Lyon Playfair: chemist and commissioner, 1818–1858
Post on 21-Apr-2022
2 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Science Museum Group Journal
Lyon Playfair: chemist and commissioner, 1818–1858Journa l ISSN numbe r: 2054-5770
Thi s a rti cl e wa s wri tte n by Ia n Bl a tchford
05-04-2021 Ci te a s 10.15180; 211504 Re s e a rch
Lyon Pl a yfa i r: che mi s t a nd commi s s i one r, 1818–1858
Publ i s he d i n Spri ng 2021, Is s ue 15
Arti cl e DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504
Abstract
Lyon Playfair was a multi -ta lented man: a scientist, administrator and pol i tician whose l i fe and influence deserve further
research. This article concentrates on the period between 1818 and 1858, from Playfair’s birth to his appointment as Professor
of Chemistry at the Univers i ty of Edinburgh. His biographer (Si r Thomas Wemyss Reid) described his l i fe as a ‘s tory not of
adventure, but work’ and yet his record was one of energetic enterprise that had cons iderable impact. He was a ris ing star in the
then fashionable world of chemistry, a favoured student of the founder of organic chemistry, Justus Liebig, and a central figure
in the promotion of new ideas in agricultural science.[1] A career in science and the state saw him connected to the leading
figures of both, and he played a crucia l role in the conceptual and financial success of the Great Exhibition, and i ts legacy. His
bri l l iance has been overshadowed by the extrovert Henry Cole, and yet Playfair was essentia l to the major educational reforms
of their time.
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/001
Keywords
Lyon Playfair, chemistry, pol i tics , biography, Univers i ty of Edinburgh, Justus Liebig, Great Exhibition
Introduction
[2] Playfair was a versati le man: scientist, administrator and pol i tician. This article concentrates on the period between 1818
and 1858, from his birth to his appointment as Professor of Chemistry at Edinburgh. His biographer (Si r Thomas Wemyss Reid)
described his l i fe as ‘a story not of adventure, but work’ and yet this restrained sketch hardly does justice to an early l i fe which
was one of energetic enterprise that had cons iderable impact (Reid, 1899). A ris ing star in the ascendant field of chemistry, and
connected to i ts leading figures , Playfair played a vi ta l role in the success of the Great Exhibition and i t legacy. His bri l l iance
has been overshadowed by the extrovert Henry Cole, about whom much has been written.[3] However, Playfair was just as
essentia l in ensuring the legacy of the Great Exhibition and the major educational events of their time.
Despite such a rich contribution to national l i fe, there is only one biographical work, which was publ ished in 1899, and i t i s an
uncertain compound of sketchy autobiographical notes and biographical commentary. It was undertaken by Reid at the
invitation of Edith, Playfair’s third wife, who put at Reid’s disposal her husband’s correspondence and an incomplete essay in
autobiography, written by Playfair ostens ibly for his fami ly (Armstrong, 1976).[4] It comprises Playfair’s own notes which are
then duly marshal led into ‘chapters ’ with introductory or concluding commentaries (not a lways with a clear logic to their form)
from Reid. Furthermore, Playfair’s own notes are patchy in their chronology and completeness .
The work might a lso be cons idered problematic in i ts perspectives . In particular, i t has been argued that Playfair i s cons istently
characterised as useful rather than great, suggesting certain underlying assumptions of the biographer. For Reid, Gladstone
was the measure of greatness and against such a benchmark i t would be scarcely poss ible to perceive Playfair’s ful l
importance. Indeed, the biographer was unl ikely to appreciate the lasting contribution of Playfair in the organisation of
science, and i ts legacy into the twentieth century (Crowther, 1865).
Playfair was only 40 when he left London for an academic l i fe at Edinburgh Univers i ty, a l though he did not withdraw from
abiding interests in cultural educational reform. However, this trans itional moment in his career does offer an opportunity of
cons idering a surpris ing visual impress ion as wel l , because i f Playfair comes to mind today at a l l , the image is of a grand
statesman photographed in pompous and be-whiskered pose; and yet the man in this account is brimming with youthful vi ta l i ty
and has the air of a Romantic poet or composer.
Figure 1
© National Portrai t Gal lery, London
Lyon Playfair, 1st Baron Playfair; Playfair as a ris ing star
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/014
Figure 2
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
Playfair as forbidding elder statesman
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/015
It would be fa ir to say that Henry Cole has some dominance in the narrative of the Great Exhibition, and the formation of the
cultural insti tutions that fol lowed. Cole was most certainly the ‘Great Exhibitor’ and yet his a l l iance with Playfair, for a l l i ts
stresses and strains , was a partnership of equals in the 1850s. There was both friendship and jockeying for pos ition in the
real isation of the Great Exhibition and i ts legacies (Bonython and Burton, 2003). Each man brought their own strengths, and I
wi l l argue here that for a l l of Cole’s fla i r as an impresario, the Great Exhibition might wel l have been a diminished affa ir,
indeed poss ibly a fa i lure, without Playfair’s charm and di l igence.
In seeking to rebalance the Great Exhibition narrative i t may be hard to avoid the peri ls of any ‘corrective’ biography. In his
recently publ ished biography of Viscount Haldane, John Campbel l declares his motivation for writing thus:
Haldane has largely been forgotten today, lost behind a range of his contemporaries whose personal i ties are more
instantly access ible and whose deeds are more eas i ly ampl i fied – individuals such as Lloyd George and Churchi l l
(Campbel l , 2020).
In seeking ‘equivalence’ between such contrasting figures there is risk that biography, despite a range of good intentions and
fascinating materia l , can almost inevitably s l ip into hagiography. In cons idering Playfair, a di fferent objective might be to
present him s imply as an inherent subject of interest because ‘biographies can contribute to the construction of a cri tical and
historical ly informed constel lation of publ ic opinion’ (Renders and Harmsma, 2017). In this case, i t could be suggested that any
biography of a scientist places science in the foreground of an historical and cultural landscape replete with pol i tical and
artistic l ives . In this vein, examining Playfair might play a part in a ‘science as culture’ campaign.
Furthermore, examining Playfair offers much more than a competition with Cole. A hal lmark of Playfair’s career was spiri ted
lecturing on education, industry and the prestige of chemistry i tsel f. Prince Albert encouraged the Royal Society of Arts to host a
series of lectures in 1852 in which leading figures of the day reflected on the lessons to be drawn from the Great Exhibition.
With confident partisanship, Playfair would not res ist the temptation to praise his beloved science because:
It i s one of the last of sciences which, as a branch of systematised knowledge, has offered i ts services to man, yet during
its existence as a separate science, i t has increased human resources and enjoyment to a greater extent than any of i ts
elder s isters (Reid, 1852).
A bold cla im indeed, but I hope to show that Playfair’s early career la id the foundation of his central role in the ris ing
prominence, and perceived economic uti l i ty, of chemistry.
Figure 3
© Wel lcome Col lection
Playfair giving a lecture on the chemistry, manufacture and uses of glass at the
Museum of Practical Geology
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/016
Final ly, in cons idering the influence of Cole and Playfair, the narrative must a lso take account of a third and dominant player,
Prince Albert. Playfair and the Prince were of an age, having been born in 1818 and 1819 respectively, and thus both a decade
younger than Cole. Here I argue that the high degree of mutual sympathy between the two men was only partly about age, and
more the product of Playfair’s intense pragmatism and, s igni ficantly, his fluency in the German language and cultural
framework.
A child of Scotland and India
When Playfair was ennobled in 1892, he adopted the ti tle of Lord Playfair of St Andrews, and that univers i ty ci ty certainly
played a central role in the ancestral identi ty of the Playfair fami ly, with his grandfather James being appointed Principal of the
univers i ty in 1800.
In fact, Playfair was born far from his spiri tual Scottish home, in Chunar in Upper Bengal (now Uttar Pradesh) in 1818, the
second chi ld of George and Jess ie Playfair. His father was a surgeon in the service of the East India Company and later became
Inspector-General for hospitals in Bengal . His uncles Wi l l iam and Hugh were officers in the Indian Army, and Uncle James was
a Glasgow merchant. The latter was to play an early, but uncontented, role in Playfair’s career.
Figure 4
© The Bri tish Library
Birthplace in Chunar, India
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/017
Playfair was sent to Scotland, with his mother and elder brother George, in 1820 and raised in St Andrews in the household of
his widowed aunt Janet Macdonald. His Memoirs brim with sentiment about his chi ldhood (Reid, 1899). He reserves specia l
affection for his Aunt ‘Jess ie’ and her warm encouragement of curios i ty and study. She was a keen natural is t and Playfair
cla ims that she was credited with describing several new species of marine animals . His education was guided by two
governesses, and then the parish school and local grammar.
Figure 5
© Univers i ty of St Andrews Libraries and Museums
Playfair’s Aunt ‘Jess ie’ Macdonald
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/018
At only 14 years of age (Reid, 1899, p 33), Playfair was enrol led as a bejant (fi rst year student) at the Univers i ty of St Andrews
where he complained of the impenetrable ‘s lough of despond’ in the mathematics lectures of Professor Duncan and endured his
‘absolute ignorance’ in Greek and s imi lar imperfections in Latin.[5] Surpris ingly, given his later career, he was not enrol led in
Chemistry or Natural Phi losophy al though he recol lected steal ing into lectures , nonetheless . Playfair and his brother George
del ighted in driving the servants to distraction with experiments such as the extraction of sugar from beetroots (Reid, 1899, p
33). Such endeavours were to produce dividends for both men, with George later fol lowing the fami ly path to India and
becoming Pres ident of the Medical Col lege at Agra.
Figure 6
© Univers i ty of St Andrews Libraries and Museums
The merchant, Uncle James Playfair of Glasgow
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/019
At the age of 17, this juveni le period of Playfair’s l i fe ended when his mother returned to India with her daughters . George was
sent to Edinburgh to study Medicine and the fami ly decided that Lyon should try a career as a merchant, and so he was
despatched to Glasgow as a clerk to his Uncle James (Reid, 1899, pp 34–36). His uncle was frequently in Canada and Lyon was
bored for ‘this idleness disgusted me with the mercanti le l i fe’. Moreover, the household was one of ‘arid Scotch orthodoxy’
which he found ‘repuls ive rather than attractive’. However, with hinds ight he appreciated his uncle’s probity and commitment to
publ ic welfare and he also enjoyed the friendship of his fel low clerk Ramsay, whose brother would become the distinguished
geologist Si r Andrew Ramsay.[6] Andrew (only four years his senior) was later to become a close friend and indeed a recurring
theme in Playfair’s career was his great esteem for the eminent and emerging geologists of the day.
Playfair prized his copy (won at school) of Charles Lyel l ’s pioneering Principles of Geology (1830–33) with i ts radical notion that
the forces that had shaped the planet’s surface were sti l l in operation, a theory that had dangerous impl ications for bibl ical
constructs of time. On making an annual trip to Arran with Andrew Ramsay, Playfair fel l into conversation with Lyel l and his
wife whi le on the same steamer and so ‘my hero-worship had i ts reward’ (Reid, 1899, p 36).
