Science in the pub: Artisan Botanists in early nineteenth-century Lancashire

History of Science

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 1994, Pages 269-315

  Secord, Anne ^a  

^a Cambridge Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BOTANY; HISTORY; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; HUMAN; TRADITIONAL MEDICINE; UNITED KINGDOM;

BOTANY; GREAT BRITAIN; HISTORY OF MEDICINE, 19TH CENT.; HUMAN; MEDICINE, TRADITIONAL;

EID: 0028502771     PISSN: 00732753     EISSN: 17538564     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/007327539403200302     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Banks G. Linnaeus Mrs, The Manchester man (3 vols, London, 1876), ii, 147–8.
2. For studies that challenge the view of artisans as passive recipients of scientific knowledge, see Cooter Roger, The cultural meaning of popular science: Phrenology and the organization of consent in nineteenth-century Britain (Cambridge, 1984); Johnson Richard, “‘Really useful knowledge’: Radical education and working-class culture, 1790–1848”, in Clarke J. Critcher C., and Johnson R. (eds), Working-class culture: Studies in history and theory (London, 1979), 75–102; Desmond Adrian, “Artisan resistance and evolution in Britain, 1819–1848”, Osiris, 2nd ser., iii (1987), 77–110; Barrow Logie, Independent spirits: Spiritualism and English plebeians, 1850–1910 (London, 1986); Morus Iwan, “Inventing invention: London exhibitions and the cultural production of electricity, 1830–1840” (unpublished seminar paper, University of Cambridge, May 1993).
3. For the recommendation in the 1830s of “biographies of famous men, ‘especially such as have risen by their own efforts from obscurity’”, as reading matter for the working class, see David Vincent, “Reading in the working-class home”, in Walton John K. and Walvin James (eds), Leisure in Britain 1780–1939 (Manchester, 1983), 208–26, p. 213. The SDUK published Craik's George The pursuit of knowledge under difficulties (2 vols, London, 1830–31), a series of biographies which commended knowledge as “one of the supports of morality” (i, 418). For later works stressing the moral benefits of natural history in particular, see Smiles Samuel, Life of a Scotch naturalist: Thomas Edward (London, 1876) and Robert Dick, baker of Thurso, geologist and botanist (London, 1878); Jolly William, The life of John Duncan, Scotch weaver and botanist (London, 1883). Henry Brougham's model of the diffusion of knowledge is clearly articulated in his “Address to … the Manchester Mechanics’ Institution … 1835”, quoted in Vincent David, “The decline of the oral tradition in popular culture”, in StorchRobert D.,(ed.), Popular culture and custom in nineteenth-century England (London, 1982), 20–47, p. 28.
4. Merrill Lynn L., The romance of natural history (Oxford, 1989), 43–47; Barber Lynn, The heyday of natural history, 1820–1870 (New York, 1980), 31–39.
5. For a useful brief account of the artisan naturalists of Lancashire, see Percy John, “Scientists in humble life: The artisan naturalists of South Lancashire”, Manchester region history review, v (1991), 3–10.
6. For a discussion of the issues involved in reconstructing the historical experiences of ordinary people, see Sharpe Jim, “History from below”, in BurkePeter,(ed.), New perspectives on historical writing (Cambridge, 1991), 24–41.
7. Bourdieu Pierre, Outline of a theory of practice, transl. by Nice Richard (Cambridge, 1977), 72–95, and Star Susan Leigh and Griesemer James R., “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39”, Social studies of science, xix (1989), 387–420.
8. Thompson E. P., The making of the English working class (London, 1980), 322. See also Harrison J. F. C., Learning and living 1790–1960: A study in the history of the English adult education movement (London, 1961), 48–50, and Layton David, Science for the people (London, 1973), 30–31.
9. Vincent David, Bread, knowledge and freedom: A study of nineteenth-century working class autobiography (London, 1981), 172–3.
10. Allen D. E., The naturalist in Britain: A social history (London, 1976), 160.
11. Cunningham Hugh, Leisure in the Industrial Revolution c. 1780–c.1880 (London, 1980), 61; Bailey Peter, Leisure and class in Victorian England: Rational recreation and the contest for control, 1830–1885 (London, 1978), 23–24.
