The Geological Survey of Great Britain as a Research School,1839–1855

Horner L. , “Anniversary address of the president”, Quarterly journal of the Geological Society, iii (1847), xxiii–xc, p. xxxi.

It is important to emphasize that the present study is not intended to provide a comprehensive view of all aspects of the Geological Survey's activities. Thus I have relatively little to say about the Irish branch of the Survey, for its members (save the Local Directors) did not share the sense of intellectual community and personal contact with De la Beche that is at the centre of the present account. Similarly, the Survey's highly significant work in mining and agricultural geology deserves a substantial study of its own.

The most extensive discussions of the early Survey include the following: Geikie A. , Memoir of Sir Andrew Crombie Ramsay (London, 1895) — a valuable and often neglected source; Reeks M. , Register of the associates and old students of the Royal School of Mines and the history of the Royal School of Mines (London, 1920); North F. J. , “Further chapters in the history of geology in South Wales: Sir H. T. De la Beche and the Geological Survey”, Transactions of the Cardiff Naturalists' Society, lxvii (1934), 31–103; Flett J. S. , The first hundred years of the Geological Survey of Great Britain (London, 1937); Bailey E. B. , Geological Survey of Great Britain (London, 1952); O'Connor J. G. and Meadows A. J. , “Specialization and professionalization in British geology”, Social studies of science, vi (1976), 77–89; McCartney P. J. , Henry De la Beche: Observations on an observer (Cardiff, 1977); and Secord J. A. , Controversy in Victorian geology: The Cambrian-Silurian dispute (Princeton, 1986), esp. ch. 7. A personal perspective on later developments is available in Wilson H. E. , Down to Earth: One hundred and fifty years of the British Geological Survey (Edinburgh, 1985).

Turner F. M. , “The Victorian conflict between science and religion: A professional dimension”, Isis, lxix (1978), 356–76; Desmond A. , Archetypes and ancestors: Palaeontology in Victorian London, 1850–1875 (London, 1982; Chicago, 1984). Recent surveys of works in the history of natural history, and in the social history of Victorian science, include Allen D. E. , “Life sciences: Natural history”, in Corsi P. and Weindling P. (eds), Information sources in the history of science and medicine (London, 1983), 349–60; Secord J. A. , “Natural history in depth”, Social studies of science, xv (1985), 181–200; Miller D. P. , “The social history of British science: After the harvest?”, Social studies of science, xiv (1984), 115–35. S. Shapin gives a wide-ranging review of relevant studies in “History of science and its sociological reconstructions”, History of science, xx (1982), 157–211.

Morrell J. B. , “The chemist breeders: The research schools of Liebig and Thomas Thomson”, Ambix, xix (1972), 1–46; Geison G. L. , Michael Foster and the Cambridge school of physiology: The scientific enterprise in late Victorian society (Princeton, 1978); Holton G. , “Fermi's group and the recapture of Italy's place in physics”, in The scientific imagination: Case studies (Cambridge, 1978), 155–98. Other important studies of research schools include Frank R. G. , Harvey and the Oxford physiologists: A study of scientific ideas and social interaction (Berkeley, 1980); Crosland M. P. , The Society of Arceuil: A view of French science at the time of Napoleon I (Cambridge, Mass., 1967); Keith S. T. and Hoch P. K. , “Formation of a research school: Theoretical solid state physics at Bristol 1930–54”, The British journal for the history of science, xix (1986), 19–44; Klosterman L. J. , “A research school of chemistry in the nineteenth century: Jean Baptiste Dumas and his research students”, Annals of science, xlii (1985), 1–80; and Porter R. , “The Natural Sciences Tripos and the ‘Cambridge school of geology’, 1850–1914”, History of universities, iii (1982), 193–216. For a general review of the literature, see Geison G. L. , “Scientific change, emerging specialities, and research schools”, History of science, xix (1981), 20–40.

McCartney , op. cit. (ref. 2), 22–25; De la Beche H. T. , Notes on the present condition of the negroes in Jamaica (London, 1825).

Allen D. E. , “The early professionals in British natural history”, in Wheeler A. and Price J. (eds), From Linnaeus to Darwin: Commentaries on the history of biology and geology (London, 1985), 1–12; Porter R. , “Gentlemen and geology: The emergence of a scientific career, 1660–1920”, The historical journal, xx (1978), 809–36. For case studies that illustrate the financial problems associated with the metropolitan chairs, see Rudwick M. J. S. , “Charles Lyell, F.R.S. (1797–1875) and his London lectures on geology, 1832–33”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxix (1975), 231–63; Edmonds J. M. , “The first geological lecture course at the University of London, 1831”, Annals of science, xxxii (1975), 257–75; and Desmond A. , “Robert E. Grant: The social predicament of a pre-Darwinian transmutationist”, Journal of the history of biology, xvii (1984), 189–223.

Information on the founding of the Survey and Museum is available in the works cited above (ref. 2). For evidence that the Museum began in 1835, and not at a later date as stated in much of the literature, I am indebted to Thackray J. C. , “The Museum of Economic Geology: From seaweed to postage stamps”, lecture given at “Geology 150 years ago”, a conference held at the Geological Museum in London on 24 November 1984.

