Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:35:03.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seditious Science: A Reply to Paul Weindling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Ian Inkster
Ian Inkster
Affiliation:
Department of Economic History, University of New South Wales, PO Box 1, Kensington, Sydney, NSW 2033, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Paul Weindling's paper, ‘Science and Sedition,’ which covers the period 1795–1819, appears to be a critical response to my own short note on ‘London science and the Seditious Meetings Act of 1817’. As several misconceptions are fairly formally iterated in Mr Weindling's treatment, I would like to take the opportunity of clarifying the issues, adding some further detail, and answering the one or two points of substance which have been raised with respect to my initial note. In an effort to save the valuable space of the Journal and avoid undue repetition, my reply takes the form of distinct but hopefully cumulative points, and remains centred upon the legislation of 1817, although I do permit myself some comments on the years 1817–20 as a coherent period.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , July 1981 , pp. 181 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1981

Access options

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

References

NOTES

1 Inkster, Ian, ‘London science and the Seditious Meetings Act of 1817’, British journal for the history of science, 1979, 12, 192—6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weindling, Paul, ‘Science and Sedition: how effective were the acts licensing lectures and meetings, 1795–1819?’Google Scholar, ibid., 1980, 13, 139—53.

2 A much wider scope is taken in a paper I am preparing entitled ‘Science beyond the pale—the effect of the Sedition bills from the 1790s to the 1820s’.

3 Anderson, P., ‘Origins of the present crisis’, New left review, 1964, 23, 26–54Google Scholar, Nield, Keith, ‘A symptomatic dispute?’, Social research, 1980, 47, 479–506.Google Scholar

4 Nottingham review, 9 03 1817, p. 3.Google Scholar

5 All provincial papers carned some information on the case. The following dwelt upon it at length, suggesting its repercussions (all dates are 1817): Newcastle courant, 10 05, p. 1Google Scholar; Aris's Birmingham gazette, 28 04, pp. 1, 3Google Scholar; York courant, 28 04, p. 3Google Scholar; 5 May, p. 3; Lancaster gazette, 3 05, p. 4Google Scholar; Doncaster, Nottingham and Lincoln gazette, 2 05, p. 2Google Scholar; Manchester mercury, 6 05, p. 2Google Scholar; Leeds mercury, 26 04, p. 2Google Scholar; 3 May, pp. 2, 3; 10 May, p. 3; Liverpool mercury, 25 04, p. 343Google Scholar; 9 May, p. 354; 6 June, p. 391.

6 The Observer, 5 05 1817, p. 1.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., and 4 May, p. 2; 25 May, p. 4.

8 The various committees of parliament between 1817 and 1820 were highly dependent upon reports from spies and magistrates. For instance, during July-November 1819 the Manchester JPs provided 65 folio pages of letters on local Sedition and radicalism direct to Lord Sidmouth.

9 These are described in detail in Inkster, Ian, Introduction: ‘Aspects of the history of science and science culture in Britain: 1780–1850 and beyond’, in Inkster, Ian and Morrell, Jack (eds.), Metropolis and province: Essays in British science, 1780–1850, London, 1981, in press.Google Scholar

10 Bath chronicle, 2 01 1817, p. 2Google Scholar; 9 January, p.3; 30 January, p. 2; 17 April, p. 4; 8 May, p. 4; 19 June, p. 4; 17 July, p. 3; 25 December, p. 3; Philosophical magazine, 1817, 49, 220–4.Google Scholar

11 This was the most common reaction to my own survey of provincial record offices.

12 Leeds mercury, 8 02 1817, p. 3.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., 26 April 1817, p. 3. For science and savants in Leeds at this time see History of one hundred years of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Leeds, 1919Google Scholar; Leeds mercury, 13 10 1832, pp. 2–3Google Scholar; Baines, Edward, Directory of Leeds, Leeds, 1817Google Scholar, where he refers to two recently ‘failed’ societies; Transactions of the PLS, Leeds, 1837, 1, (gives list of 1819 members)Google Scholar; Baines, Edward, The life of Edward Baines, London, 1851Google Scholar; and further references and argument in Inkster, Ian, ‘The social context of an educational movement: a revisionist approach to the English mechanics' institutes, 1820–1850’, Oxford review of education, 1976, 2, 277–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Even though it was probably second only to London and Manchester in England, the history of Liverpool's science culture remains unwritten. For background to the points made here, see Inkster, Ian, ‘Studies in the social history of science in England during the industrial revolution’, University of Sheffield PhD thesis, 1977, especially chapters V and VI.Google Scholar