Figure 7
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
The eminent geologist, Charles Lyel l
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/020
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/002
Starting on the scientific path
In 1835, Playfair gave up his (fi rst) attempt at a mercanti le career and set a path studying medicine, a profess ion that was
prominent in l ives of the wider fami ly.
He decided to study at the Andersonian Col lege (now Strathclyde Univers i ty) rather than Glasgow Univers i ty, thus decl ining the
opportunity of studying with the eminent Dr Thomas Thomson, whose System of Chemistry (1802) was an establ ished textbook
for the subject. Instead, Playfair favoured ‘a younger man’ whom he regarded as one of the most original investigators of his
time (Reid, 1899, p 36). Professor Thomas Graham offered relative youth (he was 30) and a growing reputation as an original
investigator in fields such as dia lys is , and the di ffus ion of gases.[7] It was a decis ion that was to give Playfair cons iderable
intel lectual satis faction and the l ink with Graham later proved an asset in his career. Additional ly, for a young man i t was a lso
a golden period with fel low students and l i fe-long friends including the explorer David Livingstone, and the inventor and
founder of the paraffin oi l industry James Young (Reid, 1899, pp 36–37).
Figure 8
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
Thomas Graham (1805–1869)
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/021
Figure 9
© Glasgow Museums
Andersonian Col lege, late nineteenth century
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/022
Two years into the course, Graham moved to Univers i ty Col lege London and so Playfair decided to complete his studies at
Edinburgh, conscious that his anatomy and surgery were being neglected at the expense of his pass ion for chemistry. However,
any return to sens ible studies suffered a decis ive setback because Playfair was forced to abandon his medical course as the
atmosphere of the dissecting rooms and hospital produced such a violent eczema (Reid, 1899, p 40).[8]
Playfair described himself as ‘s tranded’ at 19 years of age, and the paternal solution was to despatch his son to Calcutta to
fol low a mercanti le career in the house of Cantor, Low and Co, on the understanding that Playfair should become a partner in
due course. This second foray into bus iness hardly seemed destined for great success and Playfair sought solace in friendships
with ‘a l l the scienti fic men in Calcutta’ despite his relative youth (Reid, 1899, p 41).[9] He enjoyed the friendship of Si r Wi l l iam
O’Shaughnessy, Professor of Chemistry at the Medical Col lege, and as the unsuitabi l i ty of his new career was evident, several of
his scienti fic friends wrote to his father urging that young Playfair might be better deployed in studies under Professor Graham
in London. George Playfair agreed, the whole matter settled by correspondence alone, for the duration and peri ls of travel in the
interior meant that father and son did not meet whi lst in the same country.
Figure 10
© Univers i tätsbibl iothek Heidelberg
Calcutta in the early nineteenth century
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/023
Playfair duly found himself back in London and this time as Graham’s private ass istant rather than student, but he was not to
stay for long. In 1839, Graham offered what was to be career-defining guidance: that Playfair should go to Giessen to study
under Justus Liebig, one of the commanding figures of Continental chemistry.
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/003
Organic chemistry and networking
Graham’s wise advice to transfer to Giessen reflected the fa i l ings of Bri tish scienti fic tra ining. In 1830, Charles Babbage had
penned his furious cri ticism of the Royal Society and the general feebleness of education in Reflections of the Decline of Science
in England. Al though the nation was renowned for ‘s tar’ scienti fic achievers , there was a chronic dearth of technical schools
and the scienti fical ly adept at a l l levels of industry. One immediate response was the formation of the Bri tish Association for
the Advancement of Science, as a stinging rebuke to the perceived di lettantism of the establ ished order (Cardwel l , 1972).
Figure 11
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
Baron Justus von Liebig (1803–1873)
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/024
Figure 12
Justus Liebig’s laboratory at Giessen
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/025
It had become standard practice for young chemists to travel to Germany to complete their higher education, with the most
prized teachers being Liebig in Giessen and Bunsen at Marburg (and at Heidelberg from 1852). Liebig himself was mysti fied by
parochial Engl ish atti tudes to science. When he undertook a prestigious tour of England in 1842 (on which Playfair
accompanied him), Liebig wrote to Michael Faraday that:
…only those works which have a practical tendency awake attention and command respect, whi le the purely scienti fic,
which possess far greater merits , are a lmost unknown (Cardwel l , 1972, pp 64–65).
In Liebig, his students encountered bri l l iance and rigour. The modestly s ized laboratory was to train a raft of leading chemists ,
in a culture of lernfreiheit, in which students were encouraged to propose and conduct original research. Liebig was to be
described by the Royal Society as ‘the founder of Organic chemistry’ and his research had a compel l ing impact on our
understanding of soi l ferti l i ty, yields and agricultural costs (Royal Society, 1875–76). In 1837, at i ts meeting in Liverpool , the
new Bri tish Association for the Advancement of Science urged him to present and consol idate his ins ights , and this was the
central focus just as Playfair joined his laboratory. In 1840, Liebig completed the seminal Organic Chemistry in its Application to
Agriculture and Physiology.
Not for the fi rst time, Playfair’s congenial manner, which had won the friendship of Thomas Graham and the scienti fic ci rcles of
Calcutta, ensured a warm col legia l i ty with his new mentor. This was certainly not true for a l l who studied in Giessen because
Liebig could be exacting and was known for his ‘haste, impatience and dictatoria l atti tude’ and only a specia l few found favour
(Fruton, 1988).
There could no clearer evidence of respect than Liebig’s remarkable request that Playfair trans late his landmark work for i ts
Engl ish edition. Whi lst his command of German was patchy, Playfair recognised the privi lege bestowed and immersed himself
in trans lation of a new scienti fic field.
Liebig was del ighted with the qual i ty and lucidi ty of the trans lation, writing that ‘your explanations are clear and eas i ly
understood’ and ‘I am exceedingly pleased and satis fied’ (Playfield, 1899).[10] And Liebig repaid Playfair’s dedication with
glowing praise of ‘that intel l igent young chemist’ in the Engl ish edition:
I cannot suppress the wish that he may succeed in being as useful , by his profound and wel l -grounded knowledge of
chemistry, as his ta lents promise (Liebig, 1847).
And so Playfair became, by default, the advocate of choice for Liebig’s masterpiece before an Engl ish audience and he
represented him at important scienti fic gatherings . It i s di fficult now to capture the vicarious power associated with such a
role, for the word of Liebig was hugely esteemed in England, which he was to vis i t s ix times between 1837 and 1855 and where
he was admired as ‘an entrepreneur and propagandist for the extens ion of chemistry’s boundaries ’ (Brock, 1977). It was at
these events that Playfair was to meet ‘several men who afterwards exercised a cons iderable influence upon my l i fe’ (Reid,
1899, p 43). Such men as the geologist and palaeontologist Wi l l iam Buckland and the head of Geological Survey, Si r Henry de la
Beche. The Liebig book was a remarkable work, brimming with the excitement of a new field of scienti fic endeavour, and with a
poetic and prophetic style speaking of how ‘plants thus improve the air, by removal of carbonic acid, and the renewal of oxygen,
which is immediately appl ied to the use of man and animals ’ (Liebig, 1847, pp 19–20).
This major work resonated in pol i tical and land-owning ci rcles . The Bri tish population would almost double from 1801 to
1841, ris ing around 11 mi l l ion to approaching 20 mi l l ion (Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 1854). Efficiency in
production was needed for an increas ing population and one that was shi fting from country to ci ty; for the England of
Constable’s ‘The Hay Wain’ (1821) was becoming that of Turner’s ‘Rain, Steam and Speed’ (1844) and pol i tical ly the changing
nation was reflected in the seismic pass ing of the Great Reform Act of 1832. Anxieties around food production and pricing, and
proxy wars on both s ides of the Corn Laws debate, were reflected in the foundation of the Royal Agriculture Society of England in
1838, and appropriately Playfair was to be appointed as their consulting chemist in 1844 (Brock, 1977, p 149).
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/004
In Lancashire and Manchester
Having completed both the Engl ish trans lation of Liebig’s great work, and his own doctorate, Playfair needed to make his way in
the world. During one vis i t to a Bri tish Association meeting in Glasgow, he met James Thomson, owner of extens ive cal ico
printing works in Cl i theroe, and was duly offered the pos ition of chemical manager in his Primrose mi l ls on the very decent
annual salary of £400 ris ing to £600 per annum.
Figure 13
James Thomson, owner of the Primrose mi l ls
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/026
Cal ico printing represented the upper tier in the largest manufacturing industry in the land (cotton), and whi lst the majori ty of
works in Lancashire produced cloth for the mass market, a smal l number produced a more exclus ive range. The huge scale of
such works , in terms of bui ldings and workforce, were a wonder to many. No less exci ting was the manufacturing process i tsel f
and when Augustus Granvi l le, Ita l ian patriot and phys ician, vis i ted the Thomson works he marvel led at the process:
Which converts some thousands of yards of cotton cloth, previous ly bleached and prepared, into a surface covered with
curious and tasteful des igns, and rival l ing for colour and bri l l iance the plumage of a tropical bird, i s a lmost, magical ly
instantaneous (Granvi l le, 1841).[11]
This was luxury production, in the hundreds rather than the mi l l ions, and whi lst Playfair admired the qual i ty, and the personal
integri ty of his employer, he was soon worried that the product l ine was old-fashioned and urged a more pragmatic bus iness
approach. Within a year, Playfair was convinced that the bus iness was doomed, and he was further tested by the great labour
riots of August 1842 as they swept over the county. Almost every mi l l had been forcibly closed and only two mi l ls , one of which
was the Thomson enterprise at Primrose, remained open. At one stage Playfair himself offered ‘to parley’ with rioters
descending on the mi l l at Oakenshaw and dissuaded them from violence (Reid, 1899, pp 54–55).
During his time in Lancashire Playfair had given several lectures at the Royal Insti tution in Manchester and was eventual ly
offered a pos ition as Honorary Professor of Chemistry. His lectures were popular and attracted large audiences, including the
elderly and legendary John Dalton (chemist, phys icist and pioneer of atomic theory) whose kindness extended to offering
Playfair presentation copies of Dalton’s key scienti fic works (Reid, 1899, p 57). During this period Playfair a lso befriended
James Joule, a pioneer of thermodynamics , another leading l ight in Manchester’s l ively scienti fic culture (Reid, 1899, p 73).
Figure 14
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
The Royal Insti tution in Manchester
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/027
However, Playfair’s eagerness to develop a wider scienti fic l i fe caused friction with his employer, a l though these tens ions are
entirely absent from Playfair’s own account of this episode in his l i fe (Bud, 1980).[12]
Thomson had offered Playfair a salary that was generous in comparison with those paid by other mi l l owners and this may
have reflected his two hobby horses: the high qual i ty of the laboratory and l ibrary he had created, and a control l ing atti tude to
Playfair’s research. Thomson had fought a successful campaign for the copyright protection of his upmarket des igns and
Playfair wrote to Liebig with the wry note that his employer would not a l low him to publ ish anything that Thomson could ‘turn
to account’ (Bud, 1980). Playfair a lso wrote to his friend Andrew Ramsay suggesting that ‘I expect a blowing up for having given
that lecture in Manchester as he is dreadful ly jealous about my thoughts turning to pure science’ (Playfair, 1842).
