¹ See Brock, W. H. and Knight, D. M., “The Atomic Debates”, Isis, lvi (1965), 5–25 (8)Google Scholar; and Farrar, W. V., “Nineteenth-Century Speculations on the Complexity of the Chemical Elements”, British Journal for the History of Science, ii (1964–1965), 297–323 (299–300).Google Scholar

² Anon., “Biographical Notice of the late Thomas Thomson”, The Glasgow Medical Journal, v (1857), 69–80, 121–153 (145)Google Scholar. The other primary obituarists are: Thomson, R. D., “Memoir of the late Dr. Thomas Thomson”, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, liv (1852–1853), 86–98Google Scholar; and Crum, W., “Sketch of the Life and Labours of Dr. Thomas Thomson”, Proceedings of the Philosophical Society of Glasgow, iii (1855), 250–264.Google Scholar

³ Klickstein, H. S., “Thomas Thomson Pioneer Historian of Chemistry”, Chymia, i (1948), 37–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Partington, J. R., “Thomas Thomson, 1773–1852”, Annals of Science, vi (1949), 115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kent, A., “Thomas Thomson (1773–1852) Historian of Chemistry”, British Journal for the History of Science, ii (1964–1965), 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Dalton's chemical atomic theory was used by Thomson inter alia for pedagogic and opportunist reasons.

⁵ Thackray, A. W., “The Origin of Dalton's Chemical Atomic Theory: Daltonian Doubts Resolved”, Isis, lvii (1966), 35–55 (53)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem., “Documents relating to the origins of Dalton's chemical atomic theory”, Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, cviii (1965–1966), 1–22 (18–19).Google Scholar

⁶ See Thomson, 's letter of 8 03 1807Google Scholar to Dalton reproduced in Roscoe, H. E. and Harden, A., A New View of the Origin of Dalton's Atomic Theory (London, 1896), 141–142.Google Scholar

⁷ Thomson, T., A System of Chemistry (3rd edn., Edinburgh, 1807), iii, 424–628.Google Scholar

⁸ Thomson, T., “On oxalic acid”, Phil. Trans., xcviii (1808), 63–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar (read 14 January 1808). Cf. Wollaston, W. H., “On Super-acid and Sub-acid Salts”Google Scholar, ibid., 96–102 (read 28 January 1808).

⁹ Greenaway, F., John Dalton and the Atom (London, 1966), 149–150.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Thomson, T., The History of Chemistry (London, 1830–1831), ii, 139–141.Google Scholar

¹¹ “Chemistry”, Supplement to the Third Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Edinburgh, 1801), i, 210 f.Google Scholar; “Mineralogy”, ibid., ii, 193 f.; “Vegetable and Animal Substances and Dyeing”, ibid., ii, 529 f.

¹² Thomson's winter class in 1803–1804 numbered about eighty. See letter of 6 January 1804 by William Sligo (University of Edinburgh Library, no. Dc. 4.101–3).

¹³ The fullest source: anon., “Biographical Notice of the late Thomas Thomson”, The Glasgow Medical Journal, v (1857), 123.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The Literary Journal, A Review of Literature, Science, Manners and Politics: first series, 1803–1805, 5 vols; second series, 1806, 2 vols.

¹⁵ The Prospectus (1802) sets out some characteristic Thomsonian attitudes and ideals: the attribution of due credit to British discoverers; the rapid communication of new scientific discoveries; the application of sciences to agriculture and manufactures; and the history of sciences. Thomson's aims were not completely realized until he founded his own periodical, Annals of Philosophy, in 1813.

¹⁶ Thomson resigned as a contributor in June 1803. See letter by William Sligo previously cited.

¹⁷ Thomson, T., A System of Chemistry (Edinburgh, 1802), i, Preface, 8.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See respectively: Crosland, M., The Society of Arcueil (London, 1967), 329–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Thomson's gloating letter to Jameson, Robert of 30 12 1816 (Pollok-Morris MSS.)Google Scholar:

“I have been applied to by Berthollet, Vauquelin & Gay Lussac to send over the sheets to Paris as they are thrown off here so that they may have a translation out as soon as possible after the original… It will be of considerable importance to the continental chemists, as at present there is no work in existence which can give a correct idea of the present state of chemistry. Thenard's book is a poor thing & so badly arranged that you cannot tell where to look for anything.”

