CHAPTER XII.

INTRIGUES OF SCIENCE.

Several causes have justly lowered the position of science in England. The conduct of the Royal Society, and of men of science themselves, has equally contributed to this result. In a work on the Decline of Science[16] in 1830, I exposed the wretched mismanagement of the Royal Society, but not until in conjunction with Wollaston and other eminent men, I had found the inutility of every effort we made to improve it from within. Our reform bill stands recorded upon the minutes of the council, with the signatures of Wollaston, of Young, of Herschel, and of others whose names ought to have commanded respect: but it was defeated by an ingenious manœuvre.

The facts stated in the work alluded to, have never been disputed: one answer[17] only having, as far as I am aware, ever been attempted to any part of that volume. It appeared in the Annals of Philosophy, and was first mentioned to me by the late Francis Baily, F.R.S. Not having then seen it, I inquired whether he thought any reply necessary; his answer was, “_No: it is a full admission of the truth of your statement._”

§ In France the body who elect to offices in the Institute, are men of the highest intellectual attainments, whose suffrage it is an honour to receive, and who, during the existence of the monarchy, constituted one amongst the classes out of whom Peers of France were selected.

In England, out of about 800 Fellows of the Royal Society, the greater part of them know nothing of science, and of course their votes swamp those of the members most competent to pronounce opinions. The new mode of admitting fellows of the Royal Society, has had a good effect in improving the qualification of those admitted; but unfortunately, its operation is so slow that it will be many years before the Society is relieved from its incumbrances.

§ In the Academy of Sciences at Paris, the office of Secretary is an object of ambition even to men of the highest scientific attainments. It is usually held by persons of the greatest eminence, who are themselves at the same time carrying out original inquiries on subjects connected with their official duties. It is sufficient to cite the names of Delambre, of Fourier, of Cuvier, and of Arago.

In England the Secretary of the Royal Society of London occupies no such position. To some of our most eminent men, it may, when young, have been an object of ambition to hold it for a few years: but considering the very moderate pay of 100_l._ a-year, and how considerable a portion of time must be occupied by its duties if conscientiously fulfilled, it is rare that any man of original talent and independent feeling will join in the intrigues by which it is too frequently obtained.

In consequence of this state of things, the officers of the Royal Society are most frequently third or fourth-rate men, who not having sufficient occupation in their own professions, seek the office as a means of adding to their income. Or, they may be, in some cases, military men, who being paid by the public for other duties, are glad to get relieved from them without the loss of their emoluments. Persons holding offices in the Royal Society ought by their scientific eminence to confer dignity on their office: instead of acquiring a position in the world by its acceptance.

§ Again, the justice of the decisions of the Council in awarding their medals, has been publicly impeached. A very few years since, a general meeting of the Society was summoned on the requisition of several of its members, to inquire into the circumstances attending the award of certain Royal medals. It was admitted by the President that there had been considerable irregularities in some of the awards, and the Council only escaped a vote of censure in consequence of some little want of management in those who proposed it.

During this discussion one of the Fellows of the Royal Society got up, and remarked that although this case was very bad, it became trifling when compared with the circumstances attending the very first award of the Royal medals; for on that occasion the Council had wilfully violated the laws they had themselves established for their distribution, and that on his formally demonstrating the facts by reference to their own minutes, they with singular consistency refused to alter their unfair and unjust decision.

§ Difficulties of another kind arise respecting the Presidents of Societies. When the office of President is really or practically a permanent one, it is very difficult to carry on the business of the Society if the President is a person of exalted rank, or if he do not permanently reside in London.

In either case it usually happens that a secretary or treasurer, or other officer who is resident, insensibly becomes the means of communication with the President, who is naturally anxious to be acquainted with the feelings and wishes of the body over which he presides. The most honest officer can scarcely fail to have some little bias towards his own opinions: he will naturally mix more with those who approve of, than with those who differ from them, and will consequently, although perhaps unintentionally, communicate to the President a one-sided view of his own, as the dominant opinion of the Society.

The President, on the other hand, however really anxious he may be to introduce any amendments which he conceives advantageous for the Society, will naturally doubt their policy if informed that they are not in unison with the opinions of the body. He will communicate with his treasurer, secretary, or other officer, and almost always express his concurrence in the course proposed to him as being the most agreeable to the body at large.

