Table Of Contentphilosophical societies that sprang
up in the provinces all over
Georgian England.
Gifted, intelligent and odd, the
Lunaticks and their friends were
and the
a curious mixture of brilliance
and eccentricity. Brilliant in
their achievements, they num
Lunaticks bered amongst them ^mes Watt,
Joseph Priestley, William Wither-
mg, Matthew Boulton and Josiah
Wedgwood. Eccentric in their
THE LUNAR SOClITrr OF individuality, they included such
BIRMINGHAM by Robert remarkable figures as Erasmus
E. Schofield (Oxford 70s)
Dafwin and John Wilkinson.
Famous for their science and for
By NEIL McKfiNDBlCK
gotten- for their literature,
posterity has judged them cor
FRANCIS GALTON once de
rectly, but it has usually judged
fined mediocrity as the level of them singly. As a group they are
intellectual power to be found far more interesting and even
in a provincial meeting, and in more important.
1806 the “ Edinburgh Review ” For such a group drew others
remarked with equal confi to it. It became a centre for
dence and fatuity that practical scientific discussion, a
constant source of new scientific
there is universally something ideas. It served as both the focal
presumptuous in provincial
point, and centre of transmission,
genitis and that it is a very rare
felicity to meet with a man of for the latest technological break-
talents out of the metropolis throughis from all over Europe
who does not over rate himself and even from Benjamin Franklin
and his coterie prodigiously. . in Philadelphia. Never before had
This metropolitan chauvinism, there been such an advantageous
which was directed at the Luna- syncretism of pure science and
ticks^ as they were sneeringly advancing industry. Few groups
called, gives us the first clue to could offer such a variety of
the negject of the Lunar Society interests and achievements, and
of Birmingham. It was provincial. fewer still deserve more the ex
It was also predominantly tensive treatment which Dr
scientific, and—worse still— Schofield has provided for them.
greatly interested in applying This detailed, scholarly, and
Slat science to industry. Worse soberly written book has clear
than ever, it held progressive limitations. It is, perhaps
views about society; it was too obviously, the work of an
politically radical. Some of its historian of science: economic
members actually welcomed the historians will be irritated by Dr
French revolution as glorious, and Schofield’s failure to appreciate
thanked their lucky stars that fully the entrepreneurial talent of
America was free. Neither these Boulton, Wedgwood or Bentley;
interests nor these views made social historians Mrill regret that
for popularity. he did not include more of the
They did, however, make for manufacturers' attitude tov the
success, and whilst London con facto]^ lives of their workers;
gratulated itself on the wonders constitutional historians will be
of its own Johnson’s circle—the horrified to see repeated a view
only comparable eighteenth cen of George Ill’s reign which Sir
tury coterie, and containing Lewis Namier spent half a lifetime
Goldsmith, Reynolds, Garrick, trying to correct; and historians
Boswell, Sheridan, Burke, Fox, of thought will find the pages on
Adam Smith and Gibbon—the Priestley less than rewarding.
provinces were spawning a group But in such an ambitious work
which was equally remarkable covering such a host of different
and far more effective in smooth fields, such criticisms are perhaps
ing England’s path into the not surprising, and before we sigh
modern world. with regret for what might have
For the Lunar Society was one been, let us sigh with relief for
of the most potent agents for what there is, for this is an impor
economic progress in its time. It tant book. ____
represented in microcosm all the
forces of social and industrial
change. It was the Industrial
Revolution writ small; it was
one, and the most important one, / j
of that host of local scientific and
Lunar Geography THE
WARRINGTON
Midland region of
LUNAR S O C I E T Y
Lunar Society interest.
Adapted from John Cary,
Roads of England and Wales OF BIRMINGHAM
(1791).
A Social History of
Provincial Science and Industry in
Eighteenth-Century England
BY
ROBERT E. SCHOFIELD
S H R O P S H I R E
SROSELEr
•WORCESTER
W O R C E S T E R
SCALE OF MILES
10 15 20
PLATE 1
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1963
Oxford University Press, Amen House, London E.C.4
GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA
PREFACE
CAPE TOWN SALISBURY NAIROBI IBADAN ACCRA
KUALA LUMPUR HONG KONG
^His work was lightly begun in 1953, to find the basis for
Oxford University Press igG^ those fragmentary and often contradictory legends of the
Lunar Society which, since mid-nineteenth century, have in
creasingly been standard repertory in works dealing with eigh
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
teenth-century England. Although the Society, as such, left no
record, the letters and papers of its members soon revealed so
complete and different a picture of the Society from that com
monly accepted, that an expanded study seemed not only pos
sible, but necessary.
