¹ Geikie, Archibald, ‘Sir Roderick Murchison and modern schools of geology’, Quarterly Review, (1868), 125, pp. 188–217, on p. 206Google Scholar. See also Burchfield, J. D., Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth, London, 1975, p. 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a discussion of similar remarks made by Geikie to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1899.

² Hopkins, William, ‘An abstract of a memoir on physical geology; with a further exposition of certain points connected with the subject’, Philosophical Magazine, (1836), 8, pp. 227–236; 272–281; 357–366, on p. 365.Google Scholar

³ Geikie, Archibald, Textbook of Geology, London, 1882.Google Scholar

⁴ See especially Morrell, Jack and Thackray, Arnold, Gentlemen of Science. Early Years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford, 1981Google Scholar; Secord, James A., ‘King of Siluria: Roderick Murchison and the Imperial theme in nineteenth-century British geology, Victorian Studies, (1981–1982), 25, pp. 413–442Google Scholar; ‘The Geological Survey as a research school, 1839–1855’, History of Science, (1986), 24, pp. 223–275Google Scholar; Controversy in Victorian Geology. The Cambrian-Silurian Dispute, Princeton, 1986Google Scholar; Stafford, Robert A., ‘Geological surveys, mineral discoveries, and British expansion, 1835–71’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, (1984), 12, pp. 5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Roderick Murchison and the structure of Africa: a geological prediction and its consequences for British expansion’, Annals of Science, (1988), 45, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar

⁵ On the French context, see for example Gillmor, C. Stewart, Coulomb and the Evolution of Physics and Engineering in Eighteenth-century France, Princeton, 1971Google Scholar; Guerlac, Henry, ‘Chemistry as a branch of physics: Laplace's collaboration with Lavoisier’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, (1976), 7, pp. 193–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, Robert, ‘The rise and fall of Laplacian physics’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, (1974), 4, pp. 89–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the British reception, see Crosland, Maurice and Smith, Crosbie, ‘The transmission of physics from France to Britain: 1800–1840’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, (1978), 9, pp. 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Crosbie and Wise, M. Norton, Energy and Empire. A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 149–168Google Scholar. Historians of science have generally focussed on the theories and concepts of French physical science in this period, while others have examined the institutional settings. Much more work could usefully be done on the practice of physical science in Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic France, with special emphasis on the role of measurement.

⁶ Herschel, John, A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, London, 1830, pp. 122–123.Google Scholar

⁷ BAAS Report, (1831), 1, p. 11.Google Scholar

⁸ Cannon, Susan Faye, Science in Culture: the Early Victorian Period, New York, 1978, pp. 73–110Google Scholar; Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), p. 477.Google Scholar

⁹ Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), especially pp. 224–256; 512–513Google Scholar. The Cambridge hegemony was particularly evident in the activities of the Greenwich Observatory with G. B. Airy as Astronomer Royal from 1835 until 1881. Precision measurement played a key role. See Meadows, A. J., Greenwich Observatory, London, 1975, especially pp. 1–11.Google Scholar

¹⁰ BAAS Report, (1833), 3, pp. xxxviGoogle Scholar; 471. See also Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), p. 515.Google Scholar

¹¹ BAAS Report, (1834), 4, p. xxGoogle Scholar. See also Friendly, Alfred, Beaufort of the Admiralty. The Life of Sir Francis Beaufort 1774–1857, London, 1977, 293–295Google Scholar. As Admiralty Hydrographer, Beaufort wrote to Lubbock in 1832 that ‘no one can be impressed with a stronger conviction than myself of the urgent necessity of acquiring proper data for the construction of our Tide Tables, that I considered it to be a national object, and that Government sh^d. take it in hand when they found a person qualified like you’. Quoted in Friendly, , p. 293.Google Scholar

¹² Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), p. 513.Google Scholar

¹³ Whewell, William, ‘Address’, BAAS Report, (1833), 3, p. xi–xxvi, especially p. xiiiGoogle Scholar (on astronomy as ‘queen of the sciences’) and pp. xiv–xv (on tides). See Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), pp. 425–427; 515–517Google Scholar. See also M. Norton Wise with the collaboration of Smith, Crosbie, ‘Work and waste: natural philosophy and political economy in nineteenth-century Britain’, History of ScienceGoogle Scholar (forthcoming) for a discussion of Whewell's views on tidal theory in relation to his political economy.

¹⁴ Forbes, J. D., ‘Report on meteorology’, BAAS Report, (1832), 2, pp. 196–258, on pp. 199–200.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 200–201. On Forbes and Whewell see for example Smith, Crosbie, ‘“Mechanical philosophy” and the emergence of physics in Britain’, Annals of Science, (1976), 33, pp. 3–29, especially pp. 25–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 201n.

