Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:46:59.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Department of Science and Art and control of Irish science, 1853–1905

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Richard A. Jarrell
Richard A. Jarrell*
Affiliation:
York Univeristy, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study deals with one facet of British rule in Ireland: the careful, systematic and almost wholly bureaucratic takeover of key Irish scientific institutions by the Department of Science and Art in South Kensington. The department is now largely forgotten except by educational and institutional historians; and histories of Irish scientific organisations, whilst they may allude to skirmishes with the department, have rarely attempted to come to grips with the complexity of the relationships. We can, however, organise this complexity with a few, comparatively simple ideas.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 92 , November 1983 , pp. 330 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 No major work on the history of Irish science exists, but a useful summary is Clarke, Desmond, ‘An outline of the history of science in Ireland’ in Studies, lxii (1973), pp 287–302 Google Scholar. Concerning the colonial aspects of Irish science, see Jarrell, R. A., ‘Colonialism and the truncation of science in Ireland and French Canada during the nineteenth century’ in H. S.T.C. Bulletin: Journal of the History of Canadian Science, Technology and Medicine, v, no. 2 (May 1981), pp 140-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Colonies of the first kind are called, by some sociologists, ‘internal colonies’. Usually applied to analyses of contemporary third-world countries, the theory has been utilised by Hechter, Michael for the so-called Celtic fringe: Internal colonialism: the Celtic fringe in British national development, 1536-1966 (London, 1975)Google Scholar. Hechter’s argument is one variation of the metropolis-hinterland (or centre-periphery) theory. He assumes that Britain controlled Ireland both politically and economically, thus preventing normal national development (especially industrialisation). My point is more general: the conflict between a centralising, strongly-organised system and a less centralised, weakly-organised system.

3 The role of the Department of Science and Art in English scientific curricula is discussed in Layton, David, Science for the people (New York, 1973)Google Scholar. As a full-scale history of the department is lacking, one should consult the annual reports (from 1854 onwards) in the sessional papers. These will normally be found indexed under ‘Science and art: reports’.

4 See Department of Science and Art: correspondence between the lords of the committee of privy council for trade and the lords commissioners of her majesty’s treasury on the constitution of the Department of Science and Art (London, 1853).

5 Board of Trade, Minute of 1 April 1853 (printed); copy in P.R.O., D.S.I.R. 918.

6 This can be followed in the statistics provided in the department’s annual report. For the science and art schools of the Belfast area, see Gray, William, Science and art in Belfast, being notes on the origin and development of the agencies for the promotion of science and art in Belfast (Belfast, 1904).Google Scholar

7 Science and Art Minute Books (P.R.O., Ed. 28/1, f.7).

8 The most comprehensive survey is Berry, Henry F., A history of the Royal Dublin Society (London, 1915)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A recent, collaborative study is Meenan, James and Clarke, Desmond (eds), The Royal Dublin Society, 1731–1981 (Dublin, 1981).Google Scholar

9 Berry, History of the Royal Dublin Society.

10 Details of the first moves are in Report from the select committee appointed to inquire into the administration of the Royal Dublin Society with a view to the wider extension of the advantages of the annual parliamentary grant to that institution; and to whom the return of the charter, rules, and regulations of the Dublin society was referrred, H.C. 1836 (445), xii, 355–769.

11 Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, xc (1853–4), pp 79–80.

12 Draft letter to Edward Steele, assistant secretary of the Royal Dublin Society, 14 Sept. 1854(P.R.O., Ed. 28/3).

13 Department minute of 25 Apr. 1861, and reply of Royal Dublin Society, 18 May 1861 (P.R.O., Ed. 28/13).

14 Report of Capt. Donnelly, 11 Dec. 1861 (P.R.O., Ed. 28/14).

15 State Paper Office, Dublin (S.P.O.), Chief Secretary’s registered papers (C.S.O., R.P.), 1862–64, Box 901, contains the relevant correspondence. The report was published: Report upon the Royal Dublin Society, the Museum of Irish Industry and the system of scientific instruction in Ireland, [3180], H.C. 1863, xvii, pt 1, pp 1–125.

