justly the extent of his own powers, and conscious of having planned the
best combinations of which his mind is capable, should, having issued
his orders, calmly lie down on the eve of the approaching conflict, and
find in sleep that bodily restoration so indispensable to the full
exercise of his faculties in the mighty struggle about to ensue.
§ It is not uninteresting to observe in society the opinions of its
different classes respecting honours conferred on science. Military and
naval men, especially the most eminent, feel that genius is limited by
no profession, and themselves sympathizing with it, would gladly hail as
brothers in the same distinction, the philosopher and the poet. With
lawyers the case is reversed; genius dwells not in their courts:
industry and acuteness, monopolised by one absorbing professional
subject, exclude larger views; and ribbons not being amongst the
honoraria of their own profession, they reprobate their application to
science. To this there are, however, some noble exceptions. Amongst the
brightest ornaments of their own profession, men are to be found of
larger experience and more extended views than it often produces, who
are themselves qualified to have become discoverers in other sciences.
It is much to be regretted when such powers are applied to the mere
administration, instead of to the reformation, of the laws of their
country.
It is difficult to pronounce on the opinion of the ministers of our
Church as a body: one portion of them, by far the least informed,
protests against anything which can advance the honour and the interests
of science, because, in their limited and mistaken view, science is
adverse to religion. This is not the place to argue that great question.
It is sufficient to remark, that the best-informed and most enlightened
men of all creeds and pursuits, agree that truth can never damage truth,
and that every truth is allied indissolubly by chains more or less
circuitous with all other truths; whilst error, at every step we make in
its diffusion, becomes not only wider apart and more discordant from all
truths, but has also the additional chance of destruction from all rival
errors.
All established religions are, and must be in practice, political
engines—they have all a strong tendency to self-aggrandisement. Our own
is by no means exempt from this very natural infirmity.
The Church has been reproached with endeavouring to appropriate to
itself all those professorships in our Universities which are connected
with science: it is however certain that the larger portion of these
ill-remunerated offices have been filled by clergymen.
But a much graver charge attaches itself, if not to our clergy,
certainly to those who have the distribution of ecclesiastical
patronage. The richest Church in the world maintains that its funds are
quite insufficient for the purposes of religion, and that our working
clergy are ill-paid, and church accommodation insufficient. It calls
therefore upon the nation to endow it with larger funds, and yet, while
reluctant to sacrifice its own superfluities, it approves of its rich
sinecures being given to reward,—not the professional service of its
indefatigable parochial clergy, but those of its members who, having
devoted the greater part of their time to scientific researches, have
political or private interest enough to obtain such advancement.
But this mode of rewarding merit is neither creditable to the Church nor
advantageous to science. It tempts into the Church talents which some of
its distinguished members maintain to be naturally of a disqualifying,
if not of an antagonistic nature to the pursuits of religion; whilst, on
the other hand, it makes a most unjust and arbitrary distinction amongst
men of science themselves. It precludes those who cannot conscientiously
subscribe to Articles, at once conflicting and incomprehensible, from
the acquisition of that preferment and that position in society, which
thus in many cases, must be conferred on less scrupulous, and certainly
less distinguished inquirers into the works of nature.
As the honorary distinctions of orders of knighthood are not usually
bestowed on the clerical profession, its members generally profess to
entertain a great contempt for them, and pronounce them unfit for the
recognition of scientific merit.
The want of an order for the reward of civil service, having been
publicly commented upon, the question was at last forced upon the
attention of the government. A plan was drawn up for the reformation of
the Order of the Bath, and amongst the qualifications for its civil
grades the word science was for the first time introduced. The draft,
however, remained in the office, and the intention, if such it were, of
the Tories was not followed out.
On the advent of the Whigs to office, they seized upon so plausible an
opportunity for gaining popularity, whilst in reality they were serving
their own purposes. They proceeded to reconstruct the Order of the Bath,
making two divisions, the Military and the Civil, each of which
consisted of three classes.
On the 25th May, 1847, there appeared in the Gazette letters patent
under the great seal reconstituting the Order of the Bath. It was
announced that it should consist of two divisions, the Military and the
Civil; each division comprising three classes. This memorable document
was accompanied by certain regulations as to the number of each class of
the knights, followed by a new set of thirty-seven statutes, which it
declares “_shall henceforth be inviolably observed and kept within_ _the
said Order_.” But throughout these “_inviolable_” statutes, _scientific_
merit is not even mentioned as a qualification.
In the Civil branch of the Order the qualification for the first class
is prescribed by the eighth statute, and the tenth and twelfth statutes
distinctly refer to the same. The only qualification to be found in the
statutes applicable to either of the three civil classes, is when,
referring to the first class of the order, it is stated that—
“No persons shall be nominated thereto, or to either of the other two
civil divisions of this Order, who shall not _by their personal services
to our crown_, or _by the performance of public duties_, have merited
our royal favour.”
The first of these two qualifications includes the services in the
household of the Sovereign. Now although it may be agreeable, and may
even be thought desirable, that the head of the State should have means
of occasionally conferring distinction upon those of its subjects in
personal attendance upon it, who have undertaken and accomplished duties
beyond the immediate sphere of those for which they are paid in money
and by position, yet such claims are personal, not national claims. The
lord-in-waiting who has been the agreeable cicerone of some foreign
prince, may well be contented with the diamond ring, the costly
_tabatière_, or the flattering miniature, eclipsed only by the
brilliants surrounding it, which recall to his memory those hours of
idleness. If the prince be also a sovereign, he may add to these
gratifications, that of conferring a ribbon as a further return for the
_empressement_ with which the polished official has fulfilled the duties
of his office. Under such circumstances he will easily acquire
permission to wear that distinction in his own country: a permission
which would be refused by government to the author of the most splendid
scientific discovery which might shed a lustre over the age in which he
lives.
If such decorations are desirable for such services, let them be
confined to one or to all of the four other orders: but let one national
order at least be consecrated to real merit.
The only other class who are qualified by the Statutes for the honours
of the Bath, are “those who by the performance of public duties have
merited our favour.” This may indeed include every person who holds
office, but it is clear that the intention was to exclude everybody not
already receiving pay from the public.
It has been suggested that a different conclusion may be inferred from
the tenth paragraph of the prefatory matter to these statutes, in which
the following words occur:—
“To the due distribution of rewards amongst such of our faithful
subjects as are now or shall hereafter become eminently distinguished by
their loyalty and merit in the military or civil service of us, our
heirs, and successors, or _shall otherwise have merited our favour_.”
These latter words are certainly placed with some skill, to furnish a
loophole for escape, if public opinion should scout the limited range to
which the gratitude of the country would thus be confined by a party,
who differ only from the Tories in affecting an admiration for knowledge
which they do not feel. It must, however, be observed that this is a
mere statement, and that no such words occur in any _statute_. Besides,
those who maintain that the party in power when these statutes were
issued, intended that science or any other kind of unpaid civil merit,
should be susceptible of reward by the Order of the Bath, except it also
received pay from the country, must at the same time admit that during
the four years in which that party has distributed those honours,
England has not furnished one single instance of any other than a paid
official having been thought sufficiently distinguished to deserve the
honour.
The public recollect with sufficient disgust the professions of both
parties respecting science and literature, when the “pension list” was
revised in 1838. The claims of science and of literature were then with
affected generosity put forward by party, while the true object was to
save for their own advantage as large a pension list as they could. That
object once attained, a different view of those claims was taken, as we
see by its results, of which a searching analysis must at no distant day
be made.
The statements uttered in both Houses even during the last session, by
members of the present administration, have been so _extraordinary_,
that the public are compelled to look beyond the plain English meaning
of words, and to withhold their confidence until they have examined them
with the scrutiny of a casuist. It is not therefore surprising that
those who interpret statutes issued by such parties, should suspect the
existence of latent meanings.
Dismissing this point, however, the obvious interpretation of the
_statutes_ of the Bath is that no one is qualified to become a member
who has not been actually in the _service_ of the country, that is, who
has not already been paid for his labours.
The real intention of the concoctors of this scheme is too evident to be
concealed. They hoped, by bestowing the Order in few and rare cases on
some public servants who had made exertions beyond those of their class,
or sacrifices beyond necessity, to get credit for a generosity to which
they are strangers, whilst the real object was to secure for their own
party and supporters the largest possible share of the patronage.
The advantages they promised themselves from the present arrangement
were these:—
1st. By confining the Order of the Bath to officials, they limited the
number of competitors.
2d. They thus limited it to a class which contained already a large
proportion of their own friends and of the friends of their opponents.
3d. This plan enabled them, by putting into office their own connexions,
persons perhaps of very ordinary abilities, ultimately to push them into
the upper departments, and then on pretence of extraordinary service to
give them these honours.
4th. It enabled them also to make way for such connexions, by tempting
those above them, whether friends or opponents, to retire on the receipt
of one or other of the decorations of the Bath.
It is not to be denied that such rewards, fairly and judiciously given
for _great_ and _extraordinary_ services, might furnish fit motives for
extraordinary exertions. But if honours are to be given to every chief
of an office or head of a department, after more or less service in
proportion to the extent of his political interest, or to every minister
we send abroad, without regard to the success of his mission; and if
promotion in the Order is to depend on the time during which they have
been members of it, then the Bath will no longer be the reward of great
exertions or of brilliant talent, but of seniority and routine. Its
crimson ribbon will thus cease to distinguish civil merit, and become
the appropriate reward of _red-tape_ mediocrity.
It has been suggested that a new order of knighthood should be created,
for the purpose of rewarding scientific and literary merit. This plan is
entirely inadmissible: there are already five Orders of English Knights,
and the new Order would, as the most recent creation, be inferior in
rank to those now existing. It would, therefore, necessarily fix science
at a low point in the social scale.
