistake from misplacing the real minutes, because in that case, the error would have been fixed as soon as it was noticed; yet this has gone uncorrected despite being publicly discussed for months. Since there is no erasure in the list, one is sadly led to suspect that the actual minutes from that meeting have been destroyed.]]
Now this could not be the list actually recommended by the Council on the morning of the 26th of November, because the President himself, on the evening of that day, informed Capt. Beaufort that he was placed on the house list; and that officer, with the characteristic openness of his profession, wrote on the next or the following day to the President, declining that situation, and stating his reasons for the step.
Now, this couldn’t be the list that the Council actually recommended on the morning of November 26th, because the President himself told Capt. Beaufort that evening that he was on the house list. The next day, with the typical straightforwardness of his profession, that officer wrote to the President, turning down the position and explaining his reasons for doing so.
Upon the fact, therefore, of the suppression of part of a resolution of the Council, on the 26th of November, there can be no doubt; but in order to understand the whole nature of the transaction, other information is necessary. It has been the wish of many members of the Society, that the President should not absolutely name his own Council, but that the subject should be discussed fairly at the meeting previous to the Anniversary—this has always been opposed by Mr. Gilbert, and those who support him. Now, it has been stated, that, at the meeting of the Council on the 26th of November, the President took out of his pocket a bit of paper, from which he read the names of several persons as fit to be on the Council for the ensuing year;—that it was not understood that any motion was made, and it is certain that none was seconded, nor was any ballot taken on such an important question; and it was a matter of considerable surprise to some of those present, to discover afterwards that it was entered on the minutes as a resolution. This statement I have endeavoured to verify, and I believe it to be substantially correct; if it was a resolution, it was dictated, not discussed. It is also important to observe, that no similar resolution stands on the council-books for any previous year.
Due to the suppression of part of a resolution from the Council on November 26th, there’s no doubt about that; however, to fully understand the situation, more information is needed. Many members of the Society have expressed that the President shouldn’t solely choose his own Council, but that the topic should be openly discussed at the meeting before the Anniversary—this has always been opposed by Mr. Gilbert and his supporters. It has been reported that at the Council meeting on November 26th, the President pulled out a piece of paper and read the names of several people deemed suitable for the Council for the upcoming year; it was not understood that any motion was made, and it’s clear that none was seconded, nor was a ballot taken on such an important matter. It surprised some present to later find out that it was recorded in the minutes as a resolution. I have tried to verify this account, and I believe it to be largely accurate; if it was a resolution, it was stated, not discussed. It’s also important to note that no similar resolution exists in the council records from any previous year.
On examining the minutes of the succeeding Council, no notice of the letter of Captain Beaufort to the President is found. Why was it omitted? If the first entry had been truly made, there would have been no necessity for the omission; and after the insertion of that letter, a resolution would naturally have followed, recommending another name instead of the one withdrawn. Such was the natural and open course; but this would have exposed to the Society the weakness of those who manage it. If the rough minutes of each meeting of the Council were read over before it separated, and were copied previously to the next meeting, such a substitution could hardly have occurred; but, unfortunately, this is not the case, and the delay is in some cases considerable. Thus, the minutes of the three Councils, held on February 4, on February 11, and on March 11, were not entered on the minute-books of the Council on Tuesday, the 16th March; nor was this the fault of the Assistant-secretary, for up to that day the rough minutes of no one of those Councils had been transmitted to him.
On reviewing the minutes of the next Council, there’s no mention of Captain Beaufort’s letter to the President. Why was it left out? If the first entry had been properly recorded, there wouldn’t have been any reason for the omission; and after including that letter, a resolution would have naturally followed, suggesting another name instead of the one that was withdrawn. That would have been the logical and straightforward approach; however, this would have revealed the weaknesses of those running the Society. If the rough minutes from each Council meeting were read and approved before the Council adjourned, and were copied before the next meeting, such an oversight would have been unlikely; but unfortunately, that's not how things work, and there’s often a significant delay. In fact, the minutes from the three Councils held on February 4, February 11, and March 11, were not entered into the Council's minute books on Tuesday, March 16; and this wasn’t the Assistant Secretary’s fault, as he hadn’t received the rough minutes from any of those Councils by that day.
Deeply as every friend to the Royal Society must regret such an occurrence, one slight advantage may accrue. Should that resolution be ever quoted hereafter to prove that the Council of 1829 really discussed the persons to be recommended as their successors, the detection of this suppression of one portion of it, will furnish better means of estimating the confidence due to the whole.
As much as every friend of the Royal Society must regret this occurrence, there is one minor advantage that could come from it. If that decision is ever referenced later to show that the Council of 1829 actually talked about who to recommend as their successors, uncovering this omission will provide a clearer way to assess the trustworthiness of the entire matter.
SECTION 4. OF THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS.
Whether it was feared by the PARTY who govern the Royal Society, that its Council would not be sufficiently tractable, or whether the Admiralty determined to render that body completely subservient to them, or whether both these motives concurred, I know not; but, low as has been for years its character for independence, and fallen as the Royal Society is in public estimation, it could scarcely be prepared for this last insult. In order to inform the public and the Society, (for I believe the fact is known to few of the members,) it will be necessary to trace the history of those circumstances which led to the institution of the offices of Scientific Advisers, from the time of the existence of the late Board of Longitude.
Whether the PARTY that governs the Royal Society feared that its Council wouldn’t be compliant enough, or whether the Admiralty aimed to make that body completely subordinate to them, or if both reasons played a part, I’m not sure; but given its long-standing reputation for a lack of independence and the Royal Society’s diminished status in public opinion, it could hardly have been ready for this latest insult. To inform the public and the Society (since I believe few members are aware of this fact), it will be necessary to outline the history of the events that led to the creation of the offices of Scientific Advisers, starting from the time of the former Board of Longitude.
That body consisted, according to the act of parliament which established it, of certain official members, who usually possessed no knowledge of the subjects it was the duty of the Board to discuss—of certain professors of the two universities, and the Astronomer Royal, who had some knowledge, and who were paid 100L. a year for their attendance;—of three honorary members of the Royal Society, who combined the qualifications of the two preceding classes; and, lastly, of "three other persons," named Resident Commissioners, who were supposed to be "WELL VERSED IN THE SCIENCES OF MATHEMATICS, ASTRONOMY, OR NAVIGATION," and who were paid a hundred a year to do the work of the Board.
That board was made up, according to the law that created it, of certain official members who usually had no knowledge about the topics the Board needed to discuss—along with some professors from the two universities and the Astronomer Royal, who had some knowledge and earned £100 a year for their attendance;—three honorary members of the Royal Society, who combined the qualifications of the first two groups; and finally, "three other people," called Resident Commissioners, who were expected to be "WELL VERSED IN THE SCIENCES OF MATHEMATICS, ASTRONOMY, OR NAVIGATION," and who were paid £100 a year to do the Board's work.
The first three classes were permanent members, but the "three other persons" only held the appointment for ONE YEAR, and were renewable at the pleasure of the Admiralty. This Board was abolished by another act of parliament, on the ground that it was useless. Shortly after, the Secretary of the Admiralty communicated to the Council of the Royal Society, the copy of an Order in Council:
The first three classes were permanent members, but the "three other individuals" only held the position for ONE YEAR, and it could be renewed at the discretion of the Admiralty. This Board was dissolved by another act of parliament, on the basis that it was unnecessary. Soon after, the Secretary of the Admiralty shared with the Council of the Royal Society a copy of an Order in Council:
ADMIRALTY OFFICE,
NAVY OFFICE,
November 1, 1828.
November 1, 1828.
SIR, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to send herewith, for the information of the President and Council of the Royal Society, a copy of His Majesty's Order in Council of the 27th of last month; explaining that the salaries heretofore allowed to the Resident Commissioners of the Board of Longitude, and to the Superintendents of the Nautical Almanac, and of Chronometers, shall be continued to them, notwithstanding the abolition of the Board of Longitude. And I am to acquaint you, that the necessary orders have been given to the Navy Board for the payment of the said salaries.
SIR, I have been directed by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to send you, for the information of the President and Council of the Royal Society, a copy of His Majesty's Order in Council from the 27th of last month. This order explains that the salaries previously granted to the Resident Commissioners of the Board of Longitude and to the Superintendents of the Nautical Almanac and Chronometers will continue, despite the abolition of the Board of Longitude. I also want to inform you that the necessary orders have been issued to the Navy Board for the payment of those salaries.
I am, Sir,
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient humble servant,
Your most loyal servant,
JOHN BARROW. AT THE COURT AT WINDSOR,
JOHN BARROW. AT THE COURT AT WINDSOR,
27th October, 1828.
October 27, 1828.
PRESENT,
Present,
The King's most Excellent Majesty in Council,
The King's most Excellent Majesty in Council,
Whereas, there was this day read at the Board a Memorial from the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, dated 4th of this instant, in the words following, viz.—
Whereas, on this day a Memorandum was read at the Board from the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, dated the 4th of this month, stating the following:
Whereas, by an Act of the 58th of his late Majesty's reign, cap. 20, instituted "An Act for the more effectually discovering the Longitude at sea, and encouraging attempts to find a Northern passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and to approach the North Pole," three persons well versed in the sciences of Mathematics, Astronomy, or Navigation, were appointed as a Resident Committee of the Board of Commissioners for discovery of the Longitude at sea, and a Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac and of Chronometers was also appointed, with such salaries for the execution of those services as his Majesty might, by any Order in Council, be pleased to direct; and, whereas, your Majesty was in consequence, by your Order in Council of the 27th of May, 1828, most graciously pleased to direct, that the three said Resident Commissioners should be paid at the rate of 100L. a year each; and by your further Order in Council, of the 31st October, 1818, that the Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac should be allowed a salary of 300L., and the Superintendent of Chronometers 100L. a year; and, whereas, the act above mentioned has been repealed, and the Board of Longitude abolished; and doubts have therefore arisen, whether the said Orders in Council shall still continue in force; and whereas it is expedient that the said appointments be continued; We beg leave most humbly to submit to your Majesty, that your Majesty may be graciously pleased, by your Order in Council, to direct that the said offices of Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac, and of Superintendent of Chronometers; and also the three persons before-mentioned as a Resident Committee, to advise with the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral, on all questions of discoveries, inventions, calculations, and other scientific subjects, be continued, with the same duties and salaries, and under the same regulations as heretofore; and further beg most humbly to propose, that such three persons to form the Resident Committee, be chosen annually by the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, from among the Council of the Royal Society.
Whereas, by an Act from the 58th year of his late Majesty's reign, cap. 20, titled "An Act for the more effectually discovering the Longitude at sea, and encouraging attempts to find a Northern passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and to approach the North Pole," three individuals knowledgeable in the fields of Mathematics, Astronomy, or Navigation were appointed as a Resident Committee of the Board of Commissioners for discovering the Longitude at sea, and a Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac and of Chronometers was also appointed, with such salaries for these roles as his Majesty might, via any Order in Council, determine; and, whereas, your Majesty was subsequently, by your Order in Council of May 27, 1828, kindly inclined to direct that the three said Resident Commissioners should receive an annual payment of £100 each; and by your further Order in Council of October 31, 1818, that the Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac should be granted a salary of £300, and the Superintendent of Chronometers £100 a year; and, whereas, the aforementioned Act has been repealed and the Board of Longitude abolished; and as a result, questions have arisen about whether the said Orders in Council should still remain in effect; and whereas it is advisable that these appointments be maintained; we respectfully submit to your Majesty that you may graciously direct, by your Order in Council, that the positions of Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac and Superintendent of Chronometers, along with the three individuals previously mentioned as a Resident Committee, to advise with the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral on all matters of discoveries, inventions, calculations, and other scientific issues, be continued, with the same responsibilities and salaries, and under the same regulations as before; and we further humbly propose that these three individuals for the Resident Committee be chosen annually by the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral from among the Council of the Royal Society.
His Majesty, having taken the said Memorial into consideration, was pleased, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, to approve thereof and the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are to give the necessary directions herein accordingly.
His Majesty, after reviewing the mentioned Memorial, was pleased, with the advice of his Privy Council, to approve it, and the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are to provide the necessary instructions accordingly.
(Signed) JAMES HILLER.
(Signed) JAMES HILLER.
Thus, it appeared that the Admiralty were to choose three persons from among the Council of the Royal Society, who were to have a hundred a year each during the pleasure of the Admiralty.
Thus, it seemed that the Admiralty was going to select three people from the Council of the Royal Society, each of whom would receive a hundred a year for as long as the Admiralty desired.
Such an open attack on the independence of the Council could not escape the remarks of some of the members, and a kind of mild remonstrance was made, in which the real ground of complaint was omitted.
Such a direct attack on the Council's independence didn’t go unnoticed by some members, and they made a gentle protest, leaving out the actual reason for their complaint.
MINUTE OF COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY. December 18, 1823.
MINUTE OF COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY. December 18, 1823.
RESOLVED, That in acknowledging the communication of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, made to the Council of the Royal Society, on the 20th of November last, it be represented to them that inconvenience may arise from the plan therein specified, from the circumstance of all the members of the Council being annually elected by the Society at large; and that body being consequently subject to continual changes from year to year.
RESOLVED, That in acknowledging the message from the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty sent to the Council of the Royal Society on November 20th, it should be pointed out to them that there may be issues with the proposed plan because all members of the Council are elected each year by the Society as a whole; and that this leads to constant changes from year to year.
This was answered by the following letter from the Secretary of the Admiralty:
This was replied to with the following letter from the Secretary of the Admiralty:
ADMIRALTY OFFICE, DEC. 30, 1828.
ADMIRALTY OFFICE, DEC. 30, 1828.
SIR, Having submitted to my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty your Letter of the 18th instant, subjoining an extract from the Minutes of the proceedings of the Council of the Royal Society, arising out of the communication made to them by their Lordships, on the subject of his Majesty's Order in Council, of the fifth of October last, I have their Lordships' command to acquaint you, for the information of the President and Council, and with reference to what they have stated as to the inconvenience which may arise from the intended plan of limiting their Lordships' choice of members of the Resident Committee of Scientific Advice to the Council of the Royal Society, that their Lordships were induced to recommend this plan to his Majesty as a mark of respect to the Society, and as a pledge to the public of the qualification of the persons chosen. Nor did their Lordships apprehend any inconvenience from the circumstance stated in the Minute of the Council, of the Members being annually elected, as the Resident Committee is also annually appointed; and, in point of fact, no practical inconvenience has been felt during the ten years that the Committee has been in existence, as four of the distinguished gentlemen whom their Lordships have successively appointed to this office, have continued during the whole period to be members of the Council; and if any such difficulty or inconvenience should hereafter arise, their Lordships will be ready to take proper measures for remedying it.
SIR, I have shared your letter dated the 18th of this month with my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, along with an excerpt from the minutes of the Royal Society’s Council, which relates to the communication they received from their Lordships regarding His Majesty's Order in Council from the fifth of October last year. I am instructed by their Lordships to inform you, for the knowledge of the President and Council, that concerning the concerns raised about the potential issues that may arise from the proposed plan to limit their Lordships' selection of members for the Resident Committee of Scientific Advice to the Royal Society, their Lordships recommended this plan to His Majesty as a gesture of respect towards the Society, as well as an assurance to the public about the qualifications of those chosen. Their Lordships did not foresee any issues from the point made in the Council's minutes about the Members being elected annually, since the Resident Committee is also appointed each year; in fact, there have been no practical problems during the ten years the Committee has been running, as four of the esteemed gentlemen whom their Lordships have appointed to this position have remained Council members throughout. Should any such difficulties or issues arise in the future, their Lordships will be prepared to take appropriate action to address them.
Their Lordships' intention therefore is, to propose to Captain Kater and Mr. Herschel, to continue to fill this office; and to Dr. Young, who had resigned it, on receiving the appointment of Secretary to the late Board of Longitude, to be appointed.
Their Lordships intend to propose to Captain Kater and Mr. Herschel that they continue in this role, and to Dr. Young, who had resigned after being appointed Secretary to the former Board of Longitude, to take on the position.
I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,
I am, Sir, your faithful servant,
JOHN BARROW.
JOHN BARROW.
The representation made by the Council was not calculated to produce much effect; but the Secretary of the Admiralty, who knew well the stuff of which Councils of the Royal Society are composed, might have spared the bitter irony of making their Lordships say, that they recommended this plan "AS A MARK OF RESPECT TO THE SOCIETY," and "AS A PLEDGE TO THE PUBLIC OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PERSONS CHOSEN," whilst he delicately hints to them their dependent situation, by observing, that the "RESIDENT COMMITTEE IS ALSO ANNUALLY APPOINTED."
The representation made by the Council was unlikely to have much impact; however, the Secretary of the Admiralty, who understood well the nature of the Councils of the Royal Society, could have avoided the biting irony of having their Lordships say they recommended this plan "AS A MARK OF RESPECT TO THE SOCIETY" and "AS A PLEDGE TO THE PUBLIC OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PERSONS CHOSEN," while subtly reminding them of their dependent status by pointing out that the "RESIDENT COMMITTEE IS ALSO ANNUALLY APPOINTED."
The Secretary knew that, PRACTICALLY speaking, it had been the custom for years for the President of the Royal Society to nominate the Council, and consequently he knew that every scientific adviser must first be indebted to the President for being qualified to advise, and then to the Admiralty for deriving profit from his counsel. Thus then their Lordships, as a "MARK OF RESPECT FOR THE SOCIETY" confirm the dependence of the Council on the President, by making his nomination a qualification for place, and establish a new dependence of the same Council on themselves, by giving a hundred pounds each year to such three members of that Council as they may select. "THE PLEDGE" they offer "TO THE PUBLIC, OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PERSONS CHOSEN," is, that Mr. Davies Gilbert had previously thought they would do for his Council.
The Secretary realized that, practically speaking, it had been the tradition for years for the President of the Royal Society to appoint the Council. Therefore, he understood that every scientific adviser had to rely on the President to be qualified to advise, and then on the Admiralty to benefit from their guidance. So, their Lordships, as a "mark of respect for the Society," confirm the Council's reliance on the President by making his nomination a requirement for position, and create a new reliance of the same Council on themselves by providing a hundred pounds each year to three members of that Council they choose. "The pledge" they offer "to the public, of the qualifications of the persons chosen," is that Mr. Davies Gilbert had previously thought they would be suitable for his Council.
What the Society, when they are acquainted with it, may think of this mark of respect, or what value the public may put upon this pledge, must be left to themselves to express.
What the Society thinks about this sign of respect when they learn about it, or what value the public places on this promise, is something they must express themselves.
In looking over the list of officers and Council of the Royal Society the weakest perhaps (for purposes of science) which was ever made, a consolation arises from the possibility of some of those who were placed there by way of compliment, occasionally attending. In that contracted field Lord Melville's penetration may not be uselessly employed; and the soldier who presides over our colonies may judge whether the principles which pervade it are open and liberal as his own.
In reviewing the list of officers and the Council of the Royal Society, which might be the least effective for scientific purposes, there is some comfort in knowing that a few of those appointed as a courtesy might attend from time to time. In that limited space, Lord Melville's insight could still be valuable; and the military leader overseeing our colonies might assess whether the principles guiding it are as open and progressive as his own.
The inconvenience to the public service from such an arrangement is, that the number out of which the advisers are selected must, in any case, be very small; and may, from several circumstances, be considerably reduced. In a council fairly selected, to judge of the merits of the various subjects likely to be brought under the consideration of the Society, anatomy, chemistry, and the different branches of natural history, will share with the numerous departments of physical science, in claiming to be represented by persons competently skilled in those subjects. These claims being satisfied, but few places will be left to fill up with mathematicians, astronomers, and persons conversant with nautical astronomy.
The problem for public service with such an arrangement is that the pool of advisers must be very small and can be further limited due to various factors. In a fairly selected council tasked with evaluating the merits of different topics likely to be presented to the Society, subjects like anatomy, chemistry, and various branches of natural history should have qualified experts representing them alongside the many fields of physical science. Once these positions are filled, there will be limited spots left for mathematicians, astronomers, and experts in nautical astronomy.
Let us look at the present Council. Is there a single mathematician amongst them, if we except Mr Barlow, whose deservedly high reputation rests chiefly on his physical and experimental inquiries, and whom the President and the Admiralty have clearly shown they do not look upon as a mathematician, by not appointing him an adviser?
Let’s consider the current Council. Is there even one mathematician among them, aside from Mr. Barlow, whose well-deserved reputation mainly comes from his work in physics and experiments? The President and the Admiralty have clearly indicated they don’t see him as a mathematician by not appointing him as an adviser.
Small as the number of those persons on the Council, who are conversant with the three subjects named in the Act of Parliament, must usually be, it may be still further diminished. The President, when he forms his Council, may decline naming those members who are most fit for such situations. Or, on the other hand, some of those members who are best qualified for them, from their knowledge, may decline the honour of being the nominees of Mr. Gilbert, as Vice Presidents, Treasurers, or Councillors, and thus lending their names to support a system of which they disapprove.
As small as the number of people on the Council who are familiar with the three topics mentioned in the Act of Parliament usually is, it can be even smaller. When the President forms the Council, they might choose not to name the members who are the best fit for those roles. Alternatively, some of the most qualified members, due to their expertise, might refuse the honor of being nominated by Mr. Gilbert as Vice Presidents, Treasurers, or Councillors, thereby lending their names to a system they don't support.
Whether the first of these causes has ever operated can be best explained by those gentlemen who have been on the Council. The refusals are, notwithstanding the President's taciturnity on the subject, better known than he is willing that they should be.
Whether the first of these reasons has ever come into play can be best explained by those gentlemen who have served on the Council. The refusals are, despite the President's silence on the matter, more widely known than he would like them to be.
Having discussed the general policy of the measure, with reference both to the Society and to the public, and without the slightest reference to the individuals who may have refused or accepted those situations, I shall now examine the propriety of the appointments that have been made.
Having talked about the overall policy of the measure, in relation to both the Society and the public, and without mentioning the individuals who may have declined or accepted those positions, I will now look into the suitability of the appointments that have been made.
Doubtless the gentlemen who now hold those situations either have never considered the influence such a mode of selection would have on the character of the Council; or, having considered it, they must have arrived at a different conclusion from mine. There may, however, be arguments which I have overlooked, and a discussion of them must ultimately lead to truth: but I confess that it appears to me the objections which have been stated rest on principles of human nature, too deeply seated to be easily removed.
Surely the gentlemen currently in those positions either haven't thought about how this way of choosing would affect the Council's character, or if they have, they must see it differently than I do. There may be arguments I've missed, and discussing them should eventually bring us to the truth: but I admit that the objections raised seem to be based on fundamental aspects of human nature that are too ingrained to change easily.
That I am not singular in the view I have taken of this subject, appears from several circumstances. A question was asked respecting these appointments at the Anniversary before the last; and, from the nature of the answer, many of the members of the Society have been led to believe the objections have been removed. Several Fellows of the Society, who knew these facts, thought it inexpedient ever to vote for placing any gentleman on the Council who had accepted these situations; and, having myself the same view of the case, I applied to the Council to be informed of the names of the present Scientific Advisers. But although they remonstrated against the PRINCIPLE, they replied that they had "NO COGNIZANCE" of the fact.
I'm not alone in my perspective on this issue, which is clear from a few circumstances. At the Anniversary meeting before last, someone asked about these appointments, and the nature of the response led many Society members to believe the objections were cleared up. Several Fellows who were aware of these facts thought it was unwise to vote for any person on the Council who had accepted these positions. Sharing the same opinion, I reached out to the Council to find out the names of the current Scientific Advisers. However, although they expressed concerns about the PRINCIPLE, they replied that they had "NO COGNIZANCE" of the matter.
The two first members of the Council, Mr. Herschel and Captain Kater, who were so appointed, and who had previously been Resident Commissioners under the Act, immediately refused the situations. Dr. Young became one of the Advisers; and Captain Sabine and Mr. Faraday were appointed by the Admiralty as the two remaining ones. Of Dr. Young, who died shortly after, I shall only observe that he possessed knowledge which qualified him for the situation.
The first two members of the Council, Mr. Herschel and Captain Kater, who were appointed and had previously served as Resident Commissioners under the Act, immediately declined the positions. Dr. Young became one of the Advisers, and Captain Sabine and Mr. Faraday were appointed by the Admiralty as the other two. Regarding Dr. Young, who passed away shortly after, I will just note that he had the knowledge that made him suitable for the role.
Whether those who at present fill these offices can be said to belong to that class of persons which the Order in Council and the Act of Parliament point out, is a matter on which doubt may reasonably be entertained. The Order in Council speaks of these three persons as being the same, and having the "SAME DUTIES" as those mentioned in the Act; and it recites the words of the Act, that they shall be persons "WELL VERSED IN THE SCIENCES OF MATHEMATICS ASTRONOMY, AND NAVIGATION." Of the fitness of the gentlemen who now hold those situations to pronounce judgment on mathematical questions, the public will be better able to form an opinion when they shall have communicated to the world any of their own mathematical inquiries. Although it is the practice to consider that acceptance of office is alone necessary to qualify a man for a statesman, a similar doctrine has not yet prevailed in the world of science. One of these gentlemen, who has established his reputation as a chemist, stands in the same predicament with respect to the other two sciences. It remains then to consider Captain Sabine's claims, which must rest on his skill in "PRACTICAL ASTRONOMY AND NAVIGATION,"—a claim which can only be allowed when the scientific world are set at rest respecting the extraordinary nature of those observations contained in his work on the Pendulum.
Whether the people currently in these positions can be considered part of the group that the Order in Council and the Act of Parliament refer to is something that reasonably raises doubt. The Order in Council describes these three individuals as being the same and having the "SAME DUTIES" as those outlined in the Act; it restates the Act’s wording that they must be "WELL VERSED IN THE SCIENCES OF MATHEMATICS, ASTRONOMY, AND NAVIGATION." The public will be better equipped to judge the qualifications of the individuals currently in these roles to make decisions on mathematical issues when they share any of their own mathematical inquiries. While it's often thought that simply taking on an office is enough to qualify someone as a statesman, a similar idea hasn’t yet taken hold in the realm of science. One of these individuals, who has built his reputation as a chemist, finds himself in the same situation regarding the other two sciences. Therefore, we must examine Captain Sabine's credentials, which must be based on his expertise in "PRACTICAL ASTRONOMY AND NAVIGATION"—a qualification that can only be recognized once the scientific community is satisfied with the unusual nature of the observations presented in his work on the Pendulum.
That volume, printed under the authority of the Board of Longitude, excited at its appearance considerable attention. The circumstance of the Government providing instruments and means of transport for the purpose of these inquiries, placed at Captain Sabine's disposal means superior to those which amateurs can generally afford, whilst the industry with which he availed himself of these opportunities, enabled him to bring home multitudes of observations from situations rarely visited with such instruments, and for such purposes.
That book, published with the approval of the Board of Longitude, attracted a lot of attention when it was released. The fact that the Government provided tools and transportation for these investigations gave Captain Sabine access to resources that most amateurs can't usually afford. His dedication in making the most of these opportunities allowed him to gather a wealth of observations from places that are seldom explored with such equipment and for these specific purposes.
The remarkable agreement with each other, which was found to exist amongst each class of observations, was as unexpected by those most conversant with the respective processes, as it was creditable to one who had devoted but a few years to the subject, and who, in the course of those voyages, used some of the instruments for the first time in his life.
The striking consistency found among each category of observations surprised even those who were most familiar with the processes, and it was impressive considering that someone who had only spent a few years studying the topic, and who used some of the instruments for the first time during those journeys.
This accordance amongst the results was such, that naval officers of the greatest experience, confessed themselves unable to take such lunars; whilst other observers, long versed in the use of the transit instrument, avowed their inability to take such transits. Those who were conversant with pendulums, were at a loss how to make, even under more favourable circumstances, similarly concordant observations. The same opinion prevailed on the continent as well as in England. On whatever subject Captain Sabine touched, the observations he published seemed by their accuracy to leave former observers at a distance. The methods of using the instruments scarcely differed in any important point from those before adopted; and, but for a fortunate discovery, which I shall presently relate, the world must have concluded that Captain Sabine possessed some keenness of vision, or acuteness of touch, which it would be hopeless for any to expect to rival.
The agreement among the results was so strong that even the most experienced naval officers admitted they couldn't take such lunar observations; meanwhile, other observers, experienced in using the transit instrument, acknowledged their inability to make such transits. Those familiar with pendulums found it challenging to achieve similar consistent observations, even under better circumstances. The same sentiment was common both on the continent and in England. Whatever topic Captain Sabine addressed, the observations he published appeared to be so accurate that they made previous observers seem distant in comparison. The methods for using the instruments hardly differed in any significant way from those previously used; and, but for a fortunate discovery, which I will explain shortly, the world would have concluded that Captain Sabine had some exceptional vision or touch that no one could hope to match.
The Council of the Royal Society spared no pains to stamp the accuracy of these observations with their testimony. They seem to have thrust Captain Sabine's name perpetually on their minutes, and in a manner which must have been almost distressing: they recommend him in a letter to the Admiralty, then in another to the Ordnance; and several of the same persons, in their other capacity, as members of the Board of Longitude, after voting him a THOUSAND POUNDS for these observations, are said to have again recommended him to the Master-General of the Ordnance. That an officer, commencing his scientific career, should be misled by such praises, was both natural and pardonable; but that the Council of the Royal Society should adopt their opinion so heedlessly, and maintain it so pertinaciously, was as cruel to the observer as it was injurious to the interests of science.
The Council of the Royal Society went to great lengths to support the accuracy of these observations with their endorsement. They seemed to constantly highlight Captain Sabine's name in their records, in a way that must have been quite overwhelming. They recommended him in a letter to the Admiralty, then again in another to the Ordnance; and several of the same members, in their role at the Board of Longitude, after awarding him a THOUSAND POUNDS for these observations, are said to have recommended him once more to the Master-General of the Ordnance. It was both natural and understandable for a newcomer to the scientific field to be swayed by such praise; however, it was just as damaging to the observer as it was harmful to the interests of science for the Council of the Royal Society to adopt their opinion so recklessly and hold onto it so stubbornly.
It might have been imagined that such praises, together with the Copley medal, presented to Captain Sabine by the Royal Society, and the medal of Lalande, given to him by the Institute of France, had arisen from such a complete investigation of his observations, as should place them beyond the reach even of criticism. But, alas! the Royal Society may write, and nobody will attend; its medals have lost their lustre; and even the Institute of France may find that theirs cannot confer immortality. That learned body is in the habit of making most interesting and profound reports on any memoirs communicated to it; nothing escapes the penetration of their committees appointed for such purposes. Surely, when they enter on the much more important subject of the award of a medal, unusual pains must be taken with the previous report, and it might, perhaps, be of some advantage to science, and might furnish their admirers with arguments in their defence, if they would publish that on which the decree of their Lalande's medal to Captain Sabine was founded.
It might have been thought that such praise, along with the Copley medal awarded to Captain Sabine by the Royal Society and the Lalande medal given to him by the Institute of France, stemmed from such a thorough examination of his observations that they would be beyond criticism. But, unfortunately, the Royal Society can write, and nobody will pay attention; its medals have lost their shine, and even the Institute of France may realize that theirs cannot ensure immortality. That esteemed organization usually produces really interesting and insightful reports on any papers submitted to it; nothing escapes the scrutiny of their committees formed for such tasks. Surely, when they take on the much more significant issue of awarding a medal, they must take extra care with the preliminary report, and it could even be beneficial to science and provide their supporters with reasons to defend them if they would publish the basis for their decision to award the Lalande medal to Captain Sabine.
It is far from necessary to my present object, to state all that has been written and said respecting these pendulum experiments: I shall confine myself merely to two points; one, the transit observations, I shall allude to, because I may perhaps show the kind of feeling that exists respecting them, and possibly enable Captain Sabine to explain them. The other point, the error in the estimation of the division of the level, I shall discuss, because it is an admitted fact.
It’s not essential for my current purpose to go over everything that’s been written and said about these pendulum experiments. I’ll limit myself to just two points; first, I’ll mention the transit observations because I might highlight the general sentiment around them and possibly help Captain Sabine explain them. The second point, the mistake in estimating the division of the level, I’ll discuss because it’s a recognized fact.
Some opinion may be formed of transit observations, by taking the difference of times of the passage of any star between the several wires; supposing the distances of those wires equal, the intervals of time occupied by the star in passing from one to the other, ought to be precisely the same. As those times of passing from one wire to another are usually given to seconds and tenths of seconds, it rarely happens that the accordance is perfect.
Some conclusions can be drawn from transit observations by measuring the difference in times when a star passes between various wires. If we assume the distances between those wires are equal, the time intervals taken by the star to move from one wire to another should be exactly the same. Since these passage times are usually recorded to the nearest second and tenth of a second, it’s uncommon for them to match perfectly.
The transit instrument used by Captain Sabine was thirty inches in length, and the wires are stated to be equi-distant. Out of about 370 transits, there are eighty-seven, or nearly one-fourth, which have the intervals between all the wires agreeing to the same, the tenth of a second. At Sierra Leone, nineteen out of seventy-two have the same accordance; and of the moon culminating stars, p. 409, twelve out of twenty-four are equally exact. With larger instruments, and in great observatories, this is not always the case.
The transit instrument used by Captain Sabine was thirty inches long, and the wires were said to be equally spaced apart. Out of about 370 transits, eighty-seven, or nearly one-fourth, have the spaces between all the wires matching at the tenth of a second. At Sierra Leone, nineteen out of seventy-two have the same precision; and for the moon's culminating stars, p. 409, twelve out of twenty-four are equally precise. With larger instruments and in major observatories, this isn’t always true.
Captain Kater has given, in the Philosophical Transactions, 1819, p. 427, a series of transits, with a three and a half foot transit, in which about one-eleventh part of them only have this degree of accuracy; and it should be observed that not merely the instrument, but the stars selected, have, in this instance, an advantage over Captain Sabine's.
Captain Kater presented a series of transits in the Philosophical Transactions, 1819, p. 427, using a three and a half foot transit, where only about one-eleventh of them have this level of accuracy. It's worth noting that not just the instrument, but also the chosen stars in this case, have an advantage over those selected by Captain Sabine.
The transit of M. Bessel is five feet in length, made by Frauenhofer, and the magnifying power employed is 182; yet, out of some observations of his in January, 1826, only one-eleventh have this degree of accordance. In thirty-three of the Greenwich observations of January, 1828, fifteen have this agreement, or five-elevenths; but this is with a ten-feet transit. Now in none of these instances do the times agree within a tenth of a second between all the wires; but I have accounted those as agreeing in all the wires in which there is not more than four-tenths of a second between the greatest and least.
The M. Bessel transit is five feet long, made by Frauenhofer, and it has a magnifying power of 182. However, out of some observations he made in January 1826, only one out of eleven matched this level of consistency. In thirty-three observations from Greenwich in January 1828, fifteen showed this agreement, which is five out of eleven, but this was using a ten-foot transit. In none of these cases did the times agree within a tenth of a second across all the wires; however, I considered those as consistent in all the wires where the difference between the highest and lowest times is no more than four-tenths of a second.
This superior accuracy of the small instrument requires some explanation. One which has been suggested is, that Captain Sabine employs a chronometer to observe transits with; and that since it beats five times in two seconds, each beat will give four-tenths of a second; and this being the smallest quantity registered, the agreement becomes more probable than if tenths were the smallest quantities noticed. In general, the larger the lowest unity employed the greater will be the apparent agreement amongst the differences. Thus, if, in the transit of stars near the pole, the times of passing the wires were only registered to the nearest minute, the intervals would almost certainly be equal. There is another circumstance, about which there is some difficulty. It is understood that the same instrument,—the thirty-inch transit, was employed by Lieutenant Foster; and it has not been stated that the wires were changed, although this has most probably been the case. Now, in the transits which the later observer has given, he has found it necessary to correct for a considerable inequality between the first and second wires (See Phil. Trans. 1827). If an erroneous impression has gone abroad on this subject, it is doing a service to science to insure its correction, by drawing attention to it.
The high accuracy of the small instrument needs some explanation. One suggestion is that Captain Sabine uses a chronometer to observe transits, and since it ticks five times in two seconds, each tick accounts for four-tenths of a second. This being the smallest interval recorded makes the agreement more likely than if tenths were the smallest intervals noted. Generally, the larger the smallest unit used, the greater the apparent agreement among the differences. So, if during the transit of stars near the pole, the times were only recorded to the nearest minute, the intervals would almost certainly appear equal. There's also another issue that presents some challenges. It's understood that the same instrument—the thirty-inch transit—was used by Lieutenant Foster, and while it hasn't been stated that the wires were changed, that's likely what happened. In the transits reported by the later observer, he found it necessary to correct for a significant difference between the first and second wires (See Phil. Trans. 1827). If there's been any misunderstanding on this topic, it's beneficial to science to correct it by bringing attention to the issue.
Should these observations be confirmed by other observers, it would seem to follow that the use of a chronometer renders a transit more exact, and therefore that it ought to be used in observatories.