The first part of that larger work, in a substantially different
form, became a doctorate dissertation in the history of science
and learning at Harvard University in 1955. Since then the
material has been entirely rewritten and enlarged to what seems
a definitive study of one of the most extraordinary and influential
groups of late-eighteenth-century England. Without prior in
tention, the nature of the material has forced the interpreta
tion of the Lunar Society as a microcosm of the Industrial
Revolution and reopened the question of fruitful inter-relations
between science and technology.
From the inception of the problem to its conclusion, I have
been indebted to Professor L Bernard Cohen of Harvard Uni
versity for encouragement and advice. Dr. Douglas McKie,
Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science, University
College, London, has been a constant aid since he first intro
duced me into EngUsh archives during my Fulbright Year of
1953-4. To my professors, fellow students, and colleagues at
Harvard, the University of Kansas, and Case Institute of Tech
nology, I owe debts for advice and information which cannot be
enumerated.
My first research trip to England was under the auspices of
U.S. Public Law 584, 79th Congress (The Fulbright Act). Sub
sequent trips and the expenses of books, microfilm, and clerical
assistance were supported by the generosity of the American
Philosophical Society, Penrose Fund Grant 2189; the National
Science Foundation Grant G-4148; and the faculty research
VI Preface Preface vii
funds of the University of Kansas and Case Institute of Tech and abroad. They gave freely of their time and their knowledge.
nology. A Fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Foun Without their help neither this nor any other historical study
dation allowed me the time to complete a first draft of this book could be written and to them all, individually and collectively,
while working on another project. this work is dedicated.
The most casual inspection will reveal that this work could
never have been continued without the co-operation of public
and private institutions in England, Scotland, France, and the Cleveland, Ohio
United States. All of the archives used have been listed in the 1962
bibliography and individual items are identified in footnotes.
I gratefully acknowledge that permission to abstract, cite, or
quote original documents in their possession has been granted
by the following persons or institutions, their officers, members,
and Fellows; Colonel Bern Dibner, Lord Harrowby, Sir John
Wedgwood; the officers of the Royal Society, the Society of
Antiquarians of London, the Linnean Society of London, the
Geological Society of London, the Royal Society of Arts, the
Royal Society of Medicine, the American Philosophical Society,
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania; the President and Council of the Royal
College of Surgeons of England, the Trustees of the British
Museum, the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland; the
libraries of Cambridge University, Edinburgh University, Haver-
ford College, University College, London, and Yale University;
the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, Birmingham Public Library,
Bodleian Library, Oxford, Dr. Williams’s Library, John Rylands
Library, Warrington Municipal Library, and Wellcome His
torical Medical Library; the Assay Office, Birmingham, National
Register of Archives, London, and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
To my general obligations to these organizations were in
variably added personal obhgations to individuals who went
out of their way to assist me. Of these particular thanks go to
Miss W. D. Coates, Registrar, National Register of Archives;
Mr. Kaye, Librarian, Royal Society of London; Mr. LeFanu,
Librarian, Royal College of Surgeons of England; Mr. David
Allan, Librarian, Royal Society of Arts; Mr. Arthur Westwood,
Assay Master, Birmingham Assay Office; Mr. Tom Lyth, retired
curator of the Wedgwood Museum, Josiah Wedgwood and
Sons, Ltd.