Playfair later res igned from the Thomson bus iness and shortly thereafter i t folded, as he had feared. Whi lst his third venture
into bus iness , after his unhappy experiences in Glasgow and Calcutta, had not been successful , he later reflected that this
experience of manufacturing was to stand him in good stead and I suggest that this empathy with the world of bus iness was to
prove invaluable in the practical i ties concerning manufacturing submiss ions for the Great Exhibition.
1842 was a troubl ing year for Playfair. Whi lst the professorship at the Royal Insti tution offered a scienti fic l i fe, i t was unpaid,
and he had just res igned from the Thomson works . He reflected in his Memoirs that he had ‘cons iderable di fficulty to make both
ends meet’ (Reid, 1899, p 59). One might speculate that Playfair’s di fficulties in bui lding a coherent and financial ly sustainable
scienti fic career might l ie at the root of his pass ion for educational reform, which was to emerge over the next decade.
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/005
Saved for England
A propitious proposal arrived just at this moment of dri fting uncertainty. In October 1842, Playfair received a most unexpected
letter from Michael Faraday, whom he had never met, but who was then at the height of his powers at the Royal Insti tution in
London.
Faraday had been asked by the Governor of Upper Canada to find a suitable candidate to fi l l the chemistry professorship at
King’s Col lege, Toronto; and Thomas Graham had recommended Playfair to Faraday. The offer, both in terms of salary,
accommodation and laboratories was very tempting (PCP, 1842). Playfair went up to London to see Faraday and indicated that
he was minded to accept.
This development provoked some consternation at the most senior levels of the scienti fic establ ishment, for such a departure
might be a grave loss to the country’s intel lectual capital (Reid, 1899, p 80).[13] Henry de la Beche fi red off an urgent note to the
geologist Wi l l iam Buckland urging him to lobby the Prime Minister about such a serious matter because ‘i f Playfair i s to be
saved for England, there is no time to lose’ (PCP, 1842).[14] Buckland duly acted and so Playfair found himself receiving a
personal invi tation from the Prime Minister, Si r Robert Peel , to vis i t him at his country seat, Drayton Manor. It was quite a
gathering for a lso in attendance were Buckland, the Duke of Newcastle and several leading figures in the agricultural world
(Reid, 1899, p 59).[15] Peel urged him to stay in the country and assured Playfair that he would ‘make i t his duty to obtain for
me employment i f any vacancy occurred which he might think suitable to my abi l i ties ’ (Reid, 1899, p 60). Playfair duly decl ined
the Canadian offer, and a new chapter in his career was to begin.
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/006
‘Consultant chemist to the government’
Figure 15
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
Sir Henry de la Beche, 1848
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/028
Playfair resumed his honorary professorship in Manchester, but soon the scienti fic and pol i tical world sought out his ta lents ,
through a mix of specia l commiss ions and permanent appointments . Although never given such a ti tle, one might be taken by
Robert Bud’s neat characterisation of his role as the national ‘consultant chemist’ of choice in ful fi lment of Peel ’s assurances
and commitment (Bud and Roberts , 1984).
His fi rst opportunity came in spring 1843 on being appointed, sti l l aged only 25, to the Royal Commiss ion inquiring into the
health and sanitation of large towns. Its membership was highly prestigious, for i ts pres ident was the Duke of Buccleuch, with
other members including Sir Henry de la Beche, Robert Stephenson and Wi l l iam Cubitt (Reid, 1899, p 64). Playfair was
congratulated on his appointment by Si r James Graham, then Home Secretary (Reid, 1899, p 87; PCP, 1842).
Being based in Manchester a l lowed Playfair to concentrate his research ini tia l ly on Lancastrian towns. It was an arduous
undertaking as he researched an ambitious cross section of towns to achieve a representative picture of health in an
industria l i s ing county (Report of the Commissioners for Inquiry into the State of Large Towns and Populous Districts, 1844).[16] The
norm was for the report to have a s ingle investigator, but he was a lso cal led upon to jointly author, with De la Beche, the report
on Bristol (De la Beche and Playfair, 1845). Their report confronted mortal i ty levels inferior only to Liverpool and Manchester,
and this a l l iance of geologist and chemist produced a remarkable survey that embraces geography, cl imate, flooding, sewerage,
scavengering (searching for usable discarded waste), population distribution and early in-roads into epidemiology. The report
is replete with vivid prose:
In Cl i fton, though chiefly composed of handsome houses, inhabited by persons of affluent and easy ci rcumstances, the
want of sanitation is deplorable. Ranges of handsome houses, otherwise wel l appointed, have nothing but a system of
cesspools (De la Beche and Playfair, 1845).
Figure 16
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
Geological colour mapping from the Health Commiss ion report on Bristol
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/029
With Playfair gaining respect and recognition, he seemed to be needed everywhere. When the Bri tish Association for the
Advancement of Science voted to support a major research project into the efficiency of the chemical operation of blast
furnaces for i ron, they invited Professor Robert Bunsen, the other greater Continental chemist ranking with Liebig, to undertake
this in conjunction with Playfair. It was a major project, and Playfair and Bunsen col laborated closely through s i te inspections
and correspondence, and Playfair’s faci l i ty with German was also much valued by the professor (PCP, 1842).[17] The report was
completed in 1845, with the startl ing conclus ion that in i ron furnaces worked with coal , more than 80 per cent of valuable fuel
escaped as gases and was thus wasted.
Figure 17
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
Professor Robert Bunsen
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/030
Given his close connections to the science and practical i ties of geology, i t was hardly surpris ing that mining inquiries should
feature in Playfair’s portfol io. After a major explos ion at a mine at Jarrow in 1845, in which 40 men died, Playfair and De la
Beche were commiss ioned to investigate the composition of fi redamp (methane). De la Beche was unable to vis i t the mines and
so Playfair vis i ted alone. It required some courage, and indeed the mine shaft was sti l l hiss ing as he was about to embark on a
descent. On his return to the surface ‘we found three miners in working dress who told us that they did not expect us to come up
al ive’ (Reid, 1899, pp 96–97). Furthermore, in an echo of his vivid experience during the Lancashire mi l l riots , he was a lso asked
to intercede in a looming strike of col l iers in the Newcastle area and his arbitration settled the dispute.
Figure 18
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
The dangerous world of mining and fi redamp
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/031
The cal ls on Playfair’s time covered a wide spectrum, ranging from the absurd to tragic. One task was to undertake a review of
the condition of Buckingham Palace. The monarchical home was in a very poor state, with a great sewer running through the
courtyard and highly toxic charcoal fi res creating fumes directly below the royal nurseries . Whi lst the faults were recti fied, the
government never dared publ ish the ful l report for fear of the outcry (Reid, 1899, p 94).
Though the condition of the palace was serious, this task pales in comparison with the Irish Potato famine at i ts outbreak in
1845. Playfair was summoned to Drayton Manor to give his gloomy prognosis to the Prime Minister, with the chemist being
clear (both before and after a vis i t to Ireland) that he could not offer a remedy for the disease, and only an estimate of i ts
magnitude. Playfair argues plaus ibly that the brutal real i ties were wel l understood and forti fied Peel in his (at the time
unsuccessful ) attempt to get the cabinet to amend the Corn Laws (Reid, 1899, pp 98–199).
Despite such hectic activi ty across a range of pol i tical and socia l i ssues, Playfair was steadi ly bui lding a structure to his
scienti fic career too, the fi rst step of which was his appointment, by Peel , to the pos ition of Chemist to the Geological Survey in
1845. The survey had been founded by De la Beche in 1835, who had then gone on to create the Museum of Practical Geology in
1837 and i ts l ibrary in 1843. This appointment had i ts origins in earl ier manoeuvring by Buckland and De la Beche at the time
of the Playfair dinner at Draycott Manor in 1842. As Reid points out, whi lst no formal record of the encounter was made, an
extraordinary memorandum, in Peel ’s own hand, does survive in which he notes their hope that Richard Phi l l ips at the Museum
of Practical Geology might be induced to depart from his post on a voluntary bas is , thus creating employment for Playfair (Reid,
1899, p 81; PCP, 1842). However, Phi l l ips did not take the hint and remained in post for two more years and i t was only his
reti rement that made way for Playfair. Both the Survey and Museum were in Craig’s Court, Charing Cross , with a laboratory at
Playfair’s disposal in Duke Street, Westminster.
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/007
London and the chemistry world
By now Playfair was l iving in the capital and sharing rooms with his friend Andrew Ramsay, near the Consumption Hospital in
Fulham.
It was an exceptional ly promis ing period for chemistry, especial ly with the foundation of the Royal Col lege of Chemistry in
1845, which offered the fi rst proper system of chemical instruction and investigation. Chemistry was suddenly a fashionable
subject, thanks in part to Liebig’s tour of 1842 and i ts high estimation amongst major landowners . Encouragement was
forthcoming from Prince Albert and Sir James Clark, the Queen’s phys ician and by then a good friend of Playfair. The Royal
Col lege opened in modest premises in Hanover Square and ‘soon enjoyed a reputation quite out of proportion to i ts s ize’
(Cardwel l , 1972). It was a lso a victory for the Giessen ci rcle because August Hofmann, who had studied under Liebig at the same
time as Playfair, was appointed as i ts fi rst director.
Figure 19
© Wel lcome Col lection
The home of the Royal Col lege of Chemistry
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/032
In the same reforming year, the Geological Survey and Museum of Practical Geology moved into new premises in Jermyn Street.
It has been suggested that such a move was partly a response to the urgent reforms recommended in recent mining reports by
Faraday and Playfair, as wel l as recognition of the need for more scienti fic methods in the industry (Cardwel l , 1972). The ful l
logic of the new s i te was real ised in 1851 when both parts were uni fied under the banner of the Royal School of Mines. De la
Beche remained as Principal , with Playfair lecturing on appl ied chemistry and Ramsay on geology. Indeed, the fi rst two
sess ions (1851 and 1852) were notable for the exceptional qual i ty of Playfair’s lectures and the distinguished audience.
Playfair’s calming diplomacy was now in regular demand, and in 1848 (the year he became a Fel low of the Royal Society) he
was asked to prepare a fi rst draft of the Chemical Society’s charter. This offered the opportunity of reconci l ing two diverging
camps, between those who argued that ‘appl ied science’ was the appl ication in industry of the theories of pure chemistry, and
an al ternative view (certainly held by Playfair) that appl ied science i tsel f could be an academic subject (Bud, 1980). Debate
about the purpose of chemistry was crucia l in the nineteenth century as chemistry was largely synonymous with science i tsel f,
and i t was fel t to encompass the study of ‘pure’ and ‘appl ied’ science and continual ly expected to mediate between them (Bud,
1980). At this point Playfair was a respected chemist and ‘useful man’, and yet the scale of his contribution to national l i fe was
soon to move to a higher gear.
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/008
‘Into the full blaze of light’
Reid described the next chapter in Playfair’s career as one in which he now came ‘into the ful l blaze of l ight that beats upon men
who are engaged in national affa irs of the widest interest’ (Reid, 1899, p 111). By 1850, Playfair had earned a cons iderable
reputation, not least with Robert Peel . Reid suggests that Playfair was valued as a man of tact, ins ight and industriousness and
‘a wonderful power of surmounting di fficulties that would have proved formidable to most men’, a l though his name was known
primari ly in scienti fic ci rcles a lone (Reid, 1899, pp 109–110).
