The annexed Review of the Eleventh Chapter of Mr. Weld’s History of the Royal Society, by Professor De Morgan, has been reprinted with his permission, and that of the Editor, verbatim, from the Athenæum of October 14th, 1848.

Three Notes at the foot of the pages have been added for the purpose of explanation.

These are followed by the remarks upon them, reprinted from the “Athenæum” of 16th December, 1848.

Professor De Morgan’s Review of Weld’s
History of the Royal Society.

THE ATHENÆUM.
LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1848.

MR. BABBAGE’S CALCULATING MACHINE.

In our review of Mr. Weld’s “History of the Royal Society,” [ante, p. 621,] we noted that one chapter was devoted to the history of the celebrated undertaking above named. This chapter is taken from materials furnished by Mr. Babbage himself, all the documents having undergone the inspection of Mr. Weld. Of recent publications on the subject it may be well to note⁠—1. A short account of the transactions with the Government, communicated by Mr. Babbage to the Philosophical Magazine for September, 1843. 2. A sketch of the Analytical Engine (on which Mr. Babbage is now at work, that commenced by the Government being the Difference Engine) written in Italian by Menabrea, and translated, with notes (and a list of all previous publications), by the Countess of Lovelace (August 1843). The statements put forward by Mr. Babbage have thus been in substance before the public for five years, without contradiction: for though the account (No. 1) was not signed, it was stated to be from authority, allowed to pass as such by the Editors of the magazine, and generally understood to emanate from Mr. Babbage. We are then bound to take this first statement as admitted by Government, more especially after the publication by Mr. Weld, avowedly made from the documents furnished by Mr. Babbage himself: and assuredly we understand Mr. Weld as conceiving himself to be distinctly informed by Mr. Babbage, that all documents of any importance had been communicated.

The heads of the public history of the Difference Engine are as follows:⁠—In April, 1823, the Government requested the opinion of the Royal Society on Mr. Babbage’s plan for “applying machinery to the purposes of calculating and printing mathematical tables.” The Royal Society reported favourably, that the machine was “fully adequate to the objects proposed,”⁠—and this report was laid before Parliament. In July, Mr. Babbage had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Earl of Ripon) to ascertain if Government would wish him to construct for printing as well as calculating. There is no minute of this conversation, and the parties have different memories upon it. But soon after, the Treasury informs the Royal Society that 1,500l. was to be issued to Mr. Babbage “to enable him to bring his invention to perfection, in the manner recommended.” Mr. Weld remarks that no plan had been pointed out; but it must be noticed that the original application was for an opinion upon calculating and printing, that the opinion spoke of the full adequacy of the plan for the objects proposed, and that the final determination of the Government was to proceed as recommended. Unless there were a previous understanding that all documents should either speak with the verbal completeness of an indictment or be wholly void, it is clear that the Government determined to assist Mr. Babbage in realizing the full invention, and told him so.[49]

