The career of Humphry Davy (1778–1829) is one of the fairy tales of early nineteenth-century British science. His rise from obscure Cornish origins to world-wide eminence as a chemical discoverer, to popular celebrity amongst London's scientific audiences, to a knighthood from the Prince Regent, and finally to the Presidency of the Royal Society, provide apposite material for Smilesian accounts of British society as open to talents. But the use of Davy's career to illustrate the thesis that ‘genius will out’ is (...) not without its problems. As Davy began to reap the benefits of his early chemical discoveries, and to acquire status and wealth, his dedication to research waned. The ‘new’ Davy who emerged in the years after Waterloo, though admired by many sections of the metropolitan scientific community, was also widely criticized. Ambivalence became marked with Davy's election to, and conduct in, the Presidency of the Royal Society. (shrink)

When the Ottoman Empire defaulted on its public debt in 1875, British bondholders launched a campaign to win government intervention on their behalf. This article interprets the unprecedented success of this campaign as a matter of knowledge production. Mobilizing the newly established Corporation of Foreign Bondholders as a kind of ‘centre of calculation’, bondholders argued that they deserved assistance because of the unique size of the Ottoman default and the proportion of it that was held by British subjects. Yet neither (...) of these numbers was easily calculated. In fact, influential bondholders worked closely with accountants and members of the Statistical Society to devise an accurate method for quantifying the Ottoman debt – and concluded that such a method did not exist. Historians of quantification and accounting have argued that the scientific status of nineteenth-century accounting depended on its disinterestedness. In the case of the Ottoman default, however, calculation was understood to be inseparable from material interest and political debate. (shrink)

The Surrey Institution, Blackfriars, founded in 1808, was, after the Royal Institution and London Institution, the third establishment in London aimed at fostering and disseminating scientific, technical, and literary knowledge and understanding among a wider public. The Institution offered its proprietors and subscribers the use of an extensive reference library and reading rooms and, most importantly, the opportunity to attend courses of lectures on scientific, technological, and other subjects. Though popular in approach, the lectures conformed to high educational standards and (...) were delivered by recognized authorities in their fields. In the Surrey Institution's celebrated auditorium, the 'Rotunda', there appeared over the years such notable scientists as Accum, Thomson, and Gurney on chemistry, Millington, Mason Good, and Woodward on natural philosophy, Bakewell on geology, and Shaw on natural history; literature was brilliantlyrepresented by Coleridge and Hazlitt. During its relatively brief life-span -cut short by financial stringencies-the Surrey Institution provided access to scientific knowledge and thinking to a wide and appreciative audience. As a meeting place fo scientists and men of business with mercantile and manufacturing interests, it performed an important function in cross-fertilizing and reinforcing ideas on innovation and enterprise against the background of the ongoing Industrial Revolution. The present article attempts to supply a historical account, so far lacking, of the foundation, activities and achievements of this significant Institution of the metropolis. (shrink)

This paper seeks to describe the attitudes to science of the higher classes of Liverpool in the early nineteenth century. It does so by examining the roles which science played in the town's major cultural institutions. Consideration of the membership and activities of these societies suggests that most of Liverpool's wealthier citizens saw science as merely one component of a general literary culture; a polite, recreational form of science was best suited for this role.A small group of middle-class men held (...) science in much higher esteem, valuing it particularly as an educational tool. This function was best fulfilled, they believed, by a mathematical and experimental form of science, but few of their fellow citizens shared their opinions and successive attempts to teach this form of science foundered. (shrink)

Dionysius Lardner rose to prominence in the 1830s as a popular scientific writer, lecturer and British literary figure. He became popular by promoting the ideals of scientific self-education, technological progress, and the practical applicability of science. His rapid fall from public favour after 1840 partly resulted from his involvement in a marital scandal; prior to that scandal, however, his character had provoked satire, and his caution and even pessimism about some technological prospects had offended the confident hopes of the audiences (...) of that time, confident hopes which Lardner had helped to create. (shrink)