The usefulness of natural philosophy: The Royal Society and the culture of practical utility in the later eighteenth century

British Journal for the History of Science

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 185-201

  Miller, David Philip ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042411240     PISSN: 00070874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007087499003581     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. M. d'Espinasse, 'The decline and fall of Restoration science', Past and Present (1958), 14, 71-89; W. E. Houghton, 'The History of Trades: its relation to seventeenth-century thought', Journal of the History of Ideas (1941), 2, 33-60; K. H. Ochs, 'The Royal Society of London's History of Trades programme: an early episode in applied science', Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1985), 39, 129-58; M. Hunter, Science and Society in Restoration England, Cambridge, 1981, 87-112; M. Hunter, 'Science, technology and patronage: Robert Hooke and the Cutlerian lectureship', in Establishing the New Science. The Experience of the Early Royal Society, (ed. M. Hunter), Woodbridge, 1989, 279-338.
2. M. d'Espinasse, 'The decline and fall of Restoration science', Past and Present (1958), 14, 71-89; W. E. Houghton, 'The History of Trades: its relation to seventeenth-century thought', Journal of the History of Ideas (1941), 2, 33-60; K. H. Ochs, 'The Royal Society of London's History of Trades programme: an early episode in applied science', Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1985), 39, 129-58; M. Hunter, Science and Society in Restoration England, Cambridge, 1981, 87-112; M. Hunter, 'Science, technology and patronage: Robert Hooke and the Cutlerian lectureship', in Establishing the New Science. The Experience of the Early Royal Society, (ed. M. Hunter), Woodbridge, 1989, 279-338.
3. M. d'Espinasse, 'The decline and fall of Restoration science', Past and Present (1958), 14, 71-89; W. E. Houghton, 'The History of Trades: its relation to seventeenth-century thought', Journal of the History of Ideas (1941), 2, 33-60; K. H. Ochs, 'The Royal Society of London's History of Trades programme: an early episode in applied science', Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1985), 39, 129-58; M. Hunter, Science and Society in Restoration England, Cambridge, 1981, 87-112; M. Hunter, 'Science, technology and patronage: Robert Hooke and the Cutlerian lectureship', in Establishing the New Science. The Experience of the Early Royal Society, (ed. M. Hunter), Woodbridge, 1989, 279-338.
4. M. d'Espinasse, 'The decline and fall of Restoration science', Past and Present (1958), 14, 71-89; W. E. Houghton, 'The History of Trades: its relation to seventeenth-century thought', Journal of the History of Ideas (1941), 2, 33-60; K. H. Ochs, 'The Royal Society of London's History of Trades programme: an early episode in applied science', Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1985), 39, 129-58; M. Hunter, Science and Society in Restoration England, Cambridge, 1981, 87-112; M. Hunter, 'Science, technology and patronage: Robert Hooke and the Cutlerian lectureship', in Establishing the New Science. The Experience of the Early Royal Society, (ed. M. Hunter), Woodbridge, 1989, 279-338.
5. M. d'Espinasse, 'The decline and fall of Restoration science', Past and Present (1958), 14, 71-89; W. E. Houghton, 'The History of Trades: its relation to seventeenth-century thought', Journal of the History of Ideas (1941), 2, 33-60; K. H. Ochs, 'The Royal Society of London's History of Trades programme: an early episode in applied science', Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1985), 39, 129-58; M. Hunter, Science and Society in Restoration England, Cambridge, 1981, 87-112; M. Hunter, 'Science, technology and patronage: Robert Hooke and the Cutlerian lectureship', in Establishing the New Science. The Experience of the Early Royal Society, (ed. M. Hunter), Woodbridge, 1989, 279-338.
6. L. Stewart, The Rise of Public Science. Rhetoric, Technology, and Natural Philosophy in Newtonian Britain, 1660-1750, Cambridge, 1992.
7. Stewart notes, for example the case of the Rev. John Davis, who claimed to have had constructed a device for raising water to an unprecedented extent. Davis offered to reveal all to the Society for a consideration. Stewart, op. cit. (2), 175.