Morrell J. B. , “Individualism and the structure of British science in 1830”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, iii (1971), 183–204; and Morrell J. and Thackray A. , Gentlemen of science: Early years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford, 1981), 297–370.

Greenough G. to De la Beche H. T. , 14 April 1837, NMW: De la Beche papers; see also [W. Whewell], review of Lyell C. , Principles of geology , ii (London, 1832), Quarterly review, xlvii (1832), 103–32, p. 105. For a contrasting interpretation, see Cumming D. , “John MacCulloch, high priest, blackguard and thief, reassessed”, in Wheeler A. and Price J. (eds), From Linnaeus to Darwin (ref. 6), 77–88. MacCulloch's early surveys are described in Eyles V. A. , “John MacCulloch, F.R.S., and his geological map: An account of the first geological survey of Scotland”, Annals of science, ii (1937), 114–29; Flinn D. , “John MacCulloch, M.D., F.R.S., and his geological map of Scotland: His years in the Ordnance, 1795–1826”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxxvi (1981), 83–101; and Cumming D. A. , “John MacCulloch's ‘Millstone Survey’ and its consequences”, Annals of science, xli (1984), 567–91. As these studies show, Greenough was wrong in one respect — MacCulloch had in fact always made regular annual returns during his surveys. For Farey, see Challinor J. , “From Whitehurst's Inquiry to Farey's Derbyshire”, Transactions of the North Staffordshire Field Club, lxxxi (1947), 52–88.

Murchison is quoted in Morrell J. B. , “London institutions and Lyell's career: 1820–1841”, The British journal for the history of science, ix (1976), 132–46, at pp. 141–3, with further analysis of the tensions between gentlemanly and government geology during the late 1830s. These issues are analysed in depth in Rudwick M. J. S. , The great Devonian controversy: The shaping of scientific knowledge among gentlemanly specialists (Chicago, 1985), which also includes the most substantial analysis of De la Beche's early work on the Survey. For Cuvier, see Outram D. , Georges Cuvier: Vocation, science and authority in post-revolutionary France (Manchester, 1984).

The machinations behind the takeover of the Irish Survey are described in Davies G. L. Herries , Sheets of many colours: The mapping of Ireland's rocks, 1750–1890 (Dublin, 1983), 107–22. This book includes the best modern study of the history of a geological survey. The records of parliamentary discussion in Hansard (3rd ser., lxxxii, 7–31 July 1845) show that the Survey act passed without comment.

Gillispie C. C. , Science and polity in France at the end of the Old Regime (Princeton, 1981); Crosland M. P. , “The development of a professional career in science in France”, in Crosland M. P. (ed.), The emergence of science in Western Europe (New York, 1976), 139–59; and the essays in Fox R. and Weisz G. (eds), The organization of science and technology in France 1808–1914 (Cambridge, 1980).

The immediate background to the French survey is described in Rudwick, op. cit. (ref. 10), 90–91. For background, see Rappaport R. , “The geological atlas of Guettard, Lavoisier, and Monnet: Conflicting views on the nature of geology”, in Schneer C. J. (ed.), Toward a history of geology (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), 272–87; and Aguillon L. , “L'École des mines: Notice historique”, Annales des mines, 8th ser., xv (1889), 433–686. De la Beche's early translations appeared as De la Beche H. T. , A selection of the geological memoirs contained in the “Annales des mines”, together with a synoptical table of equivalent formations, and M. Brongniart's table of the classification of mixed rocks (London, 1824).

Austen R. A. C. to De la Beche H. T. , 19 March 1839, NMW: De la Beche papers. For the publicizing of Élie de Beaumont, see De la Beche H. T. , A geological manual (3rd edn, London, 1833), 481–91; McCartney , op. cit. (ref. 2), 54–55. Murchison blames De la Beche for corrupting the purity of English scientific language with “gallicisms” in R. I. Murchison to G. Mantell, 3 April 1830, ATL: Mantell papers.

De la Beche H. T. , Report on the state of Bristol and other large towns (London, 1845); and Chadwick E. , Report on the sanitary condition of the labouring population of Great Britain , ed. by Flinn M. W. (Edinburgh, 1965). Chadwick to De la Beche, 10 October 1842, NMW: De la Beche papers, includes thanks for reading the proofs. The sanitary movement is discussed in many works, notably Finer S. E. , The life and times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London, 1952), Eyler J. M. , Victorian social medicine: The ideas and methods of William Farr (Baltimore, 1979), and Cullen M. J. , The statistical movement in early Victorian Britain: The foundations of empirical social research (Hassocks, Sussex, 1975). Further examples of utilitarian impact on early nineteenth century scientific institutions include Berman M. , Social change and scientific organization: The Royal Institution, 1799–1844 (London, 1978); Desmond A. , “The making of institutional zoology in London, 1822–1836”, History of science, xxiii (1985), 153–85, 223–50; idem, The politics of evolution (forthcoming); and Weindling P. J. , “Geological controversy and its historiography: The prehistory of the Geological Society of London”, in Jordanova L. J. and Porter R. S. (eds), Images of the earth: Essays in the history of the environmental sciences (Chalfont St Giles, 1977), 248–71. MacLeod's R. M. “Whigs and savants: Reflections on the reform movement in the Royal Society”, in Inkster I. and Morrell J. (eds), Metropolis and province: Science in British culture 1780–1850 (London, 1983), 55–90 is also relevant here.