Should other observers confirm these findings, it seems that using a chronometer makes a transit more precise, and therefore, it should be used in observatories.
Among the instruments employed by Captain Sabine, was a repeating circle of six inches diameter, made by order of the Board of Longitude, for the express purpose of ascertaining how far repeating instruments might be diminished in size:—a most important subject, on which the Board seem to have entertained a very commendable degree of anxiety.
Among the instruments used by Captain Sabine was a six-inch diameter repeating circle, made by order of the Board of Longitude, specifically to determine how much smaller repeating instruments could be made: a very important topic that the Board seems to have cared about quite a lot.
The following extract from the "Pendulum Experiments" is important:
The following extract from the "Pendulum Experiments" is important:
"The repeating circle was made by the direction, and at the expense of the Board of Longitude, for the purpose of exemplifying the principle of repetition when applied to a circle of so small a diameter as six inches, carrying a telescope of seven inches focal length, and one inch aperture; and of practically ascertaining the degree of accuracy which might be retained, whilst the portability of the instrument should be increased, by a reduction in the size to half the amount which had been previously regarded by the most eminent artists as the extreme limit of diminution to which repeating circles, designed for astronomical purposes, ought to be carried.
"The repeating circle was created by the direction of the Board of Longitude to demonstrate the principle of repetition applied to a circle with a small diameter of six inches, carrying a seven-inch focal length telescope with a one-inch aperture. It aimed to practically determine the level of accuracy that could be maintained while enhancing the instrument's portability by reducing its size to half of what had previously been considered the minimum limit by leading experts for repeating circles meant for astronomical use."
"The practical value of the six-inch repeating circle may be estimated, by comparing the differences of the partial results from the mean at each station, with the correspondence of any similar collection of observations made with a circle, on the original construction, and of large dimensions; such, for instance, as the latitudes of the stations of the French are, recorded in the Base du Systeme Metrique: when, if due allowance be made for the extensive experience and great skill of the distinguished persons who conducted the French observations, the comparison will scarcely appear to the disadvantage of the smaller circle, even if extended generally through all the stations of the present volume; but if it be particularly directed to Maranham and Spitzbergen,—at which stations the partial results were more numerous than elsewhere, and obtained with especial regard to every circumstance by which their accuracy might be affected, the performance of the six-inch circle will appear fully equal to that of circles of the larger dimension. The comparison with the two stations, at which a more than usual attention was bestowed, is the more appropriate, because it was essential to the purposes for which the latitudes of the French stations were required, that the observations should always be conducted with the utmost possible regard to accuracy.
The practical value of the six-inch repeating circle can be assessed by comparing the differences in the partial results from the average at each location with those from a similar set of observations taken with a larger traditional circle. For example, the latitudes of the French stations are recorded in the Base du Systeme Metrique. When considering the extensive experience and high skill of the notable individuals who conducted the French observations, the comparison will hardly show the smaller circle in a negative light, even when looking across all the stations in this volume. However, if we specifically focus on Maranham and Spitzbergen—where the partial results were more numerous and closely attended to for accuracy—then the performance of the six-inch circle will seem just as good as that of larger circles. This comparison is particularly fitting because it was crucial for the purposes behind collecting the latitudes of the French stations that the observations were done with the highest possible accuracy.
"It would appear, therefore, that in a repeating circle of six inches, the disadvantages of a smaller image enabling a less precise contact or bisection, and of an arch of less radius admitting of a less minute subdivision, may be compensated by the principle of repetition."
"It seems that in a repeating circle of six inches, the drawbacks of a smaller image, which allows for less precise contact or division, and an arch with a smaller radius that permits less detailed subdivision, can be balanced out by the principle of repetition."
Captain Sabine has pointed out Maranham and Spitzbergen as places most favourable to the comparison. Let us take the former of these places, and compare the observations made there with the small repeating instrument of six inches diameter, with those made by the French astronomers at Formentera, with a repeating circle of forty-one centi-metres, or about sixteen inches in diameter, made by Fortin. It is singular that this instrument was directed, by the French Board of Longitude, to be made expressly for this survey, and the French astronomers paid particular attention to it, from the circumstance of some doubts having been entertained respecting the value of the principle of repetition.
Captain Sabine has highlighted Maranham and Spitzbergen as the best places for comparison. Let's focus on Maranham and compare the observations taken there with the small repeating instrument that has a diameter of six inches, to those made by the French astronomers at Formentera, using a repeating circle with a diameter of forty-one centimeters, or about sixteen inches, created by Fortin. It's interesting to note that the French Board of Longitude commissioned this instrument specifically for this survey, and the French astronomers paid special attention to it due to some doubts about the validity of the principle of repetition.
The following series of observations were made with the two instruments. [I have chosen the inferior meridian altitude of Polaris, merely because the number of sets of observations are rather fewer. The difference between the extremes of the altitude of Polaris, deduced from sets taken above the pole by the same observers, amounts to seven seconds and a half.]
The following series of observations were made with the two instruments. [I chose the lower meridian altitude of Polaris simply because there are fewer sets of observations. The difference between the highest and lowest altitudes of Polaris, based on sets taken above the pole by the same observers, is seven and a half seconds.]
Latitude deduced from Polaris, with a repeating circle, 16 inches diameter.—BASE DU SYSTEME METRIQUE, tom. iv. p. 376. 1807.
Latitude determined using Polaris, with a repeating circle, 16 inches in diameter.—BASE DU SYSTEME METRIQUE, vol. iv, p. 376. 1807.
Number of Latitude Names of Observers. Observations. of Formentera. deg. min. sec. 64 38 39 55.3 Biot 100 54.7 Arago 10 56.2 Biot 88 56.9 Biot 120 56.7 Arago 84 54.9 Biot 100 56.5 Arago 102 57.1 Arago 80 54.5 Biot 88 53.3 Arago 90 53.6 Arago 88 53.8 Arago 92 53.7 Arago 42 55.6 Chaix 90 54.1 Chaix 80 53.9 Arago Mean of 1318 Observations, 38deg. 39min. 54.93sec.
Number of Latitude Names of Observers. Observations. of Formentera. deg. min. sec. 64 38° 39' 55.3" Biot 100 54.7" Arago 10 56.2" Biot 88 56.9" Biot 120 56.7" Arago 84 54.9" Biot 100 56.5" Arago 102 57.1" Arago 80 54.5" Biot 88 53.3" Arago 90 53.6" Arago 88 53.8" Arago 92 53.7" Arago 42 55.6" Chaix 90 54.1" Chaix 80 53.9" Arago Mean of 1318 Observations, 38° 39' 54.93".
Sets of Observations made with a six-inch repeating circle, at Maranham.
Sets of observations taken with a six-inch repeating circle, at Maranham.
Star. Number of Latitude Observer. Observations. deduced. deg. min. sec. alpha Lyrae 8 2 31 42.4 Capt. Sabine alpha Lyrae 12 43.8 Ditto alpha Pavonis 10 44.5 Ditto alpha Lyrae 12 44.6 Ditto alpha Cygni 12 42.1 Ditto alpha Gruris 12 42.2 Ditto Mean latitude deduced from 66 observations 2deg. 31min 43.3sec.
Star. Number of Latitude Observer. Observations. deduced. deg. min. sec. alpha Lyrae 8 2 31 42.4 Capt. Sabine alpha Lyrae 12 43.8 Ditto alpha Pavonis 10 44.5 Ditto alpha Lyrae 12 44.6 Ditto alpha Cygni 12 42.1 Ditto alpha Gruris 12 42.2 Ditto Mean latitude deduced from 66 observations 2deg. 31min 43.3sec.
In comparing these results, although the French observations were more than twenty times as numerous as the English, yet the deviations of the individual sets from the mean are greater. One second and three-tenths is the greatest deviation from the mean of the Maranham observations; whilst the greatest deviation of those of Formentera, is two seconds and two-tenths. If this mode of comparison should be thought unfair, on account of the greater number of the sets in the French observations, let any six, in succession, of those sets be taken, and compared with the six English sets; and it will be found that in no one instance is the greatest deviation from the mean of the whole of the observations less than in those of Maranham. It must also be borne in mind, that by the latitude deduced by the mean of 1250 superior culminations of Polaris by the same observers, the latitude of Formentera was found to be 38deg. 39min 57.07sec., a result differing by 2.14sec. from the mean of the 1318 inferior culminations given above. [This difference cannot be accounted for by any difference in the tables of refraction, as neither the employment of those of Bradley, of Piazzi, of the French, of Groombridge, of Young, of Ivory, of Bessel, or of Carlini, would make a difference of two-tenths of a second.]
In comparing these results, even though the French observations were over twenty times more numerous than the English ones, the individual sets showed greater deviations from the average. The largest deviation from the mean of the Maranham observations is one second and three-tenths, while the greatest deviation from those of Formentera is two seconds and two-tenths. If this way of comparing seems unfair because of the higher number of French sets, just take any six consecutive sets from the French and compare them with the six English sets; it will be clear that in no case is the greatest deviation from the overall mean less than that of Maranham. It’s also important to remember that using the latitude derived from the average of 1250 superior culminations of Polaris by the same observers, Formentera's latitude was found to be 38° 39' 57.07", which differs by 2.14 seconds from the mean of the 1318 inferior culminations mentioned earlier. [This discrepancy can't be explained by any differences in the refraction tables, as none of the tables from Bradley, Piazzi, the French, Groombridge, Young, Ivory, Bessel, or Carlini would account for a difference of two-tenths of a second.]
These facts alone ought to have awakened the attention of Captain Sabine, and of those who examined and officially pronounced on the merits of his observations; for, supposing the skill of the observers equal, it seems a necessary consequence that "the performance of the six-inch circle is" not merely "fully equal to that of circles of larger dimensions," but that it is decidedly SUPERIOR to one of sixteen inches in diameter.
These facts should have caught the attention of Captain Sabine and those who reviewed and officially evaluated the quality of his observations. If we assume the observers have the same level of skill, it follows that "the performance of the six-inch circle is" not just "fully equal to that of circles of larger dimensions," but that it is clearly SUPERIOR to one that is sixteen inches in diameter.
This opinion did indeed gain ground for a time; but, fortunately for astronomy, long after these observations were made, published, and rewarded, Captain Kater, having borrowed the same instrument, discovered that the divisions of its level, which Captain Sabine had considered to be equal to one second each, were, in fact, more nearly equal to eleven seconds, each one being 10.9sec. This circumstance rendered necessary a recalculation of all the observations made with that instrument: a re-calculation which I am not aware Captain Sabine has ever thought it necessary to publish. [Above two hundred sets of observations with this instrument are given in the work alluded to. It can never be esteemed satisfactory merely to state the mean results of the corrections arising from this error: for the confidence to be attached to that mean will depend on the nature of the deviations from it.]
This opinion did gain traction for a while; however, fortunately for astronomy, long after these observations were made, published, and acknowledged, Captain Kater, having borrowed the same instrument, found that the divisions of its level, which Captain Sabine had thought were equal to one second each, were actually closer to eleven seconds, each being 10.9 seconds. This discovery made it necessary to recalculate all the observations made with that instrument: a recalculation that I am not aware Captain Sabine ever felt compelled to publish. [More than two hundred sets of observations with this instrument are included in the referenced work. It can never be considered satisfactory to simply state the average results of the corrections due to this error: because the confidence in that average will depend on the nature of the deviations from it.]
This is the more to be regretted, as it bears upon a point of considerable importance to navigation; and if it should have caused any alteration in his opinion as to the comparative merits of great and small instruments, it might have been expected from a gentleman, who was expressly directed by the Board of Longitude, to try the question with an instrument constructed for that especial purpose.
This is unfortunate because it relates to an important issue in navigation. If it changed his opinion about the relative advantages of large and small instruments, we would expect that from a gentleman who was specifically instructed by the Board of Longitude to test the question with an instrument made for that purpose.
Finding that this has not been done by the person best qualified for the task, perhaps a few remarks from one who has no pretensions to familiarity with the instrument, may tend towards elucidating this interesting question.
Finding that this hasn’t been done by the person most qualified for the task, maybe a few comments from someone who doesn’t claim to be familiar with the instrument could help clarify this interesting question.
The following table gives the latitudes as corrected for the error of level:
The table below shows the latitudes adjusted for the level error:
Station. Star Latitude Latitude Diffe- by Capt. corrected for rence Sabine error of level. deg.min.sec. deg.min.sec. sec. Sierra Leone Sirius 8 29 27.9 8 29 34.7 6.8 Ascension Alph.Centuri 7 55 46.7 7 55 40.1 6.6 Bahia Alph.Lyrae 12 59 19.4 12 59 21.4 2.0 Alph.Lyrae 21.2 58 49.8 31.4 Alph.Pavonis 22.4 59 5.1 17.3 Maranham Alph.Lyrae 2 31 42.4 2 31 22 20.4 Alph.Lyrae 43.8 31.8 12.0 Alph.Pavonis 44.5 44 .5 Alph.Lyrae 44.6 42.6 2.0 Alph.Cygni 42.1 39.2 2.9 Alph.Gruris 42.2 27.4 14.8 Trinidad Achernar 10 38 56.1 10 38 58.2 2.1 Alph.Gruris 52.2 50.8 1.4 Achernar 59.3 56.6 2.7 Jamaica Polaris 17 56 8.6 17 56 4.6 4.0 6.6 3.3 3.3 New York Sun 40 42 40.1 40 42 44.6 4.5 Polaris 48.9 38.2 10.7 Sun 41.4 47.2 5.8 Beta Urs.Min. 42.3 58.4 16.1 Hammerfest Sun 70 40 5.3 70 40 7.2 1.9 Spitzbergen Sun 79 49 56.1 79 49 58.6 2.5 Sun 55.9 44.8 11.1 Sun 58.6 52.7 5.9 Sun 59.3 51.6 7.7 Sun 55.8 51.6 4.2 Sun 50 1.5 57.0 4.5 Greenland Sun 74 32 19.9 74 32 32.4 12.4 Sun 17.9 18.7 0.8 Drontheim Sun 63 25 51.3 63 26 6.1 14.8 Alph.Urs.Min. 57.2 49.4 7.8
Station. Star Latitude Latitude Difference by Capt. corrected for rence Sabine error of level. deg.min.sec. deg.min.sec. sec. Sierra Leone Sirius 8° 29' 27.9" 8° 29' 34.7" 6.8 Ascension Alpha Centauri 7° 55' 46.7" 7° 55' 40.1" 6.6 Bahia Alpha Lyrae 12° 59' 19.4" 12° 59' 21.4" 2.0 Alpha Lyrae 21.2" 58° 49.8" 31.4 Alpha Pavonis 22.4" 59° 5.1" 17.3 Maranham Alpha Lyrae 2° 31' 42.4" 2° 31' 22" 20.4 Alpha Lyrae 43.8" 31.8" 12.0 Alpha Pavonis 44.5" 44" .5 Alpha Lyrae 44.6" 42.6" 2.0 Alpha Cygni 42.1" 39.2" 2.9 Alpha Gruis 42.2" 27.4" 14.8 Trinidad Achernar 10° 38' 56.1" 10° 38' 58.2" 2.1 Alpha Gruis 52.2" 50.8" 1.4 Achernar 59.3" 56.6" 2.7 Jamaica Polaris 17° 56' 8.6" 17° 56' 4.6" 4.0 6.6" 3.3" 3.3" New York Sun 40° 42' 40.1" 40° 42' 44.6" 4.5 Polaris 48.9" 38.2" 10.7 Sun 41.4" 47.2" 5.8 Beta Ursa Minor 42.3" 58.4" 16.1 Hammerfest Sun 70° 40' 5.3" 70° 40' 7.2" 1.9 Spitzbergen Sun 79° 49' 56.1" 79° 49' 58.6" 2.5 Sun 55.9" 44.8" 11.1 Sun 58.6" 52.7" 5.9 Sun 59.3" 51.6" 7.7 Sun 55.8" 51.6" 4.2 Sun 50° 1.5" 57.0" 4.5 Greenland Sun 74° 32' 19.9" 74° 32' 32.4" 12.4 Sun 17.9" 18.7" 0.8 Drontheim Sun 63° 25' 51.3" 63° 26' 6.1" 14.8 Alpha Ursa Minor 57.2" 49.4" 7.8
This presents a very different view of the latitudes as determined by the small repeating circle, from that in Captain Sabine's book; and confining ourselves still to Maranham, where the latitudes "WERE OBTAINED, WITH ESPECIAL REGARD TO EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE BY WHICH THEIR ACCURACY MIGHT BE AFFECTED," and where "A MORE THAN USUAL ATTENTION WAS BESTOWED," it appears, that if we take Captain Sabine's own test, namely, "the differences of the partial results from the mean at each station," the deviations become nearly ten times as large as they were before; a circumstance which might be expected to have some influence in the decision of the question.
This offers a much different perspective on the latitudes determined by the small repeating circle compared to Captain Sabine's book. Focusing again on Maranham, where the latitudes “WERE OBTAINED, WITH ESPECIAL REGARD TO EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE BY WHICH THEIR ACCURACY MIGHT BE AFFECTED,” and where “A MORE THAN USUAL ATTENTION WAS BESTOWED,” it seems that if we apply Captain Sabine's own test, specifically “the differences of the partial results from the mean at each station,” the deviations increase to nearly ten times larger than they were previously; a factor that could significantly affect the outcome of the question.
There is, however, another light in which it is impossible to avoid looking at this singular oversight. The second column of the table of latitudes must now be considered the true one, as that which really resulted from the observations. Now, on examining the column of true latitudes, the differences between the different sets of observations is so considerable as naturally to excite some fear of latent error, more especially as nearly the greatest discordance arises from the same star, Alph.Lyrae, observed after an interval of only three days. It becomes interesting to every person engaged in making astronomical observations, to know what is the probability of his being exposed to an error so little to be guarded against, and so calculated to lull the suspicions of the unfortunate astronomer to whom it may happen.
There is, however, another way to look at this unique oversight. The second column of the latitude table should now be viewed as the accurate one, as it reflects what truly came from the observations. Now, when examining the true latitudes column, the differences among the various sets of observations are so significant that they naturally raise concerns about possible hidden errors, especially since nearly the largest discrepancy comes from the same star, Alph.Lyrae, which was observed just three days apart. It becomes important for anyone involved in astronomical observations to understand the likelihood of facing an error that is so easy to overlook and that could easily mislead the unsuspecting astronomer it affects.
In fact, the question resolves itself into this: the true latitude of a place being determined by sets of observations as in the first of the following columns—
In fact, the question comes down to this: the actual latitude of a place is determined by sets of observations like those in the first of the following columns—
Latitudes as True latitudes observed. computed by a mistake of Capt. Sabine's. deg.min.sec. deg.min.sec. Alph.Lyrae, 28th Aug.... 2 31 22.0 2 31 42.4 Alph.Lyrae, 29th Aug.... 31.8 43.8 Alph.Pavonis, 29th Aug... 44,0 44.5 Alph.Lyrae, 31st Aug.... 42.6 44.6 Alph.Cygni, 31st Aug.... 39.2 42.0 Alph.Gruris, 2d Sept.... 27.4 42.2
Latitudes as True latitudes observed. calculated due to an error of Capt. Sabine. deg.min.sec. deg.min.sec. Alph.Lyrae, Aug 28.... 2 31 22.0 2 31 42.4 Alph.Lyrae, Aug 29.... 31.8 43.8 Alph.Pavonis, Aug 29... 44.0 44.5 Alph.Lyrae, Aug 31.... 42.6 44.6 Alph.Cygni, Aug 31.... 39.2 42.0 Alph.Gruris, Sept 2.... 27.4 42.2
what are the chances that, by one error all the latitudes in the first column should be brought so nearly to an agreement as they are in the second column? The circumstance of the number of divisions of the level being almost arbitrary within limits, might perhaps be alleged as diminishing this extraordinary improbability: but let any one consider, if he choose the error of each set, as independent of the others, still he will find the odds against it enormous.
what are the chances that, due to one mistake, all the latitudes in the first column would end up so closely matching those in the second column? The fact that the number of divisions of the level is somewhat arbitrary within certain limits could be argued as reducing this extraordinary unlikelihood. However, if anyone considers the error of each set as being independent of the others, they will still find the odds against it to be enormous.
When it is considered that an error, almost arbitrary in its law, has thus had the effect of bringing discordant observations into an almost unprecedented accordance, as at Maranham; and not merely so, but that at eight of the nine stations it has uniformly tended to diminish the differences between the partial results, and that at the ninth station it only increased it by a small fraction of a second, I cannot help feeling that it is more probable even that Captain Kater, with all his admitted skill, and that Captain Sabine himself, should have been both mistaken in their measures of the divisions of the level, than that so singular an effect should have been produced by one error; and I cannot bring myself to believe that such an anticipation is entirely without foundation.
Considering that an almost arbitrary error in the law has led to unexpected agreement among conflicting observations, like those at Maranham, and that this error has consistently reduced differences between results at eight out of nine stations, with only a slight increase at the ninth station, I can't help but think it's more likely that both Captain Kater, despite his acknowledged skill, and Captain Sabine were both wrong in measuring the level divisions than that such a strange effect resulted from a single error. I find it hard to believe that this assumption is completely unfounded.
Whatever may be the result of a re-examination, it was a singular oversight NOT TO MEASURE the divisions of a level intended to be used for determining so important a question; more particularly as, in the very work to which reference was made by Captain Sabine for the purpose of comparing the observations, it was the very first circumstance which occupied the French philosophers, and several pages [See pages 265 to 275 of the RECUEIL D'OBSERVATIONS GEODESIQUES, &c. PAR MM. BIOT ET ARAGO, which forms the fourth volume of the BASE DU SYSTEME METRIQUE.] are filled with the details relative to the determination of the value of the divisions of the level. It would also have been satisfactory, with such an important object in view, to have read off some of the sets after each pair of observations, in order to see how far the system of repetition made the results gradually converge to a limit, and in order to know how many repetitions were sufficient. Such a course would almost certainly have led to a knowledge of the true value of the divisions of the level; for the differences in the altitude of the same star, after a few minutes of time, must, in many instances, have been far too great to have arisen from the change of its altitude: and had these been noticed, they must have been referred to some error in the instrument, which could scarcely, in such circumstances, have escaped detection.
Whatever the outcome of a re-examination may be, it was a significant oversight NOT TO MEASURE the divisions of a level meant for addressing such an important question; especially since, in the very work referenced by Captain Sabine for comparing the observations, it was the first issue that concerned the French philosophers, and several pages [See pages 265 to 275 of the RECUEIL D'OBSERVATIONS GEODESIQUES, &c. PAR MM. BIOT ET ARAGO, which forms the fourth volume of the BASE DU SYSTEME METRIQUE.] are filled with details about determining the value of the divisions of the level. It would also have been useful, given the importance of the objective, to have recorded some of the sets after each pair of observations, to see how much the repeated measurements led the results to gradually converge to a limit, and to know how many repetitions were adequate. Following this approach would almost certainly have led to an understanding of the true value of the divisions of the level; because the differences in the altitude of the same star, after just a few minutes, must have been too large in many cases to be due solely to changes in its altitude: and if these variations had been noticed, they would likely have been attributed to an error in the instrument, which would hardly have gone undetected in such situations.
I have now mentioned a few of the difficulties which attend Captain Sabine's book on the pendulum, difficulties which I am far from saying are inexplicable. He would be bold indeed who, after so wonderful an instance of the effect of chance as I have been just discussing, should venture to pronounce another such accident impossible; but I think enough has been said to show, that the feeling which so generally prevails relative to it, is neither captious nor unreasonable.
I’ve now pointed out some of the challenges that come with Captain Sabine's book on the pendulum, challenges I’m not suggesting are impossible to explain. It would take a lot of nerve for someone to say that another similar accident can’t happen, especially after such an incredible example of chance that I just discussed. However, I believe I've said enough to demonstrate that the feelings most people have about it are neither overly critical nor unfair.
Enough also has appeared to prove, that the conduct of the Admiralty in appointing that gentleman one of their scientific advisers, was, under the peculiar circumstances, at least, unadvised. They have thus lent, as far as they could, the weight of their authority to support observations which are now found to be erroneous. They have thus held up for imitation observations which may induce hundreds of meritorious officers to throw aside their instruments, in the despair of ever approaching a standard which is since admitted to be imaginary; and they have ratified the doctrine, for I am not aware their official adviser has ever even modified it, that diminutive instruments are equal almost to the largest.
It has also been shown that the Admiralty’s decision to appoint that gentleman as one of their scientific advisers was, given the specific circumstances, at least unwise. They have therefore lent, as much as they could, their authority to support observations that are now known to be incorrect. They have set a precedent with observations that may lead many deserving officers to abandon their tools, feeling hopeless about ever reaching a standard that is now accepted to be fictional; and they have confirmed the belief, as far as I know, that their official adviser has never even altered, that small instruments are nearly as good as the largest ones.
To what extent this doctrine is correct, may perhaps yet admit of doubt. It cannot, however, admit of a doubt, that it is unwise to crown it with official authority, and thus expose the officers of their service to depend on means which may be quite insufficient for their purpose.
To what extent this doctrine is correct might still be questionable. However, there’s no doubt that it’s unwise to give it official approval and put the officers of their service in a position where they have to rely on methods that might not be enough for their needs.
How the Board of Longitude, after EXPRESSLY DIRECTING THIS INSTRUMENT TO BE MADE AND TRIED, could come to the decision at which they arrived, appears inexplicable. The known difference of opinion amongst the best observers respecting the repeating principle, ought to have rendered them peculiarly cautious, nor ought the opinion of a Troughton, that instruments of less than one foot in diameter may be considered, "FOR ASTRONOMY, AS LITTLE BETTER THAN PLAYTHINGS," [Memoirs of the Astronomical Society, Vol.I. p.53.] to have been rejected without the most carefully detailed experiments. There were amongst that body, persons who must have examined minutely the work on the Pendulum. Captain Kater must have felt those difficulties in the perusal of it which other observers have experienced; and he who was placed in the Board of Longitude especially for his knowledge of instruments, might, in a few hours, have arrived at more decisive facts. But perhaps I am unjust. Captain Kater's knowledge rendered it impossible for him to have been ignorant of the difficulties, and his candour would have prevented him from concealing them: he must, therefore, after examining the subject, have been outvoted by his lay-brethren who had dispensed with that preliminary.
How the Board of Longitude, after SPECIFICALLY ORDERING THIS INSTRUMENT TO BE MADE AND TESTED, could reach the conclusion they did is hard to understand. The well-known disagreements among top observers regarding the repeating principle should have made them especially cautious, and they shouldn't have dismissed Troughton’s opinion that instruments smaller than one foot in diameter are, "FOR ASTRONOMY, AS LITTLE BETTER THAN TOYS," [Memoirs of the Astronomical Society, Vol.I. p.53.] without thoroughly detailed experiments. There were members of that group who must have closely examined the work on the Pendulum. Captain Kater must have encountered the difficulties in reading it that other observers have faced; and considering he was on the Board of Longitude specifically for his knowledge of instruments, he could have uncovered more definitive facts in just a few hours. But maybe I’m being unfair. Captain Kater’s expertise meant he couldn’t be unaware of the challenges, and his honesty would have kept him from hiding them: he must have ultimately been outvoted by his fellow members who didn’t see the need for that groundwork.
It would be unjust, before quitting this subject, not to mention with respect the acknowledgment made by an officer of the naval service of the errors into which he also fell from this same level. Lieutenant Foster, aware of the many occasions on which Captain Sabine had employed this instrument, and knowing that he considered each division as equal to one second, never thought that a doubt could exist on the subject, and made all his calculations accordingly. When Captain Kater made him acquainted with the mistake, Lieutenant Foster immediately communicated a paper [The paper of Lieutenant Foster is printed in the Philosophical Transactions, 1827, p.122, and is worth consulting.] to the Royal Society, in which he states the circumstance most fully, and recomputed all the observations in which that instrument was used. Unfortunately, from the original observations of Mr. Ross being left on board the Fury at the time of her loss, the transcripts of his results could not be recomputed like the rest, and were consequently useless.
It would be unfair, before wrapping up this topic, not to respectfully mention the acknowledgment made by a naval officer about the mistakes he also made at this same level. Lieutenant Foster, knowing the many times Captain Sabine had used this instrument and understanding that he thought each division was equal to one second, never considered that there could be any doubt about it, and calculated everything accordingly. When Captain Kater informed him of the error, Lieutenant Foster promptly sent a paper [The paper of Lieutenant Foster is printed in the Philosophical Transactions, 1827, p.122, and is worth consulting.] to the Royal Society, where he fully explains the situation and recalculates all the observations that involved that instrument. Unfortunately, because Mr. Ross's original observations were left on board the Fury when it was lost, the copies of his results couldn’t be recalculated like the others and were therefore useless.
SECTION 5. OF THE UNION OF SEVERAL OFFICES IN ONE PERSON.
Although the number of situations to which persons conversant with science may hope to be appointed, is small, yet it has somewhat singularly happened, that instances of one individual, holding more than one such appointment, are frequent. Not to speak of those held by the late Dr. Young, we have at present:—
Although the number of situations that people knowledgeable in science can hope to be appointed to is limited, it is quite interesting that there are many cases of one person holding multiple appointments. Not to mention those held by the late Dr. Young, we currently have:—
MR. POND—Astronomer Royal, Inspector of Chronometers, and Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac.
MR. POND—Royal Astronomer, Chronometer Inspector, and Director of the Nautical Almanac.
CAPTAIN SABINE—An officer of artillery on leave of absence from his regiment; Secretary of the Royal Society; and Scientific Adviser of the Admiralty.
CAPTAIN SABINE—An officer in the artillery on leave from his regiment; Secretary of the Royal Society; and Scientific Advisor to the Admiralty.
MR. BRANDE—Clerk of the Irons at the Royal Mint; Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institution; Analyser of Rough Nitre, &c. to the East-India Company; Lecturer on Materia Medica, Apothecaries' Hall; Superintending Chemical Operator at ditto; Lecturer on Chemistry at ditto; Editor of the Royal Institution Journal; and Foreign Secretary to the Royal Society.
MR. BRANDE—Clerk of the Irons at the Royal Mint; Chemistry Professor at the Royal Institution; Analyst of Rough Nitre, etc. for the East India Company; Lecturer on Materia Medica at Apothecaries' Hall; Supervising Chemical Operator there; Chemistry Lecturer at the same place; Editor of the Royal Institution Journal; and Foreign Secretary for the Royal Society.
One should be led to imagine, from these unions of scientific offices, either that science is too little paid, and that gentlemen cannot be found to execute the offices separately at the salaries offered; or else, that it is too well paid, since each requires such little attention, that almost any number can be executed by one person.
One might think, from these combinations of scientific roles, that science doesn't pay enough, and that it's hard to find qualified people to do these jobs separately for the offered salaries; or that it pays too well, since each role demands so little attention that one person could handle many of them.
The Director of the Royal Observatory has a larger and better collection of instruments, and more assistants to superintend, than any other astronomer in the world; and, to do it properly, would require the almost undivided attention of a man in the vigour of youth. Nor would a superintendent of the Nautical Almanac, if he made a point of being acquainted with every thing connected with his subject, find his situation at all a sinecure. Slight as are the duties of the Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society, it might have been supposed that Mr. Brande would scarcely, amongst his multifarious avocations, have found time even for them. But it may be a consolation to him to know, that from the progress the Society is making, those duties must become shortly, if they are not already, almost extinct.
The Director of the Royal Observatory has a larger and better collection of instruments, along with more assistants to oversee, than any other astronomer in the world. Doing this job properly would take almost all the attention of a young and vigorous person. Similarly, a superintendent of the Nautical Almanac, even if he made it a point to be familiar with everything related to his field, wouldn't find his role to be a mere formality. While the responsibilities of the Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society may seem minor, it would have been reasonable to think that Mr. Brande, with his numerous commitments, would hardly find time for them. However, it may be reassuring for him to know that, due to the progress the Society is making, those duties will soon become nearly, if they aren't already, obsolete.
Doubtless the President, in making that appointment, looked most anxiously over the list of the Royal Society. He doubtless knew that the Academics of Sweden, of Denmark, of Scotland, of Prussia, of Hanover, and of France, derived honour from the discoveries of their Secretaries;—that they prided themselves in the names of Berzelius, of Oersted, of Brewster, of Encke, of Gauss, and of Cuvier. Doubtless the President must have been ambitious that England should contribute to this galaxy of glory, that the Royal Society should restore the lost Pleiad [Pleiades, an assemblage of seven stars in the neck of the constellation Taurus. There are now only six of them visible to the naked eye.—HUTTON'S DICTIONARY—Art. Pleiades.] to the admiring science of Europe. But he could discover no kindred name amongst the ranks of his supporters, and forgot, for a moment, the interest of the Society, in an amiable consideration for the feelings of his surrounding friends. For had the President chosen a brighter star, the lustre of his other officers might have been overpowered by its splendour: but relieved from the pain of such a contrast, he may still retain the hope, that, by their united brightness, these suns of his little system shall yet afford sufficient light to be together visible to distant nations, as a faint NEBULA in the obscure horizon of English science.
Surely the President, when making that appointment, carefully considered the list of the Royal Society. He knew that the Academics of Sweden, Denmark, Scotland, Prussia, Hanover, and France drew pride from the discoveries of their Secretaries; they took pride in names like Berzelius, Oersted, Brewster, Encke, Gauss, and Cuvier. The President must have wanted England to add to this impressive lineup, that the Royal Society should bring back the lost Pleiad [Pleiades, a group of seven stars in the neck of the Taurus constellation. There are currently only six visible to the naked eye.—HUTTON'S DICTIONARY—Art. Pleiades.] to the esteemed science of Europe. However, he found no notable name among his supporters and, for a moment, overlooked the Society's best interests in favor of being considerate of his friends' feelings. If the President had chosen a more distinguished figure, it might have overshadowed his other officers; but freed from the discomfort of such a comparison, he may still hold on to the hope that, through their combined efforts, these lights of his small group will shine brightly enough to be seen by distant nations, appearing as a faint NEBULA in the murky horizon of English science.
SECTION 6. OF THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY.
Although the Society is not in a state approaching to poverty, it may be useful to offer a few remarks respecting the distribution of its money.
Although the Society isn't close to being poor, it might be helpful to share a few thoughts about how its money is distributed.
EXPENSE OF ENGRAVINGS FOR SIR E. HOME'S PAPERS.—The great expense of the engravings which adorn the volumes of the Philosophical Transactions, is not sufficiently known. That many of those engravings are quite essential for the papers they illustrate, and that those papers are fit for the Transactions, I do not doubt; but, some inquiry is necessary, when such large sums are expended. I shall endeavour, therefore, to approximate to the sum these engravings have cost the Royal Society.
EXPENSE OF ENGRAVINGS FOR SIR E. HOME'S PAPERS.—The high cost of the engravings that enhance the volumes of the Philosophical Transactions is not widely recognized. I have no doubt that many of these engravings are crucial for the papers they illustrate, and that those papers are suitable for the Transactions. However, it is important to investigate when such significant amounts are spent. Therefore, I will attempt to estimate how much these engravings have cost the Royal Society.
Previous to 1810, there are upwards of seventy plates to papers of Sir E. Home's; in many of these, which I have purposely separated, the workmanship is not so minute as in the succeeding ones. Since 1810, there have occurred 187 plates attached to papers of the same author. Many of these have cost from twelve to twenty guineas each plate; but I shall take five pounds as the average cost of the first portion, and twelve as that of the latter. This would produce,
Previous to 1810, there are over seventy plates related to the works of Sir E. Home; in many of these, which I have intentionally separated, the detail is not as fine as in the later ones. Since 1810, there have been 187 plates included with papers by the same author. Many of these have cost between twelve and twenty guineas each, but I will consider five pounds as the average cost of the first set and twelve for the latter. This would yield,
70 X 5 = 350 187 X 12 = 2244 ...... ——-...... L2594
70 X 5 = 350 187 X 12 = 2244 ...... ——-...... L2594
As this is only proposed as a rough approximation, let us omit the odd hundreds, and we have two thousand pounds expended in plates only on ONE branch of science, and for one person! Without calling in question the importance of the discoveries contained in those papers, it may be permitted to doubt whether such a large sum might not have been expended in a manner more beneficial to science. Not being myself conversant with those subjects, I can only form an opinion of the value from extraneous circumstances. Had their importance been at all equal to their number, I should have expected to have heard amongst the learned of other countries much more frequent mention of them than I have done, and even the Council of the Royal Society would scarcely have excluded from their Transactions one of those productions which they had paid for as a lecture.
Since this is just a rough estimate, let’s skip the odd hundreds, and we see that two thousand pounds were spent on plates alone for JUST one branch of science, and for just one person! Without questioning the significance of the discoveries in those papers, one might wonder if that large amount could have been spent in a way that would bring more benefits to science. I'm not an expert in these subjects, so I can only judge their value based on external factors. If their importance matched their quantity, I would have expected to hear much more frequently about them from scholars in other countries than I actually have, and even the Council of the Royal Society would hardly have left out one of those works from their Transactions, especially one they paid for as a lecture.