8. Stewart, op. cit. (2), 175-6.
9. See Stewart, op. cit. (2), Chapter 6, especially 201.
10. D. G. C. Allan, William Shipley. Founder of the Royal Society of Arts. A Biography with Documents, London, 1968, 10.
11. Royal Society of London, Library and Archives, Council Minutes, 20 October 1738, III, 198. Peck's proposal is in Royal Society, Misc. MSS Volume 4, No. 57. See also Allan, op. cit. (6), 14-15. Allan notes that Peck, who had been the promoter of numerous schemes, was a 'projector of the classic sort'.
12. Royal Society of London, Library and Archives, Council Minutes, 20 October 1738, III, 198. Peck's proposal is in Royal Society, Misc. MSS Volume 4, No. 57. See also Allan, op. cit. (6), 14-15. Allan notes that Peck, who had been the promoter of numerous schemes, was a 'projector of the classic sort'.
13. Royal Society of London, Library and Archives, Council Minutes, 20 October 1738, III, 198. Peck's proposal is in Royal Society, Misc. MSS Volume 4, No. 57. See also Allan, op. cit. (6), 14-15. Allan notes that Peck, who had been the promoter of numerous schemes, was a 'projector of the classic sort'.
14. Allan, op. cit. (6), 15.
15. Allan op. cit. (6), 15-16. Allan notes that Shipley 'was himself never a patentee in spite of his long career as an inventor'.
16. On Banks and his agricultural circle and activities see John Gascoigne, Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment. Useful Knowledge and Polite Culture, Cambridge, 1994, Chapter 5. Practical chemistry was also practised much more outside the Royal Society than inside; see Jan Golinski, Science as Public Culture. Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain 1760-1820, Cambridge, 1992.
17. On Banks and his agricultural circle and activities see John Gascoigne, Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment. Useful Knowledge and Polite Culture, Cambridge, 1994, Chapter 5. Practical chemistry was also practised much more outside the Royal Society than inside; see Jan Golinski, Science as Public Culture. Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain 1760-1820, Cambridge, 1992.
18. One of them (Joseph Banks) was an honorary member. The other eleven were: Thomas Yeoman, John Smeaton, Robert Mylne, Matthew Boulton, James Watt, John Rennie, James Cockshutt, Major Henry Watson, Sir Thomas Hyde Page, Captain Joseph Huddart and Colonel William Mudge. See R. A. Buchanan, The Engineers. A History of the Engineering Profession in Britain 1750-1914, London, 1989, 39-40.
19. Royal Society, Archives, Recommendation for election for James Cockshutt (c. 1742-1819). A. W. Skempton and E. C. Wright, 'Early members of the Smeatonian Society of Civil Engineers', Transactions of the Newcomen Society (1971-72), 44, 23-47, 40.
20. See William Chapman, 'An account of the distilling water fresh from sea-water by wood-ashes', Philosophical Transactions (1758), 50, 635-9, and 'An account of the fossil bones of an allegator found on the sea-shore, near Whitby in Yorkshire', ibid, 688-91.
21. See William Chapman, 'An account of the distilling water fresh from sea-water by wood-ashes', Philosophical Transactions (1758), 50, 635-9, and 'An account of the fossil bones of an allegator found on the sea-shore, near Whitby in Yorkshire', ibid, 688-91.
22. My summary of Chapman's activities relies on Skempton and Wright, op. cit. (12), 39-40. See also A. W. Skempton, 'William Chapman (1749-1832), Civil Engineer', Transactions of the Newcomen Society (1973-74), 46, 45-82.
23. My summary of Chapman's activities relies on Skempton and Wright, op. cit. (12), 39-40. See also A. W. Skempton, 'William Chapman (1749-1832), Civil Engineer', Transactions of the Newcomen Society (1973-74), 46, 45-82.
