Sir John Pringle and his Circle 127

SII~ JOHN PI~INGLE AND HIS CII~CLE.--PART I. LIFE.

By DOROTI~EA WALEY SINGEB.

CONTENWS. Page § 1. Introduction ...... 127 §2. Early Life ...... 128 § 3. London ...... 133 § 4. Closing Years : the Controversy concerning Lightning Conductors .. 163

§1. Introduction. SIR JoH~ P~I~GL~. was a typical figure of the eighteenth century, though he foreshadows activities of the following centuries, both in his sense of public responsibility for the living and working conditions of the labouring population and in his appreciation of the importance of public measures for the prevention rather than the cure of disease. His view of medicine might almost be epitomized as cleanliness, to be achieved by purification of the air without and of the bloodstream within the patient. The first he would effect by ventilation, the second by correct diet. For the former he would utilize the skill of the engineer. For the latter he recognized the need of laboratory experiments, to ascertain the " septic " and " antiseptic " qualities inherent in various substances. His own experiments to this end were highly rated by his

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. contemporaries. They were carried out on substances organic and inorganic. Pringle was not an innovutor, but his alert and benevolent mind was concerned to apply the creative activity of his contemporaries. In view of his preoccupation with " putrescent " diseases, it is re- markable that Pringle never associates them with living contagion 1, though references to this conception are scattered through the literature of his own and preceding ages. The analogy between putrefaction and fermentation, their association with contagious disease and the suggestion that all alike are caused by minute living organisms, had been familiar in medical writings since the sixteenth century 2. But Pringle, though he emphasized the " fermentation " of the blood in typhus patients, seems never to have considered the hypothesis of living contagion. It is

i The only disease that Pringle ascribes to animalcula is Scabies, " best accounted for by Leeuwenhoek ". See Part II. For a review of the subject see C. and D. Singer, " The Development of the Doctrine of Contagium Vivum," in Proceedings of the International Medical Congress, Section of the History of Medicine, London, 1913. But see below, Part II. 128 Dorothea Waley Singer on

noteworthy that the Royal Society, which had been the recipient of Leeuwenhoek's e~rly microscopic obserwtions 3, reports no microscopic work during the presidency of Pringle, and indeed very little during his lifetime. Perhups we m~y detect here one reason for Pringte's failure to suspect living contagion in connexion with typhus. His great contri- bution was his continuous and strenuous advocacy of cleanliness and fresh air to combat typhus alike in barracks, g~ols and hospitals.

§ 2. Early Life. John Pringle was born in 1707 into a comfortable home ~nd an assured social position. He was the youngest son of a Scottish baronet, a neighbour and intimate friend of Lord Auchinleck, father of James Boswell. Two of John's uncles reached distinction, one in the law and one in politics 4. The stages in his education are related by his biographer and younger contemporary, Andrew Kippis (1725-1795), on the authority of Boswell ~. Kippis was himself F.R.S. (1779) as well as F.S.A. (1778). The son of a Nottingham silk hosier, he became a Nonconformist minister, ~nd from 1753 was pastor of the Presbyterian congregation in Princes Street, Westminster. His wife was the daughter of a Boston merchant. Kippis was a prolific writer and edited the second (incomplete) edition of the Biographia Britannica. His affection for Pringle is manifest in the biography, which of course depended on Pringle's older friends (and doubtless on Pringle's own anecdotes) for the earlier years. He mentions that he was also indebted to " the Anecdotes of Mr Bowyer by my friend Mr Nichols " 6. This refers to two remarkable members of tim

3 A~ltony va~l Leewenhoek (1632-1723) communicated one hundred and twelve papers to Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. the I~oyal Society, all of which were published in the Phil. Trans. either in full or in part. Sir Robert Pringle (1581-1649), son of George Pringell of :Newhall, settled at Stitchill. Of his six children, his eldest son, John Fear (died 1646), predeceased him but, havmgmarried ~iargaret Scott of Buccleugh, left seven children, of whom the eldest was Robert Pringle (c. 1635-1649), who became heir to his grandfather and the first baronet of Stitchill. This Sir Rober~ married Margaret Hope and had nineteen children, of whom ttfirtecn grew up. The eldest, Sir John Pringle, was the father of our subject and was married to Magdalen, daughter of Sir Gilbert Eltio~ of Stobs. The second was Walter :Fringle (1664-I736), who in 1718 became a Scottish Judge with the title Lord ~ewhall and was at £he same time knighted. The third brother was Robert Pringle (died 1736), who became Secretary of State for Scotlar/d and l~ter Secretary to the Scottish Commissioners who negotiated the Union. See also foot-note 11 and Alexander Pringle, The Records of the Pringles or Ho39- ringills, Edinburgh and London, 1933. We have not traced relationship between this f~mily and Thomas Pringle (1789-1834), poet and secretary to the Anti-Slavery Society. Andrew Kippis, Six Discourses delivered by Sir John Pringle Bart. when Presiden~ of the Royal Society on the occasion of six annual assignments of Sir Godfrey Copley's Medal, to which is prefixed the life of the Author, London, 1783. C:f. p. 139. 6 Kippis, op. cir., Preface, pp. iv-v. John Nichols published in 1782, Bibliographical and Literary Anecdotes of William Bowyer, Printer, E.S.A. and many of hi.~ learned frienda Sir John Pringle and his Circle 129

Nonconformist circle in London. William Bowyer the younger (1699- 1777), " the learned printer," was educated first at Headley under the non-juror Ambrose Bowicke who became his life-long friend, and sub- sequently at St. John's College, Cambridge, where, however, he appears not to have proceeded to a degree. He joined the printing-house of his father, also an author of some mark, but in 1757 the younger Bowyer set up his own printing-press and took as apprentice John Nichols (1745-1826), who became his partner and whose son and grandson successively carried on the firm. Bowyer was printer to the Society of Antiquaries (of which he was Fellow), to the Royal Society and to the House of Commons, the latter a remarkable appointment to be bestowed on a non-juror. He was a prolific writer on literary and historical topics. Nichols Mso was F.S.A., and was a friend of Dr. Lettsom (p. 143) and intimate with Dr. Johnson. He was the author of numerous biographical, historical and antiquarian works, many of which are still important to scholars. He was well known to Pringle, who is said to have given considerable financial contributions to assist some of his publications from 1776 onwards. After private tuition, Pringle was sent to study under his relative, Francis Pringle, who was Professor of Greek in the University of St. Andrews. In 1727, at the age of twenty, he proceeded to the University of Edinburgh, where he studied medicine. BUt it seems that he was still uncertain as to his future career. According to Boswell, he was destined for commerce, and was therefore sent, after only a year in Edinburgh, to " learn business " in Amsterdam 7. Visiting Leyden, he attended a lecture by Boerhaave and immediately determined to study medicine under him.

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. Both Kippis, however, and Charles Hutton s state that Pringle did not deviate from his intention of practising medicine and that he hastened, after only a year in Edinburgh, to Leyden in order to make sure of not losing the opportunity to study under Boerhaave, who wa~ then advanced in years. In July 1730, Pringle graduated in medicine at Leyden with a thesis on Senile Decay 9. In it he exhibits familiarity with both classical

? Ibid., p. iv. 8 Ibid., p. iv; and Ctlarles Ilutton, Mathematical and Philosophical Dictionary, ii, 279 (cf. below, Part III). 9 Dissertatio medica inauguralis, De Marcore Senili quam, ammente Deo ter Opt. l~iax., ex auctoritate Magnifici Rectoris, D. Hermanni Boerh~ave, A.L.M. Phil. et Med. D. et Professoris Ordinarii, necnon Amplissimi Senatus Academici Consensu, et Nobilissimae Facultatis Medieae Decreto, Pro Gradu Doctoratus, Summisque irL Mediciila. Honoribus et Privilegiis rite et legitirae consequendis, Eruditorum Exaxaini submittis Joalmes Pringle Scoto-Brit~rmus, ad diem 20 Julii 1730. hora locoque solitis. Lugduni Batavorum, Apud Joh. Arnold : Langerak, 1730. [Foot-note continued on p. 130. 130 Dorothea Waley Singer on

and contemporary views on Che subject. In spite of a good deal of repetition, the little work has something of the ease and sweep of his later writing. He describes how, in advanced age, the circulation of the blood is hindered by hardening and shrinking of the vessels, especially the arteries as well as the secretory glands. This, he says, constitutes senile decay and he gives the resulting fatal diseases. He fortifies his argument by citing post-mortem findings, with which he shows he is familiar. The work is dedicated to two men, both named Francis Pringle ; the first, President of the l%oyal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and the second, Professor of Greek in the University of St. Andrews, his " former great teacher, his kinsman and dear friend ". The President of of the Edinburgh I~oyal College was no doubt John's uncle, who had himself been educated in Leyden. "Admitted " to the College in Edinburgh in 1704, he was Presiden~ from 1724 to 1731 10 (p. 131). Several of his case records may be found in vols. 2, 3 and 5 of Edinburgh Medical Essays and Observations revised and Published by a Society in Edinburgh (foot-note 15). We may detect in the years to come an even greater influence on John Pringle from the second Francis, to whom he refers in the Dedication with such love and veneration 11. John Pringle's

Second title.page : ~ix igitur magni quoque circum moenia mundi Expugnata dabunt labem, putreisque ruinas. Omnia debet enim cibus integrare notando : Nequicquam ; quoniam nee venae perpetiuntur Quod saris est, neque quantum opus est natura ministrat. LUOtcET, LIB. II. Third title-page :

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. Eruditissimis et Ornal~issimis Viris Francisco Pringle M.D. Celeberrimi Collegii tCegii lVIedicorum Edinburgensis Praesidii, Spectabiti suo Patruo Plurimum Colciido. ~eei~ot~ Francisco Pringle A.L.M, Philosophiae et Graeearum Litterarum in Nobili Academia ad Fanum Andreae Professori, ~Iagno 01ira Praeeeptori Cognato suo et A_mieo Stum~no :Halle disserta~ionem in debitam Pietatis et grati Animi Testificationem iubens meritoque dicate & co~lseerat JoA~Es P~I~GLE. lo Historical Sketch and Laws of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh from its Institution to 1867, Edinburgh, 1867 (and a second edition irL 1925 brought up to date). i1 Kippis describes as our Pringle's " uncle " this Francis Pringle, Professor of Greek in St. Andrews. But from Alexander [Pringle (olo. cir., p. 128), we gather that he was first cousin once removed of our Prlngle, being the son of another Francis, who was younger brother to Sir Robert, the first Baronet (our t)ringle's grandfather), and is interesting as one of ten persons who founded the " Society for Prayer "which ultimately became the S.P.C.K. Professor Francis Pringle of St. Andrews graduated ab Edinburgh in 1694. Sir John Pringle and his Circle 131

diploma from the University of Leyden is dated July 20, 1734. Among the signatories were Boerhaave, Albinus and s'Gravesande. Pringle also meg at Leyden Van Swieten, afterwards Professor in Vienna, who became his great friend. Boswell is the authority for the statement that Pringle proceeded from Leyden to medical studies in Paris 1~. Soon he was established as a physician at Edinburgh. His Licenee from the Royal College to practise in Edinburgh is dated August 27, 1734. He was " admitted " in the following February la, and he became a Fellow of the College (p. 139). In March 1734, Pringle was appointed Joint Professor in Pneumatics and Moral Philosophy. Pneumatics, in the technical jargon of the day, has the surprising meaning of religion. This University appointment was made by the Magistrates and Council of the City of Edinburgh, and on the day of the appointment Pringle was also admitted a member of the Uni- versity 14. The appointment cannot have interfered with his medical practice. In 1742 he contributed a long article, Vitrum Antimonii Ceratum, a specific medicine in the Dysentery, to the Edinburgh Medical Essays and Observations 15. We recognize his habit in the careful acknowledgment of his predecessor, Dr. George Young, who had obtained the recipe twelve years earlier. Pringle gives instructions how and when it should be used. Moreover, he records that, in the papers of the late Dr. Francis Pringle (p. 130), " wrote with his own hands ", he has found " testimony of two cases " successfully treated with this "glass of antimony", and adds, " I remember to have been witness" to one of them. In this same year, 1742, his friend Dr. John Stevenson, also a Fellow of the Edinburgh i~oyM College of Physicians and a contributor to the

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. Medical Essays '~, took a step which was to have a momentous effect (,n Pringle's career, for he introduced the young man to the Earl of Stair,

'~ I*~ippi~, op. tit., l'rei~e, p,° iv. ~a An account of she tbundation and hisl~ory of tt~e l{%val College of Physicians of Edinburgh with a copy of the Royal Charter of November 29, 168t, will bo fomid ill William 1Kaitland, History of Edinbvrgh, Edh~burgh, t753. ~ Alexander Grant, The Story of the University of Edinburgh, 2 vols., London, 1884, tells the very interesting story of the tbmldation of ~he " College " arid ultimately of tile University by the Edinburgh Town Council. The work is profusely illustrated, but gives little information as to the academic staff or its work. 15 Pringle's paper is in vol. v. The series ran from 1733 to 1744 and closes with the sixth volmne (called vol. v, part ii), when the Society was merged in the Society for Improving Natural Knowledge or Philosophical Society of Edinburgh, which became in 1783 the l~oyai Society of Edinburgh. (Cfi t~. I-Ihlgston Fox, Dr. John Fothergill ~nd Ms Friends, London, I919, 139.) The series of Medical Essays and Observaticn8 had, however, a great success, and had run to about five editions by 1754. 16 Essay on the Cause of animal Heat, and on some of the Effects of Cold and Heat in our Bodies, v, 326. See Comrie, History of Scottish Medicine, 2 vols., Wellcome Historical Medical Museum, 1932, i, 359 and 362. 132 Dorothea Waley Singer on

who commanded the British army operating against the French in Flanders. John Dalrymple (1673-1737), second Earl of Stair, had had an unusual upbringing. At the age of eight he had the terrible experience of accidentally shooting his elder brother. He received a pardon for the manslaughter, but his parents could not endure his presence and they sent him to live with his grandfather, Sir James Dalrymple, then an exile in Holland. Thus, he had studied in the University of Leyden, and this perhaps facilitated Pringle's appointment. The young Dalrymple distinguished himself at Leyden and won the attention of the Prince of Orange, who, when he became William III of England, took over with him both Sir James and his grandson. Sir James was restored to his Office of Lord President and created Viscount Stair. Young John Dalrymple entered the Army and had a brilliant career as soldier and diplomatist and Whig politician under successive monarchs of England. He was known for his grace of manner and cultured mind. Voltaire was his intimate friend. His romantic marriage at the age of forty-one, with the beautiful Eleanor, daughter of the second Earl of Loudoun and widow of the first Viscount Primrose, is said to have inspired Sir Walter Scott's novel, My Aunt's Mirror. Pringle became the Earl's physician, and soon after was appointed physician to the British military hospital in Flanders, a position which carried a pension for life. Not until 1744 did Pringle resign his Edinburgh professorship, but meanwhile he was granted leave of absence, which was renewed annually. His work during the next six years proved crucial in Pringle's life. We may well believe that the sufferings of the soldiers, witnessed by him during his military service, changed a somewhat dilettante youth to a sturdy humanitarian.

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. During this campaign an important development took place concern- ing the respect for and care of military wounded, and we may hazard the guess that this was due in the first instance to Pringle. Pringle himself relates that his commander, Lord Stair, proposed in 1743 to the French general, the Due de Noailles 17, that hospitals on both sides should be regarded as sanctuaries not to be molested. This would obviate the necessity of moving sick and wounded from the field of battle and thus save many lives. The proposal was warmly accepted. Pringle relates how very soon after, when occupying a village opposite our military hospital at Feckinheim upon the Maine, the Duke sent a special message to assure the sick that he had given express orders that they were not to be disturbed. Pringle adds, " This agreement was strictly observed on both sides all that campaign ; and tho' it has been broke through since,

17 Adrien Maurice (1678-1712), Comte D'Ayen, had become third Due de Noailles in 1704. He started his military career at the age of fourteen, and two years later he was a colonel leading his regiment in Flanders. At the age of twenty he married Fran~oise D'Aubign~, niece of Madame de Maintenon, Sir John Pringle and his Circle 133

yet it is my hope that in a future war, the contending parties will make it a preceden~ " is In 1744, when the Earl of Stair relinquished command, he presented Pringle to the Duke of Cumberland, who in the following year extended Pringle's appointment, naming him " Physician General to the Forces in the Low Countries and parts beyond the seas " and physician to the Royal Hospitals in the same countries. His service abroad was broken in 1745, when he was recalled to military duty in Scotland. He has left no record of his impression of the Battle of Culloden (1746), at which he was present. He was soon back in Flanders, where he remained until the signature of Peace at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748. In the following year he was appointed physician to the Duke of Cumberland. He did not again serve abroad, though it was ten years before he finally relinquished his military appointments. § 3. London. The third phase of Pringle's career opened after the Peace of 1748. Though still with links in Edinburgh he settled in practice in London. In February 1745 we find him one of three guests introduced to a Royal Society meeting by the President (see below) 19. In the autumn of this year he became Fellow of the l~oyal Society. This was to prove a most important connexion to Pringle. The certificate recommending his election is dated April 25, 1745, and bears the signatures R. Mead, Stanhope, John l~anby, Edward Wilmot, Andrew Mitchell, M. Folkes, Daniel Wray, Cromwell Mortimer. Following the usual routine, the certificate was exhibited on the wall during ten further meetings of the Society, until his election on October 31, 1745, and on Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. November 7 " Dr. Pringle signed the obligations and was admitted Fellow " 20. We may guess that the initiative in putting forward Pringle's name was taken by Sir Richard Mead (1673-1754), who in that year was a member of the Council. Mead was the admitted leader of the medical profession and to him was dedicated Pringle's first important publication. Mead's history was in some respects similar to that of Pringle and may well have inspired the younger man. Recognition had come to him as it was to come to Pringle from the Royal Society earlier in his career than from the College of Physicians (p. 138) and, though never President of the Society, Mead had been chosen Vice-President in 1717. is Observations on the Diseases of the Army in Camp and Garrison, 1st edn., London, 1752, p. ix. 19 Journal Book of the Royal Society (Copy), xviii, 360. ~o Ibid., 397-8,456,474. The President in 1745 was John IV[artin Folkes (p. 136). Thomas Thomson gives November 14, 1746, as the date of Pringle's admission, History of the Royal ~ociety, etc., London, 1812, App. iv, p. xliv. 134 Dorothea Waley Singer on

Pringle's next sponsor, Philip, second Earl of Stanhope (1717-1786), had been educated at Utrecht and Geneva, and was a noted mathematician as well as Greek scholar. Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1735, he was a friend of Priestley (p. 145), who dedicated to him the third volume of his Experiments on Air. John Ranby (1703-1773) was a distinguished surgeon who contributed many anatomical papers to the Philosophical Transactions. Sir Edward Wilmot (1693-1786) had been since 1740 Physician General to the Army and was in turn physician to various members of the Royal family, including both George II and George III. Sir Andrew Mitchell (1708- 1771) was from Edinburgh, where his father was minister of St. Giles and royal chaplain. After some years of travel, during which he established an intimate friendship with Montesquieu, Mitchell settled in London in 1735, and was elected tothe Royal Society in the same year. He was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland from 1742 to 1747. . Among his friends were James Thomson, author of The Seasons, and the actor Quin. He was called to the Bar and was for some years member of Parliament, but was most noted for a long career in diplomacy. Some letters survive, written by Pringle to Mitchell from April 1, 1742, prior to and during Pringle's period of military service. In the first, written from Edinburgh, he humorously apologizes for delay in sending congratulations on Mitchell's " prei~rment " (i.e. the Under-Secretaryship) and promises " On the other hand, wherever your Interest or Service can do material Justice to any I have a concern in, I shall not fail to acquaint you ". He proceeds to implement this promise by invoking on behalf of his " nephew, Dr. John ", the interest of Mitchell in a matter of public finance. This letter is signed : (ef.