If it were adopted, the numerous members of the Order of the Bath would
then look down upon and disparage the new Order; whilst, on the other
hand, if great discoveries in science were admitted as claims to its
honours, every member of the Order of the Bath would be interested in
defending his scientific brethren.
§ Much discussion has lately arisen respecting the payment of persons in
the employment of government. The economists have lately had a committee
of the House of Commons, in which they have in some instances damaged a
good cause by want of information. Their enemies will doubtless take
advantage of their ignorance, and seem not unwilling to have allowed
them to fall into these mistakes.
Those who contend that persons in office are under-paid, generally
maintain the doctrine that the holder of every office ought to receive
enough to support him, without any assistance from private fortune, in
that position of society which others in the same or similar offices
occupy.
This may be true for some of the higher stations, where great talents
and industry are essential; but these offices are the exceptions. To
maintain this doctrine is to assert, that the government must pay such a
salary to every employé as to be able to choose out of the whole number
of persons existing in the country, those most capable of filling that
office. Now in every country where capital has at all accumulated, there
will always be a sufficient number of persons, having some amount of
private fortune, who will be able and willing to fill all the ordinary
offices requiring no very special talent, for a much smaller sum than
their average expenditure would require. This more limited class is yet
sufficiently large for the government to select from. The competition of
capital with labour leads to this result.
The inducements to office under government are many, in addition to that
of its salary.
1st. The salary itself generally increases with the time of service.
2d. There is usually a retiring pension after a certain time of service,
or in case of accidental incapacity.
3d. There is the chance of promotion by political interest, or perchance
from skill and industry displayed in office.
4th. Some incapable head of a department may want a clever fellow to do
the work for which he is himself either too idle or too ignorant.
5th. There is the chance of being promoted, in order to make a vacancy
for some one below who has more influence.
6th. Then there are the great prizes,—few indeed, but very great when
occurring to those without the accidents of birth or interest. It is
possible that a clerk commencing at a salary of 80_l._ may ultimately
attain a seat in the cabinet, and then the peerage is open to him.
Admitting that there are several cases in which offices are considerably
underpaid, no answer has yet been given to the great argument arising
from supply and demand. It is an admitted fact, that for every office
under government, and for every grade in the army and navy, the number
of fitting candidates on each vacancy is very large, and the political
and family interest set at work to acquire it, is very great. This can
arise only from those offices being overpaid, not by the actual money
payment, but by combining that form of remuneration with position in
society, and other advantages to which they lead. If this be the case,
it is quite unnecessary to add any new inducement—such as the decoration
of the Bath—to those so circumstanced, unless it be indeed for very
extraordinary services.
Another indication of over-payment is to be found in the fact, that in
several professions such offices are matter of sale and purchase. They
are so avowedly both in the Church and in the Army.
The Whigs, afraid of intellect when combined with independence, have,
during their temporary and tolerated possession of office, confined the
new honours the country has to bestow, to those persons only who can be
influenced by the hope of promotion,—namely, to those already occupying
office. If a distinction is to be made amongst scientific men, let us
inquire whether those who fill the few public situations reserved for
science and paid by the country, ought to be eligible rather than those
whose equally successful contributions to science have been given
without any such advantage.
To enable any individual in the present day to enlarge the bounds of
science by original discovery, he must be content to sacrifice his whole
time and energies to that object. It is true that a considerable or even
a great knowledge of certain sciences, and possibly the power of making
some additions to them, may co-exist in a few instances with the
qualifications necessary for other employments. Such attainments are
highly creditable to those officials who so employ their leisure without
neglecting their official duties. But the more successful their
scientific discoveries, the greater must be the regret that the whole
power of such intelligence cannot be directed to one subject.
The various sciences have, it is true, such relations to each other,
that few can be cultivated to any great advantage without some
acquaintance with those sciences intimately connected with the favourite
pursuit. But if it is admitted that all inquiries into Nature and her
laws, are directly beneficial to the arts and commerce of the country,
it is, in a national point of view, eminently impolitic not to secure
for science that division of labour which so remarkably contributes to
the progress of all other subjects.
In addition to the unbounded occupation of time and thought, necessary
for the most effective employment of mind in the path of original
discovery, there are far other requisites. In some sciences, many
laborious transcriptions, in others still more laborious arithmetical
computations, are required; in others, abstruse and complicated although
known and regulated algebraical processes, must be gone through; in
others, drawings of the most complicated description must be executed
with almost overwhelming labour; in others, extensive experiments must
be made. Again, in some, where mechanical means must be contrived for
new and intellectual processes, it may be necessary even to invent and
make new tools for the purpose of bringing mechanical art itself up to
that degree of perfection which science demands. Although the contriving
and directing mind engaged in researches that require such aids, ought
undoubtedly to be united with a physical structure capable itself of
accomplishing each and all that such pursuits require, yet it is often
impossible that one human frame, however hardy, can sustain that labour:
time itself would be wanting, limited as it ever must be by the duration
of one human life.
Yet if the powers of that mind and that frame have been rightly
cultivated, and if the want of pecuniary means do not prevent their
exercise, it is quite possible, by proper aid, to concentrate in one
life the accumulated labour of many. Assistants of various degrees of
manual and mental skill may be employed, the economical organization of
their labour may be arranged. The most perfect effect of such an
establishment can only be attained when the presiding head is never
employed except on work for which money could procure no substitute, and
when each assistant is devoted to work of the highest kind which he can
successfully execute.
He who directs a scientific establishment for the Government, has all
these means provided for him, and is himself paid, though not always
liberally, for his own labours. _He_ is to be deemed _qualified_ for the
order of the Bath.
_He_ who sacrifices profession and that position to which its most
successful members usually attain, who spends a fortune in purchasing
that assistance which alone can render his power effective, and has
spent his life in cultivating highly that power for the advancement of
science, is deemed by his country, however great his success,
_disqualified_ for the Order of the Bath.
But it is not the sound and wholesome part of the country—it is not the
people of England who have arrived at this conclusion;—it is the
insolence of power,—it is the meanness of party,—it is the selfishness
of a clique.
The spirit which dictated a limitation equally opposed to every generous
feeling and to every statesman-like view, is consistent only with such
influences. When the ministry founded that new source of patronage, it
sought to acquire for itself a kind of popularity amongst its adherents.
Had it admitted intellectual merit, it would have obtained popularity
for the Crown from an enlightened nation. But the interests of party are
transitory,—those of the sovereign permanent: it is the interest of
party to be ever jealous of the personal popularity of the Crown.
In thus excluding from its honours one class of the intelligence of the
country, did it never occur to the short-sighted minister who planned
this arrangement, that some portion of the talents thus insulted, might
be driven to other inquiries which it would neither be easy to answer
nor even expedient to discuss?
A party which first refuses to science the means of acquiring
competence,—then excludes it from personal honours because it has
already been denied official position,—and which refuses it hereditary
rank, because it has not devoted itself to the acquisition of wealth,
will naturally cause questions to be raised as to the expediency of
different forms of government.
Of what class, it will naturally be asked, are the persons who have made
such laws?
Is the possession of hereditary rank at all necessary for the government
of the country?
At a distant period, and under a less complicated form of society, the
obvious disadvantages of appointing a legislator for life from the
accident of his birth, instead of the fitness of his talents, might have
been tolerated under the influence of force. It has since been
consecrated by established usage, and some of its evils mitigated by the
continual infusion of fresh blood into decaying stocks. But at the
present day, and amidst the multiplied relations of highly civilized
life, the question whether an upper chamber ought to be hereditary, or
appointed only for life, is one upon which nations as well as
philosophers, avowedly disagree.
In a very few years this great question will come to be more thoroughly
investigated, and those who now advocate the continuance of existing
institutions, will then have enough on their hands, without rashly
forcing, by injustice and insult, both talent and interest into the
ranks of their opponents.
At present it is sufficient to call attention to a statement often made,
that a chamber of Peers for life is incompatible with the existence of a
limited monarchy. This, like many other party dogmas, is a mere
gratuitous assertion, put forward to alarm the timid who have
experienced the advantages and are anxious for the continuance of that
form of government.
Various opinions have been advanced, and are current in society,
concerning the proper reward for those _whose science adds to the
boundaries of human knowledge_, and certain principles are held by the
occupiers of high political office, to which it may be well to advert.
Some of these persons have themselves acquired a smattering of one
science, political economy, and thus they reason:—They are informed that
it is a highly agreeable occupation to make discoveries, and although it
is known that it costs years of labour and study to acquire that power,
yet it is found that many persons are willing to indulge in this luxury,
and are generally disposed to publish the results of their discoveries.
Since, therefore, the public can get the benefit of the knowledge for
nothing, it would be very extravagant in the stewards of the public to
pay anything for it.
But it seems not to have been observed by these reasoners, that although
all discoveries are of value to the country, yet the time at which they
become practically useful occurs at very different, and often at distant
periods. It might also be suggested to them, that the discoverers of the
great principles of nature are very rarely the persons most capable of
applying them to practice. It is also clear that the acquisition of
money was not one of their objects in devoting themselves to such
unprofitable pursuits.
Under such circumstances, if the Government neither encourage science by
pecuniary nor by honorary reward, it is most probable that the
discoveries which are made, will occur in its more recondite recesses;
and as the only recompense obtained is the intellectual pleasure felt in
the pursuit, the greater part of the discoveries made will be of the
most abstract kind.
This tendency is still further increased by the fact that the far larger
number of those who cultivate science, are precluded from competition by
the expense necessary for the pursuit of many of its more practical
branches. The most highly intellectual and exciting,—all the departments
of the pure mathematics, for example, attract by the comparative economy
of the expenditure they demand.