In 1850 Playfair was much engaged in his cons iderable commitments to lecturing and government commiss ions and only kept
an outs ider’s eye on the preparations for the Great Exhibition. He played no part in i ts inception or the original preparations,
and yet was about to be recruited to the cause. The project was to be del ivered by a Royal Commiss ion – compris ing the most
eminent men of commerce, industry and pol i tics – and with an Executive Committee compris ing Henry Cole, Si r Wentworth Di lke,
Francis Ful ler and Scott Russel l . By 1850, the enterprise was in some di fficulty because ‘the industria l classes hung back’ and
did not give the Exhibition that support which was absolutely necessary for i ts success . It was in this context that Playfair was
approached by the Prime Minister, with the novel proposal of becoming a ‘Special Commiss ioner’. Playfair was to become a
member of the Executive Committee and was also in attendance at the meetings of the Commiss ion, thus ensuring that both
bodies were en rapport (Reid, 1899, pp 112–113).
Figure 20
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
The Great Exhibition under construction, 1850
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/033
Playfair was not eas i ly persuaded to accept. The personal jealous ies between the two committees were wel l known, and even a
cursory glance might suggest a number of tens ions: aristocrats versus merchants ; town against country; mi l i tary against
civi l ian; and North versus South. Moreover, taking this role would remove him from his scienti fic work and De la Beche further
objected to a weakening of the Royal School of Mines (Norrish, 1951). Whi lst Playfair demurred, there ensued some pol i tical
arm twisting. Robert Peel , in Opposition, but a keen supporter of the Exhibition, reminded Playfair of his cla im upon his
services , and then took him for an audience with Prince Albert; and after this Playfair duly accepted his new role (Reid, 1899, p
113).
It i s hardly surpris ing that the members of the Executive Committee took umbrage at the cri ticism impl ied by this appointment
and the idea that one of their number should rank in superior confidence with the Commiss ion; indeed, i t sent Cole into a fury.
Playfair recounts that he encountered Cole marching down Whitehal l on his way to the Home Office to offer his res ignation and
that i t was only after some flattery and thoughtful discuss ions that he dissuaded him. In this account, whi lst Cole’s nose was
certainly out of joint, he was by then already in great despair at the indi fference of the manufacturers with a decided risk that
the ‘ship was s inking, and that the Exhibition would be a total fa i lure’ (Reid, 1899, p 115). Playfair suggests that he offered Cole
an assurance that he would remain ‘the mainspring of the Exhibition from fi rst to last’ and that Playfair would confine his work
to the problematic manufacturing centres .
However, i t could be argued that the recruitment of Playfair reflected very real problems of which Cole himself was the source.
In his commanding history of the Great Exhibition, Jeffrey Auerbach argues that ‘the fact i s that Cole i rri tated those he worked
with’ and was fa l l ing out with key figures in the organisation. By early 1850, Cole was far from indispensable to the project and
Auerbach suggests that from spring 1850 onwards i t was Charles Wentworth Di lke and Playfair who are largely responsible for
the organisational success that i t was (Auerbach, 1999).
In his new role Playfair set about unravel l ing a Gordian knot that had become the major impediment to the project. The
Exhibition was burdened with a logical but impractical class i fication system that appeared to be ‘the chief cause of the want of
sympathy between the promoters and the manufacturers ’:
1. The Raw Materia ls of Industry
2. The Manufactures made from them
3. The Art employed to adorn them
As Playfair records diplomatical ly ‘the phi losophical mind of the Prince Consort held tenacious ly to this class i fication’, but i t
was clearly bemusing because al l classes of objects to be displayed ran into each other in every manufacture. Thus, i ron ore
was a raw materia l for cast i ron, and that in turn was a raw materia l for industries in i ron (Reid, 1899, pp 115–116).
Playfair devised a whol ly di fferent scheme, which divided the manufacturers into 29 classes , which were then subdivided into
subsections representing the distinct industries . After laborious consultation, and one imagines some careful handl ing of the
Prince, i t was duly and warmly adopted. The ful l catalogue does indeed show the compel l ing logic of the system. And i t i s
interesting to see Playfair’s mental world at play because the running order, whi lst not intended to suggest rank or priori ty,
nevertheless opens with Mining and Mineral Products and is fol lowed with Chemical and Pharmaceutical Products (Great
Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations: Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue, 1851).
This was an important achievement and yet in spring 1850 – only a year before the royal opening in May 1851 – the Exhibition
was far from securing enthus iasm, subscriptions and displays from large parts of i ts own country. As Auerbach comments ,
promoting the venture would take more than a central ised narrative because ‘promoting the exhibition required more than
s imply giving speeches, putting up posters or uti l i s ing the press ’ (Auerbach, 1999). Central to any hope of success would be
persuading and charming a complex network of provincia l committees. From 1849 onwards, these had been created by the
Royal Society of Arts and a daunting 297 were in place by the time Playfair came on board (Auerbach, 1999).
In theory, a crucia l connection between the local committees and the Executive Committee were the ‘local commiss ioners ’
appointed by the Executive Committee but resented local ly as ‘outs iders ’ in proud places l ike Manchester, where the issue was
the subject of tart editoria ls in the Manchester Guardian (Auerbach, 1999). By contrast, the local ly appointed secretaries to each
committee could be highly effective once recruited as a l l ies . Clearly, there was a most press ing need for the Executive Committee
to send emissaries on a national charm offens ive.
Whi lst Playfair exceeded al l expectations in this endeavour, i t should be remembered that he was joined in the task by a second
Special Commiss ioner. Playfair’s Memoirs inadvertently give the impress ion that Playfair a lone enjoyed such an appointment
and indeed his counterpart i s enti rely miss ing from the relevant extract in his chapter on the Great Exhibition (Reid, 1899, p
112). It i s a surpris ing omiss ion because Playfair was normal ly unfai l ingly courteous in acknowledging the contributions of
others , and the Commiss ioner involved was a man of such interest that his inclus ion would seem natural . The second Special
Commiss ion was Lieutenant-Colonel John Augustus Lloyd. He had served as captain of the engineers for Simón Bol ívar (l iberator
of Colombia) and on his return became a Fel low of the Royal Society and a scientist for the Admiralty. To those who had
assembled this dream duo, including Robert Peel , they seemed an ideal partnership given their great breath of knowledge,
experience and connections at home and abroad (Auerbach, 1999, p 71).
Playfair and Lloyd divided the country between them, heading North and South respectively, and in due course turned the tide of
indi fference and opposition (Auerbach, 1999, pp 72–73). They were bui lding upon the earl ier 1849 national tour by Cole, Ful ler
and Wyatt to canvas subscriptions, the success of which had been hampered by ambiguity about the Prince’s role and the
content priori ties of the project (Bonython and Burton, 2003, p 118).
The archives of the Royal Commiss ion for the Exhibition of 1851 are ful l of letters and reports evidencing the effectiveness of
Playfair’s di l igence. He was justly proud of his endeavours in Sheffield where one vis i t, compris ing five 18-hour days , bore
instant fruit. Here his pi tch was to appeal to local pride and the opportunity to confi rm that Sheffield cutlery was sti l l of the
finest cal ibre; and the number of exhibits duly rose from 150 to 296, and the amount of exhibition space rose from 5,000 to
13,700 square feet. Playfair wrote to Lord Granvi l le procla iming that ‘from a fa i lure, Sheffield has become a complete success ’
(Auerbach, 1999, p 73).
Figure 21
© Sheffield City Archives
The world’s greatest cutlery from Sheffield
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/034
In al l his forays , Playfair was most adept at symbol ism and flattery. One persuas ive technique was the ci rculation of l i ttle red
leather books, in which promoters and subscribers could s ign their names. The books appealed to civic pride and vanity, not
least because the cover, which contained the royal seal , was embossed in gold. Whi lst the innovation was not his , Playfair
knew how to deploy i t with great effect (Auerbach, 1999, pp 73–74).
He certainly needed a bag of tricks , for the northern towns viewed the project with very di fferent degrees of enthus iasm. There
was great suspicion of the Exhibition in Liverpool , for example, where objections included: that i t was a cynical front for the
Free Trade movement; that i t was government propaganda; and that i t would scarcely further the profi le of a non-manufacturing
town, unl ike i ts great rival Manchester (Auerbach, 1999, pp 79–80). Playfair’s s trategy was to secure the backing of the Liverpool
Mercury and i ts owner Mrs Egerton Smith. The persuas ion worked because the paper ‘vi rtual ly shamed the ci ty into supporting
the Exhibition’ and pointed out that the Exhibition would also celebrate merchants , retai lers and traders as wel l as
manufacturers . The plan worked perfectly, with the ci ty sending a magnificent 44-foot long model of the Liverpool Docks (at a
cost of £1,000) and a large display of imports (Catalogue of the Great Exhibition, 1851). Not unreasonably, Playfair bel ieved that
the ci ty had been ‘thoroughly awakened’ by his efforts .
Figure 22
© Hathi Trust
One of the centrepieces of the Exhibition, the grand model of the Liverpool Docks
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/035
The Executive Committee lacked any clear plan or pol icy for the Celtic nations, but due to his native connections Playfair was
able to do good work in Scotland, especial ly in Edinburgh and Glasgow. The former ranked in the top ten committees for
amounts ra ised whi le Glasgow ranked fourth and had the highest subscription per subscriber (Auerbach, 1999, pp 84–85).
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/009
The Great Exhibition and recognition
Playfair was intricately involved in the practical i ties of display, as the Paxton bui lding started to rise in Hyde Park. Indeed, the
real work was probably a welcome distraction from the unending pol i tical battles , especial ly those in the press for, as he
comments rueful ly in his Memoirs, ‘even then the great croakers would not cease to frighten the publ ic’. Al l forms of doom were
predicted: a great influx of foreign vis i tors bringing epidemics such as cholera; immigrants us ing their vis i t as a pretext to sack
the capital ; and the destruction of domestic industry aris ing from a new craze for foreign goods (Reid, 1899, pp 118–121).
As exhibits arrived from across the country, Playfair and Lloyd ensured that the local committees were given cons iderable
discretion over selecting exhibits and al locating space (Auerbach, 1999, p 92). Playfair a lso real ised that i t was hard to
generate des ign for the raw materia ls sections and encouraged exhibitors to des ign i l lustrations for mining and extraction
processes – rather than s imply offer up a lump of coal (Auerbach, 1999, p 99).
His duties a lso extended to superintending the awards of the juries , a l though disputes between national juries were inevitable.
He acquired the nickname ‘Stormy Petrel ’ because his appearance denoted a s immering dispute where his ‘tact and judgement’
were needed to remove some di fficulty (Reid, 1899, p 121). Playfair found himself a lso cal led upon as tour guide during the
numerous vis i ts by the Queen, Prince and royal chi ldren, which the Princess Victoria (later German Empress) recal led as a
‘particularly bright chi ld’. In October 1851, the Prince’s private secretary, Colonel Grey, wrote to Playfair enclos ing portrai ts of
the royal chi ldren sent in grati tude (PCP, 1851).[18] His intimacy with the royal ci rcle is captured in one of the depictions of the
Royal Fami ly vis i ting the Bri tish Nave, for Playfair’s diminutive and bespectacled presence can be seen at the back and right of
the party.