It might also have been more delicate not to have placed on the Council so repeatedly a gentleman, for whose engravings they were annually expending, during the last twenty years, about an hundred pounds. On the other hand, when the Council lent Sir E. Home the whole of those valuable plates to take off impressions for his large work on Comparative Anatomy, of which they constitute almost the whole, it might have been as well not to have obliterated from each plate all indication of the source to which he was indebted for them.
It might have been more considerate not to have placed on the Council so often a gentleman for whom they had been spending about a hundred pounds annually for his engravings over the last twenty years. On the flip side, when the Council lent Sir E. Home all those valuable plates to make impressions for his extensive work on Comparative Anatomy, which are nearly all of them, it might have been better not to have removed any trace of the source from each plate that he relied on.
THE PRESIDENT'S DISCOURSES.—I shall mention this circumstance, because it fell under my own observation.
THE PRESIDENT'S DISCOURSES.—I want to bring up this situation because I personally witnessed it.
Observing in the annual accounts a charge of 381L 5s. for the President's Speeches, I thought it right to inquire into the nature of this item. Happening to be on the Council the next year, I took an opportunity, at an early meeting of that Council, to ask publicly for an explanation of the following resolution, which stands in the Council-books for Dec. 21, 1828.
Observing in the annual accounts a charge of £381 5s. for the President's Speeches, I thought it was appropriate to ask about this item. The following year, while on the Council, I took the chance at an early meeting to publicly request an explanation of the resolution recorded in the Council books from December 21, 1828.
"Resolved, That 500 copies of the President's Discourses, about to be printed by Mr. Murray, be purchased by the Society, at the usual trade price."
"Resolved, That the Society will buy 500 copies of the President's Discourses, which Mr. Murray is about to print, at the standard retail price."
The answer given to that question was, "THAT THE COUNCIL HAD AGREED TO PURCHASE THESE VOLUMES AT THAT PRICE, IN ORDER TO INDUCE MR. MURRAY TO PRINT THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECHES."
The answer to that question was, "THE COUNCIL HAS AGREED TO BUY THESE VOLUMES AT THAT PRICE, TO ENCOURAGE MR. MURRAY TO PRINT THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECHES."
I remarked at the time that such an answer was quite unsatisfactory, as the following statement will prove.
I noted back then that such an answer was pretty unsatisfactory, as the next statement will show.
The volume consists of 160 pages, or twenty sheets, and the following prices are very liberal:
The book has 160 pages, or twenty sheets, and the following prices are quite generous:
L s. d. To composing and printing twenty sheets, at 3L. per sheet............... 60 0 0 Twenty reams of paper, at 3L. per ream..... 60 0 0 Corrections, alterations, &c.......... 30 0 0 Total cost of 500 copies...... 150 0 0
L s. d. For composing and printing twenty sheets, at £3 per sheet............... 60 0 0 Twenty reams of paper, at £3 per ream..... 60 0 0 Corrections, alterations, etc.......... 30 0 0 Total cost of 500 copies...... 150 0 0
Now upon the subject of the expense of printing, the Council could not plead ignorance. The Society are engaged in printing, and in paying printers' bills, too frequently to admit of such an excuse; and several of the individual members must have known, from their own private experience, that the cost of printing such a volume was widely different from that they were about to pay, as an inducement to a bookseller to print it on his own account. Here, then, was a sum of above two hundred pounds beyond what was necessary for the object, taken from the funds of the Royal Society; and for what purpose? Did the President and his officers ever condescend to explain this transaction to the Council; or were they expected, as a matter of course, to sanction any thing proposed to them? Could they have been so weak, or so obedient, as to order the payment of above three hundred and eighty pounds, to induce a bookseller to do what they might have done themselves for less than half the sum? Or did they wish to make Mr. Murray a present of two hundred pounds? If so, he must have had powerful friends in the Council, and it is fit the Society should know who they were; for they were not friends, either to its interests or to its honour.
Now on the topic of printing costs, the Council can't claim ignorance. The Society is involved in printing and often pays printer bills, making such an excuse unacceptable. Several individual members must have known from their own experience that the cost of printing such a volume was significantly different from what they were about to pay a bookseller to print it on his own terms. Here was a sum of over two hundred pounds taken from the Royal Society's funds that was unnecessary for the purpose. For what reason? Did the President and his officers bother to explain this action to the Council, or were they just expected to approve whatever was proposed to them? Could they really have been so naïve or obedient as to authorize a payment of over three hundred and eighty pounds to persuade a bookseller to do what they could have done for less than half that amount? Or did they intend to give Mr. Murray two hundred pounds? If that was the case, he must have had influential allies in the Council, and it’s important for the Society to know who they are; because they were not supporters of its interests or its reputation.
The copies, so purchased, were ordered by the Council to be sold to members of the Society at 15s. each: (the trade price is 15s. 3d.) and out of the five hundred copies twenty-seven only have been sold: the remainder encumber our shelves. Thus, after four years, the Society are still losers of three hundred and sixty Pounds on this transaction.
The copies that were purchased were ordered by the Council to be sold to Society members at £15 each (the retail price is £15.15). Out of the five hundred copies, only twenty-seven have been sold, and the rest are taking up space on our shelves. After four years, the Society is still at a loss of £360 from this transaction.
ON THE CONVERSION OF THE GREENWICH OBSERVATIONS INTO PASTEBOARD.—Although the printing of these observations is not paid for out of the funds of the Royal Society, yet as the Council of that body are the visitors of the Royal Observatory, it may not be misplaced to introduce the subject here.
ON THE CONVERSION OF THE GREENWICH OBSERVATIONS INTO PASTEBOARD.—Although the printing of these observations isn’t funded by the Royal Society, since the Council of that organization oversees the Royal Observatory, it seems appropriate to bring up the topic here.
Some years since, a member of the Royal Society accidentally learned, that there was, at an old store-shop in Thames Street, a large quantity of the volumes of the Greenwich Observations on sale as waste paper. On making inquiry, he ascertained that there were two tons and a half to be disposed of, and that an equal quantity had already been sold, for the purpose of converting it into pasteboard. The vendor said he could get fourpence a pound for the whole, and that it made capital Bristol board. The fact was mentioned by a member of the Council of the Royal Society, and they thought it necessary to inquire into the circumstances.
A few years ago, a member of the Royal Society found out by chance that an old shop on Thames Street had a large amount of Greenwich Observations books for sale as waste paper. After looking into it, he discovered there were two and a half tons available, and an equal amount had already been sold to make pasteboard. The seller claimed he could get fourpence a pound for the entire lot, saying it made great Bristol board. This information was shared by a member of the Royal Society's Council, and they deemed it important to investigate further.
Now, the Observations made at the Royal Observatory are printed with every regard to typographical luxury, with large margins, on thick paper, hotpressed, and with no sort of regard to economy. This magnificence is advocated by some who maintain, that the volumes ought to be worthy of a great nation; whilst others, seeing how little that nation spends on science, regret that the sums allotted to it should not be applied with the strictest economy. If the Astronomer Royal really has a right to these volumes, printed by the government at a large expense, it is, perhaps, the most extravagant mode which was ever yet invented of paying a public servant. When that right was given to him,—let us suppose somebody had suggested the impolicy of it, lest he should sell the costly volumes for waste paper,—who would have listened for one moment to such a supposition? He would have been told that it was impossible to suppose a person in that high and responsible situation, could be so indifferent to his own reputation.
Now, the observations made at the Royal Observatory are published with great attention to detail, featuring large margins, on thick, high-quality paper, without any consideration for cost. Some argue that these volumes should reflect the greatness of a major nation, while others lament that so little is spent on science by that nation and wish the funds devoted to it were managed more efficiently. If the Astronomer Royal actually deserves these volumes, printed by the government at a significant expense, it may be the most wasteful method of compensating a public servant ever conceived. When this right was granted to him—let's say someone suggested it was a bad idea, fearing he might sell the expensive volumes as scrap paper—who would have entertained such a notion? People would have insisted that it’s unimaginable for someone in such a prominent and responsible position to be so careless about their own reputation.
A short time since, I applied to the President and Council of the Royal Society, for copies of the Greenwich Observations, which were necessary for an inquiry on which I was at that time engaged. Being naturally anxious to economize the small funds I can devote to science, the request appeared to me a reasonable one. It was, however, refused; and I was at the same time informed that the Observations could be purchased at the bookseller's. [This was a mistake; Mr. Murray has not copies of the Greenwich Observations prior to 1823.] When I consider that practical astronomy has not occupied a very prominent place in my pursuits, I feel disposed, on that ground, to acquiesce in the propriety of the refusal. This excuse can, however, be of no avail for similar refusals to other gentlemen, who applied nearly at the same time with myself, and whose time had been successfully devoted to the cultivation of that science. [M. Bessel, at the wish of the Royal Academy of Berlin, projected a plan for making a very extensive map of the heavens. Too vast for any individual to attempt, it was proposed that a portion should be executed by the astronomers of various countries, and invitations to this effect were widely circulated. One only of the divisions of this map was applied for by any English astronomer; and, after completing the portion of the map assigned to him, he undertook another, which had remained unprovided for. This gentleman, the Rev. Mr. Hussey, was one of the rejected applicants for the Greenwich Observations.]
A little while ago, I reached out to the President and Council of the Royal Society for copies of the Greenwich Observations, which I needed for a project I was working on at the time. Since I’m naturally eager to make the most of the limited funds I can allocate to science, my request seemed perfectly reasonable. However, it was denied, and I was told that the Observations could be bought at a bookstore. [This was incorrect; Mr. Murray does not have copies of the Greenwich Observations prior to 1823.] When I think about how practical astronomy hasn't been a major focus of my work, I'm inclined to agree that the refusal was justified. However, that excuse doesn't apply to other gentlemen who applied around the same time as me and had successfully dedicated their time to advancing that field. [M. Bessel, at the request of the Royal Academy of Berlin, proposed a plan to create a very extensive map of the heavens. It was too ambitious for any individual to tackle alone, so it was suggested that different portions be completed by astronomers from various countries, and invitations to participate were sent out widely. Only one English astronomer applied for one part of this map; after finishing his section, he took on another part that was still unclaimed. This gentleman, the Rev. Mr. Hussey, was one of the applicants who were turned down for the Greenwich Observations.]
There was, however, another ground on which I had weakly anticipated a different result;—but those who occupy official situations, rendered remarkable by the illustrious names of their predecessors, are placed in no enviable station; and, if their own acquirements are confessedly insufficient to keep up the high authority of their office, they must submit to the mortifications of their false position. I am sure, therefore, that the President and officers of the Royal Society must have sympathized MOST DEEPLY with me, when they felt it their duty to propose that the Society over which Newton once presided, should refuse so trifling an assistance to the unworthy possessor of the chair he once filled.
There was, however, another reason I had weakly hoped for a different outcome;—but those in official positions, notable for the great names of their predecessors, find themselves in a difficult situation; and if their own skills are clearly not enough to uphold the high authority of their role, they have to face the discomfort of their inadequate position. I am certain, therefore, that the President and officers of the Royal Society must have felt VERY DEEPLY for me when they believed it was their duty to suggest that the Society once led by Newton should deny such a trivial form of support to the undeserving person currently in the chair he once held.
In reply to my application to the President and Council, to be allowed a copy of the Greenwich Observations, I was informed that, "The number of copies placed by government at the disposal of the Royal Society, was insufficient to supply the demands made on them by various learned bodies in Europe; and, consequently, they were unable, however great their inclination, to satisfy the wishes of individual applicants." Now I have spent some time in searching the numerous proceedings in the council-books of the Royal Society, and I believe the following is the real state of the case:—
In response to my request to the President and Council for a copy of the Greenwich Observations, I was told that, "The number of copies provided by the government for the Royal Society was not enough to meet the requests from various academic institutions across Europe; therefore, they were unable, no matter how much they wanted to, to fulfill the requests of individual applicants." I have spent some time reviewing the many proceedings in the council records of the Royal Society, and I believe the following is the actual situation:—
In 1785, Lord Sidney, one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, wrote to the Council a letter, dated Whitehall, March 8, 1785, from which the following is extracted:—
In 1785, Lord Sidney, one of the main Secretaries of State for His Majesty, wrote a letter to the Council, dated Whitehall, March 8, 1785, from which the following is taken:—
"The King has been pleased to consent, that any copies of the Astronomical Observations, made at the Observatory of Greenwich, (and paid for by the Board of Ordnance, pursuant to His Majesty's command, of July 21, 1767,) which may at any time remain in the hands of the printer, shall, after you have reserved such copies as you may think proper as presents, be given to the said Nevil Maskelyne, in consideration of his trouble in the superintending the printing thereof. I am to signify His Majesty's pleasure, that you do, from time to time, give the necessary orders for that purpose, until His Majesty's further commands shall be communicated to you.
"The King has agreed that any copies of the Astronomical Observations made at the Greenwich Observatory (which were funded by the Board of Ordnance as per His Majesty's order on July 21, 1767) that are still in the hands of the printer, should, after you set aside copies you deem suitable for gifts, be handed over to Nevil Maskelyne in recognition of his efforts overseeing the printing. I am to convey His Majesty's wishes that you periodically give the necessary instructions for this purpose until further directions from His Majesty are provided to you."
Soon after this letter, I find on the council-books:—
Soon after this letter, I find in the council records:—
"Ordered, That sixty copies of the Greenwich Observations, last published, be retained as presents, and that the rest be delivered to the Astronomer Royal."
"Ordered, That sixty copies of the Greenwich Observations, last published, be kept as gifts, and that the remaining copies be given to the Astronomer Royal."
It is difficult to be sure of a negative fact, but in searching many volumes of the Proceedings of the Council, I have not discovered any revocation of this order, and I believe none exists. This is confirmed by the circumstance of the Council at the present day receiving precisely the same number of copies as their predecessors, and I believe that in fact they do not know the authority on which the right to those sixty rests.
It’s hard to be certain about a negative fact, but after searching through many volumes of the Proceedings of the Council, I haven’t found any record of this order being revoked, and I believe it hasn't been. This is supported by the fact that the Council today receives exactly the same number of copies as their predecessors, and I think they actually don’t know the authority that grants them the right to those sixty copies.
Supposing this order unrevoked, it was clearly meant to be left to the discretion of the Council, to order such a number to be reserved, "from time to time," as the demands of science might require. When, therefore, they found that the number of sixty copies was insufficient, they ought to have directed the printer to send them a larger number; but when they found out the purpose to which the Astronomer Royal applied them, they ought immediately to have ordered nearly the whole impression, in order to prevent this destruction of public property. If, on the other hand, the above order is revoked, and we really have no right to more than sixty copies; then, on discovering the Observations in their progress towards pasteboard, it was the duty of the Council of the Royal Society, as visitors of the Royal Observatory, immediately to have represented to Government the evil of the arrangement, and to have suggested, that if the Astronomer Royal have the right, it would be expedient to commute it for a liberal compensation.
Assuming this order hasn’t been canceled, it was clearly intended to give the Council the discretion to reserve a number of copies "from time to time," based on the needs of science. Therefore, when they discovered that sixty copies were not enough, they should have instructed the printer to provide a larger quantity. However, once they realized how the Astronomer Royal was using them, they should have immediately ordered nearly the entire print run to prevent this destruction of public resources. On the other hand, if the previous order is canceled, and we really are only entitled to sixty copies, then upon discovering the Observations being turned into pasteboard, it was the duty of the Royal Society's Council, as overseers of the Royal Observatory, to quickly inform the Government about the issues with this arrangement and suggest that if the Astronomer Royal has the right, it would be wise to exchange it for a generous compensation.
Whichever be the true view of the case, they have taken no steps on the subject; and I cannot help expressing my belief, that the President and Council were induced to be thus negligent of the interests of science, from the fear of interfering with the perquisites of the Astronomer Royal.
Whichever view of the situation is correct, they haven't taken any action on the matter; and I can't help but express my belief that the President and Council have been neglectful of scientific interests out of fear of stepping on the toes of the Astronomer Royal's benefits.
It is, however, but justice to observe, that the injury already done to science, by the conversion of these Observations into pasteboard, is not so great as the public might have feared. Mr. Pond, than whom no one can be supposed better acquainted with their value, and whose right to judge no man can question, has shown his own opinion to be, that his reputation will be best consulted by diminishing the extent of their circulation.
It’s only fair to note that the damage done to science by turning these Observations into a cardboard format isn’t as severe as the public might have worried. Mr. Pond, who is undoubtedly more knowledgeable about their value than anyone else and whose authority to judge is unquestionable, has expressed his belief that his reputation will be best served by limiting their distribution.
Before I quit the subject of the Royal Observatory, on which much might be said, I will just refer to the report by a Committee of the Royal Society that was made relative to it, some years since, and which, it is imagined, is a subject by no means grateful to the memory of any of the parties concerned in it. My object is to ascertain, whether any amendments have taken place in consequence. To one fact of considerable importance, I was myself a witness, when I was present officially at a visitation. At that time, no original observations made at the transit instrument were ever preserved. Had I not been an eye witness of the process of an observation, I should not have credited the fact.
Before I wrap up the topic of the Royal Observatory, which has a lot to discuss, I want to mention the report from a Committee of the Royal Society that was made about it a few years ago. It's thought that this report isn't a pleasant memory for anyone involved. My goal is to find out if any changes have been made because of it. I personally witnessed an important fact during an official visit. At that time, no original observations made with the transit instrument were ever kept. If I hadn't seen the observation process myself, I wouldn't have believed it.
SECTION 7. OF THE ROYAL MEDALS.
At a period when the attention of Government to science had not undergone any marked change, a most unexpected occurrence took place. His Majesty intimated to the Royal Society, through his Secretary of State, his intention to found two gold medals, of the value of fifty guineas each, to be awarded annually by the Council of the Royal Society, according to the rules they were desired to frame for that purpose.
At a time when the government’s focus on science hadn’t changed much, something completely unexpected happened. The King informed the Royal Society, through his Secretary of State, that he planned to establish two gold medals, each worth fifty guineas, to be given out every year by the Council of the Royal Society, based on the guidelines they were asked to create for that purpose.
The following is the copy of Mr. Peel's letter:—
The following is a copy of Mr. Peel's letter:—
WHITEHALL, December 3d, 1825.
WHITEHALL, December 3, 1825.
SIR,
Sir,
I am commanded by the King to acquaint you, that His Majesty proposes to found two gold medals, of the value of fifty guineas each, to be awarded as honorary premiums, under the direction of the President and Council of the Royal Society, in such a manner as shall, by the excitement of competition among men of science, seem best calculated to promote the object for which the Royal Society was instituted.
I am instructed by the King to inform you that His Majesty plans to establish two gold medals, each worth fifty guineas, to be given as honorary prizes. These will be managed by the President and Council of the Royal Society in a way that encourages competition among scientists, which is believed to best support the mission for which the Royal Society was created.
His Majesty desires to receive from the President and Council of the Royal Society their opinion upon the subject generally of the regulations which it may be convenient to establish with regard to the appropriation of the medals; and I have, therefore, to request that you will make the necessary communication to the Council of the Royal Society, in order that His Majesty's wishes may be carried into effect.
His Majesty would like to receive the President and Council of the Royal Society's thoughts on the general regulations that should be set up concerning the allocation of the medals. Therefore, I request that you inform the Council of the Royal Society so that His Majesty's wishes can be fulfilled.
I have the honour to be, &c. &c. (Signed) R. PEEL.
I am honored to be, &c. &c. (Signed) R. PEEL.
Nothing could be more important for the interests of science, than this gracious manifestation of His Majesty's concern for its advancement. It was hailed by all who were made acquainted with it, as the commencement of a new era, and the energies which it might have awakened were immense. The unfettered nature of the gift excited admiration, whilst the confidence reposed in the Council was calculated to have insured the wavering faith of any less-gifted body. Even those who, either from knowing the MANAGEMENT of the Society, or from other grounds, doubted the policy of establishing medals, saw much to admire in the tone and spirit in which they were offered.
Nothing could be more important for the interests of science than this generous show of His Majesty's commitment to its advancement. Everyone who learned about it welcomed it as the start of a new era, and the potential energy it could unleash was massive. The unrestricted nature of the gift was impressive, while the trust placed in the Council was likely to secure the shaky faith of any less-capable organization. Even those who, due to their knowledge of the Society's management or other reasons, questioned the decision to establish medals found much to appreciate in the tone and spirit with which they were presented.
The Council immediately came to the resolution of gratefully accepting them: and it appears that the President communicated that resolution, on the 26th, to Mr. Peel, in a letter, which is found on the minutes of the Council-book of the 26th of January.
The Council quickly decided to gratefully accept them, and it seems the President conveyed that decision to Mr. Peel in a letter on the 26th, which is recorded in the minutes of the Council book from January 26th.
At the same Council, the rules for the award of the Royal medals were decided upon; they were as follow:—
At the same Council, the rules for awarding the Royal medals were decided; they were as follows:—
26th January, 1826.
January 26, 1826.
RESOLVED,
Agreed,
That it is the opinion of the Council, that the medals be awarded for the most important discoveries or series of investigations, completed and made known to the Royal Society in the year preceding the day of their award.
That the Council believes the medals should be awarded for the most significant discoveries or sets of research completed and presented to the Royal Society in the year before the awarding day.
That it is the opinion of the Council, that the presentation of the medals should not be limited to British subjects. And they propose, if it should be His Majesty's pleasure, that his effigy should form the obverse of the medal.
That the Council believes the presentation of the medals shouldn’t be limited to British subjects. They suggest, if His Majesty agrees, that his image should be on the front of the medal.
That two medals from the same die should be struck upon each foundation; one in gold, one in silver.
That two medals from the same mold should be made on each foundation; one in gold, one in silver.
If these rules are not the wisest which might have been formed, yet they are tolerably explicit; and it might have been imagined that even a councillor of the Royal Society, prepared for office by the education of a pleader, could not have mystified his brethren so completely, as to have made them doubt on the point of time. The rules fixed precisely, that the discoveries or experiments rewarded, must be completed and made known to the Royal Society, within the YEAR PRECEDING THE DAY of the award.
If these rules aren't the best that could have been created, they're still pretty clear; and one might have thought that even a councillor of the Royal Society, trained as a lawyer, wouldn't have confused his colleagues so much as to make them question the timing. The rules clearly state that the discoveries or experiments that receive awards must be completed and presented to the Royal Society within the YEAR PRECEDING THE DAY of the award.
Perhaps it might have been a proper mark of respect to this communication, to have convened a special general meeting of the Society, to have made known to the whole body the munificent endowment of their Patron: and when his approbation of the laws which were to govern the distribution of these medals had been intimated to the Council, such a course would have been in complete accordance with the wish expressed in Mr. Peel's letter, "TO EXCITE COMPETITION AMONGST MEN OF SCIENCE" by making them generally known.
Maybe it would have been a fitting way to honor this message to hold a special general meeting of the Society, to inform everyone about the generous support from their Patron. Once the Council received his approval of the rules for distributing these medals, following that approach would have fully aligned with the desire expressed in Mr. Peel's letter, "TO EXCITE COMPETITION AMONGST MEN OF SCIENCE" by making it widely known.
Let us now examine the first award of these medals: it is recorded in the following words:—
Let’s now look at the first award of these medals: it’s noted in the following words:—
November 16, 1826.
November 16, 1826.
ONE of the medals of His Majesty's donation for the present year was awarded to John Dalton, Esq. President of the Philosophical and Literary Society, Manchester, for his development of the Atomic Theory, and his other important labours and discoveries in physical science.
ONE of the medals from His Majesty's donation for this year was awarded to John Dalton, Esq., President of the Philosophical and Literary Society in Manchester, for his work on the Atomic Theory and his other significant contributions to physical science.
The other medal for the present year was awarded to James Ivory, Esq. for his paper on Astronomical Refractions, published in the Philosophical Transactions for the year 1823, and his other valuable papers on mathematical subjects.
The other medal for this year was given to James Ivory, Esq. for his paper on Astronomical Refractions, published in the Philosophical Transactions in 1823, along with his other important papers on mathematical topics.
The Copley medal was awarded to James South, Esq. for his observations of double stars, and his paper on the discordances between the sun's observed and computed right ascensions, published in the Transactions.
The Copley medal was awarded to James South, Esq. for his observations of double stars and his paper on the differences between the sun's observed and calculated right ascensions, published in the Transactions.
It is difficult to believe that the same Council, which, in January, formed the laws for the distribution of these medals, should meet together in November, and in direct violation of these laws, award them to two philosophers, one of whom had made, and fully established, his great discovery almost twenty years before; and the other of whom (to stultify themselves still more effectually) they expressly rewarded for a paper made known to them three years before.
It's hard to believe that the same Council that created the rules for distributing these medals in January would come together in November and directly violate those rules by awarding them to two philosophers. One of them had made and fully established his major discovery almost twenty years earlier, and the other was specifically rewarded for a paper presented to them three years prior, making their actions even more absurd.
Were the rules for the award of these medals read previous to their decision? Or were the obedient Council only used to register the edict of their President? Or were they mocked, as they have been in other instances, with the semblance of a free discussion?
Were the rules for awarding these medals explained before their decision? Or was the compliant Council just there to confirm the President's orders? Or were they just given the illusion of a real discussion, like in other cases?
Has it never occurred to gentlemen who have been thus situated, that although they have in truth had no part in the decision, yet the Society and the public will justly attribute a portion of the merit or demerit of their award, to those to whom that trust was confided?
Has it never crossed the minds of men in this position that, even though they really had no say in the decision, the Society and the public will fairly assign some of the credit or blame for their award to those who were entrusted with it?
Did no one member of the Council venture, with the most submissive deference, to suggest to the President, that the public eye would watch with interest this first decision on the Royal medals, and that it might perhaps be more discreet to adjudge them, for the first time, in accordance with the laws which had been made for their distribution? Or was public opinion then held in supreme contempt? Was it scouted, as I have myself heard it scouted, in the councils of the Royal Society?
Did no one on the Council dare, with the utmost respect, to suggest to the President that the public would closely watch this first decision on the Royal medals? Would it not be wiser to award them for the first time based on the laws established for their distribution? Or was public opinion held in such disdain back then? Was it dismissed, as I have personally heard it dismissed, in the meetings of the Royal Society?
Or was the President exempt, on this occasion, from the responsibility of dictating an award in direct violation of the faith which had been pledged to the Society and to the public? and, did the Council, intent on exercising a power so rarely committed to them; and, perhaps, urged by the near approach of their hour of dinner, dispense with the formality of reading the laws on which they were about to act?
Or was the President excused, this time, from the responsibility of making an award that directly went against the promise made to the Society and the public? And did the Council, focused on exercising a power that was rarely given to them, and maybe prompted by the imminent arrival of dinner, skip the formal reading of the laws they were about to follow?
Whatever may have been the cause, the result was most calamitous to the Society. Its decision was attacked on other grounds; for, with a strange neglect, the Council had taken no pains to make known, either to the Society, or to the public, the rules they had made for the adjudication of these medals.
Whatever the cause, the outcome was disastrous for the Society. Its decision faced criticism for different reasons; in a bizarre oversight, the Council hadn’t bothered to inform either the Society or the public about the rules they had established for awarding these medals.
The evils resulting from this decision were many. In the first place, it was most indecorous and ungrateful to treat with such neglect the rules which had been approved by our Royal Patron. In the next place, the medals themselves became almost worthless from this original taint: and they ceased to excite "competition amongst men of science," because no man could feel the least security that he should get them, even though his discoveries should fulfil all the conditions on which they were offered,
The negative consequences of this decision were numerous. First of all, it was incredibly disrespectful and ungrateful to ignore the rules that had been approved by our Royal Patron. Additionally, the medals themselves became nearly worthless due to this initial flaw, and they stopped encouraging "competition among scientists," because no one could feel confident that they would receive them, even if their discoveries met all the criteria for which they were awarded.
The great injury which accrued to science from this proceeding, induced me, in the succeeding session, when I found myself on the Council of the Royal Society, to endeavour to remove the stigma which rested on our character. Whether I took the best means to remedy the evil is now a matter of comparatively little consequence: had I found any serious disposition to set it right, I should readily have aided in any plans for doing that which I felt myself bound to attempt, even though I should stand alone, as I had the misfortune of doing on that occasion. [It is but justice to Mr. South, who was a member of that Council, to state, that the circumstance of his having had the Copley medal of the same year awarded to him, prevented him from taking any part in the discussion.]
The significant damage done to science from this situation led me, in the following session, when I was part of the Council of the Royal Society, to try to remove the stigma that affected our reputation. Whether I used the best methods to fix the issue is now of relatively little importance: had I seen any real willingness to correct it, I would have gladly supported any efforts to do so, even if I had to stand alone, which unfortunately was the case at that time. [It is only fair to mention Mr. South, who was a member of that Council, that his receiving the Copley medal that same year prevented him from participating in the discussion.]
The impression which the whole of that discussion made on my mind will never be effaced. Regarding the original rules formed for the distribution of the Royal medals, when approved by his Majesty, as equally binding in honour and in justice, I viewed the decision of the Council, which assigned those medals to Mr. Dalton and Mr. Ivory, as void, IPSO FACTO, on the ground that it was directly at variance with that part which CONFINES the medals to discoveries made known to the Society within ONE YEAR PREVIOUS TO THE DAY OF THEIR AWARD. I therefore moved the following resolutions:
The impression that whole discussion left on me will never fade. I saw the original rules created for distributing the Royal medals, once approved by his Majesty, as equally binding in terms of honor and fairness. I considered the Council's decision to award those medals to Mr. Dalton and Mr. Ivory as invalid, IPSO FACTO, because it directly contradicted the part that LIMITS the medals to discoveries presented to the Society within ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DAY OF THEIR AWARD. Therefore, I proposed the following resolutions:
"1st, That the award of the Royal medals, made on the 16th of November, 1826, being contrary to the conditions under which they were offered, is invalid.
"1st, That the award of the Royal medals, made on the 16th of November, 1826, being against the terms under which they were offered, is invalid."
"2dly, That the sum of fifty guineas each be presented to J. Dalton, Esq. and James Ivory, Esq. from the funds of the Society; and that letters be written to each of those gentlemen, expressing the hope of the Council that this, the only method which is open to them of honourably fulfilling their pledges, will be received by those gentlemen as a mark of the high sense entertained by the Council of the importance and value of their discoveries, which require not the aid of medals to convey their reputation to posterity, as amongst the greatest which distinguished the age in which they lived."
"Secondly, the Society will give fifty guineas each to J. Dalton, Esq. and James Ivory, Esq. from its funds. Letters will be sent to both gentlemen, expressing the Council's hope that this, the only way they have to honorably fulfill their commitments, will be seen as a sign of the Council's high regard for the significance and value of their discoveries. These contributions do not need medals to ensure their legacy, as they stand among the greatest achievements of their time."
It may be curious to give the public a specimen of the reasoning employed in so select a body of philosophers as the Council of the Royal Society. It was contended, on the one hand, that although the award was SOMEWHAT IRREGULAR, yet nothing was more easy than to set it right. As the original rules for giving the medals were merely an order of the Council,—it would only be necessary to alter them, and then the award would agree perfectly with the laws. On the other hand, it was contended, that the original rules were unknown to the public and to the Society; and that, in fact, they were only known to the members of the Council and a few of their friends; and therefore the award was no breach of faith.
It might be interesting to show the public an example of the reasoning used by such a prestigious group of philosophers as the Council of the Royal Society. On one side, it was argued that even though the award was SOMEWHAT IRREGULAR, it would be easy to fix it. Since the original rules for granting the medals were just an order from the Council, all it would take is a simple change to make the award comply perfectly with the laws. On the other side, it was argued that the original rules were unknown to the public and the Society, and in fact, only the Council members and a few of their friends were aware of them; therefore, the award did not violate any trust.
All comment on such reasoning is needless. That such propositions could not merely be offered, but could pass unreproved, is sufficient to show that the feelings of that body do not harmonize with those of the age; and furnishes some explanation why several of the most active members of the Royal Society have declined connecting their names with the Council as long as the present system of management is pursued.
All comments on this reasoning are unnecessary. The fact that such ideas could not only be presented but also go without criticism is enough to demonstrate that the sentiments of that group do not align with the views of the time; this helps clarify why some of the most active members of the Royal Society have chosen not to associate their names with the Council as long as the current management approach continues.
The little interest taken by the body of the Society, either in its peculiar pursuits, or in the proceedings of the Council, and the little communication which exists between them, is an evil. Thus it happens that the deeds of the Council are rarely known to the body of the Society, and, indeed, scarcely extend beyond that small portion who frequent the weekly meetings. These pages will perhaps afford the first notice to the great majority of the Society of a breach of faith by their Council, which it is impossible to suppose a body, consisting of more than six hundred gentlemen, could have sanctioned.
The lack of interest shown by the members of the Society, both in its unique activities and in the Council's decisions, along with the limited communication between them, is a problem. As a result, the actions of the Council are seldom known to the wider Society and really only reach those few who attend the weekly meetings. This text may provide the first information to the vast majority of the Society about a betrayal by their Council, which is hard to believe a group of over six hundred men would have approved.
SECTION 8. OF THE COPLEY MEDALS.
An important distinction exists between scientific communications, which seems to have escaped the notice of the Councils of the Royal Society. They may contain discoveries of new principles,—of laws of nature hitherto unobserved; or they may consist of a register of observations of known phenomena, made under new circumstances, or in new and peculiar situations on the face of our planet. Both these species of additions to our knowledge are important; but their value and their rarity are very different in degree. To make and to repeat observations, even with those trifling alterations, which it is the fashion in our country (in the present day) to dignify with the name of discoveries, requires merely inflexible candour in recording precisely the facts which nature has presented, and a power of fixing the attention on the instruments employed, or phenomena examined,—a talent, which can be much improved by proper Instruction, and which is possessed by most persons of tolerable abilities and education.* To discover new principles, and to detect the undiscovered laws by which nature operates, is another and a higher task, and requires intellectual qualifications of a very different order: the labour of the one is like that of the computer of an almanac; the inquiries of the other resemble more the researches of the accomplished analyst, who has invented the formula: by which those computations are performed.
There’s a key difference between scientific communications that seems to have gone unnoticed by the Councils of the Royal Society. They can either reveal new principles—laws of nature that haven’t been seen before—or consist of a record of observations of known phenomena made under new circumstances or in unique situations on our planet. Both types of contributions to our knowledge are valuable, but they differ significantly in terms of value and rarity. Making and repeating observations, even with minor changes that people today might call discoveries, only requires honest recording of the facts presented by nature and the ability to focus on the tools used or phenomena observed—a skill that can be greatly improved through proper training and is usually within the reach of most reasonably educated and capable individuals. Discovering new principles and uncovering the undiscovered laws of nature is a different and more complex task, demanding a different level of intellectual ability: the effort of one is like that of a person calculating an almanac; the work of the other is more akin to the research of a skilled analyst who has created the formula that guides those calculations.
[*That the use even of the large astronomical instruments in a national observatory, does not require any very profound acquirements, is not an opinion which I should have put forth without authority. The Astronomer-Royal ought to be the best judge.
[*The idea that using large astronomical instruments in a national observatory doesn’t require extensive knowledge isn’t just my opinion; I wouldn't say it without some basis. The Astronomer-Royal should be the best authority on this.]
On the minutes of the Council of the Royal Society, for April 6, 1826, with reference to the Assistants necessary for the two mural circles, we find a letter from Mr. Pond on the subject, from which the following passage is extracted:
On the minutes of the Council of the Royal Society, for April 6, 1826, with reference to the Assistants necessary for the two mural circles, we find a letter from Mr. Pond on the subject, from which the following passage is extracted:
"But to carry on such investigations, I want indefatigable, hard-working, and above all, obedient drudges (for so I must call them, although they are drudges of a superior order), men who will be contented to pass half their day in using their hands and eyes in the mechanical act of observing, and the remainder of it in the dull process of calculation."]
"But to continue these investigations, I need tireless, hardworking, and above all, obedient workers (I must refer to them as such, even though they are superior workers), people who will be satisfied to spend half their day using their hands and eyes in the mechanical act of observing, and the other half in the tedious process of calculation."
Such being the distinction between the merits of these inquiries, some difference ought to exist in the nature of any rewards that may be proposed for their encouragement. The Royal Society have never marked this difference, and consequently those honorary medals which are given to observations, gain a value which is due to those that are given for discoveries; whilst these latter are diminished in their estimation by such an association.
Given the difference in the value of these inquiries, there should be a distinction in the types of rewards offered for their encouragement. The Royal Society has never acknowledged this difference, which means the honorary medals awarded for observations hold the same value as those given for discoveries; this, in turn, lowers the perceived value of the latter due to that association.