And yet it may happen that immense sums might have been saved to the
nation, if the efforts of competent men had been applied to reform the
domestic economy or rather the domestic extravagance of many of our
public establishments, instead of expending them more agreeably though
less profitably, on the interpretation of an almost impossible cypher,
or the still more interesting discovery of relations amongst new orders
of imaginary quantities.
How often has the question been asked by persons seeking a profitable
investment of their capital, Will such a canal or railroad pay? This is
really an indefinite question, and admits of no one answer applicable to
all cases. It may, for example, in some particular instance, be
tolerably certain that at the end of the first four years, if the shares
are sold, and the account closed, there will be an entire loss of half
the principal, and all interest during that time. If the shares are not
sold until the end of eight years, they will produce a return of the
original capital, together with a profit of five per cent. If, however,
those shares were retained until the end of twelve years, they might,
when sold, produce a return of the original capital, together with a
profit of ten per cent. during the whole time.
Now, it is obvious that the answer to the question, “Will that canal or
railway pay?” must depend on the capital possessed by the purchaser and
on the period of time during which he can afford to abstain from its
use. The purchaser who could not abstain from the use of the interest of
his money for four years might be ruined, whilst he who could abstain
for twelve, might be greatly enriched. But a wealthy country is
generally better able to abstain than any commercial firm, and the
investment in discoveries becoming productive at a distant time, will be
of far more advantage to a nation than to individuals.
A certain number of persons maintain the opinion, that if men of science
became rich they would become idle, and that it is expedient to starve
them into discovery. Such persons may perhaps have been misled by
arguing from a supposed analogy with some other profession. But the
pleasure of science arises from the exertion, not from the inactivity of
the mind.
Others, and a very large number, hold that science is of so sublime a
nature, that it ought to be above all sublunary rewards;—they maintain
that it is beneath its dignity to wish for the wealth or the honours
awarded to success in other pursuits;—that ribbons and titles are quite
unworthy of the ambition of those who are searching into the truths of
nature.
When men state a principle, the best test of their sincerity is to be
found in their application of it. We may ourselves utterly repudiate a
principle, and yet be unable to show that it is not sincerely believed
by those who assert its authority. Man cannot dive into the mind of his
fellow-man, and witness the internal conviction he asserts; but he can
always examine the _fairness_ with which he applies that principle.
Now, if the lofty dignity of science is such that it is, from its very
nature, incompatible with wealth—if decorations and titles are entirely
unworthy of its legitimate ambition,—then, as a necessary consequence,
all pursuits of a higher order are still more absolutely excluded from
such vanities.
Is it consistent, therefore, with these opinions, to maintain that the
Ministers of a Christian Church, who interpret to us the _word_ of God,
should receive payment for their labour, rank for their exertions, and,
in some instances, even the very ribbons[27] so contemned: whilst those
who make us intimately acquainted with the _works_ of the Almighty, who
discover to us the laws which he has impressed on matter, and thus add
to the physical comfort, the intellectual pleasure, and the religious
feeling of mankind, should be compelled to exercise those rare
endowments, only by the sacrifice of fortune and the renunciation of all
those enjoyments, rewards, and honours, which the ministers even of the
purest creed receive without reproach?
But these are the opinions of the shallow and the thoughtless. The
pursuits of mind may modify, they can never obliterate the instincts,
the feelings, or the passions of man.
The consciousness of power, and the conviction of its successful
exertion, exist undiminished by the neglect or the ingratitude of the
country he inhabits. The certainty that a future age will repair the
injustice of the present, and the knowledge that the more distant the
day of reparation, the more he has outstripped the efforts of his
cotemporaries, may well sustain him against the sneers of the ignorant,
or the jealousy of rivals.
It is possible that in some rare instance such a man may feel personally
little ambition to attain what all others covet; still, however, he may
be bound by other ties which link him inseparably to the present.
He may look with fond and affectionate gratitude on her whose maternal
care watched over the dangers of his childhood; who trained his infant
mind, and with her own mild power, checking the rash vigour of his
youthful days, remained ever the faithful and respected counsellor of
his riper age. To gladden the declining years of her who with more than
prophetic inspiration, foresaw as woman only can, the distant fame of
her beloved offspring, he may well be forgiven the desire for some
outward mark of his country’s approbation.
If such a relative were wanting, there might yet survive another parent
whose less enthusiastic temperament had ever repressed those fond
anticipations of maternal affection, but who now in the ripeness of his
honoured age, might be compelled, with faltering accents, to admit that
the voice of the country confirmed the predictions of the mother.
Perhaps another and yet dearer friend might exist, the partner of his
daily cares, the witness of his unceasing toil; whose youthful mind,
cultivated by his skill, rewards with enduring affection those efforts
which called into existence her own latent and unsuspected powers. When
driven by exhausted means and injured health almost to despair of the
achievement of his life’s great object—when the brain itself reels
beneath the weight its own ambition has imposed, and the world’s neglect
aggravates the throbbings of an overtasked frame, an angel spirit sits
beside his couch ministering with gentlest skill to every wish, watching
with anxious thought till renovated nature shall admit of bolder
counsels, then points the way to hope, herself the guardian of his
deathless fame.
The fool may sneer, the worldly-wise may smile, the heartless laugh,—the
saint may moralize, the bigot preach: there dwells not within the deep
recesses of the human heart one sentiment more powerful, more exalted,
or more pure than these.
That man is not a statesman, who is unaware of the strength of these
powerful excitements to human action. Cold and incapable of such
sentiments himself,—no grasp of intellect enables him to infer their
existence, and thus to supply the deficiencies of his own, by an insight
into the hearts of others.
That man is a fool, not a statesman, who knowing their strength,
hesitates to avail himself of it for the benefit of his country and of
mankind.
But if there should arise a man conscious of their power, who yet should
dare to use it for the purposes of party, that man will combine in his
character the not incongruous mixture of statesman and of knave. A
statesman he may be, if he can penetrate into the character of men, and
can divine the action of human motives upon the masses, as well as on
the individuals of his race. With such knowledge, and with the talent
that its possession implies, he cannot be a fool; except indeed, in as
far as he is entitled to credit for that limited amount of folly which
is inseparably attached to him in his other character of knave. It is
_possible_ that he may be successful in his day; it is _certain_ that he
will ultimately be found out and disgraced in the eyes of posterity. His
name may remain a beacon for a time, until some greater or more recent
knave supersedes his example, and thus consigns him to oblivion.
It is not then the gaudy ribbon, the brilliant star, the titled name,
that have intrinsic charms for him who dedicates his genius to the
search for truth. How large a portion of his real greatness, even of his
most splendid discoveries, would he not willingly sacrifice to confer on
those he loves that exquisite happiness, which arises only when hidden
but long-cherished convictions, entertained diffidently from the
consciousness of partial affection, receive at length their final
confirmation by that decision which national acknowledgment can alone
command!
[27] The following dignitaries of the Church wear decorations of
Orders of Knighthood.
Archbishop of Armagh. Bishop of Oxford.
Archbishop of Dublin. Dean of Westminster.
Dean of St. Patrick.
The vestments of the Bishop of Oxford throw into the shade those even
of Roman Catholic prelates.
“The said prelate shall have and wear for his habit, a mantle of
crimson velvet, lined with white taffeta, richly guarded with the
Sovereign’s badges and cognizances, and upon his right shoulder an
escutcheon of the arms of the Order, within a garter, and the lace of
his mantle shall be of blue silk, interwoven with gold.”—_History of
British Orders of Knighthood, by Sir Harris Nicolas_, p. 430.
Appendix.
---------------
THE
ELEVENTH CHAPTER
OF THE
HISTORY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
BY
C. R. WELD, ESQ.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
---------------
REPRINTED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PROPRIETOR.
EXTRACT FROM WELD’S
HISTORY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
---------------
CHAPTER XI.
The Society receive a Letter from the Treasury respecting Mr.
Babbage’s Calculating Machine—Letter from Mr. Babbage to Sir H.
Davy—A Committee appointed to consider Mr. Babbage’s Plan—They
Report in favour of it—Mr. Babbage has an interview with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer—Government advance
1,500_l_.—Difference-Engine commenced—Mr. Babbage gives all his
labour gratuitously—Advice of the Society again requested—Mr.
Babbage’s Statement—Committee appointed to inspect the Engine—Their
Report—Heavy Expenses not met by the Treasury—Meeting of Mr.
Babbage’s personal friends—Their Report—Duke of Wellington inspects
the Works—His Grace recommends the Treasury to make further
Payments—Letter from Mr. Babbage to the Treasury—Communication from
the Treasury to the Council—Referred to a Committee—Report of
Committee—They recommend the Works to be removed to the vicinity of
Mr. Babbage’s Residence—Government act on the
Recommendation—Fire-proof Buildings erected—Misunderstanding with
Mr. Clement—Works stopped—Mr. Babbage discovers new principles
which supersede those connected with the Difference-Engine—He
requests an interview with Lord Melbourne—Letter to M. Quetelet
explaining the principles of Analytical-Engine—Mr. Babbage visits
Turin—M. Menabrea’s account of the Engine—Translated with Notes by
Lady Lovelace—Mr. Babbage applies to Government for their
Determination—Letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Mr.
Babbage’s Answer—Government resolve not to proceed with the
Engine—Mr. Babbage has an interview with Sir R.
Peel—Difference-Engine placed in the Museum of King’s
College—Present State of the Analytical-Engine.
---------------
1820-25.
On the 1st April, 1823, a letter was received from the Treasury,
requesting the Council to take into consideration a plan which had been
submitted to Government by Mr. Babbage, for “applying machinery to the
purposes of calculating and printing mathematical tables;” and the Lords
of the Treasury further desired “to be favoured with the opinion of the
Royal Society on the merits and utility of this invention[28].”
This is the earliest allusion to the celebrated Calculating Engine of
Mr. Babbage, in the records of the Society[29]. But the invention had
been brought before them in the previous year by a letter from Mr.