¹⁷ Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), pp. 348–349; 517–523.Google Scholar

¹⁸ SirThomson, William, ‘Presidential address’, BAAS Report, (1871), 41, pp. lxxxiv–cv on pp. lxxxvii–lxxxviii.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Smith, and Wise, , op. cit. (5), pp. 684–698.Google Scholar

²⁰ Murchison, Roderick, ‘Presidential address’, BAAS Report, (1838), 8, pp. xxxi–xliv on p. xxxiii.Google Scholar

²¹ Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), pp. 353–370; 523–531Google Scholar; Cawood, John, ‘The Magnetic Crusade: science and politics in early Victorian Britain’, Isis, (1979), 70, pp. 551–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² On Murchison see Secord, , op. cit. (4)Google Scholar and Stafford, , op. cit. (4)Google Scholar. Compare Cawood, John, ‘Terrestrial magnetism and the development of international collaboration in the early nineteenth century’, Annals of Science, (1977), 34, pp. 551–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Murchison, , op. cit. (20), p. xxxiiGoogle Scholar. (Murchison's italics.)

²⁴ Cawood, , op. cit. (21)Google Scholar; Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), pp. 354–369.Google Scholar

²⁵ Secord, , op. cit. (4), pp. 225–241.Google Scholar

²⁶ On the social structure of British geology in the early nineteenth century see especially Rudwick, Martin J. S., The Great Devonian Controversy. The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists, Chicago, 1985, pp. 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ See especially the entry for Hopkins, William in the Dictionary of National BiographyGoogle Scholar. On Hopkins' income and political loyalties see Smith, and Wise, , op. cit. (5), p. 66.Google Scholar

²⁸ Sedgwick, Adam, ‘Presidential address’, BAAS Report, (1833), 3, pp. xxvii–xxxii, on p. xxviiiGoogle Scholar. Quoted in Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), p. 267Google Scholar. On Sedgwick and Hopkins see Smith, Crosbie, ‘Geologists and mathematicians: the rise of physical geology’, in Wranglers and Physicists. Studies on Cambridge Physics in the Nineteenth Century, (ed. Harman, P. M.), Manchester, 1985, pp. 49–83.Google Scholar

²⁹ See especially Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), pp. 267–286.Google Scholar

³⁰ Hopkins, William to Phillips, John, 19 10 1836Google Scholar, Phillips correspondence, Oxford University Museum. I am very grateful to Jack Morrell for drawing my attention to this and other letters among the Phillips' papers. Compare Hopkins' letters to Darwin, Charles in 1845–1846Google Scholar published in Schwartz, Joel S., ‘Three unpublished letters to Charles Darwin: the solution to a “geometrico-geological” problem’, Annals of Science, (1980), 37, pp. 631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ On the ‘gentlemanly specialists’ see Rudwick, , op. cit. (26), pp. 17–27.Google Scholar

³² SirThomson, William, ‘On geological time’, Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow, (1871), 3, pp. 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in SirThomson, William, Popular Lectures and Addresses, 3 vols, (London, 1889–1894), ii, pp. 10–64, on pp. 54–55Google Scholar. On Thomson's laboratory goals see Wise, M. Norton and Smith, Crosbie, ‘Measurement, work and industry in Lord Kelvin's Britain’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, (1986), 17, pp. 147–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, and Wise, , op. cit. (5), pp. 128–132.Google Scholar

³³ See for example Rudwick, Martin J. S., ‘Uniformity and progression: reflections on the structure of geological theory in the age of Lyell’, in Perspectives in the History of Science and Technology, (ed. Roller, D.H.D.), Norman, Oklahoma, 1971, pp. 209–237Google Scholar; Lawrence, Philip, ‘Charles Lyell versus the theory of central heat: a reappraisal of Lyell's place in the history of geology’, Journal of the History of Biology, (1978), 11, pp. 101–128Google Scholar; Greene, Mott T., Geology in the Nineteenth Century. Changing Views of a Changing World, Ithaca and London, 1982, pp. 69–121.Google Scholar

³⁴ Forbes, , op. cit. (14), pp. 200; 221.Google Scholar

³⁵ ‘Report of experiments on subterranean temperatures, under the direction of a committee; consisting of Professor Forbes, Mr. W. S. Harris, Professor Powell, Lieut-col. Sykes, and Professor Phillips (Reporter)’, BAAS Report, (1836), 6, pp. 291–293, on pp. 291–292Google Scholar. See also BAAS Report, (1834), 4, p. xxxiGoogle Scholar, where the BAAS placed £100 at the committee's disposal during the Edinburgh meeting at which Forbes was playing a central role.