24. See Banks to Boulton, 25 May 1795; Boulton to Banks, 9 June 1795; Banks to Boulton, 11 June 1795. In this last letter Banks notes that he sends the referee's criticisms in strict confidence, never showing such reports to authors as it always leads to controversy. While he is happy for Chapman to be told of the points of criticism, the critic's name must not be disclosed. These letters are summarised in The Banks letters. A Calendar of the Manuscript Correspondence (ed. W. R. Dawson), London, 1958, 127-8.
25. See Banks to Boulton, 25 May 1795; Boulton to Banks, 9 June 1795; Banks to Boulton, 11 June 1795. In this last letter Banks notes that he sends the referee's criticisms in strict confidence, never showing such reports to authors as it always leads to controversy. While he is happy for Chapman to be told of the points of criticism, the critic's name must not be disclosed. These letters are summarised in The Banks letters. A Calendar of the Manuscript Correspondence (ed. W. R. Dawson), London, 1958, 127-8.
26. Benjamin Outram, 'Particulars of the discovery of some very singular balls of stone, found in the works of the Huddersfield Canal', Philosophical Transactions (1796), 86, 350-2.
27. A. E. Musson and E. Robinson, Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution, Manchester, 1969, 73.
28. Terry S. Reynolds, 'Scientific influences on technology: the case of the overshot waterwheel, 1752-1754', Technology and Culture (1979), 20, 270-95, 281-2.
29. Reynolds, op. cit. (18), 284.
30. The discourse is recorded in Royal Society Journal Book (Copy) (hereafter RSJBC), XXIII, 592-617, the quotation at 616.
31. D. Smith, 'The professional correspondence of John Smeaton: an eighteenth-century consulting engineering practice', Transactions of the Newcomen Society (1974-75 and 1975-76), 47, 179-89, 181.
32. William M. Hunt, 'The role of Sir Joseph Banks, K.B., P.R.S., in the promotion and development of Lincolnshire canals and navigations', Ph.D. thesis, Open University, 1986, 332-41 and 350.
33. Notably R. E. Schofield, The Lunar Society of Birmingham. A Social History of Provincial Science and Industry in Eighteenth-Century England, Oxford, 1963; N. McKendrick, 'The role of science in the industrial revolution: a study of Josiah Wedgwood as a scientist and industrial chemist', in Changing Perspectives in the History of Science (ed. M. Teich and R. Young), Dordrecht, 1973, 274-319; M. McNeil, Under the Banner of Science: Erasmus Darwin and his Age, Manchester, 1987.
34. Notably R. E. Schofield, The Lunar Society of Birmingham. A Social History of Provincial Science and Industry in Eighteenth-Century England, Oxford, 1963; N. McKendrick, 'The role of science in the industrial revolution: a study of Josiah Wedgwood as a scientist and industrial chemist', in Changing Perspectives in the History of Science (ed. M. Teich and R. Young), Dordrecht, 1973, 274-319; M. McNeil, Under the Banner of Science: Erasmus Darwin and his Age, Manchester, 1987.
35. Notably R. E. Schofield, The Lunar Society of Birmingham. A Social History of Provincial Science and Industry in Eighteenth-Century England, Oxford, 1963; N. McKendrick, 'The role of science in the industrial revolution: a study of Josiah Wedgwood as a scientist and industrial chemist', in Changing Perspectives in the History of Science (ed. M. Teich and R. Young), Dordrecht, 1973, 274-319; M. McNeil, Under the Banner of Science: Erasmus Darwin and his Age, Manchester, 1987.
36. Christine MacLeod, Inventing the Industrial Revolution, Cambridge, 1988, 78.
37. See RSJBC XXXII, 14 April 1785, 36-7 (for the certificates of Watt, Withering and Galton) and XXXII, 21 April 1785, 43 (for the certificates of Keir and Galton).
38. See RSJBC XXXII, 14 April 1785, 36-7 (for the certificates of Watt, Withering and Galton) and XXXII, 21 April 1785, 43 (for the certificates of Keir and Galton).
39. See Schofield, op. cit. (23), 214-15, 223-8. It should also be noted that in a number of cases, notably Boulton and Watt themselves, these individuals would have had more than enough connections and credibility to have secured election even twenty years before at the time of Priestley's election in 1766.