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. Jo. Pringil p. 128, foot-note 4). Letters of April 27, May 5 and June 17 concern Pringle's anxiously awaited Army appointment which of course depended on the definite appointment of the Earl of Stair as Commander- in-Chief of the British forces in the Low Countries. On June 17 Pringle is also soliciting an appointment in Glasgow for Dr. Stevenson's son, James Boyd. Finally, on July 3, 1742, all is settled. Pringle writes that " my Lord Stair's nomination " of Pringle " is honourable " ; he disclaims any anxiety as to remuneration, is eagerly looking forward to travel and to the new sphere of work and expresses warm gratitude for Mitchell's support. Writing again on August 21, 1742, Pringle is not yet quite happy in the new surroundings. In spite of jests, he reveals that he feels like a "boy return'd to a publick school after .... holydays with an affectionate parent ". He is concerned also to get the military hospital enlarged. There are certain mysteries about this letter. Though clearly intended for Andrew Mitchell (a widower since 1729), it is addressed not to A. M., but to D.M. Still more strangely it is signed J. N. Frazer. The next letter, written from the Hague on September 2, is unsigned. It refers Sir John Pringle and his Circle 135

to a French conspiracy to blow up the town of Luxemberg. Pringle remarks " I have had another letter from Frazer ; he says he has learned a little more patience and boasts somewhat of his prudent conduct " On September 18 he writes concerning his cousins the Hopes, settled in Amsterdam, " among the greatest merchants of the place ". He describes his enjoyment of a visit to the lovely garden of their Hebrew friend Mr. Pinto. Pringle proceeds with mysterious reference to rumours con- cerning the movements of Prince Charles, and how far these rumours may be credited. On September 24, he is proposing tactful measures to persuade the Admiralty to grant a " Protection " to the ships of the Hopes against certain British " Rovers " (i.e. privateers). Several letters in October, 1742, are again mysterious concerning various personalities; Maitland had disappeared when Pringle wrote on October 17, but had turnedup again by October 27, when Pringle also discusses an " attack " on himself by the Provost of Edinburgh University who, it seems, desired hiihself to succeed forthwith to Pringle's Chair ; but, as Pringle writes on November 18, " I am far from being determined to quit my Chair ". In the same letter, he proceeds to an interesting discussion of the projected new hospital for the English troops. On November 21 he is writing that Lord Stair has received from Lord Loudoun a request to give a military appoint- ment to a surgeon recommended by Mitchell, and Pringle asks for Mitchell's support for the appointment of one, Gilbert Eliot, as apothecary's mate, " a friend of my own " and a pupil of Iris brother Walter, " above this business, but it is a good beginning ". Further letters give his reflections on conditions in Holland. He comments on the reluctance of Dutch officers to service in the East Indies and remarks that they are " mostly Burgomaster's sons, brought up in luxury ". He has investigated health Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. conditions in Holland, and writes of his concern " in the great charge entrusted to me " for the British troops. He is reading much, and men- tions a Monsieur Antoinnes " who almost daily serves me by way of spiritual dram .... to give a relish to such a kind of Chit-chat as I must daily hear ". He asks Mitchell to send him also some " gay books, for I would fain shake off for a time that undesirable turn of moodiness contracted by my severer study ". On April 15, 1743, he sends from Aix-la-Chapelle, a long and interesting study of the Dutch constitution. He contrasts the personal traits of the Dutch with those of his German fellow-officers, and remarks "I was acquainted with a number of the Hessian and Hanoverian Officers .... I could perceive a greater degree of modesty than I imagin'd was to be found in an Army. At the same time, it was certain I convers'd with them under great disadvantage, for though I had the title of Physician General, it never could imply to the Germans that I was a Gentleman ". He relates : " I finished the two Conversations I had with Mons, Oliva [the Burgomaster] with presuming 136 Dorothea Waley Singer on

to offer two schemes for the good of this little Commonwealth ; the first was for the free exercise of the reform'd religion .... for as I had observ'd, they not having the free exercise of their religion, they remain'd always as strangers and sojourners, not as Citizens .... I qualified as well as I could by telling him I laid aside all prejudices of religion, and that I spoke no more for my fellow Worshippers than I should have done for Moham- edans .... Whatever were the Burgomaster's real sentiments .... I certainly chose a wrong juncture for finding them out, for there was both a Priest and Women in the Company; I could see he hestitated and inclined to wave the subject .... My second scheme propos'd to the Burgomaster was putting this Town into some better Condition, enough to keep off flying Parties till they could have assistance from the Dutch at Maestricht ". In July, 1743, the atmosphere of mystery returns to the letters. On July 7 Pringle writes " I keep no letter after twice reading : you may guess the reason why ". This letter is signed J. W. Frazer (or possibly as before J. N. Frazer). 2} few days later, Pringle writes under the signature J. N. Frazer " in what, however, related to M. N. I cannot retract. For what concerns Frazer's correspondence, he is vexed that his friend should believe he has not time to write to him when his mysterious- ness and closeness depends upon the danger of his letters getting into other hands than Mr. Tizles' . . . . when we meet, says he, I believe I shall assuage him indeed, and clear up mysteries and paradoxes ". There follow remarks which would seem highly confidential if not indiscreet concerning military plans, mixed with entertaining gossip and " Prince C. is a tall rawboned young Hero ; he is marked with the Smallpox, and as the King said ' il a fort l'air soldatesque ' . . . . ". Pringle asks for Le Dran upon Gunshot Wounds to be sent to him " in French if possible, if not, Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. in English .... Let me know what Maelaurin is doing" (cf. p. 140, foot- note 28). As the campaign proceeds the letters are less frequent. On November 20, 1743, from Brussels " I don't think it convenient to write of the things you expect to hear " signed M. Frazer. The three last letters are brief. In May, 1744, he has finished his winter notes and " I thought more this winter in Physick than any of the years I was in Leyden ,,21 Martin Folkes (1690-1754), antiquarian and historian, is intimately connected with the history of the l~oyal Society. Elected a Fellow in 1713, he is said to have been " runner up " for the Presidency to Sir Hans Sloane himself, whom he succeeded in that office in 1741. He held the Presidency for twelve years, and he had been the first to introduce 21 B.1VL 5{SS. Additional, 6861, ft. 137-194v; 6860, ft. 266-268v; 6861, ft. 195-213. The sheets are bound somewhat out of their chronological order. Dr. D. McKie has suggested that, while Pringle was a staunch supporter of the Hanoverian dynasty, he may have felt it unwise, in view of his position in the Army, to conduct an open corre- spondence .with another Scotsman at a time when Jacobite hopes were rising and when Jacobite s~mpathies were often concealed. Sir John Pringle and his Circle 137

Pringle to the I~oyal Society (p. 133). Daniel Wray (1701-1783) was a learned antiquary, and had travelled in Italy with Sir James Douglas, who, as Earl of Morton, was President of the Royal Society from 1764 to his death in 1768. Wray was at one time believed to be the writer of the Junius Letters. Cromwell Mortimer (d. 1752), a physician, was very closely connected with the Royal Society. Like Pringle and other English and Scottish leaders of medicine of the time, he had studied at Leyden under Boerhaave. He had dedicated his M.D. thesis (Leyden, 1724) to Sir Hans Sloane 2~, and after Mortimer had been for a few years in practice in London, Sloane had invited him in 1729 to join him at his home in Bloomsbury Square, where for eleven years he had acted as Sloane's assistant. Mortimer had become L.R.C.P. in 1725; in 1728 he had been granted a Cambridge degree speciali gratis; and in 1729 he had been elected F.I~.C.P. He was F.S.A. and an active member of Council of that body. Mortimer had been elected F.I~.S. in 1728, and he was one of the Secretaries from 1730 until his death. He made many communications to the Philosophical Transactions on medicine, natural history and electricity, as well as on technological arts, as printing, weaving, etc. Pringle could not have had more favourable sponsorship than this group, and he made the fullest use of the opportunities that opened to him. In 1750, with his Observations on the Nature and Cure of Hospital and Jayt Fevers, published as a letter to Mead, Pringle opened his campaign for general cleanliness, hygiene as we now call it, alike in hospitals and in jails. Linked with this important pamphlet is the paper in the Philosophical Transactions for 1753, "An account of several People Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. Seized with the Gaol Fever in Newgate " (Part III). But between these two publications was the series of papers to the t~oyal Society on " Septic and Antiseptic Substances ", which drew on their author the award of the Copley Medal 2a. The fruits of his constant observation, thought 2~ Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753), botartieal collector, physician and scholar. His services to learning were too many to record here. Appointed Secretary to the Royal Society in 1693, he edited the Philosophical Transactions for twenty years. His great colleetior~ of manuscripts is known to all who have worked in the Students' Room of the British Museum. Sloane succeeded Sir Isaac Newton as President of the Royal Society in 1727. See C. R. Weld, History of the Boyal Society with Memoirs of the President~, 2 vols., London, 1848, i, 450. 2a Sir Godfrey Copley (d. 1709), second Baronet, was a great friend of Sir I-Ians Sloane and shared his tastes as a collector, himself specializing in mathematical instruments; and in 1691 he was elected Follow of the Royal Society. He was in Parliament, where he distinguished himself in 1697 when he defended Sir John Fenwick (though unsuccessfully) against cortderrmation on a charge of treason, supported by only one witness. Copley was a Commissioner of Public Accounts in 1703, and in 1704 was appointed Controller of the Accounts cf the Army. He bequeathed to Sir Hans Sloane and Abraham Hill £100 " ia [Footnote continued on io. 138. Ann. of Sci.--Vol. 6, No. 2. r~ 138 Dorothea Waley Singer on

and work culminated in the Observations on the Diseases of the Army. Before examining these works we will briefly survey the further events of his life. In 1752 Pringle married Charlotte, daughter of that Dr. Oliver of Bath whose biscuits became so well known to the lay public ; but his ~4fe died after a few years and they had no children. In 1753 Pringle became a member of the Council of the Royal Society, an honour repeated several times. Only in 1758 did he became a Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians of London, a delay that Kippis attributes to some postponement in settling in the metropolis. The view may be hazarded that the delay was partly caused by the anomalous position of Licentiates of the College. Their prolonged struggle with the Fellows need not detain us here. Bu~ we note an incident in 1771, when Pringle had become a Fellow of the College (p. 141), which shows him as usual on the side of liberality as well as common sense. For in that year we find him, together ~4th Heberden (p. 160) seconding the proposal, which, however, was lost, to confer the Fellowship of the College on Dr. John Fothergill, the distinguished Quaker physician and philanthropist who was leader of the dissident Licentiates 2~. The incident is described in a letter (dated September 16, 1771) from Pringle's old friend William Watson (pp. 161-2) to Fothergill himself. This letter shows Pringle also cautiously generous on another vexed question at the College of Physicians, the recognition of obstetricians. Watson writes: "I must not forget, that when the statute to prevent the admission of men-midwives to be Fellows was forming, Sir John Pringle moved that the man-midwife to the person of the Queen should be excepted, but whether or no Dr. Hunter's sins were too many to be Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. pardoned at present, certain it is the motion was rejected by a great majority " ~5. Throughout his London period Pringle maintained contact with friends in Scotland and it was to the Royal College of Physicians of trust for the 1%oyal Society of London for improving Natural Knowledge, to be laid out in Experiments or otherwise for the benefit thereof as they shall direct and appoint ". It is stated that the first expenditure was in 1731 and 1732, a prize being awarded of five guineas in each of those years to Stephen Gray for electrical experiments. The next award was to J. T. Desaguliers (cf. Part II) in 1734. In 1736 it wo,s decided to convert the bequest into gold medal to he awarded armually on the recommendation of the President and Council of the Royal Society ; and Desaguliers in that year was the recipient of the first medal. 24 1%. Hingston Fox, op. cir., London, 1919, p. 149. 25 John Thomson An Account of the Life, Lectures and Writings of William CuUen, Edinburgh, 2rid edn., 1859, i, 657-660. The Hunter is, of course, Dr. William Hunter, the elder of the two brothers. My attention was drawn to the passage by Dr. Jane Oppenheimer's work, New Aspects of John and William Hunter, London, 1946. Dr. HLmter was introduced by Pringlc to R. S. Sessions several times in 1778 (Journal Book, Copy, xxix). For John Thomson, cf. below, p. 154, foot-noto 75. Sir John Pringle and his Circle 139

Edinburgh that he presented the ten manuscript volumes of his Medical and Physical Observations 26. Moreover, in correspondence with Cullen (President, 1773-5), he gave much help on the new edition (1774) of their Pharmacopeia. He wrote to Cullen on August 17, 1778 : " I should judge that in point of simplicity and elegance of composition, where composition is required, the new Edinburgh Pharmacopeia has got as far before the last London Pharmacopeia [of 1786] as that work excelled all others preceding it " 27. Pringle was especially fond of Lord Aueh- inleck, and Kippis is the authority for his having successfully reconciled a dispute between James Boswell and his father. Kippis quotes a charm- ing passage from a letter from Pringle to Boswell written in 1773 : " I shall be glad-to serve you, but remember, in all cases of opposition, I shall be on the ministerial side: I mean, on that of your father, my oldest and best friend. You may inherit after him (if I should survive him) my first affections ; but they cannot be alienated during his life " Boswell, in the Life of Johnson, repeatedly refers to books that Pringle had lent to him. Among these was "the Trial of the heretick Elwal " James Elwall (1676-1744), a prosperous mercer and grocer of Wolver- hampton, was successively a Presbyterian, Baptist, Unitarian, Ebionite and perhaps a member of the Church of England, but was distinguished throughout for his (seventh day) Sabbatarian views. His theological opinions brought him much trouble from 1715, when he led the defence of the Presbyterian meeting-house at Wolverhampton against the attacks of a mob. Nevertheless, when he joined ~he Unitarians, the Presbyterian minister at Wolverhampton preached against him, while in 1726 he aroused indignation at Pinners' Hall in London, where he attempted to address in Quaker fashion a congregation that had been listening to a Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. sermon from the Nonconformist scholar and divine, Dr. Samuel Wright. In the same year, at the instance of certain clergy of the Established Church, Elwall was prosecuted at the Stafford assize for blasphemy. The trial aroused widespread interest. It transpired that Elwall had been in correspondence on theological matters with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but maintained his Unitarian views, which he expounded at length during his trial. The Judge endeavourcd to bind Elwall to cease from writing, but being met by a firm refusal, he finally discharged him. The trial presents a remarkable picture of eighteenth-century liberality and humanity. Among Elwall's many theological pamphlets is a Declaration 2s Through his friend DI;. John Hope (Kippis, oio. cit., p. lxii). The gift carried a proviso that the volumes should not leave the College building. Sir Arthur Mac~alty has most kindly looked through the volumes and he finds that they comprise case records. We note Pringle introducing Dr. Hope to a 1%. S. Session in Jmm 1776 (Journal Book, Copy, xxvlii, 444). Dr. Hope was perhaps his cousin (cf. p. 135). 27 John Thomson, op. cit., ii, 84. Thomson cites a~other letter from Pringle to Cullen concerning the new Hall of the College, completed in 1781 (ii, 85). L2 140 Dorothea WMey Singer on

against all the Kings and Temporal Powers under Heaven (1732). Attached to the fourth edition (1741), " a plea for freedom of conscience," is his challenge to King George II to meet him in discussion "in James' Park" and also his account of his Trial. This was reprinted as The Triumph of Truth several times by the author, and no less than three times by Priestley, in 1772, 1788 and in 1791, attached to a reprint of his own Appeal to the .... Professors of Christianity .... by a Lover of the Gospel. Since it was in 1772 that Boswell raised the subject of Elwall to Johnson, it may be presumed that Pringle had been reading Priestley's reprint of the Trial. Four years later Pringle had lent to Boswell Johnson's youthful work,~the translation of the Voyage to Abyssinia of F. Jerome Lobe. In the same year Boswell narrates a characteristic anecdote of Sir John Pringle, who had successfully intervened with the publisher of Goldsmith's Animated Nature to suppress an injurious remark in the work concerning the mathematician Maclaurin 2s. This was undertaken at the instance of Maclaurin's son, of whom, together with Boswell, Wallace and Murray, Kippis remarks, " The loss [Pringle] had sustained in the decease of his former companions was in part made up by their sons 29 Johnson, it would seem, was not among Pringle's circle of friends. Boswell narrates in 1776, " Sir John Pringle ' mine own friend and my Father's friend ', between whom and Dr. Johnson I in vain wished to establish an acquaintance, as I respected and lived in intimacy with both of them, observed to me once, very ingeniously, ' It is not in friendship as in mathematicks, where two things, each equal to a third, are equal between themselves. You agree with Johnson as a middle quality ; but Johnson and I should not agree '. Sir John was not sufficiently flexible ; so I desisted ; knowing, indeed, that the repulsion was equally strong on Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. the part of Johnson ; who, I know not from what cause, unless his being a Scotchman, had formed a very erroneous opinion of Sir John " 30 Pringle was a great admirer of Voltaire. His interest in philosophy and theology was maintained throughout his life a~ and Kippis records that, on his youthful travels, " His belief of the Christian t~evelation was so 2s Kippis mentions " the eminent philosopher Maclaurin " as an intimate friend of Pringle, noting that Maclaurin is cited in one of Pringle's Copley Discourses. 29 p. [xei]. ~0 The incomparability is attributed by Dr. J. F. Payne, in his D.N.B. memoir of Pringle, to Pringle's unorthodox theology. 31 Kippis distinguishes between, on the one hand " divinity " and" commentators on Scripture " and on the other hand " metaphysical disquisitions ". For these latter he tells us Pringle lost his " regard in the latter part of his life ; and, though some of his most valued friends had engaged in discussions of this kind, with very different views of things, he did not choose to revert to the studies of his youth, but contented himself with the opinions he had then formed "'. The friends mentioned by Kippis in this connexion are Dr. Price. Dr. Priestley and Lord Monboddo. Cf. Kippis, ol). cit., pp. lxix-lxxiv and see below, pp. 144-6, 159, 174 and 145, 177ff. ,Sir John Pringle and his Circle ~41

far unsettled, that he became a sceptic with regard to it, if not a Deist ,,. He reached the conclusion, however, that his own religious belie£~ were enshrined in Holy Writ. Kippis states : " he became fully convinced by his study of the Scriptures tha~ the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity made no part of them ; but that they uniformly concurred in asserting the unity and supremacy of the God and Father of Mankind. He was equally convinced that they did not confine the mercy of the Supreme Being to a few, exclusively of others ; and that they did not hold out anything, with respect to the extent and duration of the future punishment of the wicked, which could in the least be considered as an impediment of the divine justice, rectitude and goodness. He added another name to the catalogue of the excellent and judicious persons, who have gloried in being l~ational Christians ". Boswell remarks in 1777 : " We read in the Gospels, that those unfortunate persons who were possessed with evil spirits (which, after all, I think is the most probable cause of madness, as was first suggested to me by my respected friend Sir John Pringle), had recourse to pain .... ". In 1778, he tells us, Pringle suggested that he should ascertain Johnson's opinion as to " what were the best English sermons for style " Pringle corresponded on theological questions with the learned orientalist and theologian, John David Michaelis (1717-1791), professor of philosophy in Ghttingen, and in 1773 he was responsible for the publication in London of the Epistolae de LXX Hebdomadibus Danielis, dedicated to him by Michaelis, though Pringle's expense in this matter might seem to have been almost superfluous on behalf of Michaehs, from whose pen a flood of publications appeared in his own land. We notice

