The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-16 00:00:00

S MAY 16, 1846.

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 duriig the last three
years." The list ought to have been of
papers printed,
was
rae Iglaringe n
recommendation
irregu-
larity, ty, not
sufficientmer ely
to
ocanda
v;
ethviis itself
ti
ai
teedl f
thebut IMr. Bell was doubly wrong, for Mr. Bock's paper
had not even been read to the socie
quotationty from Mr
.
Mr. Beck must produce another
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."; 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 no 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.

paper, but the committee, on the 6th of November, re-
solved, " that Dr. Lee's appendix be not recommended
to be printed."
On the 30th of October, the Council of the Royal So-
ciety met, and on the recommendation of the re-con-
structed meeting, held two days before, resolved, " that
one of the royal medals in physiology be awarded to T.
S. Beck, Esq., for his paper entitled On the Nerves of
the Uterus,"
The council then resolved itself into a committee of
papers, to determine whether the paper to which the
royal medal had just been awarded, was fit to be printed.
The modal was awarded to a paper which had never
been read to the Society, and had not been ordered to
qc buo printed.eenOnsctniet
utwht
ehedetmthheereo
tftihnNego,
recommendation
cfmtoebn
ire r, in an interview which I had
counciltawhwietehr recommendation
theechhoaamdpd
mrabe
awarded
ni
aeddnredantemti
do,
an Idt
hes
to
et awt
tmtieht stated
dui
:tuolt
council
ohis
vi teLshstaoiodrgdat
nothi
investigation,
Lordship
responsibi-
lity; srat
pol
and
dnet
proceeded
diht
bheui
de.t
froth the committee of physiology, but from an illegally
committee
meeting
h a
d regularlybea
mt the
dation
c committeeam hadto
the beencoun-
cil dis-
solved by the chairman. His Lordship replied, that the
that it
.toronindsete:tuidtev;indepen-
dentlyThe
of the committee, and
minufrtoeit was of no conse-
quence
of the
has been awarded, added the president the thing
is
done, and it is too late to say anything
moree about it
About the middle of November, the Presidentsent a
requisition to the Committee of Physiology, ordering
them to state the grounds upon which they had /*cum' I
mended the award of the royal medal in physiology..
On the 20th of November the committee met, and re-
solved, " that Dr. Todd and Dr. Sharpey be requested
to draw up a report on the claims of Mr. Beck's paper
to the award of the royal medal, and that Mr. Beck's
paper be sent in succession to the several members of
the Committee of Physiology resident in London."
At this meeting Mr. Lawrence requested the secre-
tary to show him Mr. Beck's paper, but it was not forth-
coming ; and the secretary stated that it was in the
author's possession, contrary to a statute of the Society
enacted expressly for the purpose of preventing the per-
petration of literary and scientific frauds.
On the 27th of November, the committee met, when
the report of Drs. Sharpey and Todd was read and
adopted. On the Ist of December, this report came
before the council, and it has been printed in the pro-
ceedings of the society, and in the address of the
president at the anniversary meeting, as if it had been
the true report of the committee of physiology on the
claims of Mr. Beck's paper to the award of the medal.
That such is not the fact can readily be proved, for the
medal was awarded by the council a month before, and
on the recommendation of the re-constructed meeting
on the 28th of October, when two other reports were
produced and read by Drs. Todd and Sharpey, which
reports, Dr. Roget states, " are confidential," and have
not yet seen the light.
The following notice is affixed to the first part of the
"Philosophical Transactions" for 1845, and the same
notice has been affixed to every volume of the " Philoso-
phical Transactions," published since 1837:
"Her Majesty Queen Victoria, in restoring the royal
medals, has been graciously pleased to approve the fol-
lowing regulations for the award of them:—That the
royal medals be given for such papers only as have been
presented to the Royal Society, and inserted in their
" Transactions."

The medal in physiology was awarded by the late
Council to a paper which had never been read to the
Society, and has not been inserted in the " Philosophical
Transactions."

I can now demonstrate that the highest honours of the
Royal Society have been conferred for destroying, and
not for displaying, the: nerves of the uterus. If the
Council will appoint a competent, tribunal to investigate
the subject, the truth of what' is now affirmed will
speedily be discovered, and the njury inflicted on ana-
tomical and physiological science by these irregular,
unjust, and most unphilosophical proceedings, be re-
paired. The moral character of the Royal Society re-
quires that a rigorous examination be made, without
delay, into the whole of these extraordinary transactions.
I am, my Lords and Gentlemen, very faithfully yours,
ROBERT LEE.
4, Saville-row, Burlington-gardens, April 2nd, 1846.