The work went on for four years, under advances of money from time to time: the funds were applied by Mr. Babbage, and the accounts were audited by Messrs. Brunel, Donkin, and Field. We suppose that Government did not exceed the proposed advance of 1,500l.; but this is not expressly stated. In December, 1828, Government applied again to the Royal Society to report upon the state, progress, and prospects of the machine. Mr. Babbage at the same time stated that he had expended 6,000l.⁠—meaning, we suppose, 4,500l. over and above the Government advance. A Committee, consisting of Messrs. Gilbert, Roget, Sabine, Herschel, Baily, Brunel (the elder), Kater, Donkin, Penn, Rennie, Barton, Warburton, declined to report on practicability or utility, considering both as fully established, and reported that, the difficulties considered, the progress was as great as could be expected, and that the engine was likely to fulfil the expectations of its inventor. On this report the Government made further advances, and the machine was declared national property. But the official payments soon failed: and Mr. Babbage called a meeting of private friends, in May 1829, who, on the representation that he had then advanced 4,000l. himself, in addition to the Government advance of 3,000l., advised him strongly not to proceed without adequate help from the Government. On this representation, the Duke of Wellington, Mr. Goulburn, and Lord Ashley inspected what there was to show, and the Treasury advanced 3,000l. more. In December 1830, nearly 600l. was still due to Mr. Babbage, “upon the last account,” and that sum to the superintendent, Mr. Clement. The Treasury gave directions for the advance of 600l. to pay Mr. Clement, and desired a fresh inspection and opinion from the Royal Society. The Committee above named (with the addition of Sir J. Lubbock and Mr. Troughton) reported (April 1831) as favourably as before on every point, and recommended attention to Mr. Babbage’s suggestion that the workshops should be removed to the neighbourhood of his residence. With regard to probable expense, they subjoined Mr. Brunel’s estimate that 8,000l. additional would be sufficient; but recommending that the Government be advised to provide for 12,000l. by way of estimate. A piece of ground adjoining Mr. Babbage’s garden was taken, and a fire-proof building was erected. When about 17,000l. had been expended altogether, further progress was arrested by the extravagant demands made by Mr. Clement, as compensation for carrying on the construction in the new buildings. These were out of the question: and Mr. Clement withdrew, taking with him all the tools which had been used, many of which had been invented for the occasion. For it is the law that engineers and mechanics possess the right of property in all tools they have constructed, even though the cost of construction may have been defrayed by their employers. A special agreement ought, the reader will say, to have been made as to these tools; but whether the neglect is to be charged on Mr. Babbage, or on the Government, those must say who feel able. As it very seldom happens that the employer furnishes tools, it is easy to see how the necessity for a special agreement may have escaped the notice of all parties.

So far all is intelligible enough, and no blame attaches to either side, at least that we can venture to impute. But now the question divides in a curious way. While the works were suspended, Mr. Babbage reconsidered the whole question, and invented what he calls the Analytical Engine,⁠—which we will take, on his word and Menabrea’s publication, derived from his communications, to be immensely superior to the Difference Engine. To resume the latter, while Government was unacquainted with these new and more simple conceptions, would have been improper; to write on unfinished speculations would have been difficult. Mr. Babbage therefore (September 1834) requested a personal interview with Lord Melbourne; which was agreed to,⁠—but before it took place the ministry was dissolved. From this time until 1842 Mr. Babbage made applications to the various administrations, which remained unanswered; until at last, in November, 1842, a letter from Mr. Goulburn, in answer to a new application, informed Mr. Babbage that the Government intended to discontinue the project on the ground of expense.

In the meanwhile Mr. Babbage incurred severe censure in scientific circles, as being himself the cause of the delay. It was asserted that he had compromised the Royal Society, which had so strongly recommended his project to the Government. It was pretty generally believed that the delay arose from his determination that the Government should take up the new engine and abandon the old one.

But, until the statement made by him shall be proved either false or defective, it must stand that the Government never returned any answer to the question⁠—Shall the new engine be constructed, or shall the old one be proceeded with? We are of opinion that they ought to have required him to proceed with the old one. They ought to have said⁠—The public can only judge by results: how well satisfied soever men of science may be that the new machine is immeasurably superior to the old one, society at large will never comprehend the abandonment of a scheme on which so much has been expended; they will say⁠—What if, in constructing No. 2, No. 3 should be discovered, as much superior to No. 2 as No. 2 is to No. 1! And if Mr. Babbage had declined to proceed with his first project, when thus urged, it is our opinion that he would have richly deserved a very harsh censure. And of this we are sure, that if Government had allowed him to finish the first machine, and he had done so with success, the House of Commons would willingly have granted money for the second,⁠—aye, and for the third and fourth, if he had invented them. But the Government itself prevented the matter from coming to any such issue. It is possible that Sir R. Peel and Mr. Goulburn allowed Mr. Babbage’s well-known wish[50] to abandon the first plan in favour of the new one to influence their decision. It may be that they were startled at finding that 17,000l. expended upon one project was only the precursor of another. If so, we think they put themselves in the wrong by not fastening on Mr. Babbage the alternative of either proceeding with the existing construction, or taking the entire responsibility of refusal upon himself. As the matter now stands, and unless Mr. Babbage can be refuted, the answer to the question why he did not proceed is, that during the eight years in which he had to bear the blame of the delay he could not procure even the attention of the Government, much less any decision on the course to be taken.