12. Ophir Adi and Shapin Steven, “The place of knowledge: A methodological survey”, Science in context, iv (1991), 3–21, p. 5.
13. Vincent David, Literacy and popular culture, England 1750–1914 (Cambridge, 1989), 19.
14. Bamford Samuel, Walks in South Lancashire (1844; Brighton, 1972), 13–14; Gaskell Elizabeth, Mary Barton (1848; Harmondsworth, 1970), 75–76; Engels Friedrich, The condition of the working class in England (1845; Harmondsworth, 1987), 244–245. Engels associated scientific pursuits with Socialist institutes, but the natural history interests of Lancashire artisans predated the Owenite movement. Moreover, by the 1840s, the cost of joining the Manchester Hall of Science would have been prohibitive for most of the artisans I shal be discussing; see Yeo Eileen, “Culture and constraint in working-class movements, 1830–1855”, in Yeo Eileen and Yeo Stephen (eds), Popular culture and class conflict 1590–1914: Explorations in the history of labour and leisure (Brighton, 1981), 155–86, p. 167.
15. Grindon L. H., Manchester walks and wild flowers: An introduction to the botany and rural beauty of the district. With biographical notices of the Lancashire botanists, and an account of their societies; select lists of the birds and other living creatures of the neighbourhood, etc. (London, [1859]), 1, 4, 8.
16. This was a sensitive issue in the period in which Cash and Grindon published their books. Both the prohibition party, the United Kingdom Alliance, and the Central Association for Stopping the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on a Sunday were founded in Manchester in 1853 and 1866 respectively. The 1860s and 1870s saw these campaigns at their height. See Shiman L. L., Crusade against drink in Victorian England (Basingstoke, 1988), 75–90. Alcohol consumption also peaked in this period and although Lancashire was the home of teetotalism, in 1870 it was considered to be one of the areas where drunkenness was most prevalent. See Harrison Brian, Drink and the Victorians: The temperance question in England 1815–1872 (Pittsburgh, 1971), 363.
17. Faucher Leon, Manchester in 1844; its present condition and future prospects, transl. by a member of the Manchester Athenaeum (London, 1844), 52.
18. For the involvement of gentlemen in popular sports in pubs, see Malcolmson Robert W., Popular recreations in English society 1700–1850 (Cambridge, 1973), 49, 68.
19. MG, 30 November 1850, 7.
20. Taylor W. Cooke, Notes of a tour of the manufacturing districts of Lancashire, 2nd edn (London, 1842), 133–4, 164–5.
21. Heywood Thomas, “History and origin of the Sunday botanical meetings”, MG, 7 December 1850, 9, and 14 December 1850, supplement, 5. For John Horsefield's account, see MG, 21 December 1850, 5. The two accounts share portions of text.
22. Loudon J. C., An encyclopaedia of gardening (London, 1822), 821–2, 1204–5; Grindon L. H., Lancashire: Brief historical and descriptive notes (London, 1882), 41–42; Harrop Sylvia, “Community involvement in education in north-east Cheshire in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries”, Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, lxxx (1979), 1–21, p. 14; Duthie Ruth, Florists’ flowers and societies (Haverfordwest, 1988), 25–26.
23. The gooseberry growers’ register, or an account of the different gooseberry shows held in Lancashire and Cheshire, and other parts of the kingdom, for the year 1843 (Manchester, 1843), 92. Shows were free (except for nurserymen and gentlemen) but contributions of a set amount were usually required “for liquor” and sometimes for a meal. The Gooseberry growers’ register was first published in 1800, but there is evidence of widespread cultivation of gooseberries before this. A catalogue of gooseberries from 1777 lists 320 sorts from Lancashire, see Harvey John, Early gardening catalogues (London, 1972), 35, 82. See also Webber Ronald, The early horticulturists (Newton Abbot, 1968), 112.
24. [ Holland John ], Memoir of the history and cultivation of the gooseberry (London, 1834), 25–26.