I have stated this distinction, because I think it a just one; but the public would have little cause of complaint if this were the only ground of objection to the mode of appropriating the Society's medals. The first objection to be noticed, is the indistinct manner in which the object for which the medals are awarded is sometimes specified. A medal is given to A. B. "for his various papers."
I’ve mentioned this distinction because I believe it’s a fair one; however, the public wouldn’t have much to complain about if this were the only issue with how the Society's medals are awarded. The first problem to address is the vague way in which the purpose for awarding the medals is sometimes described. A medal is given to A. B. "for his various papers."
There are cases, few perhaps in number, where such a reason may be admissible; but it is impossible not to perceive the weakness of those who judge these matters legibly written in the phrase, "and for his various other communications," which comes in as the frequent tail-piece to these awards. With a diffidence in their own powers, which might be more admired if it were more frequently expressed, the Council think to escape through this loop-hole, should the propriety of their judgment on the main point be called in question. Thus, even the discovery which made chemistry a science, has attached to it in their award this feeble appendage.
There are a few cases where such a reason might be acceptable; however, it's hard to ignore the insecurity of those who evaluate these matters, clearly shown in the phrase, "and for his various other communications," which often serves as the usual closing remark to these decisions. With a hesitation about their own abilities, which might be appreciated more if it were expressed more often, the Council tries to find a way out through this excuse in case their judgment on the main issue is challenged. So, even the discovery that established chemistry as a science comes with this weak addendum in their statement.
It has been objected to the Royal Society, that their medals have been too much confined to a certain set. When the Royal medals were added to their patronage, the past distribution of the Copley medals, furnished grounds to some of the journals to predict the future possessors of the new ones. I shall, doubtless, be told that the Council of the Royal Society are persons of such high feeling, that it is impossible to suppose their decision could be influenced by any personal motives. As I may not have had sufficient opportunities, during the short time I was a member of that Council, to enable me to form a fair estimate, I shall avail myself of the judgment of one, from whom no one will be inclined to appeal, who knew it long and intimately, and who expressed his opinion deliberately and solemnly.
It has been pointed out to the Royal Society that their medals have been too limited to a specific group. When the Royal medals were added to their awards, the past distribution of the Copley medals led some journals to predict who would receive the new ones. I'm sure I'll be told that the Council of the Royal Society consists of individuals with such integrity that it's hard to believe their decisions could be swayed by personal interests. Since I may not have had enough chances during my brief time as a member of that Council to make a fair judgment, I'll rely on the opinion of someone no one would dispute—someone who knew it well for a long time and expressed his views thoughtfully and seriously.
The late Dr. Wollaston attached, as a condition to be observed in the distribution of the interest of his munificent gift of 2,000L. to the Royal Society, the following clause:—"And I hereby empower the said President, Council, and Fellows, after my decease, in furtherance of the above declared objects of the trust, to apply the said dividends to aid or reward any individual or individuals of any country, SAVING ONLY THAT NO PERSON BEING A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE TIME BEING, SHALL RECEIVE OR PARTAKE OF SUCH REWARD."
The late Dr. Wollaston attached a condition to the distribution of the interest from his generous gift of £2,000 to the Royal Society, stated as follows:—"And I hereby empower the President, Council, and Fellows, after my death, to use the said dividends to assist or reward any individual or individuals from any country, EXCEPT THAT NO MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME SHALL RECEIVE OR BENEFIT FROM SUCH REWARD."
Another improvement which might be suggested, is, that it is generally inexpedient to vote a medal until the paper which contains the discovery is at least read to the Society; perhaps even it might not be quite unreasonable to wish that it should have been printed, and consequently have been perused by some few of those who have to decide on its merits. These trifles have not always been attended to; and even so lately as the last year, they escaped the notice of the President and his Council. The Society was, however, indebted to the good sense of Mr. Faraday, who declined the proffered medal; and thus relieved us from one additional charge of precipitancy. [When this hasty adjudication was thus put a stop to, one of the members of the Council inquired, whether, as a Copley medal must by the will be annually given, some other person might not be found deserving of it. To which the Secretary replied, "We do not intend to give any this year." All further discussion was thus silenced.]
Another improvement that could be suggested is that it's generally unwise to award a medal until the paper containing the discovery is at least read to the Society; it might not be unreasonable to hope that it has been printed and, consequently, reviewed by some of those who have to judge its merits. These details haven’t always been observed; even as recently as last year, they were overlooked by the President and his Council. However, the Society was fortunate to have Mr. Faraday's good judgment, who declined the offered medal, saving us from an additional accusation of haste. [When this rushed decision was halted, one of the Council members asked whether, since a Copley medal must be awarded annually by the will, someone else might be deserving of it. To which the Secretary replied, "We do not intend to give any this year." All further discussion was thus silenced.]
Perhaps, also, as the Council are on some occasions apt to be oblivious, it might be convenient that the President should read, previously to the award of any medals or to the decision of any other important subjects, the statutes relating to them. He might perhaps propitiate their attention to them, by stating, HOW MUCH IT IMPORTETH TO THE CONSISTENCY OF THE COUNCIL TO BE ACQUAINTED WITH THE LAWS ON WHICH THEY ARE ABOUT TO DECIDE.
Maybe, since the Council sometimes tends to overlook things, it would be helpful for the President to read the relevant statutes before awarding any medals or making decisions on other important matters. He could grab their attention by emphasizing how important it is for the Council to be familiar with the laws they are about to act on.
If those who have been conversant with the internal management of the Council, would communicate their information, something curious might perhaps be learned respecting a few of these medals. Concerning those of which I have had good means of information, I shall merely state—of three of them—that whatever may have been the official reasons for their award, I had ample reasons to convince me of the following being the true causes:—
If those who are familiar with the internal workings of the Council would share their knowledge, we might learn something interesting about a few of these medals. Regarding the ones I have reliable information about, I will simply mention—specifically three of them—that regardless of the official reasons for their award, I have strong reasons to believe that the following are the true causes:—
First.—A medal was given to A, at a peculiarly inappropriate time—BECAUSE HE HAD NOT HAD ONE BEFORE.
First.—A medal was given to A at a notably awkward time—BECAUSE HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ONE BEFORE.
Second.—Subsequently a medal was given to B, in order TO DESTROY THE IMPRESSION WHICH THE AWARD OF THE MEDAL TO A HAD MADE ON THE PUBLIC THE PRECEDING YEAR.
Second.—Later, a medal was awarded to B to counteract the impression that A's medal had made on the public the previous year.
Third.—A medal was given to C, "BECAUSE WE THINK HE HAS BEEN ILL USED."
Third.—A medal was given to C, "BECAUSE WE THINK HE HAS BEEN MISTREATED."
I will now enter on an examination of one of their awards, which was peculiarly injudicious. I allude to that concerning the mode of rendering platina malleable. Respecting, as I did, the illustrious philosopher who invented the art, and who has left many other claims to the gratitude of mankind, I esteem it no disrespect to his memory to place that subject in its proper light.
I will now take a look at one of their awards, which was particularly unwise. I'm referring to the one about how to make platinum malleable. While I hold the esteemed philosopher who developed this art in high regard, and he has other significant contributions that humanity is grateful for, I don't think it disrespects his memory to discuss this topic honestly.
An invention in science or in art, may justly be considered as possessing the rights of property in the highest degree. The lands we inherit from our fathers, were cultivated ere they were born, and yielded produce before they were cultivated. The products of genius are the actual creations of the individual; and, after yielding profit or honour to him, they remain the permanent endowments of the human race. If the institutions of our country, and the opinions of society, support us fully in the absolute disposal of our fields, of which we can, by the laws of nature, be only the transitory possessors, who shall justly restrict our discretion in the disposal of those richer possessions, the products of intellectual exertion?
An invention in science or art can rightly be seen as holding property rights to the fullest extent. The lands we inherit from our parents were cultivated before they were born and produced goods long before they were farmed. The products of creativity are the true creations of the individual, and after bringing them profit or recognition, they become lasting contributions to humanity. If the institutions of our country and societal opinions fully support our complete control over our lands, which we can only temporarily possess by the laws of nature, who has the right to limit our freedom in managing those more valuable treasures, the results of intellectual effort?
Two courses are open to those individuals who are thus endowed with Nature's wealth. They may lock up in their own bosoms the mysteries they have penetrated, and by applying their knowledge to the production of some substance in demand in commerce, thus minister to the wants or comforts of their species, whilst they reap in pecuniary profit the legitimate reward of their exertions.
Two paths are available to those who are gifted with Nature's resources. They can either keep the insights they've gained to themselves or use their knowledge to create something that’s in demand in the market, fulfilling the needs or comforts of others while earning a fair financial reward for their efforts.
It is open to them, on the other hand, to disclose the secret they have torn from Nature, and by allowing mankind to participate with them, to claim at once that splendid reputation which is rarely refused to the inventors of valuable discoveries in the arts of life.
It is up to them, however, to share the secret they've uncovered from Nature, and by letting humanity join them, to immediately claim that impressive reputation that is seldom denied to those who create valuable discoveries in the arts of living.
The two courses are rarely compatible, only indeed when the discoverer, having published his process, enters into equal competition with other manufacturers.
The two paths rarely align, only truly when the discoverer, having shared their method, competes equally with other producers.
If an individual adopt the first of these courses, and retaining his secret, it perish with him, the world have no right to complain. During his life, they profited by his knowledge, and are better off than if the philosopher had not existed.
If someone chooses this first option and keeps their secret, it dies with them, and the world has no right to complain. During their life, people benefited from their knowledge and are better off than if the philosopher had never existed.
Monopolies, under the name of patents, have been devised to assist and reward those who have chosen the line of pecuniary profit. Honorary rewards and medals have been the feeble expressions of the sentiments of mankind towards those who have preferred the other course. But these have been, and should always be, kept completely distinct. [It is a condition with the Society of Arts, never to give a reward to any thing for which a patent has been, or is to be, taken out.]
Monopolies, under the name of patents, have been created to help and reward those who have chosen the path of making money. Honorary awards and medals have been weak symbols of how people feel about those who have taken a different route. But these should always be kept completely separate. [It is a condition of the Society of Arts that they never give a reward for anything that has had or will have a patent taken out.]
Let us now consider the case of platina. A new process was discovered of rendering it malleable, and the mere circumstance of so large a quantity having been sent into the market, was a positive benefit, of no ordinary magnitude, to many of the arts. The discoverer of this valuable process selected that course for which no reasonable man could blame him; and from some circumstance, or perhaps from accident, he preserved no written record of the manipulations. Had Providence appointed for that disorder, which terminated too fatally, a more rapid career, all the knowledge he had acquired from the long attention he had devoted to the subject, would have been lost to mankind. The hand of a friend recorded the directions of the expiring philosopher, whose anxiety to render useful even his unfinished speculations, proves that the previous omission was most probably accidental.
Let’s now look at the case of platinum. A new method was found to make it malleable, and the fact that such a large amount was introduced into the market was a significant benefit to many industries. The person who discovered this valuable process chose a path that no reasonable person could criticize; however, due to some circumstance, or maybe just by chance, he didn’t keep any written record of his methods. If fate had decided that his unfortunate situation, which had such a tragic end, played out more quickly, all the knowledge he had gained from his long focus on the topic would have been lost to humanity. A friend recorded the instructions of the dying philosopher, whose desire to make even his unfinished ideas useful shows that the earlier oversight was likely unintentional.
Under such circumstances it was published to the world in the Transactions of the Royal Society. But what could induce that body to bestow on it their medal? To talk of adding lustre to the name of Wollaston by their medal, is to talk idly. They must have done it then as an example, as a stimulus to urge future inquiries in the career of discovery. But did they wish discoveries to be so endangered?
Under these circumstances, it was published to the world in the Transactions of the Royal Society. But what made that organization decide to award it their medal? To suggest that giving the medal would enhance Wollaston's reputation is pointless. They must have done it as a way to set an example, to encourage future investigations in the pursuit of discovery. But did they really want discoveries to be so at risk?
The discoveries of Professor Mitscherlick, of Berlin, had long been considered, by a few members of the Society, as having strong claims on one of its honorary rewards; but difficulties had arisen, from so few members of the Council having any knowledge of discoveries which had long been familiar to Europe. The Council were just on the point of doing justice to the merits of the Prussian philosopher, when it was suggested that its medal should be given to Dr. Wollaston, and they immediately altered their intention, and thus enabled themselves to reserve their medal to Professor Mitscherlick for another year; at which period, for aught they knew, his discoveries might possess the additional merit of having been made prior to the limit allowed by their regulations. That medal was, in fact, voted at a meeting, at which no one member present was at all conversant with the subjects rewarded. I shall, however, say no more on this subject. They erred from feeling, an error so very rare with them, that it might be pardoned even for its singularity.
The discoveries of Professor Mitscherlick from Berlin had been viewed by a few members of the Society as deserving of one of its honorary awards for a long time. However, challenges came up because so few Council members were familiar with discoveries that had already been known across Europe. The Council was about to recognize the achievements of the Prussian philosopher when someone proposed awarding the medal to Dr. Wollaston instead, which made them change their minds and defer the medal for Professor Mitscherlick for another year. By then, his discoveries might even have the added value of being recognized before the deadline set by their rules. In fact, that medal was voted on at a meeting where none of the members present were knowledgeable about the subjects being awarded. I won’t say more on this topic. They made a mistake out of sentiment, a rare misstep for them, which could be forgiven just for its uniqueness.
I will, however, add one word to those whose censures have been unjustly dealt, to those who have reproached the philosopher for receiving pecuniary advantage from his inventions.
I will, however, add one thing for those who have faced unfair criticism, for those who have blamed the philosopher for making money from his inventions.
Amongst the many and varied contrivances for the demands of science, or the arts of life, with which we were enriched by the genius of Wollaston, was it too much to allow him to retain, during his fleeting career, one out of the multitude, to furnish that: pecuniary supply, without which, the man will want food for his body, and the philosopher be destitute of tools for his inventions? Had he been, as, from the rank he held in science, he certainly would have been in other kingdoms, rich in the honours his country could bestow, and receiving from her a reward in some measure commensurate with his deserts,—then, indeed, there might have been reason for that reproach; but I am convinced that, in such circumstances, the philosopher would have balanced, with no "niggard" hand, the claims of his country, and would have given to it, unreservedly, the produce of his powerful mind.
Among the many innovative creations for the needs of science and everyday life that we owe to Wollaston's genius, was it asking too much to allow him to hold on to just one of the many, to provide the financial support that is essential for a person to have food and for a thinker to have the tools for their inventions? If he had been, considering his standing in science, as he certainly would have been in other countries, honored and rewarded by his nation in a way that matched his contributions—then, indeed, that criticism might have had merit. However, I believe that, under those circumstances, the thinker would have generously balanced his loyalty to his country and would have freely shared the fruits of his remarkable intellect.
SECTION 9. OF THE FAIRCHILD LECTURE.
Mr. Fairchild left by will twenty-five pounds to the Royal Society. This was increased by several subscriptions, and 100L. 3 per cent. South Sea Annuities was purchased, the interest of which was to be devoted annually to pay for a sermon to be preached at St.Leonard's, Shoreditch.
Mr. Fairchild left twenty-five pounds to the Royal Society in his will. This amount was increased through several donations, and £100 in 3 percent South Sea Annuities was bought, with the interest intended to be used each year to fund a sermon to be delivered at St. Leonard's, Shoreditch.
Few members of the Society, perhaps, are aware, either of the bequest or of its annual payment. I shall merely observe, that for five years, from 1800 to 1804, it was regularly given to Mr. Ascough; and that for twenty-six years past, it has been as regularly given to the Rev. Mr. Ellis.
Few members of the Society probably know about the bequest or its yearly payments. I’ll just mention that from 1800 to 1804, it was consistently paid to Mr. Ascough; and for the past twenty-six years, it has been just as regularly paid to the Rev. Mr. Ellis.
The annual amount is too trifling to stimulate to any extraordinary exertions; yet, small as it is, it might, if properly applied, be productive of much advantage to religion, and of great honour to the Society. For this purpose, it would be desirable that it should be delivered at some church or chapel, more likely to be attended by members of the Royal Society. Notice of it should be given at the place of worship appointed, at least a week previous to its delivery, and at the two preceding weekly meetings of the Royal Society. The name of the gentleman nominated for that year, and the church at which the sermon is to be preached, should be stated.
The yearly amount is too small to inspire any exceptional efforts; however, even though it is minimal, if used wisely, it could greatly benefit religion and bring significant honor to the Society. To achieve this, it would be best to hold the event at a church or chapel that is more likely to attract members of the Royal Society. An announcement about it should be made at the designated place of worship at least a week before it takes place and at the two previous weekly meetings of the Royal Society. The name of the gentleman selected for that year and the church where the sermon will be delivered should be mentioned.
With this publicity attending it, and by a judicious selection of the first two or three gentlemen appointed to deliver it, it would soon be esteemed an honour to be invited to compose such a lecture, and the Society might always find in its numerous list of members or aspirants, persons well qualified to fulfil a task as beneficial for the promotion of true religion, as it ever must be for the interest of science. I am tempted to believe that such a course would call forth exertions of the most valuable character, as well as give additional circulation to what is already done on that subject.
With the publicity surrounding it and by carefully choosing the first couple of gentlemen to give it, it would quickly become an honor to be invited to write such a lecture. The Society would always have plenty of members or candidates who are well-equipped to take on a task that is as beneficial for promoting true religion as it is for advancing science. I believe that this approach would inspire valuable efforts and also increase awareness of what has already been done on the topic.
The geological speculations which have been adduced, perhaps with too much haste by some, as according with the Mosaic history, and by others, as inconsistent with its truth, would, if this subject had been attentively considered, have been allowed to remain until the fullest and freest inquiry had irrevocably fixed their claim to the character of indisputable facts. But, I will not press this subject further on my reader's attention, lest he should think I am myself delivering the lecture. All that I could have said on this point has been so much more ably stated by one whose enlightened view of geological science has taken away some difficulties from its cultivators, and, I hope, removed a stumbling-block from many respectable individuals, that I should only weaken by adding to the argument. [I allude to the critique of Dr. Ure's Geology in the British Review, for July, 1829; an Essay, equally worthy of a philosopher and a Christian.]
The geological theories that some people have hastily connected to the Mosaic history, while others have argued are inconsistent with its truth, should have been left to settle until a thorough and open investigation established them as indisputable facts. However, I won’t dwell on this topic any longer so as not to make it seem like I’m lecturing. Everything I could say on this matter has already been articulated much more effectively by someone whose insightful understanding of geological science has alleviated some challenges for those studying it and, I hope, cleared a stumbling block for many respected individuals. I’m referring to the critique of Dr. Ure's Geology in the British Review, for July 1829; an essay that deserves recognition from both a philosopher and a Christian.
SECTION 10. OF THE CROONIAN LECTURE.
The payment [Three pounds.] for this Lecture, like that of the preceding, is small. It was instituted by Dr. Croone, for an annual essay on the subject of Muscular Motion. It is a little to be regretted, that it should have been so restricted; and perhaps its founder, had he foreseen the routine into which it has dwindled, might have endeavoured to preserve it, by affording it a wider range.
The payment [Three pounds.] for this lecture, like the one before it, is small. It was established by Dr. Croone for an annual essay on the topic of Muscular Motion. It's a bit unfortunate that it has become so limited; perhaps its founder, if he had anticipated the routine it has fallen into, would have tried to keep it broader in scope.
By giving it to a variety of individuals, competition might have been created, and many young anatomists have been induced to direct their attention to the favourite inquiry of the founder of the Lecture; but from causes which need not here be traced, this has not been the custom—one individual has monopolized it year after year, and it seems, like the Fairchild Lecture, rather to have been regarded as a pension. There have, however, been some intervals; and we are still under obligations to those who have supported THE SYSTEM, for not appointing Sir Everard Home to read the Croonian Lecture twenty years in SUCCESSION. Had it been otherwise, we might have heard of vested rights.
By handing it over to different people, competition could have been sparked, encouraging many young anatomists to focus on the favorite topic of the Lecture's founder. However, for reasons that don’t need to be elaborated here, this hasn't been the norm—one person has held onto it year after year, and it seems to have become, much like the Fairchild Lecture, more like a retirement plan. There have been a few breaks, and we still owe gratitude to those who maintained THE SYSTEM for not allowing Sir Everard Home to present the Croonian Lecture twenty years in a row. If that had happened, we might have ended up hearing about vested rights.
SECTION 11. OF THE CAUSES OF THE PRESENT STATE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
The best friends of the Royal Society have long admitted, whilst they regretted, its declining fame; and even those who support whatever exists, begin a little to doubt whether it might not possibly be amended.
The best friends of the Royal Society have long acknowledged, though with regret, its fading reputation; and even those who tend to back whatever is present, are starting to question whether it might be improved.
The great and leading cause of the present state to which the Royal Society is reduced, may be traced to years of misrule to which it has been submitted. In order to understand this, it will be necessary to explain the nature of that misrule, and the means employed in perpetuating it.
The main reason for the current condition of the Royal Society can be traced back to years of poor leadership it has endured. To grasp this situation, it’s essential to clarify what that poor leadership consisted of and the methods used to maintain it.
It is known, that by the statutes, the body of the Society have the power of electing, annually, their President, Officers, and Council; and it is also well known, that this is a merely nominal power, and that printed lists are prepared and put into the hands of the members on their entering the room, and thus passed into the balloting box. If these lists were, as in other scientific societies, openly discussed in the Council, and then offered by them as recommendations to the Society, little inconvenience would arise; but the fact is, that they are private nominations by the President, usually without notice, to the Council, and all the supporters of the system which I am criticizing, endeavour to uphold the right of this nomination in the President, and prevent or discourage any alteration.
It’s well known that according to the rules, the members of the Society have the power to elect their President, Officers, and Council each year. However, it’s also clear that this power is mostly just for show, as printed lists are prepared and handed to the members when they enter the room, and those lists end up in the ballot box. If these lists were openly discussed in the Council like they are in other scientific societies and then recommended by them to the Society, it wouldn’t cause much trouble. But the reality is that these nominations are made privately by the President, often without any prior notice to the Council, and all the supporters of this system that I’m criticizing try to uphold the President's right to make these nominations and discourage any changes.
The Society has, for years, been managed by a PARTY, or COTERIE, or by whatever other name may be most fit to designate a combination of persons, united by no expressed compact or written regulations, but who act together from a community of principles. That each individual has invariably supported all the measures of the party, is by no means the case; and whilst instances of opposition amongst them have been very rare, a silent resignation to circumstances has been the most usual mode of meeting measures they disapproved. The great object of this, as of all other parties, has been to maintain itself in power, and to divide, as far as it could, all the good things amongst its members. It has usually consisted of persons of very moderate talent, who have had the prudence, whenever they could, to associate with themselves other members of greater ability, provided these latter would not oppose the system, and would thus lend to it the sanction of their name. The party have always praised each other most highly—have invariably opposed all improvements in the Society, all change in the mode of management; and have maintained, that all those who wished for any alteration were factious; and, when they discovered any symptoms of independence and inquiry breaking out in any member of the Council, they have displaced him as soon as they decently could.
The Society has, for years, been run by a GROUP, or clique, or whatever other name fits to describe a mix of people, united not by any formal agreement or written rules, but who work together based on shared principles. It's definitely not true that every individual has always supported all the group's decisions; while instances of disagreement among them have been quite rare, a quiet acceptance of the circumstances has usually been the way to cope with measures they didn’t agree with. The main goal of this, like all other groups, has been to stay in power and to distribute, as much as possible, all the benefits among its members. It has typically included people of very average talent, who have had the sense, whenever possible, to bring in others with greater ability, as long as these more capable individuals would not challenge the system and would lend their name to it. The group has always praised each other excessively—consistently resisted any improvements in the Society, any changes in management; and has claimed that anyone wanting any alteration was just being disruptive; and when they noticed any signs of independence and questioning from any Council member, they removed him as soon as they could manage it.
Of the arguments employed by those who support the SYSTEM OF MANAGEMENT by which the Royal Society is governed, I shall give a few samples: refutation is rendered quite unnecessary—juxta-position is alone requisite. If any member, seeing an improper appointment in contemplation, or any abuse in the management of the affairs of the Society continued, raise a voice against it, the ready answer is, Why should you interfere? it may not be quite the thing you approve; but it is no affair of yours.—If, on the other hand, it do relate to himself, the reply is equally ready. It is immediately urged: The question is of a personal nature; you are the last person who ought to bring it forward; you are yourself interested. If any member of the Society, feeling annoyed at the neglect, or hurt by the injuries or insults of the Council, show signs of remonstrance, it is immediately suggested to him that he is irritated, and ought to wait until his feelings subside, and he can judge more coolly on the subject; whilst with becoming candour they admit the ill-treatment, but urge forbearance. If, after an interval, when reflection has had ample time to operate, the offence seems great as at first, or the insult appears unmitigated by any circumstances on which memory can dwell,—if it is then brought forward, the immediate answer is, The affair is out of date—the thing is gone by—it is too late to call in question a transaction so long past. Thus, if a man is interested personally, he is unfit to question an abuse; if he is not, is it probable that he will question it? and if, notwithstanding this, he do so, then he is to be accounted a meddler. If he is insulted, and complain, he is told to wait until he is cool; and when that period arrives, he is then told he is too late. If his remonstrance relates to the alteration of laws which are never referred to, or only known by their repeated breach, he is told that any alteration is useless; it is perfectly well known that they are never adhered to. If it relate to the impolicy of any regulations attaching to an office, he is immediately answered, that that is a personal question, in which it is impossible to interfere—the officer, it seems, is considered to have not merely a vested right to the continuance of every abuse, but an interest in transmitting it unimpaired to his successors.
Of the arguments used by those who back the SYSTEM OF MANAGEMENT that governs the Royal Society, here are a few examples: refuting them is completely unnecessary—just placing them side by side is all that’s needed. If any member sees a questionable appointment being considered, or any ongoing mismanagement of the Society’s affairs, and speaks up, the immediate response is, "Why should you interfere? It might not be to your liking, but it’s not your business." On the flip side, if the issue affects that member personally, the response is similarly swift. They’re told, "This is a personal matter; you’re the last person who should bring it up; you have a stake in it." If any member of the Society feels upset about being ignored or harmed by the Council's actions and expresses their dissatisfaction, they are quickly informed that they are merely upset and should wait until they can think more rationally; meanwhile, they might acknowledge the mistreatment but stress the importance of patience. If, after some time for reflection, the offense still feels as serious as before or seems even more egregious with no mitigating factors to recall, and it’s then raised again, the immediate response is, "That issue is old news—it’s too late to question something that happened so long ago." So, if a person has a personal interest, they’re deemed unqualified to challenge an abuse; if they don’t, is it likely they’ll challenge it? And if they do speak up anyway, they’re labeled as meddlesome. If they’re insulted and complain, they’re told to cool off first; then, once they do, they’re told it’s too late. If their objection concerns changes to laws that are never mentioned or are only known through their repeated violations, they’re informed that any change is pointless; it’s widely understood that those laws are never followed. If it pertains to the unreasonableness of any regulations linked to a position, they’re quickly told that’s a personal issue, one that can’t be interfered with—the individual in the role is seen to have not just a right to continue every abuse but also an interest in passing it on unchanged to their successors.
In the same spirit I have heard errors of calculation or observation defended. If small errors occur, it is said that they are too trifling to be of any importance. If larger errors are pointed out, it is immediately contended that they can deceive nobody, because of their magnitude. Perhaps it might be of some use, if the Council would oblige the world with their SCALE of ERROR, with illustrations from some of the most RECENT and APPROVED works, and would favour the uninformed with the orthodox creed upon all grades, from that which baffles the human faculties to detect, up to that which becomes innocuous from its size.
In the same spirit, I've heard people justify mistakes in calculations or observations. When small errors pop up, they say they’re too minor to matter. If bigger mistakes are pointed out, they quickly argue that no one can be misled by them because they’re so obvious. It might be helpful if the Council could provide everyone with their SCALE of ERROR, complete with examples from some of the most RECENT and APPROVED works, and share the accepted standards on all levels, from those that are hard to spot to those that become harmless due to their size.
The offices connected with the Royal Society are few in number, and their emolument small in amount; but the proper disposition of them is, nevertheless, of great importance to the Society, and was so to the science of England.
The offices linked to the Royal Society are limited in number, and their pay is modest; however, how these positions are managed is still very important to the Society, and it was to the science of England as well.
In the first place, the President, having in effect the absolute nomination of the whole Council, could each year introduce a few gentlemen, whose only qualification to sit on it would be the high opinion they must necessarily entertain of the penetration of him who could discover their scientific merits. He might also place in the list a few nobles or officials, just to gild it. Neither of these classes would put any troublesome questions, and one of them might be employed, from its station in society, to check any that might be proposed by others.
First of all, the President, having basically the complete power to nominate the entire Council, could each year add a few people whose only qualification to be on it would be the high regard they must have for the insight of someone who could recognize their scientific talents. He could also include a few nobles or officials, just to make it look good. Neither of these groups would raise any pesky questions, and one of them might be used, because of its social status, to silence any that might be asked by others.
With these ingredients, added to the regular train of the party, and a star or two of science to shed lustre over the whole, a very manageable Council might be formed; and such has been its frequent composition.
With these ingredients, added to the regular flow of the party, and a star or two of science to light up the whole thing, a very manageable Council could be formed; and that's often how it has been made up.
The duties of the Secretaries, when well executed, are laborious, although not in this respect equal to those of the same officers who, in several societies, give their gratuitous aid; and their labours are much lightened by the Assistant Secretary and his clerk. The following are their salaries:—
The responsibilities of the Secretaries, when done properly, are demanding, although not quite as intense as those of similar officers who volunteer in various organizations; their work is significantly eased by the Assistant Secretary and his clerk. Here are their salaries:—
The Senior Secretary ........... 105L. The Junior Secretary, 105L........ ) 5L. for making Index to Phil. Trans... ) 110L. The Foreign Secretary........... 20L.
The Senior Secretary ........... 105L. The Junior Secretary, 105L........ ) 5L. for creating the Index to Phil. Trans... ) 110L. The Foreign Secretary........... 20L.
Now it is not customary to change these annually; and as these offices are amongst the "loaves and fishes" they are generally given by the President to some staunch supporters of the system. They have frequently been bestowed, with very little consideration for the interest, or even for the dignity of the Society. To notice only one instance: the late Sir Joseph Banks appointed a gentleman who remained for years in that situation, although he was confessedly ignorant of every subject connected with the pursuits of the Society. I will, however, do justice to his memory, by saying that his respectability was preserved under such circumstances, by the most candid admission of the fact, accompanied by a store of other knowledge unfortunately quite foreign to the pursuits of the Society; and I will add, that I regretted to see him insulted by one President in a situation improperly given to him by a former.
Now, it isn’t common to change these positions every year; and since these roles are among the "loaves and fishes," they are usually handed out by the President to loyal supporters of the system. They have often been assigned with little regard for the interests or even the dignity of the Society. To highlight just one example: the late Sir Joseph Banks appointed a man who held that position for years, even though he was openly clueless about anything related to the Society's work. However, I must acknowledge that his reputation was maintained under such circumstances because he openly admitted to his lack of knowledge, along with a wealth of other information that was unfortunately irrelevant to the Society's goals. I will also say that I felt bad seeing him disrespected by one President in a role that had been improperly assigned to him by a predecessor.
Next in order come the Vice-Presidents, who are appointed by the President; and in this respect the present practice is not inconvenient.
Next in line are the Vice-Presidents, who are appointed by the President; and in this regard, the current practice is not inconvenient.
The case, however, is widely different with the office of Treasurer. The President ought not to usurp the power of his appointment, which ought, after serious discussion by the Council, to be made by the Society at large.
The situation is quite different when it comes to the office of Treasurer. The President shouldn't take over the power of appointing this role, which should be decided by the Society as a whole after serious discussion by the Council.
Besides the three Secretaries, there is an Assistant Secretary, and recently another has been added, who may perhaps be called a, Sub-assistant Secretary. All these places furnish patronage to the President.
Besides the three Secretaries, there is an Assistant Secretary, and recently another has been added, who might be referred to as a Sub-assistant Secretary. All these positions provide support to the President.
Let us now look at the occasional patronage of the President, arising from offices not belonging to the Society. He is, EX OFFICIO, a Trustee of the British Museum; and it may seem harsh to maintain that he is not a fit person to hold such a situation. It is no theoretical view, but it is the EXPERIENCE of the past which justifies the assertion; and I fear that unless he has the sole responsibility for some specific appointments, and unless his judgment is sharpened by the fear of public discussion, a President of the Royal Society, in the Board-room of the British Museum, is quite as likely as another person to sacrifice his public duty to the influence of power, or to private friendship. With respect to the merits of that Institution, I have no inclination at present to inquire: but when it is considered that there is at this moment attached to it no one whose observations or whose writings have placed him even in the second rank amongst the naturalists of Europe, the President of the Royal Society has given some grounds for the remark made by several members of the Society, that he is a little too much surrounded by the officers of a body who may reasonably be supposed to entertain towards him feelings either of gratitude or expectation. [It will be remembered that the name of Mr. Robert Brown has been but recently attached to the British Museum, and that it is to be attributed to his possessing a life interest in the valuable collection of the late Sir Joseph Banks.]
Let’s take a moment to consider the occasional support from the President, coming from roles not tied to the Society. He is, by virtue of his position, a Trustee of the British Museum; and it may seem unfair to claim that he isn’t the right person for this role. This isn’t just a theoretical opinion, but rather the EXPERIENCE from the past that backs this claim; and I worry that unless he has full responsibility for specific appointments, and his judgment is sharpened by the fear of public scrutiny, a President of the Royal Society, in the boardroom of the British Museum, is just as likely as anyone else to put personal interests ahead of his public duty due to the influence of power or private friendships. Regarding the merits of that Institution, I’m not inclined to investigate right now: but considering that there is no one currently associated with it whose observations or writings have placed him even among the second tier of naturalists in Europe, the President of the Royal Society has given some validity to the comments made by several Society members that he seems a bit too surrounded by officers of a group that may reasonably be thought to feel either gratitude or expectation towards him. [It should be noted that Mr. Robert Brown’s name has only recently been associated with the British Museum, and this is due to his life interest in the valuable collection of the late Sir Joseph Banks.]
The late Board of Longitude was another source of patronage, which, although now abolished, it may be useful to hint at.
The former Board of Longitude was another source of support, which, although now disbanded, it might be worthwhile to mention.
There were three members to be appointed by the Royal Society: these were honorary, and, as no salary was attached, it might have been expected that this limited number of appointments would have been given in all cases to persons qualified for them. But no: it was convenient to pay compliments; and Lord Colchester, whose talents and knowledge insured him respect as Speaker of the House of Commons, or as a British nobleman, was placed for years in the situation as one of the Commissioners of the Board of Longitude, for which every competent judge knew him to be wholly unfit. What was the return which he made for this indulgence? Little informed respecting the feelings of the Society, and probably misinformed by the party whose influence had placed him there, he saved them in the day of their peril.
There were three members to be appointed by the Royal Society: these were honorary positions, and since there was no salary attached, it was expected that this limited number of appointments would be given to qualified individuals. But that wasn’t the case: it was more convenient to pay compliments; and Lord Colchester, whose skills and knowledge earned him respect as Speaker of the House of Commons and as a British nobleman, was in the position of one of the Commissioners of the Board of Longitude for years, even though every qualified person knew he was completely unfit for it. What did he do in return for this favor? Lacking knowledge of the Society's feelings and probably misled by those whose influence got him the position, he helped them in their time of crisis.
When the state of the Society had reached such a point that many of the more scientific members felt that some amendment was absolutely necessary to its respectability, a committee was formed to suggest to the Council such improvements as they might consider it expedient to discuss. [Amongst the names of the persons composing this Committee, which was proposed by Mr. South, were those of Dr. Wollaston and Mr. Herschel.] The Council received their report at the close of the session; and in recording it on the journals, they made an appeal to the Council for the ensuing year to bestow on it "THEIR EARLIEST AND MOST SERIOUS ATTENTION."
When the Society had reached a point where many of the more scientific members felt that some changes were absolutely necessary to regain respectability, a committee was formed to suggest improvements for the Council to consider. [Among the names of the members of this Committee, which was proposed by Mr. South, were Dr. Wollaston and Mr. Herschel.] The Council received their report at the end of the session, and in recording it in the journals, they urged the Council for the coming year to give it "THEIR EARLIEST AND MOST SERIOUS ATTENTION."
Now when the party, to whose government some of these improvements would have been a death-warrant, found that the subject was likely to be taken up in the Council, they were in dismay: but the learned and grateful peer came to their assistance, and aided Mr. Davies Gilbert in getting rid of these improvements completely.
Now when the party, whose government would see some of these improvements as a death sentence, realized that the issue might come up in the Council, they were alarmed. But the knowledgeable and appreciative peer stepped in to help, assisting Mr. Davies Gilbert in completely eliminating these improvements.