Riffault's preface to this translation of the fifth British edition shows that Thomson complied with the request. See: Système de Chimie … (Paris, 1818), i, Preface, 8.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The Glasgow Medical Journal, v (1857), 132.Google Scholar Thomson characteristically submitted a minority report in Papers … relating to Experiments made by Order of the Commissioners of Excise for Scotland, to ascertain the relative qualities of malt made from Barley and Scotch Bigg (1806), 109–116.Google Scholar

²⁰ Roberts, W. H., The Scottish Ale Brewer … (Edinburgh, 1837), 29–30.Google Scholar

²¹ Thomson's letter of 20 April 1817 to Macvey Napier (British Museum, Add. MSS. 43, 612, f. 72); and Thomson's letter of 30 May 1817 to Robert Jameson (Pollok-Morris MSS.) which show that Thomson expected the introduction of his saccharometer by the English Excise Board and a reward of at least £20,000.

²² English Excise Board Minutes, 20 September 1820. Contrast Thomson's salary of £50 p.a. as Professor.

²³ Thomson, T., op. cit. (10), i, 328.Google Scholar

²⁴ Crum, W., op. cit. (2), 255.Google Scholar

²⁵ The critic was Duncan, Andrew Jnr., The Edinburgh Review, iv (1804), 120–151.Google Scholar Thomson replied with a thick pamphlet, Remarks on the Edinburgh Review of Dr. Thomson's System of Chemistry by the author of that Work (Edinburgh, 1804).Google Scholar The whole episode is ignored by Clive, J., Scotch Reviewers: The Edinburgh Review, 1802–15 (London, 1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Sir Robert Christison regarded him as “a follower of Thersites”: “the most glaring ingredient in his character … was an uncontrollable propensity to sneer—not behind-backs, but in presence of his subject”. See The Life of Sir R. Christison, Bart., edited by his Sons (Edinburgh and London, 1885–1886), i, 366–367.Google Scholar

²⁷ Thomson, T., “Biographical Account of Dr. Joseph Priestley”, Annals of Philosophy, i (1813), 81–99.Google Scholar

²⁸ Thomson, T., op. cit. (27), 97.Google Scholar

²⁹ See: Bain, A., James Mill, a Biography (London, 1882), passsim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ I Queen's Square, Westminster. See Thomson's letter of 27 June 1815 to Macvey Napier (British Museum Add. MSS. 34, 611, f. 236).

³¹ Mill, J. S., Autobiography (Oxford (World's Classics), 1952), 39–40.Google Scholar Both Thomson and Mill were Scottish “lads o' pairts”, contemporaries at Edinburgh University, chief collaborators in The Literary Journal, contributors to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and vigorous scholar-popularizers distinguished for hard-working competence rather than innate brilliance.

³² See e.g.: Thomson, T., “Baking”, Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Edinburgh, 1824), ii, 37–45Google Scholar, which contains an attack on the Corn Laws, and Thomson, T., Travels in Sweden, during the Autumn of 1812 (London, 1813), 114–132Google Scholar, in which he daringly argues for the necessity of the Swedish revolution of 1809.

³³ See: Glasgow Medical Journal, v (1857), 122 and 148–9Google Scholar; Thomson, T., op. cit. (10), ii, 17 and 198Google Scholar; Thomson's letter of 27 January 1837 to the Rev. John Lee, Principal of Edinburgh University (National Library of Scotland, MS. 3441, f. 226), which inter alia discusses the relations between Church, University, and the progress of science.

³⁴ Glasgow Medical Journal, v (1857), 140.Google Scholar James Couper, Professor of Astronomy at Glasgow, was impressed by the unanimity of the election. On 5 September 1817 he wrote to Robert Jameson (Pollok-Morris MSS.):

“His character & reputation was completely victorious over every feeling of private friendship and attachment. I have never seen any election so harmonious—& in which everyone felt so much self complacency in giving his vote for a man of such acknowledged merit.”

³⁵ Glasgow Medical Journal, v (1857), 141Google Scholar; and Bain, A., op. cit. (29), 167.Google Scholar

³⁶ Thomson's letter of 9 September 1817 to his friend Robert Jameson (Pollok-Morris MSS.): “You have heard by this time that I have been unanimously elected to the lectureship of Chemistry in the University of Glasgow … I hesitated for some time whether I should become a candidate. But I was assured that it would immediately be made a Regius Professorship & this induced me to offer myself. Indeed I had no reason to look for a better situation, as except Edin^r. it is the best, which the country affords.”

