| INCOME. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Proprietors | Life Subscribers |
Annual Subscribers |
Miscellaneous Ground Rents, Dividends, &c. |
Grand Total |
| £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | |
| 1799 | 5,827 | 514 | 37 | — | 6,379 |
| 1800 | 8,047 | 2,280 | 719 | — | 11,047 |
| 1801 | 2,323 | 363 | 456 | 331 | 3,474 |
| 1802 | 1,417 | 503 | 1,003 | 75 | 2,999 |
| 1803 | 1,134 | 245 | 1,624 | 512 | 3,516 |
| 1804 | 808 | 437 | 2,271 | 248 | 3,765 |
| 1805 | 1,837 | 387 | 3,845 | 434 | 6,504 |
| 1806 | 1,134 | 126 | 2,691 | 190 | 4,141 |
| 1807 | — | — | 1,426 | 13 | 1,560 |
| 1808 | — | 126 | 1,615 | 138 | 1,880 |
| 1809[41] | — | 279 | 1,778 | 289 | 2,347 |
| 1810 | — | 812 | 1,723 | 2,334 | 4,869 |
| 1811 | — | 1,731 | 1,869 | 719 | 4,319 |
| 1812 | — | 913 | 2,172 | 244 | 3,329 |
| 1813 | — | 584 | 1,978 | 542 | 3,104 |
| 1814 | — | 710 | 1,763 | 1,937 | 4,410 |
| EXPENDITURE. | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | House | Lectures | Library | Printing | Workshop | Surplus, Funds, Exchequer Bills, Given to the Library, &c. |
Grand Total |
| £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | |
| 1799 | 5,147 | — | 15 | 184 | — | — | 5,777 |
| 1800 | 4,193 | 802 | 174 | 216 | 1 | 4,471 | 10,115 |
| 1801 | 4,868 | 812 | 269 | 376 | 708 | — | 7,078 |
| 1802 | 5,113 | 844 | 255 | 344 | 502 | — | 7,059 |
| 1803 | 1,667 | 1,014 | 250 | 478 | 326 | 157 | 3,894 |
| 1804 | 1,777 | 872 | 210 | 181 | 118 | 420 | 3,579 |
| 1805 | 1,999 | 1,096 | 287 | 193 | 320 | 813 | 4,710 |
| 1806 | 1,739 | 1,493 | 464 | 384 | 47[42] | 1,805 | 5,935 |
| 1807 | 1,816 | 1,451 | 440 | 258 | — | — | 3,967 |
| 1808 | 1,834 | 1,128 | 422 | 99 | — | — | 3,484 |
| 1809 | 1,905 | 1,326 | 420 | 375 | — | Debts, 2,068 | |
| 1810 | 562 | 499 | 220 | 375 | — | 2,524 | 4,180 |
| 1811 | 1,796 | 886 | 322 | 157 | — | 1,784 | 4,945 |
| 1812 | 1,080 | 533 | 190 | 172 | — | 1,165 | 3,140 |
| 1813 | 872 | 783 | 222 | 150 | — | 1,175 | 3,202 |
| 1814 | 1,322 | 727 | 352 | 180 | — | 1,870 | 4,451 |
[1] The following unpublished letter from General Howe to General Washington, written from Philadelphia in 1776, shows what the tyranny of the committees and people was:
‘You are not ignorant that numbers even of the most respectable gentlemen in America have been torn from their families, confined in gaols, and their property confiscated; that many of those in this city, whose religious tenets secured them from suspicion of entertaining designs of hostility, have been ignominiously imprisoned, and without even the colour of a judicial proceeding, banished from their tenderest connections into the remotest part of another province. Nor can it be unknown to you that many have suffered death from tortures inflicted by the unrelenting populace under the eye of usurped yet passive authority; that some have been dragged to trial for their loyalty and, in cruel mockery of law, condemned and executed; that others are now perishing in loathsome dungeons, and that penal edicts are daily issuing against all who hesitate to disavow, by a solemn oath, the allegiance they owe and wish to pay to their sovereign.’
General Howe shows the exasperation of the Royalists also. He says:
‘Members of committees, collectors of arbitrary fines, &c., oppressors of the peaceable inhabitants, have been seized by the exasperated inhabitants of different parts of the country and delivered into my hands.’
[2] The pamphlet here referred to was Lord Sheffield’s ‘Observations on the Commerce of the American States.’
[3] So great was the economy practised that the daily expense for fire-wood in the kitchen, where dinner was provided for 1,000 people, was only twelve Kreutzers, or fourpence halfpenny. Sometimes 1,500 were fed in one day.
