The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-11 00:00:00

DR. ROGET'S REPLY.

IS, Upper Bedford-place, Nov. 13, 1845.
My dear Sir,—The Committee of Physiology had
received, before they came to the decision respecting the
award of the royal medal, which you refer to in your
letter of this morning, two separate reports on Mr.
Beck's paper, drawn up by the referees, to whom it had
been sent for examination, and for their opinion of its
merits, and the recommendation by the Committee of
the award of one of the royal medals to the author of
the paper was made, after these reports had been read to
them, and taken into their consideration, at one of the
fullest meetings of that Committee we have ever bad.
These reports, being confidential, I am not at liberty
to communicate to you; but as there will probably soon
be another meeting of the Committee, I will not fail to
read to them your note to me of this morning.—l am,
dear Sir, faithfully yours, P. M. ROGET.
The chief particulars respecting the dissolution, and
(as Dr. Lee contends) the illegal re-formation of the
Committee, we have already given. Mr. Bell, the secre-
tary of the Physiological Committee, has published a
letter, in which some further facts are elicited. His ver-
sion of the meeting of the 27th of October is as follows:
" After the usual routine business had been gone
through, Dr. Roget, one of the secretaries of the Royal
Society, stated—by mistake, as it afterwards appeared—
that the Royal medal for the year was not to be awarded in
the physiological section, and Mr. Lawrence consequently
left the chair, and quitted the room. This gentleman lett
in haste, and was the only one who had gone, when
Dr. Roget, on further examination of the records, in-
formed us that he had been mistaken, and that it was
absolutely necessary that the recommendation of the
Royal medal should take place on that day. In perfect
good faith, and I am sure without any bias for or against
any particular paper, the Committee again took their
seats, Dr. Todd being in the chair. A list was then
made by myself of all the physiological papers that had
been read during the last three years : each paper was
considered seriatim ; and Mr. Beck's paper was, after
much consideration, selected for recommendation for the
award of the Royal medal."
Thus, then, as we remarked last week, it appears from
the pen of the Secretary to the Committee, that " the
Royal medal in physiology is so inconsequential a mat-
ter, that the Committee come to the meeting which is
to recommend its award, without knowing what they
have to do ; and at the fag-end of this sitting, they,
without any previous consideration or examination, re-
commend its award to a paper which only two of them
had seen, and which was well known to be the subject
of controversy."
We understand that fifteen papers were put up for
the medal. How could this Committee fairly judge of
fifteen papers impromptu? They might almost as well
have allowed the authors to prick for the medal !
Part of the " usual routine business" was the re-
commending Mr. Owen for the Copley medal ; but Mr.
Owen was a member of the Council, and, as such, a
medal could not be awarded to him without violating
the regulations of the Royal Society ; this recommenda-
tion was therefore cancelled. The fact of their can-
celling this recommendation is a reason why they
should also have cancelled the recommendation to Mr.
Beck, when that was found to have been made in oppo-
sition to the regulations. This incident respecting Mr.
Owen is another proof of the incapacity of the Physio-
logical Committee. It is singular that their steps should
have been retraced in Mr. Owen's case. Other members
of Council have had medals illegally awarded and given
to them, but the Councils have not been consistent even
in their injustice. _ _

