SCIENCE AND POLITICS. T HERE must be some reason for the
fact upon which the Duke of Devonshire dwelt in his address to the Royal Society on Tuesday, that statesmen have never been men of science, nor men of science statesmen. Of the fact itself there is, we conceive, no kind of serious doubt. Two of the Ptolemies were deeply interested in scientific research, and promoted investigation in every way they could, but there is no proof that they themselves did more than facilitate, and perhaps understand, the labours of other men. Some of the Princes of the Renaissance loved art, and understood engineering ; but art is not science, and a man may be even a great engineer—Beindley and Stephenson for example—without any attainment of knowledge that can properly be called scientific. Napoleon knew something of mathematics, and through life protected inquirers, displaying a willingness even to spend money upon some kinds of research ; but he threw away a solid chance of the Empire of the world because he could not understand Fulton's explanation of the principle of his steamboat. In our own day no man of high scientific repute has obtained even a prominent place in politics except M. Paul Bert, and he failed in it ; while we know of no King or other ruler of men whom the Royal Society, voting on scientific grounds alone, would admit into its ranks. Lord Salisbury loves chemistry, and might, had fortune favoured him, have rivalled or surpassed Lord Kelvin ; but fortune did not favour him, and if he has learned much in science, he has done nothing. The fact is the more striking because for many ages the most successful statesmen were also soldiers, and there is some- thing in the military art which inclines the masters of it towards scientific inquiry. It was not a. soldier, however, who discovered gunpowder, nor will it probably be a soldier who will solve the problem of directing military balloons, or find out a method of destroying fleets at sea without risking a fleet in the operation, or teach us how to, use electricity as a, weapon in war. Indeed, ono.would have thought that science would fascinate statesmen, for after all the most pressing problems before the Kings are how to feed their people and how to fill their treasuries, and scientific agriculture and scientific locomotion might have removed, both difficulties from the path. The statesmen have not, however, shown either patience or inventiveness in such matters, and the reason why is clearly not upon the sur- face. The Duke of Devonshire suggests that it is lack of time ; but that is only one of the thoughts which come to a man while he is speaking. It does not explain in the least why Laplace, who won a dukedom, was exceptionally a blunderer in politics, or why the endless leisure of many Kings has not been made pleasant by investigation. We should venture to doubt, as a broad proposition, whether there ever is such a thing as lack of time ; whether, that IL, a man ever fails to find time for that which interests him strongly, be it to pursue pleasure, or to practise art, or to master some absorbing study. Science may be a hobby like another, and for his hobby every man has time. "I have no time," one hears a politician say, with a sigh which is not quite spontaneous, "even to open a book ;" but he never did half Mr. Gladstone's work, and where is the book Mr. Gladstone has not opened ?
We should be inclined to suggest to the Duke of Devon- shire and all Fellows of the Royal Society that scientific men are seldom statesmen, and statesmen are never scientific men, because the two pursuits require radically different qualities of mind. To be a successful ruler a man must understand men, not things, and must use results rather than seek to discover how they came. Eager curiosity, which is the first condition of a great man of research, is no qualification for a King, or rather it is a disqualification, his mind wasting itself, as that of. the last Emperor of Brazil wasted itself, upon inquiry into processes. That worthy Sovereign was devoted to scientific inquiry, and was dethroned more easily than any chairman of a village meeting. A great King sets himself to dis- cover great agents, and then, if he supports them, his work is done ; but in discovering them the habit of patient investigation into Nature will not help him one whit. The predecessor of William I. of Germany, who was a man of fine brains, if he had possessed all the scientific powers of Professor Röntgen would not have discerned Von Moltke or have sepported Bismarck when he was most inconvenient ; while had his successor, the least intellectual of men, devoted himself to astronomy—most ennobling of sciences—he would not have made a nation. Bacon, who bad the perfectly scientific mind as well as much scientific knowledge, made a sad mess of his own career, and few men will believe that Sir Isaac Newton, first among observers of genius, would have ruled England half as well as Sir Robert Walpole, who was at bottom a roystering country squire with a capacity for man :Ting Englishmen. The modern statesman, who is not a King, and who is bound, there- fore, to 'do his work. for himself, has to understand the mind of the people, to make his will. and. their will fit, and to utilise every opportunity without inquiring too closely how the opportunity arose. He has to deal on a great scale with phenomena, and interest in the causes of those phenomena, which acts like a dragging force on the man of science, would Only distract his attention. If you set a. great electrician to drive a motor-cab through the City you should send after him a carefully driven ambulance. "What," said a friend to a very great man of science, "will the Röntgen ray "—then newly dis- covered—" do for us ? " "I don't know," was the reply, ." and I don't care. I want to know what the Röntgen ray is." The questioner was not a statesman, but it was he, and not his far abler interlocutor, who had the statesman'sinind. It is nothing to the latter to know why a new explesive scatters death ; it is everything to be clear as to what it can and can not do, to find ths artillerist who can use it, and to form an accurate judg- ment as to. what kind of troops will fear its deadly effects the least. The difference between the man of science and the statesman covers the whole distance between the inquiring mind and the mind of judgment, and we might as well expect a perfect detective to be, necessarily, a perfect judge, as believe that a far-sighted savant would necessarily be, or could be made, a good administrator. It is, of course, conceivable that one man might possess the two sets of powers, but it is very unlikely. We cannot, 'therefore, agree With the Duke of Devonshire's anticipa- tion that we may one day be governed by a man who is great both in science and in politics, nor can we altogether sympathise, if that is his aspiration. He would govern us himself a deal better than Lord Kelvin. We should even suggest, if. it were not too dangerous, that the greatest rulers, the most enduring dynasties, the men who have done most as administrators, have rarely possessed exceedingly penetrating minds, but have had intellectually a certain nearness to the mass. That is certainly true of the whole series of Kings, and we are by no means sure that it is false as regards the statesmen. But then, no doubt, our ideal of a statesman is Sir Robert Peel, who certainly could not have made a locomotive, and probably could not have understood one, but who could and did lay -down the principles which should govern a State in dealing with the railway system. After all, the men who succeed in two unconnected arts are very rare, and governing is an art like another, though a very difficult
• one.
Previous page