³⁶ Hopkins, William to Phillips, John, 19 10, 1836, Phillips correspondence, Oxford University Museum.Google Scholar

³⁷ Hopkins, William, ‘Researches in physical geology’, Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, (1835), 6, pp. 1–84, on pp. 1–2; 8–11Google Scholar. Treated more fully in Smith, , op. cit. (28), especially pp. 73–76.Google Scholar

³⁸ Hopkins, , op. cit. (37), pp. 8–11Google Scholar; ‘Presidential address’, BAAS Report, (1853), 23, pp. xli–lvii, on p. xlixGoogle Scholar; ‘Cambridge essays, 1857—by W. Hopkins, M.A., F.R.S., F.G.S.’, The Geologist; a Popular Monthly Magazine of Geology, (1858), 1, pp. 425–432, on p. 427Google Scholar. (Hopkins' italics.)

³⁹ See Rudwick, , op. cit. (33), pp. 219–220Google Scholar; Lawrence, , op. cit. (33), pp. 106–110Google Scholar; Greene, , op. cit. (33), pp. 69–121Google Scholar; Smith, , op. cit. (28), pp. 57–59.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Lyell, Charles, Principles of Geology, being an Attempt to explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface by Reference to Causes now in Operation, 3 vols, (London, 1830–1833)Google Scholar; 3rd edn, 3 vols, (London, 1835), i, pp. 204–206.

⁴¹ Ibid., ii, pp. 294–295.

⁴² Sedgwick, Adam, ‘Address of the President’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, (1831), 1, pp. 281–316, on pp. 302–303.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid., pp. 301–307.

⁴⁴ See for example Smith, , op. cit. (28).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Phillips, John and Daubeny, C. G., ‘Geology’, Encyclopaedia Metropolitan, 6, pp. 528–800, on p. 800Google Scholar. Published after 1833 but prior to the publication of the complete Encyclopaedia in 1845.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Hopkins, William to Phillips, John, 20 01, 1837Google Scholar, Phillips correspondence, Oxford University Museum.

⁴⁷ See Brush, Stephen G., ‘Nineteenth-century debates about the inside of the earth: solid, liquid or gas?’, Annals of Science, (1979), 36, pp. 225–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ A more extensive discussion appears in Smith, and Wise, , op. cit. (5), pp. 552–578Google Scholar, where we discuss the context for William Thomson's age of the earth estimates. This analysis is fully co-authored.

⁴⁹ Ibid., pp. 553; 557–559.

⁵⁰ Ibid., pp. 573–578.

⁵¹ Hopkins, William, ‘Report on the geological theories of elevation and earthquakes’, BAAS Report, (1847), 17, pp. 33–92Google Scholar; Hopkins, , op. cit. (2), pp. 230–231.Google Scholar

⁵² Hopkins, William, ‘Anniversary address of the President’, The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, (1852), 8, pp. xxiv–lxxx, on p. lxxiii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ Hopkins, William, ‘On the causes which may have produced changes in the earth's superficial temperature’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, (1852), 8, pp. 56–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ Hopkins, William, ‘On the motion of glaciers’, Philosophical Magazine, (1845), 26, pp. 1–16, on p. 13.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), p. 466Google Scholar. See also Rudwick, Martin J. S., ‘Darwin and Glen Roy: a “great failure” in scientific method?’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, (1974), 5, pp. 97–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁶ Rudwick, Martin J. S., ‘The glacial theory’, History of Science, (1969), 8, pp. 136–157, especially pp. 148–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ Hopkins, , op. cit. (53), p. 58.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid., pp. 58–59.

⁵⁹ Ibid., p. 60.

⁶⁰ Ibid., pp. 60–62.

⁶¹ Ibid., pp. 63–64.

⁶² Ibid., p. 90.

⁶³ Ibid., p. 91.

