This work was supported by a grant from the Royal Society. I am grateful to the following institutions for permission to study manuscript material and examine or make sketches of objects or drawings in their possession: Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Library Archives, Guildhall Library (Dept. of Maps and Prints), The Linnean Society, The Newcastle Literary and Philosophical Society, The North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineering, The Royal Institution, The Royal Institute of British Architects, The Royal Society, Scarborough Central Library Archives, University of Strathclyde Archives, The Yorkshire Philosophical Society. I am grateful to many people for comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and information generously supplied, in particular by Gwen Averley, W.H. Brock, D. Knight, R.M. MacLeod, J.B. Morrell, M.J.S. Rudwick, and H. Torrens.

1. Markus, Thomas A.: Order in Space and Society: Architectural form and its Context in the Scottish Enlightenment. Edinburgh, 1982, p. 1.Google Scholar

2. The whole ‘marginality’ debate is one aspect of this emphasis on context.

3. Porter, R. S.: ‘Science, Provincial Culture and Public Opinion in Enlightenment England’.J. 18th Cent. Stud. (1980), iii, p. 20–46.Google Scholar

4. Inkster, Ian & Morrell, Jack, eds: Metropolis and Province: Science in British culture 1780–1850. London, 1983.Google Scholar See also the essay review by Miller, D.P.: ‘The Social History of British Science: After the Harvest?’. Soc. Stud. Sci. (1984), xiv, p. 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Schaffer, Simon: ‘Natural Philosophy and Public Spectacle in the Eighteenth Century’. Hist. Sci. (1983), xxi, p. 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Shapin, S.: ‘The Audience for science in eighteenth century England’. Hist. Sci. (1974), xii, p. 85–121Google Scholar; Inkster, Ian: ‘The Public Lecture as an Instrument of Science Education for Adults – the Case of Great Britain, c. 1750–1850’. Paedagog. Hist. (1980), xx/1, p. 80–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar There are also useful essays in Inkster & Morrell (note 4), by Hays, J.N.: ‘The London lecturing empire, 1800–50’Google Scholar. Morrell, Jack: ‘Economic and ornamental geology: the Geological and Polytechnic Society of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1837–53’Google Scholar. Shapin, S.: ‘Nibbling at the teats of science’: Edinburgh and the diffusion of science in the 1830s'Google Scholar. Kitteringham, G.S.: ‘Studies in the Popularisation of Science in England 1800–30’. unpub. PhD. thesis, University of Canterbury, 1981Google Scholar, covers lecturers and their activities.

6. Plate iv in Orange, A.D.: Philosophers and Provincials: The Yorkshire Philosophical Society from 1822–1844. York, 1973.Google Scholar

7. Kitson Clark, E.: The History of 100 Years of Life of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Leeds, 1924, plate facing p. 22.Google Scholar

8. The Department of Maps & Prints, Guildhall Library, London, has several prints of the London Institution, including a watercolour (n.d., but c. 1824} showing a panoramic view of the Circus with the London Institution at the centre.

9. Neumann, Oscar: Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City. London, 1973, ch. 1.Google Scholar

10. Porter, W.S.: Sheffield Literary and Philosophical Society: A Centenary Retrospect 1822–1922. Sheffield, 1923, p. 26–27.Google Scholar

11. ‘Type’ used as in Pevsner, N.: A History of Building Types. London, 1976.Google Scholar For a discussion of building types and the city, see Olsen, D.: The Growth of Victorian London. London, 1976, ch. 3.Google Scholar

12. Markus, , (n. 1), p. 15.Google Scholar

13. Schaffer, , (n. 5), p. 11.Google Scholar

14. Porter, R., (n. 3), p. 35.Google Scholar

15. Figures taken from Chalklin, C.W.: ‘Capital Expenditure on Building for Cultural Purposes in Provincial England, 1730–1830’. Business History, 1980/1981, p. 51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar (table p. 60), and from Orange (n. 6), Kitson Clark (n. 7), and Neve, M.: ‘Science in a commercial city: Bristol 1820–60’Google Scholar. In: Inkster & Morrell(n. 4). Chalklin gives a slightly lower figure for Scarborough, excluding a sum spent on specimens, printing, stationery etc., which were included in the general building account in 1st Report of the Scarborough Philosophical Society, 1830.Google Scholar