It has been the fashion to maintain that all classes of the Royal Society should be represented in the Council, and consequently that a peer or two should find a place amongst them. Those who are most adverse to this doctrine would perhaps be the most anxious to render this tribute to any one really employing his time, his talents, or his rank in advancing the cause of science. But when a nobleman, unversed in our pursuits, will condescend to use the influence of his station in aiding a President to stifle, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, propositions recommended for consideration by some of the most highly gifted members of the Society,—those who doubt the propriety of the principle may reasonably be pardoned for the disgust they must necessarily entertain for the practical abuse to which it leads.
It has become common to argue that all classes of the Royal Society should be represented in the Council, which means that a peer or two should be included. Those who are most opposed to this idea might actually be the ones most eager to acknowledge anyone genuinely using their time, talents, or position to support the advancement of science. However, when a nobleman, who isn’t familiar with our work, decides to use his influence to help a President suppress proposals recommended by some of the Society’s most talented members, those who question the appropriateness of this principle can be forgiven for feeling a strong sense of disgust toward the practical misuse it leads to.
Of the other three Commissioners, who received each a hundred a-year, although the nomination was, in point of form, in the Admiralty, yet it was well known that the President of the Royal Society did, in fact, always name them. Of these I will only mention one fact. The late Sir Joseph Banks assigned to me as a reason why I need not expect to be appointed, (as he had held out to me at a former period when I had spoken to him on the subject) that I had taken a prominent part in the formation of the ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY. I am proud of the part I did take in establishing that Society, although an undue share of its honour was assigned to me by the President.
Of the other three Commissioners, who each received a hundred a year, even though the nomination was technically in the Admiralty, it was well known that the President of the Royal Society actually named them. I’ll only mention one fact about this. The late Sir Joseph Banks told me that I shouldn’t expect to be appointed (as he had suggested it earlier when I spoke to him about it) because I had played a significant role in forming the ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY. I’m proud of the role I had in establishing that Society, even though the President gave me more credit than I deserved.
It may, perhaps, be inquired, why I publish this fact at this distance of time? I answer, that I stated it publicly at the Council of the Astronomical Society;—that I always talked of it publicly and openly at the time;—that I purposely communicated it to each succeeding President of the Royal Society; and that, although some may have forgotten the communications I made at the time, there are others who remember them well.
It might be asked why I'm sharing this information after so much time has passed. I respond that I publicly mentioned it at the Council of the Astronomical Society; I talked about it openly back then; I made it a point to share it with each new President of the Royal Society; and while some may have forgotten what I said at the time, there are others who still remember it clearly.
The Secretary of the late Board of Longitude received 300L., and 200L. more, as Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac.
The Secretary of the former Board of Longitude received £300, and an additional £200 as the Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac.
Another situation, in the patronage of which the President is known to have considerable influence, is that of Astronomer Royal; and it is to be observed, that he is kept in the Council as much as possible, notwithstanding the nature of his duties.
Another situation where the President is known to have significant influence is that of Astronomer Royal; and it's worth noting that he is included in the Council as often as possible, despite the nature of his responsibilities.
Of the three appointments of 100L. a-year each, which have been instituted since the abolition of the Board of Longitude, the President is supposed to have the control, thus making him quite sure of the obedience of his Council.
Of the three positions paying £100 a year each, which have been created since the dissolution of the Board of Longitude, the President is believed to hold the authority, ensuring the compliance of his Council.
Besides these sources of patronage, there are other incidental occasions on which Government apply to the Royal Society to recommend proper persons to make particular experiments or observations; and, although I am far from supposing that these are in many instances given to persons the second or third best qualified for them, yet they deserve to be mentioned.
Besides these sources of support, there are other occasional times when the Government asks the Royal Society to suggest suitable people to carry out specific experiments or observations. Although I don't believe that in many cases these are given to individuals who are only second or third best qualified for them, they are still worth mentioning.
SECTION 12. OF THE PLAN FOR REFORMING THE SOCIETY.
The indiscriminate admission of every candidate became at last so notorious, even beyond the pale of the Society, that some of the members began to perceive the inconveniences to which it led. This feeling, together with a conviction that other improvements were necessary to re-establish the Society in public opinion, induced several of the most active members to wish for some reform in its laws and proceedings; and a Committee was appointed to consider the subject. It was perfectly understood, that the object of this Committee was to inquire,—First, as to the means and propriety of limiting the numbers of this Society; and then, as to other changes which they might think beneficial. The names of the gentlemen composing this Committee were:—
The indiscriminate acceptance of every candidate became so widely known, even outside the Society, that some members started to notice the problems it caused. This realization, along with the belief that other changes were needed to restore the Society's reputation, led several of the most active members to seek reforms in its rules and processes. A Committee was formed to look into the matter. It was clearly understood that the purpose of this Committee was to investigate—First, the means and appropriateness of limiting the number of members in this Society; and then, any other changes they felt would be beneficial. The names of the gentlemen on this Committee were:—
Dr. Wollaston, Mr. Herschel, Dr. Young, Mr. Babbage, Mr. Davies Gilbert, Captain Beaufort, Mr. South, Captain Kater.
Dr. Wollaston, Mr. Herschel, Dr. Young, Mr. Babbage, Mr. Davies Gilbert, Captain Beaufort, Mr. South, Captain Kater.
The importance of the various improvements suggested was different in the eyes of different members. The idea of rendering the Society so select as to make it an object of ambition to men of science to be elected into it, was by no means new, as the following extract from the Minutes of the Council will prove:—
The significance of the various suggested improvements varied among different members. The notion of making the Society exclusive enough to become a goal for scientists to be elected into it wasn't new, as the following excerpt from the Council Minutes will demonstrate:—
"MINUTES OF COUNCIL. August 27, 1674 Present,
"MINUTES OF COUNCIL. August 27, 1674 Present,"
Sir W. Petty, Vice-President, Sir John Lowther, Sir John Cutler, Sir Christopher Wren, Mr. Oldenburgh, Sir Paul Neile.
Sir W. Petty, Vice-President, Sir John Lowther, Sir John Cutler, Sir Christopher Wren, Mr. Oldenburgh, Sir Paul Neile.
"It was considered by this Council, that to make the Society prosper, good experiments must be in the first place provided to make the weekly meetings considerable, and that the expenses for making these experiments must be secured by legal subscriptions for paying the contributors; which done, the Council might then with confidence proceed to the EJECTION OF USELESS FELLOWS."
"It was decided by this Council that for the Society to thrive, we must first ensure we have valuable experiments to make the weekly meetings worthwhile. The costs for these experiments need to be covered by official subscriptions to pay the contributors. Once that is in place, the Council can confidently move forward with the REMOVAL OF UNNECESSARY MEMBERS."
The reformers of modern times were less energetic in the measures they recommended. Dr. Wollaston and some others thought the limitation of the numbers of the Society to be the most essential point, and 400 was suggested as a proper number to be recommended, in case a limitation should be ultimately resolved upon. I confess, such a limit did not appear to me to bring great advantages, especially when I reflected how long a time must have elapsed before the 714 members of the Society could be reduced by death to that number. And I also thought that as long as those who alone sustained the reputation of the Society by their writings and discoveries should be admitted into it on precisely the same terms, and on the payment of the same sum of money as other gentlemen who contributed only with their purse, it could never be an object of ambition to any man of science to be enrolled on its list.
The reformers of modern times were less forceful in the measures they proposed. Dr. Wollaston and a few others believed that limiting the number of members in the Society was the most important point, suggesting 400 as an appropriate cap if a limitation was ultimately decided upon. I must admit, such a limit didn’t seem to offer significant benefits, especially when I considered how long it would take for the 714 members of the Society to dwindle down to that number due to deaths. I also thought that as long as those who upheld the Society’s reputation through their writings and discoveries were admitted on the same terms and paid the same fee as others who only contributed financially, it would never be an aspiration for any scientist to be listed as a member.
With this view, and also to assist those who wished for a limitation, I suggested a plan extremely simple in its nature, and which would become effective immediately. I proposed that, in the printed list of the Royal Society, a star should be placed against the name of each Fellow who had contributed two or more papers which had been printed in the Transactions, or that such a list should be printed separately at the end.
With this in mind, and to help those who wanted a limitation, I proposed a very simple plan that could take effect right away. I suggested that a star be added next to the name of each Fellow in the printed list of the Royal Society who had contributed two or more papers that were printed in the Transactions, or that a separate list be printed at the end.
At that period there were 109 living members who had contributed papers to the Transactions, and they were thus arranged:
At that time, there were 109 living members who had submitted papers to the Transactions, and they were organized as follows:
37 Contributors of.. 1 paper 21.......... 2 papers 19.......... 3 ditto 5 .......... 4 ditto 3 .......... 5 ditto 3 .......... 6 ditto 12.... from 7 to 12 ditto 14... of more than 12 papers.
37 Contributors of.. 1 paper 21.......... 2 papers 19.......... 3 papers 5 .......... 4 papers 3 .......... 5 papers 3 .......... 6 papers 12.... from 7 to 12 papers 14... of more than 12 papers.
100 Contributing Fellows of the Royal Society. 589 Papers contributed by them.
100 Contributing Fellows of the Royal Society. 589 Papers contributed by them.
Now the immediate effect of printing such a list would be the division of the Society into two classes. Supposing two or more papers necessary for placing a Fellow in the first class, that class would only consist of seventy-two members, which is nearly the same as the number of those of the Institute of France. If only those who had contributed three or more were admitted, then this class would be reduced to fifty-one. In either of these cases it would obviously become a matter of ambition to belong to the first class; and a more minute investigation into the value of each paper would naturally take place before it was admitted into the Transactions. Or it might be established that such papers only should be allowed to count, as the Committee, who reported them as fit to be printed, should also certify. The great objection made to such an arrangement was, that it would be displeasing to the rest of the Society, and that they had a vested right (having entered the Society when no distinction was made in the lists) to have them always continued without one.
Now, the immediate result of publishing such a list would be a division of the Society into two groups. If two or more papers were needed to place a Fellow in the top group, that group would consist of only seventy-two members, which is almost the same number as those in the Institute of France. If only those who had contributed three or more papers were accepted, then this group would shrink to fifty-one. In either scenario, it would clearly become a point of ambition to belong to the top group; a more thorough evaluation of the quality of each paper would naturally occur before it was accepted into the Transactions. Alternatively, it might be decided that only those papers acknowledged as suitable for publication by the Committee should count. The main criticism of such an arrangement was that it would upset the rest of the Society, as they believed they had a right (having joined the Society when no distinctions were made in the lists) to have their status recognized consistently without any changes.
Without replying to this shadow of an argument of vested rights, I will only remark that he who maintains this view pays a very ill compliment to the remaining 600 members of the Royal Society; since he does, in truth, maintain that those gentlemen who, from their position, accidentally derive reputation which does not belong to them, are unwilling, when the circumstance is pointed out, to allow the world to assign it to those who have fairly won it; or else that they are incapable of producing any thing worthy of being printed in the Transactions of the Royal Society. Lightly as the conduct of the Society, as a body, has compelled me to think of it, I do not think so ill of the personal character of its members as to believe that if the question were fairly stated to them, many would object to it.
Without responding to this flimsy argument about vested rights, I’ll just say that anyone who holds this view is not giving a good impression of the other 600 members of the Royal Society. They’re suggesting that those individuals, who gain reputation by chance due to their position, would rather refuse to let the world recognize those who have truly earned it. Or they’re implying that these members are incapable of producing anything worthy of publication in the Transactions of the Royal Society. Even though the actions of the Society as a whole have led me to think less of it, I don't view the personal character of its members so negatively as to believe that many would object if the question were presented to them fairly.
Amongst the alterations which I considered most necessary to the renovation of the Society, was the recommendation, by the expiring Council, of those whom they thought most eligible for that of the ensuing year.
Among the changes I thought were most important for updating the Society was the suggestion, by the outgoing Council, of those they believed were the best candidates for the upcoming year.
The system which had got into practice was radically bad: it is impossible to have an INDEPENDENT Council if it is named by ONE PERSON. Our statutes were framed with especial regard to securing the fitness of the members elected to serve in the Council; and the President is directed, by those statutes, at the two ordinary meetings previous to the anniversary, to give notice of the elections, and "to declare how much it importeth the good of the Society that such persons may be chosen into the Council as are most likely to attend the meetings and business of the Council, and out of whom may be made the best choice of a President and other officers." This is regularly done; and, in mockery of the wisdom of our ancestors, the President has perhaps in his pocket the list of the future Council he has already fixed upon.
The system that has been put into practice is fundamentally flawed: it's impossible to have an INDEPENDENT Council if it's appointed by ONE PERSON. Our rules were designed specifically to ensure that the members elected to the Council are qualified; and the President is required, by those rules, at the two regular meetings before the anniversary, to announce the elections, and "to emphasize how important it is for the Society's well-being that individuals who are most likely to participate in the meetings and work of the Council are chosen, from whom the best options for a President and other officers can be selected." This is consistently done; and, as a mockery of our ancestors' wisdom, the President may well have the list of the future Council already decided in his pocket.
In some other Societies, great advantage is found to arise from the discussion of the proper persons to be recommended to the Society for the Council of the next year. A list is prepared, by the Secretary, of the old Council, and against each name is placed the number of times he has attended the meetings of the Council. Those whose attendance has been least frequent are presumed to be otherwise engaged, unless absence from London, or engagement in some pursuit connected with the Society, are known to have interfered. Those members who have been on the Council the number of years which is usually allowed, added to those who go out by their own wish, and by non-attendance, are, generally, more in number than can be spared; and the question is never, who shall retire?—but, who, out of the rest of the Society, is most likely to work, if placed on the Council?
In some other societies, there’s a big advantage in discussing which people should be recommended to the Society for the next year’s Council. The Secretary prepares a list of the current Council members, noting how many times each person has attended the meetings. Those who have attended the least are assumed to be busy elsewhere, unless it's known that their absence is due to being out of London or engaged in some Society-related activity. Members who have served the usual term limit, along with those who leave by choice or due to non-attendance, usually outnumber those who can stay; the question isn't about who should step down, but rather, who from the rest of the Society is most likely to contribute if they join the Council?
If any difference of opinion should exist in a society, it is always of great importance to its prosperity to have both opinions represented in the Council. In this age of discussion it is impossible to stifle opinions; and if they are not represented in the Council, there is some chance of their being brought before the general body, or, at last, even before the public. It is certainly an advantage that questions should be put, and even that debates should take place on the days appropriated to the anniversaries of societies. This is the best check to the commencement of irregularities; and a suspicion may reasonably be entertained of those who endeavour to suppress inquiry.
If there’s any disagreement in a society, it’s really important for the prosperity of that society to have both viewpoints represented in the Council. In this era of discussion, it’s impossible to silence opinions; if they’re not represented in the Council, there’s a chance they’ll be raised in the larger community or eventually even in public. It’s definitely beneficial to encourage questions and have debates on the days set aside for society anniversaries. This is the best way to prevent irregularities from starting, and it’s reasonable to be suspicious of those who try to suppress inquiry.
On the other hand, debates respecting the affairs of the Society should never be entered on at the ordinary meetings, as they interrupt its business, and only a partial attendance can be expected. That the conduct of those who have latterly managed the Royal Society has not led to such discussions, is to be attributed more to the forbearance of those who disapprove of the line of conduct they have pursued, than to the discretion of the party in not giving them cause.
On the other hand, discussions about the Society's issues should never take place at regular meetings, as they disrupt its business, and only a few members can be expected to attend. The fact that the recent leaders of the Royal Society haven’t sparked such debates is more due to the patience of those who disagree with their approach than to the leaders’ ability to avoid giving them a reason to criticize.
The public is the last tribunal; one to which nothing but strong necessity should induce an appeal. There are, however, advantages in it which may, in some cases, render it better than a public discussion at the anniversary. When the cause of complaint is a system rather than any one great grievance, it may be necessary to enter more into detail than a speech will permit; also the printed statement and arguments will probably come under the consideration of a larger number of the members. Another and a considerable benefit is, that there is much less danger of any expression of temper interrupting or injuring the arguments employed.
The public is the ultimate judge; only strong necessity should lead to an appeal to it. However, there are benefits to this approach that can make it preferable to a public discussion at the anniversary. When the issue at hand is a system rather than a single major grievance, it may be necessary to provide more detail than what a speech allows; additionally, the printed statement and arguments will likely reach a larger audience among the members. Another significant advantage is that there's much less risk of any emotional reactions disrupting or undermining the arguments presented.
There were other points suggested, but I shall subjoin the Report of the Committee:—
There were other points suggested, but I will add the Committee's Report:—
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO CONSIDER THE BEST MEANS OF LIMITING THE MEMBERS ADMITTED INTO THE ROYAL SOCIETY, AS WELL AS TO MAKE SUCH SUGGESTIONS ON THAT SUBJECT AS MAY SEEM TO THEM CONDUCIVE TO THE WELFARE OF THE SOCIETY.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ASSIGNED TO LOOK INTO THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS OF LIMITING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS ALLOWED INTO THE ROYAL SOCIETY, AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC THAT THEY BELIEVE WOULD BENEFIT THE SOCIETY.
Your Committee having maturely considered the resolution of the Council under which they have been appointed; and having satisfied themselves that the progressive increase of the Society has been in a much higher ratio than the progressive increase of population, or the general growth of knowledge, or the extension of those sciences which it has been the great object of the Society to promote, they have agreed to the following Report:—
Your Committee has thoroughly reviewed the resolution from the Council that appointed them; and they have confirmed that the Society's growth has significantly outpaced both the increase in population and the general advancement of knowledge, as well as the expansion of the sciences that the Society aims to promote. They have agreed to the following Report:—
Your Committee assume as indisputable propositions, that the utility of the Society is in direct proportion to its respectability. That its respectability can only be secured by its comprising men of high philosophical eminence; and that the obvious means of associating persons of this eminence will be the public conviction, that to belong to the Society is an honour. Your Committee, therefore, think themselves fully borne out in the conclusion, that it would be expedient to limit the Society to such a number as should be a fair representation of the talent of the country; the consequence of which will be, that every vacancy would become an object of competition among persons of acknowledged merit.
Your Committee believes that the usefulness of the Society directly depends on its reputation. This reputation can only be established by including individuals of high philosophical standing, and the best way to attract such individuals is to ensure that being part of the Society is seen as an honor. Therefore, your Committee is confident in concluding that it would be beneficial to limit the Society to a number that fairly represents the talent in the country; as a result, every open position would become a competitive opportunity among recognized individuals.
From the returns which have been laid on your table, of the Fellows who have contributed papers, and from the best estimate they can make of the persons without doors who are engaged in the active pursuit of science, your Committee feel justified in recommending that those limits should be fixed at four hundred, exclusive of foreign members, and of such royal personages as it may be thought proper to admit.
Based on the returns that have been presented to you, regarding the Fellows who have submitted papers, and from the best estimate they can make of the individuals outside who are actively pursuing science, your Committee believes it is reasonable to suggest that the limits should be set at four hundred, not including foreign members and any royal figures deemed appropriate for admission.
As many years must elapse before the present number of seven hundred and fourteen can be reduced to those limits by the course of nature, and as it would be prejudicial to the interests of the Society and of science, that no fresh accessions should take place during that long period, your Committee would further recommend, that till that event takes place, four new members should be annually admitted.
As many years will pass before the current number of seven hundred and fourteen can be decreased to those limits through natural means, and since it would harm the interests of the Society and of science if no new members were added during that long time, your Committee recommends that until that happens, four new members should be admitted each year.
With respect to the manner of admission, your Committee are of opinion, that there are several inconveniences in the present mode of proceeding to a single ballot upon each certificate, according to its seniority. If the above limitation should be adopted, it may be presumed, that for every vacancy there will be many candidates; from amongst them, it must be the general wish to select the most distinguished individuals; but to accomplish this, if the present system were to be continued, it would be necessary to reject all those candidates whose certificates were of earlier date than theirs; a process not only extremely irritating, but probably ineffectual from the want of unanimity. Your Committee, therefore, most earnestly recommend, that one general election should take place every year towards the end of the session, and that this should be conducted on the same principles as the present annual election of the Council and officers; VIZ. by having lists printed of all the candidates (whose certificates had been suspended for the usual time,) in which lists each Fellow would mark the requisite number of persons.
Regarding the admission process, your Committee believes that there are several issues with the current approach of holding a single ballot based on the seniority of the certificates. If this limitation is adopted, it can be assumed that for each vacancy, there will be many candidates; among them, the general preference would be to choose the most outstanding individuals. However, to achieve this under the current system, it would require rejecting all candidates with certificates dated earlier than theirs, which is not only very frustrating but likely ineffective due to a lack of agreement. Therefore, your Committee strongly recommends that one general election take place each year toward the end of the session, conducted in the same way as the current annual election of the Council and officers; namely, by having printed lists of all candidates (whose certificates have been suspended for the usual time), where each Fellow could mark the required number of individuals.
As the charter, however, requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the Fellows present, your Committee suggest, that after the choice has been determined by the plurality of votes by ballot in the above manner, the successful candidates should be again submitted to a general vote, in accordance with the enactments of the said charter.
As the charter requires two-thirds of the Fellows present to agree, your Committee suggests that after the choice has been decided by a plurality of votes by ballot as mentioned above, the successful candidates should be submitted to a general vote again, in line with the rules of the charter.
In concluding this part of the subject, your Committee beg leave to remark, that by the method now proposed, the invidious act of blackballing would cease, and with it all feelings of resentment and mortification; as the result of such an open competition could only be construed by the public into a fair preference of the superior claims of the successful few, and not into a direct and disgraceful rejection of the others.
In wrapping up this part of the discussion, your Committee would like to point out that with the proposed method, the negative practice of blackballing would come to an end, along with any feelings of resentment and humiliation. The outcome of this open competition would be seen by the public as a fair choice highlighting the better qualifications of those who succeed, rather than as a direct and shameful rejection of others.
Your Committee are fully aware, that such a reduction in the usual admissions would materially affect the pecuniary resources of the Society; but they are at the same time convinced, that by a vigorous economy its present income might be rendered adequate to all its real wants, and the aggregate expenditure might be considerably diminished by many small but wholesome retrenchments.
Your Committee understands that a decrease in the usual admissions would significantly impact the financial resources of the Society. However, they also believe that through strict budgeting, its current income could meet all its essential needs, and overall spending could be greatly reduced through several small but effective cutbacks.
It appears, from the accounts of last year, that although 1200L. was received for compositions, in addition to the standing income, and usual contributions, &c., and although no money was invested, yet there was a balance only of a few pounds at the end of the year. It further appears, that 500L. was paid for the paper, 370L. for engravings, and nearly 340L. for printing; and from those alarming facts, your Committee submit to your consideration, whether the expenditure might not be beneficially controlled by a standing Committee of Finance.
It seems, based on last year's reports, that even though £1200 was received for compositions, along with the regular income and usual contributions, etc., and despite not investing any money, there was only a small balance left at the end of the year. It also shows that £500 was spent on paper, £370 on engravings, and almost £340 on printing; given these concerning facts, your Committee asks you to consider whether a permanent Finance Committee could help manage the expenses more effectively.
In obedience to the latter part of your resolution, your Committee now proceed to offer some further suggestions for your consideration. They conceive that it would afford a beneficial stimulus to individual exertion, if the Fellows who have received the medals of the Society, and those who have repeatedly enriched its Transactions, were distinguished by being collected into a separate and honourable list. It would also be found, perhaps, not less a future incentive than an act of retrospective justice, if the names of all those illustrious Fellows who have formerly obtained the medals, as well as of all those individuals who have been large benefactors to the Society, were recorded at the end of the list. It would be a satisfactory addition likewise to the annual list, if all those Fellows who have died, or had been admitted within the preceding year, were regularly noticed. And your Committee think, that these lists should always form part of the Transactions, and be stitched up with the last part of the volume.
In response to the latter part of your resolution, your Committee would like to present some additional suggestions for your consideration. They believe it would provide a positive motivation for individual effort if the Fellows who have received the Society's medals and those who have consistently contributed to its Transactions were featured in a separate and distinguished list. It might also serve as both a future incentive and an act of retrospective justice if the names of all those notable Fellows who have previously received medals, along with those individuals who have significantly supported the Society, were included at the end of the list. Additionally, it would be a meaningful enhancement to the annual list if all Fellows who have passed away or who were admitted in the preceding year were regularly acknowledged. The Committee believes that these lists should always be included in the Transactions and bound with the final part of the volume.
It requires no argument to demonstrate that the well-being of the Society mainly depends on the activity and integrity of its Council; and as their selection is unquestionably of paramount importance, your Committee hope that our excellent President will not consider it any impeachment of his impartiality, or any doubt of his zeal, if they venture to suggest, that the usual recommendation to the Society of proper members for the future Council should henceforth be considered as a fit subject for the diligent and anxious deliberation of the expiring Council.
It’s clear that the well-being of the Society largely depends on the work and integrity of its Council. Since choosing the right members is extremely important, your Committee hopes that our outstanding President will not see this as a challenge to his fairness or doubt his commitment. They would like to suggest that the usual recommendation for appropriate members for the future Council should now be taken seriously and carefully considered by the outgoing Council.
There is another point of great moment to the character of the Society, and to the dignified station it occupies among the learned associations of Europe; for its character abroad can only be appreciated by the nature and value of its Transactions. Your Committee allude to the important task of deciding on what papers should be published; and they are of opinion that it would be a material improvement on the present mode, if each paper were referred to a separate Committee, who should have sufficient time given them to examine it carefully, who should be empowered to communicate on any doubtful parts with the author; and who should report, not only their opinion, but the grounds on which that opinion is formed, for the ultimate decision of the Council.
There’s another important point regarding the Society’s character and its respected position among the scholarly organizations in Europe. Its reputation abroad can only be understood through the quality and significance of its Transactions. Your Committee mentions the crucial responsibility of choosing which papers should be published. They believe it would greatly enhance the current process if each paper were assigned to a separate Committee. This Committee would have enough time to thoroughly review the paper, be allowed to discuss any unclear sections with the author, and would report not only their opinion but also the reasons behind that opinion, for the Council's final decision.
If it should be thought fit to adopt the suggestions which your Committee have now had the honour of proposing, they beg leave to move, that another Committee be appointed, with directions to frame or to alter the necessary statutes, so that they may be in strict accordance with the charters.
If it's considered appropriate to accept the suggestions that your Committee has now had the privilege of proposing, they respectfully request to propose that another Committee be formed, with instructions to create or modify the necessary regulations, ensuring they comply closely with the charters.
In concluding the Report, your Committee do not wish to disguise the magnitude of some of the measures they have thought it their duty to propose; on the contrary, they would not only urge the fullest discussion of their expediency; but further, that if you should even be unanimously disposed to confirm them, your Committee would recommend, that the several statutes, when they have been drawn up or modified, should be only entered on your minutes, and not finally enacted. All innovations in the constitution, or even the habits of the Royal Society, should be scrutinized with the most jealous circumspection. It is enough for the present Council to have traced the plan; let the Council of the ensuing sessions share the credit of carrying that plan into effect.
In wrapping up the Report, your Committee does not want to downplay the significance of some of the measures they feel compelled to propose; on the contrary, they strongly encourage a thorough discussion of their validity. Furthermore, even if you all agree to support them, your Committee recommends that the various statutes, once drafted or revised, should only be recorded in your minutes and not enacted as final law. Any changes to the constitution or even the practices of the Royal Society should be carefully examined with great scrutiny. It is sufficient for the current Council to have outlined the plan; let the Council in the upcoming sessions receive recognition for implementing that plan.
This Report was presented to the Council very late in the session of 1827, and on the 25th of June there occurs the following entry on the council-book:—
This report was presented to the Council very late in the session of 1827, and on June 25th, the following entry appears in the council book:—
"The Report of the Committee for considering the best means of limiting the number of members, and such other suggestions as they may think conducive to the good of the Society, was received and read, and ordered to be entered on the minutes; and the Council, regarding the importance of the subject, and its bearings on the essential interests of the Society, in conformity with the concluding paragraph, and considering also the advanced stage of the session, recommend it to the most serious and early consideration of the Council for the ensuing year."
"The report from the committee on how to best limit the number of members and other suggestions they believe would benefit the Society was received, read, and entered into the minutes. The Council, recognizing the importance of the topic and its impact on the Society's core interests, in line with the final paragraph, and also considering the advanced stage of the session, recommends it for the Council's serious and prompt attention in the upcoming year."
Those who advocated these alterations, were in no hurry for their hasty adoption; they were aware of their magnitude, and anxious for the fullest investigation before one of them should be tried.
Those who supported these changes weren't rushing for them to be adopted quickly; they understood their significance and wanted a thorough examination before any of them were implemented.
Unfortunately, the concluding recommendation of the Committee did not coincide with the views of Mr. Gilbert, whom the party had determined to make their new President. That gentleman made such arrangements for the Council of the succeeding year, that when the question respecting the consideration of the Report of that Committee was brought forward, it was thrown aside in the manner I have stated. Thus a report, sanctioned by the names of such a committee, and recommended by one Council to "THE MOST SERIOUS and EARLY consideration of the Council for the ensuing year," was by that very Council rejected, without even the ceremony of discussing its merits. Was every individual recommendation it contained, not merely unfit to be adopted, but so totally deficient in plausibility as to be utterly unworthy of discussion? Or did the President and his officers feel, that their power rested on an insecure foundation, and that they did not possess the confidence of the working members of the Society?
Unfortunately, the final recommendation of the Committee didn't align with Mr. Gilbert's views, who the group had decided to make their new President. He arranged things for the Council in the next year so that when the issue of discussing the Committee's Report came up, it was dismissed as I mentioned earlier. So, a report backed by such a committee and urged by one Council to “THE MOST SERIOUS and EARLY consideration of the Council for the upcoming year,” was rejected by that same Council without any discussion of its merits. Were none of the recommendations it included suitable for adoption, or were they so lacking in credibility that they didn’t deserve any discussion? Or did the President and his officials feel that their power was on shaky ground and that they lacked the confidence of the active members of the Society?
CHAPTER V. OF OBSERVATIONS.
There are several reflections connected with the art of making observations and experiments, which may be conveniently arranged in this chapter.
There are several thoughts related to the art of making observations and conducting experiments, which can be conveniently organized in this chapter.
SECTION 1. OF MINUTE PRECISION.
No person will deny that the highest degree of attainable accuracy is an object to be desired, and it is generally found that the last advances towards precision require a greater devotion of time, labour, and expense, than those which precede them. The first steps in the path of discovery, and the first approximate measures, are those which add most to the existing knowledge of mankind.
No one will argue that achieving the highest level of accuracy is something worth striving for, and it’s usually observed that the final steps toward precision demand more time, effort, and money than the earlier ones. The initial steps in the journey of discovery and the first rough estimates are the ones that contribute the most to human knowledge.
The extreme accuracy required in some of our modern inquiries has, in some respects, had an unfortunate influence, by favouring the opinion, that no experiments are valuable, unless the measures are most minute, and the accordance amongst them most perfect. It may, perhaps, be of some use to show, that even with large instruments, and most practised observers, this is but rarely the case. The following extract is taken from a representation made by the present Astronomer-Royal, to the Council of the Royal Society, on the advantages to be derived from the employment of two mural circles:—
The high level of accuracy needed in some of our modern investigations has, in some ways, negatively impacted the belief that no experiments are worth anything unless the measurements are incredibly precise and perfectly aligned. It might be helpful to demonstrate that even with large instruments and highly skilled observers, this is rarely true. The following excerpt is taken from a statement made by the current Astronomer-Royal to the Council of the Royal Society regarding the benefits of using two mural circles:—
"That by observing, with two instruments, the same objects at the same time, and in the same manner, we should be able to estimate how much of that OCCASIONAL DISCORDANCE FROM THE MEAN, which attends EVEN THE MOST CAREFUL OBSERVATIONS, ought to be attributed to irregularity of refraction, and how much to THE IMPERFECTIONS OF INSTRUMENTS."
"By using two instruments to observe the same objects at the same time and in the same way, we should be able to determine how much of the occasional discrepancies from the average, which occur even in the most careful observations, should be attributed to irregular refraction and how much is due to the imperfections of the instruments."
In confirmation of this may be adduced the opinion of the late M. Delambre, which is the more important, from the statement it contains relative to the necessity of publishing all the observations which have been made.
In support of this, we can reference the opinion of the late M. Delambre, which is even more significant because of its assertion about the need to publish all observations that have been made.
"Mais quelque soit le parti que l'on prefere, il me semble qu'on doit tout publier. Ces irregularites memes sont des faits qu'il importe de connoitre. LES SOINS LES PLUS ATTENTIFS N'EN SAUROIENT PRESERVER LES OBSERVATEURS LES PLUS EXERCES, et celui qui ne produiroit que des angles toujours parfaitment d'accord auroit ete singulierement bien servi par les circonstances ou ne seroit pas bien sincere."—BASE DU SYSTEME METRIQUE, Discours Preliminaire, p. 158.
"However, regardless of which party one prefers, it seems to me that everything should be published. These irregularities are facts that are important to know. Even the most attentive efforts wouldn't be able to protect the most experienced observers, and anyone who produced only perfectly consistent angles would have been unusually well-served by the circumstances or would not be very sincere."—BASE DU SYSTEME METRIQUE, Discours Preliminaire, p. 158.
This desire for extreme accuracy has called away the attention of experimenters from points of far greater importance, and it seems to have been too much overlooked in the present day, that genius marks its tract, not by the observation of quantities inappreciable to any but the acutest senses, but by placing Nature in such circumstances, that she is forced to record her minutest variations on so magnified a scale, that an observer, possessing ordinary faculties, shall find them legibly written. He who can see portions of matter beyond the ken of the rest of his species, confers an obligation on them, by recording what he sees; but their knowledge depends both on his testimony and on his judgment. He who contrives a method of rendering such atoms visible to ordinary observers, communicates to mankind an instrument of discovery, and stamps his own observations with a character, alike independent of testimony or of judgment.
This desire for extreme accuracy has distracted experimenters from much more important points, and it seems to have been largely overlooked today that true genius is defined not by the observation of quantities that can only be detected by the most sensitive senses, but by placing Nature in situations where she has to reveal her smallest variations on such a magnified scale that an observer with ordinary abilities can see them clearly. Someone who can see parts of matter that the rest of humanity cannot offers a gift by sharing what they observe; however, everyone else’s understanding relies on both their account and their judgment. Whoever develops a method to make such tiny particles visible to ordinary observers provides humanity with a tool for discovery and gives their own observations a quality that is independent of testimony or judgment.
SECTION 2. ON THE ART OF OBSERVING.
The remarks in this section are not proposed for the assistance of those who are already observers, but are intended to show to persons not familiar with the subject, that in observations demanding no unrivalled accuracy, the principles of common sense may be safely trusted, and that any gentleman of liberal education may, by perseverance and attention, ascertain the limits within which he may trust both his instrument and himself.
The comments in this section aren't meant to help those who are already observers, but rather to show people who aren't familiar with the topic that in observations that don't require extreme precision, the principles of common sense can be relied upon. Any educated person can, with practice and focus, figure out the boundaries within which they can trust both their equipment and their own judgment.
If the instrument is a divided one, the first thing is to learn to read the verniers. If the divisions are so fine that the coincidence is frequently doubtful, the best plan will be for the learner to get some acquaintance who is skilled in the use of instruments, and having set the instrument at hazard, to write down the readings of the verniers, and then request his friend to do the same; whenever there is any difference, he should carefully examine the doubtful one, and ask his friend to point out the minute peculiarities on which he founds his decision. This should be repeated frequently; and after some practice, he should note how many times in a hundred his reading differs from his friend's, and also how many divisions they usually differ.
If the instrument is a divided one, the first step is to learn how to read the verniers. If the divisions are so small that the coincidence is often uncertain, the best approach is for the learner to find someone skilled in using instruments. After setting the instrument casually, the learner should write down the vernier readings and then ask their friend to do the same. Whenever there’s a difference, the learner should closely examine the uncertain reading and ask their friend to point out the small details that led to their conclusion. This process should be repeated frequently; after some practice, the learner should keep track of how many times out of a hundred their reading is different from their friend's, and also how many divisions they usually differ.
The next point is, to ascertain the precision with which the learner can bisect an object with the wires of the telescope. This can be done without assistance. It is not necessary even to adjust the instrument, but merely to point it to a distant object. When it bisects any remarkable point, read off the verniers, and write down the result; then displace the telescope a little, and adjust it again. A series of such observations will show the confidence which is due to the observer's eye in bisecting an object, and also in reading the verniers; and as the first direction gave him some measure of the latter, he may, in a great measure, appreciate his skill in the former. He should also, when he finds a deviation in the reading, return to the telescope, and satisfy himself if he has made the bisection as complete as he can. In general, the student should practise each adjustment separately, and write down the results wherever he can measure its deviations.
