I 



EULOGY ON THOMAS YOUNG. 139 



he was adored, May 10, 1820, barely at the age of fifty-six. Examiua- 

 tioii showed that he suffered from ossification of the aorta. 



I liave not dwelt too loug on the task iuiijosed ou me if I have brought 

 out, as I wished to do, the importance and novelty of the admirable law 



extensive improvements, all which (with one slight coucession) were steadily opposed 

 by I>r. Yonug. Among these advocates for reform were several members of the board 

 itself, who nrged them at its meetings. There was also a very prevalent impression, 

 even among its own members, that the board was not well constituted, and might 

 have been capable of much better service to the nation if its functions were less re- 

 stricted and the selection of its members placed on a belter footing. In other quar- 

 ters impressions unfavorable to its utility were prevalent, and it can hardly be matter 

 of surprise that, when the board was itself divided in opinion, the pu1)lic or the legis- 

 lature should entertain doubts of its utility, or even hostile feelings toward it. What 

 were the precise notions of the government, or the machinations by which they were 

 iuHueuced, it is impossible to say ; but it is certain that, in 1828, chietly through the 

 intlueuce of Mr. Croker, its dissolution was determined upon and carried by act of 

 Parliament Avithout any opposition being attempted. Instead, however, of an enlarged 

 board, with increased i^owers, three scientific advisersof the admiralty were appointed, 

 of whom Dr. Young was one, retaining the superintendence of the Nautical Almanac — 

 a system which has been since remodeled, in accordance with the report of a committee 

 ap])oiuted out of the Astronomical Society. 



l)r. Young appears all along to have been affected only by the personal acrimony of 

 some of the attacks upon himself in relation to the editorship of tlie Nautical Almanac, 

 and not at all by any feeling for the Board of Longitude, as Arago would regard it. 

 That board, as already observed, was divided against itself, and it therefore fell. It 

 was never upheld on the only right ground. Neither the board nor the friends of 

 science suiJiciently urged the strong and Irresistible claims which they might have 

 preferred to the government of the country, that '' a council of science," with extendeil 

 powers, properly selected and adequately remunerated, would be the api)ro])riate ad- 

 junct of the government of a country all whose resources are so powerfully developed 

 in exclusive dependence on the applications of science. 



The government would thus have had the means of sound scientific advice con- 

 stantly at hand, of which exi>erience proves they are in daily want on every emer- 

 gency, and which they obtain by asking the gratuitous services of men of science, and 

 the Crown would have possessed the means of making a graceful acknowledgment of 

 the services, and paying a just tribute to the genius of men devoted to the higher 

 branches of the abstract sciences, which are of a nature incapable of themselves of 

 affording any kind of remuneration, or, in the ordinary course, leading to any of those 

 houors or preferments which await eminence in other professions. — Translator. 



The reader may be referred, lor details of the questions here considered, to the fol- 

 lowing documents : 



1. '"Astronomical Tables and Remarks for 1822 ; published December, 1821," by F. 

 Baily, esc]., with " Remarks ou the present defective state of the Nautical Almanac." 



2. A reply to these remarks appeared in Mr. Braude's Quarterlv Journal of Science, 

 April, 1822." (Attributed to Dr. Young.) 



3. Practical observations ou the Nautical Almanac, &c., by James South, F. R. S., 

 1822. 



4. Replj^ to a letter in the Morning Chronicle relative to the government and astro- 

 nomical science, &c., by the same. 1829. 



5. Refutation of misstatements, &c., in a paper presented to the admiralty by Dr. T. 

 Young, and x»rinted by order of the House of Commons, by the same. 1829. 



6. Further remarks on the present defective state of the Nautical Almanac, &c., by 

 F. Baily, esq., F. R. S., &c. 1829. 



7. Report of the committee of the Astronomical Society relative to the improvement 

 of the Nautical Almanac, adopted by the council of the society, and approved and 

 ordered to be carried into effect by the lords commissioners of the admiraltj', 1»30. 

 (Meruoirs of the Astronomical Society, vol. iv, ji. 447.) 



8. A motion was made in the House of Commons February 23, 1829, for certain 

 returns respecting the Board of Longitude and the Nautical Almanac, &c. The re- 

 turns were made and printed, consisting of: 1. A memorandum of a statem(?^it made 

 to the chancellor of the exchequer for reforming the Nautical Almanac and estab- 

 lishment of a new Board of Longitude. 2. A paper read at the board by J. Herschel, 

 esq. 3. A reijort ou a memorandum, &c., by Tliomas Young, M. D. In the last. Dr. 

 Young makes auswer to what he considers objectious raised in the " Memorandum," and 

 also replies to tbose of Mr. Baily and Mr. South. Sir J. Soulh's pamphlet contains 

 tlie Memorandum, the objections raised or inferred by Dr. Young, his replies to them ; 

 all which are severely criticised. At page GO is a curious account of some discussions 

 at Sir H. Davy's soiree, between Sir J. South and Dr. Young. 



