Reflections on the Decline of Science in England

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:—­

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:—­

“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.

“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.”

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.

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.

At that period there were 109 living members who had contributed papers to the Transactions, and they were thus arranged: 

37 Contributors of . . 1 paper
21 . . . . . . . . . . 2 papers
19 . . . . . . . . . . 3 ditto
5  . . . . . . . . . . 4 ditto
3  . . . . . . . . . . 5 ditto
3  . . . . . . . . . . 6 ditto
]2 . . . .  from 7 to 12 ditto
14 . . . of more than 12 papers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

There were other points suggested, but I shall subjoin the Report of the Committee:—­

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This Report was presented to the Council very ]ate in the session of 1827, and on the 25th of June there occurs the following entry on 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.”

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.

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?