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. Michaelis introduced by Pringle on November 19, 1778, at the Royal Society Session preceding that of his final Copley Discourse. Kippis assures us that Pringle was a regular Church-goer. He mentions, too, his kindness and generosity to the poor among his patients, in spite of a reserved and somewhat pompous manner. He was a great reader of sermons and of Biblical commentaries. His favourite author was Lord Bacon. Pringle's works show him as well read in European medical literature and he was fond of citing the classics, a tribute to the good grounding of Francis Pringle in the University of St. Andrews. Plato he disliked and all poetry but, at least in youth, he cared greatly for music, and in the early Edinburgh years he had played the violincello at a weekly concert of a musical society. After he settled in London, honours soon showered on Pringle. He received successive royal medical appointments and subsequently, as late as 1763, he became Fellow of the RoyM College of Physicians of England, an event consummated only speciali gratia, since he could claim neither an Oxford nor a Cambridge degree. But it is with the Royal 142 Dorothea Waley Singer on

Society that his contributions toward human health and happiness will always be associated. In 1766 a Baronetcy was conferred on him, and and in 1772 he became President of the Royal Society. His Presidency was remarkable for the six discourses with which he introduced his successors as recipients of the Copley Medal. While health and vigour lasted, Pringle thoroughly enjoyed the circumstances of his life in Lqndon. lionours reached him from scientific and medical bodies in Haarlem, GOttingen, Madrid, Amsterdam, Paris, St. Petersburg, Kassel, Hanau and Naples (to name them in chronological order). Frequent were the reunions in his house of British and foreign " philosophical men ", to cite the phrase of Kippis, who tells us that he much enjoyed entertaining " eminent and learned foreigners ". One of his guests at two successive ~Royal Society meetings was Mr. Omai " from Ulaelia ", while at the latter of the two meetings he introduced also Mr. Quang at Tong from China a2. Doubtless Pringle enjoyed also his position as centre of correspondence, especially from abroad. With innocent pride, Kippis recalls a dinner party given by Pringle where the eight persons present were of eight nationalities, comprising a Dutchman, a German, a Frenchman, a Spaniard, an Italian, a Russian, Kippis, himself an Englishman, and Pringle a Scot. The Abbd Fontana was the guest of Pringle, and Kippis mentions among his foreign correspondents Linnaeus, Tissot and Haller. The latter dedicated to him the second volume of his great Bibliotheca Anatomica (Ziirich, 1777). Their friend- ship went back at least to 1760, for there is in the Stadtbibliothek at Berne a voluminous series of letters from Pringle to Haller, written between 1760 and 1771, the year of Haller's death aa. In the earlier years they are discussing literary matters, " the ancient bard Fingal " and Ossian. Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. In 1768 and 1771, Pringle's mind is filled with Cook's voyage. IIe writes in November 1768 : "A young gentleman of the name of Banks of a large fortune, with a great love for botany, goes out to the island with the astronomer and carries Dr. Solander along with him, and bears his expense. The public has no share ". In June 1771 : " You must have heard of the safety of the Endeavour frigate, at last, of her arrival at Batavia with our astronomers and naturalists in perfect health and good spirits from the success of their enterprise ". He describes the ship's course, and further letters refer to Cook's visit to New Zealand and to Tahiti. Later, Pringle writes again of Banks. A letter from Haller to Tissot, written in May 1770, cites a Whimsical letter from Pringle. Dr. Theodore Tronchin writes in 1765, in a letter preserved in the Biblioth~que as Journal Book, Copy, xxviii, 136 and 149 (Dec. 8, 1774, and Jar). 12, 1775). 8a I am indebted for this information to the kindness of Mademoiselle Engel of Geneva. It is to the never-failing and generons scholarship of Dr. D. McKie that I owe the suggestion to seek fo, Pringle correspondence in Swiss libraries. I would like also to thanl~ Dr A. G. Weigelt, Librarian of the Stadt-und Hochschulbibliothek of Berne, who was good enough to arrange for photostats to be taken ior me of Pringle's letters to Haller, quoted here. Sir John Pringle and his Circle 143

publique et universitaire of Geneva, to his son Francois, suggesting that he should call in London on various personages, among whom he names Pringle. In 1776, on the foundation of the Soci5tg Royale de Medicine at Paris, the first two of the seventeen foreign Associates chosen were Benjamin Franklin (pp. 163 ft.) and Pringle. In 1780 Pringle was consulted as to the inoculation against smallpox of the daughter of the Emperor Joseph II and had the pleasure of recommending his fl'iend John Ingenhousz (1730-1799), who had come to England from the Netherlands three years earlier. According to the Royal Society biographical note on Ingenhousz 3~, this first visit was for the express purpose of learning the Sutton method of inoculation, the use of the serum exuding from early smallpox pustules 35. Ingenhousz spent much time in England and was elected F.R.S. in 1769. Kippis names him as Pringle's intimate friend. His most important scientific work was embodied in Experiments on Vegetables, discovering their great Power of purifying common Air in Sunshine, but injuring it in the Shade or at Night (London, 1779). This is dedicated to Pringle. Ingenhousz, while following the custom of the time in fulsome reference to the Imperial patients, expresses genuiue appreciation and affection for Pringle himself. Between 1775 and 1782 he contributed many papers to the Philosophical Transactions, some on electric phenomena, but most on the gases of the atmosphere. Ingenhousz, Priestley, Franklin, later also Fontana and Cavallo 86 cite one another in the records of experiments, some undertaken together. On January 22, 1780, Ingenhousz wrote a letter to Pringle which throws interesting light on the latter's clinical practice, revealing him as a pioneer in a medical measure: "As you had recommended me," wrote Ingenhousz, "the

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. exanfination of the air at sea by the nitrous test in November last : and as I knew that you had given credit to the account of several consumptive people having recovered their health by going on sea voyages, I was in 34 Phil. Trans. Abridged, xiii, 575. ~5 Cf. J. Johnston Abraham, Lettsom, his L~e, Times, Friends and Descendants, London, 1933. In this charming work will be found interesting sidelights on many of Pringle's fl'iends and associates mentioned in this paper. Cf. also Thomas Thomson, History of the Royal Society, etc., London, 1812, p. 171. Thomson points out that inoculation for smallpox was first described in England in two letters published (independently of one another) in the Phil. Trans. of 1714 and 1716 respectively, from two doctors, both practising in Constantinople, Emanuel Timoni and Jacob Pylarini (Phil. Trans., 1716, 29, 72 and 393). Moreover, in 1722, Dr. Perrot Williams of I-Iaverford West had contributed several letters testifying that " The Method of communicating the Small Pox has been commonly practised by the I~habitants of this part of Wales [Pembrokeshire] time out of mind, though by another /qame viz. that of buying the Disease . . . " (Phil. Trans., 1723, 32, 262-6). It was 1716 when Lady Mary Wortley Montagu went to Constantinople with her husband and 1718 when she returned to England and introduced the practice of inoculation. 3~ Tiberius Cavallo (1749-1809) migrated from Italy and settled in England in 1775. He was best known for his work on electricity, but also investigated chemical phenomena and worked on the air-pump. 144 Dorothea Waley Singer on

hopes to find a confirmation of what you conjectured in your anniversary discourse in 1773 that great bodies of water, such as seas and lakes, are conducive to the health of animals ". Ingenhousz relates his experiments and asks Pringte to present them to the Royal Society, ff he thinks them worthy of the attention of that learned body. Re sums up the result : " It appears from these experiments that th6 air at sea and close to it is in general purer and better for animal life than the air on the land .... so that we may .... send out patients, labouring under consumptive dis- orders, to the sea, or at least to places .... close to the sea which have no marshes in their near neighbourhood .... ,, a7 The recognition of the healthfulness of sea air was a natural develop- ment from Pringle's observations on the harmfulness of marshy air, a subject which had aroused his attention in his campaigning days in Flanders and did not cease to exercise his mind, as is shown by his publication in the Philosophical Transactions of several letters addressed to him on the subject. Thus, in December 1773, he communicated a letter addressed to him by Priestley (pp. 140 ft.), " On the Noxious Quality of tim Effluvia of Putrid Marshes " as. Referring to his earlier papers to the Society on different kinds of air .~9, Priestley in the letter gives great praise to two books of kindred observations by Dr. Alexander of Edinburgh. But he takes exception to the view concerning this matter of noxious airs expressed in one of them " dedicated to yourself, who have so clearly explained the great mischief of such a situation in your excellent treatise on the diseases of the army .... but Dr. Alexander was not aware that air thus loaded with putrid effluvium is exceedingly noxious when taken into the lungs ". And he proceeds to cite his experiments proving the point as well as to indicate how he believes Dr. Alexander was led Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. to the erroneous view 40 3T ,, On the Degree of Salubrity of the common Air at Sea compared with that of the Sea Shore and that of ]?]aces far removed from the Sea," Phil. Trans., 1780, 70, 354. as Phil. Trans., 1774, 64, 90. Priestley adds a postscript expressing surprise and regret that " Mr. Smeaton's air-pump should have been before the public so long as ever since the publication of the 47 th volume of the Phil. Trans. [i. e., 1754] and yet that none of our philosophical instrument makers should attempt the construction. The superiority of this pump to any that are made on the common plan, is, indeed, prodigious. Few of them will rarefy more than 100 times, and, in a general way, not more than 60 or 70 times, whereas this instrument . . . when it is in good order, will go as far as 1000 times, and sometimes even much farther (Cf. p. 169 and Part II). 89 See below, p. 145, foot-note 41. as Dr William A. Alexander studied medicine in Edinburgh a~d practised surgery there. After obtaining his doctorate, he moved in 1769 to London, but soon returned to Edinburgh where he died in 1783. Among his medical writings were Experimental Essays on the following subjects : I On the external application of antiseptics in putrid diseases, II On the doses and Effects of Medicines, III On diuretics and sudorifics (London, 1768 : 2nd edn., London, 1770) and An experimental Enquiry concerning the causes which have generally been said to produce putrid diseases (London, 1771). This latter work is dedicated to Sir John Pringle. Sir John Pringle and his Circle 145

It is hardly necessary to recall here the achievement or the stormy life-course of Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), Nonconformist minister, son of a Yorkshire cloth-dresser, prolific writer both on political and natural philosophy. Jeremy Bentham regarded Priestley's Essay on Government (1768) as the source of his own famous phrase, " the greatest happiness of the greatest number ". The story is well known of how in 1791 the excesses of a mob drove Priestley from Fairhfll, Birmingham, to London, where he became pastor in Hackney. Here also he suffered insult on account of his opinions, so that finally in' 1794 he emigrated to the United States where opinion was not in opposition to his own and he was there- fore unmolested. Priestley was elected F.R.S. in 1766. His History and Present State of Electricity appeared in 1767. In 1772 appeared the two volumes of his History and Present State of Discoveries relating to Vision, Light and Colours. His early contributions to the Philosophical Transactions were nearly all on electrical phenomena. They were followed by the chemical and physiological work on airs. These had received the first Copley Medal awarded under Pringle's Presidency 41, only a month before the communication to the Society of the letter to Pringle " On the Noxious Quality of the Effluvia of Putrid Marshes ". Priestley's Letter to Pringle is followed immediately in the Philosophical Transactions by a letter written a month later to Horsley (p. 172) from Dr. Richard Price ~2 confirming Priestley's views as to the insalubrity of marshy situations with evidence from the published Tables of Mortality of the Canton of Vaud in Switzerland. In May 1775, Pringle com- municated two further letters from Priestley on the same subject. Priestley writes : " I think it due to the attention with which you have Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. first honoured [these experiments] to give you some account of what I have lately done" 43. With these letters Priestley sent also an extract from a letter he had written to Price ~p. 140). This Dr. Richard Price (1723-91 ; F.R.S. in 1765) was a Unitarian minister, a mathematician and statistician, and a great friend of Benjamin Franklin. He wrote much on civil liberty and was known for his @fence of the French Revolution and opposition to the war against the American Colonies. He did not accept the invitation of Congress to settle in America. All these distinguished Nonconformists formed a circle in London, which embraced also the Quakers led by Dr. Fothergill (p. 138). We have seen Pringle joining with Heberden in support of the proposal to recognize Dr. Fothergill's

,1 Phi7. Trans., 1772, 62, 147-264. ,2 Kippis mentions him, together with Lord Monboddo (cf. above, p. 140, tbot-note 3D and Priestley, as among Pringle's most valued friends, though with metaphysica! views very dift~rent from his own. ,3 Phil. Trans., 1775, 65, 384, read hi Jan. 1776. 146 Dorothea Waley Singer on

claim to recognition by the College of Physicians. He corresponded with Fothergill concerning the influenza epidemic in November 1775, and when Priestley was iJl in 1780 he was attended by ~Fothergill, Webb, Heberden and Pringle ~4. We may guess that Pringle also joined in the annual subsidy to Priestley generously organized by Fothergill as. Again, in 1776, Dr. Alexander Small, Surgeon to the Train of Artillery at Minorea, is writing to Pringle of the unhealthy damp exhalations from well-watered gardens and also from stone dwellings in the island as. Indirect evidence of Pringle's influence among medical men of all ranks may be gathered from the references in his writings to his contact with them. Characteristic is the trouble he took in 1757 to correspond with his Edinburgh friend, Dr. Whytt, as to Horace Walpole's use of soap and lime-water against the stone, and his very careful accumulation, from physician, surgeon and apothecary of evidence concerning this mode of treatment 47 Concerning mineral waters, he communicates to the Society in 1774 a letter from Dr. William Brownrigg (1711-1800) of Whi'tehaven, Cumber- land as, answering Pringle's enquiry as to the development of Brownrigg's experiments on the subject. Brownrigg, a graduate of Leyden, had been elected F.R.S. in 1752. His first contribution to the Philosophical Transactions was his suggestion in 1755 that Hales's invention for distilling sea-water might be adapted to other purposes, as in working a fire-engine 40. Pringle's reference is especially to Brownrigg's " Experi- mental Enquiry into the mineral elastic Spirit, Air, contained in Spa Water, as well as into tl:e Mephitic Qualities of this Spirit" 50, of June 1765, which was awarded the Copley Medal in the following year, and to his earlier papers on the same subject. Brownrigg had shown that the fatally Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. noxious air of mines (carbon dioxide, as we now say) constituted an

at 1~. l~Iingston ]?ox, op. cir., p. 71. ~ Ibid., p. 215. as Phil. Trans., 1776, 66, 439. A Dr. Small was introdnced to R.S. Sessions by Pringle several times in :Nov. and Dec. 1752, mad Jan. and Feb. 1754 (Journal Book, Copy, xx and xxi). a~ Walpole had published the treatment of his own case in two papers in the Phil. Trans., 1751/2, 47, 43 and 472. Pringle published his correspondence with the evidence he had collected concerning this mode of treatment in Phil. Trans., 1757, 50, 205-227, and Whytt's suggestion later in the year of the superior efficacy of Carlsbad water (ibid., pp. 383-392}. Robert Whytt (1717-1766) (of course a graduate of Leyden) was Professor of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh. In 1752 he became F.R.S. and from 1763- 6 he w~s President of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. Whytt's contributions to the Phil. T~'ans. do not deal with his important work on the physiology of the nervous system. CJ. pp. 147, 156. A collected edition of Whytt's works was published after his death, edited jointly by his son and by Pringle. as Phil. Trans., 1774, 64, 357. 4, 1bid., 1756, 49, 534. ~o Ibid., 1765, 55, 218. Sir John Pringle and his Cirvle 147

invaluableelement in the medicinal waters of Pyrmont and Spa (of. Part II). The work is linked with that of Priestley, of Henry Cavendish 51 and of Lane 02. Then again Pringle gives Whytt's report of " Cases of the remarkable effects of Blisters in lessening the Quickness of the Pulse in Coughs attended with Infection of the Lungs and Fever " 03 The widespread interest in electric phenomena is reflected in letters to Pringle describing the results of electric treatment. In December 1757 and in May 1758, he communicates letters sent to him by Whytt from Patrick Brydone on "the Electrical Virtue " used in cases of paralysis 04. This Brydone was introduced by Pringle to a session of the Society on November 12, 1772, and the following week Pringle signed the certificate proposing him as Fellow 50. In January 1758, Pringle com- municates a letter from Franklin himself, giving "An Account of the Effects of Electricity in Paralytic Cases " and suggesting that the failure to ensure permanent cure may have been due to too short a period of treatment 06 Pringle gives to the Philosophical Transactions only one record of a patient of his own, and that is rather as a biological phenomenon than as an example of the healing art 57. He communicates from others three letters of surgical interest, one of which is from the physician, Dr. Robe1% Hamilton, who describes how his surgical colleagues agreed that the operation he had devised had best be performed by himself 5s. Perhaps the most momentous of the communications to the Society introduced by Pringle was Captain Cook's paper, read in March 1776, on "The Method taken for preserving the Health of the Crew of His Majesty's Ship the Resolution during her Voyage roundthe World" 09. The friendship