The next point is to determine how accurately the learner can bisect an object using the telescope's wires. This can be done independently. There's no need to adjust the instrument; just aim it at a distant object. When it bisects a notable point, read the verniers and write down the result. Then, move the telescope slightly and readjust it. A series of these observations will reveal the observer's confidence in bisecting an object and in reading the verniers. Since the first aim gives him some insight into the latter, he can largely evaluate his skill in the former. Additionally, if he notices a deviation in the reading, he should return to the telescope and ensure he has bisected the object as accurately as possible. In general, the student should practice each adjustment individually and record the results whenever he can measure the deviations.
Having thus practised the adjustments, the next step is to make an observation; but in order to try both himself and the instrument, let him take the altitude of some fixed object, a terrestrial one, and having registered the result, let him derange the adjustment, and repeat the process fifty or a hundred times. This will not merely afford him excellent practice, but enable him to judge of his own skill.
Having practiced the adjustments, the next step is to make an observation; but to test both himself and the instrument, he should take the altitude of a fixed object on land, record the result, then mess up the adjustment and repeat the process fifty or a hundred times. This will not only give him great practice but also help him assess his own skill.
The first step in the use of every instrument, is to find the limits within which its employer can measure the SAME OBJECT UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. It is only from a knowledge of this, that he can have confidence in his measures of the SAME OBJECT UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, and after that, of DIFFERENT OBJECTS UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
The first step in using any instrument is to determine the boundaries within which the user can measure the SAME OBJECT UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. Only by understanding this can they have confidence in measuring the SAME OBJECT UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, and subsequently, DIFFERENT OBJECTS UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
These principles are applicable to almost all instruments. If a person is desirous of ascertaining heights by a mountain barometer, let him begin by adjusting the instrument in his own study; and having made the upper contact, let him write down the reading of the vernier, and then let him derange the UPPER adjustment ONLY, re-adjust, and repeat the reading. When he is satisfied about the limits within which he can make that adjustment, let him do the same repeatedly with the lower; but let him not, until he knows his own errors in reading and adjusting, pronounce upon those of the instrument. In the case of a barometer, he must also be assured, that the temperature of the mercury does not change during the interval.
These principles apply to almost all instruments. If someone wants to measure heights using a mountain barometer, they should start by setting up the instrument in their own study. After making the top contact, they should note the reading of the vernier, then only adjust the UPPER setting, readjust, and take the reading again. Once they are confident about the limits within which they can make that adjustment, they should do the same with the lower setting; but they shouldn’t comment on the instrument’s errors until they understand their own reading and adjustment mistakes. For a barometer, they must also ensure that the temperature of the mercury stays consistent during the process.
A friend once brought to me a beautifully constructed piece of mechanism, for marking minute portions of time; the three-hundredth parts of a second were indicated by it. It was a kind of watch, with a pin for stopping one of the hands. I proposed that we should each endeavour to stop it twenty times in succession, at the same point. We were both equally unpractised, and our first endeavours showed that we could not be confident of the twentieth part of a second. In fact, both the time occupied in causing the extremities of the fingers to obey the volition, as well as the time employed in compressing the flesh before the fingers acted on the stop, appeared to influence the accuracy of our observations. From some few experiments I made, I thought I perceived that the rapidity of the transmission of the effects of the will, depended on the state of fatigue or health of the body. If any one were to make experiments on this subject, it might be interesting, to compare the rapidity of the transmission of volition in different persons, with the time occupied in obliterating an impression made on one of the senses of the same persons. For example, by having a mechanism to make a piece of ignited charcoal revolve with different degrees of velocity, some persons will perceive a continuous circle of light before others, whose retina does not retain so long impressions that are made upon it.
A friend once brought me a beautifully made device for measuring tiny increments of time; it could measure down to three-hundredths of a second. It was a type of watch with a pin to stop one of the hands. I suggested that we both try to stop it at the same point twenty times in a row. Since we were both inexperienced, our first attempts showed that we couldn’t reliably measure to the twentieth of a second. In fact, both the time it took for our fingers to respond to our intentions and the time it took to compress the flesh before the fingers hit the stop seemed to affect our accuracy. From a few experiments I conducted, I noticed that the speed of transmitting our intentions appeared to depend on our level of fatigue or health. If someone were to explore this topic more, it could be interesting to compare how quickly different people can transmit their intent with the time it takes to clear an impression made on one of their senses. For instance, using a mechanism to spin a piece of burning charcoal at various speeds, some people will see a continuous circle of light before others, whose retinas don’t hold onto impressions as long.
SECTION 3. ON THE FRAUDS OF OBSERVERS.
Scientific inquiries are more exposed than most others to the inroads of pretenders; and I feel that I shall deserve the thanks of all who really value truth, by stating some of the methods of deceiving practised by unworthy claimants for its honours, whilst the mere circumstance of their arts being known may deter future offenders.
Scientific inquiries are more vulnerable than many others to the intrusion of frauds; and I believe that I will earn the gratitude of all who truly value truth by outlining some of the deceptive tactics used by unworthy individuals seeking its recognition, while the mere fact that their schemes are known may discourage future wrongdoers.
There are several species of impositions that have been practised in science, which are but little known, except to the initiated, and which it may perhaps be possible to render quite intelligible to ordinary understandings. These may be classed under the heads of hoaxing, forging, trimming, and cooking.
There are several types of tricks that are used in science, which are mostly known only to those in the know, but it might be possible to make them clear to everyday people. These can be categorized as hoaxing, forging, trimming, and cooking.
OF HOAXING. This, perhaps, will be better explained by an example. In the year 1788, M. Gioeni, a knight of Malta, published at Naples an account of a new family of Testacea, of which he described, with great minuteness, one species, the specific name of which has been taken from its habitat, and the generic he took from his own family, calling it Gioenia Sicula. It consisted of two rounded triangular valves, united by the body of the animal to a smaller valve in front. He gave figures of the animal, and of its parts; described its structure, its mode of advancing along the sand, the figure of the tract it left, and estimated the velocity of its course at about two-thirds of an inch per minute. He then described the structure of the shell, which he treated with nitric acid, and found it approach nearer to the nature of bone than any other shell.
OF HOAXING. This might be better illustrated with an example. In 1788, M. Gioeni, a knight from Malta, published an account in Naples about a new family of Testacea. He detailed one species in great detail, naming it after its habitat and choosing the generic name from his own family, calling it Gioenia Sicula. It had two rounded triangular valves, connected by the body of the animal to a smaller valve in front. He included illustrations of the animal and its parts; described its structure, how it moved along the sand, the pattern it left behind, and estimated its speed at about two-thirds of an inch per minute. He then described the shell's structure, which he treated with nitric acid, and found it resembled bone more than any other shell.
The editors of the ENCYCLOPEDIE METHODIQUE, have copied this description, and have given figures of the Gioenia Sicula. The fact, however, is, that no such animal exists, but that the knight of Malta, finding on the Sicilian shores the three internal bones of one of the species of Bulla, of which some are found on the south-western coast of England, [Bulla lignaria] described and figured these bones most accurately, and drew the whole of the rest of the description from the stores of his own imagination.
The editors of the ENCYCLOPEDIE METHODIQUE copied this description and provided illustrations of the Gioenia Sicula. However, the truth is that no such animal exists. The knight of Malta discovered three internal bones of a species of Bulla on the shores of Sicily, which are also found along the southwestern coast of England [Bulla lignaria]. He described and illustrated these bones very accurately and created the rest of the description based entirely on his imagination.
Such frauds are far from justifiable; the only excuse which has been made for them is, when they have been practised on scientific academies which had reached the period of dotage. It should however be remembered, that the productions of nature are so various, that mere strangeness is very far from sufficient to render doubtful the existence of any creature for which there is evidence; [The number of vertebrae in the neck of the plesiosaurus is a strange but ascertained fact] and that, unless the memoir itself involves principles so contradictory, as to outweigh the evidence of a single witness, [The kind of contradiction which is here alluded to, is that which arises from well ascertained final causes; for instance, the ruminating stomach of the hoofed animals, is in no case combined with the claw-shaped form of the extremities, frequent in many of the carniverous animals, and necessary to some of them for the purpose of seizing their prey] it can only be regarded as a deception, without the accompaniment of wit.
Such frauds are absolutely unjustifiable; the only excuse that has been given for them is when they've been targeted at scientific academies that have gone senile. However, it's important to remember that nature's creations are so diverse that mere oddity isn't enough to cast doubt on the existence of any creature for which there is evidence; [The number of vertebrae in the neck of the plesiosaurus is a strange but established fact] and that, unless the memoir itself contains principles so contradictory that they outweigh the evidence of a single witness, [The kind of contradiction being referred to here is that which arises from well-established final causes; for example, the ruminating stomach of hoofed animals is never combined with the claw-shaped structure of the limbs, which is common in many carnivorous animals and necessary for some in order to catch their prey] it can only be seen as a deception, lacking any cleverness.
FORGING differs from hoaxing, inasmuch as in the latter the deceit is intended to last for a time, and then be discovered, to the ridicule of those who have credited it; whereas the forger is one who, wishing to acquire a reputation for science, records observations which he has never made. This is sometimes accomplished in astronomical observations by calculating the time and circumstances of the phenomenon from tables. The observations of the second comet of 1784, which was only seen by the Chevalier D'Angos, were long suspected to be a forgery, and were at length proved to be so by the calculations and reasonings of Encke. The pretended observations did not accord amongst each other in giving any possible orbit. But M. Encke detected an orbit, belonging to some of the observations, from which he found that all the rest might be almost precisely deduced, provided a mistake of a unity in the index of the logarithm of the radius vector were supposed to have been made in all the rest of the calculations. ZACH. CORR. ASTRON. Tom. IV. p. 456.
FORGING is different from hoaxing because, in hoaxing, the deception is meant to last for a while before being discovered, leading to the embarrassment of those who believed it; meanwhile, a forger is someone who, wanting to gain a reputation for expertise, writes down observations they never made. This is sometimes done in astronomical observations by calculating the timing and circumstances of a phenomenon from tables. The observations of the second comet of 1784, which was only seen by Chevalier D'Angos, were long suspected to be a forgery, and ultimately proved to be so through the calculations and reasoning of Encke. The fake observations didn’t align in providing any possible orbit. However, M. Encke identified an orbit from some of the observations, allowing him to deduce the rest almost precisely, assuming a small error in the logarithm of the radius vector was made in all the other calculations. ZACH. CORR. ASTRON. Tom. IV. p. 456.
Fortunately instances of the occurrence of forging are rare.
Fortunately, cases of forgery are rare.
TRIMMING consists in clipping off little bits here and there from those observations which differ most in excess from the mean, and in sticking them on to those which are too small; a species of "equitable adjustment," as a radical would term it, which cannot be admitted in science.
TRIMMING involves cutting off small portions from those observations that greatly exceed the average and attaching them to those that are too low; a kind of "fair adjustment," as a radical might call it, which isn't acceptable in science.
This fraud is not perhaps so injurious (except to the character of the trimmer) as cooking, which the next paragraph will teach, The reason of this is, that the AVERAGE given by the observations of the trimmer is the same, whether they are trimmed or untrimmed. His object is to gain a reputation for extreme accuracy in making observations; but from respect for truth, or from a prudent foresight, he does not distort the position of the fact he gets from nature, and it is usually difficult to detect him. He has more sense or less adventure than the Cook.
This fraud might not be as harmful (except to the reputation of the trimmer) as cooking, which the next paragraph will explain. The reason is that the AVERAGE calculated from the trimmer's observations remains the same, whether they are adjusted or not. His goal is to build a reputation for being extremely accurate in his observations; however, out of respect for the truth, or out of cautious foresight, he doesn’t distort the facts he gathers from nature, making it usually hard to catch him. He tends to have more sense or less risk-taking compared to the Cook.
OF COOKING. This is an art of various forms, the object of which is to give to ordinary observations the appearance and character of those of the highest degree of accuracy.
OF COOKING. This is an art in many forms, aimed at transforming everyday observations to look and feel as precise and refined as those of the utmost accuracy.
One of its numerous processes is to make multitudes of observations, and out of these to select those only which agree, or very nearly agree. If a hundred observations are made, the cook must be very unlucky if he cannot pick out fifteen or twenty which will do for serving up.
One of its many processes is to make lots of observations, and from these, select only those that match or come very close. If a hundred observations are made, the cook must be pretty unlucky if he can't find fifteen or twenty that will work for serving.
Another approved receipt, when the observations to be used will not come within the limit of accuracy, which it has been resolved they shall possess, is to calculate them by two different formulae. The difference in the constants employed in those formulae has sometimes a most happy effect in promoting unanimity amongst discordant measures. If still greater accuracy is required, three or more formulae can be used.
Another approved receipt, when the observations to be used fall outside the designated accuracy limit, is to calculate them using two different formulas. The difference in the constants used in those formulas can often help achieve agreement among conflicting measurements. If even greater accuracy is needed, three or more formulas can be utilized.
It must be admitted that this receipt is in some instances rather hazardous: but in cases where the positions of stars, as given in different catalogues, occur, or different tables of specific gravities, specific heats, &c. &c., it may safely be employed. As no catalogue contains all stars, the computer must have recourse to several; and if he is obliged to use his judgment in the selection, it would be cruel to deny him any little advantage which might result from it. It may, however, be necessary to guard against one mistake into which persons might fall.
It must be acknowledged that this method can be somewhat risky at times. However, in situations where the positions of stars, as listed in various catalogues, are used, or when different tables for specific gravities, specific heats, etc., are involved, it can be used safely. Since no single catalogue includes all stars, the user will need to consult several. If they have to use their judgment in making selections, it would be unjust to deny them any small benefit that might come from it. Nonetheless, it may be important to be cautious of one mistake that people might make.
If an observer calculate particular stars from a catalogue which makes them accord precisely with the rest of his results, whereas, had they been computed from other catalogues the difference would have been considerable, it is very unfair to accuse him of COOKING; for—those catalogues may have been notoriously inaccurate; or—they may have been superseded by others more recent, or made with better instruments; or—the observer may have been totally ignorant of their existence.
If an observer calculates specific stars from a catalog that aligns perfectly with his other results, while using different catalogs would have shown significant differences, it's really unfair to accuse him of COOKING. This is because those catalogs might have been notoriously inaccurate; they may have been replaced by newer ones or created with better instruments; or the observer might have had no idea they even existed.
It sometimes happens that the constant quantities in formulae given by the highest authorities, although they differ amongst themselves, yet they will not suit the materials. This is precisely the point in which the skill of the artist is shown; and an accomplished cook will carry himself triumphantly through it, provided happily some mean value of such constants will fit his observations. He will discuss the relative merits of formulae he has just knowledge enough to use; and, with admirable candour assigning their proper share of applause to Bessel, to Gauss, and to Laplace, he will take THAT mean value of the constant used by three such philosophers, which will make his own observations accord to a miracle.
It sometimes happens that the fixed values in formulas provided by top experts, even if they disagree with each other, still don't work well with the materials. This is where the artist's skill shines through; a skilled cook will navigate this challenge successfully if, by chance, some average of these constants aligns with his findings. He will weigh the pros and cons of the formulas he knows just well enough to apply, and, with impressive honesty, he will give credit where it's due to Bessel, Gauss, and Laplace. He will choose the average value of the constant used by these three thinkers that makes his own results match up perfectly.
There are some few reflections which I would venture to suggest to those who cook, although they may perhaps not receive the attention which, in my opinion, they deserve, from not coming from the pen of an adept.
There are a few thoughts I would like to share with those who cook, although they might not get the attention they deserve, since they’re not coming from an expert.
In the first place, it must require much time to try different formulae. In the next place it may happen that, in the progress of human knowledge, more correct formula: may be discovered, and constants may be determined with far greater precision. Or it may be found that some physical circumstance influences the results, (although unsuspected at the time) the measure of which circumstance may perhaps be recovered from other contemporary registers of facts. [Imagine, by way of example, the state of the barometer or thermometer.] Or if the selection of observations has been made with the view of its agreeing precisely with the latest determination, there is some little danger that the average of the whole may differ from that of the chosen ones, owing to some law of nature, dependent on the interval between the two sets, which law some future philosopher may discover, and thus the very best observations may have been thrown aside.
First, it takes a lot of time to try different formulas. Next, as human knowledge advances, it’s possible that more accurate formulas may be discovered, and constants may be defined with much greater precision. Also, it might turn out that some physical factor affects the results (even if it wasn't noticed at the time), and the measure of that factor might be retrieved from other contemporary records of facts. [For example, consider the state of the barometer or thermometer.] Furthermore, if the selection of observations has been made to match exactly with the latest determination, there's a risk that the average of the whole might differ from that of the selected ones, due to some natural law related to the time gap between the two sets, which a future philosopher might uncover, potentially disregarding the very best observations.
In all these, and in numerous other cases, it would most probably happen that the cook would procure a temporary reputation for unrivalled accuracy at the expense of his permanent fame. It might also have the effect of rendering even all his crude observations of no value; for that part of the scientific world whose opinion is of most weight, is generally so unreasonable, as to neglect altogether the observations of those in whom they have, on any occasion, discovered traces of the artist. In fact, the character of an observer, as of a woman, if doubted is destroyed.
In all these cases, as well as many others, it’s likely that the cook would gain a temporary reputation for unmatched accuracy at the cost of lasting fame. It might also render all his rough observations worthless; because the part of the scientific community that matters most tends to be unreasonable and completely overlook the observations of those who, at any point, have shown signs of being an artist. In fact, the credibility of an observer, like that of a woman, is destroyed if it's ever doubted.
The manner in which facts apparently lost are restored to light, even after considerable intervals of time, is sometimes very unexpected, and a few examples may not be without their use. The thermometers employed by the philosophers who composed the Academia Del Cimento, have been lost; and as they did not use the two fixed points of freezing and boiling water, the results of a great mass of observations have remained useless from our ignorance of the value of a degree on their instrument. M. Libri, of Florence, proposed to regain this knowledge by comparing their registers of the temperature of the human body and of that of some warm springs in Tuscany, which have preserved their heat uniform during a century, as well as of other things similarly circumstanced.
The way lost facts can be brought back to light, even after long periods of time, can be quite surprising, and a few examples might be helpful. The thermometers used by the philosophers of the Academia Del Cimento have been lost; since they didn't use the two fixed points of freezing and boiling water, much of their observations remain useless because we don't know what a degree on their instrument represented. M. Libri from Florence suggested recovering this knowledge by comparing their temperature records of the human body and certain warm springs in Tuscany, which have maintained a consistent temperature for a century, along with other similar cases.
Another illustration was pointed out to me by M. Gazzeri, the Professor of Chemistry at Florence. A few years ago an important suit in one of the legal courts of Tuscany depended on ascertaining whether a certain word had been erased by some chemical process from a deed then before the court. The party who insisted that an erasure had been made, availed themselves of the knowledge of M. Gazzeri, who, concluding that those who committed the fraud would be satisfied by the disappearance of the colouring matter of the ink, suspected (either from some colourless matter remaining in the letters, or perhaps from the agency of the solvent having weakened the fabric of the paper itself beneath the supposed letters) that the effect of the slow application of heat would be to render some difference of texture or of applied substance evident, by some variety in the shade of colour which heat in such circumstances might be expected to produce. Permission having been given to try the experiment, on the application of heat the important word reappeared, to the great satisfaction of the court.
Another example was brought to my attention by M. Gazzeri, the Professor of Chemistry in Florence. A few years ago, an important lawsuit in one of the legal courts of Tuscany hinged on determining whether a certain word had been erased from a deed that was under review. The party claiming that an erasure had occurred relied on M. Gazzeri's expertise. He theorized that the fraudsters would be satisfied if the ink's coloring matter disappeared. He suspected that either some colorless material remaining in the letters or the solvent weakening the paper underneath might allow the slow application of heat to reveal differences in texture or the materials used, showing up as variations in color that heat might produce under those conditions. Once permission was granted to conduct the experiment, applying heat made the crucial word reappear, much to the court's satisfaction.
CHAPTER VI. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN ENGLAND.
SECTION 1. OF THE NECESSITY THAT MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY SHOULD EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.
One of the causes which has contributed to the success of the PARTY, is to be found in the great reluctance with which many of those whose names added lustre to the Society expressed their opinions, and the little firmness with which they maintained their objections. How many times have those whose activity was additionally stimulated by their interest, proposed measures which a few words might have checked; whilst the names of those whose culpable silence thus permitted the project to be matured, were immediately afterwards cited by their grateful coadjutors, as having sanctioned that which in their hearts they knew to be a job.
One of the reasons behind the PARTY's success is the great hesitation many prominent members had in sharing their opinions and the lack of conviction they showed in standing by their objections. How often have those whose interest fueled their activity put forward ideas that a few words could have easily shut down? Meanwhile, the names of those whose shameful silence allowed the plans to develop were later mentioned by their appreciative colleagues as if they had endorsed what deep down they knew was a scam.
Even in the few cases which have passed the limits of such forbearance, when the subject has been debated in the Council, more than one, more than two instances are known, where subsequent circumstances have occurred, which proved, with the most irresistible moral evidence, that members have spoken on one side of the question, and have voted on the contrary.
Even in the few cases that have gone beyond such patience, when the issue has been discussed in the Council, there are known instances, more than one or two, where later events showed, with undeniable moral proof, that members spoke on one side of the issue and voted on the opposite.
This reluctance to oppose that which is disapproved, has been too extensively and too fatally prevalent for the interests of the Royal Society. It may partly be attributed to that reserved and retiring disposition, which frequently marks the man of real knowledge, as strongly as an officious interference and flippant manner do the charlatan, or the trader in science. Some portion of it is due to that improper deference which was long paid to every dictum of the President, and much of it to that natural indisposition to take trouble on any point in which a man's own interest is not immediately concerned. It is to be hoped, for the credit of that learned body, that no anticipation of the next feast of St. Andrew ever influenced the taciturnity of their disposition. [It may be necessary to inform those who are not members of the Royal Society, that this is the day on which those Fellows who choose, meet at Somerset House, to register the names of the Council and Officers the President has been pleased to appoint for the ensuing year; and who afterwards dine together, for the purpose of praising each other over wine, which, until within these few years, was PAID for out of the FUNDS of the Society. This abuse was attacked by an enterprising reformer, and of course defended by the coterie. It was, however, given up as too bad. The public may form some idea of the feeling which prevails in the Council, when they are informed that this practice was defended by one of the officers of the Society, on the ground that, if abolished, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY WOULD LOSE HIS PERCENTAGE ON THE TAVERN BILLS.]
This reluctance to challenge what is deemed unacceptable has been too widespread and detrimental to the interests of the Royal Society. It can partly be attributed to the reserved and introverted nature that often characterizes knowledgeable individuals, much like the overbearing and casual demeanor of a charlatan or a science vendor. Some of it stems from the undue respect that was long given to every statement made by the President, and a lot of it comes from the natural tendency to avoid putting in effort on issues that don’t directly benefit a person. One can hope that, for the reputation of this learned organization, the anticipation of the next St. Andrew's feast did not influence their silence. [It may be necessary to inform those who are not members of the Royal Society that this is the day when those Fellows who choose to, gather at Somerset House to register the names of the Council and Officers that the President has appointed for the upcoming year; and who then dine together to praise one another over wine, which, until recently, was PAID for out of the Society's FUNDS. This misuse was challenged by a proactive reformer, of course defended by the group in power. However, it was ultimately relinquished as unacceptable. The public may gain some insight into the feelings within the Council when they learn that this practice was defended by one of the Society's officials on the basis that abolishing it would cause THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY TO LOSE HIS PERCENTAGE ON THE TAVERN BILLS.]
SECTION 2. OF BIENNIAL PRESIDENTS.
The days in which the Royal Society can have much influence in science seem long past; nor does it appear a matter of great importance who conduct its mismanaged affairs. Perpetual Presidents have been tried until the Society has become disgusted with dictators. If any reform should be attempted, it might perhaps be deserving consideration whether the practice of several of the younger institutions might not be worthy imitation, and the office of President be continued only during two sessions. There may be some inconveniences attending this arrangement; but the advantages are conspicuous, both in the Astronomical and Geological Societies. Each President is ambitious of rendering the period of his reign remarkable for some improvement in the Society over which he presides; and the sacrifice of time which is made by the officers of those Societies, would become impossible if it were required to be continued for a much longer period. Another circumstance of considerable importance is, that the personal character of the President is less impressed on the Society; and, supposing any injudicious alterations to be made, it is much less difficult to correct them.
The days when the Royal Society had a significant influence on science seem to be long gone, and it doesn't really matter who runs its poorly managed affairs. They've tried having Permanent Presidents, and now the Society is tired of dictators. If any changes are considered, it might be worth looking into whether following the practices of some newer institutions could be a good idea, with the presidency only lasting for two sessions. There might be some downsides to this setup, but the benefits are clear, especially in the Astronomical and Geological Societies. Each President aims to make their term notable for some improvement in the Society they lead, and the time commitment required from the officers of those Societies would be unmanageable if it lasted much longer. Another important point is that the personal influence of the President is less stamped on the Society, so if any unwise changes were made, it would be much easier to fix them.
SECTION 3. OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE COLLEGES OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS
IN THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
AT THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
The honour of belonging to the Royal Society is much sought after by medical men, as contributing to the success of their professional efforts, and two consequences result from it. In the first place, the pages of the Transactions of the Royal Society occasionally contain medical papers of very moderate merit; and, in the second, the preponderance of the medical interest introduces into the Society some of the jealousies of that profession. On the other hand, medicine is intimately connected with many sciences, and its professors are usually too much occupied in their practice to exert themselves, except upon great occasions.
The honor of being part of the Royal Society is highly coveted by medical professionals as it helps boost their careers, and two outcomes arise from this. First, the pages of the Transactions of the Royal Society sometimes include medical papers of only average quality. Second, the dominance of medical interests brings some of the rivalries from that profession into the Society. On the flip side, medicine is closely linked with many sciences, and its practitioners are usually too busy with their work to engage unless it's a significant event.
SECTION 4. OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE ROYAL INSTITUTION ON THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
The Royal Institution was founded for the cultivation of the more popular and elementary branches of scientific knowledge, and has risen, partly from the splendid discoveries of Davy, and partly from the decline of the Royal Society, to a more prominent station than it would otherwise have occupied in the science of England. Its general effects in diffusing knowledge among the more educated classes of the metropolis, have been, and continue to be, valuable. Its influence, however, in the government of the Royal Society, is by no means attended with similar advantages, and has justly been viewed with considerable jealousy by many of the Fellows of that body. It may be stated, without disparagement to the Royal Institution, that the scientific qualifications necessary for its officers, however respectable, are not quite of that high order which ought to be required for those of the Royal Society, if the latter body were in a state of vigour.
The Royal Institution was established to promote more popular and basic scientific knowledge, and it has gained prominence partly due to Davy's amazing discoveries and partly due to the decline of the Royal Society. As a result, it holds a more significant position in England's scientific landscape than it otherwise would. Its overall impact in spreading knowledge among the educated individuals in the city has been, and continues to be, valuable. However, its influence over the Royal Society's governance hasn’t brought similar benefits and has understandably been viewed with considerable suspicion by many Fellows of that organization. It can be said, without diminishing the Royal Institution, that the scientific qualifications required for its officers, no matter how respectable, are not quite at the high level that should be expected for those in the Royal Society if that organization were in a thriving condition.
The Royal Institution interest has always been sufficient to appoint one of the Secretaries of the Royal Society; and at the present moment they have appointed two. In a short time, unless some effectual check is put to this, we shall find them nominating the President and the rest of the officers. It is certainly not consistent with the dignity of the Royal Society thus to allow its offices to be given away as the rewards of services rendered to other institutions. The only effectual way to put a stop to this increasing interest would be, to declare that no manager or officer of the Royal Institution should ever, at the same time, hold office in the Royal Society.
The Royal Institution's influence has always been enough to appoint one of the Secretaries of the Royal Society; right now, they've appointed two. If this continues without a strong intervention, we'll soon see them nominating the President and other officers. It's definitely not in line with the dignity of the Royal Society to let its positions be handed out as rewards for services to other institutions. The only effective way to stop this growing influence would be to declare that no manager or officer of the Royal Institution should ever hold a position in the Royal Society at the same time.
The use the Members of the Royal Institution endeavour to make of their power in the Council of the Royal Society, is exemplified in the minutes of the Council of March 11, 1830, which may be consulted with advantage by those who doubt.
The way the Members of the Royal Institution try to use their influence in the Council of the Royal Society is shown in the minutes from the Council meeting on March 11, 1830. Those who are skeptical may find it useful to review these minutes.
SECTION 5. OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
The Transactions of the Royal Society, unlike those of most foreign academies, contain nothing relating to the history of the Society. The volumes contain merely those papers communicated to the Society in the preceding year which the Council have selected for printing, a meteorological register, and a notice of the award of the annual medals, without any list of the Council and officers of the Society, by whom that selection and that award have been made.
The Transactions of the Royal Society, unlike those from most foreign academies, don't include any information about the Society's history. The volumes only feature the papers presented to the Society in the previous year that the Council has chosen for publication, a meteorological register, and a notice about the annual medal awards, without providing a list of the Council and officers of the Society who made those selections and awards.
Before I proceed to criticise this state of things, I will mention one point on which I am glad to be able to bestow on the Royal Society the highest praise. I refer to the extreme regularity with which the volumes of the Transactions are published. The appearance of the half-volumes at intervals of six months, insures for any communication almost immediate publicity; whilst the shortness of the time between its reception and publication, is a guarantee to the public that the whole of the paper was really communicated at the time it bears date. To this may also be added, the rarity of any alterations made previously to the printing, a circumstance which ought to be imitated, as well as admired, by other societies. There may, indeed, be some, perhaps the Geological, in which the task is more difficult, from the nature of the subject. The sooner, however, all societies can reduce themselves to this rule, of rarely allowing any thing but a few verbal corrections to papers that are placed in their hands, the better it will be for their own reputation, and for the interests of science.
Before I critique the current situation, I want to highlight one thing that I truly admire about the Royal Society. I’m referring to the impressive regularity with which the volumes of the Transactions are published. The release of half-volumes every six months ensures that any communication gets almost immediate visibility; meanwhile, the brief time between receipt and publication guarantees the public that the entire paper was actually submitted when it was dated. Additionally, it’s worth noting the rarity of any changes made before printing, a practice that other societies should not only appreciate but also emulate. There may be some, like the Geological Society, where this task is more challenging due to the nature of the subject. However, the sooner all societies can adopt a guideline of allowing only minimal verbal corrections to papers they receive, the better it will be for their reputation and for the advancement of science.
It has been, and continues to be, a subject of deep regret, that the first scientific academy in Europe, the Institute of France, should be thus negligent in the regularity of its publications; and it is the more to be regretted, that it should be years in arrear, from the circumstance, that the memoirs admitted into their collection are usually of the highest merit. I know some of their most active members have wished it were otherwise; I would urge them to put a stop to a practice, which, whilst it has no advantages to recommend it, is unjust to those who contribute, and is only calculated to produce conflicting claims, equally injurious to science, and to the reputation of that body, whose negligence may have given rise to them. [Mr. Herschel, speaking of a paper of Fresnel's, observes—"This memoir was read to the Institute, 7th of October, 1816; a supplement was received, 19th of January, 1818; M. Arago's report on it was read, 4th of June, 1821: and while every optical philosopher in Europe has been impatiently expecting its appearance for seven years, it lies as yet unpublished, and is only known to us by meagre notices in a periodical journal." MR HERSCHEL'S TREATISE ON LIGHT, p. 533.—ENCYCLOPAEDIA METROPOLITANA.]
It has been, and still is, a matter of great regret that the first scientific academy in Europe, the Institute of France, is so careless about the regularity of its publications. It's even more unfortunate that it is years behind schedule, especially since the memoirs included in their collection are usually of the highest quality. I know some of their most active members wish it were different; I urge them to put an end to a practice that, while offering no benefits, is unfair to contributors and only leads to competing claims that are harmful to science and to the reputation of the organization, whose negligence might have caused them. [Mr. Herschel, discussing a paper by Fresnel, notes—"This memoir was presented to the Institute on October 7, 1816; a supplement was received on January 19, 1818; M. Arago's report on it was read on June 4, 1821: and while every optical philosopher in Europe has been eagerly waiting for its publication for seven years, it remains unpublished and is known to us only through brief mentions in a periodical journal." MR HERSCHEL'S TREATISE ON LIGHT, p. 533.—ENCYCLOPAEDIA METROPOLITANA.]
One of the inconveniences arising from having no historical portion in the volumes of the Royal Society is, that not only the public, but our own members are almost entirely ignorant of all its affairs. With a means of giving considerable publicity (by the circulation of above 800 copies of the Transactions) to whatever we wish to have made known to our members or to the world, will it be credited, that no notice was taken in our volume for 1826, of the foundation of two Royal medals, nor of the conditions under which they were to be distributed. [That the Council refrained from having their first award of those medals thus communicated, is rather creditable to them, and proves that they had a becoming feeling respecting their former errors.] That in 1828, when a new fund, called the donation fund, was established, and through the liberality of Dr. Wollaston and Mr. Davies Gilbert, it was endowed by them with the respective sums of 2,000L. and 1,000L. 3 per cents; no notice of such fact appears in our Transactions for 1829. Other gentlemen have contributed; and if it is desirable to possess such a fund, it is surely of importance to inform the non-attending, which is by far the largest part of the Society, that it exists; and that we are grateful to those by whom it has been founded and augmented. Neither did the Philosophical Transactions inform our absent members, that they could purchase the President's Discourses at the trade-price.
One of the downsides of not including a historical section in the volumes of the Royal Society is that both the public and our own members are mostly unaware of all its activities. Even though we have a way to widely share information (by circulating over 800 copies of the Transactions), it’s hard to believe that our 1826 volume didn’t mention the establishment of two Royal medals or the criteria for their distribution. [The fact that the Council chose not to announce their first award of those medals is quite commendable and shows they recognized their earlier mistakes.] In 1828, when a new fund called the donation fund was set up, thanks to the generosity of Dr. Wollaston and Mr. Davies Gilbert, who each donated £2,000 and £1,000 in 3 percent consols, there was no mention of this in our 1829 Transactions. Other members have contributed as well, and if it’s important to have such a fund, it’s definitely crucial to inform the majority of the Society, who are not present, that it exists and that we appreciate those who have helped establish and grow it. The Philosophical Transactions also didn’t inform our absent members that they could buy the President's Discourses at the trade price.
The list of the Officers, Council, and Members of the Royal Society is printed annually; yet, who ever saw it bound up with the Philosophical Transactions, to which it is intended to be attached? I never met with a single copy of that work so completed, not even the one in our own library. It is extremely desirable that the Society should know the names of their Council; and whilst it would in some measure contribute to prevent the President from placing incompetent persons upon it, it would also afford some check, although perhaps but a slight one, on the distribution of the medals. When I have urged the expediency of the practice, I have been answered by excuses, that the list could not be made up in time for the volume. If this is true of the first part, they might appear with the second; and even if this were impracticable, the plan of prefixing them to the volume of the succeeding year, would be preferable to that of omitting them altogether. The true reason, however, appeared at last. It was objected to the plan, that by the present arrangement, the porter of the Royal Society took round the list to those members resident in London, and got from some of them a remuneration, in the shape of a Christmas-box; and this would be lost, if the time of printing were changed. [During the printing of this chapter, a friend, on whom I had called, complained that the porter of the Royal Society had demanded half-a-crown for leaving the list.] Such are the paltry interests to which those of the Royal Society are made to bow.
The list of Officers, Council, and Members of the Royal Society is printed every year; yet, who has ever seen it included with the Philosophical Transactions, to which it's meant to be attached? I’ve never come across a single complete copy, not even the one in our own library. It's really important for the Society to know the names of their Council; and while it would help prevent the President from appointing unqualified people, it would also provide some oversight, although probably just a little, on how the medals are awarded. When I’ve suggested this practice, I've been met with excuses that the list couldn’t be ready in time for the volume. If it's true for the first part, it could come out with the second; and even if that’s not possible, including them in the volume of the following year would be better than leaving them out completely. However, the real reason eventually came to light. It was argued against the plan that, under the current setup, the porter of the Royal Society took the list around to members living in London and received a tip from some of them in the form of a Christmas gift; and this would be lost if the printing schedule changed. [During the printing of this chapter, a friend I visited said that the porter of the Royal Society asked for two shillings and sixpence for delivering the list.] Such are the petty interests that the members of the Royal Society are made to yield to.
Another point on which information ought to be given in each volume, is the conditions on which the distribution of the Society's medals are made. It is true that these are, or ought to be, printed with the Statutes of the Society; but that volume is only in the hands of members, and it is for the credit of the medals themselves, that the laws which regulate their award should be widely known, in order that persons, not members of the Society, might enter into competition for them.
Another point that should be included in each volume is the conditions for distributing the Society's medals. It's true that these are, or should be, printed with the Society's Statutes; however, that volume is only available to members. It would enhance the reputation of the medals if the rules governing their award were widely known so that non-members could also compete for them.
Information relative to the admissions and deaths amongst the Society would also be interesting; a list of the names of those whom the Society had lost, and of those members who had been added to its ranks each year, would find a proper place in the historical pages which ought to be given with each volume of our Transactions.