Babbage to Sir H. Davy, dated July 3, 1822, in which he gives some
account of a small model of his engine for calculating differences,
which “produced figures at the rate of 44 a minute, and performed with
rapidity and precision all those calculations for which it was
designed[30].” He then proceeds to enumerate various tables which the
machine was adapted to calculate, and concludes: “I am aware that these
statements may perhaps be viewed as something more than Utopian, and
that the philosophers of Laputa may be called up to dispute my claim to
originality. Should such be the case, I hope the resemblance will be
found to adhere to the nature of the subject, rather than to the manner
in which it has been treated. Conscious from my own experience of the
difficulty of convincing those who are but little skilled in
mathematical knowledge, of the possibility of making a machine which
shall perform calculations, I was naturally anxious, in introducing it
to the public, to appeal to the testimony of one so distinguished in the
records of British science[31]. Induced by a conviction of the great
utility of such engines, to withdraw for some time my attention from a
subject on which it has been engaged during several years, and which
possesses charms of a higher order, I have now arrived at a point where
success is no longer doubtful. It must, however, be attained at a very
considerable expense, which would not probably be replaced by the works
it might produce for a long period of time, and which is an undertaking
I should feel unwilling to commence, as altogether foreign to my habits
and pursuits.”
The Council appointed a Committee to take Mr. Babbage’s plan into
consideration, which was composed of the following gentlemen: Sir H.
Davy, Mr. Brande, Mr. Combe, Mr. Baily, Mr. (now Sir Mark Isambard)
Brunel, Major (now General) Colby, Mr. Davies Gilbert, Mr. (now Sir
John) Herschel, Captain Kater, Mr. Pond (Astronomer-Royal), Dr.
Wollaston, and Dr. Young. On the 1st May, 1823, the Committee reported:
“That it appears that Mr. Babbage has displayed great talents and
ingenuity in the construction of his machine for computation, which the
Committee think fully adequate to the attainment of the objects proposed
by the inventor, and that they consider Mr. Babbage as highly deserving
of public encouragement in the prosecution of his arduous
undertaking[32].”
This Report was transmitted to the Lords of the Treasury, by whom it
was, with Mr. Babbage’s letter to Sir H. Davy, printed and laid before
Parliament[33].
In July, 1823, Mr. Babbage had an interview with the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Mr. Robinson (now Earl of Ripon), to ascertain if it were the
wish of Government that he should construct a large engine of the kind,
which would also print the results it calculated. Unfortunately, no
Minute of that conversation was made at the time, nor was any
sufficiently distinct understanding arrived at, as it afterwards
appeared that a contrary impression was left on the mind of either
party[34]. Mr. Babbage’s conviction was, that whatever might be the
labour and difficulty of the undertaking, the engine itself would, of
course, become the property of the Government, which had paid for its
construction.
Soon after this interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a letter
was sent from the Treasury to the Royal Society, informing them that the
Lords of the Treasury “had directed the issue of 1,500_l._ to Mr.
Babbage, to enable him to bring his invention to perfection, in the
manner recommended.”
These words “_in the manner recommended_,” can refer only to the
previous recommendation by the Royal Society; but it does not appear
from their Report, that any plan, terms, or conditions had been pointed
out.
Towards the end of July, 1823, Mr. Babbage took measures for the
construction of the present Difference-Engine[35], and it was regularly
proceeded with for four years.
And here it is right to state, that Mr. Babbage gave his mental labour
gratuitously, and that from first to last he has not derived any
emolument whatever from Government[36]. Sectional, and other drawings,
of the most delicate nature had to be made; tools to be formed expressly
to meet mechanical difficulties; and workmen to be educated in the
practical knowledge necessary in the construction of the machine. The
mechanical department was placed under the management of Mr. Clement, a
draughtsman of great ability, and a practical mechanic of the highest
order[37]. Money was advanced from time to time by the Treasury, the
accounts furnished by the engineer undergoing the examination of
auditors[38], and passing through the hands of Mr. Babbage. Thus years
elapsed, and public attention became at length directed to the fact,
that a large sum had been expended upon the construction of the engine,
which was not completed. Again the advice of the Royal Society was
solicited.
In December, 1828, Government begged the Council “to institute such
enquiries as would enable them to report upon the state to which it (the
machine) had then arrived; and also whether the progress made in its
construction confirmed them in the opinion which they had formerly
expressed, that it would ultimately prove adequate to the important
object which it was intended to attain.”
Accompanying this communication was a statement from Mr. Babbage of the
condition of the engine, in which he says:—
“The machine has required a longer time and greater expense than was
anticipated, and Mr. Babbage has already expended about 6,000_l._ on
this object. The work is now in a state of considerable forwardness,
numerous and large drawings of it have been made, and much of the
mechanism has been executed, and many workmen are occupied daily in
its completion.”
A Committee was appointed by the Council, consisting of Mr. Gilbert
(President), Dr. Roget, Captain Sabine, Sir John Herschel, Mr. Baily,
Mr. Brunel, Captain Kater, Mr. Donkin, Mr. Penn, Mr. Rennie, Mr. Barton,
and Mr. Warburton.[39]
They minutely inspected the drawings, tools, and the parts of the engine
then executed, and drew up a report, “declining to consider the
principle on which the practicability of the machinery depends, and of
the public utility of the object which it proposes to attain; because
they considered the former fully admitted, and the latter obvious to all
who consider the immense advantage of accurate numerical tables in all
matters of calculation, which it is professedly the object of the engine
to calculate and print with perfect accuracy.”
They further stated, that “the progress made was as great as could be
expected, considering the numerous difficulties to be overcome; and
lastly, that they had no hesitation in giving it as their opinion, that
the engine was likely to fulfil the expectations entertained of it by
its inventor.”
The Council adopted the Report, expressing their trust, that while Mr.
Babbage’s mind was intently occupied on an undertaking likely to do so
much honour to his country, he might be relieved as much as possible
from all other sources of anxiety.
It is clear that the Council of the Royal Society regarded Mr. Babbage’s
engine, as it then existed, in a favourable light, and were sanguine
respecting its satisfactory completion.
Government acted on the foregoing Report; funds were advanced, the
machinery was declared national property, and the works were continued.
But there was evidently a misgiving on the part of the Lords of the
Treasury, for the official payments soon failed to meet the heavy and
increasing expenses incurred by Mr. Babbage.
Under these circumstances, by the advice of Mr. Wolryche Whitmore (Mr.
Babbage’s brother-in-law), a meeting of Mr. Babbage’s personal friends
was held on the 12th of May, 1829. It consisted of:—
The Duke of Somerset, F.R.S.,
Lord Ashley, M.P.,
Sir John Franklin, Capt. R.N., F.R.S.,
Mr. Wolryche Whitmore, M.P.,
Dr. Fitton, F.R.S.,
Mr. Francis Baily, F.R.S.,
Sir John Herschel, F.R.S.
They drew up the annexed Report:—
“_May 12, 1829._
“The attention of the undersigned personal friends of Mr. Babbage
having been called by him to the actual state of his Machine for
Calculating and Printing Mathematical Tables; and to his relation to
the Government on the one hand, and to the Engineers and workmen
employed by him in its execution on the other, declare themselves
satisfied, from his statements and from the documents they have
perused, of the following facts.
“That Mr. Babbage was originally induced to take up the work on its
present extensive scale, by an understanding on his part, that it was
the wish of Government he should do so, and by an advance of 1,500_l._
in the outset, with a full impression on his mind that such further
advances would be made as the progress of the work should require, and
as should secure him from ultimate loss.
“That the public and scientific importance of the Engine has been
acknowledged, in a Report of a Committee of the Royal Society, made at
the time of its first receiving the sanction of His Majesty’s
Government, and that its actual state of progress is such, as in the
opinion of the most eminent Engineers and other Members of the Royal
Society, as detailed in a further Report of a Committee of that body,
to warrant their impression of the moral certainty of its success,
should funds not be wanting for its completion.
“That it appears, that Mr. Babbage’s actual expenditure has amounted
to nearly 7,000_l._ and that the whole sum advanced to him by the
Government is 3,000_l._
“That Mr. Babbage has devoted, from the commencement of his arduous
undertaking, the most assiduous and anxious attention to the work in
hand, to the injury of his health, and the neglect and refusal of
other profitable occupations.
“That a very huge expense still remains to be incurred, to the
probable amount of at least 4,000_l._, as far as he can foresee,
before the Engine can be completed; but that Mr. Babbage’s private
fortune is not such as, in their opinion, to justify the sacrifices he
must make in completing it without further and effectual assistance
from Government; taking into consideration not only his own interest,
but that of his family dependent on him.
“Under these circumstances, it is their opinion that a full and speedy
representation of the case ought to be made to Government, and that in
the most direct manner by a personal application to his Grace the Duke
of Wellington.
“And that in case of such application proving unsuccessful in
procuring effectual and adequate assistance, they must regard Mr.
Babbage as no longer called on—considering the pecuniary and personal
sacrifices he will then have made; considering the entire and _bonâ
fide_ expenditure of all that he will have received from the public
purse on the object of its destination, and considering the moral
certainty to which it is at length by his exertions reduced—as no
longer called on to go on with an undertaking which may prove the
destruction of his health, and the great injury, if not the ruin of
his fortune.
“That it is their opinion that Mr. W. Whitmore and Mr. Herschel should
request an interview with the Duke of Wellington for the purpose of
making this representation.
(Signed,) SOMERSET.
ASHLEY.
JOHN FRANKLIN.
W. W. WHITMORE.
WM. HENRY FITTON.
FRANCIS BAILY.