The officer, receiving such a reply, will naturally mention at the Council the opinions of the President. He may even from good nature allow the Council to think that the President himself _originated_ the views he only _adopted_ because he believed them to be those of the Society.

Under such circumstances, it is difficult to oppose the expressed wishes of the absent President, and strangely enough, without any intentional deceit, President, Council, and Society are supposed to be unanimous in doing what each by itself thinks inexpedient.

§ It is true that by great kindness, good sense, and decision of character, the Prince or absent President may in some cases mitigate or prevent these evils. Such cases, however, are the exception, not the rule.

§ In a work containing views on the state of science in England, foreigners at least will expect that I should take some notice of my own calculating engines.

I had hoped that the history of the transactions between myself and the government respecting them, as related in the eleventh chapter of the History of the Royal Society by Mr. Weld, together with the two criticisms on that work in the Athenæum,[18] would have rendered any further explanation on my part unnecessary. Many persons, however, who admit these as fully explaining the part I was compelled to take, have at the same time expressed to me their doubts that some occult agency was at work to prejudice the government, and have asked who were its scientific advisers on such an important subject, during the long period in which the Difference Engine was in abeyance.

§ I have not been blind to the passions and interests of men. My own pursuits were of such a character that they interfered with those of none of my colleagues in the paths of science; and perhaps I may have trusted too much to this circumstance as exempting me from rivalry and jealousy.

As a reformer both in science and in politics, I knew that I should excite enmity in the minds of some honest men, and also in those of many other persons who dreaded inquiry into jobs not yet exposed. When I published the Decline of Science, in 1830, I certainly was not aware how many would include themselves in the latter class: but had I foreseen it, I should not have altered my course. To have met and to have defeated intrigue by watchfulness, might not have been a difficult task, but it would have required too great a sacrifice of time devoted to far higher objects. It was, moreover, an occupation for which I had little taste.

The time, however, has now arrived when, having given up all expectation of constructing the Analytical Engine from the drawings which I had caused to be made at very great expense, I think it right to state the result of my own observations, and especially to point out the facts that have come to light to confirm them. These, if they do not open the eyes of some, who, having been themselves deceived, have done me injustice, will at all events be of use for the future, and may save the young and inexperienced enthusiast of science from embarking in undertakings, honourable to the country, but ruinous to himself.

It has often been remarked, that an event in itself trivial sometimes leads to results with which it seems to have no conceivable connexion.

A beaver constructing his dwelling on the plateau of the Andes, may have turned the course of a river, which otherwise would shortly have joined the Pacific, into a valley through which, after lengthened wanderings, it now flows into the Atlantic Ocean.

So, by some strange combination of circumstances, a quarrel in which I had no part, and with whose origin I am unacquainted, seems to have had an unanticipated effect in impeding the construction of the Calculating Engines.

At the time of the foundation of the Astronomical Society, Sir James South, whose observatory and whose house were hospitably open to every cultivator of astronomy, was on terms of intimate friendship with almost all of those persons at that period most eminent in science. It is sufficient to mention the names of Wollaston and Davy, and to add that when the late Mr. Fallows was appointed Astronomer at the Cape, although previously a stranger, he became for several months the guest of Sir James South, who assisted him in acquiring that practical knowledge of instruments so necessary in his new avocation.[19]

§ In 1829 Sir James South was elected President of the Astronomical Society. It now appears, however, that previously to this appointment, _a party had been formed_ adverse to Sir J. South, which party, with the view of thwarting him, placed in the office of Secretary the Rev. Richard Sheepshanks, Fellow of Trinity Coll., Cambridge.[20]

In March, 1831, the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, met at the Admiralty, to consider the propriety of separating the duties of Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac from those of Astronomer Royal. The new arrangement was advocated, amongst others, by Sir J. South, and after some discussion, in which Capt. Beaufort and myself took part, it was ultimately carried. As we were leaving the meeting-room, Mr. Sheepshanks addressing me said: “I am determined to put down Sir James South, and if you and other respectable men will give him your support, I will put you down.” He at the same time told me he “intended to put Captain Beaufort down.”