McCartney , op. cit. (ref. 2), 4.

Pym H. N. (ed.), Memories of old friends: Being extracts from the journals and letters of Caroline Fox of Penjerrick, Cornwall, from 1835 to 1871 (2nd edn, London, 1882), ii, 24–25, 253.

McCartney , op. cit. (ref. 2), esp. pp. 15–19.

De la Beche H. T. , How to observe: Geology (London, 1835); Martineau H. , How to observe: Morals and manners (London, 1838); De la Beche to Coates T. , 21 April 1827, UCL: SDUK archives.

McCartney , De la Beche (ref. 2), 54; also reproduced with analysis in Rudwick M. J. S. , “Caricature as a source for the history of science: De la Beche's anti-Lyellian sketches of 1831”, Isis, lxvi (1975), 534–60.

Morrell , op. cit. (ref. 10), 139–40; North F. J. , “H. T. de la Beche: Geologist and business man”, Nature, cxliii (1939), 254–5.

Davies Herries , op. cit. (ref. 11), 97–106. For the lobbying, see Buckland W. to Sir Robert Peel, 4 November 1841, BL: Add. MSS 40494, f. 7; see also H. T. De la Beche to Buckland, 1 November 1841, Add. MSS 40494, ff. 9–12, and Buckland to Peel, 10 November 1841, Add. MSS 40494, ff. 14–15. Allen D. E. comments on the parliamentary backing in The naturalist in Britain: A social history (London, 1976), 59–60.

De la Beche H. T. to Chadwick E. , 16, 23 October 1842, UCL: Chadwick papers, 606/1–5, 6–14.

E.g. Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 48–49.

The work on the Ordnance Survey is described in Close C. F. , Early years of the Ordnance Survey (Chatham, 1926); Andrews J. H. , A paper landscape: The Ordnance Survey in nineteenth century Ireland (Oxford, 1975); and Seymour W. A. (ed.), A history of the Ordnance Survey (Folkestone, 1980).

As noted by Morrell , op. cit. (ref. 10), 140. For further information, see Brock W. H. , “The spectrum of science patronage”, in Turner G. L'E. (ed.), The patronage of science in the nineteenth century (Leyden, 1976), 173–206. The Observatory in this period is described in Meadows A. J. , Greenwich Observatory: Recent history (1836–1975) (London, 1975).

For this point see Secord , op. cit. (ref. 2), ch. 1; Porter R. , “Creation and credence: The career of theories of the earth in Britain, 1660–1820”, in Barnes R. and Shapin S. (eds), Natural order: Historical studies of scientific culture (Beverly Hills, Calif., 1979), 97–123; and Bynum W. F. , “Time's noblest offspring: The problem of man in the British natural historical sciences, 1800–1863” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1974). The great theoretical debates of this period are discussed in many works, especially Gillispie C. C. , Genesis and geology: A study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850 (New York, 1959).

Notably, Warington W. Smyth was specifically appointed as “Mining Geologist to the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom”. On the maps special gold lines were used to mark auriferous veins in North Wales. For H. T. De la Beche's own perceptions of the relation between science and practice, see his “Inaugural discourse, delivered at the opening of the School of Mines and of Science Applied to the Arts, 6 November 1851”, Records of the School of Mines and of Science Applied to the Arts, i, Pt i (1852), 1–22.

Emphasis on this literature is made in Roberts G. K. , “The establishment of the Royal College of Chemistry: An investigation of the social context of early-Victorian chemistry”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, vii (1976), 437–85, esp. pp. 450–9 on the landed interest, an issue also raised in Thompson F. M. L. , English landed society in the nineteenth century (London, 1963). For prospecting and mining during this period, see Torrens H. S. , “The history of coal prospecting in Britain 1650–1900”, in Energie in der Geschichte: Zur Actualitat der Technikgeschichte (Dusseldorf, 1984), 88–95; on the international level, Stafford R. A. , “Colonial surveys, mineral discoveries, and British expansion, 1835–71”, Journal of imperial and commonwealth history, xii (1984), 5–32. On the level of organized societies (with some exceptions, notably the Royal Agricultural Society), the links appear to have been relatively weak, as illustrated by Morrell J. , “Economic and ornamental geology: The Geological and Polytechnic Society of the West Riding of Yorkshire”, in Inkster and Morrell (eds), op. cit. (ref. 15), 231–56, and Porter R. , “The Industrial Revolution and the rise of the science of geology”, in Teich M. and Young R. (eds), Changing perspectives in the history of science: Essays in honour of Joseph Needham (London, 1973), 320–43.

Porter , op. cit. (ref. 29), 326.