40. See MacLeod, op. cit. (24), Chapter 4.
41. James Watt to Matthew Boulton, 30 July 1781, quoted in R. S. Fitton, The Arkwrights: Spinners of Fortune, Manchester, 1989, 138-9.
42. Watt to Boulton, 18 Tuesday 1783 (no month given), quoted in Schofield, op. cit. (23), 349-50.
43. Matthew Boulton to James Watt, 28 July 1781, reproduced in The Selected Papers of Boulton & Watt. Volume 1. The Engine Partnership 1775-1825 (ed. J. Tann), London, 1981, 79-82.
44. Boulton to Watt, 3 July 1778, quoted in Jennifer Tann, 'Marketing methods in the international steam engine market: the case of Boulton and Watt', Journal of Economic History (1978), 38, 363-91, 368.
45. See E. Robinson, 'Eighteenth-century commerce and fashion: Matthew Boulton's marketing techniques', Economic History Review (1963-64), 2nd ser., 16, 39-60.
46. Schofield, op. cit. (23), 350-1.
47. E. Robinson, 'James Watt and the law of patents', Technology and Culture (1972), 13, 115-39, 127-8. As Robinson notes, the involvement of the Royal Society in constituting such committees was also a feature of one version of Watt's 'Heads of a Bill to explain and amend the Laws relative to Letters Patent and grants of privilege for new Inventions', but was dropped in another version. James Watt's 'Thoughts upon Patents, or exclusive Privileges for new Inventions' is reproduced in James Watt and the Steam Revolution. A Documentary History (ed. E. Robinson and A. E. Musson), New York, 1969, 214-28.
48. E. Robinson, 'James Watt and the law of patents', Technology and Culture (1972), 13, 115-39, 127-8. As Robinson notes, the involvement of the Royal Society in constituting such committees was also a feature of one version of Watt's 'Heads of a Bill to explain and amend the Laws relative to Letters Patent and grants of privilege for new Inventions', but was dropped in another version. James Watt's 'Thoughts upon Patents, or exclusive Privileges for new Inventions' is reproduced in James Watt and the Steam Revolution. A Documentary History (ed. E. Robinson and A. E. Musson), New York, 1969, 214-28.
49. Robinson, op. cit. (34), 127. The Fellows of the Royal Society who testified for Boulton & Watt were: J. A. de Luc, William Herschel, Dr James Lind, Robert Mylne and Jesse Ramsden. Except for the instrument-maker Alexander Gumming, the rest of the witnesses (John Rennie, William Murdock, Richard Mitchell and John Southern) were all employees of Boulton & Watt at that time.
50. Quoted in Jennifer Tann, 'Mr. Hornblower and his crew: Watt engine pirates at the end of the 18th century,' Transactions of the Newcomen Society (1979-80), 51, 95-109, 100. An important corrective on the claims of Watt and Hornblower is provided by H. Torrens, 'Jonathan Hornblower (1753-1815) and the steam engine: a historiographic analysis', in Perceptions of Great Engineers: Fact and Fantasy (ed. D. Smith), London, 1994, 23-34. This paper gives a fascinating history of mythmaking about Watt.
51. Quoted in Jennifer Tann, 'Mr. Hornblower and his crew: Watt engine pirates at the end of the 18th century,' Transactions of the Newcomen Society (1979-80), 51, 95-109, 100. An important corrective on the claims of Watt and Hornblower is provided by H. Torrens, 'Jonathan Hornblower (1753-1815) and the steam engine: a historiographic analysis', in Perceptions of Great Engineers: Fact and Fantasy (ed. D. Smith), London, 1994, 23-34. This paper gives a fascinating history of mythmaking about Watt.
52. 'Professor Robison's Narrative of Mr. Watt's Invention of the improved Engine versus Hornblower and Maberley 1796', MS Doldowlod, reproduced in Robinson and Musson, op. cit. (34), 23-38.
53. 'Professor Robison's Narrative of Mr. Watt's Invention of the improved Engine versus Hornblower and Maberley 1796', MS Doldowlod, reproduced in Robinson and Musson, op. cit. (34), 23-38.