It is generally understood that Mr. Babbage is determined to proceed with the Analytical Engine, gradually, and at his own expense; and that the drawings are in a state of great forwardness. According to Mr. Babbage himself, many experiments have been made with the object “on the one hand, by simplifying the construction as much as possible, and on the other, by contriving new and cheaper means of execution, ultimately to reduce the expense within those limits which a private individual may command.”

In looking at all the circumstances of this statement, we regret its divided responsibility. Mr. Weld has seen Mr. Babbage’s documents. Should he have made an insufficient selection, who is to blame? Mr. Weld says, “I have derived very valuable information from an unpublished statement drawn up by Mr. Babbage, which he has been so kind as to place in my hands. The original documents, which are in Mr. Babbage’s possession, and which are referred to, I have myself examined.” From all this we should conclude that if Mr. Weld had omitted anything material, or fallen into any misconception, Mr. Babbage would before this have set it right. But it would be more satisfactory if we had Mr. Babbage’s own acceptance of the statement thus made, as being that on which he is content to rest his case; at least until some specific counter-statement should demand more detail of explanation. Continued silence will be tantamount to such acceptance.

There is also one piece of information which must be drawn out before the case can be finally adjudicated. We stand thus:⁠—Scientific rumour states that Mr. Babbage compelled the Government to give him up by demanding permission to abandon the Difference Engine and substitute the Analytical Engine. To this, in the formal point of view, Mr. Babbage has fully answered, by showing that the Government never communicated to him that it was their pleasure he should proceed on the plan originally contemplated. The question now remains⁠—Did Mr. Babbage, or did he not, in the several unanswered applications which he made to the Ministry, press the claims of the new machine and the abandonment of the old? If so, did he do it in such a manner as to give to understand, or make apparent, that he would not consent to recommence operations at the point of relinquishment? The “several applications” which were made from 1833 to 1838 are not particularized, much less described as to contents. But, in October 1838, Mr. Babbage wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stating, to use Mr. Weld’s words, that “the question he wished to have settled” was, whether the Government required him to superintend the completion of the Difference Engine according to the original plan and principle, or whether they intended to discontinue it altogether. Now the words quoted are very like the idiom a person would employ who had in his mind that up to that time some other question had been among those proposed for discussion. And it is worthy of note that all the communications are undescribed until we come to the one of October 1838; which shows that then at least, whether before or not, Mr. Babbage had put the question on the right issue. Of what tenor, then, were the undescribed applications?[51] If of the same as that of October 1838, Mr. Babbage stands quite clear; but if they were such as fairly to give rise to the rumour above mentioned, then it must be said, that though he had every disposition to get wrong, Government always prevented him by blocking his path with an error of its own. But in any case it is to be remembered, that for the last four years of unanswered application Mr. Babbage stood upon the right ground; and also that the rumoured refusal to proceed never was made.

The public, we think, has a right to explanation from the Government, and to further explanation from Mr. Babbage. Sir R. Peel turned it off with a joke in the House of Commons. He recommended that the machine should be set to calculate the time at which it would be of use. He ought rather to have advised that it should be set to compute the number of applications which might remain unanswered before a Minister, if the subject were not one which might affect his parliamentary power. If it had done this, it would have shown that its usefulness had commenced.

From the Athenæum of Saturday, Dec. 16th, 1848.