As evidenced in Secord, op. cit. (ref. 2), ch. 7. For the Broughamite ideal (among many works), see Berman M. , Social change and scientific organization: The Royal Institution 1799–1844 (London, 1978); Desmond , Politics of evolution (ref. 15); Shapin S. and Barnes B. , “Science, nature and control: Interpreting Mechanics' Institutes”, Social studies of science, vii (1977), 31–74; Vincent D. , Bread, knowledge and freedom: A study of nineteenth-century working class autobiography (London, 1981), 133–65; and Brougham H. , A discourse on the objects, advantages and pleasures of science (London, 1827).

For Salter, see Secord J. A. , “John W. Salter: The rise and fall of a Victorian palaeontological career”, in Wheeler A. and Price J. (eds), From Linnaeus to Darwin (ref. 6), 61–75. For Aveline, see Geikie A. , “Anniversary address of the president”, Quarterly journal of the Geological Society of London, lx (1904), xlix–civ, at p. lxvii. Information on Survey salaries, including that displayed in Table 2, is based on the data for 1848 in the Survey archives, especially “Return by the Chief Commissioner of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works and Buildings to the Following Order of the Honourable The House of Commons”, 20 July 1848, MS sheet, BGS; and “Quarterly Return of Geologists, Assistant Geologists, and General Assistants, employed by the Geological Survey of Great Britain for the Quarter ending the 30th of September 1848”, BGS: GSM 1/5.

Biographical details on Forbes's early life are available in Wilson G. and Geikie A. , Memoir of Edward Forbes, F.R.S. (Cambridge, 1861) and Mills E. L. , “A view of Edward Forbes, naturalist”, Archives of natural history, xi (1984), 365–93. For Jukes C. A. Browne (ed.), Letters and extracts from the addresses and occasional writings of J. Beete Jukes (London, 1871) and Bayliss R. A. , “The travels of Joseph Beete Jukes, F.R.S.”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxxii (1978), 201–12; for Playfair Reid W. , Memoirs and correspondence of Lyon Playfair (London, 1899); for Huxley Winsor M. P. , Starfish, jellyfish, and the order of life: Issues in nineteenth century science (New Haven, 1976), and di Gregorio M. A. , T. H. Huxley's place in natural science (New Haven, 1984).

Thus Edward Hull, a high-ranking member of the field staff, showed little interest in theoretical questions, although his mapping was perfectly satisfactory. As Andrew Ramsay wrote: “It gives me a meaner notion of topographical geology, to find that so weak a man can do it so indifferently well”: Ramsay, diary entry for 12 January 1865, ICL: KGA Ramsay 11/24.

Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), esp. pp. 31–33.

Gibbs's career is briefly noted in Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 66–67.

For this characterization of the contemporary geological community, see Rudwick M. J. S. , “Charles Darwin in London: The integration of public and private science”, Isis, lxxiii (1982), 186–206, and his recent study of the Devonian controversy, op. cit. (ref. 10). Also relevant are the discussions in Shapin S. and Thackray A. , “Prosopography as a research tool in history of science: The British scientific community 1700–1900”, History of science, xii (1974), 1–28; Reingold N. , “Definitions and speculations: The professionalisation of science in America in the nineteenth century”, in Oleson A. and Brown S. C. (eds), The pursuit of knowledge in the early American republic (Baltimore, 1976), 33–69; Allen , op. cit. (ref. 22); and Morrell and Thackray , op. cit. (ref. 8).

Hopkins W. to De la Beche H. T. , 8 July 1837, NMW: De la Beche papers; Winder C. G. , “Logan and South Wales”, Proceedings of the Geological Association of Canada, xvi (1965), 103–24. The results of Hopkins's research were eventually published, although not under government auspices.

Thackray J. C. , “T. T. Lewis and Murchison's Silurian system”, Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club, xlii (1977), 186–93.

Forbes E. to De la Beche H. T. , 8 November 1849, NMW: De la Beche papers. For the Salters' honeymoon, see Secord , op. cit. (ref. 32), 64–65. Ann Phillips's discovery is announced in Phillips J. , “On the occurrence of shells and corals in a conglomerate bed, adherent to the face of the trap rocks of the Malvern Hills, and full of rounded and angular fragments of those rocks”, Philosophical magazine, 3rd ser., xxi (1842), 288–93. Some of the roles occupied by women in British natural history are discussed in Shteir A. B. , “Linnaeus's daughters: Women and British botany”, in Harris B. J. and McNamara J. K. (eds), Women and the structure of society: Selected research from the fifth Berkshire conference on the history of women (Durham, N.C., 1984), 67–73.

De la Beche H. T. to Chadwick E. , 29 October 1842, UCL: Chadwick papers, 606/15–23.

Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 56–57; for Oldham, see De la Beche H. T. to Ramsay A. C. , 26 July 1846, in ibid., 84.

Buckland W. to Peel Robert Sir , 4 November 1841, BL: Add. MSS 40494, f. 7.

Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 125–7; their position on the back benches is mentioned on p. 61. For more on the publication restrictions, see Bailey , op. cit. (ref. 2), 41–42 and passim. Oldham was particularly emphatic about the need to integrate the Survey work more thoroughly into the specialist community, noting that he had for some time allowed his subordinates in the Irish branch of De la Beche's Survey to read their own papers. See Oldham T. to De la Beche H. T. , 14 November 1848, NMW: De la Beche papers. The creation of independent scientific journals is analysed in Brock W. H. , “The development of commercial science journals in Victorian Britain”, in Meadows A. J. (ed.), Development of science publishing in Europe (Amsterdam, 1980), 95–122.

Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 161. Baily's coat of arms is published by McCartney, op. cit. (ref. 2), 59.

Pym (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 17), i, 24–25. De la Beche's joke is of course consistent with his overall emphasis on the effects of circumstances and environment, as outlined below.

See Ramsay's diaries at ICL, and the brief excerpts from them in Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2). For the specific points, see Reid , op. cit. (ref. 33), 39, 91; and Wilson and Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 33), 194–202, passim.

Browne (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 33).

Forbes E. to Ramsay A. C. , 29 October 1850, ICL: Ramsay papers.

For the role of families in science, I am indebted to Outram , op. cit. (ref. 10), esp. 161–88, and idem, “The pure and sensible eye: Women, marriage, and vocational commitment in the Napoleonic intellectual elite”, in Abir-Am P. and Outram D. (eds), Intimate lives and public careers: Women and science, 1780–1960 (Rutgers, N.J., forthcoming 1987).

McCartney , op. cit. (ref. 2), esp. pp. 28–32.

E.g. Rupke N. A. , The great chain of history: William Buckland and the English school of geology (1814–1849) (Oxford, 1983); Oldroyd D. R. , “Historicism and the rise of historical geology”, History of science, xvii (1979), 191–213, 227–57; and Browne J. , The secular ark: Studies in the history of biogeography (New Haven, 1983), 86–110. Rudwick M. J. S. , “Cognitive styles in geology”, in Douglas M. (ed.), Essays in the sociology of perception (London, 1982), 219–41, emphasizes the centrality of stratigraphical concerns, although it locates (incorrectly, in my view) De la Beche as a practitioner of an empirical “agnostic” style (pp. 227–9). However, Rudwick's more recent book (op. cit., ref. 10) gives a full analysis of De la Beche's work (and that of John Phillips) from a position broadly compatible with that outlined in the present article. For earlier brief characterizations of De la Beche's interest in ancient environments, see Challinor J. , The history of British geology: A bibliographic study (Newton Abbot, 1971), 117, and Eyles V. A. , “Henry Thomas De la Beche”, in Gillispie C. C. (ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography, iv (New York, 1971), 9–11.

Lyell C. , Elements of geology (London, 1838), which had originally been the fourth “book” of his Principles of geology, being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth's surface, by reference to causes now in operation (3 vols, London, 1830–33).

Previously reproduced, among other places, is Browne , op. cit. (ref. 52), 100; McCartney , op. cit. (ref. 2), 45; and Rupke , op. cit. (ref. 52), 147. H. T. De la Beche publicly described some features of his approach in his “Anniversary address of the president”, Quarterly journal of the Geological Society, iv (1848), xxi–cxx, at pp. lv–lvi.

Buckland W. , Reliquiae diluvianae, or observations on the organic remains contained in caves, fissures, and diluvial gravel, and on other geological phenomena, attesting the action of an universal deluge (London, 1823). Rupke , op. cit. (ref. 49), 31–41, locates Buckland's cave work as the centre of English geology, although the situation he describes is more suitably limited to a specifically Oxford context. For Cuvier's own romantic self-image as a reconstructor of past worlds, see Outram , op. cit. (ref. 10), 141–60.

For this point I am indebted to conversations with Martin Rudwick, who will be dealing with visual reconstructions of ancient environments in a forthcoming article. An example of a relevant popular work is Mantell G. , The wonders of geology (2 vols, London, 1838); see also the helpful discussion in Rupke , op. cit. (ref. 52), 76–79. Mantell is to be the subject of a full-length biography by Dennis R. Dean.

Among a great many works, see Rudwick M. J. S. , “Uniformity and progression: Reflections on the structure of geological theory in the age of Lyell”, in Roller D. H. D. (ed.), Perspectives on the history of science and technology (Norman, Oklahoma, 1971), 209–27; idem, The meaning of fossils: Episodes in the history of palaeontology (New York, 1976); Bowler P. J. , Fossils and progress: Palaeontology and the idea of progressive evolution in the nineteenth century (New York, 1976); Ospovat D. , “Lyell's theory of climate”, Journal of the history of biology, x (1977), 317–39; and Lawrence P. , “Charles Lyell versus the theory of central heat”, Journal of the history of biology, xi (1978), 101–28.

Secord , op. cit. (ref. 2), ch. 7. For attention to instrumental detail on the Irish Survey, see Davies Herries , op. cit. (ref. 11).

De la Beche H. T. , “Instructions for the Local Directors of the Geological Surveys of Great Britain & Ireland”, 22 May 1845, BGS: GSM 1/4: 37–58.

On this point, see esp. De la Beche H. T. , Researches in theoretical geology (London, 1834), and Greene M. T. , Geology in the nineteenth century: Changing views of a changing world (Ithaca, N.Y., 1982), 93–106 — which nonetheless seriously underestimates Lyell's knowledge of alpine structure.