16 Henry Cole to secretary of the Royal Dublin Society, 2 Dec. 1863, printed in Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, c (1863–4), p. 1.

17 Lord lieutenant to Treasury (draft), 4 Feb. 1863 (S.P.O., C.S.O., R.P. 1863–64, Box 901). The letter was drafted by Capt. Thomas Larcom and, as he had a strong interest in the outcome, he may have had a hand in the actual organisation of ideas.

18 Department minute, 1 July 1862 (P.R.O., Ed. 28/15).

19 Robert Lowe to Secretary of the Treasury, 26 May 1863 (copy) (S.P.O., C.S.O., R.P., Box 901).

20 See correspondence amongst the Mayo papers in N.L.I., MS 11200 and, especially, Irish Times, 26 Sept., 1 Dec., 29 Dec. 1867, 1 and 7 Apr. 1868.

21 Marlborough to Mayo, 3 Mar. 1868 (N.L.I., Mayo papers, MS 11200. Cole and Donnelly’s private views are more likely to have been based on their desire to retain their department intact. Indeed, Donnelly remained strongly opposed to the idea to the end of his tenure at the department. See Robert Vetch, ‘Sir John F. D. Donnelly’ in D.N.B. 1901–11. pp 514–15.

22 Report from the commission on the science and art department in Ireland, H.C. 1868–69 (13), xxiv, 1–41 (report) and 43–816 (minutes of evidence, appendix and index).

23 A copy of the letter, together with the reaction of the Royal Irish Academy, is in Letter of Lord Sandon, … with resolutions thereon approved by the council (Dublin, 1876).

24 Hansard 3, ccxxx, 489–93 (27 June 1876); the duke of Richmond’s reply follows, cols 493–9.

25 Two contemporary pamphlets which heap scorn upon the amalgamation scheme arc George Garnett, Reasons against the proposed amalgamation of the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Dublin Society (Dublin, 1876), and Garstin, J. R., Facts and reasonings addressed in support of the course taken by the Royal Irish Academy (Dublin, 1876)Google Scholar. Neither author was a scientist. There was another faction which did want a Royal Society of Ireland: George Johnstone Stoney asked the Royal Society of London for a copy of its charter for he and others ‘hope to be able to force science from its existing bondage due to Antiquities on the one hand and Agriculture on the other’ (Stoney to W. White, 14 Mar. 1877, Royal Society of London, Archives, M.C. 11.27).

26 Report of the Royal Dublin Society, 1879. The government took control of Leinster House, owned by the society, in return for the promise of a £10,000 per annum grant and free use of the facilities. Within two years the members complained that Steele’s staff was taking too much space and they were inconvenienced.

21 J. Vereker et al. to A. J. Mundella, 30 Nov. 1882, printed in appendix A, Thirtieth annual report, Department of Science and Art, p. 41 [C.3618], H.C. 1883, xxvii, 153.

28 On Kane, see Wheeler, T. S., ‘Sir Robert Kane: life and work’ in Studies, xxxiii (1944), pp 158-68, 316-30Google Scholar. A summary history of the museum is provided by Brian B. Kelham, ‘The Royal College of Science for Ireland (1867–1926)’ in ibid., lvi (1967), pp 297–309. The annual reports of the museum were published with the annual reports of the Department of Science and Art.

29 Department minute, 29 July 1854 (P.R.O., Ed. 28/2).

30 Ibid. For Sullivan, see Wheeler, T. S., ‘Life and works of William K. Sullivan’ in Studies, xxxiv (1945), pp 21–36.Google Scholar

31 Kane had seen Sullivan’s name in a prospectus for the Catholic University and told him that it would have to be reported to London (Sullivan to Newman, 30 Sept. 1856, Oratory of St Philip Neri, Birmingham, John Henry Newman papers, C.6.9). This and the following letters were not published in Dessain’s edition of Newman’s correspondence.