54. Robison, op. cit. (37), 25-26.
55. Robison, op. cit. (37), 37.
56. See Stewart, op. cit. (2), xix, 213-54.
57. Christine MacLeod argues similarly in her 'Concepts of invention and the patent controversy in Victorian Britain', in Technological Change. Methods and Themes in the History of Technology (ed. R. Fox), Amsterdam, 1996, 137-53, where she demonstrates the function of hagiography in defending the patent system by reinforcing the importance of individual inventive genius against those who claimed that abolition of the patent system would be no great loss since invention was primarily promoted by social and economic need.
58. My account relies on Schofield, op. cit. (23), 352-4.
59. A detailed account is given in H. B. Carter, His Majesty's Spanish Flock. Sir Joseph Banks and the Merinos of George III of England, Sydney, 1964, Chapter 2.
60. Quoted in Hunt, op. cit. (22), 29.
61. Wedgwood's Common Place Book, as quoted in Fitton, op. cit. (28), 142.
62. Fitton, op. cit. (28), 141-3.
63. Banks, quoted in Fitton, op. cit. (28), 143.
64. My account of the Lunatics is broadly congruent with that given by Maureen McNeil in her study of Erasmus Darwin. As McNeil notes there: 'What makes the Lunar Society so fascinating is that it used the cachet of science's Enlightenment roots to foster a reorganized, industrialized vision of British society'. McNeil, op. cit. (23), 25. However, unlike McNeil, I argue above that the elaboration of this vision and the ideological use of science as enlightenment can be located in a rather less grand pursuit of more restricted objectives than those adumbrated in the visionary schemes of the Lunatics.
65. Banks and Blagden were involved in excluding a number of medical figures from the Royal Society on the grounds that they were exploiting it for trade. On Banks's exclusion of the oculist Sir William Adams in 1814 on these grounds see H. C. Cameron, Sir Joseph Banks, K.B., P.R.S.: the Autocrat of the Philosophers, London, 1952, 135-6. Cameron also discusses the case of Dr Buswick Harwood, from the mid-1780s when Banks was very active in policing admissions (136-7). In relation to Harwood, Charles Blagden wrote to Banks in 1785, 'it is now evident that Harwood meant to bring the F.R.S. to market.' (Blagden to Banks, 30 October 1785, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Archives, Banks Letters, 1.213).
66. L. Trengrove, 'Chemistry at the Royal Society of London in the eighteenth century - I', Annals of Science (1965), 19, 183-237, 192.
67. See D. Macbride, 'An improved method of tanning leather', Philosophical Transactions (1778), 68, 111-30, 111-12. This statement is wrongly attributed to Pringle in Musson and Robinson, op. cit. (17), 31.
68. See D. Macbride, 'An improved method of tanning leather', Philosophical Transactions (1778), 68, 111-30, 111-12. This statement is wrongly attributed to Pringle in Musson and Robinson, op. cit. (17), 31.
69. It is instructive in this connection to examine the periodical publications with which Banks was associated as author or communicator of papers. The Philosophical Transactions stands out, of course, but they also included the Transactions of the Society of Arts, the Linnean Society and the Horticultural Society, Communications to the Board of Agriculture, Archaologia, Annals of Agriculture among others.
70. In the early nineteenth century some reformers tried, with only partial success, to make the Royal Society more business-like. See David Philip Miller, 'The revival of the physical sciences in Britain, 1815-1840', Osiris (1986), 2nd series, 2, 107-34, and William J. Ashworth, 'The calculating eye: Baily, Herschel, Babbage and the business of astronomy', BJHS (1994), 27, 409-41.
71. In the early nineteenth century some reformers tried, with only partial success, to make the Royal Society more business-like. See David Philip Miller, 'The revival of the physical sciences in Britain, 1815-1840', Osiris (1986), 2nd series, 2, 107-34, and William J. Ashworth, 'The calculating eye: Baily, Herschel, Babbage and the business of astronomy', BJHS (1994), 27, 409-41.