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. between the two men is a happy episode in the lives of both. Captain James Cook (1728-79) is one of the great figures of British history, and there is no need to recall here in detail the boy of twelve, who obtained his discharge from apprenticeship to a Whitby haberdasher and set to sea 6o, and fifteen years later, having worked his way to become mate, decided on the outbreak of war to avoid the attentions of the Press-gang by voluntarily joining the Navy. This proved a fortunate step, for to his

51 Ibid., 1767, 57, 92 especially, cf. p. 170. s~ Ibid., 1769, 59, 216, of. p. 171. 5a Ibid., 1758, 50, 569. 54 Ibid., 1758, 50, 392 and "695. 55 Journal Book, Copy, xxvii, 261 and 163. ~e Phil. Trans., 1758, 50, 481. ~ Ibid., 1753, 48, 297 : "A remarkable case of Fragility, Flexibility and Dissolution of the Bones ". ~s Ibid., 1758, 50, 617 ; 1776, 66, 578 ; 1777, 67, 458. 5~ Ibid., 1776, 66, 402. Cf. also a copy (almost identical) in British Museum I~SS. Additional 8945 ft. 58-59v. 6o On the Eree Love~ the property of a Quaker firm. 148 Dorothea Waley Singer o~

first ship the Eagle was soon appointed as captain an officer of remarkable discernment, Hugh Palliser, who at once recognized the gifts of James Cook and never ceased, during Cook's life, to enlarge his knowledge and opportunities. In 1768 the l~oyal Society was anxious to send an expedition to observe the transit of Venus. The Admiralty was to furnish the ship and crew, and it is interesting to note that this was the third scientific expedition sponsored by the Admiralty since peace had been declared in 1763. But their Lordships objected to placing a non-naval scientist in command. Palliser put forward the name of Cook, who was thereupon commissioned lieutenant and appointed to command the Endeavour, a ship chosen by Palliser and himself and purchased by the Admiralty 61. Hugh Palliser (1723-1796), though born into very different circumstances, went to sea like Cook, at the age of twelve, that being the age for recruitment of officers into the Navy. He will ever be distinguished for his recognition of Cook's qualities. Palliser himself had a brilliant naval career and was created baronet in 1773. Five years later (as Vice-Admiral) he was court-martialled ibr insubordination when serving under Keppel in an action in the Channel. His acquittal was, according to his D.N.B. biographer, regarded as a scandal. But Palliser was duly reinstated in his office, and he died as full Admiral and Governor of Greenwich HospitM. Cook's voyage was notable both for successful astronomical observation and for the great collections of Joseph Banks 62 and Dr. Solander 6a Banks's father, we may recall, was a neighbour to the land-owner who employed Cook's father, and the happy relationship of the ship's com- mander and his passengers is a pleasing episode. In 1771, on the return Endeavour, Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. of the his early patron, the Earl of Sandwich, now head of the Admiralty Board, had promoted Cook commander and in August 1775 he was promoted post-captain and " Captain in Greenwich Hospital " Both Cook and Banks wished that Banks and his numerous staff should accompany also tlm second scientific voyage under Cook's command, but apparently this was prevented, owing to some friction between Banks and the Admiralty. It was this second voyage, which set sail in 1772, that provided the occasion of Cook's historic achievement in maintaining the health of his crew, for which he was awarded the Copley Medal 64 the occasion that evoked Pringle's finest Discourse (Part III). Cook's measures comprised diet, cleanliness and protection from the weather. The men were given sweet wort made from malt, sour krout from vegetables, the rob of lemons and oranges, and plenty of sugar--besides fresh vegetables

61 Cf. Andrew Kippi.% Life of Captain James Cook, London, 1788, pp. 13 seqq. 62 Phil. Trans., 1771, 61, 397, 422, 433. 66 Ibid., 1772, 62, 357. 64 See p. 137, foot-note :?3. Sir John Pringle and his Circle 149

when available ; and at every opportunity the fresh-water supply was completely renewed. " Proper methods were employed to keep their persons, hammocks, bedding, cloaths etc. constantly clean and dry. Equal pains were taken to keep the ship clean and dry between decks " and the air below was purified by fires or gunpowder. Cook's regimen for his men was described in yet greater detail by Pringle in the Discourse 65 Cook himself had sailed in the Resolution accompanied by the Adventure commanded by Captain Fourneaux. Both ships were in Portsmouth again by July 1775. On November 23 of that year, Cook was introduced to the Society's Session by Pringle, and on the same day he was proposed for the Fellowship, his certificate bearing no less than twcnty signatures, but not that of Pringle. The President introduced him again on the following January 25, and on February 28, 1776, when he was unanimously elected. He read his paper in the following month. Characteristically, Cook mentions some " hints I had from Sir Hugh Palisser, the captains Campbell (cf. p. 152), Wallis and other intelligent officers ", as well as declaring: " Much was owing to the extraordinary attention given by the Admiralty, in causing such articles to be put on board, as either experience or conjecture were judged to tend most to preserve the health of seaInen " It would be interesting to know how far the health measures of the voyage were in fact due to Pringle. Doubtless he had brought to Cook's attention the works of James Lind (1716-94) and of David MacBride (1726-78). Lind was a Scotsman who, after serving as naval surgeon in Minorea, the Guinea Coast and the West Indies as well as in the Mediterranean, practised in Edinburgh from 1748 to 1758, when he was appointed physician to the Naval Hospital at Haslar. He was elected Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. F.R.C.P. Edinburgh in 1754, the year when he first published his Treatise of the Scurvy in which he advocates the use of green food and onions, wine and beer, and of oranges and lemons. It was dedicated to Lord Anson who had been profoundly disturbed at the loss from scurvy of seventy- five per cent. of the crew of an expedition that circumnavigated the world under his command between 1740 and 1744. We may note that Anson was First Lord of the Admiralty when Lind was appointed to Haslar. The Treatise of the Scurvy aroused great interest, and went into a second edition in 1757 and a third in 1772, the year of Cook's second and triumphantly healthy expedition ~ The work of Lind was extended by David MacBride, an Edinburgh

~ Cf. Part IIL ~ Furthermore the Treatise on the Scurvy was incorporated in Lind's Essay on the most effectual Means of Preserving the Health of Seamen in the Royal Navy (London, 1757). The third edition of this work, which ~ppeared in 1779, has a chapter on gaol foyer. 150 Dorothea Waley Singer on

graduate who, after a short period as surgeon's mate in a hospital ship and as naval surgeon, had settled in Dublin. In a volume of Experimental Essays (London, 1764), MacBride put forward his view "that there is a principle in matter .... that prevents their dissolution and decay ", and described a series of experiments " concerning the power of different things to restore soundness and sweetness to substances already putrid " and "the most effectual methods to cure putrid diseases .... particularly .... the sea scurvy ". He points out that his work is founded on that of Hales, of Black and of Pringle. He repeatedly cites Pringle's experiments, and opens his third Essay, " On the Respective Powers and Manner of Acting of the different Kinds of Antiseptics," by the remark : " It was never imagined, until Sir John Pringle showed it, that the Antiseptic Power is so extensive ". The fourth Essay is entitled " Scurvy : with a Proposal for trying New Methods to prevent or cure the same at Sea " MacBride, recalling that the efficacy of fresh vegetables in preventing and curing this disease had been ascribed by Lind and other earlier observers to their " fermentative quality ", relates that it had occurred to him that " there are vegetable substances, which, though not perfectly recent, are yet capable of fermentation, such in particular as common malt " He had therefore framed a scheme' that " it might be carried to sea, and there kept, in order to make wort occasionally as it might be wanted ". He then relates how he had in May 1762 communicated his views on the scurvy to George Cleghorn 67, who had introduced them to William Hunter and to Henry Tom, through whom they were placed before the Admiralty. The Lords of the Admiralty are said to have given instructions for the method to be tested, but the matter was not pursued. Nevertheless, MacBride recalls, figures published in December Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. 1762, stated that " of one hundred and eighty-five thousand men, raised for the sea-service, during the late war, above an hundred and thirty thousand perished by diseases ". He points out that " the great mortality to which the crews of the king's ships are too often subject, ariseth from infectious diseases, owing to such numbers being crouded together, and living in circumstances less Cleanly than is usual in the merchant service, where the men breathe a purer air, and are in general cleaner, and better cloathed, though by no means better, nor perhaps so well, fed, as in the royal navy ". He emphasizes the need of " keeping the surface of the body always warm and dry, by wearing enough of clean apparel to absorb the aqueous part of the perspirable matter ; and, at the same time, making use of such diet as will supplement a sufficient quantity of that principle, which is known, from experience, to correct the morbid disposition, or

6: George Cleghorn (17 ~6-89), another son of EdfrLburgh, had been an army surgeon, and published his Observations on Diseases Epidemic in Minorca before he settled in Dublin, where he was successively Lecturer artd Professor of Anatomy. Sir John Pringlc and his Circle 151

tendency to putrefaction ". And he puts forward the proposal : " Let the men in the navy be cloathed in the same regular, exact, and uniform manner as they are in the army ; and let them be allowed, while at sea, a daily portion of sugar ; and I will venture to promise that, in a time of war, we shall annually save some thousands of very useful lives ". MacBride's work reached a second edition (London, 1767), which is dedicated to Sir Charles Saunders (1713 ?-1775), at that date " Vice- Admiral of the White, one of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council etc.". Saunders had taken part in the circumnavigation of the world under Anson (see above, p. 149)6s. In this volume )SacBride added to his essay on the scurvy an appendix in which he reprinted passages on this disease from " the old English surgeon ", J. Woodall 69. He quotes Woodall's account of the causes of scurvy including " want of fresh apparel ", his description of the symptoms, and his advocacy of cleanliness and of a diet including wine, sugar, spices ".... and oatmeal caudle, with a little beer or wine, the yoke of an egge, and some sugar " ; and " the juice of lemons is a precious medicine .... let it have a chief place .... to be taken with sugar ; .... or the juice of limes, oranges or citron, or the pulp of tam~rinds " 70 MacBride also quotes in this appendix from a letter written to him by Pringle on May 14, 1764. From ~he quotation it seems that MacBride had not himself communicated his " scheme " to Pringle who, however, as usual was eager to encourage a less known worker. " Some time ago," he writes to MacBride, "a paper of yours was put into my hands 71, relating to the use that might be made of malt in the cure of the sea scurvy ; I was confirmed in the same notion, by finding that unfermentable acids were not the thing, and that a ship's crew never suffered by that Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. distemper in any great degree, so long as they were plentifully supplied 6s Saunders was Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet for the St. Laurence two years later, when Cook made his St. Laurence Survey. 69 John Woodsll (1556-1643), military surgeon, then traveller and medical practitioner in France, Germany, Holland, and especially in Poland, where he is said to have been entrusted with a diplomatic mission by James I. Woodall had a reputation for successful treatment of the plague. In 1599 he entered the Barber Surgeons' Company (whose beautiful tIall in the City of London was destroyed by enemy action), of which he became successively Warden and lYIaster. In 1612 he was appointed the first Surgeon-General to the newly org~ized East India Joint Stock Company, and drew up detailed instructions as to instruments and remedies to be earned by their surgeons. I~e publistmd The Surgeon's Mate (1617), followed by Viaticum, being the Pathway to the Surgeon's Chest (1628). iKacBride's quotation is from the second edition of The Surgeon's Mate, published in 1639 and dedicated to Charles I. This volume incorporates also Viaticum, a Treatise for the Cure qf the Plague as well as informetion on alchemy and the chapter on the scurvy. 70 The use of these fruits against scurvy was known at least as early as 1593, when they were given to seamen by Sir John Hawkins. ~1 By George Cleghorn, as we learn from l~IacBride's Historical Account of 1736 (see below), 152 Dorothea WMey Singer on

with wine, small beer, or other liquors, which had not undergone a complete fermentation ". He relates that " Captain Campbell (who had made the long voyage with Lord Anson) then commanding the Essex, told me, that once upon a long cruise several of his men had fallen ill of the scurvy, and that he had cured them all on board, by taking the disease early, and feeding the sick chiefly on a Scotch dish, called Sooins, to which he used to add some wine and sugar ", and he expounds that ' sooins ' is in fact fermented oatmeal (cf. above p. 151). He tells MaeBride also Of the Russian use of quass described to him by Mounsey (cf. below, Part III). In December 1764 Pringle was writing to Hailer of "a very ingenious piece .... called Experimental Essays, by one MacBride a surgeon at Dublin .... Possibly you may be already provided with a copy ; but if so, you may dispose of this copy to any of your friends who read English ; for the book deserves to be known " 72 In the appendix to the 1764 volume MacBride prints also several other letters (including one from "A Merchant " to the London Magazine for September 1764) testifying to the success of molasses and wort against scurvy. The efficacy of his regimen, which was closely similar to that subsequently followed by Cook, was demonstrated by his brother, Commander John MacBride, on a voyage (1765-7) of H.M.S. Jason. The ship's surgeon, a Mr. Alexander Young, seng his medical diary of the voyage to David MacBride, who gives extracts from it in a Postscript to the 1767 volume. He proceeded in the same year to publish in London his pamphlet, An Historical Account of a new Method of treating the Scurvy at sea. This opens by citing from Mead's account of Sutton's ventilators (Part II) the various discreditable motives that prompt "People to despise, neglect or even oppose the putting in Practice useful Experiments " and Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. suggests that these have operated for more than five years against the adoption of his own measures against the scurvy. He mentions that " The Proposal was originally sent in the Year 1762, to Sir John Pringle, Dr Hunter and Henry Tom Esq., then one of the Commissioners for taking care of sick and wounded Seamen ", and after recounting the difficulties and procrastinations encountered, he proceeds to print in full Alexander Young's Journal of the voyage of the Jason, giving detailed evidence of the successful adoption of his regimen. A further five years elapsed after the publication of the HiStorical Account. No doubt both the work of James Lind and perhaps still more the eloquent publications of MacBride had aroused discussion which led to the conscientious and triumphant adoption by Cook of the measures recommended. Nor was MacBride passed over in silence by Pringle in his Address on the occasion of the Copley award to Cook (Part III). v~ Berne, Stadtbibliothek, MS. 178 e, 5-6 ft. Original letter from Prlngle to Albert yon Haller, dated London, Dec. 14, 1764, Sir John Pringle and his Circle 153

It might well have been thought that Cook would rest on his laurels after the second great voyage. The next enterprise contemplated by the AdmirMty was an expedition to seek a north-west passage by sea from America through to the north coast of Asia. Lord Sandwich invited Cook, Paliiser and Stephens of the AdmirMty to a dinner-party to consider the project, and especially the question of leadership. Cook volunteered to lead the expedition himself. The proposal was eagerly accepted and he was promised that his position at Greenwich Hospital should be reserved for him. The expedition, set sail from Plymouth in July 1776. The upshot is well known. This most humane man, who had established the friendliest relationship with the inhabitants of the remote Pacific Islands fell a victim to misunderstanding and panic among some indigenous Hawaians and was murdered in 1779 7a So he never saw his Copley Medal. From other contemporary correspondence may be gleaned opinions on Pringle as a practising physician. Thus Dr. Monro Drummond, a favourite Edinburgh pupil of Cullen :4, writes to him from London on December 14, 1771, just ~fter the appearance of the second edition of Cullen's Synopsis: " So far as I know, Sir John Pringle thinks the properties of diseases to be such as render them incapable of those methodical and strict arrangements which arc applicable to plants ; and the modern Nosology, in consequence, fanciful and useless ; and not only so, but hurtfnl also, by fixing the mind on the circumstance of collocation merely, and detaching it from more accurate investigations into what is in general so little known, the thing itself to be placed. This I never heard him express myself in so many words ; but from what I have heard him say, and have learned from ottmrs, such, I expect, is the opinion he Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. entertains. Accordingly, you may believe, what I have been otherwise told, that he has neither considered Sauvage's work nor yours with much care. Many of the other physicians here have heard of Nosology, but 7a Andrew Kippis, The Life of Captain Ja,mes Coo]c, Londor~, 1788. The volume is dedicated to the King, who is represented as having taken a personal interest in the voyages and contributed to their expense. In 1780, on the motion of Banks, the Society agreed to strike a special medal in honour of Cook, the cost to be defrayed by private subscription, and in 1784, when the fund for the medal was wound up, Mrs. Cook, Dr. Cook, the Earl of Sandwich, Franklin and Planta each received a presentation specimen (see Weld, o2. cit., ii, 139). Cf. below, p. 163, foot-note 117. 74 William Cullen (1710-1790) was the leading physician of Scotland. He held in succession a m~mber of chairs, inehlding the Edinburgh professorship of Chemistry. The combination of chemistry with medicine was, of course, in the Edinburgh tradition under the influence of Boerhaave's great work. Cullen was President of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh from 1773-5. In 1777 he was elected F.R,S. His controversy with John Brown of the " Brtmonian system " is well known, but Cullen's true contribution was his influence on a whole generation of Scottish physicians, Ann. of Sci.--Vol. 6, No. 2. 5I 154 Dorothea Waley Singer on

few have studied it ". The younger generation we see growing critical of Pringle. We owe the preservation of the above letter to another affectionate pupil of Cttllen, John Thomson 7~, who became a leading surgeon in Edinburgh. But Thomson himself, contemplating the development oi medicine during Cullen's period of active professional life, say between 1746 and 1789, hafts Pringle as among the pioneers : " There gradually arose, about the middle of the century, a new system, which, by dissevering all connection with the science of abstract quantity, and allowing medicine to rest on observation and experience alone, in the hands of Huxham (1738-48), George Cleghorn (1751), Sir John Pringle (1752), Donald Monro (1764), Francis Home (1759), Brocklesby (1764), the two Linds (1763-8), and Sims (1773)7~ threw into the shade all other means of acquiring medical knowledge and regulating medical practice " :7 We now turn to communications to the t~oyal Society made through Pringle on general scientific subjects. These were more numerous than those on medicine. As the scientific papers communicated by him tended to group around certain subjects, we may guess that they represented his genuine interests. Thus we find him receiving letters, often " at your special request ", on meteorology, chemistry (especially " air ", on which his correspondents included Professor Black of Edinburgh, see pp. 144, 150), archaeology, astronomy, electricity, the dipping needle, two on zoology, travel (including South Sea Islanders' music) and the naturalization at home of foreign plants. Only two are on mathematics and both on its practical applications (in one case to reckoning annuities and the other to astronomical calculation). In 1753 he was receiving and communicating to the Society an account of" Phyloxea or Pokeweed", Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. a succulent plant abundant in North America and recommended for use

