the three years, to assist him in bearing the expenses of his researches on the skulls of vertebrate animals. And the British Pharmaceutical Conference voted the sum of £80 from the Bell and Hills fund, during the period of three years, in aid of research in connection with pharmaceutical science. A small fund for the purpose of research exists also at the Royal Institution. Fellowships also with a similar object have been founded at the Victoria University. Dr. Priestley also was aided in his researches by contributions from a small circle of friends. In recognition of the same principle, nearly all of the most eminent scientific men on the Continent have been assisted by their respective Governments. The total amount of aid to research in this country is however very small, and to one acquainted with the great commercial and other any valuable results of such labour, it is simply astounding that we have not systematically organized a powerful means of promoting discovery.
A few scientific persons however still continue to oppose aid to research; quite recently, scientific investigators have been spoken of as a class of "men amusing themselves without any result whatever."[[26]] That idea however abundantly refuted in the foregoing pages. It has also been remarked[[27]] that "practically, endowment of research comes to the creation of positions where there is payment without corresponding labour." "In England above all countries in the world, there will always be plenty of
amateurs ready and willing to assist in research, and it is notorious that in England, almost without exception, all the great advances in science have been made by such amateurs. Therefore I do not think it at all desirable that the British tax-payer should be required to put his hand in his pocket to provide salaries for gentlemen who might be working rightly or wrongly. He could not control them, and while there are such a body of amateurs in the country, I think the researches may be very well left to them."
The first of these statements is not correct; the endowment of research does not amount to "payment without corresponding labour." Scientific discoverers have always been distinguished as a body of men intensely devoted to their labours, and willing to perform much work for small payment. Most of the great advances in science also in England, have been made not by "amateurs," but by men of great experience, such as Newton, Herschel, Priestley, Davy, Faraday, Graham, and many others. Endowment of research is not desired for wealthy amateurs, but for investigators of proved ability and small pecuniary means and who require assistance. Such men, although not infallible, are the least likely to "work wrongly," and much less likely to do so than amateurs. Many scientific investigators also of repute, object to give their services wholly to a wealthy nation, because they cannot afford to do so, and because it is only just that the nation should make them some pecuniary return for their skill and labour. The great evils
in this country requiring new knowledge to remedy them[[28]] also prove that there are not "plenty of amateurs ready and willing to assist in research here," or that "the researches may be very well left to them."
Whilst some investigators have had abundant means to carry on research, and have excelled in that occupation, many of the most eminent have been persons of limited circumstances; and their insufficient pecuniary means has often restricted their degree of success. The argument also that insufficiency of means stimulates research, is only employed by persons who are not making investigations under such a condition.
The President of the Royal Society, Dr. Spottiswoode, in his recent address[[29]] also remarked:—"The question has been raised whether it be wise, even in the interests of science, to encourage any one not yet of independent income, to interrupt the main business of his life. It is too often assumed that a profession or a business may be worked at half speed, or may be laid down and taken up again, whenever we like. But this is not so, and a profession temporarily, or even partially laid aside, may prove irrecoverable, and the temptation to diverge from the dull and laborious path of business may prove to have been a snare." Each of these remarks appears to be made upon the assumption that it is still a doubtful question whether persons qualified for research should be encouraged or not to abandon occupations they reluctantly follow, and for which they are less fitted, in order to become scientific
discoverers. As it is a fact that the welfare of this country is suffering through deficiency of encouragement of research, it is certainly desirable to encourage, by every proper means, qualified persons to occupy themselves in such labour. Some of the greatest discoveries have been made by men "not yet of independent income," for instance, those made by Scheele, Priestley, Dalton, Faraday, W. Herschel, and many others.
The late Astronomer Royal, also,[[30]] who has made many researches, and was a scientific official paid by the State, says:—"I think that successful researches have in nearly every instance originated with private persons, or with persons whose positions were so nearly private that the investigators acted under private influence, without incurring the danger attending connection with the State. Certainly I do not consider a Government is justified in endeavouring to force, at public expense, investigations of undefined character, and, at best, of doubtful utility; and I think it probable that any such attempt will lead to consequences disreputable to science. The very utmost, in my opinion, to which the State should be expected to contribute, is exhibited in the large grants intrusted to the Royal Society. The world, I think, is not unanimous in believing that they have been useful." He then enumerates what he considers "the proper foundations of claims upon the State," which he illustrates, and substantially includes in and
limits by, the kinds of scientific research done under his direction at the Royal Observatory. He further adds—"The Royal Observatory was founded expressly for a definite utilitarian purpose (the promotion of navigation) necessarily connected with the highest science. And this utilitarian purpose has been steadily kept in view for two centuries, and is now followed with greater vigour than ever before. To its original plan have also been added—but still in the utilitarian sense—the publication of time, the broader observation of terrestrial magnetism, and local meteorology." His views therefore appear to be, that State aid to research should be limited to utilitarian objects; and that it is with propriety given to his own department, which is connected with the State. It has however been abundantly proved that nearly all the great scientific utilities of every-day life, had their origin in the pursuit, not of utilities, but of pure truth, and that immediate usefulness is neither the most successful nor the highest motive in scientific research, nor should research be limited by so narrow a condition. The investigations also made by the aid of Government Grants possess the usual degree of definiteness and of utility of such labours, and it cannot be reasonably expected that the world would be unanimous respecting any measure, especially respecting a subject so little understood by the public as the Endowment of Research.