Figure 23
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library
Playfair and the Royals – accompanying the Royal Party on a tour of the Bri tish Nave
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/036
Whi lst the portrai ts were a charming gesture, more s igni ficant was a letter from the Prince himself, asking Playfair to become a
Gentleman Usher. The current incumbent, Colonel Reid, was to become Governor of Malta, and the Prince hoped that accepting
this office would be seen ‘as an express ion of my sense of the abi l i ty and zeal with which you have performed very important
and di fficult duties ’. Playfair accepted this honour but decl ined a knighthood offered by the government, preferring to accept the
Companionship of the Bath (CB) instead (Reid, 1899, pp 123–124).
Playfair might wel l have known that his rise was res isted by some in the establ ished order. Si r Charles Phipps, a Yorkshire
aristocrat and equerry to the Prince, protested that whi lst Playfair was a learned chemist and respected publ ic lecturer, none of
these achievements could compensate for his lack of aristocratic l ineage. In a letter of unstinting snobbery, he argued that
Playfair should not become a Gentleman Usher because Playfair would lower the tone of the Court for he was ‘a man of low
birth, ordinary appearance and uncouth manner’.[19] Fortunately, Prince Albert stuck to his judgement of Playfair’s merits , but
the incident reminds us that the chemist could be seen as an i rksome and disruptive figure in his early career.
Figure 24
© Royal Col lection Trust
Sir Charles Phipps, an equerry to Prince Albert
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/037
Playfair was enjoying a sophisticated status that marked acceptance within the ci rcles of the best society. He was a regular
dinner guest of Lord Granvi l le, at Carl ton House Terrace, with other members of the cabinet. And he also dined with the art
col lector and phi lanthropist Lady Ashburton, with fel low guests such as Thackeray, Carlyle, Tennyson and Dickens (Reid, 1899,
pp 157–158). He was on great terms with the last, exchanging amusing correspondence about the peri ls of a publ ic profi le, and
indeed Dickens was to take a keen interest in some of the educational reforms central to the next chapter of Playfair’s l i fe (PCP,
1854).[20]
Figure 25
© Carlyle's House, Chelsea (The National Trust); NTPL/John Hammond
The eminent socia l hostess , Lady Ashburton
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/038
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/010
The struggle for reform
The Great Exhibition ran from May unti l October 1851. Its huge populari ty was evident from the start, and the projected
financial success encouraged i ts commiss ioners to turn their minds at once to i ts legacy. In this optimistic mood, Playfair
seemed destined to be a major player in educational reform, given his vi ta l role in the success of the Exhibition, close affini ty
and access to Prince Albert, and what Si r Thomas Wemyss Reid described as his ‘superabundant energy’ (Reid, 1899, p 111).
However, the years 1851–8 showed that there was far less consensus around the prospectus for change and these years were
fraught with frustrations for Playfair. There were certainly some successes , but he also met res istance born of vested interests
or straightforward apathy, and his own tendency towards distraction through numerous ini tiatives .
The crucia l s tarting point i s a memorandum penned by Prince Albert in August 1851 in which he outl ined his concept for the
creation of an insti tution embracing the major sections of the Exhibition (raw materia ls , machinery, manufacturing and the
plastic arts), which would devote i tsel f to the industria l pursuits of a l l nations. He outl ined his own understanding of human
knowledge progress and thus:
If I examine what are the means by which improvement and progress can be obtained in any branches of human
knowledge, I find them to cons ist of four:
First: Personal study from books
Second: Oral communication of knowledge by those who possess i t to those who wish to acquire i t
Third: Acquis i tion of knowledge by ocular observation, comparison and demonstration
Fourth: Exchange of ideas by personal discuss ion (Reid, 1899, p 131)[21]
Beyond this abstruse introduction, so typical of the Prince’s heavy style, the document proceeds to describe the practical need
for a l ibrary, lecture rooms, exhibitions and seminar rooms. As in the vexed issue of how the exhibits were to be class i fied in
the Exhibition, the Prince could be both theoretical and fixed in his notions. Indeed, Benjamin Disrael i was to remark that Albert
was rather over-educated and ‘something of a pedant and theorist’ (Bryant, 2011).
Whi lst Albert i s the nominal author of this framework, one can trace the influence of others throughout. There are Playfair
echoes, especial ly in the urging that a great nation must move beyond i ts natural advantages in raw materia ls , deploying ski l l
and intel l igence too. By now Playfair was spending many hours with the Prince, especial ly at Windsor and Osborne House,
helping him shape his ideas. However, the memorandum was almost certainly a l l -embracing in i ts ambition, and i ts
international ism was bound to be i rksome to the domestic reader and so ‘long and weary months were spent in discuss ing the
manner in which the Prince’s good intentions could be carried into practical effect’ (Reid, 1899, p 134).
Later in the same month, Playfair wrote to De la Beche, tel l ing him that the Prince had been persuaded to postpone publ ication
of the scheme as i t was ‘not sufficiently mature for publ ic adoption’. However, Playfair then outl ines crisply his own plan that
would include expanding the pre-existing schools of des ign to include other branches of knowledge. These would be united with
a Univers i ty of Mines and Manufacturers in London, empowered to grant degrees and diplomas. The existing Museum of
Practical Geology would embrace metal l ic manufactures , and the whole enterprise would be ‘one great central col lege’ with a
further counterpart created for the texti le industry. Playfair concludes that:
The ideas are sti l l practical ly crude, and must be much modified to take with the publ ic; though as they are certainly
founded on truth, they wi l l certainly be the ultimate ones adopted (Reid, 1899, p 135).[22]
However, Playfair’s cocksure confidence was to encounter dissent and often outright defeat. The veteran De la Beche was
instantly hosti le to the proposal and fi rmly res isted any attempt to ‘general ise’ his insti tution (Bud, 1980). Playfair had no
greater luck when he attempted to revive his proposal in 1855, shortly after the death of De la Beche. The aristocratic geologist
Roderick Murchison became the new Director and declared that the insti tution must remain solely focused on geology and
mining because ‘the affi l iated sciences are a l l subordinate to that fundamental point’ (Bud, 1980, pp 90–91).
Playfair a lso encountered intrans igence when promoting the easy logic of expanding the remit of the existing des ign schools .
This network was a lready fi rmly in place and to Playfair i t seemed obvious that these might be a sure foundation for a uni fied
curriculum, in comparison to the risky birth of a paral lel set of scienti fic col leges. In 1835, a government-approved select
committee had examined des ign education and i ts 1836 report had led to the formation of the Government Schools of Des ign.
Founded in 1837, the central school in London supported regional schools and Wi l l iam Dyce had been appointed
Superintendent of them in 1838 (Bryant, 2011).
The attempt to colonise the des ign schools provoked some bickering between Playfair and Cole. At fi rst, Playfair seemed to hold
al l the cards because in January 1852 he cal led on Cole with Edward Cardwel l , the new Pres ident of the Board of Trade. They
had been to see Prince Albert the previous day (Playfair assuring Cole, implaus ibly, that his omiss ion from the meeting was
unintentional ) and had now come to tel l Cole that a new department was mooted that would embrace science as wel l as art
(Bonython and Burton, 2003, p 158). Playfair maintained the pressure and in February he took Cole a long to Buckingham Palace
where the Prince outl ined his support for more industria l education, which would mean an evolution of the existing Department
of Practical Art (a Cole creation). Sure enough, the Prince used his influence, probably at Playfair’s behest, to ensure that the
Department was transferred into the creation of March 1853: the Department of Science and Art. Cole was to be Secretary for Art
and Playfair the equivalent for Science (Burton, 1999, p 43).
Cole did not record his feel ings about being presented with such a fait accompli, but one might surmise. And the annoyance was
one of taste, as much as dignity, for neither Cole nor his great a l ly Richard Redgrave were keen on science infi l trating their
empire because ‘Science was at present incubus to art’ (Bonython and Burton, 2003, p 158). Indeed, Cole continued to pitch this
viewpoint by objecting, with no success , to the decis ion to place Science before Art in the department ti tle, arguing that Art
should take precedence because i t was more popular (Butterworth, 1968).
Playfair continued to badger his opposite number, but to no avai l . Typical of his nettled tone was a letter to Cole in 1853:
Your colours as wel l as your glazes are chemical appl iances requiring as much practical ski l l as knowledge, that men of
abstract science are insufficient to improve them greatly, but practical men acquainted with Science would exercise a
more beneficia l influence on them. Why should you not have a School of Industria l Knowledge instead of Art Only (Bud,
1980, p 90).[23]
To compound Playfair’s ministry squabbles , he also risked the wrath of suspicious rel igious leaders . The frontispiece of the
catalogue for the Great Exhibition declares that ‘The Earth is the Lord’s and al l that therein Is ’ and this encapsulates the
rel igios i ty of mid-nineteenth century Bri ta in. The Church of England and the Non-Conformists were already at odds with the
government, and with each other, over the teaching of bas ic l i teracy; they were certain to be even more troubled at the prospect
of being undermined by the rise of scienti fic education (Burton, 1999, p 43). Indeed, Playfair was rebuked in two letters from
Colonel Grey, private secretary to the Prince, both for premature inclus ion of proposals for new scholarships in planning for
the legacy and for a larming the rel igious world with his eager ideas. Grey apprehended a cry of ‘godless instruction’ being
provoked by ‘any avowed educational scheme’ because the vexata questio wi l l be: by whom should the new education scheme be
conducted; and he concludes with the vivid warning that ‘once get into that troubled sea, and you are swal lowed up in the
vortex of contending parties ’ (Reid, 1899, pp 137–139).[24]
The strains of reforming battles are evident in a speech Playfair gave on prize-giving day in 1853 at Sheffield People’s Col lege (a
mechanics insti tute) (Playfair, 1853). He urged the col lege to play i ts part in address ing the parlous lack of science fel lowships
in col leges and univers i ties . And he proceeded to offer a detai led prescription for the development of their curriculum,
suggesting that the col lege be divided into lower and upper divis ions, with the students moving into the latter to focus on maths,
mechanics , phys ics , chemistry and technical drawing. Unfortunately, whi lst classes on chemistry were added the fol lowing
year, a major reorientation of teaching never happened (Bud, 1980, p 91). Indeed, some have observed that exhortations of this
kind indicate a larm from those who would get things done, but i ts efficacy in achieving those ends is less apparent (Cardwel l ,
1972, p 82).
This speech shows two markedly di fferent s ides to Playfair: pass ionate rational ist, and styl ish orator. Playfair fights his
current foes and rel igious objections to scienti fic teaching by asserting ‘I have neither sympathy with their fears , nor
incl ination to argue the point with them’. And as persuader, his fla i r i s much in evidence with a witty entreaty to shake off
inertia because:
It i s surely wise to cons ider i f we are advancing with the progress of events for i t we do not, depend upon i t that we shal l ,
l ike Rip Van Winkle, awake one morning to find that we are a generation behind (Playfair, 1853, p 12; p 4).
