44 LoEWENFELD, Contributions to the History of Science. 



He was often, together with Thomas Paine, burnt in 

 effigy, and the King and Church party did everything in 

 their power to make his existence impossible in England. 



The only comfort came from his scientific friends, who 

 forgot whatever cjuarrels they had with him, and offered 

 their help. In 1790 he had had a heated exchange of 

 letters with Banks about a certain Mr. Cooper, whom he 

 had recommended to the Royal Society, but who had 

 been refused admission. In one of the letters in my pos- 

 session relating to this quarrel he says : — 



To Sir Joseph Banks. 



72 St. Pauls, 25 April, 1790. 

 Dear Sir, 



I cannot forbear to express my great dissatisfac- 

 tion at the conduct of the Royal Society in the 

 rejection of Mr. Cooper, recommended by myself and 

 four other members. 



I consider this business as the effort of party 

 spirit, political or religious, highly unworthy of the 

 Society, injurious to the interests of philosophy, and 

 arising from principles which would equall}' lead to 

 my own exclusion from the Society. . . . 



Joseph Priestley. 



To Sir Joseph Banks. 



72 St. Pauls, 27 April, 1790. 

 Dear Sir, 



You say that ' no token of Mr. Cooper's scientific 

 merit has hitherto been brought forward to the 

 Society.''*^ But is this the case of more than perhaps 



■•^ ' The becoming of F.R.S. was at t'^e time entirely dependent upon 

 Sir Joseph Banks' goodwill.' The candidate was generally presented to 

 Sir Joseph at one of his Thursday morning breakfasts, and, if unobjection- 

 able, was introduced to the influential and leading fellows. The view which 

 Sir Joseph took of the constitution of the Royal Society was, ' that it shall 

 consist of two classes — the working men of science and those who, from 