During the course of 1832, it was found that the large equatorial mounting which had been contrived and executed by Troughton, for his friend Sir J. South’s twelve-inch object-glass, was an entire failure. This produced at the time a difference between two friends who esteemed each other highly, and who had been for years united by reciprocal acts of kindness in ties of “_very intimate_” friendship. Well acquainted myself with the character of the parties, and the circumstances of the case, I have not the slightest doubt that this unfortunate affair might easily, by the exertions of judicious friends, have terminated in the entire restoration of their former friendship. But this was a course which the Rev. R. Sheepshanks took effectual means to prevent. Having himself a “_personal_” quarrel with Sir James South, he “_offered_” his services to assist Messrs. Troughton and Simms. He “_offered to go_” himself to examine the instrument in Sir J. South’s observatory, and “_got his friend, Professor Airy, to go with him_” for the purpose of remedying the defects of the Equatorial.

Notwithstanding he was told by Mr. Simms that “_Sir J. South had declared that no person could have been pitched upon more obnoxious than yourself_,” he still persevered in obtruding himself into Sir J. South’s observatory as the agent of Troughton and Simms, until it was at last discovered that no after contrivances or expense could correct the errors of an instrument itself radically defective in principle.

It may readily be supposed that the continuance for months of these visits by Mr. Sheepshanks and Professor Airy, and the _irritating correspondence_ consequent upon them, which, though _nominally_ that of Troughton and Simms, was really “_directed by_” the Rev. R. Sheepshanks, destroyed all hope of a reconciliation. The parties then had recourse to the Court of King’s Bench, and it was curious to observe the vigour and energy with which the Rev. R. Sheepshanks applied himself to the exercise of his earlier studies.[21]

Having _volunteered_ his services to Messrs. Troughton and Simms—he “_wrote every letter_” for them during the subsequent law-suit—he acted for them in all the various characters of “_friend_” and “_adviser_”—of “_workman_” and “_agent_”—of “_attorney_” and “_counsel_;”[22]—he made an “_affidavit_” in the case—became a _witness_ himself—and undertook to _intimidate witnesses_ on the opposite side.

This latter performance is fortunately rare in England, and is so remarkable that it is necessary to give some account of the proceedings.

Not wishing to become involved in so disagreeable a case, I had refused to be a witness on the part of Sir J. South. Having, however, had some conversation on the subject with the late Lord Abinger (then Mr. Scarlett), he represented to me that my evidence was essential for the justice of the case, and upon that ground I reluctantly waived my objection to appear as a witness.

Having been examined in chief on the seventeenth day of the Arbitration, I remained in the room a few minutes after the Arbitrator had left it. The Rev. R. Sheepshanks, the only other person then present, addressing me said, “it was necessary to _discredit me_ because I had supported Sir J. South.” He added that “he would, at a future time, _attack me_ publicly on _another subject_, on account of the part I had taken in this matter.”

The remembrance of his former threats more than four years before at the Visitation at the Admiralty, added to the knowledge of the unremitting perseverance with which he had carried on his hostility to Sir J. South, satisfied me that it would be unsafe for the cause of truth, and possibly injurious to myself, if I were not to take measures for making known the nature of the weapons which the Rev. R. Sheepshanks was employing. As he had ventured, _after_ my having given evidence on oath, to threaten me with injury, with the hope of inducing me to modify that evidence on cross-examination, it appeared to me probable that he might have been tampering with the evidence of other witnesses in the same cause, who from their position or circumstances in life, might be compelled by the fear of his vengeance to shape their evidence so as to adapt it to his views.

The Rev. R. Sheepshanks discovered on reflection no impropriety in this course of intimidating witnesses, or of attacking those who could not be induced to take up his own private quarrels. He thus defended both.

“_I think it allowable to throw down the gauntlet in this manner._”

“_I have another ground of dispute with Captain Beaufort, and certainly intend to put him down._”

The gallant Admiral has survived many a dangerous day, and needs not the pen of a friend to protect his honest and well-earned fame.