:5 John Thomson (1765-1846) was the son of a silk weaver and was apprenticed to that trade at the age of eleven, havLr~g left school three years earlier. :But his passionate pursuit of learning persuaded his father to apprentice him at the age of twenty to Dr. White of Paisley who gave him every possible help and encouragement. Thomson proceeded to study at Glasgow and Edinburgh where he speedily rose to distinction. He became President of the Edhtburgb Medical Society when only twenty-six years old, and in 1805 he became Professor of Surgery at the Edinburgh College of Surgeons, passing in 1806 to the Professorship of Military Surgery ot Edhlburgh University, where he held the Chair of Pathology from 1832 to 1841. He became distinguished for his learning as well as for great skill. A life of Thomson is prefixed by his son Allen to John Thomson's Account of the Life, Lectures and Writings of WiUiam Cullen, 2 vols., Edinburgh and London, 1859, (cf. above, p. 138, foot-note 25). The extract fl'om 5~[onro ]Drummond's letter is printed in this work, ii, pp. 6 and 7. :~ James Sims (1741-1820), one of the founders of the London Medical Society. In 1773 he published Observations on Epidemic Diseases with Remarks on Nervous and Malignant Fever, London. ~7 j. Thomson, op. cit.. ii, 678. Sir John Pringle and his Circle 155

in dressing " cancerous ulcers ". Also the berries of this plant were used for producing '' a fadeless purple ink " 7s. Again we read of " Experi- ments oll a new Colouring Substance from the Island of Amsterdam in the South Sea made at tile desire of Sir John Pringle " communicated to the. Royal Society by Peter Woulfe, F.I~.S. (1727-1803), the chemist and mineralogist 79. A paper from James Lind (1736-1812), the Edinburgh physician, giving the " Description and Use of a Portable Wind Gage " so, appends an extract of a letter from the author to Colonel Roy, referring to the wind-gauge that Lind had " lately sent Sir John Pringle " sl. Earthquakes and agitations of waters were taking place in many parts in 1755 and 1756, and Pringle took an active part in the Society's collection of descriptions of these phenomena. In November 1755 he writes from Chevening in Kent describing not quite first-hand observation, but " the agitation of the water .... at Tunbridge town was .... told to one of our ser.vants by an eye witness " s~.. Two months later he read to the Society a description of similar phenomena at Loch Ness, gathered for him by his old friend, Dr. John Stevenson of Edinburgh, and ~n account of similar observations at Loch Lomond s3. In March 1756 he com- mtmicated accounts of earthquake shocks at Brussels and the sinking of a river near Pontypool, Monmouthshire, agitation of waters at Queen's Ferry on the Firth of Forth and similar phenomena, as well as an earth quake at Hamburg, and an earthquake shock felt between Margate and Dover s4 In December 1759 Pringle communicates a collection of letters from many parts of England describing the " Fiery Meteor " which appeared

7s Journal Book of the Royal Society (Copy), xxi, 285. This was from Mr. Richard

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. Brook, physician and surgeon of Maryland, who subsequently sent through Henry Baker (p. 161) meteorological observations of Maryland for the twelve months from Sept. I753 (PM1. Trans., 1759, 51, 58). 7o PMl. Trans., 1775, 66, 91. so Ibid., p. 353. This Dr. James Lind accompanied Banks on his voyage to Iceland (p. 163). He must be distinguished from the physician to Haslar (p. 149). sl Colonel William Roy (1726-90) bad been Deputy Quartermaster-General to the Duke of Cumberland in 1746, and was thus no doubt well known to Pringle. so. Phil. Trans., 1755, 49, 360. aa Ibid., pp. 387 and 389. 8~ Ibid., 1756, 49, 546, 547, 550, 551, 552. From Brussels the account was seat to Pringle hy :Dr. Brady, Court Physician. The events near Pontypool were described by Mr. Edward Matthews, Excise Officer, of Abergavenny. The description of the phenomena at Queen's Ferry was by the Mast~er of a ship anchored there at the time and was collected by Dr. Simson (p. 156), who sent it to Pringle. From Hamburg the information was obtained at Pringle's request by a medical student in London from his father, Professor Reimar of the University of Hamburg ; while the description of the earthquake along the Kent coast was obtained also through Excise Officers. By a device often used, both of Pringle's letters ii~trodueing these communications are dated as from the day of the meeting when they were read to the Society, N2 156 Dorothea Waley Singer on

on Sunday, November 26, 1758, between 8 and 9 at night. His informa- tion is from persons of the most diverse occupations sa. There follows a long paper giving his own remarks on the event and on the nature of meteors s6 Pringle evidently was the focus of correspondence concerning meteors. Accounts of those seen in America in June 1739, November 1742 and May 1760, were sent to him by John Winthrop, Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy in Cambridge, New England s7 ; and Thomas Clap, President of Yale, sent descriptions of other meteors seen there sa During Pringle's presidency, the custom began of recording daily meteorological observa- tions at the house of the Society. A meteorological diary from October 1776 to February 1777, together with a statistical record of diseases encountered during the same period, was sent to him by William Ro.xburgh,

s5 Ibid., 1759, 51, 218-259. This paper is, by an obvious slip, dated in the Phil. Trans. February 8, 1759, instead of December 20, 1759. Pringle refers also to an earlier letter received by him on the subj.ect. The accounts he gives are from :--Rev. Dr. Shipley of Selchester ; Mr. Wigson, Tax Collector, through Mr. Windham Bowyer, Commissioner of Excise at Colchester ; lVIr. John N~ichell of Queens' College, Cambridge ; Lord Derby's head gardener, through Mr. Lloyd, F.t~.S., of Manchester, who also sends accounts from a Liverpool newspaper ; Mr. Muncaster of Coekormouth in Cumberland ; Nit. James Hewit, wine merchant of Carlisle; :V2r. Martin Doubleday of Durham through Mr. Jonathan Ot~xston, merchant of Newcastle, who also sends an account from a Newcastle journal ; Mr. William Henderson, Vicar of Felton, tl~rough Mr. Blake, F.R.S. ; Mr. Gilchrist, physician at Dumfries, who sends two accounts by eye-witnesses in that Iocaligy (He contNbuted two long 15apers on Nervous Fevers to the Medical Essays) ; the Roy. William Turnbull of Abb0truk in the shire of l~oxburgh; Mr. Walter Pringle, the President's brother (@ ~¥alter Pringle, op. cir., p. 193), Deputy Sheriff of the Shire of Roxburgh, who sends several accounts by eye-witnesses, one with figures ; Lord Auchinleck, '" whose lands

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. lie in the shire of Air bordering on the shire of Lanerk," who sends an account gathered second-hand ; Sir Robert Pringle, the President's eldest brother, who describes hearing a noise like thmtder, though he did not see the meteor ; Farmer Mark, through Mr. Redparth of Bel~viekshire; an eye-witness in DMkeith; Dr. Whytt, F.R.S. (p. 146), who saw only a brilliant attrora borealis oi1 the night before the appearance of the meteor ; accounts in newspapers, both of Edinburgh and Glasgow ; Dr. Stedman of Dunfermline (again a contri- butor to the Medical Essays and Observations), who sent an account with figures obtained from eye-witnesses ; Mr. Cairns, surgeon's mate to a regiment in Gibraltar, who had seen the meteor from Culross, near Edinburgh; Dr. Simson, Professor of Medicine at St. Andrews (p. 155), who did not see it but sent his son's description ; Dr. Alexander Mackenzie of Ross-shire ; and Mr. Cleghom, author of the Natural History of Minorca, who sends fi'om Dublin a detailed account by an eye-witness. Moreover Pringle had ascertained that the metear was not seen either at Banff or In,+erness, both-in northern Scotland. Similar negative evidence reached him from Plymouth through Mr. Mudge (Part III) and Dr. Huxham (p. 154). s~ Ibid., pp. 259-274, dated December 20, 1759. s7 Journal Book of tile Royal Society (Copy), xxv, 245, 251 (May 1764), and Phil. Trans., 1764, 54, 185. ss One from Clap was inehtded in Winthrop's communication; and the Letter Book (Copy) xxv. 251, refers to a later letter sent hy Clap direct to Pringle+ Sir John Pringle and his Circle 157

Assistant-Surgeon at the Hospital of Fort St. George in the East Indies sp. Of the private correspondence during his Presidency much has no doubt been lost 90. 1776 appears as one of his most active years. On May 9 he was communicating a letter from Dr. John Roebuck on variations in weight of bodies when hot or cold 91. Then in November he receives for the Society John Seaforth's translated History of Metallurgy, dedicated to himself. To him as President are also4nscribed the two lovely volumes of Sir William Hamilton, husband of Emma, Lady Hamilton, presented on the same day 92. Pringlc had introduced Hamilton to a Session of the Society in July 1753 93 and among the many communications from Hamilton to the Royal Society is a letter to Pringle addressed from his " yacht on the l~hine near Mayence ", September 29, 1777, describing geological observations 94. The following January Pringle communicated a letter from Mr. William Anderson, sent to him on November 24, 1776, describing, a geological curiosity at the Cape of Good Hope and enclosing specimens. These suggested to Sir William Hamilton that it was of granite and he surmises that, as with granite in the Alps, this may have been emitted by volcanic force 95 On the same day a letter was sent to the President by Dr. MacBride of Dublin with a description of the old method of tannery and enclosing a printed account of his own new method 96. MacBride made great effbrts to improve the trade of Dublin by the introduction of his new method of tanning. There survives A Humble Petition from him To the Honourable the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses [of the City of Dublin] in Parliament Assembled, in which he endeavours to sell the secret of his process for the Privilege of an Exclusive Patent. I-Ie claims that his

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. "" Method of Tanning, founded on Chemical Principles " will produce leather of improved quality, saving a third of the time and a quarter of the expense previousl~r required, " has been practised for two years by an experienced tanner, ileeds no expensive alterations to Tan-Yard nor much additional Apparatus, and may be put in practise immediately without loss of the Materials already in use " 8~ Phil Trans., 1778, 68, 180. s0 G~. also above, pp. i34-6, 140-2, 146, 151, 159. ,1 Journal Book of the I~oyal Society (Copy), xxviii, 443, May 9, 1770, and Phil. Tra~s., 1776, 66, 510. 92 Campi Phlegraei : Observations o~ the Volva.nos of the two Sicilies, Naples, 1776. The work embodies five letters addressed successively to :Earl N'orton (President) and hIatthew 3[aty (Secretary) of the Royal Society. The illustrations were painted for Hamilton by Peter Fabris. Hamilton had been Copley Medallist in 1771 for his " Observations on 5It. Aetna "', published in Phil Trans., 1767, 57, 1770 (Journal Book (Copy), xxvii, 133). 9s ,lournal Book (Copy), xxix, 129, December 11, 1777, and Phil Trans., 1778, I}8, 133. sa Journal Book (Copy), xxi, 385. 9s Journal Book (Copy), xxix, t59, January 22, 1778. Phil T ra~s., 1778, 68, 102. ~s Journal Book (Copy), xxix, 160, and Phil Trans., 1778, 68, lll. Cf. pp. 1~t9-52. 158 Dorothea Waley Singer on

On February 19, 1778, Sir John Pringle passed to the Royal Society the gift received from M. Le Roy, Professor of Medicine in Montpellier, of his book Du Prognostic dans les Maladies Aigues, published there in 1768 97 The next work-presented by Pringle was in the domain of natural history, a letter sent to him by P. G. Craufurd, F.R.S., on "A Narrative of a new Instance of Reviviscense of Snails " 98. On May 21 a letter from Henley (pp. 168-9, 171, 173) to the President described" The extraordinary Effect of Lightning near Gosport ", a matter at that time of painful interest 99 We have seen how wide was the circle of Pringle's correspondence. We find again the names of his correspondents or of those whom he had introduced to meetings among persons whom he sponsored for election to the l~oyal Society. Thus, in February, 1763, he signed the cer- tificate of " Dr. Joseph Raulin, Doctor of Physick, Physician in Ordinary per quarrier to His Majesty " 100 In 1765 his support is given to " Dominicas Marquis de Caraccioli, Envoy Extraordinary from the Court of Naples " 101, whom he had several times brought to the Society's meetings. The next candidate with his backing is "Allan Pollock M.D. Master of the Academy in Great Windmill Street, St. James " 10~. A few years later he sponsors " Mr. William Hewson, lecturer in Anatomy and Author of diverse communications" 103. This, of course, was the great anatomist (1739-1774), partner of William Hunter. On November 12, 1772, he is supporting two foreign candidates, " Mr. Jacob de Stehelin, a Privy Councillor and Secretary to the Imperial Academy of St. Petersburgh "; and Monsieur Le Roy, Professor in Montpellier, whose gift to the Society we have noted 104. His correspondent, Patrick Brydone (p. 174), was introduced Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. by him to the Society on November 12, 1772, and Pringle was among the signatories of his certificate at the next meeting 10a The only extant letter belonging to the Royal Society in Pringle's hand was addressed to the Council on April 21, 1774, and concerns certain 97 Journal Book (Copy), xxix, 165, February 26, 1778 : Pringle had been one of those who signed the certificate proposing Le Roy for the Fellowship in iNovember 1772 (Journal Book, xxvii, 263). oa Ibid., 186. ~9 Ibid., 229. cir. below, Part I, § 4. loo Ibid., xxiv, 582. lol Ibid., xxv, 479. lo2 1bid., xxv, 881, January 3, 1766. 10~ Ibid., xxvi, 684, December 7, 1769. Hewson connects with the circle of Prmgle's friends, Fothergill (pp. 138ff.) and Benjamin Franklin (pp. 163-6, 168, 170-1), and was married to Mary Stevenson who was a prot6g6e of Franldin (cf. Johnson Abraham, op. cit., p. 113). lo4 Ibid., xxvii, 263. 1o5 Ibid., xxvii, 265, 275. Pringle may well have put his name to other certificates that we overlooked in the Journal Book. Sir John Pringle a~wl his Circle 159

books and archives. These had been conveyed by Mrs. West, widow of James West (President, 1769-1772), to John Robertson 10s, Librarian of the Society, in conformity with instructions from Sir James Barrow, who had held the Presidency, for a second time, for a few months in 1772, between the death of West and the election of Pringle. " Since I have had the honour to preside over the Society's affairs," explains Pringle, "those books etc. usually lodged with the President have by my order been conveyed to my house." He describes them 107. We have glanced at his correspondence with Hailer. Probably many letters from Pringle survive in family archives. Kippis records that no fewer than forty- seven letters from him had been preserved by Sir Alexander Dick. This was !fis old Edinburgh friend Alexander Cunyngham (1703-85), who adopted the name of Dick on inheriting a baronetcy in 1736. He had preceded Pringle by a few years, both at the University of Edinburgh and at Leyden, and had settled in practice in Edinburgh in 1727. He was President of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh from 1756 to 1763, and throughout his life he maintained a lively interest in medical and scientific activities in Edinburgh. Another Scottish correspondent was James Burner, Lord Monboddo (1714--99), a friend also of Samuel Horsley (p. 172). Monboddo was scholar, philosopher and judge or " Lord of Sessions ", and his house, like that of Pringle, was a centre of culture and hospitality 108 106 John Robertson, F.R.S. (1712-1776), mathematician, occupied successive posts as mathematical teacher, and was Clerk and Librarian to the Royal Society for the last eight years of his life. He wrote on mensuration, on mathematical instruments and on navigation, the latter running into several editions. He also made numerous contributions to the Phil. Trans. Robertson was one of the Committee appointed by the Royal Society to

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. report on the best method of protecting from lightning the Government powder magazines at Purfleet. 107 Mr. H. W. Robinson, Librarian of the Royal Society, kindly drew my attention to this letter which bears the 1)ress-lnark ~I. IV ~o. 1 in the Society's archives. lo~ Cf. W. Knight, Lord Monboddo and .some of his Contemporaries, London, 1900. Knight prints long replies from ]~onboddo, written in 1773 and ]774, to letters from Pringlo concerning Monboddo's work, Origin of Language, ~d ranging over " ancient and modern ]?hilosophy ". A few letters written by Pringle between 1776 and 1778 are preserved in the ttardwicke Papers in the British Museum Additional MSS., 35,483, f. 230; 35,505, f. 327 ; 35,511, f. 27 ; 35,513, f. 140; 35,514, f. 78 ; 35,6ll, L 33. Of these, one of 1766 and one of 1773 concern the medical care of his patients while they were abroad. No doubt other letters from Pringle await identification in the great collections of England and Scotland. In B.i~L Additional MS. 30,094, ft. 157-174 are three letters from Pringle written October 1775, and in January and October 1776 to Alexander Wilson (1714-1786), a remarkably versatile fellow alunums of the University of St. Andrews, though some years his junior. Wilson, after working as a surgeon-apothecary in London, set up a type- foundry, first at St. Andrews and then near Glasgow, but at the age of forty-six he became the first Professor of " practical Astron~)my " in the University of Glasgpw. During the twenty-four years that he held this Chair, he made important contributions, especially on sm~-spots. Pringle in these letters congratulates him on his discoveries and presses him to continue publication. 160 Dorothea Waley Singer on