16. Chalklin, , (n. 15), p. 60.Google Scholar

17. This even happened in Leeds, when Benjamin Gott and John Marshall, both important manufacturers, each subscribed for five £100 shares to help meet the need foran additional £1200: Kitson Clark (n. 7), p. 21; Steele, E.D.: ‘The Leeds Patriciate and the Cultivation of Learning, 1819–1905: A Study of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society’. Proc. Leeds Phil. Lit. Soc.: Lit. Hist. Sect. xvi. pt ix, p. 183–202 (p. 185).Google Scholar

18. Minutes of the Council of the Scarborough Philosophical Society, MS vol (unpaginated), 1st mtg. 6 November 1829, 2nd mtg. 11 November 1829, 6th mtg. [n. d.], 9th mtg. 1 March 1830; Scarborough Central Library Archives. See also the carefully phrased appeal for funds by the Yorkshire Philosophical Society which began, ‘The extensive and opulent County of York possesses the power of patronage to an ample degree…’. Report of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, 1825, p. 3–4.Google Scholar

19. Bud, R.F.: ‘The Royal Manchester Institution’. In: Cardwell, D.S.L. ed.: Artisan to graduate. Manchester, 1974, p. 119–133.Google Scholar

20. Browne, H.B.: Chapters of Whitby History 1823–1946. Hull, 1946, p. 15–17.Google Scholar

21. Taken from figures reproduced in Stephens, M.D. & Roderick, G.W.: ‘Nineteenth Century Educational Finance: The Literary and Philosophical Societies’. Ann. Sci. (1974), xxxi, iv, p. 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Act 6 & 7 Viet. c. 36. Arthur Ryland (1807–1877) was a successful solicitor who in 1853 promoted the formation of the Birmingham and Midland Institute.

23. 1st Report of the Scarborough Philosophical Society, 1830, p. 12.Google Scholar

24. Quoted in Waterhouse, R.E.: The Birmingham & Midland Institute. Birmingham, 1854, p. 58.Google Scholar

25. 1st Report Scarborough Phil. Soc., 1830, p. 13.Google Scholar

26. An exception was the Geological and Polytechnic Society of the West Riding of Yorkshire; see Morrell, Jack: ‘Economic and Ornamental Geology’Google Scholar. In: Inskter, & Morrell, (n. 4), p. 231–256.Google Scholar

27. Halifax Literary & Philosophical Society, Minute Book of Council, vol. 1830–189, p. 5; Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Archives, Misc. MS. 49/7.

28. The key work in this respect was Smith, W.: Strata identified by organized fossils. London, 1816–1819.Google Scholar

29. 1st Report Scarborough Phil. Soc., 1830, p. 15.Google Scholar See also Neve's remarks on the way that the Bristol Institution fostered a Christian conservative science (n. 15, p. 190).

30. As shown in Altick, R.D.: The Shows of London. Cambridge, Mass, 1978.Google Scholar

31. Quoted in Pevsner, N. (n. 11), p. 130.Google Scholar

32. Tried in most societies with varying degrees of caution. Whitby limited free access ‘by ticket’ to the first Monday in each month between 1100 and 1300; Browne, (n. 20), p. 60.Google Scholar

33. Hole, James: An Essay on the History and Management of Literary, Scientific and Mechanics' Institutions. 1853 (reprinted London 1970), p. 152–55.Google Scholar

34. Browne, , (n. 20), p. 60–61.Google Scholar

35. Minutes, Scarborough Philosophical Society, 19th mtg.? Nov. 1830[n.d.].

36. Porter, W.S. (n. 10), p. 28–29.Google Scholar

37. Pope, W.B., ed.: The Diary of Benjamin Robert Hayden. 5 vols., Cambridge, Mass, 1960–1963, iv., p. 462.Google Scholar

38. R.I.B.A. Drawings Collection, Office of J. B. Papworth, MS plans 99/1 – 2. Described in McHardy, G.: Catalogue of the Drawings Collection of the Royal Institute of British Architects. 1977, p. 38.Google Scholar

39. For details of the careers of Barry, Chantrell and Sharp, see Colvin, H.: A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600–1840. London, 1978.Google Scholar

40. Autograph note by Cockerell on plan of Bristol Institution, ‘… built by me in Park Street by the introduction of Mr Harford’, R.I.B.A. Drawings Collection, J10/44A; Neve, (n. 15) p. 187. See also Watkin, D.: The Life and Work of C. R. Cockerell. London, 1974Google Scholar; Cockerell was not very satisfied with his handling of this building with its ‘glum little facade’ (Watkin, , p. 145)Google Scholar, but it was one of his first architectural commissions.

