Decline of Science in England - Charles Babbage (reading well .txt) 📗
- Author: Charles Babbage
- Performer: -
Book online «Decline of Science in England - Charles Babbage (reading well .txt) 📗». Author Charles Babbage
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
Comments (0)