THE ROYAL SOCIETY 87 



Cooper, and others who thought with him, was shunned 

 because of the supposed danger of such persons to the 

 good of the commonwealth. Priestley, himself, was ob- 

 noxious to many. In writing this angry letter to the 

 President, his tone is wholly partisan. The scientific 

 work of Mr. Cooper is only mentioned by inference. There 

 was none to mention, in point of fact ; considering the 

 qualifications necessary for admission into the Society. 

 Unless there existed tangible evidence of Mr. Cooper's 

 scientific discoveries, it was certain that neither Banks, 

 nor any other member except the candidate's personal 

 sympathizers, could properly vote for him. So, this 

 attack on the part of Dr. Priestley was a needless addition 

 to the difficulties of the President's position ; at a time 

 when friendships were shattered, and reputations 

 endangered, by the merest whisper of party-spirit. 



As Sir Joseph had nothing to hide, and nothing to 

 excuse, his answer was easy. But he appears to have taken 

 unusual pains to show his friend that his interference was 

 uncalled for. 



Sir Joseph Banks to Dr. Priestley. 



" April 26, 1790. 



" SIR, In return for the openness of your conduct 

 in your letter of yesterday, in which you tell me among 

 other things, that you conceive I had no concern in the 

 rejection of Mr. Cooper, I beg leave to meet you with the 

 same candour by declaring that I am one of those who 

 were not at the time of the Ballot sufficiently acquainted 

 with the gentleman's merits to be justified in my own 

 opinion in giving him my vote. 



" At the same time, Sir, I assure you with the utmost 

 sincerity that religious prejudice had no influence what- 

 ever on my conduct in that respect. For, though I am 

 convinced that the majority governed have a right to 

 insist that the magistrates who govern them do profess 