³⁷ Thomson, R. D., op. cit. (2), 94.Google Scholar

³⁸ See: Kent, A. (ed.), An Eighteenth-Century Lectureship in Chemistry (Glasgow, 1950).Google Scholar

³⁹ See: Thomson, T., op. cit. (10), i, 303–304 and 318–327.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ A useful short survey is: Kent, A., “The Place of Chemistry … in the Scottish Universities”, Proc. Chem. Soc., 04 1959, 109–113.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Commissioners appointed to visit the Universities and Colleges of Scotland, Report relative to the University of Edinburgh (1830), 55 and 73.Google Scholar Hope had easily the highest income of any Scottish Professor in the 1820's, i.e. slightly above £2,200 p.a.

⁴² Report relative to the Universities and Colleges of St. Andrews (1830), 7 and 26Google Scholar; and Evidence … received by the Commissioners … for visiting the Universities of Scotland, iii (1837), 253.Google Scholar

⁴³ Findlay, A., The Teaching of Chemistry in the Universities of Aberdeen (Aberdeen, 1935), 2, and 43–48.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Report relative to the University and King's College of Aberdeen (1830), 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Findlay, A., op. cit. (43), 8–13.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Thomson attributed the success in science of Edinburgh University to its being the only Scottish University which was not a “close corporaticn”. See: Thomson's letter of 27 January 1837 to John Lee (National Library of Scotland, MS. 3441, f. 226).

⁴⁷ Saunders, L. J., Scottish Democracy 1815–1840 (Edinburgh and London, 1950), 312.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The development of the Glasgow Medical School during Thomson's incumbency is described by: Duncan, A., Memorials of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, 1599–1850 (Glasgow, 1896), 162–186Google Scholar; and Coutts, J., A History of the University of Glasgow (Glasgow, 1909), 512–569.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Useful background is provided by Mackie, J. D., The University of Glasgow 1451–1951 (Glasgow, 1954), 243–268.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Document submitted to the Commission by Thomson on behalf of the Regius Professors, Evidence … received by the Commissioners … for visiting the Universities of Scotland, ii (1837), 205–211 (206)Google Scholar. Subsequently this work will be described as “Glasgow Evidence”.

⁵¹ Self-patronage by the professoriate was widely recognized and condemned. See, e.g. SirHamilton, W., “Patronage of Universities”, The Edinburgh Review, lix (1834), 196–227 (221–226).Google Scholar

⁵² As an example, in 1818 the College agreed that all the medical professors should examine candidates in medicine; but it stipulated that the Regius Professors should examine gratuitously, while the College Professors of Anatomy and Medicine were each to receive four guineas per successful candidate. By 1826, when over thirty students graduated in medicine, the issue had become contentious, particularly as Burns, Professor of Surgery, had withdrawn in a huff, leaving the burden of examining to be shared between Thomson and Towers, Professor of Midwifery. See: Glasgow Evidence (1837), 209.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., 209.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 537–539.

⁵⁵ The non-medical elections were: Gibb, Hebrew, 1820; Sandford, Greek, 1821; Buchanan, Logic, 1827.

⁵⁶ Glasgow Evidence (1837), 209–210Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid., 205–211.

⁵⁸ Thomson's letter of 18 March 1818 to Macvey Napier (British Museum, Add. MSS. 34, 612, f. 176).

⁵⁹ Thomson's letter of 13 August 1818 to Dalton, reproduced in Roscoe, H. E. and Harden, A., op. cit. (6), 171–172.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Glasgow Evidence (1837), 202–203.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Thomson, T., An Attempt to Establish the First Principles of Chemistry by Experiment (London, 1825), i, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ Glasgow Evidence (1837), 34 and 541.Google Scholar The College, and not the Crown, contributed to the departmental expenses of the Regius Professors: clearly it was troubled by this drain on its revenues.

⁶³ Ibid., 151.

⁶⁴ Ibid., 151 and 203.

⁶⁵ Thomson, T., “Reply to Berzelius' attack on his ‘First Principles of Chemistry’”, Phil. Mag., v (1829), 217–223 (217).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ Glasgow Evidence (1837), 203.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid., 204. See also Thomson's letter of 8 December 1826 to Dalton (reproduced in Roscoe, H. E. and Harden, A., op. cit. (6), 183–184)Google Scholar in which he refers to “the vortex of manufacture and business, which is here all powerful”. Some students migrated to Lancashire to develop the chemical industry there, as Thomas Andrews pointed out. See his Studium Generale (London, 1867), 88.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Glasgow Evidence (1837), 205.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Thomson was fully aware that his laboratory class was unparalleled at this time: see Thomson, T., “History and Present State of Chemical Science”, The Edinburgh Review, 1 (1829), 256–276 (276).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Glasgow Report (1830), 77Google Scholar; and Thomson's letter of 25 February 1828 to Nutall (Torrey MSS., Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, U.S.A.).