The reader may perhaps be astonished at the statement made in the preceding pages, and feel disposed to consider it an _ex parte_ statement. It _is entirely_ an _ex parte_ statement: it is not necessary for its support that the reader should give credence even to that small part of it which appears to rest on my own evidence before the Arbitrator. _The whole of it is founded entirely on the testimony of the_ Rev. R. Sheepshanks _himself._ Every statement of those which are marked as quotations was either elicited from him on his cross-examination, or in the few instances in which it came from myself, its correctness was confirmed by his subsequent admission or re-statement. After my statement, and the Rev. R. Sheepshanks’ reply to it, the Arbitrator addressing him said—

“With respect to the matter of fact, you agree?”

Rev. R. Sheepshanks. “Yes, we agree as to the matter of fact.”

Professor Airy, who was afterwards appointed Astronomer Royal, had long before become as deeply engaged as his friend Mr. Sheepshanks in this most unfortunate quarrel. Years of aggravating delay and discussion resulted from the procrastinated reference, and at length one of the parties, Mr. Troughton, being dead, a decision not satisfactory to either was given in December 1838. But the inextinguishable desire “to put down Sir James South” survived the lawsuit which was only used as a means, and reappeared from time to time through the aid of the press, in forcible but somewhat unmeasured charges and recriminations between the Astronomer Royal, the Rev. R. Sheepshanks and others on the one side, and the astronomer of Campden Hill on the other.

It was a curious though a very painful study, to observe from time to time the various consequences of this feud.

Against those men of science who refused to forsake their ancient social relations with Sir James South, a system of disparagement was maintained which could not fail in the course of time to produce its effects. The avowed object of the party of which the Rev. R. Sheepshanks was the organ, was, in his own expressive words, to _discredit and put down every respectable person_ who supported Sir J. South.

It was melancholy to observe the gradual change in the expression of opinions by some of those qualified from their knowledge to guide the opinion of the public. Intimidated at first into silence; the uncontradicted assertions of those around them then got possession of their minds, until at length, without any new examination, they were flattered into an acquiescence in, if not indeed into the expression of, opinions entirely opposite to their former ones. These new views were doubtless conveyed by their flatterers to other ears, and thus the process of “_discrediting every respectable person_” opposed to them, was carried on under the authority of honourable names.

One after another almost all Sir James South’s old friends and acquaintance amongst _men of science only, however_, were alienated from him.

One man was alarmed by the fear that some inaccuracies in his astronomical publications should be severely criticised. Of another it was hinted that his mathematics were all wrong, and might be shown up.

Those who were timid feared the anger of the dominant party; those who were young might have their prospects blighted by even appearing in friendly relations with him who supported the unequal conflict; those who were old loved repose, and found it easiest to appear to side with the most numerous party; whilst those who saw through the whole of it, had better things wherewith to occupy their minds, than to attend to such affairs.

It is obvious to all who have observed society that such a system of “_discrediting_” carried on for a series of years, especially against one too much occupied or too proud to expose it, must end in establishing the set of opinions propagated by the party. Honest and even tolerably well-informed persons, will at length be misled, and be found to adopt them.

Opinions thus propagated must have had their influence widely spread, and unless those members of the various administrations with whom decisions relative to the Difference Engine rested, had been either highly skilled in mathematical science, or deeply read in human nature, it would have been almost impossible for them not to have been misled.

The former qualification is unnecessary; the latter is indispensable for a statesman. Of the _eight_ Prime-ministers with whom I have had communications relative to the Difference Engine, _one_ only personally examined it; doubtless not with the view of criticising the mechanism, but of reading the character of its author. Had my _official_ intercourse with that eminent man commenced earlier or continued later, the fate of the Calculating Engines would probably have been far different.

It is always difficult to trace intriguers up to a direct intercourse with government. In the present case, the vanity of some of them overcame their judgment, and they gave themselves out as advisers of the government on scientific subjects. To these I shall not at present refer, but confine myself to citing from official documents two cases of direct communication with the government by persons on whose judgment it appears to have relied.

The Whigs seemed to have had great confidence in the devotion of the Rev. R. Sheepshanks to their interests, since they took the extraordinary step of appointing him, although a Clergyman, one of the Boundary Commissioners under the Reform Bill, and he is, I believe, at present one of the Standard Measure Commission.

