Decline of Science in England - Charles Babbage (reading well .txt) 📗

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