⁷¹ Report of the Glasgow University Commissioners (1839), 71.Google Scholar

⁷² See Thomson's letter of 24 March 1830 to Macvey Napier (British Museum, Add. MSS. 34, 614, f. 313).

⁷³ See: A Memorial respecting the Present State of the College of Glasgow, by the Regius Professors of Chemistry and Materia Medica (London, 1835), 22Google Scholar; Remarks on a Pamphlet, Entitled, “A Memorial… by the Regius Professors of Chemistry & Materia Medica” (Glasgow, 1835), 20Google Scholar (this pamphlet was written by Duncan Macfarlan, Principal of Glasgow University); Kent, A., “The Shuttle Street Laboratories”, Glasgow University Gazette (1956), no. 25Google Scholar; and Murray, D., Memories of The Old College of Glasgow (Glasgow, 1927), 254–255.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Glasgow University Report (1839), 70–71.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Thomson's letter of 25 January 1833 to Lord Brougham (Brougham MSS., University College Library, London).

⁷⁶ Coutts, J., op. cit. (48), 536–537.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Mill's letter of 21 January 1834 and Thomson's letter of 24 January 1834 both addressed to Lord Brougham (Brougham MSS., University College Library, London).

⁷⁸ Glasgow Evidence (1837), 34 and 149.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Glasgow University Report (1839), 70 and 215.Google Scholar Between 1832 and 1836 James Couper's average salary was £272 per annum.

⁸⁰ Strang, J., Glasgow and Its Clubs (London and Glasgow, 1857), 452.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Strang, J., op. cit. (80), 461.Google Scholar

⁸² Thomson's will nominated him as one of nine executors.

⁸³ op. cit. (73).

⁸⁴ A Statement of the Proceedings of the University and King's College of Aberdeen respecting the Royal Grant… and the Bill, recently before Parliament… (Aberdeen, 1835), 32.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ The House of Commons Journal (1835), 440.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Thomson's role in this episode is made clear in his letter of Wednesday 1 July 1835 to William Jackson Hooker (Royal Botanic Gardens Library, Kew, , Hooker Correspondence, English Letters, vi (1832–1835), no. 259)Google Scholar:

“I had not an opportunity of seeing you before I left Glasgow to inform you that Dr Couper & myself had thought it better … to endeavour to cut the Gordian knot by getting an act of parliament to put all the professors on a footing—I went up to London for that purpose & Mr. Tennant went with me. I drew up a memorial stating our grievances which I got printed & which we have distributed among the members of the House of Commons … And Mr. Oswald is to bring in a bill to transfer the management of the funds of the College to a College Court & to equalize all the Professorships as far as powers & priveleges are concerned. Mr. Bannerman the Member for Aberdeen has brought in a bill to unite the two Universities of Aberdeen & to put their funds under the control of a rectorial court. It is to be read a second time on Monday & we wait to see the result of that bill before bringing in ours. If it pass as we think it will our bill merely putting in force the resolutions of the Royal Commissioners must pass also.

“I write you at present to make you aware of what we are doing. I could not write before because we are only now beginning to see our way clearly. You will of course take no notice of this letter, even if Dr Burns should question you. You must be aware that he is not with us. He had his eye fixed on the Anatomy chair & expects to get it by currying favour with the Principal & Faculty. He will be disappointed. But we must not trust him.

“The Principal, etc. have heard of our proceedings and have applied for a copy of my memorial & one has been sent to them …”

⁸⁷ See Melbourne's reply to Aberdeen, Lord, reported in The Times (18 07 1835).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Report in The Times (21 07 1835)Google Scholar; and Hansard (20 07 1835), 735–737.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ The House of Commons Journal (1835), 507.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Memorial (1835), 12Google Scholar; Remarks (1835), 7–9.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Memorial (1835), 37.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid. 39.

⁹³ Ibid., 38.

⁹⁴ The Times (7 07 1836).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Remarks (1835), 1, 16, 18, 24–25, 45.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Observations by the Principal and Professors of Glasgow College, on Schemes of Reform, Proposed for the University of Glasgow, in connexion with the Report of the Royal Commissioners of Visitation (Glasgow, 1836).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Idem., 6 (footnote).

