200 State of Science in England. [May, 



When thought is free, these are things that will neither come nor go 

 at the bidding of state patronage. 



I would not question a single fact alleged by the eminent men who 

 originated this controversy. Nor can they be blamed for calling public 

 attention to the decline, ( if it must be called so,) which they deplore. 

 On the contrary, they are much to be praised, and some of the ad- 

 monitions they have given, deserve the most attentive consideration. 

 Yet the general scope of their remonstrances and their recommenda- 

 tions does appear not a little at variance with philosophical character. 

 (i Science languishes for want of royal patronage, rich emoluments, and 

 ribbons ; stars, garters, and noble titles : let it have these, and it will 

 be sure to prosper." Such is, I think, no unfair representation of much 

 that they have advanced. Now these gentlemen are not of opinion, 

 that England is in a state of original ignorance and destitution of 

 science, but that it has merely sustained a relapse from allowed and 

 indubitable eminence. They feel that but a short time ago, she pos- 

 sessed a galaxy of great men, which enabled her to enter into no disho- 

 norable or unequal competition with all the science of the world ; and 

 their wish simply is to see her again invested with an equal glory. 

 Upon the principle, that like causes produce like effects, one would 

 have thought they would not have propounded the notions they have. 

 For, observe the names which are adduced as lately the glory of En- 

 gland, and the loss of which has been the " death-blow to English 

 science. " They are " Sir H. Davy, Dr. Wollaston, Dr. Young, 

 Mr. Watt, Dr. Marcet, Mr. Gregor, Dr. John Murray, Mr. Chenevix, 

 and Mr. Smithson Tennant." And which single individual of all these 

 was indebted in the slightest degree to royal patronage, or public 

 endowments, or the ambition of rank and titles, for one tittle of his fame 

 or usefulness ? Indeed the inquiry, applied to them singly, becomes abso- 

 lutely ludicrous. 



We have had science then, by the safe and sure operation of know- 

 ledge gradually spreading over the minds of our countrymen. We 

 have already by experiment ascertained the natural history of 

 scientific discovery ; the causes and the developments of its growth. 

 We know it to be certain, that if the seeds of science be freely scatter- 

 ed by the winds, they will find their proper soils and localities, and 

 come forth in a rich and natural harvest. 



Why then should we reject or despise what has been established by 

 such proof ? and still more strange it is, to recommend the cultivation of 

 science, by means with which it has no affinity. What kind of genius 

 is it that is to be expanded by places, pensions, and titles ? Are scientific 