Another point worthy of notice in the above quota-
tion from Mr. Bell, is the making a list " of all the phy-
siological papers that had been read during the last three
years." The list ought to have been of papers printed,
and not merely read ; this itself was a glaring irregu-
larity, sufficient to have vitiated the recommendation ;
but lMr. Bell was doubly wrong, for Mr. Bock's paper
had not even been read to the society.
Mr. Beck must produce another quotation from Mr.
Bell's letter, for the purpose of placing it in contradic-
tion with a statement in Dr. Roget's letter given above.
Mr. Bell says, " There is no a word of truth in the
assertion that Dr.i Sharpey drew from his pocket a re-
port of Mr. Beck's paper ; there was no such report on this
or on any other paper,' nor was Mr. Bock's paper treated
or considered in any way differently from any other."
And again, "It is asserted further, that it was not
until after Mr. Lawrence's departure that the report was
produced by Dr. Sharpey. This assertion has been dis-
posed of already—there was ne such report." (The italics
are Mr. Bell's.) Let our readers compare this with the
following extract from Dr. Roget's letter :
" The Committee of Physiology had received, before
they came to the decision respecting the award of the
royal medal, which you refer to in your letter of this
morning, two separate reports on Mr. Beck's paper,
drawn up by the referees, to whom it had been sent for
examination, and for their opinion of its merits ; and the
award of one of the royal medals to the author of the
paper was made after these reports had been read to
them, and taken into consideration, at one of the fullest
meetings of that Committee we have ever had."
The one says there was no report on Mr. Beck's paper ;
the other says there were two reports drawn up by the
referees. Dr. Sharpey was one of the referees, it will be
remembered. It may be supposed that Mr. Bell and
Dr. Roget refer to two separate meetings ; but this can-
not be, for we are informed there was no meeting of the
Physiological Committee from the time at which Mr.
Beck's paper was referred, till the meeting at which the
recommendation was made. Mr. Bell is the secretary
of the Physiological Committee. Dr. Roget is
senior secretary of the Royal Society. Their
testimony on a plain thing of fact, about which there
could be no mistake, is in direct contradiction. Which
is true ? Which is false ? This matter, above all things,
must be explained. Dr. Lee has a right to demand
these two reports, if any such ever really existed. But,
says Dr. Roget, they were " confidential." Faugh !
Dr. Roget speaks of the full meeting of the Com-
mittee. We must explain this :—there were present
Drs. Bostock, Todd, Roget, and Sharpey, and Messrs.
Bowman, Kiernan, and Bell. Dr. Roget said, in his
first letter, that he had never expressed an opinion on
Mr. Beck's dissections, so that his name must be with-
drawn. Mr. Bell says, he " refrained from voting," and
Mr. Bowman did not vote, so that the medal was really
given, under all the doubtful circumstances that have
been detailed, by Drs. Bostock, Todd, and Sharpey, and
Mr. Kiernan. The Physiological Committee numbers
twenty-five.
After the receipt of Dr. Roget's letter, Dr. Lee, we are
informed, had an interview with him, in which he ex-
pressed his opinion of the nature of the proceedings.
Dr. Roget advised him to address the Council, but Dr.
Lee preferred, in the first instance, to address the secre-
tary himself.

DR. LEE TO DR. ROGET.

4, Saville-row, 17th Nov., 1845.,

My dear Sir,—Having been two years in the Council of
the Royal Society, lam aware that none but members
have a right to know what has taken place at the meet-
ings, before the decisions are publicly announced. I
cannot, therefore, with propriety, send any statement
to the Council, as you recommended me to do. Hawing
acquainted you, one of the principal office-bearers and
guardians of the honour of the Royal Society, with the
unprecedented and illegal proceedings in the physiolo-
gical committee, it is for you to determine whether the
Council, in ignorance of what has taken place, shall be
permitted to proceed in a course injurious to the moral
character of the Royal Society, and destructive of my
scientific reputation.
I remain, my dear Sir, very sincerely yours,
ND or. r toh
Lee a m
havingp
next
oent)
Not Dr. Roget. ROBERT LEE.
(A. copy of this letter was sent to the Marquis of
received
eanthye anfoslwloewrinfgromproDtesrt. Rtoogtehte,
Council :
LETTER FROM DR. LEE TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEM-
BERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF
LONDON.

My Lords and Gentlemen,—l feel compelled to
protest against the Council's award of the royal medal,
from the conviction that by doing so I shall vindicate
the truth, which is now assailed, and prevent the Council
from committing an error which will reflect signal dis-
credit on the Royal Society itself.
The first ground of this protest is, that not one mem-
ber of the physiological committee, except Mr. Law-
rence, has examined my two recent and most perfect dis-
sections of the nervous system of the uterus, which were
described by me in a paper read to the Royal Society at
the last meeting in the month of June, and which paper,
contrary to the recommendation of the referee, (Sir Ben-
jamin Brodie), has been refused a place in the "Philo-
sophical Transactions." Drs. Todd and Sharpey hav-
ing therefore never seen these dissections, nor
the dissection figured in the " Philosophical Transac-
tions" for 1842, though requested by me to do so, have
consequently framed their report with an imperfect
knowledge, or rather in a state of total ignorance, of
what had previously been done by me on the subject;
which report has nevertheless been adopted by the phy-
siological committee, and made the ground of a recom•
cannotmend failtio ntot:o forptheerCooeuivnecilthet an
thisawad.
examination T
of all my
The Council
a.
dissections ought to
fair
eenbed jenoemtardeepobryt
couldDrs be
. Todd and
Sharpey before anydrawn,
ofm utchhe esiny protest is, that this award
casts a doubt on the recommendation
accuracy
to the Council for the award
The second reason for
c of my descriptions
and de-
Rosy a a lmdal.

* It appears from the Minutes that the Committee adopted
the Report, but made AQ recommendation to the Connell on
the subject.