Pringle held a regular salon or, as Kippis expresses it, " Sunday evening conversations " Throughout his London life he forgathered every week also " at Mr. Watson's, a groccr, in the Strand " with a small circle comprising Lord Charles Cavendish, Dr. Ross, Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Heberden, Dr. Watson, Sir George Baker, Dr. Richard Hack Saunders, Peter Holford 109 and Israel Manduit, typical examples of prosperous and cultured society in eighteenth-century London. Lord Charles Cavendish (son of the Duke of Devonshire) was father of Henry Cavendish (pp. 147,170 ft.). Lord Charles was a Vice-President of the Royal Society. His only original contribution preserved in the Philosophical Transactions is " Of some thermometers of particular uses with figures " 110, designed to show maxima and minima, for which he was awarded the Copley Medal. John Ross or Rosse (1719-1792) held a number of valuable offices of the church and in 1778 became Bishop of Exeter. He preached to the House of Lords in favour of liberation for Dissenters, and Wesley is cited as praising the Bishop's sermon in Exeter Cathedral on August 18, 1772, and expressing his appreciation of the episcopal hospitality offered him then. Ross was elected F.R.S. in 1758, but made no contribution to the Philosophical Transactions. Dr. William Hcberden (1716-1801) was a leader of the medical profes- sion and among the greatest of physicians. He, like Ross, was both student and Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. He was a classical scholar and familiar with the Hippocratic corpus. He became Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in 1746 (p. 138) and two years later he moved from Cambridge to London. He held successive offices in the Royal College and soon had a very large practice. In 1749 he became Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. F.R.S. and he contributed several medical papers to the Philosophical Transactions. His medical works were in use for many years. Dr. Johnson called him the last of our learned physicians. His genial disposition and his learning alike qualified him for the circle of Pringle's friends. Israel Manduit (1708-1787) came of a French Protestant family who had settled in Exeter. His father was a dissenting nfinister in Bermondsey, and Israel was destined to the same calling. He was educated at a Nonconformist school at Taunton, and then proceeded abroad, but ultimately settled in London and, together with his brother Jaspar, joined a wootlen-draper's business which brought him ample means. The brothers acted as agents in England for the province of Massachusetts. When the Privy Council was considering the petition for the removal of the British Governor, Hutchinson, and the Lieutenant Governor, Oliver, 10~ Peter ttolford (I719-1804), elected F.R.S. in 1746. 11o Phil. Trans., 1757, 50, 300. Sir John Pringle and his Circle 161

Manduit engaged counsel to support theh" case. This involved an attack on Benjanfin Franklin. Manduit published a number of political pam- plflets concerning the American question and also advocating neutrality in the German wars. But these by no means represented his sole interests. He was a man of wide culture and he enjoyed society. We notice him in 1751 introduced by Dr. Heberden to a session of the Royal Society and ill June of that year he was elected a Fellow. His only contribution to the Philosophical Transactions is a demonstration of a peculiar wasp's nest sent to him from Maryland in 1755 111 Sir George Baker (1722-1809), Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, was elected F.R.C.P. in 1757. He practised first in Lincolnshire, but in 1761 moved to London, acquired a large practice and was physician to both King and Queen. His friendship with Pringle must have antedated his election to the Royal Society which occurred only in 1776, when he also became a baronet. He was for long President of the Royal College of Physicians. His great medical contribution was his courageous demonstration of the result of the use of lead in cider vats in his own county of Devonshire as well as in water pipes and in earthenware glaze. Dr. Richard Huck Sauuders (1720-1785) was a physician who had begun as apprentice to a surgeon-apothecary. Subsequently he came to London and entered St. Thomas's Hospital as a pupil in surgery. He next served as military surgeon and, being stationed for two years in Edinburgh, he took the opportunity to attend medical lectures in the University. Proceeding to America, he was promoted to the rank of Physician to the Army. Ultimately he relinquished military service,

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. and started medical practice in London, being admitted L.R.C.P. in 1765 11~ He was physician successively to the Middlesex and to St. Thomas's Hospital. On his marriage in 1777 to the niece and heiress of Admiral Sir Charles Saunders, he added the name of Saunders to his own name of Huck. He had been one of the leaders of twenty-nine " rebel Licentiates ", followers of John Fothergi]l in the dispute with the Royal College of Physicians (pp. 138, 1~5-6). In 1784, the year before his death, he became F.R.C.P., the first of the only three of the " rebels " to attain that distinction 11a Pringle's intimate associate, William Watson ( 1715-1787), was another physician whose talent was discovered earlier by the Royal Society than by the Royal College of Physicians. He too was among the " rebel "

xll P]~il. Trans., 1755, 49, 155. J12 Pringle introduced Dr. I~Iuck to R. S. Sessions in November 1762 and in January 1765 (Journal Book, Copy, xxi and xxv). 113 R. Hingston Fox, op. cit., 146, 150. W. Munk, ~'he Roll of the Royal Colleye o/ Physicians of Lo~don, London, 1878, ii, 346-7. 162 Dorothea Waley Singer on

Licentiates of the latter body. Watson was endowed with most diverse talents. On leaving school he was apprenticed to an apothecary. An enthusiastic botanist, he was awarded a " premium " by the Society of Apothecaries, and he set up in that profession, but was later " desfranch- ised " by the Society- for what reason is not known. He at once applied himself to medicine. He was appointed physician to the Foundling Hospital, where he worked until his death. Not until 1784 was he elected F.R.C.P., a few weeks after the election of Huck Saunders. Later, Watson held office in the College. In 1786 he was knighted. Throughout life, Watson's interests were no less scientific than medical 114 He was elected F.R.S. in 1741 and his first contributions on medical subjects were followed by a spate of important works mostly on electricity, on ventilation (Part II) in which he shared the enthusiasm of Pringle, on botany and on natural history. Watson's first communication on electricity to the Philosophical Transactions was printed in 1745, but in 1743 he was awarded the Copley Medal for his experiments on electricity and exhorted" not to desist from the pursuit of his enquiries" 115. We shall find him also testifying on the vexed question of lightning conductors (pp. 168 ft.). He became Vice-President of the Royal Society and was a Trustee both of the British Museum and of the Royal College of Physicians The character of the guests, foreign, English and Scottish, introduced by Pringle to sessions of the Royal Society~ gives a further picture of his circle. We note among them his nephew and heir, James Pringle (1726-1809), son of his eldest brother, Sir Robert Pringle (1690-1779, the third Baronet). Both family baronetcies converged on James, who was

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. a soldier and also for many years Member of Parliament for Berwickshire. He was, no doubt, the " Mr. Pringle " introduced by his uncle on January 25, 1750, and again on January 31, 1754. On January 24, 1765, James was fellow guest with the Marquis de Caraccioli and Count Carburi--all three sponsored by his uncle, and we meet him again as Colonel Pringle introduced by the President on December 8, 1774. We m~y hope that Sir John had pleasure fl'om this nephew who, in introducing his own nephew, Sir James Hall, to Sir R. M. Keith, British Ambassador in Vienna in 1783, remarks that the youth is " grand nephew of our mutual friend Sir John Pringle, P.R.S. " 116

114 R. Hingston Fox, op. cit., 146-7; Munk, op. cir., iX, 348-51). 11~ Journal Book (Copy) of the Royal Society, xviii, 489. 116 Alexander Pringle, op. cir., pp. 194-5. The Colonel R. Pringle, R.E., who was elected F.R.S. in 1785 (died 1793) was presumably also a collateral of our subject (A. Pringle, op. cit., p. 320). Sir John Pringle and his Circle 163

§ 4. Closing Years : the Controversy concerning Lightning Conductors. By 1778 infirmities were growing on Pringle. He resigned from the Presidency and was succeeded by Sir Joseph Banks 117. According to Kippis, the resignation was falsely connected with the unfortunate controversy concerning precautions recommended to the Board of Ordnance for the protection against lightning of their gunpowder magazine at Purfleet. This discussion had in fact extended over the whole period of his Presidency. Anlong the topics discussed most frequently in the Philosophical Transactions during the eighteenth century was that of lightning and protection from it. The earlier writers of the century not unnaturally compare the effects of lightning to those of gunpowder 11% An Mlusion to electro-magnetism in this connexion is in a couple of notes of 1735 from Dr. Cookson of Waterfield. He observed that knives struck by lightning had become magnets 119. He refers to an earlier observation that lightning had altered the polarity of a compass. This latter phenonlenon is described also in 1749 by a Captain Waddell whose ship was struck. At the same session his evidence is expanded 120 by Pringle's

11: Sir Joseph Banks (1745-1820), the great collector both of natural history objects and of mmmseripts, the friend of Solander and of Cook (pp. 148, 153. His elegant signature is familiar to readers at the British Museum with the stipuletion that their care should be entrusted to his Librarian Dr. John Brown (of the Browaian movement). Banks was P.R.S. from 1778 tmtil his death. See also p. 172. Weld prints a letter from a Board of Trade official who records that in 1772 when Banks had been refused permission to take part in Cook's second expedition, he took Dr. Solar~der, Dr. Lind (p. I55) and the staff of collectors, draftsmen, etc., whom he had collected together, on an independent voyage of

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. discovery in Iceland. This contact proved fortunate for the Ieelanders. For in 1808, during the war when this country was blockading Denmark and Iceland, the islanders were in a state of starvation and a Danish merchant came to England to plead that a ship should be allowed through the blockade to bring them sustenance. The Board of Trade refused. The official, then of very junior rank, was sleepless at the thought of the misery of the Ieelanders, until he recalled that Banks was an honorary member of the Board and hastened to put the position before him. " On that same day. Sir Joseph Banks attended at the Board and did not cease to employ his miud and heart in the service, until he succeeded to the full extent of our petitions " (Weld, op. cir., ii, 109-111). During the Presidency of Banks, in 1780, a special Medal was struck ~o commemorate Cook, and W'eld prints the fine letters that Banks wrote when sending the Medal to l~rs. Cook in I784 (eft above, p. 153, fooL-note 73). Even more striking is his letter accompanying the gift of this Medal from the Society to Benjamin Franklin (pp. 164 ft.) : " Willing as much as in my power to clear the Royal Society and myself from our share of the charge of illiberal treatment towards you, with which I fear this eountrymay too justly be accused" (Weld, o29. cir., ii, 140-143). See also below, p. 169 and Part III. n8 ,, Two Letters on the Effects of Lightning from the Roy. Jos. Wasse, Rector of Aynho in Northamptonshire to Dr. Mead "' (Phil. Trans., 1725, 33, 366) 119 Ibid., 1735, 39, 74, 75. Communicated by Pierce Dod, M.D., F.R.S. 12o Ibid., 1749, 46, 111, 113. 164 Dorothea Waley Singer on

friend, Gowin Knight (1713-1772), one of the most scientifically active of the Fellows. Knight practised medicine in London, but in I756 he became the first Principal Librarian of the British Museum. He is, however, best known for his electrical and magnetic researches. His first paper to the Royal Society, " Some magneticM Experiments," was read in November 1744 ~21 In the following year he was elected F.R.S. and in 1747 his account of " Experiments on Natural and Artificial Magnets " was awarded the Copley Medal. He devised a new Mariner's Compass, which he demonstrated to the t~oyal Society in 1750 ~z Protracted negotiations with the Admiralty and the Board ended in its adoption in the I~oyal Navy and also in many merchant ships. Among the many Fellows who made important contributions on electricity, the leading expert was Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), who had communicated his experiments and discoveries in a series of letters from Philadelphia from March 1747 onwards to Peter Collinson. They announce his confirmation of the electrical nature of lightning and his discovery of the power of metal points to draw off electricity, on which he afterwards founded his method of securing buildings. This correspondent, Peter Collinson (1694-1768), was active in the promotion and application of science. Born into the Society of Friends from which in later life he withdrew, he and his brother had enlarged a family business in mercery by extensive trade with America. Brought up in the country near Lake Windermere, Collinson had from early youth been a student of botany and a great collector. He was a friend of Linnmus and of the gt'eat English botanists of the period. He was greatly attached to Sir Hans Sloane, to whose Museum he raade considerable contributions. He himself had a Museum in his house in Graeechureh Street and a botanic Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. garden at Mill Hill, where his work led to great improvements in hm%i- culture. Through his correspondence with America, he arranged im- portant exchanges of plants. He was on terms of intimate friendship with Franklin and Priestley, with Fothergill and later with the young Lettsom. He had first come into contact with 'Franklin through the PhiLadelphia Public Library. Franklin states that for more than thirty

121 Ibid., 1744, 43, 161. 122 Ibid., 1750, 4t}, 505. Knight is said to have died in penury. He was helped by the generosity of Dr. Fothergill (pp. 138, 145, seqq.), who was his executor, and passed Knight's original Compound Magnet to the l~oyal Society. It was described and figured by him in a communication to the Society in June 1776 (ibid., 1776, 66, 591-9). The instrument was later partially destroyed by fire, but a reconstruction, was undertaken by tile Society, and the reconstructed instrument was used by Faraday at his own house in 183I for the experiments that led to his discovery of the principles of electro-magnetism. Both Gowhl t~nighCs original instrument (presented by the Royal Society) and the reconstructed galvanometer of Faraday (presented by tile Royal Institution) are now in the Science 5iuseum (Inv. 1900-168 ; 1931-869). Sir John Pringle and his Circle 165

years, from 1730, Collinson had chosen books for the Library and had sent to it accounts of every philosophical discovery. Among these, he had sent in 1745 an account of new electrical experiments in Germany, together with a glass tube and directions for using it to repeat the experiments. In a letter written in 1770 to Co]linson's son, Franklin stated that it was this which had first a~traeted him to the study of electricity. Collinson was elected F.I~.S. in 1728 and contributed many papers to the Philosophical Transactions. He was also one of the founders of the Society of Antiquaries. But the greatest of his many services to the world was probably through his correspondence with Franklin. Collinson, Fothergill (pp. 145-6) and William Watson (p. 138) all introduced and discussed at tile Royal Society Franklin's work on electricity. On January 21, 1748, Watson read to the Society Franldin's account of his discovery of positive and negative electricity l~a. In June 1751 Franklin contributed a paper discussing the experience of Captain Waddell 124 Franklin here introduces the two essential elements which were to arouse controversy concerning his design for lightning conductors, namely the " drawing off as by points " and the " good wire communication from the spintle-heads to the sea " or as he later expressed it into water. Franklin was not yet F.R.S. His first visit to London h~d been as a struggling young printer in 1724, and in 1726 he had returned to Philadelphia, where he soon established himself in the same trade. His pioneer achievements in many fields of public activity are too familiar to need recounting here in detail. In 1753 the Copley Medal was awarded to him for his electrical discoveries. In 1755 he returned to London and in April of the following year he was elected F.t~.S. On the motion of Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. William Watson, the Council decided that he should not pay the usual fee 125 Franklin had acquired wide influence on both sides of the Atlantic. He became Provincial Agent in this country for Pennsylvania, Massa- ehusettes (1770), Maryland and Georgia (1768). In 1766 he gave evidence before the House of Commons which helped to effect the repeal of the Stamp Act. Both he and his friend Dr. Fothergill laboured hard but in vain to bring a spirit of reasonable compromise to minds on both sides during the long course of Anglo-Amerieun negotiations. He took an active part in the preparation of the American Constitution, and after serving as American Ambassador in France, he was one of the plenipotentiaries who signed the Anglo-American Peace Treaty in 1783.

a2a Ibid., 1750, 45, 49-92, 93-100. 22t Ibid., 1751/2, 47, 389. 125 R. Hingston Fox, op. cit., p. 179. Cf. Weld, op. cit., ii, 7-8, 166 Dorothea Waley Singer o~

His last five years were again spent in America, where he died in 1790 12~ Throughout the last forty years of his life and in spite of his preoccupation with affairs, Franklin continued to make additions to the knowledge of electricity, and there are references to his work in almost all contemporary writers on electricity. Franklin was a great friend of Pringle, who must therefore have been personally much concerned over the controversy that arose during his presidency concerning Frankhn's views on electricity and their adoption by the Society. Much work had been done on electricity by John Canton 12~, a young schoolmaster who was elected F.g.S. in 1749. His first contribution to the Philosophical Transactions, "A Method of making artificial Magnets without the Use of, and yet far superior to, any Natural Ones," los gained him the Copley iVIedM. His I~oyal Society biographer records : " In 1752 he, first of any person in England, verified Franklin's hypothesis of the similarity of electricity and lightning. Next year he communicated to the R.S .... the negative and positive states of electricity among the clouds ; a discovery also just made in America by Dr. Franklin " 129 Franklin, Canton and Collinson were all working in collaboration on electric phenomena, as may be gathered from " Electrical Experiments made in pursuance of those by Mr. Canton dated Dec. 3, 1753; with Explanations by Mr. Benjamin Franklin, communicated by Mr. Peter

1..6 The message of this good man's life comes to our generation and we may hope to future generations through a happy symbolism which has established the house where he stayed in London---36 Craven Street, Strand--as the Headquarters of the British Society tbr Intem~m.tional Understanding. The building was purchased by subscriptions both in this country and from the United Slates, and a,naong the American subscribers wa~ Miss Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. Caroline Baeke, a direct descendant of Benjamin Franklin. The premises were opened in June 1947, with the blessing of the British Government, represented at the eeremony by Mr. Ivor Thoma~s. 1~7 Johrt Canton (1718-1772) is one of the many eighteenth-century examples of self- educated men who attracted first the interest and then the enthusiastic collaboration of Fellows of the t~oyM Soeiety. The son of a weaver of Stroud, his studies in mathematics and natural philosophy drew the attention of Rev. Henry IVIiles, himself a prolific contributor to the Phil. Trans. and soon F.g.S. At his suggestion the youth left the family business, and became a master of the Academy in Spiral Square. His paper on the compressibility of water brought him a second Copley Medal in 1766 (Phil. Trans., 1761, 52, 640 and 1764, 54, 261). lie is remembered by the term " Canton's phosphorescence ", originally produced by exposing to bright sunshine a mixture of eMeined oyster shells and sulphur. He was a member Mso of a remarkable Society for 1Kathematieal and Electrical Studies " whose members corrsisted principally of tradesmen a~¢d artisarLs ". (Weld, op. cit., i, 467, note 32.) ~2~ Ph.il. Trans., 1751/2, 47, 31, read on Jammry 17, 1751 (1750 Old Style, which has caused some confusion to his biographers). ~2~ ,, Electrical Experiments with an Attempt to account for their several phenomena. Also some Observations on Tlmnder-Clouds " (ibid., 1753, 48, 358), Sir John Pringle and his Circle 167

