44Q 



NA TURE 



{Sept. 6, 1888 



Inaugural Address by Sir Frederick Bramweix, 

 D.C.L., F.R.S., M.Inst.C.E., President. 



The late Lord Iddesleigh delighted an audience, for a whole 

 evening, by an address on "Nothing." Would that I had his 

 talents, and could discourse to you as charmingly as he did to 

 his audience, but I dare not try to talk about " Nothing." I do, 

 however, propose, as one of the two sections of my address, to 

 discourse to you on the importance of the " Next-to-Nothing." 

 The other section is far removed from this microscopic quantity, 

 as it will embrace the " Eulogy of the Civil Engineer," and will 

 point out the value to science of his works." 



I do not intend to follow any system in dealing with these 

 two sections. I shall not even do as Mr. Dick, in "David 

 Copperfield," did — have two papers, to one of which it was 

 suggested he should confine his memorial and his observations 

 as to King Charles's head. The result is, you will find, that the 

 importance of the next-to-nothing, and the laudation of the civil 

 engineer, will be mixed up in the most illogical and haphazard 

 way, throughout my address. I will leave to such of you as are 

 of orderly minds, the task of rearranging the subjects as you see 

 fit, but I trust — arrangement or no arrangement — that by the 

 time I have brought my address to a conclusion I shall have 

 convinced you that there is no man who more thoroughly appre- 

 cia'es the high importance of the "next-to-nothing" than the 

 civil engineer of the present clay, the object of my eulogy this 

 evening. 



If I may be allowed to express the scheme of this address in 

 modern musical language, I will say that the "next-to-nothing" 

 " motive " will commonly usher in the "praise-song" of the 

 civil engineer ; and it seems to me will do this very fitly, for in 

 many cases it is by the patient and discriminating attention paid 

 to the effect of the " next-to-nothing " that the civil engineer of 

 the present day has achieved some of the labours of which I 

 now wish to speak to you. 



An Association for the Advancement of Science is necessarily 

 one of such broad scope in its objects, and is so thoroughly 

 catholic as regards science, that the only possible way in which 

 it can carry out those objects at all is to segregate its members 

 into various subsidiary bodies, or sections, engaged on particular 

 branches of science. Even when this division is resorted to, it 

 is a hardy thing to say that every conceivable scientific subject 

 can be dealt with by the eight Sections of the British Associa- 

 tion. Nevertheless, as we know, for fifty-seven years the Asso- 

 ciation has carried on its labours under Sections, and has earned 

 the right to say that it has done good service to all branches 

 of science. 



Composed, as the Association is, of a union of separate Sec- 

 tions, it is only right and according to the fitness of things that, 

 as time goes on, your Presidents should be selected, in some 

 sort of rotation, from the various Sections. This year it was 

 felt, by the Council and the members, that the time had once 

 more arrived when Section G — the Mechanical Section — might 

 put forward its claim to be represented in the Presidency ; the 

 last time on which a purely engineering member filled the chair 

 having been at Bristol in 1875, when that position was occupied 

 bv Sir John Hawkshaw. It is true that at Southampton, in 

 1882, our lamented friend, Sir William Siemens, was President, 

 and it is also true that he was a most thorough engineer and 

 representative of Section G ; but all who knew his great scien- 

 tific attainments will probably agree that on that occasion it 

 was rather the Physical Section A which was represented, than 

 ihe Mechanical Section G. 



I am aware it is said Section G does not contribute much to 

 pure science by original research, but that it devotes itself more 

 to the application of science. There may be some foundation 

 for this assertion, but I cannot refrain from the observation 

 that, when engineers such as Siemens, Rankine, Sir William 

 Thomson, Fairbairn, or Armstrong, make a scientific discovery, 

 Section A says it is made, not in the capacity of an engineer, 

 and therefoie does not appertain to Section G, but in the capa- 

 city of a physicist, and therefore appertains to Section A — an 

 illustration of the danger of a man's filling two positions, of 

 which the composite Prince-Bishop is the well-known type. 

 Rut I am not careful to labour this point, or even to dispute 

 that Section G does not do much for original research. I do not 

 agree it is a fact, but, for the purposes of this evening, I will 

 concede it to be so. But what then? This Association is for 

 the "A Ivancement of Science " — the advancement, be it remem- 

 bered ; and I wish to point out to you, and I trust I shall 

 i-ucceed in establishing, that for the advancement of science it is 



absolutely necessary there should be the application of science, 

 and that, therefore, the Section, which as much as any other 

 (or, to state the fact more truly, which more than any other) in 

 the Association applies science, is doing a very large share of the 

 work of advancing science, and is fully entitled to be periodically 

 represented in the Presidency of the whole Association. 