J. F. W. HERSCHEL.”
In consequence of what passed at this interview, which took place as
suggested, the Duke of Wellington, accompanied by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn) and Lord Ashley, inspected the _model_ of the
engine, the drawings, and parts in progress. The Duke recommended that a
grant of 3,000_l._ should be made towards the completion of the machine,
which was duly paid by the Treasury.
In the mean time, difficulties of another kind arose. The engineer, who
had constructed the Engine under Mr. Babbage’s directions, had delivered
his bills in such a state, that it was impossible to judge how far the
charges were just and reasonable; and although Mr. Babbage had paid
several thousand pounds, there yet remained a considerable balance,
which could not be liquidated until the accounts had been examined, and
the charges approved by professional engineers.
With a view of drawing attention to these charges, Mr. Babbage addressed
the following letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—
“_Dorset Street, 21 December, 1830._
“MY LORD,
“I beg to call your Lordship’s attention to the enclosed
account[40] of the expenses of the Machine for calculating and
printing mathematical tables, by which it appears that a sum of
592_l._ 4_s._ 8_d._ remained due to myself upon the last account, and
that a further sum of nearly 600_l._ has since become due to Mr.
Clement.
“It is for the payment of this latter sum that I wish to call your
Lordship’s attention. Mr. Maudslay, one of the engineers appointed by
the Government to examine the bills of Mr. Clement, having been unable
from illness to attend, his report has been delayed, and Mr. Clement
informs me that should the money remain unpaid much longer, he shall
be obliged, from want of funds, to discharge some of the workmen; an
event which I need not inform your Lordship would be very prejudicial
to the progress of the machine.
“Another point which I wish to submit to your attention, when your
Lordship shall have had leisure to examine personally the present
state of the works, is, that since it is absolutely necessary to find
additional room for the erection of the machine, it becomes a matter
of serious consideration whether it would not contribute to the
speedier completion of the machine, and also to economy in
expenditure, to remove the works to the neighbourhood of my own
residence.
“I have, &c.
“C. BABBAGE.”
The receipt of this letter caused the Treasury to make the following
communication to the Secretary of the Royal Society:—
“_Treasury, 24 December, 1830._
“SIR,
“The Lords Commissioners of H. M. Treasury, having had under
their consideration a letter from Mr. Babbage, containing an account
of the expense which has been incurred in the construction of the
Machine for calculating and printing mathematical tables, amounting to
the sum of 7,192_l._ 4_s._ 8_d._, and requesting an advance of 600_l._
to defray a part of that expense; I am commanded by their Lordships to
refer you to the Report of the Council of the Royal Society dated 16th
February, 1829, which entirely satisfied their Lordships of the
propriety of supporting Mr. Babbage in the construction of this
machine, and to state that advances to the amount of 6,000_l._ have
been made on this account, and that directions have been given for a
further advance of 600_l._
“I am also to acquaint you, that the Machine is the property of
Government, and consequently my Lords propose to defray the further
expense necessary for its completion. I am further to request you will
move the Council of the Royal Society to cause the machine to be
inspected, and to favour my Lords with their opinion whether the work
is proceeding in a satisfactory manner, and without unnecessary
expense, and what further sum may probably be necessary for completing
it.
“I am, &c.
“J. STEWART.”
“_The Secretary, Royal Society._”
The consideration of this letter was referred to the same Committee
which had previously been appointed for a similar purpose, with the
addition of Sir John Lubbock and Mr. Troughton.
Again the Committee met[41] Mr. Babbage, at No. 21, Prospect Place,
Lambeth (where the construction of the engine was carried on), and
minutely inspected the machinery and drawings.
Their Report embodied the whole facts of the case:—the workmanship of
the various parts of the machine was declared to have been executed with
the greatest possible degree of perfection, and the pains taken to
verify the charges on the part of the Government altogether
satisfactory. It was recommended that the vacancy occasioned by the
decease of Mr. Maudslay, who had been appointed to inspect the accounts,
should be filled up by another engineer, conversant with the execution
of machinery, and the value thereof. With respect to the suggested
removal of the workshops nearer to Mr. Babbage’s residence, the
Committee gave their entire concurrence, on the ground that greater
expedition would thereby be attained in carrying on the work, and that
it was highly essential to secure all the machinery and drawings in
fire-proof premises, without delay. A plot of ground held on lease by
Mr. Babbage, adjacent to his garden at the back of his house in Dorset
Street, was recommended as a desirable site for the contemplated
erections, of which the plans and estimates had been submitted to the
Committee. The framers of the Report stated in conclusion that:—
“Such an arrangement would be eminently conducive to the speedy and
economical completion of the Machine, as well as to the effectual
working and employment of the same, after it shall have been
completed.
“That as to the sum which may be necessary for completing the Engine,
they attach hereto the estimate of Mr. Brunel.”[42]
The Report, with Mr. Brunel’s estimate, were sent to the Treasury on the
13th April, 1831: and having been approved by a Committee of practical
engineers appointed by Government, the latter acted on the
recommendations which it contained. The piece of ground adjoining Mr.
Babbage’s garden was taken, and a fire-proof building erected, designed
to contain the plans and drawings, and also the engine when completed.
But new and unforeseen difficulties arose. When about 17,000_l._ had
been expended, further progress was arrested on account of a
misunderstanding with Mr. Clement, who made the most extravagant demands
as compensation for carrying on the construction of the engine in the
new buildings. These demands could not be satisfied with proper regard
to the justice due to Government. Mr. Clement accordingly withdrew from
the undertaking, and carried with him all the valuable tools that had
been used in the work; a proceeding the more unfortunate, as many of
them had been invented expressly to meet the unusual forms and
combinations arising out of the novel construction.[43]
An offer was made to surrender the tools, for a given sum, which was
declined, and the works came to a stand-still. But other circumstances
interposed to prevent the completion of the original design.
During the suspension of the works, Mr. Babbage had been deprived of the
use of his own drawings. Having in the meanwhile naturally speculated
upon the general principles on which machinery for calculation might be
constructed, _a principle of an entirely new kind_ occurred to him, the
power of which over the most complicated arithmetical operations seemed
nearly unbounded. This was the executing of analytical operations by
means of an analytical-engine. On re-examining his drawings, when
returned to him by the engineer, the new principle appeared to be
limited only by the extent of the mechanism it might require. The
invention of simpler mechanical means for performing the elementary
operations of the engine, now derived a far greater importance than it
had hitherto possessed; and should such simplifications be discovered,
it seemed difficult to anticipate, or even to over-estimate, the vast
results which might be attained.
These new views acquired additional importance from their bearings upon
the engine already partly executed for the Government; for, if such
simplifications should be discovered, it might happen that the
Analytical-Engine would execute with greater rapidity the calculations
for which the Difference-Engine was intended; or that the
Difference-Engine would itself be superseded by a far simpler mode of
construction.
Though these views might perhaps at that period have appeared visionary,
they have subsequently been completely realized. To have allowed the
construction of the Difference-Engine to be resumed, while these new
conceptions were withheld from the Government, would have been improper;
yet the state of uncertainty in which those views were then necessarily
involved, rendered any written communication respecting their probable
bearing on that engine, a task of very great difficulty. It therefore
appeared to Mr. Babbage, that the most straightforward course was to ask
for an interview with the head of the Government, and to communicate to
him the exact state of the case.
On the 26th September, 1834, Mr. Babbage requested an audience of Lord
Melbourne, for the purpose of placing these views before him; his
Lordship acceded to the request, but from some cause the interview was
postponed; and soon after, the ministry went out of office, without the
desired conference having taken place.
The duration of the Duke of Wellington’s administration was short; and
no decision on the subject of the _Difference_-Engine was obtained.
In May, 1835, Mr. Babbage announced in a letter[44] to M. Quetelet,
which was laid before the Academy of Sciences at Brussels, that he had
“for six months been engaged in making the drawings of a new calculating
engine of _far greater power than the first_.” “I am myself astonished,”
says Mr. Babbage, “at the power I have been enabled to give to this
machine; a year ago I should not have believed this result possible.
This machine is intended to contain a hundred variables, or numbers
susceptible of changing, and each of these numbers may consist of
twenty-five figures. The greatest difficulties of the invention have
already been surmounted, and the plans will be finished in a few
months.”
Subsequently to the date of this letter, Mr. Babbage visited Turin,
where he explained to Baron Plana, M. Menabrea, and several other
distinguished philosophers of that city, the mathematical principles of
his Analytical-Engine, and also the drawings and engravings of the more
curious mechanical contrivances, by which those principles were to be
carried into effect. M. Menabrea, with Mr. Babbage’s consent, published
the information which he had received in the 41st volume of the
_Bibliothèque Universelle de Génève_. The article is remarkable as
giving the first account of the Analytical-Engine.[45] An English
translation, with copious original notes, made by a lady of
distinguished rank and talent,[46] was published in the third volume of
Taylor’s _Scientific Memoirs_.
But it did not contain all the information respecting the
Difference-Engine that was desirable, and Mr. Babbage was consequently
led to communicate a short article upon this subject to the
_Philosophical Magazine_, which is inserted in the 23rd volume[47]. The
more comprehensive statements and official documents which Mr. Babbage
has placed at my disposal renders it unnecessary to do more than allude
to that article.
For nine years, that is, from the year 1833, when the construction of
the Difference-Engine was suspended, until 1842, no decision respecting
the machine was arrived at, although Mr. Babbage made several
applications to Government on the subject.
On the 21st October, 1838, he wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
stating that the question he wished to have settled was:—“Whether the
Government required him to superintend the completion of the
Difference-Engine, which had been suspended during the last five years,
according to the original plan and principle, or whether they intended
to discontinue it altogether.” This letter produced no result. Time wore
on, and Sir Robert Peel became Prime Minister. This was in 1841. Up to
the termination of the Parliamentary Session in 1842, Mr. Babbage had
received no other communication on the subject than a note from Sir
George Clerk (Secretary to the Treasury), written in January of that
year, stating that he feared the pressing official duties of Sir Robert
Peel would prevent him turning his attention to the matter for some
days.