Playfair was speaking in October and in the same month Bri ta in was to join France in fighting Russ ian terri toria l ambitions in
the Crimean War. The war lasted unti l 1856 and must have distracted the body pol i tic from educational reform at home.
Playfair remarks that i t ‘heavi ly taxed the nation’ and so i t i s surpris ing that i ts restraints on national appeti te and resources
for educational reform is enti rely absent from the accounts of Bud, Burton and Cardwel l .
In his own account of this period Playfair a lso reveals his tendency to distraction and stubbornness , happy to use his influence
with the Prince to bombard the Master of Ordnance with a wide range of ‘helpful ’ suggestions. These included the proposal for a
shel l containing cyanide of cacodyl , which would be launched between the decks of enemy ships and poison the men i f they
remained at their guns. Playfair vents his grievance when this idea is rejected for being as dishonourable as poisoning the
wel ls of the enemy (Reid, 1899, p 159).
Playfair’s biographer understood that these were puzzl ing years for Playfair because whi lst his diplomatic ski l l s had served
him wel l in the discreet persuas ion of powerful men, they were less rel iable when deal ing with a wider range of publ ic opinion
and so ‘i t was not unnatural that he should under-estimate the di fficulties of the task which lay before him in moving an inert
publ ic opinion in favour of a grand scheme of practical education’ (Reid, 1899, p 136).
And yet Playfair harboured a crisp and urgent vis ion, from which he was not to be eas i ly deflected. He was in no doubt that
technical education was in a very backward state and that arous ing publ ic attention was essentia l ; and the task ahead was
daunting for there were no col leges of science other than Owens Col lege in Manchester and the Andersonian in Glasgow, as wel l
as a few schools of navigation in the seaports . One might respect his honest assessment that:
I began a crusade in favour of technical education. It was weary and dreary work. My voice sounded to mysel f as the voice
of one preaching in the wi lderness (Reid, 1899, p 152).
A compel l ing example of Playfair’s advocacy, and a scientist’s hankering for evidence, was his determination to vis i t France,
Hol land, Belgium, Austria, Scandinavia, Pruss ia, Bavaria and the Grand Duchy of Baden to investigate their systems of technical
education. Although i t was entirely his own ini tiative and thanks to the impeccable international connections he had made at
the Great Exhibition, the field trip had the air of a government miss ion with Playfair afforded al l poss ible access and courtesy
by manufacturers and governments a l ike (Reid, 1899, p 149).
His fieldwork was duly publ ished as Industrial Instruction on The Continent, and i t provided the bas is for the opening lecture of
the 1852–53 sess ion of the Museum of Practical Geology; an event attended by leading figures in the pol i tical and wider
establ ishment. Playfair had great fa i th in the polytechnic approach and his model insti tution is clearly the École Centrale des
Arts et Manufactures , founded in Paris in 1829 by the industria l i s t Alphonse Laval lée. Here aspiring manufacturers were taught
by eminent scientists (Bud, 1980, p 87). Playfair spent a great deal of time observing classes where students were taught
mechanics , engineering, metal lurgy, and chemistry; and des ign and drawing too. His report praises the international
background of the students and their ready employment on graduation, and he clearly saw them as the ‘doctors ’ of European
factories , mi l l s and agriculture (Industrial Instruction on the Continent, 1852).
According profess ional respect to these ‘new’ men would have meant much to Playfair because in his major lecture on the
lessons to be learned from the Great Exhibition he had rai led against the entrenched snobberies :
We are remarkably unchangeable. Three Profess ions, the Church, the Law and Medicine, were supposed some centuries
s ince, to represent learning and, with a wonderful bl indless , they are sti l l accepted as a l l -sufficient (Playfair, 1851, p
204).
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/011
Better fortune in 1855
Profess ional matters fared rather better for Playfair in 1855 because the year saw the fruition of two important projects in
which he had invested time and prestige.
First, he had been greatly encouraged in early 1853 by receiving a delegation from a committed band of pol i ticians and local
dignitaries , led by local lawyer and pol i tical Arthur Rylance, seeking his ass istance in the creation of a new technical insti tute
for Birmingham. Playfair vis i ted in May, and whi lst he stressed that the department could not commit to general funding, i t
would cons ider a minimum salary guarantee for teachers unti l the proposed Insti tute could be sel f-financing, and he also
offered a large discount on scienti fic apparatus (Waterhouse, 1954). Much encouraged, the committee organised a Town Hal l
meeting, which Cole attended on behalf of Playfair, and at which he stressed the need for the new body to be sel f-financing, not
holding out a ‘begging bowl’ and making an exceptional effort to embrace the educational needs of working classes in a ci ty
with a poor record in elementary education (Waterhouse, 1954, p 16).
The cl imax of this fi rst year was to be three nights of readings at the Town Hal l by Charles Dickens, an idea the author had
himself proposed because the education of working men was a cause dear to him, and the pol i tical decis ions on the proposed
site, which enabled the required Act of Parl iament to pass in June 1854 (Waterhouse, 1954, p 18; p 20). Doubtless Playfair was
also impressed by the dedication of the local Artisans Committee, which stressed how ordinary working men (‘Adult Operatives ’
in their words) had missed out on so much education and needed training in elementary science. Playfair wrote to the
committee prais ing their rigour for ‘everywhere systematic instruction in science and art i s being pushed as ide by an
unconnected series of the most desultory lectures ’ (Waterhouse, 1954, p 27).
Figure 27
© Birmingham Conservation Trust
Charles Dickens at a publ ic reading and fundraiser
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/040
Birmingham had been a keen participant in the Great Exhibition and such pedigree, and the pioneering spiri t of this new project,
meant that i t was honoured by an officia l vis i t from Prince Albert to lay the foundation stone for the new Birmingham and
Midland Insti tute, in November 1855. Playfair was intimately involved in every aspect and endured some peremptory fuss ing
from Colonel Grey about the ceremonies , on behalf of the Prince (Waterhouse, 1954, p 24; p 31).
Figure 28
Charles Grey, Private Secretary to Prince Albert
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/041
The Prince’s speeches that day were seen by many as a major statement about the future of the educational vis ion that he had
shaped with Playfair. He most tactful ly suggested, perhaps referencing the earl ier concerns bubbl ing from the rel igious
establ ishment, that i t was a duty to study the laws by which God had structured the universe (Waterhouse, 1954, pp 31–32). The
Prince also acknowledged the hope for the future because:
And most hearti ly do I join with you in congratulating the country that not even such as war as that in which we are now
engaged, ca lculated as i t i s to enl ist out warmest sympathies , and to engage our more immediate interest, can divert
Engl ishmen from the noble work of fostering the arts of peace (author’s i ta l ics ) (Waterhouse, 1954, p 31).
Figure 29
Prince Albert laying the Foundation Stone for the Birmingham and Midland Insti tute,
1855
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/042
The Insti tute started to offer penny lectures for working class men and women from 1856, wel l before i ts splendid new bui lding
opened on Paradise Street. This would have grati fied Playfair because one of his recurring complaints was that the successful
spread of the des ign schools had been enabled by their access to wealthy patrons; and expensive daytime classes for their
chi ldren could then be used to subs idise cheap evening classes (Bud, 1980, p 91).
A second pleasure for Playfair was the creation of the fi rst national museum in Edinburgh. He was engaged in extens ive
negotiations with both the Univers i ty and City Counci l , securing col lections and free land for the project; and Parl iament duly
voted the requis i te capital and revenue funding. George Wi lson, chemist and writer, became i ts fi rst Director in 1855 (Reid,
1899, p 151). Playfair describes Wi lson as an old friend and fel low student for he had been an ass istant to Thomas Graham at
the same time as Playfair (Hartog, 2004). Playfair had enjoyed free reign to shape the Edinburgh museum whereas the emerging
South Kens ington Museum ‘was intended for art, not science’ and unti l then his only focus had been on the Museum of Practical
Geology and the Museum of Industry in Dubl in (Reid, 1899, p 151).
Playfair’s glancing comment that the South Kens ington Museum was intended for ‘art not science’ i s intriguing and raises
questions for further reflection and museological research. At i ts foundation in 1857, the Museum was a complex mixture of
themes, col lections and objectives . However, the 1860 edition of i ts Guide regrouped i ts disparate holdings into an Art Divis ion
and a Science Divis ion (Burton, 1999, p 54). One explanation could be that Playfair was to be away from London and focused on
professoria l l i fe in Edinburgh just as the Museum entered i ts ‘heroic age’; and so in referring to the predominant Art narrative
the Memoirs are speaking with hinds ight.
Whi lst Cole and Playfair are crucia l figures in the history of the Great Exhibition legacy, one might a lso cons ider the brief and
intense role of John Charles Robinson. He was curator (and later Art Referee) at the Museum over the decade from 1857; and his
voracious col lecting was to exercise a commanding influence in favour of the Art narrative. Indeed, as he boasted ‘the
legitimate art gatherings of the Museum, directly under the writer’s care and purveyance, took the lead and vis ibly emerged
from the motley, medley chaos’ (Burton, 1999, p 54; Davies , 2004). Robinson was to make a ‘thorough ransacking’ of the auction
houses and private col lections across Europe, to the point where the French government was to complain that the wel l -financed
British Museum and South Kens ington Museum were able to ‘carry off the prime pickings ’ at the 1861 sale of the outstanding art
col lection of Prince Soltykoff (Burton, 1999, p 63; p 65).
It might be argued that even i f Playfair had stayed at the Department his influence on this trend would be ci rcumscribed by
respect for Cole, and the sheer audacity of Robinson. Even Cole struggled to contain insubordination and an undue pass ion for
antiquarianism over the modern, and so Robinson was eventual ly dismissed in 1867 (Burton, 1999, p 71). Robinson’s legacy
was to be the foundation of the one of the world’s greatest Medieval col lections, including such treasures as the El tenberg
Rel iquary.
Figure 30
© Victoria and Albert Museum, London
The Eltenberg Rel iquary and John Charles Robinson
DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/043
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/012
Heading North
The busy activi ties of 1855 also offered administrative reform, and further honours for Playfair. The joint working of the
competing Secretaries of Art and Science was replaced in a new department structure (no longer under the Board of Trade, and
now transferred to the Education Department of the Privy Counci l ) with Playfair as Secretary and Cole as Inspector-General
(Burton, 1999, p 142). Playfair’s s tanding was further augmented by his appointment as a commiss ioner for the fi rst great
international exhibition in Paris (Burton, 1999, p 161). Within his scienti fic realm, i t would also have been a pleasure to
become Pres ident of the Chemical Society in 1857 (Moore and Phi l ip, 1941).
However, whi lst Playfair may have been making some headway profess ional ly, his private l i fe was in cris is and satis faction
with his publ ic projects was waning. His fi rst wife was in decl ining health and died that year. Within months of his new
departmental appointment, he was cons idering applying for the Edinburgh Chair of Chemistry, had expressed an interest in the
post of Secretary to the newly formed Board of Health, and had even appl ied to be Master of the Mint (Butterworth, 1968).