⁹⁸ Idem., 26.

⁹⁹ See Parliamentary Papers, iv (1835)Google Scholar, for full details of the Bill for the Regulation of the University of Glasgow.

¹⁰⁰ Observations (1836), 29Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Idem., 36.

¹⁰² Bill for appointing a Board of Royal Visitors for regulating the Universities of Scotland.

¹⁰³ See editorial, The Times (2 04 1836).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Thomson's letter of 11 April 1836 to John Archibald Murray (National Library of Scotland, MS. 2904, f. 52).

¹⁰⁵ See John Pringle Nicol's letter of 12 May 1836 to John Archibald Murray (National Library of Scotland, MS. 2904, f. 60).

¹⁰⁶ See the list of petitions, received 28 June, against the Bill, in The Journal of the House of Lords, lxviii (1836), 922Google Scholar; and Thomson's letter of 10 July 1836 to Murray (National Library of Scotland, MS. 2904, f. 76).

¹⁰⁷ See letters of Monteith and Bannerman to Murray (National Library of Scotland, MS. 2904, f. 86 and 93).

¹⁰⁸ Hansard (2 08 1836), 756–758.Google Scholar The Bill seemed likely to fail after the Lords' debate of 28 June: see Hansard (1836), 989–998.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Knox, H. M., Two Hundred and Fifty Years of Scottish Education 1696–1946 (Edinburgh and London, 1953), 50.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ This weakening of reforming resolve was deplored by Thomson in a letter of 19 March 1839 to John Lee (National Library of Scotland, MS. 3442, f. 217).

¹¹¹ Coutts, J., op. cit. (48), 423.Google Scholar

¹¹² See Thomson's letter of 27 January 1837 to John Lee (National Library of Scotland, MS. 3441, f. 226).

¹¹³ Glasgow University Report (1839), 71Google Scholar; and Thomson's letter of 22 December 1838 to John Lee (National Library of Scotland, MS. 3442, f. 202).

¹¹⁴ Liebig judged Thomson to be still the best middle-aged teacher of chemistry in Britain. See his letter of 23 November 1837 to Wohler, , Aus Justus Liebigs und Friedrich Wohlers Briefwechsel in den Jahren 1823–1873 (Brunswick, 1888), i, 113.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Dr. Jeffray, Professor of Anatomy since 1790, was so enfeebled by age, deafness, and loss of voice that he lectured by deputy—his son. Dr. Badham, Professor of Medicine since 1827, had suffered infirmity for many years and a substitute had lectured on the theory of medicine since 1832. The picture of Glasgow College as being composed of tottering men is confirmed by “A return … of the Names of the Professors in the University of Glasgow, whose Duties are at present performed by Assistants or Substitutes”, Parliamentary Papers, xxix (1840).Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Thomson's letter of 12 November 1839 to Andrew Rutherfurd (National Library of Scotland, Rutherfurd Papers not catalogued).

¹¹⁷ Gilbert, J. H., J. Chem. Soc., xliii (1883), 238.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Thomson's letter to Rutherfurd cited in footnote 116.

¹¹⁹ Memorial in Action of Declarator, The Officers of State for Scotland against … the University and College of Glasgow (1857), 103.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ The Memorial of the undersigned Regius Professors of the University of Glasgow. I have not succeeded in locating and reading a copy of this document.

¹²¹ Memorial for The Principal and Professors, constituting the Faculty of Glasgow College, to the Right Honourable Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department (Glasgow, 1841).Google Scholar

¹²² Memorial in Action of Declarator … (1857), 131.Google Scholar

¹²³ Public Record Office, HO/103/9, letters of 23 November and 13 December 1841, and 4 February 1842.

¹²⁴ Memorial in Action of Declarator … (1857), 132.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ See, for instance, Daubeny's lecture registers reproduced in Gunther, R. T., A History of The Daubeny Laboratory Magdalen College Oxford (London, 1904), 65–135 (65–83).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ The details and implications of Hope's apathy towards practical teaching will be given in my paper “Practical Chemistry in the University of Edinburgh, 1799–1843”, Ambix, xvi (1969) (in press).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Terrey, H., “Edward Turner, M.D., F.R.S. (1798–1837)”, Annals of Science, ii (1937), 137–152 (147).CrossRefGoogle Scholar