Having availed himself of several private channels for recalling the
question to Sir Robert Peel’s attention without effect, Mr. Babbage, on
the 8th of October, 1842, again wrote to him, requesting an early
decision.
At last Mr. Babbage received the following letter:—
“_Downing Street, Nov. 3, 1842._
“MY DEAR SIR,
“The Solicitor-General has informed me that you are most
anxious to have an early and decided answer as to the determination of
the Government with respect to the completion of your Calculating
Engine. I accordingly took the earliest opportunity of communicating
with Sir R. Peel on the subject.
“We both regret the necessity of abandoning the completion of a
Machine on which so much scientific ingenuity and labour have been
bestowed. But on the other hand, the expense which would be necessary
in order to render it either satisfactory to yourself, or generally
useful, appears on the lowest calculation so far to exceed what we
should be justified in incurring, that we consider ourselves as having
no other alternative.
“We trust that by withdrawing all claim on the part of the Government
to the Machine as at present constructed, and by placing it at your
entire disposal, we may, to a degree, assist your future exertions in
the cause of science.
“I am, &c.
“HENRY GOULBURN.
“_Charles Babbage, Esq._”
“P.S. Sir R. Peel begs me to add, that as I have undertaken to express
to you our joint opinion on this matter, he trusts you will excuse his
not separately replying to the letter, which you addressed to him on
the subject a short time since.”
To this letter Mr. Babbage replied as follows:—
“_Dorset Street, Nov. 6, 1842._
“MY DEAR SIR,
“I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the
3rd of Nov., containing your own and Sir Robert Peel’s decision
respecting the Engine for calculating and printing mathematical tables
by means of Differences, the construction of which has been suspended
about eight years.
“You inform me that both regret the necessity of abandoning the
completion of the Engine, but that not feeling justified in incurring
the large expense which it may probably require, you have no other
alternative.
“You also offer, on the part of Government, to withdraw all claim in
the Machine as at present constructed, and to place it at my entire
disposal, with the view of assisting my future exertions in the cause
of science.
“The drawings and the parts of the Machine already executed are, as
you are aware, the absolute property of Government, and I have no
claim whatever to them.
“Whilst I thank you for the feeling which that offer manifests, I
must, under all the circumstances, decline accepting it.
“I am, &c.
“C. BABBAGE.”
Mr. Babbage had an interview with Sir R. Peel subsequently to the date
of the foregoing letter: the result was, however, entirely
unsatisfactory; and thus, with the communication from the then
Chancellor of the Exchequer, terminated an engagement which had existed
upwards of twenty years, during which period it is due to Mr. Babbage to
state, that he refused more than one highly desirable and profitable
situation,[48] in order that he might give his whole time and thoughts
to the fulfilment of the contract, which he considered himself to have
entered into with the Government.
With respect to the Difference-Engine little remains to be added. In
1843, an application was made to Government, by the Trustees of King’s
College, London, to allow the Engine, as it existed, to be removed to
the museum of that institution. The request was complied with; and the
Engine, enclosed within a glass case, now stands nearly in the centre of
the Museum. It is capable of calculating to five figures, and two orders
of differences, and performs the work with absolute precision; but no
portion whatever of printing machinery, which was one of the great
objects in the construction of the Engine, exists. All the drawings of
the machinery and other contrivances are also in King’s College.
Before closing this Chapter, it will not be out of place to put upon
record the state of the Analytical-Engine at this period (1848).
Mechanical Notations have been made, both of the actions of detached
parts, and of the general action of the whole, which cover about four or
five hundred large folio sheets of paper.
The original rough sketches are contained in about five volumes. There
are upwards of one hundred large drawings. No part of the construction
of the Analytical-Engine has yet been commenced. A long series of
experiments have, however, been made upon the art of shaping metals; and
the tools to be employed for that purpose have been discussed, and many
drawings of them prepared. The great object of these inquiries and
experiments is, on the one hand, by simplifying the construction as much
as possible, and on the other, by contriving new and cheaper means of
execution, ultimately to reduce the expense within those limits which a
private individual may command.
[28] In the following account of the Difference and Analytical
Engines, besides the MS. documents in the Archives of the Royal
Society, I have derived very valuable information from an unpublished
statement drawn up by Mr. Babbage, which he has been so kind as to
place in my hands. The original documents which are in Mr. Babbage’s
possession, and which are referred to, I have myself examined.
[29] The idea of a Calculating Engine is not new. The celebrated
Pascal constructed a machine for executing the ordinary operations of
arithmetic, a description of which will be found in the _Encycl.
Méthod._, and in the Works of Pascal, Tom. IV. p. 7, Paris, 1819. In
his _Pensées_ he says, alluding to this Engine: “_La machine
arithmétique fait des effets qui approchent plus de la pensée que tout
ce que font les animaux; mais elle ne fait rien qui puisse faire dire
qu’elle a de la volonté comme les animaux._” Subsequently, Leibnitz
invented a machine by which, says Mr. De Morgan, “arithmetic
computations could be made.” Polenus, a learned and ingenious Italian,
invented a machine by which multiplication was performed—and
mechanical contrivances for performing particular arithmetical
processes were made about a century ago, but they were merely
modifications of Pascal’s. These Engines were very different to Mr.
Babbage’s Difference-Engine.
[30] This letter was printed and published in July, 1822.
[31] Sir H. Davy had witnessed and expressed his admiration of the
performances of the Engine.
[32] I am informed upon good authority, that Dr. Young differed in
opinion from his colleagues. Without doubting that an engine could be
made, he conceived that it would be far more useful to invest the
probable cost of constructing such a calculating machine as was
proposed, in the funds, and apply the dividends to paying calculators.
[33] Parliamentary Paper, No. 370, 1823.
[34] Mr. Babbage very justly observes, that had the mutual relations
of the two parties, and the details of the plans then adopted, been
clearly defined, there is little doubt but that the Difference-Engine
would long since have existed.
[35] It will be desirable to distinguish between,
1. The small _Model_ of the Original or Difference-Engine.
2. The Difference-Engine itself, belonging to the Government, a
part only of which has been put together.
3. The designs for another Engine called the Analytical-Engine.
[36] Sir R. Peel distinctly admitted this in the House of Commons in
March, 1843.
[37] A curious anecdote is related illustrative of the great
perfection to which Mr. Clement was in the habit of bringing
machinery. He received an order from America to construct a large
screw in the _best possible manner_, and he accordingly made one with
the greatest mathematical accuracy. But his bill amounted to some
hundreds of pounds, which completely staggered the American, who never
calculated upon paying more than 20_l._ at the utmost for the screw.
The matter was referred to arbitrators, who gave an opinion in favour
of Mr. Clement.
[38] They were Messrs. Brunel, Donkin, and Field.
[39] Colonel Sabine informs me, that Dr. Whewell was afterwards added
to the Committee.
[40]
£ s. d.
Expense to end of 1824 600 0 0
Expense to end of 1827 521 16 9
Mr. Clement’s Bills to June, 1827 4,775 15 3
Ditto, 9th May, 1829 730 12 8
-------------
6,628 4 8
Deduct old tools sold 36 0 0
-------------
6,592 4 8
Mr. Clement’s Bill to December, 1830, about 600 0 0
-------------
7,192 4 8
-------------
[41] I have a letter of Sir J. Herschel’s before me, expressing his
regret at being unable to attend on this occasion, but that his faith
in the engine and its inventor remained unshaken.
[42] Mr. Brunel’s estimate appears in the following letter to Mr.
Warburton:—
“_Feb. 28, 1831._
“DEAR SIR,
“Having taken in consideration the erection of the
proposed shops, the removal of the machinery, the accommodation for
it, and also for the maker; having also taken into consideration the
further completion of the drawings, and the ultimate accomplishment
of the Engine until it is capable of producing plates for printing;
though I feel confident that the sum of 8,000_l._ will be ample to
realize the objects that are contemplated, I should nevertheless
recommend that the Government be advised to provide for the sum of
12,000_l._ by way of estimate, and that the yearly sum required,
exclusive of the sum requisite for the buildings and removal (say
2,000_l._), will not exceed from 2,000_l._ to 2,500_l._
“I am, &c.
“M. I. BRUNEL.”
“_Henry Warburton, Esq._”
[43] This Mr. Clement had a legal right to do. Startling as it may
appear to the unprofessional reader, it is nevertheless the fact, that
engineers and mechanics possess the right of property to all tools
that they have constructed, although the cost of construction has been
defrayed by their employers.
[44] Mr. Babbage informs me, that this letter was intended only as a
private communication.
[45] In the _Ninth Bridgewater Treatise_, Mr. Babbage has employed
various arguments deduced from the Analytical-Engine, which afford
some idea of its powers. See second edition. In 1838, several copies
of plans of this new engine, engraved on wood, were circulated amongst
Mr. Babbage’s friends at the Meeting of the British Association at
Newcastle.
In 1840, Mr. Babbage had one of his general plans of the
Analytical-Engine lithographed at Paris.
[46] I am authorized by Lord Lovelace to say, that the translator is
Lady Lovelace.
[47] “The Difference-Engine could only tabulate, and was incapable by
its nature of developing; the Analytical-Engine was intended to either
tabulate or develop. The Difference-Engine is the embodying of one
particular and very limited set of operations, the Analytical-Engine,
the embodying of the science of operations. The distinctive
characteristic of the Analytical-Engine, is the introduction into it
of the principle which Jacquard devised for regulating by means of
punched cards the most complicated patterns in the fabrication of
brocaded stuffs. Nothing of the sort exists in the Difference-Engine.