41. Harper, R.: Victorian Architectural Competitions. London, 1983.Google Scholar A number of mechanics institutes, museums and university buildings were open to competition, especially later in the nineteenth century, though the built design was sometimes a composite of the assessors' favourite entries.

42. Colvin, , (n. 37), p. 360.Google Scholar William Gravatt appears to have been the only F.R.S. on the Council of the Halifax Literary and Philosophical Society, and was encouraged to take a leading role in the design and erection of the building. The building, vaguely classical in style, is not an architectural success, though it seems to have suited the Society well enough; Transactions of General Monthly Meetings 1831–1839, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Archives, MISC. MS: 49/4.

43. Mordaunt Crook, J.: The Greek Revival: Neo-Classical Attitudes in British Architecture 1760–1870. London, 1972.Google ScholarJenkyns, R.: The Victorians and Ancient Greece, Oxford, 1980Google Scholar, covers the later period focussing mostly on literature, but includes some useful architectural detail.

44. British Association visits were extremely important to local societies. See Lowe, P.: ‘The British Association and the Provincial Public’. In: MacLeod, Roy & Collins, Peter, eds: The Parliament of Science. Northwood, 1981, p. 118–144.Google Scholar

45. Appendix to the Report of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, 1828, containing the report of the Building Sub-Committee, p. 32–33. See also Minutes of the Building Committee 1825–1830, Yorkshire Philosophical Society, archives.

46. There is no complete directory of scientific institutions in 19th century London, but Morrell, J.B.: ‘London Institutions and Lyell's Career: 1820–41’. Br. J. Hist. Sci. (1976), ix, p. 132–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar, contains much useful material on London institutions in the second quarter of the century. For the early nineteenth century, see G. Kitteringham (n. 5).

47. Plans for improving the house front were first set in motion in May 1836; The Archives of the Royal Institution of Great Britain in facsimile: Minutes of Managers Meetings, 1799–1900. 1971–1978, Ilkley, viii, p. 422 ff.Google Scholar, and ‘Report’, p. 487a. Caroe, A.D.R.: The House of the Royal Institution. London, 1963, p. 25–27Google Scholar, describes the structural alterations involved.

48. Witness the tussles in 1781 between the Royal Society and the Society of Antiquaries over possession of the porter's lodge in Somerset House; Evans, Joan: History of the Society of Antiquaries. Oxford, 1956, p. 175.Google Scholar During alterations to Burlington House, the Royal Society insisted on maintaining their porter's lodge and separate entrance; R.I.B.A. Drawings Collection, plan dated July 1868, J11/64:8 [S. Smirke].

49. Ashworth Underwood, E.: ‘The Early Teaching of Anatomy at Padua, with special reference to a Model of the Padua Anatomical Theatre’. Ann. Sci. (1963), xix.1, p. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. Brockbank, W. & Dobson, Jessie: ‘Hogarth's Anatomical Theatre’. J. Med. Hist. (1959), xiv, p. 351–353.Google Scholar

51. Quoted in Thomson, S.C.: ‘The Great Windmill Street School’. Bull. Hist. Med. (1942), xii, p. 377–391 (p. 380).Google Scholar

52. See plate iv in Dobson, Jessie: William Clift. London, 1954, facing p. 5.Google Scholar

53. An illustration from Gondoin appears in Brockbank, W.: ‘Old Anatomical theatres and what took place therein’. Med. Hist. (1960), xii, p. 371–384Google Scholar (facing p. 377). There are problems concerning the origin of the Royal Institution's theatre design. It has been frequently asserted that the Royal Institution was a copy of Anderson's Institution in Glasgow (see Berman, M.: Social Change & Scientific Organization: The Royal Institution, 1799–1840. London, 1978, p. 14Google Scholar, n. 52). The appointment of Thomas Garnett, formerly at Anderson's, to the Royal Institution in December 1799 appears to strengthen this view, as Garnett's description of the facilities at Anderson's appears very similar to those created at the R.I. (Garnett, T.: Observations on a Tour through the Highlands. London, 1800, p. 194–205.Google Scholar) However, with regard to the lecture theatre there were already several models available in London's anatomical theatres, and the emphasis on the Scottish connection with its practical and utilitarian overtones, is probably overdone. The illustration (plate vii) in Vernon, K.D.C.: ‘The Foundation and Early Years of the Royal Institution’, booklet, Royal Institution, 1963, is misleading. It shows a later building of Anderson's erected 1827–1828 in George Street, not the premises in John Street described by Garnett.