Lyell C. to Horner M. , 14 February 1832, quoted in Wilson L. G. , Charles Lyell: The years to 1841: The revolution in geology (New Haven, 1972), 343.

De la Beche H. T. to Colby T. F. , 23 December 1836, BGS: GSM 1/68, pp. 173–85; also De la Beche , “Instructions”, op. cit. (ref. 59).

See the works cited above (ref. 57), and Bartholomew M. , “The singularity of Lyell”, History of science, xvii (1979), 276–93.

Ramsay, diary entry for 16 March 1849, KGA/Ramsay 1/11 f. 38v. Rudwick , op. cit. (ref. 20), also notes the antagonism between De la Beche and Lyell. For possible evidence that De la Beche may have eventually become more favourable towards some of Lyell's views on gradualism, see McCartney , op. cit. (ref. 2), 52–53.

De la Beche H. T. , “On the formation of the rocks of South Wales and South Western England”, Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, i (1846), 1–296, esp. pp. 20–37; compare with the more general statements in Murchison R. I. , The Silurian system, founded on geological researches in the counties of Salop, Hereford, Radnor, Montgomery, Carmarthen, Brecon, Pembroke, Monmouth, Gloucester, Worcester, and Stafford; with descriptions of the coal-fields and overlying formations (London, 1839), e.g. pp. 222–4, 270–3, 394–5.

Part of one of these sections is reproduced in Secord , op. cit. (ref. 2), 209; others are in Challinor J. , “A review of geological research in Cardiganshire, 1842–1967”, Welsh geological quarterly, iv (1968–69), 3–37. Nearly complete sets may be seen in the libraries of the British Geological Survey and the Geological Society of London.

Rudwick , op. cit. (ref. 20), 536–7, and idem, “The emergence of a visual language for geological science, 1760–1840”, History of science, xiv (1976), 149–95. See also De la Beche H. T. , Sections and views, illustrative of geological phaenomena (London, 1830).

Phillips J. A. to De la Beche H. T. , 20 June 1842, NMW: De la Beche papers.

De la Beche , op. cit. (ref. 65), 113–24.

“Map of Bristol, shewing the geological formation of its site and the common seats of fever & of the cholera in the year 1832”, in De la Beche , op. cit. (ref. 15), facing p. 2. The map was prepared by Sanders William , an expert on the local geology. See Neve M. , “Science in a commercial city: Bristol 1820–60”, in Inkster and Morrell (eds), op. cit. (ref. 15), 179–204, p. 193, and the Dictionary of national biography. For the origins of the link between sanitation and environment, see Jordanova L. J. , “Earth science and environmental medicine: The synthesis of the late Enlightenment”, in Jordanova and Porter (eds), op. cit. (ref. 15), 119–46, and Coleman W. , Death is a social disease: Public health and political economy in early industrial France (Madison, Wisconsin, 1982). Of course, geologists with a variety of attitudes towards reform might have constructed maps of the kind that De la Beche employed in Bristol (although they did not in fact do so, at least to my knowledge). My argument about the connection between social reform and geological environmentalism is thus not a deterministic one, but is intended to describe the situation that applies to the particular case of the early Survey.

De la Beche , op. cit. (ref. 15), 4–5.

De la Beche , op. cit. (ref. 59), 44. Incoming correspondence in the Ramsay and De la Beche papers indicates that these instructions were regularly carried out.

Ibid.

Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 180; De la Beche H. T. , The geological observer (London, 1851).

Ramsay A. C. to De la Beche H. T. , 10 December 1847, ICL: Ramsay papers.

Phillips J. , “The Malvern Hills compared with the Palaeozoic districts of Abberley”, Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, ii (1848), 1–330, p. 225.

Phillips J. to De la Beche H. T. , 1 April 1835, NMW: De la Beche papers.

Phillips J. , Figures and descriptions of the Palaeozoic fossils of Cornwall, Devon, and West Somerset; observed in the course of the Ordnance Survey of that district (London, 1841); Phillips , op. cit. (ref. 76), esp. 208–25. For botanical arithmetic, see Browne , op. cit. (ref. 52), 58–77.

Phillips J. to De la Beche H. T. , 2 April 1841, 23 January 1843, NMW: De la Beche papers; also Forbes E. to De la Beche H. T. , 28 September 1849, NMW: De la Beche papers.

Browne , op. cit. (ref. 52), esp. pp. 58–85. For an illuminating discussion of Lyell's work, which in certain respects offers parallels with that of Phillips, see Rudwick M. J. S. , “Transposed concepts from the human sciences in the early work of Charles Lyell”, in Jordanova and Porter (eds), Images of the earth (ref. 15), 67–83, and idem, “Charles Lyell's dream of a statistical palaeontology”, Palaeontology, xxi (1978), 225–44. However, I can find no evidence that Phillips was basing his approach on Lyell; rather, both men would seem to be drawing independently from a common Continental tradition.

Merz J. T. , A history of European thought in the nineteenth century , ii (Edinburgh, 1903), 548–626, and Porter T. M. , The rise of statistical thinking, 1820–1900 (Princeton, 1986). In the history of biology, Ernst Mayr's well-known distinction between ‘essentialist’ and ‘population’ thinking is relevant here; see Mayr E. , The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance (Cambridge, Mass., 1982).

Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 16–33.

De la Beche H. T. to Ramsay A. C. , 24 November 1846, in Geikie , ibid., 95; Ramsay A. C. , diary entry for 12 July 1847, ICL: KGA Ramsay 1/8, f. 63v.

Ramsay A. C. to Phillips J. A. , 9 May 1844, OUM: Phillips papers; see also Geikie , ibid., 58–59, 72, and Conybeare W. D. and Phillips W. , Outlines of the geology of England and Wales, with an introductory compendium of the general principles of that science, and comparative views of the structure of foreign countries (London, 1822). A copy of part of this work, heavily annotated and corrected, is in the De la Beche papers at the NMW.

Ramsay A. C. , The physical geology and geography of Great Britain: A manual of British geology (5th edn, London, 1878); the first edition of 1863 was also dedicated to De la Beche.

Ramsay A. C. , diary entry for 16 February 1849, ICL: KGA Ramsay 1/13, f. 24v. The traditional view of Ramsay as a Lyellian is clearly expressed in Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 363, and is strongly implied by most of the recent (albeit brief) discussions of Ramsay's work in the historical literature.

Ramsay A. C. , “On the denudation of South Wales and the adjacent counties of England”, Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, i (1846), 316–17.

Ramsay A. C. to Lyell C. , 19 October 1846, replying to C. Lyell to A. C. Ramsay, 8 October 1846, both in Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 85–92, quote at p. 89. See also Darwin C. to Ramsay A. C. , 10 October [1846], at p. 85.

Huxley L. (ed.), Life and letters of Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker, i (London, 1918), 206–22.

Hooker J. D. , “On the vegetation of the Carboniferous period, as compared with that of the present day”, Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, ii (1848), 387–430.

For Forbes's dredging work, see Rehbock P. F. , “The early dredgers: ‘Naturalizing’ in British seas, 1830–1850”, Journal of the history of biology, xii (1979), 293–368; and Mills E. L. , “Edward Forbes, John Gwyn Jeffreys, and British dredging before the Challenger expedition”, Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, viii (1978), 507–36.

The scheme is mentioned in Huxley T. H. to Dyster F. , 13 February, 1 April 1855, in Huxley L. , Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, i (New York, 1901), 133–5.

De la Beche , op. cit. (ref. 56), 200; Rehbock , op. cit. (ref. 91), 312–13; and idem, The philosophical naturalists: Themes in early nineteenth century British biology (Madison, Wis., 1983), 138–9.

De la Beche , op. cit. (ref. 65), v.

ibid., 1.

See Wilson and Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 33), 395; Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, i (1846), passim . Rehbock , op. cit. (ref. 93) and Browne , op. cit. (ref. 52) discuss the intellectual background to Forbes's contribution.

Jukes J. B. to Ramsay A. C. , 22 July 1850, ICL: Ramsay papers.

Secord , op. cit. (ref. 2), ch. 7.

See Forbes E. to Ramsay A. C. , [1854] and Jukes J. B. to Ramsay A. C. , 5 November 1857, ICL: Ramsay papers.

Davies Herries , op. cit. (ref. 11), 160–2.

Ramsay A. C. , diary entry for 24 November 1850, ICL: KGA Ramsay 1/14, f. 169r; for Prestwich's career, see Prestwich G. A. , Life and letters of Sir Joseph Prestwich (Edinburgh, 1899).

See the correspondence between Phillips and De la Beche, e.g. Phillips W. to De la Beche H. T. , 29 December 1842, NMW: De la Beche papers.

Ramsay A. C. , diary entry for 3 February 1847, ICL: KGA Ramsay 1/8, f. 18r. The Palaeontographical Society clearly took over a project that the Survey had originally seen as its own. However, it is important to emphasize that the attitude of many government geologists was far more positive than Ramsay's. In fact, the chief palaeontologist, Edward Forbes, was a leading figure in the founding of the Palaeontographical, and De la Beche was serving as president by 1848. A brief account of the Society's origins is available in Woodward H. B. , History of the Geological Society of London (London, 1908), 162–4.

Ramsay A. C. , “The geology of North Wales”, Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, iii (1866), 1–381.

Wilson and Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 33), 519. For the widespread dissatisfaction, see pp. 492–7, and Browne E. J. , “The making of the Memoir of Edward Forbes, F.R.S.”, Archives of natural history, x (1981), 205–19, at 211–14. The chemical opposition to De la Beche's scheme is dealt with in Bud R. and Roberts G. K. , Science versus practice: Chemistry in Victorian Britain (Manchester, 1984), 88–91; for Jukes's sympathies, see Jukes J. B. to Ramsay A. C. , 22 November 1858, ICL: Ramsay papers. The later (and more successful) history of the Royal School of Mines is recounted in Reeks, op. cit. (ref. 2).

Murchison's accession to the Survey is described in Geikie A. , Life of Sir Roderick I. Murchison, based on his journals and letters with notices of his scientific contemporaries and a sketch of the rise and growth of Palaeozoic geology in Britain, ii (1875), 184–94; Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 227–8; and Secord , op. cit. (ref. 2), ch. 8. For the quotation, see Ramsay , diary entry for 6 January 1851, ICL: KGA Ramsay 1/16, f. 10r. Of course, Lyell had never had any wish for extensive administrative entanglements: Morrell , op. cit. (ref. 10).