32 William Monsell to Newman, 17 Aug. 1856 (ibid.).

34 Monsell to Newman, 18 Nov. 1856 (ibid.).

34 Lyon Playfair to Kane, 23 Sept. 1856 (copy) (ibid.).

35 Department minute, 29 July 1858 (P.R.O., Ed. 28/9, f.41).

36 Cole to Kane, 21 June 1860 (P.R.O., Ed. 28/12, f.8). The earlier correspondence (draft letter to Kane) is in Ed. 28/11, f. 150.

36a Department to Kane, 27 July 1860 (P.R.O., Ed. 28/12, f.26); Department to Kane, 9 Aug. 1860 (ibid., f.51).

37 P.R.O.,Ed. 28/15, f. 102.

38 Cole to Kane, 21 Feb. 1867 (N.L.I., Mayo papers, MS 11200). Refer to the Report of the commission on the college of science, Dublin, H.C. 1867 (219), lv, 777–80.

40 Cole to Kane, 21 Feb. 1867.

41 W. K. Sullivan, J. Beete Jukes and William Barker to duke of Marlborough, 13 Mar. 1867 (N.L.I., Mayo papers, MS 11200).

41 Kane to Lord Naas, 16 Mar. 1867; Kane to Thomas Corry, n.d. (copy); Jukes to Naas, 16 Mar. 1867 (N.L.I., Mayo papers, MS 11200).

42 For background, see SirBailey, Edward, Geological Survey of Great Britain (London, 1952)Google Scholar; SirFlett, John, The first hundred years of the Geological Survey of Great Britain (London, 1937)Google Scholar; Davies, G. L. Herries and Mollan, R. Charles (eds), Sir Richard Griffith, 1784-1878 (Dublin, 1980)Google Scholar. A contemporary account is Hull, Edward, Reminiscences of a strenuous life (London, 1910).Google Scholar

43 Murchison to secretary of the Department of Science and Art, 1 June 1867 (P.R.O., Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Geological Survey records, D.S.I.R. 9/1).

44 Department minute, 10 Aug. 1867 (P.R.O., D.S.I.R. 9/1).

45 Murchison to secretary of the Department of Science and Art, 22 Aug. 1867 (P.R.O., D.S.I.R. 9/1). See also Murchison to Cole, 3 Oct. 1867, and Cole’s minute (ibid.).

46 Treasury to Department, 11 Jan. 1889(P.R.O., D.S.I.R. 9/71).

47 Archibald Geikie, ‘Confidential report on the Irish branch of the Geological Survey’, 5 Mar. 1889 (P.R.O., D.S.I.R. 9/71).

48 Treasury to Department, 27 July 1889 (P.R.O., D.S.I.R. 9/71). Thinking of economies, the Treasury agreed to all of Geikie’s recommendations regarding the Irish survey except the promotion of junior officers.

49 This was not a public document; a Dublin M.P. (Field) asked Sir John Gorst, vice-president of the Committee of Council, to make it public, but was refused (Hansard 4. xcvii, 257 (12 July 1901)).

50 Freeman’s Journal, 12 Feb. 1901. See also P.R.O., D.S.I.R. 9/16.

51 Horace Plunkett to A. E. Cooper, secretary of the consultative committee of the Geological Survey, 1 Feb. 1902 (P.R.O., D.S.I.R. 9/16).

52 Abney to Plunkett, 1 May 1902 (P.R.O., D.S.I.R. 9/16).

53 The relevant correspondence is G. G. Ogilvie, Education, to T. P. Gill, secretary of Agriculture (Ireland), 22 Feb. 1902; Gill’s reply of 21 May; George Murray, Treasury, to Morrant, Education, 11 Aug. 1904; Murray to Education, 21 Dec. and J. Bromley’s reply of 6 Jan. 1905 (P.R.O., D.S.I.R. 9/16).