We may say most aptly, that the Analytical-Engine weaves _Algebraical
patterns_, just as the Jacquard loom weaves flowers and leaves!”—Note
to translation of Menabrea’s Memoir. The 59th volume of the _Edinburgh
Review_ contains an able and elaborate article upon the
Difference-Engine, written by Dr. Lardner.
[48] Mr. Babbage has shown me letters by which it appears that he
declined offices of great emolument, the acceptance of which would
have interfered with his labours upon the Difference-Engine.
The annexed Review of the Eleventh Chapter of MR. WELD’S HISTORY OF THE
ROYAL SOCIETY, by Professor DE MORGAN, has been reprinted with his
permission, and that of the Editor, _verbatim_, from the Athenæum of
October 14th, 1848.
Three Notes at the foot of the pages have been added for the purpose of
explanation.
These are followed by the remarks upon them, reprinted from the
“_Athenæum_” of 16th December, 1848.
PROFESSOR DE MORGAN’S REVIEW _of_ WELD’S
HISTORY _of the_ ROYAL SOCIETY.
---------------
THE ATHENÆUM.
_LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1848._
---------------
MR. BABBAGE’S CALCULATING MACHINE.
In our review of Mr. Weld’s “History of the Royal Society,” [_ante_, p.
621,] we noted that one chapter was devoted to the history of the
celebrated undertaking above named. This chapter is taken from materials
furnished by Mr. Babbage himself, all the documents having undergone the
inspection of Mr. Weld. Of recent publications on the subject it may be
well to note—1. A short account of the transactions with the Government,
communicated by Mr. Babbage to the _Philosophical Magazine_ for
September, 1843. 2. A sketch of the _Analytical Engine_ (on which Mr.
Babbage is now at work, that commenced by the Government being the
_Difference Engine_) written in Italian by Menabrea, and translated,
with notes (and a list of all previous publications), by the Countess of
Lovelace (August 1843). The statements put forward by Mr. Babbage have
thus been in substance before the public for five years, without
contradiction: for though the account (No. 1) was not signed, it was
stated to be _from authority_, allowed to pass as such by the Editors of
the magazine, and generally understood to emanate from Mr. Babbage. We
are then bound to take this first statement as admitted by Government,
more especially after the publication by Mr. Weld, avowedly made from
the documents furnished by Mr. Babbage himself: and assuredly we
understand Mr. Weld as conceiving himself to be distinctly informed by
Mr. Babbage, that _all_ documents of any importance had been
communicated.
The heads of the public history of the _Difference Engine_ are as
follows:—In April, 1823, the Government requested the opinion of the
Royal Society on Mr. Babbage’s plan for “applying machinery to the
purposes of calculating and printing mathematical tables.” The Royal
Society reported favourably, that the machine was “fully adequate to the
objects proposed,”—and this report was laid before Parliament. In July,
Mr. Babbage had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Earl
of Ripon) to ascertain if Government would wish him to construct for
_printing_ as well as _calculating_. There is no minute of this
conversation, and the parties have different memories upon it. But soon
after, the Treasury informs the Royal Society that 1,500_l._ was to be
issued to Mr. Babbage “to enable him to bring his invention to
perfection, in the manner recommended.” Mr. Weld remarks that no plan
had been pointed out; but it must be noticed that the original
application was for an opinion upon _calculating and printing_, that the
opinion spoke of the _full adequacy_ of the plan for _the objects
proposed_, and that the final determination of the Government was to
proceed _as recommended_. Unless there were a previous understanding
that all documents should either speak with the verbal completeness of
an indictment or be wholly void, it is clear that the Government
determined to assist Mr. Babbage in realizing the full invention, and
told him so.[49]
The work went on for four years, under advances of money from time to
time: the funds were applied by Mr. Babbage, and the accounts were
audited by Messrs. Brunel, Donkin, and Field. We suppose that Government
did not exceed the proposed advance of 1,500_l._; but this is not
expressly stated. In December, 1828, Government applied again to the
Royal Society to report upon the state, progress, and prospects of the
machine. Mr. Babbage at the same time stated that he had expended
6,000_l._—meaning, we suppose, 4,500_l._ over and above the Government
advance. A Committee, consisting of Messrs. Gilbert, Roget, Sabine,
Herschel, Baily, Brunel (the elder), Kater, Donkin, Penn, Rennie,
Barton, Warburton, declined to report on practicability or utility,
considering both as fully established, and reported that, the
difficulties considered, the progress was as great as could be expected,
and that the engine was likely to fulfil the expectations of its
inventor. On this report the Government made further advances, and the
machine was declared national property. But the official payments soon
failed: and Mr. Babbage called a meeting of private friends, in May
1829, who, on the representation that he had then advanced 4,000_l._
himself, in addition to the Government advance of 3,000_l._, advised him
strongly not to proceed without adequate help from the Government. On
this representation, the Duke of Wellington, Mr. Goulburn, and Lord
Ashley inspected what there was to show, and the Treasury advanced
3,000_l._ more. In December 1830, nearly 600_l._ was still due to Mr.
Babbage, “upon the last account,” and that sum to the superintendent,
Mr. Clement. The Treasury gave directions for the advance of 600_l._ to
pay Mr. Clement, and desired a fresh inspection and opinion from the
Royal Society. The Committee above named (with the addition of Sir J.
Lubbock and Mr. Troughton) reported (April 1831) as favourably as before
on every point, and recommended attention to Mr. Babbage’s suggestion
that the workshops should be removed to the neighbourhood of his
residence. With regard to probable expense, they subjoined Mr. Brunel’s
estimate that 8,000_l._ additional would be sufficient; but recommending
that the Government be advised to provide for 12,000_l._ by way of
estimate. A piece of ground adjoining Mr. Babbage’s garden was taken,
and a fire-proof building was erected. When about 17,000_l._ had been
expended altogether, further progress was arrested by the extravagant
demands made by Mr. Clement, as compensation for carrying on the
construction in the new buildings. These were out of the question: and
Mr. Clement withdrew, taking with him all the tools which had been used,
many of which had been invented for the occasion. For it is the law that
engineers and mechanics possess the right of property in all tools they
have constructed, even though the cost of construction may have been
defrayed by their employers. A special agreement ought, the reader will
say, to have been made as to these tools; but whether the neglect is to
be charged on Mr. Babbage, or on the Government, those must say who feel
able. As it very seldom happens that the employer furnishes tools, it is
easy to see how the necessity for a special agreement may have escaped
the notice of all parties.
So far all is intelligible enough, and no blame attaches to either side,
at least that we can venture to impute. But now the question divides in
a curious way. While the works were suspended, Mr. Babbage reconsidered
the whole question, and invented what he calls the _Analytical
Engine_,—which we will take, on his word and Menabrea’s publication,
derived from his communications, to be immensely superior to the
_Difference Engine_. To resume the latter, while Government was
unacquainted with these new and more simple conceptions, would have been
improper; to write on unfinished speculations would have been difficult.
Mr. Babbage therefore (September 1834) requested a personal interview
with Lord Melbourne; which was agreed to,—but before it took place the
ministry was dissolved. From this time until 1842 Mr. Babbage made
applications to the various administrations, which remained unanswered;
until at last, in November, 1842, a letter from Mr. Goulburn, in answer
to a new application, informed Mr. Babbage that the Government intended
to discontinue the project on the ground of expense.
In the meanwhile Mr. Babbage incurred severe censure in scientific
circles, as being himself the cause of the delay. It was asserted that
he had compromised the Royal Society, which had so strongly recommended
his project to the Government. It was pretty generally believed that the
delay arose from his determination that the Government should take up
the new engine and abandon the old one.
But, until the statement made by him shall be proved either false or
defective, it must stand that the Government never returned any answer
to the question—Shall the new engine be constructed, or shall the old
one be proceeded with? We are of opinion that they ought to have
required him to proceed with the old one. They ought to have said—The
public can only judge by results: how well satisfied soever men of
science may be that the new machine is immeasurably superior to the old
one, society at large will never comprehend the abandonment of a scheme
on which so much has been expended; they will say—What if, in
constructing No. 2, No. 3 should be discovered, as much superior to No.
2 as No. 2 is to No. 1! And if Mr. Babbage had declined to proceed with
his first project, when thus urged, it is our opinion that he would have
richly deserved a very harsh censure. And of this we are sure, that if
Government had allowed him to finish the first machine, and he had done
so with success, the House of Commons would willingly have granted money
for the second,—aye, and for the third and fourth, if he had invented
them. But the Government itself prevented the matter from coming to any
such issue. It is possible that Sir R. Peel and Mr. Goulburn allowed Mr.
Babbage’s well-known wish[50] to abandon the first plan in favour of the
new one to influence their decision. It may be that they were startled
at finding that 17,000_l._ expended upon one project was only the
precursor of another. If so, we think they put themselves in the wrong
by not fastening on Mr. Babbage the alternative of either proceeding
with the existing construction, or taking the entire responsibility of
refusal upon himself. As the matter now stands, and unless Mr. Babbage
can be refuted, the answer to the question why he did not proceed is,
that during the eight years in which he had to bear the blame of the
delay he could not procure even the attention of the Government, much
less any decision on the course to be taken.
It is generally understood that Mr. Babbage is determined to proceed
with the _Analytical Engine_, gradually, and at his own expense; and
that the drawings are in a state of great forwardness. According to Mr.
Babbage himself, many experiments have been made with the object “on the
one hand, by simplifying the construction as much as possible, and on
the other, by contriving new and cheaper means of execution, ultimately
to reduce the expense within those limits which a private individual may
command.”
In looking at all the circumstances of this statement, we regret its
divided responsibility. Mr. Weld has seen Mr. Babbage’s documents.