Collinson F.I~.S." 13o At the same time, Collinson communicated fresher electrical work of Franklin, as well as further record of disaster caused by lightnh~g. All the Philosophical Transactions contributions on electricity at the period turn on Franklin's work. On June 28, 1763, Heberden, William Watson and De]aval all discuss recent lightning strokes on buildings 1~1. The two former strongly advise Franklin's measures against such disasters, Delaval remarks that "Wires, instead of conducting the lightning, have often been melted by the explosion. So that, it seems a conductor of metal tess than 6 or 8 inches in breadth, and a quarter of an inch in thickness .... cannot with safety be depended on, where buildings are exposed to the reception of so great a quantity of lightning. These are the only points in which I have ventured to differ from Dr. Franklin ". Edward Henry Delaval (1729-1814), an aristocrat and a classical scholar, was above all a chemist la.,. He became F.R.S. in 1759, and Copley Medallist in 1766 for his experiments on the specific gravities of the several metals. His papers on electricity are addressed to Benjamin Wilson, whom we shall encounter again as the focus of the controversy eight years later on lightning conductors. Of this Wilson (1708-88), his biographer in the Philosophical Transactions Abridged, remarks : " He had. formerly been an eminent painter. For many years before his death he enjoyed the lucrative contract for the house etc. painting under the Board of Ordnance .... - He has been chiefly distinguished as the ostensible person whose perverse conduct in the affair of the conductors of lightning produced such shameful discord and dissension in the Royal Society as continued for many years after, to the great detriment of science " 183 The odimn that Wilson had drawn on himself and the acrimony of the Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. discussion are indicated by the omissions in this note. He was in fact a successful portrait painter. He started his Royal Society career in 1746 by offering a controversial paper on electrical experiments that in fact was not published. In 1756 the Philosophical Transactions printed his retraction ~34 of this unpublished paper, of which the gist had mean- lao Ibid., 1755, 49, 300, seqq. This paper, dated l~[areh 14, 1755, was read at the prodigiously long meeting on December I8, 1755, when there followed important papers of Hales, Part II. 131 Ibid., 1764, 54, 198, 201, 227. a~.- Delaval's most important work wo,s in connexion with optics and the properties of glass. His " :Experiments and Observatiorts on the Agreement of the Specific Gravities of the several Metals and their Colours when united to Glass as well as those of their Proportions " (Phil Trans., 1765, 55, 10) was awarded the Copley Medal. In 1777 appeared his volume on The Cause of Change in Opaq~le and Coloured Bodies. He manu- factured at his house in Westminster artificial gems and other substances, including a famous set of " Musical glasses ". Delaval is buried in Westminster Abbey. xaa PMl. Trans. Abridged, xi. 15. 1~4 Phil. Trans., 1756, 49, 682. 168 Dorothea Waley Singer o~

while been incorporated in his Treatise on Electricity, published in 1750. But in 1751 Wilson was elected F.R.S., and in 1760 his electric experi- ments were awarded the Copley Medal. His first paper on conductors (addressed to the Marquis of i%ockingham) is dated November 28, 1764, (with a postscript of November 1764), and is entitled " Considerations to prevent Lightning from doing Mischief to great Works, High Buildings, and Large Magazines " 135. Disagreeing with Franklin, he advises that the several buildings remain as they are at the top ; " that is, withmtt any metal above them, either pointed or not, by way of a conductor. On the inside of the highest part of the building .... within a foot or two of the top, it may be proper to fix a rounded bar of metal, and to continue it down .... to .... moisture in the ground " The vexed question of lightning conductors appears to have been dropped for a year or two. But on March 6, 1769, the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's asked for the opinion of the l~oyal Society concerning " the best and most effectual method of fixing electrical conductors " The letter was read at the Society's meeting on March 9, and " It was desired that John Canton [p. 166], Edward Dclaval, Benjamin Franklin, William Watson and Benjamin Wilson be a Committee to consider the above letter and report ". On June 8, 1769, Watson read their Report to the Society, and it was ordered that a copy be transmitted to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's laG. The Report advocates metal on top of the buildings, but points out that this will be a danger unless contiguous to water or to wet ground at the bottom of the building. Iron bars are advised which must be thick enough to survive inevitable corrosion from the atmosptmre. The Report says nothing concerning points to the conductors, which was to prove the bone of contention when advice was Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. sought by the Board of Ordnance. In March 1770 Franklin reads a letter addressed to him by a Captain Winn emphasizing from his own experience the importance of ships being equipped with lightning conductors ~7 Lightning conductors are again discussed in "An Account of the death of a Person occasioned by Lightning in the [Whitfield] Chapel in Tottenham Court Road; as observed by Mr. William Henley, Mr. Edward Nairne [pp. 169 ft.] and Mr. William Jones. The account written by Mr. Henley ", dated March 24, 1772 1as

" . . . . As the effects of this stroke so exactly correspond with those muny times before observed by Dr. Franklin, I think we shall scarce ever meet with a greater proof of the utility of his metallick conductors "

~3~ 1bid., 1764, 54, 247-251. ~a~ Ibid., 1769, 59, 160-169 for this series of documents la~ Ibid., 1770, 60, 188. 13s 1bid., 1772, 62, 131, Sir John Pringle and his Circle 169

William Henley or Henly was a linen-draper and a newcomer to the Society. This was his first contribution that reached the Philosophical Transactions. He was elected F.R.S. in the following year. He contri- buted a number of papers on electricity (see pp. 171 ft.). He won the confidence of his colleagues in the Society, for his opinion is cited with respect by them. Both Henley and Nairne, after many experiments by themselves and their fi'iends, took a clear line in the controversy as to the proper form for lightning conductors that was soon to disturb the philosophical harmony of the Royal Society. Edward Nairne (1726-1806) was another self-educated man. He had a shop in Cornhill where he made "optical, mathematical and philosophical instruments". His first contribution to the Philosophical Transactions, given in 1771, describes "A New Constructed Equatorial Telescope or Portable Observatory " 18~ The next year he describes " Experiments on two Dipping Needles, which .... were agreeable to a Plan of the Rev. Mitchel F.R.S. Rector of Thornhill in Yorkshire, Executed for the Board of Longitude by Mr. Edward Nairne .... ,, 140 In 1773 we find Nairne making experiments with his new electricM machine, on which he is said to have had many consultations with Priestley (pp. 144-6). He patented it in 1782, and the type is still known by his name. He describes experiments made before Banks and other members of the Society that showed " that electricity, accumulated to a certain degree puts an end to vegetable as well as animal life ". This paper ends by " another experiment which may give some light in respect to bMls or points for conductors for buildings or ships " showing that " the quantity of fire was much greater and the explosion much stronger and louder at its striking the ball than ag its striking the point " 141 This matter, to which we will presently revert, Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. had become of painful interest. In 1776 and 1777, Nairne demonstrated to the Society experiments on several physical topics ~42. He was elected F.R.S. in 1776. In 1777, as we shall see, he was occupied with Henley on lightning conductors (p. 171). In 1778 and 1780 were published his last two contributions to the Royal Society, on the effect of electricity in shortening wires 143. In the former paper, describing his experiments, he mentions "There were present Sir John Pringle, the Hon. Mr. Cavendish, Mr. Smeaton [@ p. 144], Rev. Mr. Michel, Mr. Russel, and Mr. Whitehurst. I have likewise shown this extraordinary effect to Dr. Priestley, Mr. Magellan and several other gentlemen .... Dr. Priestley

~,~9 Ibid., 1771, 61l, 107. In January 1774 arid February 1776, Nairne was Pringle's guest at Royal Society Sessions (Journal Book (Copy), xxvii and xxviii). 140 Ibid., 1772, 62, 476. 1~ Ibid., 1774, 64, 79-89. t4~ Ibid., 1776, 66, 249 and 1777, 67, 614. In the latter he gives sixty experiments with Smeaton's air-pump, the last four being on electrical phenomena of rarefied air. ~as Ibid., 1780, 70, 334 and 1783, 73, 22.3. Ann. of Sci.--Vol. 6, No. 2. zs 170 Dorothea Waley Singer on

showed that wire made red-hot in common culinery fire " was not thus shortened. Similarly in the last paper, Nairne records help from Cavendish, reflecting the happy relationship between these men of science. It has been remarked with truth that the Royal Society exercised in the eighteenth century many functions that we associate with a great University 144. In July 1772 the troubles began. Charles Morton 145 reported a letter from the Secretary to the Board of Ordnance to consult the Society as to the best method of fixing lighning conductors on the powder magazine at Purfleet. A Committee was accordingly appointed to consider the matter. The members were Henry Cavendish, William Watson (pp. 138 ft.), J. Robertson, Benjamin Wilson, Delaval and of course Benjamin Franklin 146 The only fresh name that here enters the scene is Henry Cavendish (1731-1810) who had, in 1766, published his epoch-making contribution on " Factitious Airs " A bachelor of an almost pathological reticence, it was an unkind fate that involved him in the lightning-conductor controversy, as later in life in a dispute with James Watt concerning priority. It is, of course, from Henry Cavendish that the great Cambridge laboratory is named. The Committee reported on August 21, 1772, and

advised " that it is not sufficient for iron rods from the top of the buildings to be extended 3 or 4 feet downward into the ground until damp earth is reached. At each end of each magazine a well should be dug to give 4 feet of standing water. Whence a leaden pipe should lead to or near the surface where it should join the iron rod which should extend 10 feet down the ridge of the building, tapering to a sharp point. The iron should be painted, and the upper 12 inches of the rod should be Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. of copper and be held firmly against the building by leaden straps. There should be further conductors whose position is explained in elaborate detail--leading down to wells, not touching one another, and the Com- mittee gives warning that great care must be exercised that these metal communications be not cut off by future alterations ". The Report is signed only by Cavendish, Watson, Franklin and Robertson 147

144 The third observer of the damage to Whitfield's Tabernacle may have been the accomplished and liberal Sir William Jones (1746-94), orientalist and jurist, who was elected F.R.S. in 1772 and was knighted in 1783 when he became a High Court Judge in Calcutta. 14a Dr. Charles Morton (1712-1776), a versatile personality best known for his mathe- matical writings. In 1751 he became L.R.C.P., London, and was one of Fothergill's " rebel Licentiates" (p. 138). Five years later he entered the service of the British Museum, and in 1776 he became Principal Librarian. From 1760 to 1776 he was Clerk and Librarian to the Royal Society {Phil. Trans. Abridged, x, 149). 148 Journal Book (Copy), xxvii, 258. 14~ Phil. Trans., 1773, 63, 42-47. Weld, op. cir., ii, 95, states that it was drawn up by Franklin, Sir John Pringle and his Circle 171

Appended to the Report is a brief minority memorandum by Benjamin Wilson 14s He states : " I dissent from the Report above in that part only which recommends that each conductor should terminate in a point. My reason for dissenting is that such conductors are in my opinion less safe than those which are not pointed " The keport with Wilson's dissent was discussed at the Council Meeting he]d on August 26, 1772, with Pringle as Vice-President in the Chair 14~ The next publication in the Philosophical Transactions is again from Wilson's pen. In a lengthy " Letter to Sir Charles Frederick, Surveyor General of the Ordnance and F.I~.S. ", dated December 8, 1772 150, he expresses iris opinion that points are too ready to attr~c~ lightning. This correspondence was considered at a meeting on December 10, the first after Pringle's election to the Presidency, and again at the meeting on December 17 lal. At the latter meeting there was presented the following brief letter to the President, signed by Cavendish, Watson, Franklin and Robertson :--" Sir, Having heard and considered the objections to our report, concerning the fixing of pointed conductors in the magazines at Purfleet, contained in a letter from Mr. Wilson to Sir Charles Frederick, and read to the Royal Society, we do hereby acquaint you that we find no reason to change our opinion, or vary from that Report " 1~2. Further discussion of the subject occupied the meeting of January 14, 1773 l~a, and on January 21 it was reported that the three documents had been forwarded by the Council to the Admiralty 1~4. But the concern felt as to the construction of lightning conductors is reflected in the Philosophical Transactions of succeeding years. On May 15, 1777, a new incident occurred at Purfleet. The board- house was struck by lightning, and on May 31 the Board of Ordnance Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. sent to the l~oyal Society the two accounts furnished by the store-keeper. These describe, in fact, comparatively slight damage sustained in a violent storm. They were considered at a meeting of the Society on June 5 155, and a new Committee was elected to proceed to inspect and formulate advice. It comprised W. Henley (pp. 156,. 168), T. Lane, Edward Nairne, with the President and the Secretaries, Dr. Horsley and J. Planta. Thomas or Timothy Lane (1734-1807), apothecary of Aldersgate Street, had been F.R.S. only since 1770, after contributing two papers to the Philosophical Transactions. The first, on a new electrometer (1767), had been communicated by Franklin '~. The second, " On the solubility of 14~ Ibid., 1773, 63, 48. ~49 Minutes of Council, vol. vi, p. 143. 15o Phil. Trans., 1773, 63, 49-65. 151 Journal Book (Copy), xxvii, 290 and 319. 1~2 Phil. Trans., 1776, 63, 66. is3 Journal. Book (Copy), xxvii, 326. 154 Ibid., 331. 1~5 Ibid., xxix, 88 and Phil. Trans., 1778, 6B, 232, seqq. ~6 Phil. Trans., 1767, 57, 451. 172 Dorothea Waley Singer on

fixed Iron in simple Water, by the Intervention of fixed Air " (1769) 157, had been sponsored by Henry Cavendish. In it Lane recorded eight experiments and suggested that " fixed air " must generally be necessary to the impregnation of natural springs, and that by its aid waters of many natural medicated springs could be both analysed and reproduced. This work of course links with that of Brownrigg (p. 146). Of the two secretaries, Rev. Samuel Horsley (1733-1806), distinguished mathema- tician and churchman, became F.R.S. in 1767. He had just been ap- pointed Secretary of tile Society and we learn from his R.S. biographer that " He thought it proper to resign along with .... Pringle, in 1778 " 15s A delightful picture of him at the age of seventeen is given in a letter to his maternal grandmother, Mrs. William Hamilton (wife of the Principal of Edinburgh University), by William Cleghorn, Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University (who in earlier years had lectured in place of Pringle). The lad had " eyes and complexion as dark as a raven, his nose even set .... his brows .... begin to show that they are somewhat capable of assuming his father's frown ". In fact, Samuel's father, John Horsley, educated for the dissenting Ministry, took Orders in the Church of England. In later life Samuel was engaged in a controversy of pamphlets against the theology of Priest]ey. His R.S. biographer remarks drily that these publications " chiefly laid tile foundation of Horsley's elevation to the episcopal dignity". He occupied successive Sees, becoming finally Bishop of St. Asaph. Horsley was involved in contro- versy with Pringle's presidential successor, Banks, when he took a leading part in the defence of Hutton (Part II): Joseph Planta (1744-1827), the junior member of the Committee, had become F.R..S. in 1774. He had

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. come from Switzerland to settle in England with his father, whom lie ultimately succeeded as Principal Librarian of the British Museum. He is said to have greatly extended the facilities of the Museum to the public. His only contribution to the Philosophical Transactions was a historical and philological disquisition on the Romansch language, addressed to Pringle and evoked by the gift to the Society of a l~omansch Bible 159 The Committee, whom ~ve have surveyed, issued its Report on June 19, 1777 ; it bears the signatures only of tim first three and of Planta. After carefully describing the damage, it concludes: " The damage done to the parapet of the building is so inconsiderable that it would scarcely deserve notice, was it not an evident proof that the metallic communication with the earth, hath, in this case effectually prevented any further injury " At the same time it is recommended that " similar accidents may be prevented in future by a channel filled with Iead connecting all the cramps in the coping stone around the building, and comumnicating by 1aT Ibid., 1769, 59, 216. Lss Phil. Trans. Abridged, xii, 411. 1~9 Phil. Trans., 177t;, 66, 129, Sir John Pringlc and his Circle 173

metallic plates at each corner of the parapet to the filleting of lead .... in the contact with the gutter, which gutter is part of the mMn conductor to the building ". On June 19, when this Report was submitted to the Society, Wilson expressed his dissent, but the Report went forward to the Board 160 Wilson did not accept defeat. His next procedure, together with the omission of Pringle's name from the Report, must be considered in relation to a remarkable story that the King himself supported Wilson against Franklin on political grounds, and that in 1777 His Majesty sent for Pring]e and tried to persuade him that the Royal Society should rescind their recommendation of pointed lightning conductors for Pm'fleet. Weld reports Prhlgle's rejoinder : " Sire, I cannot reverse the laws and operations of nature " and alleges that the King retorted, "Perhaps, Sir John, you had better retire " 161 It is evident that Wilson had gained the King's ear, for on November 12, 1777, he addressed a letter direct to the throne, opening thus : " Your Majesty, in consequence of the accident from lightning that happened to one of the buildings at Purfleet in May last, having been graciously pleased to intimate the propriety of making some further experiments, to ascertain the best method of preventing such accidents for the future .... " ; and he proceeded to recount long series of experiments, illustrated with figures. Wilson sent a copy of this epistle to the Board of Ordnance, and on November 18 the Board forwarded a copy to Pringle " to be laid before the Royal Society ", desiring ''~ the favour of their instructions if anything more can be done in order to the preservation of His Majesty's magazines 162 A larger Committee was then appointed by the l~oyal Society. Their Report of March 12, 1778, bears the signatures of Pringle, Watson, Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. Cavendish, Henley, Horsley, Lane, Mahon and Priestley. The cmly new name to us among these is that of Charles Stanhope, Lord Mahon 1~ (1753-1816). This brilliant youth, the son of Pringle's original sponsor at the Royal Society (p. 134), had become F.R.S. at the age of nineteen [ Educated at Eton, Utrecht and Geneva, he is described as having "acquired an early love for Greek, mathematics and democratic principles". His record of achievement is indeed remarkable in both the latter departments, perhaps most emphatically in the last. But when appointed to the Committee, he had gained from the Academy of Stockholm a prize for a work on the pendulum (written in ]~rench when he was eighteen), had published a Memorandum on " Means of preventing fraudulent Practices on the gold Coin" (by technical devices), and had produced two calculating