[A. C. Ramsay], review of Lyell C. , A manual of elementary geology (5th edn, London, 1855), New Edinburgh philosophical journal, new ser., iii (1855), 305–28 (quotation at p. 306); and Lyell C. to Ramsay A. C. , 6 April 1856, in Geikie , op. cit. (ref. 2), 239–41. See also Ramsay A. C. , “On the origin and progress of the present state of British geology, especially since the first meeting of the British Association at York in 1831”, 1881 British Association Report (London, 1882), 605–8. This speech praises Hutton and Lyell, and fails to mention De la Beche, who in any event was almost forgotten by this date.

Forbes's debts to Lyell are recounted in Browne , op. cit. (ref. 52), and Rehbock , op. cit. (ref. 93); for Huxley's views, see Bartholomew M. , “Huxley's defence of Darwin”, Annals of science, xxxii (1975), 525–35, and Desmond, op. cit. (ref. 3).

Ramsay A. C. to Aveline W. T. , 23 October 1856, BGS: GSM 1/420(A), f. 342. Murchison is quoted in Page L. , “The rivalry between Charles Lyell and Roderick Murchison”, The British journal for the history of science, ix (1976), 156–65, at p. 162.

Rudwick , op. cit. (ref. 10); for the continuing dominance of the gentlemanly ethos, see Porter , op. cit. (ref. 6).

Rudwick , op. cit. (ref. 10).

For the Highlands work, see the outline and references in Challinor , op. cit. (ref. 52), 128–31, including McIntyre D. B. , “The Moine thrust: Its discovery, age, and tectonic significance”, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, lv (1954), 203–19, and Greenly E. , A hand through time: Memories (2 vols, London, 1938).

Stafford , op. cit. (ref. 29); Zaslow M. , Reading the rocks: The story of the Geological Survey of Canada, 1842–1972 (Toronto, 1975); Centenary history of the Geological Survey of India 1851–1951: A short history of the first hundred years (Calcutta, 1951); and Johns R. K. , History and role of government geological surveys in Australia (Adelaide, 1976).

For the glacial and fluvial debates, see Davies G. L. [Herries] , The earth in decay: A history of British geomorphology, 1578–1878 (London, 1969), 263–355.

Salter's brachiopods are mentioned in Darwin C. to Davidson T. , 26 April 1861, in Darwin F. (ed.), The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter, ii (London, 1887), 367.

Ramsay A. C. , diary entry for 4 March 1861, KGA Ramsay 1/35, f. 10v. Copies of letters favourable to evolution from A. C. Ramsay to C. Darwin (21 February 1860) and from J. B. Jukes to C. Darwin (27 February 1860) are in Wilson L. G. (ed.), Sir Charles Lyell's scientific journals on the species question (New Haven, 1970), 355–6, 361. See also Ramsay's important discussion of gaps in the geological record in “The anniversary address of the president”, Quarterly journal of the Geological Society, xix (1863), xxxvi–lii.

The interest of the Survey men in Darwinism was first noted in Hodge M. J. S. , “England”, in Glick T. F. (ed.), The comparative reception of Darwinism (Austin, 1972), 3–31, at pp. 12–13. The connection between professional careers and scientific naturalism is discussed in the works of Desmond and Turner , op. cit. (ref. 3).

For some suggestive parallels in this respect, see Frank , op. cit. (ref. 4).

Secord J. A. , “Darwin and the breeders: A social history”, in Kohn D. (ed.), The Darwinian heritage (Princeton, 1985), 519–42; Burkhardt F. Smith S. Kohn D. and Montgomery W. (eds), A calendar of the correspondence of Charles Darwin, 1821–1882 (New York, 1985). An interesting example of the importance of correspondence in maintaining contact between members of a dispersed school in a laboratory science is provided by the case of J. B. Dumas and his students; see Klosterman , op. cit. (ref. 4), esp. pp. 31–34, 38.

Hendrickson W. B. , David Dale Owen: Pioneer geologist of the Middle West (Indianapolis, 1943).

For Werner's students, see Ospovat A. M. , “Alexander Gottlob Werner”, in Gillispie C. C. (ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography , xiv (New York, 1976), 256–64; idem, “Romanticism and German geology: Five students of Abraham Gottlob Werner”, Eighteenth century life, vii (1982), 102–17; and Greene , op. cit. (ref. 60), 31–45.

Shinn T. , “Scientific disciplines and organizational specificity: The social and cognitive configuration of laboratory activities”, in Elias N. Martines H. , and Whitley R. (eds), Scientific establishments and hierarchies (Dordrecht, 1982), 239–64.

Ramsay A. C. to De la Beche H. T. , 12 May 1847, NMW: De la Beche papers.

Cannon S. F. , Science and culture: The early Victorian period (New York, 1978), 73–110. For an important analysis of a closely related concept, see Yeo R. , “Baconianism in nineteenth century Britain”, History of science, xxiii (1985), 251–98.