Information about the admissions and deaths in the Society would also be interesting; a list of the names of those the Society has lost, and of those members who have joined each year, would fit well in the historical sections that should accompany each volume of our Transactions.
The want of a distinction between the working members of the Society, and those who merely honour it with their patronage, renders many arrangements, which would be advantageous to science, in some cases, injudicious, and in other instances, almost impossible.
The lack of a distinction between the active members of the Society and those who just support it with their patronage makes many arrangements that could benefit science unwise in some cases, and in others, nearly impossible.
Collections of Observations which are from time to time given to the Society, may be of such a nature, that but few of the members are interested in them. In such cases, the expense of printing above 800 copies may reasonably induce the Council to decline printing them altogether; whereas, if they had any means of discrimination for distributing them, they might be quite willing to incur the expense of printing 250. Other cases may occur, in which great advantage would accrue, if the principle were once admitted. Government, the Universities, public bodies, and even individuals might, in some cases, be disposed to present to the Royal Society a limited number of copies of their works, if they knew that they were likely to be placed in the hands of persons who would use them. Fifty or a hundred additional copies might, in some cases, not be objected to on the ground of expense, when seven or eight hundred would be quite out of the question.
Collections of observations that are occasionally submitted to the Society might only be of interest to a few members. In such instances, the cost of printing over 800 copies may reasonably lead the Council to decide against printing them at all. However, if there were a way to determine who to distribute them to, they might be more willing to spend money on printing 250 copies. There may also be cases where significant benefits could arise if this principle were acknowledged. Government entities, universities, public organizations, and even individuals might sometimes be willing to donate a limited number of copies of their works to the Royal Society if they knew they would reach people who would value them. In some situations, an extra fifty or a hundred copies might not be a financial issue, whereas printing seven or eight hundred would be completely unfeasible.
Let us suppose twenty copies of a description of some new chemical process to be placed at the disposal of the Royal Society by any public body; it will not surely be contended that they ought all to remain on the Society's shelves. Yet, with our present rules, that would be the case. If, however, the list of the Members of the Society were read over to the Council, and the names of those gentlemen known to be conversant with chemical science were written down; then, if nineteen copies of the work were given to those nineteen persons on this list, who had contributed most to the Transactions of the Society, they would in all probability be placed in the fittest hands.
Let’s say twenty copies of a description of a new chemical process are made available to the Royal Society by a public organization; it’s hard to argue that all of them should just sit on the Society's shelves. Yet, according to our current rules, that would be what happens. However, if the list of Society Members were read to the Council, and the names of those known to have expertise in chemical science were noted down; then, if nineteen copies of the work were given to those nineteen members who had contributed the most to the Society's Transactions, it’s likely that the copies would end up in the right hands.
Complete sets of the Philosophical Transactions have now become extremely bulky; it might be well worth our consideration, whether the knowledge of the many valuable papers they contain would not be much spread, by publishing the abstracts of them which have been read at the ordinary meetings of the Society. Perhaps two or three volumes octavo, would contain all that has been done in this way during the last century.
Complete sets of the Philosophical Transactions have become really bulky; it might be worth considering whether sharing the summaries of the many valuable papers they include, which have been presented at the regular meetings of the Society, would help spread the knowledge more widely. Maybe two or three octavo volumes could hold everything that has been done this way over the last century.
Another circumstance, which would contribute much to the order of the proceedings of the Council, would be to have a distinct list made out of all the statutes and orders of the Council relating to each particular subject.
Another factor that would greatly improve the organization of the Council's proceedings would be to create a clear list of all the statutes and orders of the Council related to each specific topic.
Thus the President, by having at one view before him all that had ever been decreed on the question under consideration, would be much better able to prevent inconsistent resolutions, and to save the time of the Council from being wasted by unnecessary discussions.
Thus the President, by having everything that has ever been decided on the issue at hand laid out before him, would be much better able to prevent inconsistent resolutions and to save the Council's time from being wasted on unnecessary discussions.
SECTION 6. ORDER OF MERIT.
Amongst the various proposals for encouraging science, the institution of an order of merit has been suggested. It is somewhat singular, that whilst in most of the other kingdoms of Europe, such orders exist for the purpose of rewarding, by honorary distinctions, the improvers of the arts of life, or successful discoverers in science, nothing of the kind has been established in England. [At the great meeting of the philosophers at Berlin, in 1828, of which an account is given in the Appendix; the respect in which Berzelius, Oersted, Gauss, and Humboldt were held in their respective countries was apparent in the orders bestowed on them by the Sovereigns of Sweden, of Denmark, of Hanover, and of Prussia; and there were present many other philosophers, whose decorations sufficiently attested the respect in which science was held in the countries from which they came.]
Among the various ideas for promoting science, creating an order of merit has been suggested. It’s quite unusual that while most other European countries have such orders to honor those who advance the arts of living or are successful in scientific discoveries, there is nothing like that in England. [At the large gathering of philosophers in Berlin in 1828, which is detailed in the Appendix, the respect for Berzelius, Oersted, Gauss, and Humboldt was clear from the honors they received from the kings of Sweden, Denmark, Hanover, and Prussia; and there were many other philosophers present whose awards clearly showed the respect for science in their home countries.]
Our orders of knighthood are favourable only to military distinction. It has been urged, as an argument for such institutions, that they are a cheap mode of rewarding science, whilst, on the other hand, it has been objected, that they would diminish the value of such honorary distinctions by making them common. The latter objection is of little weight, because the numbers who pursue science are few, and, probably, will long continue so. It would also be easily avoided, by restricting the number of the order or of the class, if it were to form a peculiar class of another order. Another objection, however, appears to me to possess far greater weight; and, however strong the disposition of the Government might be (if such an order existed) to fill it properly, I do not believe that, in the present state of public opinion respecting science, it could be done, and, in all probability, it would be filled up through the channels of patronage, and by mere jobbers in science.
Our orders of knighthood mainly recognize military achievements. Some argue that these institutions are an inexpensive way to reward scientific contributions. However, others claim that this would devalue such honors by making them too common. This latter concern is not very significant since there are few people dedicated to science, and this will likely remain the case for a long time. We could also easily prevent this by limiting the number of members in the order or class if it were established as a unique category. However, there’s another objection that I think is much more serious: no matter how committed the Government might be (if such an order existed) to appointing worthy members, I don’t believe that, given the current public perception of science, this could actually happen. More likely, the positions would be filled through patronage and by those who merely seek to profit in the world of science.
Another proposal, of a similar kind, has also been talked of, one which it may appear almost ridiculous to suggest in England, but which would be considered so in no other country. It is, to ennoble some of the greatest scientific benefactors of their country. Not to mention political causes, the ranks of the nobility are constantly recruited from the army, the navy, and the bar; why should not the family of that man, whose name is imperishably connected with the steam-engine, be enrolled amongst the nobility of his country? In utility and profit, not merely to that country, but to the human race, his deeds may proudly claim comparison even with the most splendid of those achieved by classes so rich in glorious recollections. An objection, in most cases fatal to such a course, arises from the impolicy of conferring a title, unless a considerable fortune exists to support it; a circumstance very rarely occurring to the philosopher. It might in some measure be removed, by creating such titles only for life. But here, again, until there existed some knowledge of science amongst the higher classes, and a sound state of public opinion relative to science, the execution of the plan could only be injurious.
Another similar proposal has also been discussed, one that might seem almost silly to suggest in England, but wouldn’t be seen that way in other countries. It’s about elevating some of the greatest scientific contributors of their nation to nobility. Aside from political reasons, the nobility is often filled with people from the army, the navy, and the legal profession; so why shouldn’t the family of the person whose name is forever linked with the steam engine be included among the nobility of their country? In terms of usefulness and benefit, not just to that country but to humanity as a whole, his achievements can proudly be compared to the most glorious ones from classes with rich histories. A common objection—often a dealbreaker for such a proposal—is that it’s unwise to grant a title unless there’s a significant fortune to support it, which rarely happens for philosophers. This issue could be somewhat alleviated by granting such titles for life only. However, until there is a better understanding of science among the upper classes and a positive public opinion about science, carrying out this plan could be harmful.
SECTION 7. OF THE UNION OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES.
This idea has occurred to several persons, as likely to lead to considerable advantages to science. If the various scientific societies could unite in the occupation of one large building, considerable economy would result from the union. By properly arranging their evenings of meeting, one meeting-room only need be required. The libraries might either be united, or arranged in adjoining rooms; and such a system would greatly facilitate the inquiries of scientific persons.
This idea has come to the attention of several individuals, as it could bring significant benefits to science. If different scientific societies could come together in one large building, they would save a lot of money through this collaboration. By effectively scheduling their meeting nights, they would only need one meeting room. The libraries could either be combined or placed in nearby rooms, and such a system would greatly improve the research efforts of scientists.
Whether it would be possible to reunite in any way the different societies to the Royal Society, might be a delicate question; but although, on some accounts, desirable, that event is not necessary for the purpose of their having a common residence.
Whether it would be possible to bring the different societies back together with the Royal Society is a tricky question; however, while it might be desirable for some reasons, that event isn't necessary for them to share a common place.
The Medico-Botanical Society might, perhaps, from sympathy, be the first to which the Royal Society would apply; and by a proper interchange of diplomas, [A thing well understood by the INITIATED, both at HOME and ABROAD.] the two societies might be inoculated with each other. But even here some tact would be required; the Medico-Botanical is a little particular about the purity of its written documents, and lately attributed blame to one of its officers for some slight tampering with them, a degree of illiberality which the Council of the Royal Society are far from imitating.
The Medico-Botanical Society might, out of sympathy, be the first one the Royal Society reaches out to; and through a proper exchange of diplomas, [Something well understood by those in the know, both here and abroad.] the two societies could benefit from each other. However, some delicacy would be needed; the Medico-Botanical Society is quite particular about the accuracy of its documents, and recently blamed one of its officers for minor alterations, a level of strictness that the Council of the Royal Society does not replicate.
The Geological and the Astronomical Societies nourish no feelings of resentment to the parent institution for their early persecution; and though they have no inducement to seek, would scarcely refuse any union which might be generally advantageous to science.
The Geological and Astronomical Societies hold no grudges against their parent institution for the early mistreatment they faced; and although they have no reason to pursue it, they would hardly turn down any alliance that could be beneficial to science as a whole.
CONCLUSION.
In a work on the Decline of Science, at a period when England has so recently lost two of its brightest ornaments, I should hardly be excused if I omitted to devote a few words to the names of Wollaston and of Davy. Until the warm feelings of surviving kindred and admiring friends shall be cold as the grave from which remembrance vainly recalls their cherished forms, invested with all the life and energy of recent existence, the volumes of their biography must be sealed. Their contemporaries can expect only to read their eloge.
In a work on the Decline of Science, at a time when England has recently lost two of its brightest stars, I could hardly justify leaving out a mention of Wollaston and Davy. Until the deep emotions of their surviving family and admiring friends fade like the grave from which memory struggles to bring back their beloved presence, the volumes of their biography must remain closed. Their contemporaries can only look forward to reading their praise.
In habits of intercourse with both those distinguished individuals, sufficiently frequent to mark the curiously different structure of their minds, I was yet not on such terms even with him I most esteemed, as to view his great qualities through that medium which is rarely penetrated by the eyes of long and very intimate friendship.
In my interactions with both of these remarkable individuals, which were frequent enough to highlight the distinct ways their minds worked, I still didn’t have such a close relationship with the one I admired most that I could see his exceptional qualities through the lens that is rarely reached by the eyes of deep, long-lasting friendship.
Caution and precision were the predominant features of the character of Wollaston, and those who are disposed to reduce the number of principles, would perhaps justly trace the precision which adorned his philosophical, to the extreme caution which pervaded his moral character. It may indeed be questioned whether the latter quality will not in all persons of great abilities produce the former.
Caution and precision were the main traits of Wollaston’s character, and those who want to simplify things might reasonably link the precision in his philosophy to the extreme caution that defined his moral character. It can indeed be debated whether this latter quality will not lead to the former in all highly capable individuals.
Ambition constituted a far larger ingredient in the character of Davy, and with the daring hand of genius he grasped even the remotest conclusions to which a theory led him. He seemed to think invention a more common attribute than it really is, and hastened, as soon as he was in possession of a new fact or a new principle, to communicate it to the world, doubtful perhaps lest he might not be anticipated; but, confident in his own powers, he was content to give to others a chance of reaping some part of that harvest, the largest portion of which he knew must still fall to his own share.
Ambition played a much bigger role in Davy's character, and with the bold touch of genius, he reached for even the most distant conclusions a theory suggested. He seemed to believe that invention was more common than it actually is, and as soon as he discovered a new fact or principle, he was quick to share it with the world, perhaps worried that someone else might get there first; however, trusting in his own abilities, he was willing to let others benefit from some of that bounty, knowing that the largest share would still come to him.
Dr. Wollaston, on the other hand, appreciated more truly the rarity of the inventive faculty; and, undeterred by the fear of being anticipated, when he had contrived a new instrument, or detected a new principle, he brought all the information that he could collect from others, or which arose from his own reflection, to bear upon it for years, before he delivered it to the world.
Dr. Wollaston, on the other hand, genuinely understood how rare true inventiveness is; and, not worried about someone else discovering it first, when he invented a new tool or identified a new principle, he spent years gathering information from others and reflecting on it before sharing it with the world.
The most singular characteristic of Wollaston's mind was the plain and distinct line which separated what he knew from what he did not know; and this again, arising from his precision, might be traced to caution.
The most unique trait of Wollaston's mind was the clear and distinct line that separated what he knew from what he didn't know; and this, stemming from his precision, could be linked to caution.
It would, however, have been visible to such an extent in few except himself, for there were very few so perfectly free from vanity and affectation. To this circumstance may be attributed a peculiarity of manner in the mode in which he communicated information to those who sought it from him, which was to many extremely disagreeable. He usually, by a few questions, ascertained precisely how much the inquirer knew upon the subject, or the exact point at which his ignorance commenced, a process not very agreeable to the vanity of mankind; taking up the subject at this point, he would then very clearly and shortly explain it.
It would have been noticeable to very few people besides him, since there were hardly any who were completely free from vanity and pretentiousness. This circumstance can explain a particular way he had of sharing information with those who asked him, which many found quite unpleasant. He often asked a few questions to determine exactly how much the person knew about the topic or the precise point where their ignorance started, a process not very comfortable for people’s egos; picking up the conversation at this point, he would then explain things very clearly and briefly.
His acquaintance with mathematics was very limited. Many years since, when I was an unsuccessful candidate for a professorship of mathematics, I applied to Dr. W. for a recommendation; he declined it, on the ground of its not being his pursuit. I told him I asked it, because I thought it would have weight, to which he replied, that it ought to have none whatever. There is no doubt his view was the just one. Yet such is the state of ignorance which exists on these subjects, that I have several times heard him mentioned as one of the greatest mathematicians of the age. [This of course could only have happened in England.] But in this as in all other points, the precision with which he comprehended and retained all he had ever learned, especially of the elementary applications of mathematics to physics, was such, that he possessed greater command over those subjects than many of far more extensive knowledge.
His knowledge of mathematics was very limited. Years ago, when I was a failed candidate for a math teaching position, I asked Dr. W. for a recommendation; he refused, saying it wasn't his area. I told him I was asking because I thought it would carry weight, and he replied that it shouldn’t carry any weight at all. There’s no doubt that his perspective was the correct one. However, due to the widespread ignorance on these topics, I have heard him mentioned several times as one of the greatest mathematicians of his time. [This could only have happened in England, of course.] But, as with everything else, he understood and retained all he had learned about the basic applications of math to physics so precisely that he had a better grasp of those subjects than many who had much broader knowledge.
In associating with Wollaston, you perceived that the predominant principle was to avoid error; in the society of Davy, you saw that it was the desire to see and make known truth. Wollaston never could have been a poet; Davy might have been a great one.
In working with Wollaston, you noticed that his main goal was to avoid mistakes; in Davy's company, you recognized a strong desire to discover and share the truth. Wollaston could never have been a poet; Davy had the potential to be a great one.
A question which I put, successively, to each of these distinguished philosophers, will show how very differently a subject may be viewed by minds even of the highest order.
A question I asked, one after another, to each of these prominent philosophers will demonstrate how differently a topic can be perceived by even the brightest minds.
About the time Mr. Perkins was making his experiments on the compression of water, I was much struck with the mechanical means he had brought to bear on the subject, and was speculating on other applications of it, which I will presently mention.
About the time Mr. Perkins was conducting his experiments on water compression, I was really impressed by the mechanical methods he used for this topic and was thinking about other ways it could be applied, which I will mention shortly.
Meeting Dr. Wollaston one morning in the shop of a bookseller, I proposed this question: If two volumes of hydrogen and one of oxygen are mixed together in a vessel, and if by mechanical pressure they can be so condensed as to become of the same specific gravity as water, will the gases under these circumstances unite and form water? "What do you think they will do?" said Dr. W. I replied, that I should rather expect they would unite. "I see no reason to suppose it," said he. I then inquired whether he thought the experiment worth making. He answered, that he did not, for that he should think it would certainly not succeed.
One morning, while I was in a bookstore, I ran into Dr. Wollaston and asked him this question: If you mix two volumes of hydrogen with one volume of oxygen in a container, and if you can compress them until they have the same specific gravity as water, will the gases combine and create water? "What do you think will happen?" Dr. W. asked. I replied that I expected they would combine. "I see no reason to think that," he said. I then asked if he thought the experiment was worth trying. He said he didn't, as he believed it wouldn't work at all.
A few days after, I proposed the same question to Sir Humphry Davy. He at once said, "they will become water, of course;" and on my inquiring whether he thought the experiment worth making, he observed that it was a good experiment, but one which it was hardly necessary to make, as it must succeed.
A few days later, I asked Sir Humphry Davy the same question. He immediately said, "They will turn into water, of course;" and when I asked if he thought the experiment was worth doing, he replied that it was a good experiment but hardly necessary to conduct since it was bound to succeed.
These were off-hand answers, which it might perhaps be hardly fair to have recorded, had they been of persons of less eminent talent: and it adds to the curiosity of the circumstance to mention, that I believe Dr. Wollaston's reason for supposing no union would take place, arose from the nature of the electrical relations of the two gases remaining unchanged, an objection which did not weigh with the philosopher whose discoveries had given birth to it.
These were casual answers, which might not seem fair to record if they came from less talented individuals. It’s interesting to note that I think Dr. Wollaston believed no union would happen because the electrical relationships between the two gases stayed the same, a concern that didn’t bother the philosopher whose discoveries led to it.
[The result of the experiment appeared, and still appears to me, to be of the highest importance; and I will shortly state the views with which it was connected. The next great discovery in chemistry to definite proportions, will be to find means of forming all the simple unions of one atom with one, with two, or with more of say other substance: and it occurred to me that the gaseous bodies presented the fairest chance of success; and that if wishing, for instance, to unite four atoms of one substance with one of another, we could, by mechanical means, reduce the mixed gases to the same specific gravity as the substance would possess which resulted from their union, then either that such union would actually take place, or the particles of the two substances would be most favourably situated for the action of caloric, electricity, or other causes, to produce the combination. It would indeed seem to follow, that if combination should take place under such circumstances, then the most probable proportion in which the atoms would unite, should be that which furnished a fluid of the least specific gravity: but until the experiments are made, it is by no means certain that other combinations might not be produced.]
[The result of the experiment seemed, and still seems to me, extremely important; and I will briefly outline the ideas related to it. The next major breakthrough in chemistry regarding definite proportions will be discovering ways to form all the simple combinations of one atom with one, two, or more atoms of another substance. It came to me that gaseous substances offered the best chance of success; and if we wanted to unite, for example, four atoms of one substance with one atom of another, we could, through mechanical means, adjust the mixed gases to the same specific gravity as the substance that would result from their combination. This way, either that combination would actually happen, or the particles of the two substances would be ideally positioned for heat, electricity, or other factors to lead to the combination. It would seem that if a combination were to occur under these conditions, then the most likely ratio in which the atoms would join would be the one that created a fluid with the lowest specific gravity. However, until the experiments are conducted, it is by no means certain that other combinations might not occur.]
The singular minuteness of the particles of bodies submitted by Dr. Wollaston to chemical analysis, has excited the admiration of all those who have had the good fortune to witness his experiments; and the methods he employed deserve to be much more widely known.
The tiny size of the particles in the materials that Dr. Wollaston analyzed chemically has amazed everyone who has been lucky enough to see his experiments; and the techniques he used should be recognized by a much broader audience.
It appears to me that a great mistake exists on the subject. It has been adduced as one of those facts which prove the extraordinary acuteness of the bodily senses of the individual,—a circumstance which, if it were true, would add but little to his philosophical character; I am, however, inclined to view it in a far different light, and to see in it one of the natural results of the admirable precision of his knowledge.
It seems to me that there's a big misunderstanding on this topic. It's been presented as a fact that demonstrates the remarkable sharpness of a person's physical senses—a claim that, if true, wouldn't enhance his philosophical nature much. However, I tend to see it quite differently and regard it as one of the natural outcomes of his impressive knowledge accuracy.
During the many opportunities I have enjoyed of seeing his minute experiments, I remember but one instance in which I noticed any remarkable difference in the acuteness of his bodily faculties, either of his hearing, his sight, or of his sense of smell, from those of other persons who possessed them in a good degree. [This was at Mr. South's observatory, and the object was, the dots on the declination circle of his equatorial; but, in this instance, Dr. Wollaston did not attempt to TEACH ME HOW TO SEE THEM.]
During the many times I’ve had the chance to see his detailed experiments, I only remember one instance where I noticed a significant difference in how sharp his physical senses were—whether it was his hearing, sight, or sense of smell—compared to others who had them to a good degree. [This was at Mr. South's observatory, and the focus was on the dots on the declination circle of his equatorial; however, in this instance, Dr. Wollaston didn’t try to TEACH ME HOW TO SEE THEM.]
He never showed me an almost microscopic wire, which was visible to his, and invisible to my own eye: even in the beautiful experiments he made relative to sounds inaudible to certain ears, he never produced a tone which was unheard by mine, although sensible to his ear; and I believe this will be found to have been the case by most of those whose minds had been much accustomed to experimental inquiries, and who possessed their faculties unimpaired by illness or by age.
He never showed me a nearly invisible wire that was clear to his eye but hidden from mine. Even in the fascinating experiments he conducted about sounds that some ears couldn't hear, he never created a tone that was silent to me, even though he could hear it. I believe most people who have extensively engaged in experimental inquiries and whose mental faculties haven't been hindered by illness or age will find this to be true.
It was a much more valuable property on which the success of such inquiries depended. It arose from the perfect attention which he could command, and the minute precision with which he examined every object. A striking illustration of the fact that an object is frequently not seen, FROM NOT KNOWING HOW TO SEE IT, rather than from any defect in the organ of vision, occurred to me some years since, when on a visit at Slough. Conversing with Mr. Herschel on the dark lines seen in the solar spectrum by Fraunhofer, he inquired whether I had seen them; and on my replying in the negative, and expressing a great desire to see them, he mentioned the extreme difficulty he had had, even with Fraunhofer's description in his hand and the long time which it had cost him in detecting them. My friend then added, "I will prepare the apparatus, and put you in such a position that they shall be visible, and yet you shall look for them and not find them: after which, while you remain in the same position, I will instruct you how to see them, and you shall see them, and not merely wonder you did not see them before, but you shall find it impossible to look at the spectrum without seeing them."
It was a much more valuable asset on which the success of such inquiries depended. It stemmed from the complete focus he could command and the meticulous way he examined every detail. A striking example of the fact that something is often not noticed, NOT FROM A LACK OF VISION, but rather from not knowing how to look for it, came to mind a few years ago during a visit to Slough. While talking with Mr. Herschel about the dark lines observed in the solar spectrum by Fraunhofer, he asked if I had seen them. When I said no and expressed a strong desire to see them, he mentioned the extreme difficulty he had faced, even with Fraunhofer's description in hand, and the long time it took him to detect them. My friend then added, "I will set up the equipment and position you so that they will be visible, yet you may look for them and not find them. Afterward, while you remain in the same position, I will teach you how to see them, and you will see them—not just wonder why you didn't see them before, but you will find it impossible to look at the spectrum without seeing them."
On looking as I was directed, notwithstanding the previous warning, I did not see them; and after some time I inquired how they might be seen, when the prediction of Mr. Herschel was completely fulfilled.
On looking where I was told to, despite the earlier warning, I didn't see them; and after a while, I asked how I could see them, when Mr. Herschel's prediction came true.
It was this attention to minute phenomena which Dr. Wollaston applied with such powerful effect to chemistry. In the ordinary cases of precipitation the cloudiness is visible in a single drop as well as in a gallon of a solution; and in those cases where the cloudiness is so slight, as to require a mass of fluid to render it visible, previous evaporation, quickly performed on slips of window glass, rendered the solution more concentrated.
It was this focus on small details that Dr. Wollaston used so effectively in chemistry. In typical precipitation cases, the cloudiness can be seen in both a single drop and a gallon of solution. And in situations where the cloudiness is so faint that a large amount of fluid is needed to make it visible, quick evaporation on pieces of window glass concentrated the solution.
The true value of this minute chemistry arises from its cheapness and the extreme rapidity with which it can be accomplished: it may, in hands like those of Wollaston, be used for discovery, but not for measure. I have thought it more necessary to place this subject on what I consider its true grounds, for two reasons. In the first place, I feel that injustice has been done to a distinguished philosopher in attributing to some of his bodily senses that excellence which I think is proved to have depended on the admirable training of his intellectual faculties. And, in the next place, if I have established the fact, whilst it affords us better means of judging of such observations as lay claim to an accuracy "MORE THAN HUMAN," it also opens, to the patient inquirer into truth, a path by which he may acquire powers that he would otherwise have thought were only the gift of nature to a favoured few.
The real value of this detailed chemistry comes from its low cost and the incredible speed at which it can be done: it can, in the hands of someone like Wollaston, be used for discovery, but not for precise measurement. I felt it was more important to present this topic based on what I believe are its true foundations, for two reasons. First, I think it’s unfair to attribute certain abilities to a distinguished philosopher’s senses when I believe they actually stem from the excellent training of his intellect. Second, while I may have proven this fact, it gives us better tools to evaluate observations that claim to have an accuracy “MORE THAN HUMAN,” and it also opens up a way for anyone genuinely seeking the truth to develop abilities they might have thought were only reserved for a select few gifted by nature.
APPENDIX, No. 1.
In presenting to my readers the account of the meeting of men of science at Berlin, in the autumn of 1828, I am happy to be able to state, that its influence has been most beneficial, and that the annual meeting to be held in 1831, will take place at Vienna, the Emperor of Austria having expressed a wish that every facility which his capital affords should be given to promote its objects.
In sharing with my readers the story of the gathering of scientists in Berlin during the fall of 1828, I’m pleased to report that its impact has been very positive. The annual meeting set for 1831 will be held in Vienna, as the Emperor of Austria has expressed a desire for his capital to provide every possible support to further its goals.
It is gratifying to find that a country, which has hitherto been considered adverse to the progress of knowledge, should become convinced of its value; and it is sincerely to be hoped, that every one of the numerous members of the Society will show, by his conduct, that the paths of science are less likely than any others to interfere with those of politics.
It’s encouraging to see a country that has long been viewed as resistant to the advancement of knowledge now recognizing its importance; and we genuinely hope that each member of the Society demonstrates, through their actions, that the pursuit of science is less likely to clash with politics than any other path.
ACCOUNT OF THE GREAT CONGRESS OF PHILOSOPHERS AT BERLIN, ON THE 18TH OF SEPTEMBER 1828. FROM THE EDINBURGH JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, APRIL, 1829.
ACCOUNT OF THE GREAT CONGRESS OF PHILOSOPHERS AT BERLIN, ON THE 18TH OF SEPTEMBER 1828. FROM THE EDINBURGH JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, APRIL, 1829.
The existence of a large society of cultivators of the natural sciences meeting annually at some great capital, or some central town of Europe, is a circumstance almost unknown to us, and deserving of our attention, from the important advantages which may arise from it.
The existence of a large community of natural science enthusiasts gathering every year in a major city or central town in Europe is something we hardly know about, and it definitely deserves our attention because of the significant benefits that could come from it.
About eight years ago, Dr. Okens, of Munich, suggested a plan for an annual meeting of all Germans who cultivated the sciences of medicine and botany. The first meeting, of about forty members, took place at Leipsic, in 1822, and it was successively held at Halle, Wurtzburg, Frankfort on the Maine, Dresden, Munich, and Berlin. All those who had printed a certain number of sheets of their inquiries on these subjects were considered members of this academy.
About eight years ago, Dr. Okens from Munich proposed a plan for an annual gathering of all Germans involved in the fields of medicine and botany. The first meeting, which had around forty members, took place in Leipzig in 1822, and it was subsequently held in Halle, Würzburg, Frankfurt on the Main, Dresden, Munich, and Berlin. Anyone who had published a certain number of pages of their research on these topics was considered a member of this academy.
The great advantages which resulted to these sciences from the communication of observations from all quarters of Germany, soon induced an extension of the plan, and other departments of natural knowledge were admitted, until, at the last meeting, the cultivators even of pure mathematics were found amongst the ranks of this academy.
The significant benefits that came to these sciences from sharing observations from all over Germany quickly led to an expansion of the plan, allowing for the inclusion of other areas of natural knowledge. By the last meeting, even those dedicated to pure mathematics were among the members of this academy.
Several circumstances, independent of the form and constitution of the academy, contributed to give unwonted splendour to the last meeting, which took place at Berlin in the middle of September of the last year.
Several factors, unrelated to the structure and organization of the academy, added an unusual level of grandeur to the last meeting, which was held in Berlin in mid-September of last year.
The capital selected for its temporary residence is scarcely surpassed by any in Europe in the number and celebrity of its savans.
The chosen capital for its temporary residence is hardly exceeded by any in Europe when it comes to the number and fame of its scholars.
The taste for knowledge possessed by the reigning family, has made knowledge itself fashionable; and the severe sufferings of the Prussians previous to the war, by which themselves and Europe were freed, have impressed on them so strongly the lesson that "knowledge is power," that its effects are visible in every department of the government; and there is no country in Europe in which talents and genius so surely open for their possessors the road to wealth and distinction.
The ruling family's love for knowledge has made it trendy, and the intense struggles the Prussians faced before the war, which ultimately liberated them and Europe, have taught them the powerful lesson that "knowledge is power." This understanding is evident in every part of the government, and there’s no other country in Europe where skills and talent more reliably lead to wealth and recognition.
Another circumstance also contributed its portion to increase the numbers of the meeting of the past year. The office of president, which is annually changed, was assigned to M. Alexander de Humboldt. The universality of his acquirements, which have left no branch within the wide range of science indifferent or unexplored, has connected him by friendship with almost all the most celebrated philosophers of the age; whilst the polished amenity of his manners, and that intense desire of acquiring and of spreading knowledge, which so peculiarly characterizes his mind, renders him accessible to all strangers, and insures for them the assistance of his counsel in their scientific pursuits, and the advantage of being made known to all those who are interested or occupied in similar inquiries.
Another factor that contributed to the increased attendance at last year’s meeting was the appointment of M. Alexander de Humboldt as president, a role that changes annually. His vast range of knowledge encompasses every branch of science, making him well-connected with nearly all the most renowned philosophers of our time. His refined politeness and deep passion for both acquiring and sharing knowledge make him approachable to strangers. This ensures that they receive his guidance in their scientific endeavors and benefit from introductions to others who are engaged in similar research.
Professor Lichtenstein, (Director of the Museum of Zoology,) as secretary of the academy, was indefatigable in his attentions, and most ably seconded the wishes of its distinguished president.
Professor Lichtenstein, (Director of the Museum of Zoology,) as secretary of the academy, was tireless in his efforts and effectively supported the goals of its esteemed president.
These two gentlemen, assisted by several of the residents at Berlin, undertook the numerous preliminary arrangements necessary for the accommodation of the meeting.
These two gentlemen, along with several residents of Berlin, took on the many preliminary arrangements needed to host the meeting.
On the 18th of September, 1828, there were assembled at Berlin 377 members of the academy, whose names and residences (in Berlin) were printed in a small pamphlet, and to each name was attached a number, to indicate his seat in the great concert room, in which the morning meetings took place. Each member was also provided with an engraved card of the hall of meeting, on which the numbers of the seats were printed in black ink, and his own peculiar seat marked in red ink, so that every person immediately found his own place, and knew where to look for any friend whom he might wish to find.
On September 18, 1828, 377 members of the academy gathered in Berlin. Their names and addresses (in Berlin) were printed in a small pamphlet, with each name assigned a number to show their seat in the large concert room where the morning meetings were held. Each member also received an engraved card for the meeting hall, featuring the seat numbers in black ink, and their specific seat highlighted in red ink, allowing everyone to quickly find their place and locate any friends they might want to see.
At the hour appointed for the opening of the meeting, the members being assembled, and the galleries and orchestra being filled by an assemblage of a large part of the rank and beauty of the capital, and the side-boxes being occupied by several branches of the royal family, and by the foreign ambassadors, the session of the academy was opened by the eloquent address of the president.
At the scheduled time for the meeting to start, the members gathered together, and the galleries and orchestra were filled with a large crowd of the distinguished and attractive people from the capital. The side boxes were taken by various members of the royal family and foreign ambassadors. The session of the academy began with the president's impressive speech.
SPEECH made at the Opening of the Society of German Naturalists and Natural Philosophers at Berlin, the 18th of September, 1828.—By ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT.
SPEECH made at the Opening of the Society of German Naturalists and Natural Philosophers at Berlin, the 18th of September, 1828.—By ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT.
Since through your choice, which does me so much honour, I am permitted to open this meeting, the first duty which I have to discharge is one of gratitude. The distinction which has been conferred on him who has never yet been able to attend your excellent society, is not the reward of scientific efforts, or of feeble and persevering attempts to discover new phenomena, or to draw the light of knowledge from the unexplored depths of nature. A finer feeling, however, directed your attention to me. You have assured me, that while, during an absence of many years, and in a distant quarter of the globe, I was labouring in the same cause with yourselves, I was not a stranger in your thoughts. You have likewise greeted my return home, that, by the sacred tie of gratitude, you might bind me still longer and closer to our common country.
Since I have the honor of opening this meeting due to your choice, my first responsibility is to express my gratitude. The recognition given to someone who has never been able to join your wonderful society is not a result of scientific achievements or weak but persistent efforts to uncover new phenomena or bring the light of knowledge from the unexplored depths of nature. Rather, a deeper sentiment has guided your thoughts toward me. You have confirmed that even during my many years away, in a far corner of the world, while I was working on the same cause as you, I was not forgotten. You have also welcomed me back home, so that, through the sacred bond of gratitude, you may tie me even more closely to our shared homeland.
What, however, can the picture of this, our native land, present more agreeable to the mind, than the assembly which we receive to-day for the first time within our walls; from the banks of the Neckar, the birth-place of Kepler and of Schiller, to the remotest border of the Baltic plains; from hence to the mouths of the Rhine, where, under the beneficent influence of commerce, the treasuries of exotic nature have for centuries been collected and investigated, the friends of nature, inspired with the same zeal, and, urged by the same passion, flock together to this assembly. Everywhere, where the German language is used, and its peculiar structure affects the spirit and disposition of the people. From the Great European Alps, to the other side of the Weichsel, where, in the country of Copernicus, astronomy rose to renewed splendour; everywhere in the extensive dominions of the German nation we attempt to discover the secret operations of nature, whether in the heavens, or in the deepest problems of mechanics, or in the interior of the earth, or in the finely woven tissues of organic structure.
What, however, could the image of our homeland present that is more pleasing to the mind than the gathering we have today, welcoming you for the first time within our walls? From the banks of the Neckar, the birthplace of Kepler and Schiller, to the farthest edge of the Baltic plains; from here to the mouths of the Rhine, where, thanks to the beneficial influence of commerce, treasures of exotic nature have been collected and studied for centuries, nature lovers, united by the same enthusiasm and driven by the same passion, come together for this assembly. Everywhere the German language is spoken, its unique structure shaping the spirit and character of the people. From the majestic European Alps to the other side of the Vistula, where astronomy blossomed anew in Copernicus's homeland; throughout the vast territories of the German nation, we seek to uncover the hidden workings of nature, whether in the skies, in the complex problems of mechanics, beneath the earth's surface, or in the intricately woven fabrics of organic structure.
Protected by noble princes, this assembly has annually increased in interest and extent. Every distinction which difference of religion or form of government can occasion is here annulled. Germany manifests itself as it were in its intellectual unity; and since knowledge of truth and performance of duty are the highest object of morality, that feeling of unity weakens none of the bonds which the religion, constitution, and laws of our country, have rendered dear to each of us. Even this emulation in mental struggles has called forth (as the glorious history of our country tells us,) the fairest blossoms of humanity, science, and art.