[4] The great mistake which has been committed in most of the attempts to introduce a spirit of industry where habits of idleness have prevailed, has been the too frequent use of coercive measures. Force will not do. It is address which must be used on those occasions. The children in the House of Industry at Munich who, being placed on elevated seats round the hall where other children worked, were made to be idle spectators of that amusing scene, cried most bitterly when their request to descend from their seats and mix in that busy crowd was refused; but they would most probably have cried still more had they been taken abruptly from their play and forced to work. Men are but children of a larger growth, and those who undertake to direct them ought ever to bear in mind that important truth.
[5] This was the prospectus of the Royal Institution.
[6] This was a model one quarter of the full size of the new Bavarian six-pounder with its ammunition waggon. The Elector permitted him to present it to the United States.
[7] The President wrote to Secretary McHenry: ‘I should not scruple to give him any of the appointments you mention, and leave it with you to make such proposals to him through Mr. King within the limits you have drawn in your letter as you should think fit.’
[8] Notwithstanding this his daughter said her father objected to her marrying Sir C. Blagden.
[9] Probably the caricature by Gilray of the Royal Institution and Sir John Hippesley, published on May 23. Count Rumford was caricatured on June 12, 1800.
[10] Blagden himself had just been accused of being a spy.
[11] It was not until May 1, 1807, that King Maximilian Joseph, ‘having extended the bounds of his kingdom, gave a new constitution to the Bavarian Academy, proportioned to the existing state of science and to his new empire.’ The first public meeting was held on July 27.
[12] The gentlemen chosen were the Earl of Winchelsea, Mr. Wilberforce, the Rev. Dr. Glasse, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Richard Sulivan, Mr. Colquhoun, Mr. Parry, and Mr. Bernard.
[13] If any other season should be thought more convenient for these elections, it will of course be chosen instead of that here proposed.
[14] No notice of workshops exists in the first number of the Journal, dated April 1800. In the second number, containing the report to the managers on May 25, 1801, it is said that eighteen or twenty young men are to be boarded and lodged in the house (p. 27, Journal).
[15] This gallery staircase has left its mark in the Institution, and is drawn in the old plans of the house. There was originally no door into the theatre under the gallery.
[16] Sir J. Hippesley, elected May 19.
[17] Now the anteroom.
[18] Now the lecturers’ room.
[19] This was part of the front area.
[20] Now the chemical laboratory, 1871.
[21] This and a line below are the only traces of praise of Count Rumford that are to be found in the records of the Institution.
[22] Edinburgh Review, Nos. II. and IX., 1803, 1804.
[23] See Appendix II.
[26] Hippesleys and Bernards.
[27] Where Mr. Sharpe, Sydney Smith’s friend, lived.
[28] Mr. E. Davy, his cousin.
[30] This lecture was given. In it Mr. Coleridge made a violent personal attack on Mr. Joseph Lancaster, and a year afterwards, at the annual meeting of proprietors, a resolution was carried unanimously that ‘this attack was in direct violation of a known and established rule of the Royal Institution, prohibiting any personal animadversions in the lectures there delivered.’
[31] Probably Mr. Boulton of Birmingham.
[32] Present, Sir Joseph Banks, Earl of Morton, Count Rumford, and Richard Clark, Esq.
[33] The substance of these lectures was published in the fourth number of the Journals of the Royal Institution, p. 49, edited by Dr. Young. The paper is called Outlines of a View of Galvanism. It is dated September 1801.
[34] This was the first memoir on the Theory of Light and Colours, read Nov. 12, 1801.
[35] Davy always thought he caught the fever during an experiment for disinfecting Newgate Prison.
[36] Some time after his recovery it was said in the Institution that his laboratory experiments caused his illness.
[37] The voltaic subscriptions amounted to 520l.
[38] The predecessor of Mr. Faraday.
[39] The discovery of the simplicity of chlorine was claimed by the French chemists; Davy afterwards said of Gay-Lussac’s paper in the Annales de Chimie for July 1814, ‘The historical notes attached to it are of a nature not to be passed over without animadversion. M. Gay-Lussac states that he and M. Thénard were the first to advance the hypothesis that chlorine was a simple body, and he quotes M. Ampère as having entertained that opinion before me. On the subject of the originality of the idea of chlorine being a simple body I have always vindicated the claims of Scheele, but I must assume for myself the labour of having demonstrated its properties and combinations and of having explained the chemical phenomena it produces, and I am in possession of a letter from M. Ampère that shows he has no claims of this kind to make.’
[41] Expenditure to June 12.
[42] Abolished in August.