The Astronomer Royal, besides his situation at Greenwich, has been a member of several Commissions:—

The Tidal Harbour Commission. The Standard Measure Commission. The Harbour of Refuge Commission. The Railway Gauge Commission.

The following are extracts from his Annual Reports:—

“The Board of Admiralty, on my representation of the interruption to our business caused by the rating of so many Chronometers, and _by my own employment on public business unconnected with the Observatory_, immediately sanctioned the employment of an additional computer.”—_Astron. Royal, Rep. June 1841_, p. 7.

“On former occasions I have avowed without scruple that I do not consider the Royal Observatory as a mere isolated place for the conduct of Astronomical observations. I consider it a part, perhaps the most important part, of the scientific institutions of this country.”—P. 18.

“In concluding this long report, I have been uniformly supported by the _confidence of the government_.”—_Astron. Royal, Rep. June 1844_, p. 20.

The following extract of a letter from the Astronomer Royal to the late Sir Robert Peel, shows that his time was so occupied with the labours of the Railway Gauge Commission, that he was unable to draw up a memorial which he had himself proposed, even though it related to an astronomical subject—our colonial observatories.

* * * * “I have been so closely employed on the papers of the Railway Gauge Commission, that it has been impossible for me to draw up a memorial before the present time. * * * *

“April 16th, 1846. To the Right Hon. Sir Robert Peel, Bart., &c.”

“By the giving opinions on subjects of railways and _other mechanical matters referred to me by Government_, it has appeared that our energies are not wholly absorbed in the mere Astronomy of the Observatory.”—_Astron. Royal, Rep. June 1846_, p. 10.

(N.B. The italics do not occur in the original quotations.)

Now it is evident from these extracts from Reports of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors and from other facts, that he wishes himself to be considered the general referee of Government in all scientific questions.

The office of Astronomer Royal is one of great importance: it requires the undivided energy and talents of one person, and great as Mr. Airy’s abilities undoubtedly are, yet it is highly injudicious to divert them from their legitimate object,—the direction of the many arduous duties of the establishment over which he presides.

During many years I have frequently found, in my communications with members of Government on subjects connected with the Calculating Engines, difficulties on their part which remained entirely unexplained;—unseen obstacles which were never alluded to, but whose existence could not be doubted.

Although frequently warned by personal friends that it was unwise to neglect such machinations as those which I have, at length, been reluctantly compelled to expose; yet I was unwilling for a long time to believe that they were directed against myself.

I have now traced the connexion of the Rev. R. Sheepshanks, (who had avowed his determination “_to discredit me_,” and also to “_attack me on another subject at a future time_,”) through his friend the Astronomer Royal, with the Government. According to the Astronomer Royal’s own statement, he was their adviser on all scientific subjects. The Government had no other official adviser, and would scarcely have ventured to decide upon points connected with some of the most profound questions of mathematics, on their own responsibility.

There are, I am aware, other channels than those of official reports, by which the Government may have been influenced. I do not, therefore, expect to find any formal report denying the practical utility of the Calculating Engines, or the possibility of constructing them.

If there is any such, I claim as a matter of justice, that it be published. The Difference Engine and the Analytical Engine, are questions of pure science. If the Astronomer Royal has maintained that they are either useless or impracticable, then the grounds of that opinion _must_ have been stated, and, if published, the solidity of those grounds might be examined.

It now becomes necessary to take a very brief review of the conduct of Government with respect to the Difference Engine. Having contrived and executed a small model of a Difference Engine, I published a very short account of it in a letter to Sir Humphry Davy, in the year 1822. At the wish of the Government I undertook to construct for them an engine on a much larger scale, which should print its results. I continued to work at this Engine until 1834, refusing in the mean time other sources of profitable occupation, amongst which was an office of about 2,500_l._ a-year. Circumstances over which I had no control then caused the work to be suspended.

After eight years of repeated applications, and of the most harassing delay, at the end of 1842 the Government arrived at the resolution of giving up the completion of the Difference Engine, on the alleged ground of its expense.