160 Ibid., 1778, 68, 236-8, 239-42. 161 Weld, ol). cit., ii, 101-2. 16~ Phil. T rans., 1778, 68, 242-4, 245-313. Weld states that these experiments o V~:ilson occupied sevel:M sessions. 163 He had the title of Lord Mahon until he became third Earl Stanhope m 1786. 174 Dorothea Waley Singer on

machines! His Principles of Electricity which appeared the following year aroused acrid criticism from Benjamin Wilson, but this was in the future. Certainly the 1778 Committee was strengthened by the accession of this young man, not yet twenty-five. It is tempting to linger with this lovable personality. Among his many further scientific achievements was the invention of a microscopic lens, also of a process of stereotyping that, together with his iron hand-printing apparatus, was purchased at his death by the Clarendon Press. In July 1778 he contributed to the Philosophical Transactions "A most effectual Method of securing Buildings against Fire " 16~, based on many experiments perhaps suggested by the anxiety concerning the protection of buildings from lightning. Stanhope's method was " underflooring, extra-lathing and inter-securing " together with the use of rough plaster and mortar work. His next com- munication was a device from a Geneva watch-maker 165, and presently he is writing " On the roots of an Equation " 166 ; his last communication to the Philosophical Transactions was " I{emarks on Mr. Brydone's Account of a remarkable thunderstorm in Scotland " 167 He points out that the events described exemplify a point made in his early Principles of Electricity. Stanhope's democratic sympathies found expression with increasing emphasis throughout his life. In youth he had enrolled in the militia of the Genevan Republic. He advocated making peace with the American Colonies and was opposed to war with France. But he wrote to Condorcet in 1791 protesting against the treatment of negroes in America. A ready speaker, he successfully harangued the mob taking part in the Gordon riots in 1780 and persuaded them to return home, but in 1794 a different set of rioters set fire to his house in London in the name of law and order. He was convinced that they had been paid to Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. commit this outrage. Stanhope worked for Parliamentary reform. He was Chairman of the Revolution Society founded in 1788 to celebrate the centenary of the Revolution of 1688. He despatched to Paris in 1789 the Committee's address of congratulation on the fall of the Bastille and he sent to La Rochefoucault their congratulations, voted in November 1790, on " the establishment of liberty in France ". This was read to the Assembly in Paris and circulated throughout France. His Letter to Burlce containing a Short Answer to his late speech on the French Revolution, also published in 1790, was translated into French and reached a second edition in this country. In January 1794 he moved in the House of Lords that the French Republic should be recognized, and in the following April, nothing daunted by the shocked rejection of this motion, he introduced a motion against interference with the internal affairs of

164 Phil. Trans., 1778, 68, 884. 1~5 Ibid., ~p. 950. 16n t4~d., 1781, '/1,195. 1~7 Ibid., 1787, ]ff/, 13~ Sir John Pringle and his Circle 175

France. I~ is said that the House ordered that the record of this latter motion should be expunged. Undeterred, Stanhope voted in May against the Habmus Corpus Suspension Bill. In this month his secretary was arrested on a charge of treasonable practices, but was acquitted. Stanhope celebrated the acquittal by a feast to his neighbours and tenants at Chevening where the arrest had taken place, and subsequently he was invited to address a great meeting of celebration in London at the Crown & Anchor--the resort of the Revolution Society, as well as of the Society of (Licentiate) Physicians, " rebels " against the Royal College of Physicians 1{}8 (pp. 138 ft.). Meantime, perhaps stimulated to hopefulness by his secretary's acquittal, Stanhope in January 1795 brought forward in tile House of Lords yet again his motion against interference with the internal affairs of France, and found himself in a minority of one. He withdrew from the House and did not re-enter its portals until impelled to propose peace with Napoleon in February 1880. But he had much support in the country. A medal was struck in his honour with the legend "Minority of One 1795 " and no doubt this as well as the opposing broad-sheets kept his views before his countrymen. Stanhope was twice married and left six children. His first wife was the sister of William Pitt, his great friend in youth, though subsequently the two men differed irreconcilably on the French Revolution. It may be recalled that his eldest daughter was the illustrious but eccentric Lady Hester Stanhope (1776-1839), who left home in 1810 and lived on Mount Lebanon from 1814 until her death. To return to the Royal Society Committee of which Charles Stanhope (Lord Mahon) was a member. Their Report, dated March 12, 1778,

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. states that the Committee has examined Wilson's experiments and observations and consider : (1) " That it is very improbable that the powder magazines, guarded in the manner in which they are at present, should receive any damage from lightning, (2) That they would be still less liable to be injured if three other elevated pointed rods, similar to those already erected, were to be fixed to the roof of each of the five magazines ", and they continue with further detailed advice, all based on the efficacy of lofty and pointed conductors leading down to water at the earth level 169 But at the Society's meeting on March 12, there appeared fresh support for the scientific views of His Majesty and Mr. Wilson. First Dr. Musgrave 170 proposed that the Report should lie for a fortnight for inspection by the Fellows before being despatched. Samuel Musgrave les See R. Hingston Fox, op. cir., p. 150. Is9 Phil. Trans., 1778, 68, 313-317. This episode with all the documents occupies pages 232-317 of this large quarto volume. 170 Journal Book (Copy), xxix, 200-202. 176 Dorothea Waley Singer on

(1732-1780) was a West-Countryman. This singular and gifted man was well known as a stormy petrel. A graduate of Oxibrd, he held a Radcliffe Travelling Fellowship for some ten years i~onl 1754, using tile opportunity for study, both medical and literary, in Paris and Leyden. His first medical publication appeared in London in 1760, a discussion of certain theories of Boerhaave ; in the same year he was elected F.R.S. In 1762 he published in Leyden an important study of Euripides, then graduated in medicine in Leyden. His work on Euripides was nlore important than any of his medical writings. On the expiry of his Fellowship he set up in practice, first in Exeter and then in Plymouth. He entered on a violent controversy in which he accused three members of Parliament of treason and corruption in regard to the Peace Treaty with France of 1763, and attacked the Secretary of State, Lord Halifax, for refusing to accep~ his evidence. He moved to London, and after taking his Oxford medical degree he became a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in 1777, but he was an unsuccessful practitioner and died in poverty 171. Musgrave's motion was withdrawn in favour of another from Dr. George Fordyce (1736-1802), who proposed that the Report of the Royal Society Committee should be regarded as the personal opinion of the Committee and not from the Society as a whole, that it should be read as a paper before the Society and referred to the Publications Committee like other communications. This Fordyee was a Scotsman and is said to have graduated M.A. from the University of Aberdeen at the age of fifteen. After assisting his uncle Dr. John Fordyce at Uppingham for some years, young George came to Edinburgh, studied under Cullen and

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. took his M.D. about 1758. He moved to London and studied under William Hunter as well as at the Chelsea Physic Garden. Then, like all good sons of Edinburgh aspiring to Medicine, he proceeded to Leyden. On his return to London he supported himself by lecturing, first on chenfistry and a few years later on materia medica and the practice of physic. His Royal Society biographer 172 states that this was an entirely i~i Munk, o29. cit., ii, 312-16. i~2 Phil. Trans. Abridged, xiv, 93. The contributions of George Fordyee to the Phil. Trans. were almost entirely chemical or physical, not medical. The first, in 1776 (befbre he was F.R.S.), was " On Light produced by Inflammation " ( 1776, 66, 504). There followed in 1779 (in collaboration with Stanesby Alchorne) "An Examination of various Ores in the l~hmeum of Dr. William I-iunter " then attached to llunter's spacious building with residence, lecture-theatre and dissecting-room in Greet Windmill Street, now of course forming the Hunterian Museum of Glasgow University--(1779, 69, 527). In 1780 appeared "A new Method of assayhlg copper Ores " (1780, 70, 30) ; and in 1785, " Experiments on the Loss of Weight in Bodies on being melted or heated (1785, 75, 361). In 1787 Fordyce

has an excursio~ into physiology in his " Experiment on Heat ", but though he discusses the power of resistance of animal bodies to cold, the experiment was not physiological,

but was an attempt to ascertain whctber an equal " quantity of heat " will always be produced in an equal quantity of " cold " matter, provided there be applied with" equal Sir John Pri~ufle and his Circle 177

pioneer activity, for the lectures of Fordyee were the first on medical subjects other than anatomy to be offered publicly in London. In 1765 Fordyee was admitted L.R.C.P.--soon joining Fothergill's "rebel Licentia£es" (pp. 138 ft.). In 1770, in a very close competition against his distinguished fellow-rebel, William Watson (pp. 161-2), he was appointed Physician to St. Thomas's Hospital. Fordyee was a member of the famed Literary Club and also a keen botanist, and in 1776 he was elected F.I~.S. Not until 1787 did he become F.I~.C.P.--the last of tile three "= rebels " who attained this distinction, though like the other two, once elected special g ratia, he occupied successive honorific offices in the College. He also took an important part in the preparation of the Pharmacopeia Londinensis of 1778 173. Perhaps at the Royal Society meeting in 1778 Fordyce, as a comparatively new Fellow, brought memories of College feuds to the usually serene atmosphere of the Society. His motion was defeated, but Dr. Shuckburgh 174 gave notice that he would propose it ibrce to it the same " quantRy " of heat (whether " by the burning of an equal quantity of fuel, or the reception of an equal quantity of the sun's rays, or by chemical attraction ",; that is, " whether equal vibrations excited shall produce always the same quantity of heat whether a chemical attraction taking place between an equal quantity of two substances shall always produce an equal quantity of heat ? " The reply is in the negative and Ferdyce points to the importance of this fact for chemical operations (1787, 77, 310). The long Croordan lecture in 1788 is definitely physiological, " On muscular 2¢[otio~ " (1788, 78, 23); while the last two contributions of this indefatigable worker are both chemical ; in 1792 " On the Cause of the additional Weight which Metals acquire on being calcined ", to which his answer is, by acquiring water (1792, 82, 374), and finally the Bakerian Lecture (p. 161 ), " On a new Pendulum" (]794, 84, 2), in which generous recogni- tion is given to the work of others. 17~ it. Hingstou Fox, o~o. cit,, 147, 150 ; Munk, ii, 212 ; t~hil. Trans. Abridged, xiv, 93-4. 17~ Sir George A. W. Shuckburgh Evelyn (1751-1804) was an Irishman by birth, but Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. inherited property in Warwickshire and represented that county in Parliament for the la.~t twenty-four years of his life. A lover of the classics, he travelled in youth extensively in France and Italy. lie was elected F.R.S. in 1774. His contributions to the Phil. Tr(~tts. were physical and mathematical and bear perhaps rather the stamp of the amateur of wide interests. The most considerable was the first, published 1777, " Obserw~tions made in Savoy to ascertain the Height of Mountains by means of the Barometer ; being an Examination of M. de Luc's Rules delivered in his Recherehes sur les Modifications de l'Atmosphere " (Phil. Trans., 1776, 66, 513). It was followed in the nsxt year by a joint communication with Colonel William Roy, F.R.S., Surveyor-General of Coasts and Engineer tbr l~Iilitary Surveys (1726-i790), a " Comparison between Sir George Shuckburgh's and Colonel :Roy's :Rules tbr the Measurements of Heights with a Barometer " (1788, 78, 681), the two methods being found to give comparable results. In 1779 Shuekburgh gave a paper " On the Yariatlon of the Temperature of Boiling Water " (1779, 69, 362), showing that this is conditioned by pressure. We find no further contribution from him to the Phil. Trans. until 1793, when his "Account of the Equatorial Instrument " gives a general historical disquisition on this astronomical instrument and describes the one made for him by Jesse Ramsden (1793, 83, 67). His last was in 1798, " Of some E~deavours to attain a Standard of Weight and Measure," to which he attached a " Table of the Prices of wu'ious Articles at w~rlous Times " with an Appendix giving three further seMes (I798, 88, 133). Sir George added the name of Evelyn to his own in I793 on the death of the father of l~is secoad wife. I78 Dorothea Waley Singer on

again at the next meeting a week later--which indeed he did, and was defeated by a large majority. The Committee's Report was despatched by Pringle on March 19, but no doubt the debates of March were reported to official quarters, for on May 21 the Secretary to the Board of Ordnance, writing to the Secretary of the Society that the recommendations of both Committees had been followed implicitly, added that his Board was " informed that the Reports do not represent the opinion of the majority of the Society and asking for the opinion of the Society itself". Pringle was naturally angered. Mr. Edward Poore 17a moved that the Secretary of the Board " be informed that Reports of Royal Society Committees always convey the opinion of the members of the Committee, and that the Society has not reason to be dissatisfied with this Report ". After a heated discussion this motion was carried by a large majority 17~. But the controversy was still not closed. On January 29, 1778, the l~oyal Society had been occupied with the merits of the problem of points or knobs to lightning conductors, when in a letter communicated by Dr. John Glen King, F.R.S., William Swift of Greenwich recounted his experiments, concluding with great moderation : " I have, by 16 years practice been convinced how difficult it is to draw general conclusions from any electrical experiments, and therefore it becomes me to propose my conjectures with the greatest diffidence ; but I apprehend the result of many experiments show, that points at the upper termination of conductors gradually diminish or draw off the electrical matter, so as to prevent any damage to the buildings on which they are placed, by preventing any violent explosion; and that, on the contrary, bails, though perhaps they will repel electrical matter in some degree, yet from

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. that very circumstance, probably the explosion, when it happens, is violent and attended with danger " nL Later in the year, on June 18 and 25, Edward Nairne (pp. 168 ft.) comnmnicated " Experiments on Electricity, being an Attempt to show the Advantage of Elevated, Pointed Conductors ", explaining that "A difference of opinion prevailed some time ago and has of late been revived " 17s Conclusive as is this work, we read in the Philosophical Transactions for June 18 a counterblast from Dr. Samuel Musgrave 179 supporting Wilson. In an appendix,

175 No other record appears of E. Poore in the Society's archives, save his election as F.R.S. in July 1772, his intervention in the debate on May 2l, 1778, and his death in 1803. But see infra, Part III, for his intervention in the Hutton controversy. 17e Journal Book (Copy), xxix, 226. 17~ Phil. Trans., 1778, 68, 155. The following year he gives further experiments leading to the same conclusion (ibid., 1779, 69, 454). Dr. King (died 1787) was elected F.R.S. in 1771, but this seems to have been his sole contribution to the Phil. Trans. 17s Ibid., 1778, 68, 723, 1778. ~v~ Ibid., 1778, 68, 801 (but a note explains it should have been printed after this paper of :Nairne). Sir John Pringle and hi8 Circle 179

however, Dr. Musgrave somewhat modified his position. A few weeks later on July 9, Wilson found the temerity to present yet another com- munication on the construction of lightning conductors is0 The repercussions of the dispute are reflected in a contemporary verse : " While you, Great George, ibr knowledge hunt, And sharp conductors change for blunt, The nation's out of joint. Franklin a wiser course pursues, And all your thunder useless views, By keeping to the point " ls~. The bitterness and political implication of this controversy clouded the years of Pringle's Presidency. But those years were also marked by important contributions from his pen. And there were many gratifying incidents. It was in 1774 that Pringle's portrait, now hanging in the Royal Society's rooms in Burlington House, was painted by Reynolds ls~ In this year also, six years after the incorporation of the Royal Academy, Reynolds extended the original plan of inviting to this annual dinner " 25 high officers and statesmen ", and invitations were extended to Pringle, as President of the Royal Society, and to a dozen others including Garrick ls3. Thereafter it became a standing custom to invite the President of the l~oyal Society to attend the Royal Academy dinner. A letter written to him by Reynolds in 1773 shows Pringle as a print collector, anxious to obtain a print by one McArdell of a portrait of Reynolds's uncle ls4. Sir John Pringle had a collection of pictures which were sold at Christie's in 1837 ls5

Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180. It is perhaps not insignificant that the meeting on January 8, 1778, was the first during his presidency when Sir John Pringle failed to take the chair. We notice his absence again on January 29, and again at the meeting already described on March 19 and 26. 1778 was the last year of his presidency and he was not again elected to the Council. On November 19, at the meeting before that of his final Copley Lecture, the Society recorded thanks for the gift from him of

1~o Ibid., 1778, 68, 999. ~sl I owe this amusing sidelight to Group-Captahl Ivor B. Hart, O.B.E., R.A.F. The Great Physicists, Oxford, 1927, p. 99, where it is quoted from ~Veld, op. cir., ii, 101-102. l~a Tom Taylor, Life and Times qf Sir Josh'aa Reynolds with notices of so~e of his Cot~temporaries, 2 vols., London, 1865 : ii, 98, cites the entry in Reynolds' notes for his practice : " Sir John Pringle ; Verm ; minio ; guallo di Napoli e nero " ~83 Ibid., ii, 73, 154, 216. ls~ Frederick W. I-Iilles, Letters of Sir Joshua Reynolds, Cambridge University Press, 1929, p. 46. 18~ Catalogue of Auction Sale of 70 pictures, the property of the late Sir John Pringle, May 13, 1837. I owe this information to the kindrtess of Dr. Elsbeth Jaffe. 180 Sir John Pringle and his Circle

his portrait by Reynolds and resolved that it be hung in their Meeting Room. It is pleasing to note that the tributes to him from Ingenhousz and Haller appeared at this period (pp. 142-3), and that it was in this year that he succeeded Linnmus as Foreign Member of the Paris Acad6mie des Sciences is6. He retired to Scotland and was happy in renewed classical studies and in the society of old friends. But he could not stand the cold of Edinburgh, and in 1781 tm returned to London. In the following January he suffered a seizure and died a few days later. Kippis observed in regard to Pringle's success as a practising physician chat he " had acquired a handsome fortune ", and in a rather charming passage on the annuities left by Sir John Pringle as a charge on his estate before it should all revert to his nephew, Sir James Pringle, Kippis adds, "' and he left legacies to some particular friends, among whom the Writer of this Life had the honour of receiving a testimony of his remembrance and esteem " Pringle was buried in St. John's Church, Piccadilly. This church sustained severe damage from German bombs during the recent war and the site of Pringle's grave caimot now bc traced. A memorial plaque with a portrait in relief by Joseph Nollekens (1737- 1823) was erected in Westminster Abbey by his nephew Sir James Pringle ls7

ls6 Weld, op. cit., ii, 62. 18~ 2~ollekens was the guest of Pringle at the R.8. Sessions of June 16, 1773, and March 3, 1774 (Journal Book (Copy), xxvii and xxviii). Annals of Science 1949.6:127-180.