Finally, I must acknowledge the assistance of countless libra
rians and archivists at libraries and collections in this country
CONTENTS
List of Illustrations xi
PART I
BACKGROUND OF THE LUNAR SOCIETY, I 75O-65
1. Introduction 3
2. Beginning of the Lunar Circle 17
PART II
THE LUNAR CIRCLE, I 765-75
3. Small, Wedgwood, Edgeworth, and Day 35
4. James Watt and James Keir 60
5. The Area of the Circle 83
PART III
FOUNDING OF THE LUNAR SOCIETY, I775-80
6. Personal, Social, and Political 121
7. Business, Science, and Technology 147
PART IV
LUNAR APOGEE, I 781- 9I
8. Personnel: Priestley, Darwin, Edgeworth, and Day 193
9. Personnel: Galton, Stokes, and Johnson 219
10. Lunar Science 250
11. Lunar Science and Lunar Controversy 289
12. Lunar Prosperity, Politics, and Riotous Conclusions 328
Contents
PART V
DECLINE AND END OF THE LUNAR SOCIETY
LIST OF PLATES
13. The Ending of the Lunar Society 369
14. Conclusion: Lunar Descent and Lunar Influence 415
1. Map of‘Lunar’ Geography Frontispiece
2. a. Plate VII, from Erasmus Darwin’s Phytologia (London,
Bibliography 441
1800). b. Drawing from a letter of Josiah Wedgwood to
Thomas Bentley, 15 March 1768 facing p. 74
Index 4^^
3. Wedgwood’s sketch of strata uncovered in the digging
of the Trent and Mersey Canal, from a letter to Thomas
Bentley, 1767 „ 96
4. Figures I and II of Johann Jacob Ferber’s Versuch einer
Oryktographie von Derbyshire (Mietau, 1776) „ 102
5. Darwin’s ‘mechanical doubler’. (From Darwin’s Com
monplace Book) „ 166
6. James Keir’s crystallized glass. (From Philosophical Trans
actions, 66 (1776)) ,, 174
7. Plates I and II from John Whitehurst’s Inquiry into the
Formation of the Earth (London, 1778) „ 178
8. Wedgwood’s suggested chemical symbols. (From a letter
to Thomas Bentley, 7 March 1779) „ 186
9. Page from Darwin’s Commonplace Book describing
adiabatic heat experiments „ 268
10. Table and Plate describing Galton’s colour experiments.
(From Monthly Magazine, 8 (1799)) „ 272
11. Edgeworth’s carriage-experiment apparatus. (From
The Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, 2 (1788)) „ 278
12. Destruction of Priestley’s home during the Birmingham
Riots. (From a lithograph by Hulmandel of the painting
by Exted, a pupil of Hogarth, who drew the scene on the
spot) „ 359
PART I
Background of the Lunar Society
50-65
n
1
INTRODUCTION
Mo re than any other single group, the Lunar Society of
Birmingham represented the forces of change in late-
eighteenth-century England, for the Lunar Society was
a brilliant microcosm of that scattered community of provincial
manufacturers and professional men who found England a
rural society with an agricultural economy and left it urban
and industrial. A more unlikely ‘revolutionary’ society never
met. It was a small group, consisting over the years of but
fourteen members: Matthew Boulton, Erasmus Darwin,
Thomas Day, Richard Lovell Edgeworth, Samuel Galton,
jun., Robert Augustus Johnson, James Keir, Joseph Priestley,
William Small, Jonathan Stokes, James Watt, Josiah Wedg
wood, John Whitehurst, and William Withering. They were
not the kind of men to man the barricades or make inflam
matory speeches from poKtical rostrums. The revolution they
manipulated was more insidious— and more lasting— than that
created by their French counterparts, for these men were the
harbingers of the Industrial Revolution.
They came to meet for dinner and discussion at a member’s
home once a month in the afternoon of the Monday nearest
the time of the full moon— hence the name Lunar Society, but
this was the least, the merely social, part of their activities.
Most of them lived near Birmingham, and could consult daily;
when that was impossible, they wrote to one another. Together
they comprised a clearing-house for the ideas which trans
formed their country materially, socially, and culturally with
in a generation. They were men of broad interests and their
discussions ranged widely, but their major mutual interest was
the sciences, pure and applied—particularly as applied to the
problems of industry. Clow and Clow write of them:
• . . Taken en masse this group probably represents the highest
concentration of Fellows of the Royal Societies that has been associated
at one time with any industrial undertaking. The social context of
B 2
4 Introduction
Introduction ' 5
this industrial miscelle was Birmingham industrialism, and for con
English intellectuals were too parochial to see that anything of
venience it may be referred to as the Lunar Society . . . there was not
cultural or social importance could have come from an indus
an individual, institution, or industry with pretensions of contact
trially minded organization in the provinces.