In the mean time, new views had opened out to me the prospect of performing purely algebraic operations by means of mechanism. To arrive at so entirely unexpected a result I deemed worthy of any sacrifice, and accordingly spared no expense in procuring every subsidiary assistance which could enable me to attain it. Each successive difficulty was met by new contrivances, and at last I found that I had surmounted all the great difficulties of the question, and had made drawings of each distinct department of the Analytical Engine.

Having expended upwards of 20,000_l._ on the experiments and inquiries which had led me to these results, it would not have been prudent to attempt the _construction_ of such an engine. I thought, however, that there were several offices in the appointment of Government for which I was qualified, and to which, under the circumstances, I had some claim. I hoped if I had obtained one of these, by fulfilling its laborious duties for a few years, and by allowing the whole salary to accumulate, that I might then have been able to retire, and adding the money thus earned to my own private resources, that I might yet have enough of life and energy left to _execute_ the Analytical Engine, and thus complete one of the great objects of my ambition.

Having neither asked nor been offered any acknowledgment for all the sacrifices I had made, I felt that I had some just claims to one of these appointments. Every application was unsuccessful; whatever may have been the reasons, the conduct of Government has been exactly that which might have been expected had they been the _allies_ or the _dupes_ of the party which thought it necessary, from enmity to Sir James South, to “discredit” the author of the Analytical Engine.

One only of the many reports which were circulated, I thought it worth while to contradict, and that cost me more trouble, and wasted more of my time, than the refutation of the calumny was worth. It was boldly and perseveringly stated that I had received from the Government a large pecuniary reward for my services. The fact was, not merely that I never _did_ receive any such reward, but that I was almost constantly _advancing money_ to pay the engineer who was constructing the Engine for the Government, before I had myself received the amount of his bills from the Treasury.

On tracing up these rumours, they were usually found to arise from a species of dishonesty very difficult to convict. Thus one person circulated them widely; when asked for the grounds of the charge, he referred to certain Parliamentary Papers, and affected to believe that the sums paid _for the workmen_ were paid to the _inventor_: of course _he_ could no longer safely propagate the falsehood. Another then took up the tale, until he was met by the same question, when _he_ not only expressed his delight at being informed of the truth, but half convinced his indignant, though credulous auditor, that _he_ would assist in propagating the correction. Thus the assertion was continually repeated, until honourable and upright men, who had been deceived and discovered the deception, were so frequent in society, that it became dangerous to the character of the traducers to continue the circulation of the calumny.

Even since the first edition of this work has appeared, one of these calumnies has been again revived, in the statement that—

The reason why the Government gave up the construction of the original Difference Engine was, that Mr. Babbage refused to finish _it_, and wished them to take up the Difference Engine No. 2.

An attempt has been made to prove its truth by a quotation from this volume, in which the accuser, mistaking dates, assigns the drawings of the Difference Engine No. 2, which did not exist until 1847, as the causes of the discontinuance of No. 1, which was given up in 1843. This charge too is made in the face of a distinct denial by Mr. Babbage that the late Sir Robert Peel could have been influenced by any such _supposed_ wish, because he had in his possession a written _disavowal_ of it from Mr. B. himself; it is also made in the teeth of the very words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in his letter to Mr. B. regretting the necessity of giving it up, assigns as its cause “_the expense_.” Both these latter statements had been already published in 1848.

[16] Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on some of its Causes. 1830.

[17] A small pamphlet, the production of an amiable and excellent foreign philosopher, cannot be considered an answer: since it did not _contradict_ the facts, and only answered opinions on science, which were _not_ maintained in that book.

[18] Athenæum, 14 Oct. 1848, and 16 Dec. 1848.

[19] Sir James South, in conjunction with Sir John Herschel, completed the examination of 380 double and triple stars; a work for which the authors were awarded the great Astronomical prize of the Institute of France in 1825, and the Medal of the Astronomical Society of London in 1826.

[20] “When he [Sir J. S.] was elected President, I [Rev. R. S.] was elected Secretary to keep him in order.”

[21] At an earlier period of his life, his studies were directed towards the profession of the law.

[22] On the 19th July, 1836, at the 23d meeting under the Arbitrator, the Rev. R. Sheepshanks _cross-examined_ Mr. Savage the Architect.