Lyon Playfair: chemist and commissioner, 1818–1858

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


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


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


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


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


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


The eminent geologist, Charles Lyel l



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


Thomas Graham (1805–1869)


Figure 9

© Glasgow Museums

Andersonian Col lege, late nineteenth century


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


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.


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


Baron Justus von Liebig (1803–1873)


Figure 12

Justus Liebig’s laboratory at Giessen


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).


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


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


The Royal Insti tution in Manchester


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.


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.


‘Consultant chemist to the government’

Figure 15


Sir Henry de la Beche, 1848


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


Geological colour mapping from the Health Commiss ion report on Bristol


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


Professor Robert Bunsen


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


The dangerous world of mining and fi redamp


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.


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


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.


‘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


The Great Exhibition under construction, 1850


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


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


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).


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


Playfair and the Royals – accompanying the Royal Party on a tour of the Bri tish Nave


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


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



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).


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


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


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


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



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).


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)


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

Lyon Playfair: chemist and commissioner, 1818–1858

Documents

Transcript of Lyon Playfair: chemist and commissioner, 1818–1858