15 Liverpool mercury, 7 03 1817, p. 287Google Scholar; 14 March, p. 288.

16 Ibid., 28 February 1817, p. 277.

17 Ibid., 14 March 1817, p. 289.

18 Ibid., 28 March 1817, p. 305; 4 April, p. 314; 18 April, pp. 329, 334, 338; 25 April, pp. 342, 352; 16 May, p. 368, 23 May, p. 371; 22 August, p. 57; Whittingham-Jones, Barbara, ‘Liverpool's political clubs, 1812–1820’, Transactions of the historical society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1959, 3, 117–38Google Scholar; Wright, John, Illiberality reproved, and a much injured people defended, Liverpool, 1817Google Scholar; Wright, F. B., A history of religious persecution, London, 1817.Google Scholar

19 Liverpool mercury, 7 07 1820, p. 3Google Scholar; 4 August, p. 38; 15 December, p. 200; 22 December, p. 201.

20 For science in Newcastle see the forthcoming paper by Orange, A. D. in Inkster, and Morrell, , op. cit. (9)Google Scholar; Watson, R. Spence, The history of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle, 1793–1896, London, 1897Google Scholar; Turner, William, Speculations on a literary society in Newcastle, Newcastle, 1792Google Scholar; idem, A letter to the ordinary members of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle, Newcastle, 1808Google Scholar; idem, An introductory address to the Literary, Scientific and Mechanical Institution, Newcastle, 1824Google Scholar; Inkster, , op. cit. (2).Google Scholar

21 Spence Watson, ibid., pp. 15–25; ‘Parliamentary reform’, and ‘The rise and progress of popular disaffection’, in Quarterly review, 1816–1817, 16, 225–78, and 511–52Google Scholar; Parliamentary debates (Hansard), 1817, 35, 1087–88Google Scholar (14 March); The Times, 14 02 1817, p. 3Google Scholar; Cadogan, Peter, Early radical Newcastle, Consett, 1975, pp. 26–32Google Scholar; Newcastle courant, 25 11 1815, p. 3Google Scholar; 9 December p. 3; 4 January 1817, p. 3; 18 January, p. 3.

22 Parssinen, T. M., ‘The revolutionary party in London, 1816–20’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 1972, 45, 265–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Thomas Spence and the origins of English land nationalization’, Journal of the history of ideas, 1973, 34, 135–141Google Scholar; Quarterly review, op. cit. (21), p. 265.Google Scholar

23 Newcastle courant, 8 02 1817, p. 3Google Scholar; Marshall, John, The political litany diligently revised, Newcastle, 1817Google Scholar; Twenty-fourth annual report of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle, Newcastle, 1817, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

24 Quarterly review, op.cit. (21), pp. 546–7Google Scholar; Liverpool mercury 28 02 1817, p. 278.Google Scholar

25 Twenty-fourth annual report, op. cit. (23), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

26 Turner, William and Edmonston, Henry, ‘Draught of an intended bill for the protection and encouragement of literary and philosophical institutions, Newcastle, June 1817’Google Scholar, Newcastle City Libraries, MS. L027.2; see also Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth annual reports, as at op. cit. (23)Google Scholar, for 1818 and 1819.

27 Parliamentary debates, 1819, 40, 661Google Scholar; 1819–20, 41, 1816; The Observer, 5 02 1817, p. 4Google Scholar (for threats to pulicans in London); 1 June, p. 3; 8 June, p. 3, and passim; Newcastle courant, 6 12 1817, p. 2.Google Scholar

28 Liverpool mercury, 4 04 1817, pp. 319–20Google Scholar, 25 April, p. 342; 29 October 1819, p. 139. Smith's own cheap reprints in The kaleidoscope and the gleaner were threatened as they sold at 3½d (i.e., well below the 6d minimum figure), contributors to which included Edward Rushton, John Wright, and other local radicals whose activity was reported in such ‘seditious’ literature as Hone's Reformist register which sold at 2d; e.g. the May 1817 issue of the Register contained an account of ‘John Wright and the Liverpool informers’.