54. The theatre of the North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineering, Newcastle, built in 1872, is a superb surviving example. It is small, with five steeply raked semicircular rows of seats; visibility is excellent, and it is intimate in atmosphere if thoroughly masculine with sombre coloured walls, dark furniture, leather unpholstered seats and walls lined with serried ranks of past presidents.

55. Forgan, S.: ‘The Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1840–1873’. unpub. PhD. thesis, London, 1976, p. 257.Google Scholar

56. e.g. J. N. Hayes (n. 5).

57. Quoted in Dobson, Jessie (n. 48), p. 41.Google Scholar

58. R.I.B.A. Drawings Collection, E4/43/3–13 [T. Webster and others]. Autograph notes in various hands.

59. Ibid., 99/3 [Office of J. B. Papworth]

60. Garnett, (n. 49), p. 195.Google Scholar

61. Ackermann, : The Microcosm of London in Miniature. 1808, London, (reprint 1904), iii, p. 157.Google Scholar

62. Sennet, R.: The Fall of Public Man. 2nd edn., Cambridge 1977, p. 287–293Google Scholar, discusses the development of the star system in music with regard to his analysis of charisma. Much of his argument could be applied to the practice of lecturing, both scientific and other types.

63. Royal Society archives, MM 13.58, Plans dated 15 February 1781. Identical plans were submitted to the Antiquaries and likewise signed by the President, Dean Milles, and five Council members.

64. Royal Society archives, DM 2.23, draft letter, probably in Banks' hand. The Antiquaries were likewise concerned that ‘not to have proper conveniences and decorations, will disgrace our name’, and were also determined not to be outshone by the Royal Society, who in a neat flanking operation had managed to set up a bust of Newton over the joint front door; Evans, (n. 44), p. 172, 179.Google Scholar

65. Royal Society archives, MM 13.58. See plate 4, in Martin, D.C.: ‘Former Homes of the Royal Society’. In: The Royal Society at Carlton House Terrace London, booklet, 1967.Google Scholar

66. For a detailed study of the evolution of Methodist architecture and its relation to the beliefs and practice of Methodism, see Dolbey, George W.: The Architectural Expression of Methodism: the First Hundred Years. London, 1964.Google Scholar

67. Boas Hall, Marie: All Scientists Now: the Royal Society in the 19th Century. Cambridge, 1984, p. 3–4.Google Scholar

68. Swainson, William: A Preliminary Discourse of the Study of Natural History. In: The Cabinet Cyclopaedia conducted by Rev. Dionysius Lardner. London, 1834, p. 305–306.Google Scholar

69. Hall, (n. 67), p. 69.Google Scholar

70. Royal Society Minutes of Council, iii, p. 323 (28 June 1866).

71. Chambers' plan is reproduced in Evans (n. 44), pl. xxi, facing p. 177, and see engraving by Fairholt 1839, pl. xxxi, facing p. 257.

72. I am grateful to Professor Martin Rudwick for this information. See also Swainson, (n. 68), p. 314.Google Scholar

73. Royal Society archives, MM 13.66, ‘Memorandum’ by Mr Hardwick, 19 March 1859.

74. The Linnean changed its meeting to the first and third Thursdays of each month in order to co-ordinate its meeting with that of the Royal, so that members could take tea and talk after their respective meetings; Gage, A.J.: A History of the Linnean Society. London, 1938, p. 53.Google Scholar

75. Robert Brown, President of the Linnean, expressed a preference in 1852 for ‘one central locality, and if possible under one roof’. None of the major societies wished to be removed to South Kensington; Royal Society Minutes of Council, ii, p. 235 (26 November 1852). For similar sentiments later, see Nature, ii, p. 429Google Scholar (29 September 1870).

76. e.g. Royal Society Minutes of Council, ii, p. 220–221 (22 June 1852) repeatedly; ii, p. 416 (14 January 1858). See also Hall, , (n. 67) p. 188–192.Google Scholar

77. Ibid., ii, p. 416–417 (14 January 1858).

78. Ibid., iii, p. 425–426 (18 June 1868).

79. Sheppard, F.H.W. ed.: Survey of London. London, 1963, xxxiiGoogle Scholar. Parish of St. James, Westminster, pt. ii, p. 426.