⁶⁴ Whewell, William to Forbes, J. D., 14 07, 1831Google Scholar, published in Todhunter, Isaac, William Whewell, D. D., 2 vols, (London, 1876), ii, p. 121Google Scholar. See also Smith, , op. cit. (15), pp. 25–28Google Scholar. For a good summary of Forbes' early career and values see Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), pp. 430–434.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Smith, , op. cit. (15), p. 27Google Scholar. On the large Glasgow classes see Smith, and Wise, , op. cit. (5), pp. 83–84.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See for example Davie, G. E., The Democratic Intellect. Scotland and her Universities in the Nineteenth Century, Edinburgh, 1961Google Scholar; Olson, R. G., Scottish Philosophy and British Physics. A Study in the Foundations of the Victorian Scientific Style, Princeton, 1975, especially pp. 66–71.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Davie, , op. cit. (66), pp. 116–126; 158–168Google Scholar; Morrell, and Thackray, , op. cit. (4), pp. 480–481.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Smith, and Wise, , op. cit. (5), p. 114Google Scholar. In a letter to his son William Thomson, then a Fellow of St. Peter's College, Cambridge, the Glasgow professor of mathematics, James Thomson, stated that Kelland and other Oxbridge-educated academics had not given satisfaction in Scottish universities. See DrThomson, James to Thomson, William, 16 05, 1846Google Scholar, Kelvin papers, University Library, Cambridge.

⁶⁹ Hopkins, William, Remarks on Certain Proposed Regulations respecting the Studies of the University, Cambridge, 1841Google Scholar. See especially Becher, Harvey, ‘William Whewell and Cambridge mathematics’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, (1980), 11, pp. 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁰ See Rudwick, , op. cit. (26), especially p. 18Google Scholar, and Secord, , op. cit. (4)Google Scholar, for territorial disputes among gentlemen geologists.

⁷¹ Forbes, J. D., ‘Professor Forbes' account of his recent observations on glaciers’, The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, (1842), 33, pp. 338–352, on p. 339.Google Scholar

⁷² Hopkins, William, op. cit. (54), pp. 1–2Google Scholar. See also Hopkins, William, ‘On the motion of glaciers’, Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, (1849), 8, pp. 50–74; 159–169Google Scholar; ‘On the transport of erratic blocks’, Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, (1849), 8, pp. 220–240.Google Scholar

⁷³ Hopkins, William, op. cit. (54), p. 2.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Ibid., pp. 2–7.

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 7.

⁷⁶ Ibid., pp. 7–11.

⁷⁷ Ibid., pp. 11–12.

⁷⁸ Ibid., p. 16n.

⁷⁹ Wheweil, William, ‘On glacier theories’, Philosophical Magazine, (1845), 26, pp. 171–173, on p. 171.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid., pp. 171–173.

⁸¹ Whewell, William, ‘Additional remarks on glacier theories’, Philosophical Magazine, (1845), 26, pp. 217–220, on pp. 217–218.Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid., pp. 219–220.

⁸³ Hopkins, William, ‘Mr. Hopkins's reply to Dr. Whewell's remarks on glacier theories’, Philosophical Magazine, (1845), 26, pp. 334–342, on p. 335.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Ibid., pp. 336–338.

⁸⁵ Ibid., pp. 338–340. See ‘Account of an experiment on Stockholm pitch, confirming the viscous theory of glaciers. In a letter from Prof. Gordon of Glasgow, to Prof. J. D. Forbes of Edinburgh’, Philosophical Magazine, (1845), 26, pp. 206–208.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Forbes, J. D., ‘Reply to Mr. Hopkins on the motion of glaciers; with reasons for avoiding further controversy’, Philosophical Magazine, (1845), 26, pp. 404–418.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Ibid., pp. 405–406.

⁸⁸ Ibid., pp. 406–407.

⁸⁹ Ibid., p. 407.

⁹⁰ Ibid., pp. 411; 414.

⁹¹ Hopkins, William, ‘Remarks on Professor Forbes's reply’, Philosophical Magazine, (1845), 26, pp. 593–599, on p. 596.Google Scholar

⁹² See Wise, M. Norton, ‘The Maxwell literature and British dynamical theory’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, (1982), 13, pp. 175–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The flow analogy to electricity and magnetism, part I: William Thomson's reformulation of action at a distance’, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, (1981), 25, pp. 19–70, especially pp. 21–32.Google Scholar

⁹³ Thomson, William, Notebook regarding Thomson and Tait's Treatise (1862), NB 48, Kelvin papers, University Library, Cambridge.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Laudan, Rachel, From Mineralogy to Geology. The Foundations of a Science, 1650–1830, Chicago and London, 1987, especially pp. 1–7; 138–141; 180–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁵ Ibid., pp. 5–6; 20–69.

⁹⁶ Hopkins, , op. cit. (38), p. 425.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ On Admiralty charting in the period see Friendly, , op. cit. (11), pp. 255–266Google Scholar. Over his twenty-five years as Hydrographer, Beaufort and his survey teams produced almost 1500 new charts up to 1855.