In this context, i t i s not surpris ing that some senior departmental officia ls became concerned at Playfair’s frequent absences
and inattention to the minutiae of government bus iness (Butterworth, 1968, p 36). Indeed, the picture that emerges of Playfair’s
ski l l s as an administrator, a lbeit one frustrated by the opponents of reform, is mixed. He could be an innovator seeking, for
example, ways of incentivis ing the teaching of science, through proposals for a ‘payments by results ’ approach to motivate the
teachers and students (Butterworth, 1968, p 33). However, during this period and in later publ ic l i fe after 1858, some who
worked with him suggested that Playfair was not quite the efficient organiser he imagined himself to be (Butterworth, 1968, p
38).
In 1858, Playfair appl ied again for, and accepted, the Chair of Chemistry at Edinburgh Univers i ty, and left London and his
pos ition at the Education Department. He omits to record that the competition for the appointment was fierce and success was
far from assured; a l though he was eventual ly able to write to Cole of his success in a contest that has ‘risen to bloodheat and
nearly to blows’ (Correspondence of Henry Cole, 1858).[25]
Playfair offers few explanations for this bold move in his Memoirs, but there are clues in his marriage to Jean Ann Mi l l ington, a
lady of some fortune, in 1857. This greater prosperi ty had al lowed him to halve the time committed to his Inspectorate role and
return to some scienti fic research. In such propitious ci rcumstances, he was in the right frame of mind when the Edinburgh role
became vacant (Correspondence of Henry Cole, 1858, p 164). His eagerness is a lso apparent in the £1,000 of his own money he
spent on fi tting out his new univers i ty laboratory (Bud, 1980, p 91).
Burton is rather dismiss ive of this move, a l though Playfair i s for him always a minor player in the epic story of the Victoria and
Albert Museum, and he suggests that ‘Playfair did not achieve much before departing’ (Burton, 1999, pp 43–44). It i s certainly
true that Playfair regarded the creation of the South Kens ington Museum as a matter largely for Cole a lone, but Burton’s tart
assessment seems unbalanced. Indeed, in his survey of leading figures in the development of Bri ta in’s science establ ishment,
Crowther includes Playfair a longs ide the l ikes of Richard Haldane, Henry Tizard and Frederick Linderman (Crowther, 1865). For
him, Playfair has been underrated and his core argument is that he was:
The fi rst to succeed in securing for science and technology sustained cons ideration within the system of Bri tish
government. The nature and magnitude of his achievement was not ful ly grasped by his contemporaries and have become
more conspicuous only through the l ight of twentieth century experience (Crowther, 1865, p 105).
Crowther is conscious of the flaws in his case, including perceptions of Playfair as a cultish apostle of Liebig with a chemical
knowledge insufficient to explain the Irish potato bl ight; and his ubiquity on every commiss ion and report of the day (Crowther,
1865, p 106–108). And one might argue that the roots of some of his post-1851 insti tutions proved shal low: of a l l the new
science schools created, only those in Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bristol and Wigan survived beyond 1860, hampered by poor
teaching and weak finances (Cardwel l , 1972, p 89).
A l ively riposte to these reservations might be to ci te Playfair’s truly crucia l role in the success of the Great Exhibition, and al l
the educational and cultural legacies that were to flow from i t. And bes ides, sometimes achievement cannot be eas i ly assessed
in the near term, because sal ient ideas take time to root and flourish. It could be said that by cons istently advancing the value
of pursuing abstract science, Playfair was making his most strategic and resonant contribution to the Bri tish research base.
In his lecture on the lessons of the Great Exhibition, Henry Cole argued for a l i teral approach to industria l production because
‘the value of science depends on i ts practical appl ication and that, I submit, depends on what the publ ic want of i t’ (Cardwel l ,
1972, p 89). Playfair offered a witty aspirational a l ternative by suggesting that studying chemistry practical i ties a lone makes
us l i ttle better than alchemists . Indeed, he goes on to argue that ‘as soon as chemistry began to be studied for the mere sake of
abstract truth, then she deigned to reward man for his unsel fishness , by numerous col lateral results having a materia l benefi t’
(Playfair, 1852).
Playfair’s pass ionate advocacy for science, both appl ied and abstract, and the need for a robust educational system
empowering a native workforce, sti l l resonates today. In 2017, the Bri tish government publ ished i ts Industrial Strategy: building
a Britain fit for the future.[26] In extol l ing the vi rtues of a creative economy, rich in des ign and technology, i t harks back to the
concerns of Prince Albert and Playfair, for in 1852 in his lecture ‘On the National Importance of Studying Abstract with a view to
the Healthy Progress of Industry’, Lyon Playfair pronounced so vividly that:
As surely as darkness fol lows the setting of the sun, so surely wi l l England recede as a manufacturing nation, unless her
population become much more conversant with science (Playfair, 1852, p 29).
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/013
Bibliography
The Great Exhibition
Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations: official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue (London: Wi l l iam Clowes and
Sons, 1851)
Dickinson’s Comprehensive Pictures of the Great Exhibition of 1851 (London: Dickinson, Brothers , 1851), two volumes
Archives and other
Playfair, H, 1999, The Playfair Family (fami ly publ ication)
The Playfair Collection, Univers i ty of St Andrews Library, Department of Special Col lections
Royal Archives at Windsor – Quoted as RA, fol lowed by the reference
List of the Papers and Correspondence of Lyon Playfair, Imperia l Col lege Archives (and compi led in June 1967) – Quoted as PCP,
fol lowed by the reference
Correspondence of Henry Cole, Victoria and Albert Museum
Population data for 1801 and 1841:
Journal of the Statistical Society of London, March 1854, Vol 17, No 1, p 46
Dictionary of National Biography (DNB):
Graeme J N Gooday Playfair, Lyon, fi rst Baron Playfair (7 January 2016)
P J Hartog Wi lson, George (23 September 2004)
G Le G Norgate Reid, Si r Thomas Wemyss (23 September 2004)
Helen Davies , ‘Robinson, Si r John Charles (1824–1913)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford Univers i ty Press , 2004
Playfair and his circle
Reid, Thomas Wemyss
Memoirs and Correspondence of Lyon Playfair (London: Cassel l and Company, 1899)
Beche, Henry de la and Lyon Playfair
Report on the State of Bristol and Other Large Towns, Health of Towns Commiss ion, 1845 (London: Wi l l iam Clowes and Sons,
1845)
Cole, Henry
‘On the International Results of the Exhibition of 1851’, in Lectures on the Results of the Great Exhibition, del ivered before the
Royal Society of Arts , Second Series (London: David Boque, 1853), pp 419–451 (1 December 1852)
Liebig, Justus
Chemistry and its Applications to Agriculture and Physiology (London: Taylor
and Walton, 4th Edition 1847), Trans. Lyon Playfair
Playfair, Lyon
‘Analys is of the Soi l and Subsoi l of a Very Productive Field near Sutton, in
Norfolk’, 7 July 1845 (Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, Inventory
No. 156054, pp 577–578)
Playfair, Lyon
Industrial Production on the Continent: Museum of Practical Geology
Introductory Lecture for the sess ion 1852–3 (London: Eyre and Spottiswood,
1852)
Playfair, Lyon
‘The chemical principles involved in the manufacturers of the Exhibition’, in
Lectures on the Results of Great Exhibition of 1851, del ivered before the
Royal Society of Arts , Fi rst Series (London: David Boque), pp 159–208
(7 July, 1852)
Playfair, Lyon
‘On the National Importance of Studying Abstract Science with a view of the
Health Progress of Industry’, being an introductory lecture in the course of
chemistry sess ion 1851–2 (London: Museum of Practical Geology; and Eyre
and Spottiswoode, 1851)
Playfair, Lyon
Industrial Instruction on The Continent (London: Museum of Practical
Geology, 1852; and Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1852)
Playfair, Lyon
An Address to the Students and Friends of the People’s College, Sheffield, 26
October 1853 (Sheffield: Robert leader, 1853)
Secondary sources
Armstrong, Col in
‘Introduction’ to Limited Edition of Memoirs and Correspondence of Lyon Playfair (P M Pol lak, Science Reprints , Jemimavi l le,
Scotland, 1976)
Auerbach, Jeffrey
The Great Exhibition of 1851: A Nation on Display (New Haven and
London: Yale Univers i ty Press , 1999)
Bonython, El izabeth and Antony Burton
The Great Exhibitor: The Life and Work of Henry Cole (London: V&A Publ ications, 2003)
Brock, Wi l l iam H
Justus von Liebig: The Chemical Gatekeeper (Cambridge Univers i ty Press ,
1997)
Bryant, Jul ius (ed)
Art and Design for All: The Victoria and Albert Museum (London: V&A
Publ ications, 2011)
Bryant, Jul ius
Designing the V&A: The Museum as a Work of Art (1857–1909) (London:
Lund Humphries , 2017)
Bud, R F
The Discipline of Chemistry: The origins and early years of the Chemical
Society of London (Univers i ty of Pennsylvania, PhD, 1980)
Bud, R F and G K Roberts
Science Versus Practice: Chemistry in Victorian Britain (Manchester:
Manchester Univers i ty Press , 1984)
Burton, Anthony
Vision and Accident: The Story of the V&A (London: V&A Publ ications,
1999)
Butterworth, Harry
The Science and Art Department, 1853–1900 (PhD Thes is , Univers i ty of
Sheffield, 1968)
Campbel l , John
Haldane: The Forgotten Statesman Who Shaped Modern Britain
(London: Hurst and Company, 2020)
Cardwel l , D S L
The Organisation of Science in England (London: Heineman, Revised
Edition 1972)
Crowther, J G
Statesmen of Science (London: The Cresset Press , 1965)
Di lke, Si r Charles Wentworth
Problems of Greater Britain (London: Macmil lan and Co, 1890)
Frayl ing, Si r Christopher
‘We Must have Steam – Get Cole’, Sackler Lecture at Victoria and Albert
Museum, 30 October 2008 (formerly known as annual Henry Cole lecture)
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/sackler-lectures)
Granvi l le, A B
The Spas of England (London: Henry Colburn, 1841), pp 363–366
(re. Thomson works)
Hobhouse, Hermione
The Crystal Palace and The Great Exhibition (London and New York: The
Athlone Press , 2002)
Prince Albert: His Life and Work (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1983)
Moore, Tom and James Phi l ip
The Chemical Society, 1841–1941: A Historical Review (London: The Chemical Society, 1947)
Norish, R G W
‘Lyon Playfair and his work for the Great Exhibition of 1851’, in Journal of
the Royal Society of Arts, Vol 99, No 4848 (1 June 1951), pp 537–549
Renders , Hans with Binne de Hann and Jonne Harmsma
The Biographical Turn (London and New York: Routledge, 2017)
Royal Society
‘Lyon Playfair’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Vol 64 (1898
–1899), pp I–xxiv
Obituary Notice for Justus Liebig in Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Vol . 24 (1875–6), xxvi i–xxxvi i
Russel l , Col in
‘A chemist in parl iament’, in Chemistry in Britain (November 1998)
Waterhouse, Rachel
The Birmingham and Midland Institute (Birmingham: The Birmingham and
Midland Insti tute, 1954)
Wi lson, A N
Prince Albert: The Man who saved The Monarchy (London: Atlantic Books,
2019)
Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/211504/044
Tags
History of science
Science and society
Biography
History of chemistry
Science museums
Nineteenth century
Exhibitions
Footnotes
1. Justus Liebig did not become a baron unti l 1845 and so is not referred to in this article as Justus von Liebig.
2. This article was developed from a lecture (‘Lyon Playfair: Chemist and Commiss ioner’) given by the author at the
Chemistry in Albertopolis conference on 11 Apri l 2019. The conference formed part of a series of events organised by the
Science Museum’s Research and Publ ic History Department. These were part of wider celebrations by the cultural
organisations of ‘Albertopol is ’ to mark the bicentenary of the birthdays of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria, and the
International Year of the Periodic Table, invented by Dmitri Mendeleev 150 years earl ier. The series of events a imed to
explore how chemistry took root, flowered and continues to flourish in the cultural and scienti fic quarter of South
Kensington. Key partners were the Science Museum, Imperia l Col lege, the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Commiss ion
for the Exhibition of 1851, the Royal Col lege of Music, the Royal Albert Hal l and the Natural History Museum.