80. Illustrated London News, 12 12 1863, p. 597Google Scholar; reproduced in The Record of the Royal Society of London, Royal Society, London, 4th edn., 1940, facing p. 312.Google Scholar

81. MacLeod, R.M.: ‘Whigs and savants: reflections on the reform movement in the Royal Society, 1830–48’Google Scholar. In: Inkster, & Morrell, (n. 4), p. 55–90.Google Scholar

82. Sheppard, (n. 69), p. 426Google Scholar, compares the libraries at Burlington House with the saloon at the Reform Club [1837 by Charles Barry]. The point is underlined when the Royal Society in 1856 suggested fitting ‘open bookcases of mahogany (like those in the drawing-room of the Athenaeum Club)…’, Royal Society Minutes of Council, ii, p. 377 (5 December 1856).

83. Royal Society archives, DM 2.37–38.

84. Berman, M., (n. 49): Chilton, D. & Coley, N.G.: ‘The Laboratories of the Royal Institution in the Nineteenth Century. Ambix, (1980), xxvii.3, p. 173–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCutler, J.C.:‘The London Institution 1805–1933’. unpub. PhD thesis, Leicester, 1967.Google Scholar

85. Weale, John: London Exhibited in 1851…. London, 1851, p. 593.Google Scholar

86. Relatively little is known about the conduct of daily life in these early institutional laboratories. For example, it appears that in the 1820s, the Royal Institution under William Thomas Brande's influence maintained a semi-public, open house policy, and Faraday complained bitterly about interruptions and the number of visitors; see, for example, Faraday to R. Phillips, 28 August 1828. In: Pearce Williams, L. ed.: The Selected Correspondence of Michael Faraday. 2 vols, Cambridge, 1971, i, p. 91.Google Scholar This does appear however to have been unusual, and later references to visitors almost always refer to scientific callers or friends invited in to see some particular experiment. If labs were regarded as semi-public spaces in the early 19th century, certainly by the middle of the century this was no longer the case as far as institutions such as the R.I. were concerned.

87. Chilton, & Coley, (n. 74), p. 182–186.Google Scholar

88. See comments in Brock, W. H. & Meadows, A.J.: ‘Physics, Chemistry and Higher Education in the U.K.’. Studies in Higher Education, (1977), ii.2, p. 109–124 (p. 120).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89. Robinson, N. & Forbes, E.G.: The Royal Society catalogue of portraits. Royal Society, London, 1980.Google Scholar

90. For the increasing importance of the national collections at this time, especially the British Museum (Natural History) section with its impressive new building in South Kensington, see Gunther, A.E.: A Century of Zoology at the British Museum: Through the Lives of Two Zoo Keepers 1815–1914. London, 1975Google Scholar, and The Founders of Science at the British Museum 1753–1900, 1981Google Scholar; and Girouard, M.: Alfred Waterhouse and the Natural History Museum, London, 1981.Google Scholar

91. Fletcher, H.R.: The Story of the Royal Horticultural Society 1804–1968, Oxford for R.H.S., 1969.Google Scholar The Society acquired its first garden in 1818, and also spent £3722. 15s. 5d.on the purchase and fitting out of a new house. By 1830 it was in serious financial trouble, and despite economies suffered recurring difficulties for most of the century.

92. Stephens, & Roderick, (n. 21), p. 341.Google Scholar

93. Such lapses of behaviour at the Royal Institution included committing a felony, being sentenced to transportation, or brawling on the premises; see Royal Institution Managers Minutes, ix, p. 250Google Scholar (20 March 1843), p. 263 (5 June 1843), and xi, p. 171 (2 February 1857).

94. For example, Chambers designed a special chair for the Society of Arts; see Allan, D.G.C.: The Houses of the Royal Society of Arts: A History and a Guide. London, 1966, p. 21.Google Scholar The Linnean Society's presidential chair is inlaid with botanical symbols. The Presidents of the Newcastle Mining Institute has two special seats, one in the lecture theatre and one in the Council Room; the first had a back of twice the normal height, surmounted by lions flanking a large safety lamp, and the second was surmounted by a growling head, alledged to be that of ‘Father Tyne’.

95. See for example the many illustrations in Robins, E.C.: Technical School and College Building, London, 1887.Google Scholar

96. Ruskin's ideas on architecture were first worked out in The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 1849Google Scholar, and Stones of Venice, 1851–1853.Google Scholar

97. Illustrated in Reid, D.B.: Textbook for Students of Chemistry. Edinburgh, 1836.Google Scholar