Supported by noble leaders, this gathering has grown in interest and size each year. Any differences due to religion or government structure are disregarded here. Germany shows its intellectual unity; and since the pursuit of truth and the fulfillment of duty are the highest goals of morality, this sense of unity doesn’t diminish the bonds that our religion, constitution, and laws have made precious to each of us. Even this competition in intellectual challenges has brought forth (as our country’s glorious history shows us) the finest achievements in humanity, science, and art.
The assembly of German naturalists and natural philosophers since its last meeting, when it was so hospitably received at Munich, has, through the flattering interest of neighbouring states and academies, shone with peculiar lustre. Allied nations have renewed the ancient alliance between Germany and the ancient Scandinavian North.
The gathering of German naturalists and natural philosophers since their last meeting, when they were warmly welcomed in Munich, has, due to the encouraging interest from neighboring states and academies, stood out with a special brilliance. Allied nations have revived the old alliance between Germany and the historic Scandinavian North.
Such an interest deserves acknowledgment the more, because it unexpectedly increases the mass of facts and opinions which are here brought into one common and useful union. It also recalls lofty recollections into the mind of the naturalist. Scarcely half a century has elapsed since Linne appears, in the boldness of the undertakings which he has attempted and accomplished, as one of the greatest men of the last century. His glory, however bright, has not rendered Europe blind to the merits of Scheele and Bergman. The catalogue of these great names is not completed; but lest I shall offend noble modesty, I dare not speak of the light which is still flowing in richest profusion from the North, nor mention the discoveries in the chemical nature of substances, in the numerical relation of their elements, or the eddying streams of electro-magnetic powers. [The philosophers here referred to are Berzelius and Oersted.] May those excellent persons, who, deterred neither by perils of sea or land, have hastened to our meeting from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, England, and Poland, point our the way to other strangers in succeeding years, so that by turns every part of Germany may enjoy the effects of scientific communication with the different nations of Europe.
Such interest deserves recognition even more because it unexpectedly adds to the collection of facts and opinions brought together here in a common and useful way. It also brings to mind inspiring memories for the naturalist. Barely half a century has passed since Linne emerged, with the boldness of his endeavors making him one of the greatest figures of the last century. His brilliance, however shining, hasn't blinded Europe to the achievements of Scheele and Bergman. The list of these great names is still ongoing; however, out of respect for their modesty, I won't elaborate on the incredible discoveries that continue to pour in from the North, nor will I mention the advancements in understanding the chemical composition of substances, the numerical relationships of their elements, or the swirling streams of electromagnetic powers. [The philosophers referenced here are Berzelius and Oersted.] May those remarkable individuals, who, undeterred by the dangers of sea or land, have hurried to our meeting from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, England, and Poland, show the way to other newcomers in the years to come, so that every part of Germany can benefit from scientific exchanges with the various nations of Europe.
But although I must restrain the expression of my personal feelings in presence of this assembly, I must be permitted at least to name the patriarchs of our national glory, who are detained from us by a regard for those lives so dear to their country;—Goethe, whom the great creations of poetical fancy have not prevented from penetrating the ARCANA of nature, and who now in rural solitude mourns for his princely friend, as Germany for one of her greatest ornaments;—Olbers, who has discovered two bodies where he had already predicted they were to be found;—the greatest anatomists of our age—Soemmering, who, with equal zeal, has investigated the wonders of organic structure, and the spots and FACULAE of the sun, (condensations and openings of the photosphere;) Blumenbach, whose pupil I have the honour to be, who, by his works and his immortal eloquence, has inspired everywhere a love of comparative anatomy, physiology, and the general history of nature, and who has laboured diligently for half a century. How could I resist the temptation to adorn my discourse with names which posterity will repeat, as we are not favoured with their presence?
But even though I have to hold back my personal feelings in front of this gathering, I must at least mention the pillars of our national pride who are kept from us by their dedication to those lives so precious to their country;—Goethe, whose amazing poetic creations haven’t stopped him from exploring the secrets of nature, and who now, in rural solitude, mourns for his princely friend, just like Germany mourns for one of her greatest gems;—Olbers, who has discovered two celestial bodies where he had already predicted they would be found;—the greatest anatomists of our time—Soemmering, who, with equal passion, has studied the wonders of organic structure and the sun's spots and faculae (the bright patches and dark areas of the photosphere); Blumenbach, whose pupil I am honored to be, who, through his works and his timeless eloquence, has inspired a love for comparative anatomy, physiology, and the overall history of nature everywhere, and who has worked diligently for half a century. How could I resist the urge to enrich my speech with names that future generations will remember, since we are not fortunate enough to have them with us?
These observations on the literary wealth of our native country, and the progressive developement of our institution, lead us naturally to the obstructions which will arise from the increasing number of our fellow-labourers, The chief object of this assembly does not consist, as in other societies whose sphere is more limited, in the mutual interchange of treatises, or in innumerable memoirs, destined to be printed in some general collection. The principal object of this Society is, to bring those personally together who are engaged in the same field of science. It is the immediate, and therefore more obvious interchange of ideas, whether they present themselves as facts, opinions, or doubts. It is the foundation of friendly connexion which throws light on science, adds cheerfulness to life, and gives patience and amenity to the manners.
These insights about the literary richness of our country and the ongoing development of our institutions naturally lead us to consider the challenges posed by the growing number of our colleagues. Unlike other societies with a narrower focus, the main purpose of this assembly isn't just to share essays or countless papers meant for publication in a collection. The primary goal of this Society is to connect those who work in the same scientific field. It's about the direct and more immediate exchange of ideas, whether they come as facts, opinions, or uncertainties. It establishes friendly connections that illuminate science, bring joy to life, and foster patience and kindness in our interactions.
In the most flourishing period of ancient Greece, the distinction between words and writing first manifested itself most strongly amongst a race, which had raised itself to the most splendid intellectual superiority, and to whose latest descendants, as preserved from the shipwreck of nations, we still consecrate our most anxious wishes. It was not the difficulty of interchange of ideas alone, nor the want of German science, which has spread thought as on wings through the world, and insured it a long continuance, that then induced the friends of philosophy and natural history in Magna Graecia and Asia Minor to wander on long journeys. That ancient race knew the inspiring influence of conversation as it extemporaneously, freely, and prudently penetrates the tissue of scientific opinions and doubts. The discovery of the truth without difference of opinion is unattainable, because the truth, in its greatest extent, can never be recognized by all, and at the same time. Each step, which seems to bring the explorer of nature nearer to his object, only carries him to the threshold of new labyrinths. The mass of doubt does not diminish, but spreads like a moving cloud over other and new fields; and whoever has called that a golden period, when difference of opinions, or, as some are accustomed to express it, the disputes of the learned, will be finished, has as imperfect a conception of the wants of science, and of its continued advancement, as a person who expects that the same opinions in geognosy, chemistry, or physiology, will be maintained for several centuries.
In the heyday of ancient Greece, the difference between spoken words and written text became most apparent among a people who achieved remarkable intellectual superiority, and to whose descendants, preserved from the chaos of nations, we still direct our deepest hopes. It wasn't just the challenge of sharing ideas, nor the absence of German science that has rapidly spread thought across the globe and ensured its longevity, that led the lovers of philosophy and natural history in Magna Graecia and Asia Minor to embark on long journeys. That ancient people understood the motivating power of conversation as it spontaneously, openly, and wisely weaves through scientific ideas and uncertainties. Discovering the truth without differing opinions is impossible because the truth, in its fullest form, can never be recognized by everyone at the same time. Each step that seems to take the explorer of nature closer to their goal only leads them to new complexities. The cloud of doubt doesn't lessen but rather expands over new and different areas; and anyone who declares that a golden age will come when disagreements—or as some say, the debates of scholars—will end has a very limited understanding of science's needs and its ongoing progress, just like someone who thinks that the same beliefs in geology, chemistry, or physiology will remain unchanged for centuries.
The founders of this society, with a deep sense of the unity of nature, have combined in the completest manner, all the branches of physical knowledge, and the historical, geometrical, and experimental philosophy. The names of natural historian and natural philosopher are here, therefore, nearly synonymous, chained by a terrestrial link to the type of the lower animals. Man completes the scale of higher organization. In his physiological and pathological qualities, he scarcely presents to us a distinct class of beings. As to what has brought him to this exalted object of physical study, and has raised him to general scientific investigation, belongs principally to this society. Important as it is not to break that link which embraces equally the investigation of organic and inorganic nature, still the increasing ties and daily developement of this institution renders it necessary, besides the general meeting which is destined for these halls, to have specific meetings for single branches of science. For it is only in such contracted circles,—it is only among men whom reciprocity of studies has brought together, that verbal discussions can take place. Without this sort of communication, would the voluntary association of men in search of truth be deprived of an inspiring principle.
The founders of this society, with a strong awareness of the unity of nature, have fully integrated all branches of physical knowledge along with historical, geometrical, and experimental philosophy. The terms natural historian and natural philosopher are almost interchangeable here, connected by a earthly link to the lower animals. Humans complete the hierarchy of higher organization. In terms of their physiological and pathological traits, they hardly present a distinct category of beings. What has led them to this lofty goal of physical study and elevated them to a broader scientific investigation is mainly the focus of this society. While it’s crucial not to break the connection that unites the study of both organic and inorganic nature, the growing connections and ongoing development of this institution make it necessary, in addition to the general meetings held in these halls, to have specific meetings dedicated to individual branches of science. It is only within these smaller groups—only among individuals brought together through shared research—that productive discussions can happen. Without this type of interaction, the voluntary association of individuals seeking truth would lack an inspiring principle.
Among the preparations which are made in this city for the advancement of the society, attention has been principally paid to the possibility of such a subdivision into sections. The hope that these preparations will meet with your approbation, imposes upon me the duty of reminding you, that, although you had entrusted to two travellers, equally, the duty of making these arrangements, yet it is to one alone, my noble friend, M. Lichtenstein, that the merit of careful precaution and indefatigable activity is due. Out of respect to the scientific spirit which animates the Society of German Naturalists and Natural Philosophy, and in acknowledgment of the utility of their efforts, government have seconded all our wishes with the greatest cheerfulness.
Among the preparations made in this city for the betterment of society, the focus has primarily been on the potential for dividing into sections. The hope that these efforts will receive your approval compels me to remind you that, although you entrusted two travelers with the responsibility of organizing these plans, it is only one of them, my esteemed friend, M. Lichtenstein, who deserves credit for his careful planning and tireless efforts. Out of respect for the scientific spirit that drives the Society of German Naturalists and Natural Philosophy, and in recognition of the value of their work, the government has supported all our wishes with great enthusiasm.
In the vicinity of the place of meeting, which has in this manner been prepared for our general and special labours, are situated the museums dedicated to anatomy, zoology, oryctognosy, and geology. They exhibit to the naturalist a rich mine for observation and critical discussion. The greater number of these well-arranged collections have existed, like the University of Berlin, scarcely twenty years. The oldest of them, to which the Botanical Garden, (one of the richest in Europe) belongs, have during this period not only been increased, but entirely remodelled. The amusement and instruction derived from such institutions, call to our minds, with deep feelings of gratitude, that they are the work of that great monarch, who modestly and in simple grandeur, adorns every year this royal city with new treasures of nature and art; and what is of still greater value than the treasures themselves,—what inspires every Prussian with youthful strength, and with an enthusiastic love for the ancient reigning family,—that he graciously attaches to himself every species of talent, and extends with confidence his royal protection to the free cultivation of the understanding.
In the area around our meeting place, which has been set up for our general and specific work, there are museums dedicated to anatomy, zoology, paleontology, and geology. They provide a wealth of opportunities for observation and serious discussion for naturalists. Most of these well-organized collections have been around for just under twenty years, like the University of Berlin. The oldest one, which includes the Botanical Garden—one of the richest in Europe—has not only grown during this time but has also been completely revamped. The enjoyment and education we gain from these institutions remind us, with profound gratitude, that they are the creations of a great monarch, who, modestly and with simple majesty, enriches this royal city every year with new natural and artistic treasures. Even more valuable than these treasures themselves is what inspires every Prussian with youthful vigor and a passionate love for the royal family: his willingness to embrace every type of talent and his confident support for the free development of knowledge.
This was followed by a paper on magnetism, by Professor Oersted; and several other memoirs were then read.
This was followed by a paper on magnetism by Professor Oersted, and several other studies were then presented.
The arrival of so many persons of similar pursuit, (for 464 members were present,) rendered it convenient to have some ordinary, at which those who chose might dine, and introduce their friends or families. This had been foreseen, and his Majesty had condescended to allow the immense building used for the exercise of his troops, to be employed for this purpose. One-third of it was floored on the occasion, and tables were arranged, at which, on one occasion, 850 persons sat down to dinner. On the evening of the first day, M. de Humboldt gave a large SOIREE in the concert rooms attached to the theatre. About 1200 persons assembled on this occasion, and his Majesty the King of Prussia honoured with his presence the fete of his illustrious chamberlain. The nobility of the country, foreign princes, and foreign ambassadors, were present. It was gratifying to observe the princes of the blood mingling with the cultivators of science, and to see the heir-apparent to the throne, during the course of the evening, engaged in conversation with those most celebrated for their talents, of his own, or of other countries.
The arrival of so many people with similar interests (464 members were present) made it practical to set up a gathering where those who wanted could have dinner and bring their friends or families. This had been anticipated, and the King had graciously allowed the large building used for military exercises to be used for this purpose. One-third of it was prepared for the occasion, and tables were set up, where once, 850 people sat down to dinner. On the first evening, M. de Humboldt hosted a large soirée in the concert rooms connected to the theater. About 1,200 people gathered for this event, and the King of Prussia honored the festivities of his distinguished chamberlain with his presence. The nobility of the country, foreign princes, and ambassadors were all in attendance. It was pleasing to see the princes mingling with scientists and to notice the heir apparent to the throne engaged in conversation with some of the most celebrated talents from his own country and others throughout the evening.
Nor were the minor arrangements of the evening beneath the consideration of the President. The words of the music selected for the concert, were printed and distributed to the visitors. The names of the most illustrious philosophers which Germany had produced, were inscribed in letters of gold at the end of the great concert room.
Nor were the small details of the evening on the President’s mind. The lyrics of the music chosen for the concert were printed and handed out to the guests. The names of the most renowned philosophers that Germany had produced were written in gold letters at the end of the grand concert hall.
In the first rank amongst these stood a name which, England, too, enrolls amongst the brightest in her scientific annals; and proud, as well she may be, of having fostered and brought to maturity the genius of the first Herschel, she has reaped an ample reward in being able to claim as entirely her own, the inheritor of his talents and his name.
In the first rank among these was a name that England proudly includes in her brightest scientific history. She has every reason to be proud of having nurtured and developed the genius of the first Herschel, and she has received a great reward in being able to claim the person who entirely carries on his talents and name as her own.
The six succeeding days were occupied, in the morning, by a meeting of the academy, at which papers of general interest were read. In the afternoon, through the arrangement of M. de Humboldt and M. Lichtenstein, various rooms were appropriated for different sections of the academy. In one, the chemical philosophers attended to some chemical memoir, whilst the botanists assembled in another room, the physiologists in a third, and the natural philosophers in a fourth. Each attended to the reading of papers connected with their several sciences. Thus every member was at liberty to choose that section in which he felt most interest at the moment, and he had at all times power of access to the others. The evenings were generally spent at some of the SOIREES of the savans, resident at Berlin, whose hospitality and attentions to their learned brethren of other countries were unbounded. During the unoccupied hours of the morning, the collections of natural history, which are rapidly rising into importance, were open to examination; and the various professors and directors who assisted the stranger in his inquiries, left him equally gratified by the knowledge and urbanity of those who so kindly aided him.
The six days that followed were filled, in the mornings, with meetings of the academy where papers of general interest were shared. In the afternoons, thanks to M. de Humboldt and M. Lichtenstein, different rooms were set aside for various sections of the academy. In one room, the chemists focused on some chemical papers, while the botanists gathered in another, the physiologists in a third, and the natural philosophers in a fourth. Each group concentrated on reading papers relevant to their specific fields. This setup allowed every member to choose the section that intrigued them most at the time, with the option to access the others whenever they wished. Evenings were typically spent at some of the SOIREES hosted by the scholars living in Berlin, who were exceptionally welcoming and attentive to their fellow academics from other countries. During the free hours in the morning, the natural history collections, which were quickly becoming significant, were open for exploration. The various professors and directors there assisted visitors with their questions, leaving them satisfied with both the knowledge and friendliness of those who helped them.
A map of Europe was printed, on which those towns only appeared which had sent representatives to this scientific congress; and the numbers sent by different kingdoms appeared by the following table, which was attached to it;—
A map of Europe was printed, showing only the towns that had sent representatives to this scientific congress; and the numbers sent by different kingdoms were listed in the following table that was attached to it;—
Russia......... 1 Austria........ 0 England........ 1 Holland........ 2 Denmark........ 7 France ........ 1 Sardinia ....... 0 Prussia........ 95 Bavaria........ 12 Hanover........ 5 Saxony ........ 21 Wirtemburg ...... 2 Sweden ........ 13 Naples ........ 1 Poland ........ 3 German States..... 43 —- 206 Berlin ....... 172 —- 378
Russia......... 1 Austria........ 0 England........ 1 Holland........ 2 Denmark........ 7 France ........ 1 Sardinia ....... 0 Prussia........ 95 Bavaria........ 12 Hanover........ 5 Saxony ........ 21 Wirtemburg ...... 2 Sweden ........ 13 Naples ........ 1 Poland ........ 3 German States..... 43 —- 206 Berlin ....... 172 —- 378
The proportion in which the cultivators of different sciences appeared, was not easy to ascertain, because there were few amongst the more eminent who had not added to more than one branch of human knowledge. The following table, though not professing to be very accurate, will afford, perhaps, a tolerably fair view:—
The proportion of those studying different sciences was hard to determine, as few of the more prominent figures had not contributed to more than one area of knowledge. The following table, while not claiming to be very precise, will likely provide a reasonably good overview:—
Geometers............. 11 Astronomers........... 5 Natural Philosophers . 23 — 39 Mines............ 5 Mineralogy ...... 16 Geology.......... 9 — 30 Chemistry........... 18 Geography........... 8 Anatomy............. 12 Zoology............ 14 Natural History.... 8 Botany.............. 35 — 57 Physicians....... 175 Amateurs ....... 9 Various ......... 35 —-381
Geometers............. 11 Astronomers........... 5 Natural Philosophers . 23 — 39 Mines............ 5 Mineralogy ...... 16 Geology.......... 9 — 30 Chemistry........... 18 Geography........... 8 Anatomy............. 12 Zoology............ 14 Natural History.... 8 Botany.............. 35 — 57 Physicians....... 175 Amateurs ....... 9 Various ......... 35 —-381
A medal was struck in commemoration of this meeting, and it was proposed that it should form the first of a series, which should comprise all those persons most celebrated for their scientific discoveries in the past and present age.
A medal was created to commemorate this meeting, and it was suggested that it should be the first in a series that would include all the individuals most renowned for their scientific discoveries in both the past and present.
APPENDIX, No. 2.
An examination into some charges brought against one of the twenty-four candidates, mentioned in a note as having their names suspended in the meeting-room of the Royal Society, at one time, has caused a printed pamphlet to be circulated amongst the members of the Society. Of the charges themselves I shall offer no opinion, but entreat every member to judge for himself. I shall, however, make one extract, which tends to show how the ranks of the Society are recruited.
An investigation into some accusations made against one of the twenty-four candidates, noted as having their names put on hold in the meeting room of the Royal Society at one point, has led to a pamphlet being distributed among the Society's members. I won’t express my views on the accusations themselves, but I urge every member to form their own opinion. However, I will share one excerpt that illustrates how the Society's members are selected.
EXTRACT FROM A PRINTED LETTER FROM A. F. M. TO J. G. CHILDREN, ESQ. DATED, 22, UPPER BEDFORD-PLACE, MARCH 13, 1830.
EXTRACT FROM A PRINTED LETTER FROM A. F. M. TO J. G. CHILDREN, ESQ. DATED, 22, UPPER BEDFORD-PLACE, MARCH 13, 1830.
"When I wished you to Propose me at the Geological Society, you asked me why you should not propose me also at the Royal Society; and my answer was, that it was an honour to which I did not think I could aspire; that my talents were too insignificant to warrant such pretensions. Many days passed, and still you pressed me on the subject, because your partiality made you think me deserving of the honour; but I resisted, really through modesty, not that I did not covet the distinction, until something was said of my paper on the meteoric mass of iron of Brazil, which was published some years ago in the Transactions of the Royal Society; when you insisted on proposing me, and I assented gratefully, because I was and am desirous of being a Fellow of the Royal Society, if I can be supposed worthy of having my name so honourably enrolled."
"When I asked you to nominate me at the Geological Society, you wondered why I shouldn't be nominated at the Royal Society as well. I told you it was an honor I thought was beyond my reach; that my abilities were too modest to justify such aspirations. Days went by, and you kept encouraging me on the matter, because your belief in my worth made you think I deserved the honor. But I held back, genuinely out of modesty, not because I didn't want the recognition, until we discussed my paper on the meteoric iron mass from Brazil, which was published some years ago in the Transactions of the Royal Society. Then you insisted on nominating me, and I gratefully agreed, because I truly wish to be a Fellow of the Royal Society, if I can be considered worthy of having my name listed in such a prestigious way."
EXTRACT FROM A LETTER OF J. G. CHILDREN, ESQ. TO A. F. M. ESQ. DATED, BRITISH MUSEUM, MARCH 24, 1830.
EXTRACT FROM A LETTER OF J. G. CHILDREN, ESQ. TO A. F. M. ESQ. DATED, BRITISH MUSEUM, MARCH 24, 1830.
"All that you have said respecting your being a candidate for admission into the Royal Society, is correct to the letter. I pressed the subject upon you, and I would do it again to-morrow, were it necessary."
"Everything you've said about being a candidate for admission into the Royal Society is spot on. I brought it up with you before, and I would do it again tomorrow if needed."
Here, then, we find Mr. Children, who has been on the Council of the Royal Society, and who was, a few years since, one of its Secretaries, pressing one of his friends to become, and actually insisting on proposing him as, a Fellow of the Royal Society, He must have been well aware of the feelings which prevail amongst the Council as to the propriety of such a step, and by publishing the fact, seems quite satisfied that such a course is advantageous to the interests of the Society. That similar applications were not unfrequently made in private, is well known; but it remains for the Society to consider whether, now they are publicly and officially announced to them, it will sanction this mode of augmenting the already numerous list of its fellows.
Here, we see Mr. Children, who has been on the Council of the Royal Society and was, not long ago, one of its Secretaries, urging a friend to become a Fellow of the Royal Society and actually insisting on proposing him. He must have been fully aware of the feelings among the Council regarding the appropriateness of this action, and by making it public, he seems quite confident that this approach benefits the Society's interests. It's well known that similar requests were often made privately, but now it’s up to the Society to decide whether, since they are now publicly and officially presented, it will approve this way of increasing the already lengthy list of its fellows.
APPENDIX, No. 3,
LIST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY, WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE
PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS, OR HAVE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL.
PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS, OR HAVE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL.
N. B.—The Numbers are made up to the present year for the Papers, but only to 1827 for Members of the Council.
N. B.—The numbers are current as of this year for the papers, but only up to 1827 for the Council members.
No. of No. of Papers years on printed Council. in Phil. Trans.———— ———- 3 Aberdeen, Earl of. 3 3 Abernethy, John. 2 Allan, Thomas. 3 Allen, William. 1 Arden, Lord. 1 Atholl, Duke of. 7 2 Babbage, Charles, 1 Babington, William. 1 2 Baily,Francis. 9 Barlow, Peter. (C) 2 Barnard, Sir F. Augusta. 5 Barrow, John. 2 Bauer, Francis. 1 Bayley, John. 1 Beaufort, Francis. 2 Beaufoy, Henry. 5 Bell, Charles. 1 Bingley, Robert. 1 Blackburne, John. 3 Blake, William. 1 3 Blane, Sir Gilbert. 1 1 Blizard, Sir William. 1 1 Bostock, John. 12 10 Brande, Wm. Thos. (C) 16 Brewster, David. (C) 6 1 Brodie, B. Collins. (C) 1 Bromhead Sir E. F. 3 Brougham, Henry. 1 Browne, Henry. 1 Brown, Robert. 2 Brownlow, Earl. 1 Buckland, Rev. W. (C) 1 Burney, Rev. C. Parr. 1 Canterbury, Archbp. of. 1 Carew, Rt. Hon. R. P. 7 Carlisle, Sir Anthony. 2 Carlisle, Nicholas. 1 Carne, Joseph. 1 Carrington, Sir C. E. 2 Charleville, Earl of. 7 2 Chenevix, Richard. (C) 3 4 Children, John George. 10 Christie, Sam. Hunter. 1 Clerk, Sir George. 2 Clift, William. 9 Cloyne, Bishop of. (C) 2 Colby, Colonel Thomas. 1 Colebrooke, Henry T. 2 2 Cooper, Sir Astley P. (C) 1 Crichton, Sir Alex. 5 Croker, John Wilson. 1 Cullum, Sir T. Gery. 2 Dalton, John. 2 Darnley, Earl of 1 Darwin, Robert Waring. 1 Davis, John Francis. 2 Davy, Edmund. 13 Davy, John. 3 Dyllwin, Lewis Weston. 1 Dollond, George. 1 Dudley and Ward, Visc. 2 Earle, Henry. 1 Egremont, Earl of. 1 Fallows, Rev. Fearon. 8 Faraday, Michael. 1 Farnborough, Lord. 1 Fisher, Rev. George. 1 Fly, Rev. Henry. 2 Foster, Henry. 1 1 Frankland, Sir Thomas. 1 Gibbes, Sir Geo, Smith. 2 13 Gilbert, Davies. 2 Gillies, John. 5 Goldingham, John. 3 1 Gompertz, Benjamin. 1 Goodenough, George T. 2 Gordon, Sir James W. 3 Granville, Augustus B. 1 Greatorex, Thomas. 1 Greenough, Geo.Bellas. 1 Griffiths, John. 3 1 Groombridge, Stephen. 1 Halford, Sir Henry. 2 Hall, Basil. 1 Hamilton, Wm. Rich. 2 Hardwicke, Earl of. 2 Harvey, George. 1 Harwood, J. 16 10 Hatchett, Charles. (C) 1 Hawkins, John. 2 2 Heberden, William. 9 Hellins, Rev. John, (C) 1 Henley, Morton Lord. 10 Henry, William. (C) 12 6 Herschel, John F.W. (C) 1 Hoare, Henry Hugh 1 Hoare, Sir Richard Colt. 2 Hobhouse, Sir Benj. 1 Holland, Henry. 109 16 Home, Sir Everard. (C) 2 Hope, Thomas Charles. 1 Hosack, David. 1 1 Horsburgh, James. 1 Howard, Luke. 2 Hume, Sir Abraham. 7 2 Ivory, James.C. 1 Jekyll, Joseph. 4 1 Johnson, Jas. Rawlins. 13 7 Kater, Capt. Henry. (C) 2 Kidd, John. 24 1 Knight, Thomas A. (C) 1 1 Konig, Charles. 2 Lambert, Aylmer B. 1 Lansdowne, Marquis of. 1 1 Latham, John. 2 Lax, Rev. William. 1 Leach, William Elford. 1 Lowther, Viscount. 2 Macartney, James. 2 Macdonald, Lieut. Col. 1 Mac Grigor, Sir James. 2 Mac Leay, Alexander. 1 Mansfield, Earl of 4 11 Marsden, William. 1 Mathias, Thomas Jas. 3 Maton, William George. 1 Miller, Lieut. Col. G. 2 Montagu, Matthew. 7 4 Morgan, William. 1 Mount Edgecumbe, Earl of. 3 Murdoch, Thomas. 2 Nicholl, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 1 Norfolk, Duke of. 2 Ord, Craven. 1 Parry, Charles Henry. 1 Pepys, Sir Lucas. 6 2 Pepys, Wm. Hasledine. 7 Philip, A. P. Wilson. 1 Phillips, Richard. 2 Pitt, William Morton. 1 29 Planta, Joseph. 19 17 Pond, John. (C) 2 Powell, Rev. Baden. 2 Prinsep, James. 4 1 Prout William. 1 Rackett, Rev. Thomas. 1 Redesdale, Lord. 2 Reeves, John. 5 3 Rennell, James (C) 1 Rennie, George. 4 Ritchie, 1 Robertson, James. 1 Rogers, Samuel. 2 1 Roget, Peter Mark. 3 Rudge, Edward. 12 Sabine, Edward. (C) 2 Sabine, Joseph. 1 St. Aubyn, Sir John. 3 Scoresby, jun. William. 2 Scott, John Corse. 3 1 Seppings, Sir Robert. (C) 1 Sewell, Sir John. 3 Somerset, Duke of. 3 Sotheby, William. 3 2 South, James. (C) 5 Spencer, Earl. 3 Stanley, Sir John Thos. 3 Staunton, Sir Geo. Thos. 2 Stowell,Lord. 1 Sumner, George Holme. 1 Thomas, Honoratus L. 2 Thomson, Thomas. 1 Tiarks, Dr. John Lewis. 1 Troughton, Edward. (C) 2 Ure, Andrew. 2 Warburton, Henry. 1 Weaver, Thomas. 1 Whewell, William. 3 Whidbey, Joseph. 2 3 Wilkins, Charles. 3 Williams, John Lloyd. 1 1 Wilson, Sir Giffin. 2 Wilson, Gloucester. 1 Yorke, Rt. Hon. Chas.
No. of No. of Papers years on printed Council. in Phil. Trans.———— ———- 3 Aberdeen, Earl of. 3 3 Abernethy, John. 2 Allan, Thomas. 3 Allen, William. 1 Arden, Lord. 1 Atholl, Duke of. 7 2 Babbage, Charles, 1 Babington, William. 1 2 Baily, Francis. 9 Barlow, Peter. (C) 2 Barnard, Sir F. Augusta. 5 Barrow, John. 2 Bauer, Francis. 1 Bayley, John. 1 Beaufort, Francis. 2 Beaufoy, Henry. 5 Bell, Charles. 1 Bingley, Robert. 1 Blackburne, John. 3 Blake, William. 1 3 Blane, Sir Gilbert. 1 1 Blizard, Sir William. 1 1 Bostock, John. 12 10 Brande, Wm. Thos. (C) 16 Brewster, David. (C) 6 1 Brodie, B. Collins. (C) 1 Bromhead Sir E. F. 3 Brougham, Henry. 1 Browne, Henry. 1 Brown, Robert. 2 Brownlow, Earl. 1 Buckland, Rev. W. (C) 1 Burney, Rev. C. Parr. 1 Canterbury, Archbp. of. 1 Carew, Rt. Hon. R. P. 7 Carlisle, Sir Anthony. 2 Carlisle, Nicholas. 1 Carne, Joseph. 1 Carrington, Sir C. E. 2 Charleville, Earl of. 7 2 Chenevix, Richard. (C) 3 4 Children, John George. 10 Christie, Sam. Hunter. 1 Clerk, Sir George. 2 Clift, William. 9 Cloyne, Bishop of. (C) 2 Colby, Colonel Thomas. 1 Colebrooke, Henry T. 2 2 Cooper, Sir Astley P. (C) 1 Crichton, Sir Alex. 5 Croker, John Wilson. 1 Cullum, Sir T. Gery. 2 Dalton, John. 2 Darnley, Earl of 1 Darwin, Robert Waring. 1 Davis, John Francis. 2 Davy, Edmund. 13 Davy, John. 3 Dyllwin, Lewis Weston. 1 Dollond, George. 1 Dudley and Ward, Visc. 2 Earle, Henry. 1 Egremont, Earl of. 1 Fallows, Rev. Fearon. 8 Faraday, Michael. 1 Farnborough, Lord. 1 Fisher, Rev. George. 1 Fly, Rev. Henry. 2 Foster, Henry. 1 1 Frankland, Sir Thomas. 1 Gibbes, Sir Geo, Smith. 2 13 Gilbert, Davies. 2 Gillies, John. 5 Goldingham, John. 3 1 Gompertz, Benjamin. 1 Goodenough, George T. 2 Gordon, Sir James W. 3 Granville, Augustus B. 1 Greatorex, Thomas. 1 Greenough, Geo.Bellas. 1 Griffiths, John. 3 1 Groombridge, Stephen. 1 Halford, Sir Henry. 2 Hall, Basil. 1 Hamilton, Wm. Rich. 2 Hardwicke, Earl of. 2 Harvey, George. 1 Harwood, J. 16 10 Hatchett, Charles. (C) 1 Hawkins, John. 2 2 Heberden, William. 9 Hellins, Rev. John, (C) 1 Henley, Morton Lord. 10 Henry, William. (C) 12 6 Herschel, John F.W. (C) 1 Hoare, Henry Hugh 1 Hoare, Sir Richard Colt. 2 Hobhouse, Sir Benj. 1 Holland, Henry. 109 16 Home, Sir Everard. (C) 2 Hope, Thomas Charles. 1 Hosack, David. 1 1 Horsburgh, James. 1 Howard, Luke. 2 Hume, Sir Abraham. 7 2 Ivory, James. C. 1 Jekyll, Joseph. 4 1 Johnson, Jas. Rawlins. 13 7 Kater, Capt. Henry. (C) 2 Kidd, John. 24 1 Knight, Thomas A. (C) 1 1 Konig, Charles. 2 Lambert, Aylmer B. 1 Lansdowne, Marquis of. 1 1 Latham, John. 2 Lax, Rev. William. 1 Leach, William Elford. 1 Lowther, Viscount. 2 Macartney, James. 2 Macdonald, Lieut. Col. 1 Mac Grigor, Sir James. 2 Mac Leay, Alexander. 1 Mansfield, Earl of 4 11 Marsden, William. 1 Mathias, Thomas Jas. 3 Maton, William George. 1 Miller, Lieut. Col. G. 2 Montagu, Matthew. 7 4 Morgan, William. 1 Mount Edgecumbe, Earl of. 3 Murdoch, Thomas. 2 Nicholl, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 1 Norfolk, Duke of. 2 Ord, Craven. 1 Parry, Charles Henry. 1 Pepys, Sir Lucas. 6 2 Pepys, Wm. Hasledine. 7 Philip, A. P. Wilson. 1 Phillips, Richard. 2 Pitt, William Morton. 1 29 Planta, Joseph. 19 17 Pond, John. (C) 2 Powell, Rev. Baden. 2 Prinsep, James. 4 1 Prout, William. 1 Rackett, Rev. Thomas. 1 Redesdale, Lord. 2 Reeves, John. 5 3 Rennell, James (C) 1 Rennie, George. 4 Ritchie, 1 Robertson, James. 1 Rogers, Samuel. 2 1 Roget, Peter Mark. 3 Rudge, Edward. 12 Sabine, Edward. (C) 2 Sabine, Joseph. 1 St. Aubyn, Sir John. 3 Scoresby, jun. William. 2 Scott, John Corse. 3 1 Seppings, Sir Robert. (C) 1 Sewell, Sir John. 3 Somerset, Duke of. 3 Sotheby, William. 3 2 South, James. (C) 5 Spencer, Earl. 3 Stanley, Sir John Thos. 3 Staunton, Sir Geo. Thos. 2 Stowell, Lord. 1 Sumner, George Holme. 1 Thomas, Honoratus L. 2 Thomson, Thomas. 1 Tiarks, Dr. John Lewis. 1 Troughton, Edward. (C) 2 Ure, Andrew. 2 Warburton, Henry. 1 Weaver, Thomas. 1 Whewell, William. 3 Whidbey, Joseph. 2 3 Wilkins, Charles. 3 Williams, John Lloyd. 1 1 Wilson, Sir Giffin. 2 Wilson, Gloucester. 1 Yorke, Rt. Hon. Chas.
I had intended to have printed a list of those persons to whom the Royal Society had in past years awarded the Copley medals, and the reasons for which they were given; but having applied to the Council for permission to employ an amanuensis, to copy those awards, either from the minutes, or from the volumes of the Philosophical Transactions, I was surprised at receiving a refusal. I confess it appeared to me, that as a whole, those adjudications did us credit, although I doubted the propriety of many individual cases. As, however, the Council seem to have had a different opinion, and as I had made the application through courtesy, I shall decline printing a list, every individual portion of which has been already published in many ways, although the whole has never been printed in a collected form.
I planned to print a list of the people to whom the Royal Society had awarded the Copley medals over the years, along with the reasons for those awards. However, when I asked the Council for permission to hire someone to copy those awards from the minutes or the volumes of the Philosophical Transactions, I was surprised to be denied. I must admit that I thought, overall, those decisions reflected well on us, even though I questioned the appropriateness of some individual cases. Since the Council seems to have a different view, and since I made the request out of courtesy, I will not proceed with printing a list, even though every individual award has been published in various ways; the complete list has never been printed in one place.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!