SCIENCE NEGLECTED IN ENGLAND 97 



paid if a Royal Society medal were awarded to them. 

 Some, like James Watt, had even to save their own 

 inventions from the grasp of unscrupulous claimants, 

 who wished to rob them of the fruits of their genius. 

 The result of this policy of indifference was plain to 

 all who could see. "In England, whole branches of 

 Continental discovery are unstudied, and, indeed, almost 

 unknown, even by name. It is in vain to conceal the 

 melancholy truth. We are fast dropping behind. In 

 mathematics we have long since drawn the rein, and 

 given over a hopeless race. In chemistry the case is 

 not much better." These were the words of Sir John 

 Herschel in 1830, fifteen years after the great war 

 was ended, and could no longer be pleaded as a reason 

 for our isolation and ignorance. Sir Humphry Davy, 

 President of the Royal Society, spoke in the same 

 terms and about the same time. Babbage, the in- 

 ventor of the wonderful calculating machine, expressed 

 views equally strong. " In England, particularly with 

 respect to the more difficult and abstract sciences, we 

 are not merely much below other nations of equal rank, 

 but below several even of inferior power, . . . and 

 nothing but the full expression of public opinion can 

 remove the evils that chill the enthusiasm, and cramp 

 the energies of the science of England." 1 Seventy 

 years have passed since then, and though it cannot be 

 said that the ground lost has been all regained, a vast 

 change for the better has taken place. Public opinion 

 has been awakened to the danger that threatens the 

 country from this neglect. 



It was long in vain that learned men, loving their 



1 Quarterly Review, xliii. 305, "Reflexions on the Decline of Science 

 in England, and on some of its Causes." 



7 



