Decline of Science in England, Charles Babbage [best ereader for comics txt] 📗

>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 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.

 

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:

 

“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.

 

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.

 

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.”

 

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.

 

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.

 

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—

“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.]]

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

ADMIRALTY OFFICE, 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