with advancing technology throughout. . . the land, but some mem
ber of the Lunar Society group had connexions with it.^ This kind of cultural bias can be illustrated by a magazine
article of 1803, which listed deceased ‘English Worthies’ of the
In spite of their fame as individuals the reputation of their
eighteenth century under headings as diverse as ‘Ministers and
Society has been obscured. Theirs was an informal group; it
Statesmen, Lawyers, Judges, Divines, Voyagers, Travellers,
had no officers, kept no records, never published its proceed
Mathematicians, Naturalists,’ &c. But there is no section for
ings, only one of its members, Joseph Priestley, ever referred to
inventors or manufacturers and none is listed unless, like Frank
it in print while the Society was still active. In a period of
lin, they qualify under a different heading.^ Contemporary
persistent self-advertisement quiet activity did not win distinc
metropolitan chauvinism is as blatantly displayed in an 1806
tion. Nor was this a period in which memory of the Lunar
review of Priestley’s Memoirs;
Society would be prized. The impact of the French Revolution
It has often occurred to us . . . that there is universally something
on Britain at the turn of the century produced a distaste for
presumptuous in provincial genius, and that it is a very rare felicity
the liberal, free-thinking spirit of such an organization. In the
to meet with a man of talents out of the metropolis, who does not
course of the nineteenth century the general atmosphere be
overrate himself and his coterie prodigiously. In the West of England
came more sympathetic toward the activities of the Lunar
in particular, there has been a succession of authors, who . . . have
Society, but by then it was too late easily to write its history. fancied that they were born to effect some mighty revolution in the
The story of the Lunar Society seemed to have disappeared as different departments to which they applied themselves. We need
its members died; as early as 1869 Francis Galton, himself the only run over the names of Darwin, Day, Beddoes, Southey,
grandson of two members, could refer to the ‘scanty history of Coleridge, and Priestley to make ourselves perfectly intelligible. It
the once well known “Lunar Society” of the Midland counties’ is . . . chiefly, we believe, for want of that wholesome discipline of
The work of Samuel Smiles and of Henry Carrington Bolton derision to which everything is subjected in London. . . . There is
something ... in the perpetual presence of the more permanent
demonstrates how much could still be done in the last of the
aristocracies of wealth, office, and rank which . . . teaches aspiring
nineteenth century to extend this ‘scanty history’.3 Although
men to measure their own importance by a more extended standard.^
information about the Society was not readily obtainable, it
could be found in scattered places, but few people were seri This extraordinary judgement was reached by a man who, at
ously interested. Odd enthusiasts like Samuel Smiles, new pro the time of writing, had almost certainly spent less time in
phets of progress, could sing the praises of an England strong London than any of the persons named, and however the now
because she was right and right because she had the middle- almost forgotten works of Erasmus Darwin, Thomas Day, or
class virtues of industry and thrift, but most nineteenth-century Thomas Beddoes may be classed, the names of Southey, Cole
ridge, and Priestley remain to demonstrate the ineptness of this
* Archibald Clow and Nan L. Clow, The Chemical Revolution (London: The
criticism. It is, however, singularly pertinent as an illustration
Batchworth Press, 1952), pp. 611-15.
* Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius (London: Macmillan and Co., 1869), p. 193. of prejudice, for each of the six persons named had some Lunar
He was the grandson of Erasmus Darwin and Samuel Galton, jun. Society connexions; Darwin, Day, and Priestley were mem
3 Samuel Smiles, Lives of Boulton and Watt (London: John Murray, 1866),
bers, Beddoes was the son-in-law of a member, Richard Lovell
Chapter 18, ‘Friends of Boulton and Watt—^The Lunar Society’, pp. 368-86.
Henry Carrington Bolton, Scientific Correspondence of Joseph Priestley (New York:
* The Gentleman's Magazine, Ixxiii (1803), 161-70. Thomas Newcomen, John
privately printed, 1891), Appendix II, ‘The Lunar Society’, pp. 195-219; the same
Roebuck, Richard Arkwright, Henry Cort, Josiah Wedgwood, Abraham Darby,
material in substantially the same form appeared in the 1888 volume of the Mew
and Isaac Wilkinson, for example, are not mentioned.