25. Middleton James, The old road: A book of recollections. A historic account of the Oldham Road as it runs from Manchester, through Newton Heath and Failsworth, to the boundary of Hollinwood (Manchester, 1985), 23. “Culpeper's herbal”, originally published as The English physician: Or an astrologo-physical discourse of the vulgar herbs of this nation …, continued to be reissued in new editions throughout the nineteenth century (Poynter F. N. L., “Nicholas Culpeper and his books”, Journal of the history of medicine, xvii (1962), 152–67, pp. 161–2). Wesley's herbal recipes also went through many editions. In the 1840s, at least six new or reprinted editions of Wesley's work appeared (Holloway S. W. F., “The orthodox fringe: The origins of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain”, in Bynum W. F. and Porter Roy (eds), Medical fringe and medical orthodoxy 1750–1850 (London, 1987), 129–57, p. 155).
26. Buxton Richard, A botanical guide to the flowering plants, ferns, mosses, and algae, found indigenous within sixteen miles of Manchester … together with a sketch of the author's life (London, 1849), pp. iii–v.
27. Letter from George Caley to William Withering, 15 June 1798, reprinted in Withering William Jr, “Further notice of the late Mr. George Caley”, Magazine of natural history, iii (1830), 228–9. It is not clear to which of William Gibson's works on farriery Caley refers; both The farrier's new guide (London, 1720) and A new treatise on the diseases of horses (London, 1751) fit Caley's description.
28. MG, 24 April 1850, 6.
29. MG, 14 December 1850, supplement, 5.
30. MG, 24 April 1850, 6.
31. Letter from George Caley to Joseph Banks, 22 July 1798, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales: Banks papers, viii, p. 10, ref. A79–1: FM4/1749.
32. Letter from George Caley to Robert Brown, 13 December 1811, British Library: Add. MSS 32439, ff. 347–8.
33. Wearmouth R. F., Methodism and the working-class movements of England 1800–1850 (London, 1937), 216–18; Read Donald, Peterloo: The ‘massacre’ and its background (Manchester, 1958), 49.
34. Lyall Robert, ‘Acct, of a Botanical Society at Manchester, with the places of growth of some rather uncommon British Plants”, read at the Linnean Society of London, 5 February 1811, Linnean Society of London: SP 728.
35. MG, 21 December 1850, 5.
36. See Dobson C. R., Masters and journeymen: A prehistory of industrial relations 1717–1800 (London, 1980), 39, for the publican's role in keeping the box. At least two artisan botanists became publicans: Jethro Tinker in Stalybridge (Hill Samuel, Bygone Stalybridge (Stalybridge, 1907), 211) and William Worsley, president of the Middleton Botanical Society, who was the tenant of the Ring o’ Bells pub where the society met (Heywood advertiser, 7 October 1910, 7).
37. Hobson's abstinence (noted in William Wilson's “Greenfield memoranda”, on the back of a letter from Mr Christy, 14 June 1832, Warrington Library: William Wilson correspondence, MS 52) may have been a reaction to his mother's drunkenness (Moore John, “A memoir of Mr. Edward Hobson”, Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, 2nd ser., vi (1842), 297–324, p. 299).
38. MG, 5 January 1850, 5.
39. Letter from Astley R. to Axon W. E. A., 8 August 1881, Manchester Central Library: Archives Department, W. E. A. Axon's loose papers on “Artisan naturalists of Lancashire”, MS f 920.04272 A1.
40. MG, 24 April 1850, 6.
41. MG, 21 December 1850, 5.
42. MG, 14 December 1850, supplement, 5.
43. MG, 21 December 1850, 5. For evidence of the communal method in use in 1830, see Horsefield John, “Notice of the Prestwich Botanical Society, and the Bury Botanical and Entomological Society, preceded by some critical remarks on a passage in the account of the conductor's tour in France”, The gardener's magazine, vi (1830), 392–5, p. 394. Dr David Allen has told me that in the 1950s he was present at a meeting of the Digbeth Field Club, Birmingham, where the practice of the president naming piles of plants in front of a silent audience was still followed.
44. As Goody Jack, The interface between the written and the oral (Cambridge, 1987), 177–9, points out, learning by exact repetition in this way is rarely a feature of oral societies who have no texts to serve as a corrective. Rather, it is a procedure intrinsic to the literate tradition.
45. MG, 21 December 1850, 5; MG, 31 December 1851, 3. The Prestwich Botanical Society had also exempted Horsefield from paying into the book fund from the mid-1820s.