Mr. Babbage has reprinted, for private circulation, Mr. Weld’s chapter on his Calculating Machine, and has appended to it our review[52] of that chapter [see ante, p. 1029] with three short foot-notes. The first of these is on a point immaterial to the issue; the second and third contain distinct statements of fact from Mr. Babbage, in reference to our comments upon his proceedings and those of the Government. Our readers will remember that from September 1834 to November 1842, Mr. Babbage could not procure the attention of the Government to the state of the engine, on which 17,000l. had been spent; and that, about the beginning of that period, Mr. Babbage had invented the new engine, which he called the Analytical Engine. And further, they will remember that all notion of the possibility of blame having been justly incurred by Mr. Babbage rested, in our comment, upon the hypothesis that he had put his wish to abandon the Difference Engine and substitute the Analytical Engine before the Government in such a form as to give them a right to suppose that he was unwilling to proceed with the former. On our remark that it is possible that Sir R. Peel and Mr. Goulburn allowed his well-known wish to influence their decision, Mr. Babbage observes:⁠—“It is scarcely possible that this supposed wish could have influenced Sir Robert Peel, because he had before him a written disavowal of it from Mr. Babbage himself.”

Again, of the first half of the period of unanswered application Mr. Weld gives no account, as to the tenor of the applications therein made to the Government: though he shows by documents that during the second half Mr. Babbage, to repeat our own phrase, “stood upon the right ground.” And thereupon we expressed our opinion that the public had a right to explanation from the Government, and to further explanation from Mr. Babbage. This further explanation Mr. Babbage now gives, in the following words; among which we insert some bracketed comments:⁠—

“The two following [applications made to the Government] will sufficiently explain them [the undescribed applications of the first half of the period of unanswered application]:⁠—On the 23rd December, 1834, Mr. Babbage addressed a statement to the Duke of Wellington, pointing out the only [the reader will remark this word only] plans which in his opinion could be pursued for terminating the questions relative to the Difference Engine, namely⁠—First, the Government might desire Mr. Babbage to continue the construction of the engine in the hands of the person who has hitherto been employed in making it. Secondly, the Government might wish to know whether any other person could be substituted for the engineer at present employed to continue the construction⁠—a course which was possible. Thirdly, the Government might (although he did not presume that they would) substitute some person to superintend the completion of the engine instead of Mr. Babbage himself. Fourthly, the Government might be disposed to give up the undertaking entirely.” A letter to Sir Robert Peel from Mr. Babbage, dated the 7th of April, 1835, and enclosing the above plans, concludes thus: “The delays and difficulties of years will, I hope, excuse my expressing a wish that I may at length be relieved from them by an early decision of the Government on the question.”

From the above it appears that at the end of 1834, Mr. Babbage⁠—though then so full of the new engine, that in September he had asked an audience of Lord Melbourne, to communicate the exact state of the case, and to request, of course, his consideration of the question whether the new engine should or should not take the place of the old one⁠—began his applications to the Government with distinct reference to the old engine, and to the question of its completion or abandonment. Certainly the first of the two applications was not well timed, for it was made when the Duke of Wellington held all the seals, and a Government courier was hunting Sir Robert Peel all over Italy, to tell him to come home quick and be Prime Minister. But it was repeated to Sir Robert Peel in the April following, when the latter was also in official possession of the previous letter.

Mr. Babbage having thus filled up the only lacuna which the public press has brought to his notice, we can but repeat that those who would impute to him the blame of the failure of Government to complete his Calculating Machine must begin by proving his statement to be false or defective. In 1835 he complains to the Government of “delays and difficulties,” which he implies to be mainly caused by the Government, and he gets no answer whatever to repeated applications, until 1843. Those who have propagated the rumours that his conduct was the cause of the delay, and that he compromised his friends in the Royal Society, who had aided in bringing him under the notice of the Government, are bound to abstain in future, or to show cause.

We end by a quotation from Mr. Weld, which we abstained from giving so long as we supposed that the discontinuance of the Calculating Machine might be, in any degree, Mr. Babbage’s fault. “Mr. Babbage has shown me letters, by which it appears that he declined offices of great emolument, the acceptance of which would have interfered with his labours upon the Difference Engine.”

THE END.