Tork Academy of Sciences’ Proceedings and in the Birmingham and Midland Institute—
* [Francis Jeffrey], ‘Memoirs ofDr. Joseph Priestley’, EdinburghRevieu},\x (1806),
Archaeological Section— Transactions for the year 1889, pp. 79-94.
147.
6 Introduction Introduction 7
Edgeworth, was a friend of most of the other members, and century; by the end of the century these were comparatively
collaborated with Darwin, Withering, and Watt. Coleridge was common. Use of machinery required sources of power not
a pensioner of the Wedgwoods, a personal friend of Watt’s son, readily available in London until the steam-engine became
and was a great admirer of Priestley. Southey, just emerging widely used for that purpose—some time after the 1780’s; in
from his liberal phase at the time this review was written, had dustry tended to locate in the north of England where water
been an admirer of Priestley and greatly under the influence of power was available. With the advent of steam-power, access
Coleridge. to coal deposits became important; there was also an increase
Slurs and sneers such as these continue through the nine in the ‘heavy’ industries using coal as fuel. The iron trades, the
teenth century; even Francis Galton, who should have known potteries, and the developing chemical industries therefore
better, defined mediocrity as the level of intellectual power to located in the midlands and north of England near the coal
be found in most provincial gatherings.^ Against such attitudes, fields.^
the eminence of the Lunar Society might well be obscured. Two developments might have halted this trend, or at least
There were, however, reasons for this attitude. Surely the period maintained London as the focus of new industry. With the ex
in which the Lunar Society flourished was unique in the his pansion of business, the inadequacies of transportation and of
tory of England. Before 1760 the influence of manufacturers finance became significant. Both problems might have been
and inventors was negligible, after 1830 it was so pervasive as solved to London’s advantage; instead their solutions left Lon
to be unremarkable. Before 1750 London was unchallenged in don more, rather than less, isolated. Few industries can locate
its political and economic, its social and cultural leadership. in areas which simultaneously provide neighbouring access to
Nineteenth-century Englishmen, having much the same regard all its raw materials, to all its market, and to vital consumer
for London after 1840, failed to note that there had been a goods for its labour supply. This becomes more true the larger
break in the continuity of her title to such respect. Yet London and more complex the industry becomes. Before a complex
had essentially lost her leadership during the last of the eigh industrial society can develop, it is necessary that there be a
teenth and early part of the nineteenth century. The cir transportation system capable of handling its needs. In spite of
cumstances which caused London’s ebb of fortunes produced road-building activity in England in the first half-century, it
organizations like the Lunar Society. When London regained seems clear that as late as 1750 no such system existed. The
its position it could do so only by adjusting to an England only really dependable means of travel or of shipping goods
newly modelled according to principles fostered by such groups. was by horse-back or boat. ‘Flying carriages’ took four and
One major effect of the Industrial Revolution was to urban a half days from Manchester to London, two days for the trip
ize and industrialize England. Already urban and industrial, from Birmingham to London, and this only in good weather
London was changed only quantitatively where most of Eng and on the comparatively good roads leading to the metro
land was changed qualitatively. During the course of the polis. Towns not connected by a London artery were, for many
eighteenth century, England’s population increased by about practical purposes, not connected at all. London was fre
fifty per cent. London showed the same increase, but many quently the clearing-house for inland trade because it was more
towns in the north and midlands increased by factors of ten or convenient to send materials by road or water to London and
more. People had moved from the country to take the jobs then to their ultimate destination than to send the goods
made available by the changing pattern of industry.
' See Clow and Clow, Chemical Revoluton, for an extensive treatment of the growth
There was some capitalized industry in England, some use of
of industry in the north and midlands. To their treatment should, perhaps, be
machinery in a few factories before the middle of the eighteenth added the comments of F. W. Gibbs, in his essay-review of the Clows’ work in
Annals of Science, viii (1952), 272. Dr. Gibbs thinks they may have over-emphasized
* This definition of mediocrity is credited to Galton in Notes and Queries, clxxxviii certain features in their extra-London orientation; he does not, however, suggest
(13th ser., 1945), 286. that their facts are incorrect.