46. MG, 2 March 1850, 9, and MG, 24 April 1850, 6. Repudiating the preeminence of book learning, Horsefield stated that his father, Charles Horsefield, despite his illiteracy, “possessed a considerable stock of information”.
47. MG, 16 August 1855, 4.
48. The record of marriages at St Mary the Virgin, Leigh, show that Betty Entwistle and Alice Hurst made a mark on 18 May 1802 and 25 September 1826 respectively, whereas Martin clearly signed his name in the register (Manchester Central Library: Local History Library, Microfilm of parish records, MF418). There are dangers in using marriage registers as indicators of female literacy, but one reason, namely that a literate bride might have feigned illiteracy if her husband was illiterate, obviously does not hold in this case. See Schofield R. S., “The measurement of literacy in pre-industrial England”, in GoodyJack,(ed.), Literacy in traditional societies (Cambridge, 1968), 311–25, p. 322; Rogers Colin D., “Parish records in the Salford Hundred of Lancashire”, Manchester region history review, i (1987), 29–33, p. 31.
49. MG, 24 April 1850, 6. According to the record of marriages at St Mary's Church, Oldham, Horsefield married Ester Eccorsley on 20 December 1812, Manchester Central Library: Local History Library, Shaw MSS, MS.942.72.S154.
50. Eclectic journal and medical free press, ii (1868–9), 115, 121–2.
51. Letter from George Caley to Robert Brown, 27 July 1815, British Library: Add. MSS 32440, ff. 85–86.
52. This is reflected in Caley's correspondence and diary of this period. I am very grateful to Dr Joan Webb, who is preparing a biography of Caley, for sharing her views with me and also for telling me about Caley's diary.
53. Letter from George Caley to the Middleton Botanical Society, 12 October 1800, Museum Rochdale. This letter was reprinted in the Heywood advertiser, 15 April 1910, 3, and in The Lancashire naturalist, iii (1910), 259–60.
54. Latour Bruno, Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society (Milton Keynes, 1987); idem, “Drawing things together”, in Lynch Michael and Woolgar Steve (eds), Representation in scientific practice (London, 1990), 19–68.
55. For an account of Joseph Banks's botanical practice in Latourian terms, see Miller David Philip, “Joseph Banks, empire and ‘centers of calculation’ in late Hanoverian London”, in Miller David Philip and Reill Peter (eds), Visions of empire: Voyages, botany and representations of nature (Cambridge, in press). The inadequacy of Latour's model is particularly apparent in the discussion of Charles Lyell and amateur collectors in Latour, Science in action (ref. 103), 146–50.
56. MG, 21 December 1850, 5.
57. “Medical botany and systematic botany”, Coffin's botanical journal and medical reformer, i (1849), 333.
58. “Medical botany and systematic botany” (ref. 110).
59. Pickstone J. V. and Miley Ursula, “Medical botany around 1850: American medicine in industrial Britain”, in CooterRoger, (ed.), Studies in the history of alternative medicine (London, 1988), 140–154;
60. And quite possibly throughout this period. Although many provincial family herbals denounced astrological herbalism, the folklorists, Harland John and Wilkinson T. T. noted in their Lancashire folk-lore (Manchester, 1882), 10, that “more copies of Culpepper's Herbal and Sibley's Astrology are sold in Lancashire than all other works on the same subjects put together, and this principally on account of the planetary influence with which each disease and its antidote are connected”.
61. Stafleu Frans A., Linnaeus and the Linnaeans: The spreading of their ideas in systematic botany, 1735–1789 (Utrecht, 1971), 205.
62. Lee James, An introduction to botany. Containing an explanation of the theory of that science, and an interpretation of its technical terms. Extracted from the works of Dr. Linnaeus, and calculated to assist such as may be desirous of studying that author's method and improvements (London, 1760).
63. MG, 15 December 1849, 3.
64. Letter from John Martin to William Wilson, 18 July 1831, Manchester Central Library: Archives Department, copy in W. E. A. Axon's scrapbook on “Artisan naturalists of Lancashire”, MS f 920.04272 A1, pp. 133–41.
