An answer to certain statements contained in Mr Neill's Address to the members of the Wernerian Natural History Society / by Henry H. Cheek.

Cheek, Henry H.

Date:: [1830]

Credit: An answer to certain statements contained in Mr Neill's Address to the members of the Wernerian Natural History Society / by Henry H. Cheek. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

38/41 (page 3)

$Mr. Neill speaks, in the same pamphlet, of the fundamental laws of the Socie- ty ; but who has seen these laws ? Have they been printed ? No. Has a copy been given to each member at his entrance into the Society ? Never. Are they placed in a conspicuous part of the place of meeting ? No such document is to be seen. Why does it happen that the laws of that Society are not to be found, in an intelligible and printed form, on the tables of its members, like the laws of the Royal Society, the,Royal Jledical, Royal Physical, and all other respectable Societies in the city ? I will answer this question in a few words. The founders of the Society dared not publish tliem ! You will observe in the Address, to which I now allude, p. 13, that so early as December 1824, the cir- cumstance of a Society of Natural History not being in possession of a Museum of objects of natural history, attracted my attention, the more particularly that I found myself excluded, with all other scientific men, from the public Museum of Natural History in this city ; and on a motion made by me, the Council directed “ that the state of the objects of natural history presented to the Society be in. quired into, immediately after the books shaU have been arranged.” It was then I discovered that by a manoeuvre of I know not whom, but of an extremely dis- honest and reprehensible character, the Society by its original laws, which had never been promulgated to its members, was for ever prevented from acquiring any properly in that department, which alone interested them, and without which they were nothing. It was then I was told that by a tvritten law, which, however, I have never yet seen, all specimens of objects in natural history, presented to the Society, were to be deposited in the Museum of the University; the Members of the Society retaining the right of inspecting them at proper times. Who the proposer and passer of this law might be, I know not; but I will take it upon me to say, that its whole chiiracter, its style, and manner, the equivocal use of the word “ deposit” the depriving the Society of the possession of its dona- tions,—in short the whole proceeding, is most ungentlemanlike, and most dis- honest. And who has ever seen this collection, which ought to have belonged to the Wernerian Society; but which evidently does not belong to them, in con- sequence of laws which it is pretended they themselves have made ? Is it not considered insanity in a man in ordinary life to denude himself of his own pro- perty ? And, in point of fact, is it not true that the Members of the Werne- rian Society are excluded from the Museum, where the objects that have been presented to them are deposited ? Mr. Neill himself admits that it is ; p. 15. And what can be more equivocal than the use of such phrases as “ inspeotinp at proper times ?” Who is to determine the proper time ? Must the scientific man, in pursuit of a little knowledge, be daily, almost hourly, obliged to write offi- cial letters to the Regius Keejicr, requesting permission to examine the colouring of an insect, or the characters of a mineral ? If it be desired that science should flourish in this country, it certainly should not be thus trammelled. I cannot, for obvious reasons, put Mr. Neill right, to any great extent, regard- ing the number and quality of the donations, which, by the kindness of members and strangers, have been presented to the Society ; but this I tvill say, that his own books will tell him that the statement made by him in the Address, p. 14, is not correct. Did his modesty pre\'ent him from naming the pelican, I think, of New$