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.
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.
“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.
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.
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:—
“—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.
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 letter. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*
