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

DR. BOGEY'S REPLY.

18, Upper Bedford-place, Nov. 13, 1845.
My dear Sir,--The Committee of Physiology had
received, before they came to the decision respect•ng 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 refereeP, to whom it had
been sent for examinaticni, 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 viper 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 had.
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.—I am,
dear Sir, faithfully yours, P. M. ROGET.
The chief particulars respecting the dissolution, and
(as Dr. Lee contend° 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 arc elicited. His ver-
sion of the meeting of the 27th of October is us 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, uud Mr. Lawrence consequently
left the chair, and quitted the room. This g. ntleinan lett
,in haste, and was the only one who had gone, when
Dr. Raget, on further examination of the records, in-
formed us that he had been mistaken, and that it was
absolutely la, cessary 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 t was, after
much consideration, selected for recommendation for the
award of the Ro) al 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. 0 wen's case. Other members
of Councl 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 aborequota-
don from Mr. Bell, is the making a list " of ail thelast
phy-
siological papers that had bean read during_ the threente
years." The list ought to have been of paprs]:ri
and not merely read ; this itself was a glaring irregu-
larity, sufficient to have vitiated the recommendation ;
but iMr. Bell was doubly wrong, for
. Mr. Bock's paper
had not even been read to the society. f
Me. Beck must proucel another quotationfrom Mr.
Beli's letter, for the purposa of placing it in. contradic- .
lion with a statement in Dr. Roget's letter given above,