I trust also I shall prove to you that applications of science, 

 and discoveries in pure science, act and react the one upon the 

 other. I hope in this to carry the bulk of my audience with 

 me, although there are some, I know, whose feelings, from a 

 false notion of respect for science, would probably find vent in 

 the "toast" which one has heard in another place — this 

 "toast" being attributed to the pure scientist — "Here's to 

 the latest scientific discovery : may it never do any good to 

 anybody ! " 



To give an early illustration of this action and reaction, 

 which I contend occurs, take the well-worn story of Galileo, 

 Torricelli, and the pump-maker. It is recorded that Galileo 

 first, and his pupil Torricelli afterwards, were led to investigate 

 the question of atmospheric pressure, by observing the failure of 

 a pump to raise water by "suction," above a certain level. 

 Perhaps you will say the pump-maker was not applying science, 

 but was working without science. I answer, he was unknow- 

 ingly applying it, and it was from that which arose in this 

 unconscious application that the mind of the pure scientist was 

 led to investigate the subject, and thereupon to discover the 

 primary fact of the pressure of the atmosphere, and the sub- 

 sidiary facts which attend thereon. It may appear to many of 

 you that the question of the exercise of pressure by the atmo- 

 sphere should have been so very obvious, that but little merit ought 

 to have accrued to the discoverer ; and that the statement, 

 once made, must have been accepted almost as a mere truism. 

 This was, however, by no means the case. Sir Kenelm Digby, 

 in his "Treatise on the Nature of Bodies," printed in 1658, 

 disputes the proposition altogether, and says, in effect, he is 

 quite sure the failure of the pump to raise water was due to 

 imperfect workmanship of some kind or description, and had 

 nothing to do with the pressure of the air ; and that there is no 

 reason why a pump should not suck up water to any height. 

 He cites the boy's sucker, which, when applied to a smooth 

 stone, will lift it, and he says the reason why the stone follows 

 the sucker is this. Each body must have some other body in 

 contact with it. Now, the stone being in contact with the 

 sucker, there is no reason why that contact should be broken 

 up, for the mere purpose of substituting the contact of another 

 body, such as the air. It seems pretty clear, therefore, that 

 even to an acute and well-trained mind, such as that of Sir 

 Kenelm Digby, it was by no means a truism, and to be forth- 

 with accepted, when once stated, that the rise of water on the 

 "suction side" of a pump was due to atmospheric pressure. I 

 hardly need point out that the pump-maker should have been a 

 member of " G." Galileo and Torricelli, led to reflect by what 

 they saw, should have been members of " A " of the then 

 "Association for the Advancement of Science." 



But, passing away from the question of the value of the 

 application of science of a date some two and a half centuries 

 ago, let us come a little nearer to our own times. 



Electricity (known in its simplest form to the Greeks by the 

 results arising from the friction of amber, and named therefrom ; 

 afterwards produced from glass cylinder machines, or from plate 

 machines; and produced a century ago by the "influence" 

 machine) remained, as did the discoveries of Volta and Galvani. 

 the pursuit of but a few, and even the brilliant experiments of 

 Davy did not suffice to give very great impetus to this branch of 

 physical science. 



Ronalds, in 1823, constructed an electric telegraph. In 1837 

 the first commercial use was made of the telegraph, and from 

 that time electrical science received an impulse such as it had 

 never before experienced. Further scientific facts were dis- 

 covered ; fresh applications were made of these discoveries. 

 These fresh applications led to renewed vigour in research, and 

 there was the action and reaction of which I have spoken. In 

 the year 1871 the Society of Telegraph- Engineers was esta- 

 blished. In the year 1861 our own Association had appointed 

 a Committee to settle the question of electrical standards of 

 resistance, which Committee, with enlarged functions, con- 

 tinued its labours for twenty years, and of this Committee I had 

 the honour of being a member. The results of the labours of 

 that Committee endure (somewhat modified, it is true), and may 

 be pointed to as one of the evidences of the value of the work 

 done by the British Association. Since Ronalds's time, how 