3. The major biography of Henry Cole (The Great Exhibitor: The Life and Work of Henry Cole) was publ ished in 2003 by
El izabeth Bonython and Anthony Burton. Inevitably, Cole a lso features very prominently in Burton’s landmark history of
the Victoria and Albert Museum (Vision and Accident: The Story of the V&A).
4. Armstrong wrote in 1976 of the need for a new biography too.
5. Professor Thomas Duncan, Chair of Mathematics (1820–1858)
6. Frustratingly, Playfair only refers to his fel low clerk by surname. I am grateful to my research ass istant, Katie Dowler,
for tracking down the detai ls of Andrew Ramsay’s two brothers : Wi l l iam (born 1811) and John (born 1816), who would
have been 24 and 19 respectively at the time Playfair was clerking in Glasgow; and so John seems the l ikely candidate as
the most s imi lar in age to Playfair (17). See: https://www.imperia l .ac.uk/media/imperia l -col lege/administration-and-
support-services/records-and-archives/publ ic/Ramsay,-Professor-Sir-Andrew-Crombie-FRS-catalogue-of-papers .pdf, pp
18–19 and 11–12 of the text.
7. In this context dia lys is refers to the method by which large molecules and smal l molecules can be separated. The
principle was used in the development, very much later than Graham, of kidney dia lys is in the mid twentieth century.
Playfair ci tes Graham’s work on water crystal l i sation, the di ffus ion of gases and the modification of phosphoric acid as
being ‘class ical examples of investigation’. In 1831, Graham had given a paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in
which he showed that, at constant pressure, the rate of di ffus ion of gas was inversely proportional to the square root of
i ts dens ity – a principle that has become known as ‘Graham’s Law’. A ful ler account can be in found in his Dictionary of
National Biography entry (Michael Stanley).
8. Playfair gives no detai led explanation for his affl iction and so I am grateful to Dr Roger Highfield (Science Director,
Science Museum) and Natasha McEnroe (Keeper of Medicine) for some interpretation. It i s poss ible that Playfair may
have been us ing methylated spiri t (rather than formal in, which came in to use from the 1890s), which has evidenced
l inks to dermatitis . However, in the 1830s i t was not yet common practice to preserve cadavers , a l though a chlorate of
l ime was used to wash the bodies and reduce smel l . It was used at this time more general ly as an anti -putrefaction agent
and could cause skin i rri tation. We might a lso speculate on eczema’s l inks to emotional wel l -being because hospitals
and dissecting rooms could be highly stressful places at this time.
9. From the sparse detai ls Playfair provides one can ascertain that this ci rcle included Sir John McClel land (geologist),
Nathaniel Wal l ich (botanist) and the leading oriental antiquarian James Prinsep. Playfair does not tel l us anything
about the origins of such encounters a l though one could speculate that the offices of the As iatic Society might wel l have
played a central role.
10. Liebig to Playfair, 6 November 1841
11. Augustus Granvi l le (1783–1872), see entry in Dictionary of National Biography (Omel la Moscucci ).
12. I am most grateful for my col league Robert Bud for a lerting me to these important omiss ions in Playfair’s account of this
period.
13. The comment is from Reid.
14. Henry de la Beche to Wi l l iam Buckland
15. Other attendees included the agricultural engineer James Smith of Deanston, and Phi l ip Pusey, then Editor of the
Agricultural Societies Journal.
16. Playfair vis i ted Liverpool , Manchester, Preston, Ashton-under-Lyne, Bolton, Bury and Rochdale.
17. Bunsen to Playfair
18. Colonel Grey to Playfair
19. Si r Charles Phipps to Prince Albert, 17 October 1851 RA VIC/F25/52
20. Dickens to Playfair
21. Playfair quotes from Prince Albert’s rough memorandum (August 1851) on the disposal of the surplus of the Great
Exhibition.
22. Playfair to Henry de la Beche, 20 August 1851
23. Playfair to Cole, March 1853, Cole Papers (Correspondence), Box 15, Victoria and Albert Museum
24. Colonel Grey to Playfair, 18 November 1851
25. Playfair to Cole
26. Department for Bus iness , Energy & Industria l Strategy, 27 November 2017
References
1. Armstrong, C, 1976, ‘Introduction’ to a l imited edition (250) reprint of the Memoirs (Jemimavi l le Scotland: P.M. Pol lak,
Science Reprints)
2. Auerbach, J, 1999, The Exhibition of 1851: A Nation on Display (New Haven and London: Yale Univers i ty Press), p 40
3. Beche, H de la and Playfair, L, 1845, Report on the State of Bristol and Other Large Towns, Health of Towns Commission
(London: Wi l l iam Clowes and Sons), pp 1–24
4. Bonython, E and Burton, A, 2003, The Great Exhibitor: The Life and Work of Henry Cole (London: V&A Publ ications), p 158
5. Brock, W H, 1977, Justus von Liebig: The Chemical Gatekeeper (Cambridge Univers i ty Press), p vi i and ix
6. Bryant, J, 2011, Art and Design for All: The Victoria and Albert Museum (London: V&A Publ ications), p 27
7. Bud, R F, 1980, The Discipline of Chemistry: The origins and early years of the Chemical Society of London (Univers i ty of
Pennsylvania, PhD Thes is ), pp 198–205
8. Bud, R and Roberts , G K, 1984, Science Versus Practice: Chemistry in Victorian Britain (Manchester: Manchester Univers i ty
press), p 88
9. Burton, A, 1999, Vision and Accident: The Story of the Victoria and Albert Museum (London: V&A Publ ications), p 43
10. Butterworth, H, 1968, The Science and Art Department, 1853–1900 (PhD Thes is , Univers i ty of Sheffield, July), Vol 1
11. Campbel l , J, 2020, Haldane: The Forgotten Statesman Who Shaped Modern Britain (London: Hurst & Company)
12. Cardwel l , D S L, 1972, The Organisation of Science in England (London: Heinemann, revised edition), pp 59–64
13. Correspondence of Henry Cole, 1858, Victoria and Albert Museum, 29 June
14. Crowther, J G, 1865, Statesmen of Science (London: The Cresset Press), pp 105–171
15. Davies , H, 2004, ‘Robinson, Si r John Charles (1824–1913)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford Univers i ty
Press)
16. Fruton, J F, 1988, ‘The Liebig Research Group’, in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, March, Vol 132, No 1,
pp 1–66
17. Granvi l le, A B, 1841, The Spas of England (London: Henry Colburn), pp 363–366
18. Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations: Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue, 1851 (London:
Wil l iam Clowes and Sons), p ix
19. Hans Renders , B de H and Harmsma, J, 2017, ‘The Biographical turn: Biography as cri tical method in the humanities and
in society’, The Biographical Turn: Lives in History (London and New York: Routledge)
20. Hartog, P J, 2004, ‘Wi lson, George’, Dictionary of National Biography
21. Industrial Instruction on the Continent, 1852 (London: Eyre and Spottiswood), pp 26–28
22. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 1854, March, Vol 17, No 1, p 46
23. Liebig, J, 1847, Chemistry and its Applications to Agriculture and Physiology (London: Taylor and Walton, 4th Edition),
Trans. Lyon Playfair, in the Dedication to the Bri tish Association of the Advancement of Science
24. Moore, T, and Phi l ip, J, The Chemical Society, 1941–1941: A Historical Review (London: The Chemical Society), p 29
25. Norrish, R G W, 1951, ‘Lyon Playfair and his work for the Great Exhibition of 1851’, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 1
June, Vol 99, No 4848, pp 540–1
26. PCP, Nos 112–117
27. PCP, No 209 – Henry de la Beche to Wi l l iam Buckland, 12 October 1842
28. PCP, No 524 – Si r Robert Peel , 18 October 1842
29. PCP, No 770 – Colonel Grey to Playfair, 19 October 1851
30. PCP, No 938 – Faraday to Playfair, 10 October 1842
31. PCP (Si r James Graham), No 956 and No 311
32. PCP, No 980, 5 February 1854
33. Playfair, L, Lectures on the Results of the Great Exhibition of 1851, p 204
34. Playfair, L, 1853, An Address to Students of People’s College, Sheffield – October 26 (Sheffield: printed by Robert Leader)
35. Playfair, L, 1852, ‘The chemical principles involved in the manufactures of the Exhibition’, in Lectures on the Results of the
Great Exhibition (London: David Boque), p 166
36. Playfair, L, 1852, ‘On the National Importance of Studying Abstract Science with a view of the Healthy Progress of
Industry’, An introductory lecture in the course of the chemistry sess ion 1851–2 (London: Museum of Practical Geology;
Eye and Spottiswoode)
37. Playfair to Ramsay, 29 March 1842, in Ramsay Archive at National Library of Wales (NLW MS 11574D, No 11)
38. Reid, W, 1899, Memoirs and Correspondence of Lyon Playfair (London: Cassel l and Company), p 6
39. Report of the Commissioners for Inquiry into the State of Large Towns and Populous Districts, 1844, 2 Report, Vol 1 (London:
Wil l iam Clowes and Sons), pp 345–481
40. Royal Society Obituary Notices of Fel lows Deceased, 1875–1876, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Vol 24, pp
xxvi i–xxxvi i
41. Waterhouse, R, 1954, The Birmingham and Midland Institute 1854–1954 (Birmingham), pp 25–56
Author information
Sir Ian Blatchford was appointed Director and Chief Executive of the Science Museum Group from 1 November 2010 and
combined this with the role of Director of the Science Museum from December 2010. Si r Ian was Chairman of the National
Museum Directors ’ Counci l (2017–2021) and is a Fel low of the Society of Antiquaries . He became Pres ident of the Royal Li terary
Fund in 2020. Previous ly he was Chairman of the Governors of De Montfort Univers i ty from 2011 to 2018. He was awarded the
Pushkin Medal in 2015. Si r Ian was awarded a Knighthood in the 2019 New Year’s Honours for services to Cultural Education
Ian Blatchford
Director, Science Museum Group
top related