Should he have made an insufficient selection, who is to blame? Mr. Weld
says, “I have derived very valuable information from an unpublished
statement drawn up by Mr. Babbage, which he has been so kind as to place
in my hands. The original documents, which are in Mr. Babbage’s
possession, and which are referred to, I have myself examined.” From all
this we should conclude that if Mr. Weld had omitted anything material,
or fallen into any misconception, Mr. Babbage would before this have set
it right. But it would be more satisfactory if we had Mr. Babbage’s own
acceptance of the statement thus made, as being that on which he is
content to rest his case; at least until some specific counter-statement
should demand more detail of explanation. Continued silence will be
tantamount to such acceptance.
There is also one piece of information which must be drawn out before
the case can be finally adjudicated. We stand thus:—Scientific rumour
states that Mr. Babbage compelled the Government to give him up by
demanding permission to abandon the _Difference Engine_ and substitute
the _Analytical Engine_. To this, in the formal point of view, Mr.
Babbage has fully answered, by showing that the Government never
communicated to him that it was their pleasure he should proceed on the
plan originally contemplated. The question now remains—Did Mr. Babbage,
or did he not, in the several unanswered applications which he made to
the Ministry, press the claims of the new machine and the abandonment of
the old? If so, did he do it in such a manner as to give to understand,
or make apparent, that he would not consent to recommence operations at
the point of relinquishment? The “several applications” which were made
from 1833 to 1838 are not particularized, much less described as to
contents. But, in October 1838, Mr. Babbage wrote to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, stating, to use Mr. Weld’s words, that “the question he
wished to have settled” was, whether the Government required him to
superintend the completion of the _Difference Engine_ according to the
original plan and principle, or whether they intended to discontinue it
altogether. Now the words _quoted_ are very like the idiom a person
would employ who had in his mind that up to that time some other
question had been among those proposed for discussion. And it is worthy
of note that all the communications are undescribed until we come to the
one of October 1838; which shows that then at least, whether before or
not, Mr. Babbage had put the question on the right issue. Of what tenor,
then, were the undescribed applications?[51] If of the same as that of
October 1838, Mr. Babbage stands quite clear; but if they were such as
fairly to give rise to the rumour above mentioned, then it must be said,
that though _he_ had every disposition to get wrong, Government always
prevented him by blocking his path with an error of its own. But in any
case it is to be remembered, that for the last four years of unanswered
application Mr. Babbage stood upon the right ground; and also that the
rumoured _refusal_ to proceed never was made.
The public, we think, has a right to explanation from the Government,
and to further explanation from Mr. Babbage. Sir R. Peel turned it off
with a joke in the House of Commons. He recommended that the machine
should be set to calculate the time at which it would be of use. He
ought rather to have advised that it should be set to compute the number
of applications which might remain unanswered before a Minister, if the
subject were not one which might affect his parliamentary power. If it
had done this, it would have shown that its usefulness had commenced.
[49] By the words “_no plan_,” the reviewer here evidently refers to
the _mechanical and mathematical plan_, on the fitness of which the
Royal Society had already, as he observes, made a report. Mr. Weld, on
the other hand, refers to the _mutual relations_ of the two parties,
Mr. Babbage and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to the
expenses and even to the ownership of the _Difference-Engine_, as
appears by the footnote (34) at page 256.
C. B.
[50] It is scarcely possible that this _supposed_ wish could have
influenced Sir Robert Peel, because he had before him a written
disavowal of it from Mr. Babbage himself.
C. B.
[51] The two following will sufficiently explain them:—On the 23d
December, 1834, Mr. Babbage addressed a statement to the Duke of
Wellington, pointing out the only plans which, in his opinion, could
be pursued for terminating the questions relative to the _Difference
Engine_, namely:
_First_, the Government might desire Mr. Babbage to continue the
construction of the Engine in the hands of the person who has hitherto
been employed in making it.
_Secondly_, the Government might wish to know whether any other person
could be substituted for the engineer at present employed to continue
the construction; a course which was possible.
_Thirdly_, the Government might (although he did not presume that they
would) substitute some person to superintend the completion of the
Engine instead of Mr. Babbage himself.
_Fourthly_, the Government might be disposed to give up the
undertaking entirely.
A letter to Sir R. Peel from Mr. Babbage, dated 7th April, 1835, and
enclosing the above plans, concludes thus:—
“The delays and difficulties of years will, I hope, excuse my
expressing a wish that I may at length be relieved from them by an
early decision of the Government on the question.”
C. B.
_From the_ ATHENÆUM _of_ SATURDAY, DEC. _16th, 1848_.
---------------
Mr. Babbage has reprinted, for private circulation, Mr. Weld’s chapter
on his _Calculating Machine_, and has appended to it our review[52] of
that chapter [see _ante_, p. 1029] with three short foot-notes. The
first of these is on a point immaterial to the issue; the second and
third contain distinct statements of fact from Mr. Babbage, in reference
to our comments upon his proceedings and those of the Government. Our
readers will remember that from September 1834 to November 1842, Mr.
Babbage could not procure the attention of the Government to the state
of the engine, on which 17,000_l._ had been spent; and that, about the
beginning of that period, Mr. Babbage had invented the new engine, which
he called the _Analytical Engine_. And further, they will remember that
all notion of the possibility of blame having been justly incurred by
Mr. Babbage rested, in our comment, upon the hypothesis that he had put
his wish to abandon the _Difference Engine_ and substitute the
_Analytical Engine_ before the Government in such a form as to give them
a right to suppose that he was unwilling to proceed with the former. On
our remark that it is possible that Sir R. Peel and Mr. Goulburn allowed
his well-known wish to influence their decision, Mr. Babbage
observes:—“It is scarcely possible that this _supposed_ wish could have
influenced Sir Robert Peel, because he had before him a written
disavowal of it from Mr. Babbage himself.”
Again, of the first half of the period of unanswered application Mr.
Weld gives no account, as to the tenor of the applications therein made
to the Government: though he shows by documents that during the second
half Mr. Babbage, to repeat our own phrase, “stood upon the right
ground.” And thereupon we expressed our opinion that the public had a
right to explanation from the Government, and to further explanation
from Mr. Babbage. This further explanation Mr. Babbage now gives, in the
following words; among which we insert some bracketed comments:—
“The two following [applications made to the Government] will
sufficiently explain them [the undescribed applications of the first
half of the period of unanswered application]:—On the 23rd December,
1834, Mr. Babbage addressed a statement to the Duke of Wellington,
pointing out the only [the reader will remark this word _only_] plans
which in his opinion could be pursued for terminating the questions
relative to the _Difference Engine_, namely—_First_, the Government
might desire Mr. Babbage to continue the construction of the engine in
the hands of the person who has hitherto been employed in making it.
_Secondly_, the Government might wish to know whether any other person
could be substituted for the engineer at present employed to continue
the construction—a course which was possible. _Thirdly_, the Government
might (although he did not presume that they would) substitute some
person to superintend the completion of the engine instead of Mr.
Babbage himself. _Fourthly_, the Government might be disposed to give up
the undertaking entirely.” A letter to Sir Robert Peel from Mr. Babbage,
dated the 7th of April, 1835, and enclosing the above plans, concludes
thus: “The delays and difficulties of years will, I hope, excuse my
expressing a wish that I may at length be relieved from them by an early
decision of the Government on the question.”
From the above it appears that at the end of 1834, Mr. Babbage—though
then so full of the _new_ engine, that in September he had asked an
audience of Lord Melbourne, to communicate the exact state of the case,
and to request, of course, his consideration of the question whether the
new engine should or should not take the place of the old one—began his
applications to the Government with distinct reference to the _old_
engine, and to the question of its completion or abandonment. Certainly
the first of the two applications was not well timed, for it was made
when the Duke of Wellington held all the seals, and a Government courier
was hunting Sir Robert Peel all over Italy, to tell him to come home
quick and be Prime Minister. But it was repeated to Sir Robert Peel in
the April following, when the latter was also in official possession of
the previous letter.
Mr. Babbage having thus filled up the only _lacuna_ which the public
press has brought to his notice, we can but repeat that those who would
impute to him the blame of the failure of Government to complete his
Calculating Machine must begin by proving his statement to be false or
defective. In 1835 he complains _to_ the Government of “delays and
difficulties,” which he implies to be mainly caused _by_ the Government,
and he gets no answer whatever to repeated applications, until 1843.
Those who have propagated the rumours that his conduct was the cause of
the delay, and that he compromised his friends in the Royal Society, who
had aided in bringing him under the notice of the Government, are bound
to abstain in future, or to show cause.
We end by a quotation from Mr. Weld, which we abstained from giving so
long as we supposed that the discontinuance of the Calculating Machine
might be, in any degree, Mr. Babbage’s fault. “Mr. Babbage has shown me
letters, by which it appears that he declined offices of great
emolument, the acceptance of which would have interfered with his
labours upon the _Difference Engine_.”
[52] We said in that review that Menabrea’s Memoir was in Italian:—we
should have said French.
THE END.
Transcriber’s Notes.
New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the
public domain.
Italic text is denoted by underscores _thus_, small capitals have been
changed to all capitals.
Some words are inconsistently hyphenated such as “light-house”,
“lighthouse” and “astronomer-royal”, “astronomer royal”. These have
been left as originally printed.
The footnotes have been renumbered throughout the book and moved to
the ends of the chapters.
The Appendix consists of extracts from other publications. The
footnotes have been renumbered but there remain references to page
numbers in the original publications.
Some small changes have been made as follows:
A closing quotation mark at the end of the first sentence of footnote
47 has been removed since all of this text is taken from the note
cited.
In order to obtain the correct alignment of text:
On page 126 the dashes serving to indicate repeated text have been
replaced by duplicated text.
In the table in footnote 40 the ditto marks have been replaced by
duplicated text.
In the table on page 220 “The Bath” has been repeated instead of being
bracketed to “Military” and “Civil”.