65. Letter from George Caley to Robert Brown, 27 July 1815 (ref. 97).
66. Rules and regulations to be observed by a society established at the house of Mr. Henry Rayner, the sign of the Woodman, George-Street, Hyde, on Monday, July 2nd, 1849, to be called Hyde Faithful Botanical Society (Hyde, [1849]), 10–11. I am grateful to William Shercliff for sending a copy of this pamphlet to me. The original is in the collections of the Tameside Local Studies Library, Stalybridge, ref. DD3/45.
67. Wilson William, diary entry for 12 January 1833, Warrington Library: Wilsoniana, MS 72. Smith Olivia, The politics of language 1791–1819 (Oxford, 1984), 13, points out that Samuel Johnson used the word ‘illiterate’ to signify ignorance of Latin and Greek.
68. Letters from William Wilson to Hooker W. J., 23 June 1831 and 19 July 1831, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew: Directors’ correspondence, vi, letters 344 and 346.
69. Letter from John Martin to William Wilson, 19 June 1831 (ref. 51). William Jackson Hooker was completing Smith's James Edward Sir English flora, which is why Martin knew that if his moss was rare, Wilson would tell Hooker.
70. MG, 7 December 1850, 9. As a stationer, Heywood would have been well aware of the power of the printed word. His complaint was not against “the great Ray”. Rather, his assumption was that Richard Richardson had not revealed his sources of information. There is, however, no evidence of artisan botanical societies in existence in this early period. Moreover, Pultenay Richard, Historical and biographical sketches of the progress of botany in England, from its origin to the introduction of the Linnaean system (2 vols, London, 1790), ii, 185–8, remarked that Richardson was noted as a patron of other botanists. For an excellent account of John Ray's collecting methods, see Jo Gladstone, ‘“New world of English words’: John Ray, FRS, the dialect protagonist, in the context of his times (1658–1691)”, in Burke Peter and Porter Roy (eds), Language, self, and society: A social history of language (Cambridge, 1991), 115–53.
71. Hooker W. J., The English flora of Sir James Edward Smith (London, 1833), v (“or vol. ii of Dr. Hooker's British flora“), Pt i, 12. Wilson had informed Hooker of Martin's wish for Evans to be named as the discoverer of the moss in his letter of 23 June 1831, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew: Directors’ correspondence, vi, letter 344.
72. Letter from W. J. Hooker to Wilson William, 16 July 1831, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew: “Letters from W. J. Hooker”, ff. 48–49. By 1830, Hooker's herbarium was considered one of the richest in Europe and in 1841 it was declared to be “the largest and most valuable collection in the world, in possession of a private individual” (Hooker J. D., A sketch of the life and labours of Sir William Jackson Hooker (Oxford, 1903), p. xxxii).
73. Letter from John Martin to William Wilson, 19 June 1831 (ref. 51).
74. Letter from William Wilson to Hooker W. J., 19 July 1831 (ref. 137).
75. Letter from John Martin to Wilson William, 18 July 1831 (ref. 121).
76. From the time he expressed his initial interest in Martin, Hooker cautioned Wilson “not to mention it to him: But rather let me know more particulars about him”. Letter of 16 July 1831 (ref. 135).
77. MG, 14 December 1850, supplement, 5.
78. Rule, “The property of skill” (ref. 145), 108.
79. As Horsefield admitted: “Of Latin, as a language, we know very little; but this we know, that a uniform nomenclature is far preferable to a mixed one…. A Latin name is, in our opinion, as easy to learn as a mere English one” (MG, 21 December 1850, 5). In this case, the Linnaean nomenclature functioned as a “boundary object”, carrying different meanings for artisans and educated botanists.
80. Letter from William Bentley to Hooker W. J., 20 February 1843, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew: Directors’ correspondence, xix, letter 86. For the élitism of the Linnean Society, see Gage A. T. and Steam W. T., A bicentenary history of the Linnean Society of London (London, 1988), 195. Mellor, president of the Royton Botanical Society, was not helped by the Linnean society. He did, however, receive aid from Manchester's scientific élite.
81. Rule, “The property of skill” (ref. 145), 108.
82. Horsefield, “Notice of the Prestwich Botanical Society” (ref. 78), 393. For Loudon's original remarks, see his “Notes and reflections made during a tour through parts of France and Germany, in the autumn of the year 1828”, The gardener's magazine, v (1829), 113–25, p. 123.
83. Vicinus Martha, “The study of Victorian popular culture”, Victorian studies, xviii (1975), 473–83, p. 474.
84. Ludlow J. M. and Jones Lloyd, Progress of the working class 1832–1867 (London, 1867), 19.
85. I shall be exploring other aspects of artisan natural history in forthcoming work.
86. Belchem John, Industrialization and the working class: The English experience, 1750–1900 (Aldershot, 1990), 57.
87. Maidment Brian, The poorhouse fugitives: Self-taught poets and poetry in Victorian Britain (Manchester, 1987), 14–17.
88. Horsefield's gravestone can be seen in the graveyard of St Mary the Virgin, Prestwich. Charles Swain's poem is more clearly seen on a 1918 photograph in Manchester Central Library: Reference Library Print Collection, Accession no. 13562.
89. This was especially true of science periodicals. See Sheets-Pyenson Susan, “Popular science periodicals in Paris and London: The emergence of a low scientific culture, 1820–1875”, Annals of science, xlii (1985), 549–72. My argument, however, cuts across Sheets-Pyenson's distinction between popular and low forms of science. For the participation of women, see D. E. Allen's work (ref. 102) and Shteir Ann B., “Linnaeus's daughters: Women and British botany”, in Harris B. J. and McNamara J. K. (eds), Women and the structure of society: Selected research papers from the fifth Berkshire conference on the history of women (Durham, N.C., 1984), 67–73, and “Botany in the breakfast room: Women and early nineteenth-century British plant study”, in Abir-Am P. G. and Outram Dorinda (eds), Uneasy careers and intimate lives: Women in science 1789–1979 (New Brunswick, 1987), 31–43.
90. Withering William, A botanical arrangement of all the vegetables naturally growing in Great Britain. With descriptions of the genera and species, according to the system of the celebrated Linnaeus. Being an attempt to render them familiar to those who are unacquainted with the learned languages (2 vols, Birmingham, 1776). Withering's book was also designed to be accessible to women. For the second edition see ref. 111.
91. Withering William, A systematic arrangement of British plants; with an easy introduction to the study of botany, 4th edn (4 vols, London, 1801), i, p. v. The names of Lancashire artisans also appear in Hull's John The British flora, or a Linnean arrangement of British plants (Manchester, 1799) and Dawson Turner and Lewis Dillwyn's Weston The botanist's guide through England and Wales (London, 1805).
92. Hooker W. J. and Taylor Thomas, Muscologia Britannica; containing the mosses of Great Britain and Ireland, systematically arranged and described (London, 1818), p. viii.
93. Pratt M. L., Imperial eyes: Travel writing and transculturation (London, 1992), 24–35; Morton A. G., History of botanical science (London, 1981), 275.
94. For some of the debates over botanical classification in Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century, see Allen, The botanists (ref. 102), 4–5; Mabberley D. J., Jupiter botanicus: Robert Brown of the British Museum (London, 1985), ch. 9; Green J. Reynolds, A history of botany in the United Kingdom from the earliest times to the end of the nineteenth century (London, 1914), 309–53.
95. Forbes Edward, An inaugural lecture on botany, considered as a science, and as a branch of medical education (London, 1843), 18–19. Forbes may have emphasized this point as his counterpart at University College London was John Lindley, one of the foremost proponents of natural systems of classification in botany. For Lindley's low opinion of the Linnaean system, see his An introductory lecture delivered in the University of London (London, 1829). In her forthcoming book on women and botanical culture in England from 1760 to 1860 (Johns Hopkins Press), Ann Shteir argues that one of the underlying aims of Lindley's anti-Linnaean stance was the “de-feminization” of botany.
96. Shapin Steven and Schaffer Simon, Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life (Princeton, 1985), 76–79. See also Shapin Steven, “The politics of observation: Cerebral anatomy and social interests in the Edinburgh phrenology disputes”, in WallisRoy,(ed.), On the margins of science: The social construction of rejected knowledge (Keele, 1979), 139–78.
97. Seed John, “Unitarianism, political economy and the antimonies of liberal culture in Manchester, 1830–50”, Social history, vii (1982), 1–25, p. 13.