Making Scientific Instruments in the Industrial Revolution (review)

Making Scientific Instruments in the Industrial Revolution is a welcome and timely book that, as its title clearly states, provides an overview of the geography and marketing of scientific instruments during the period associated with Britain's Industrial Revolution. A. D. Morrison-Low is principal curator in the science section at the National Museums of Scotland and therefore ideally qualified to undertake the task. One of her primary objectives is to underline the importance of scientific instruments and the vital necessity for keeping them on display in museums rather than—as is increasingly the case—consigning them to storerooms. If you are looking for an empirical survey of instrument making, delightfully illustrated, roughly spanning the period 1750 to the Great Exhibition in London of 1851, this is a book for you.

The volume is divided into ten chapters commencing with a brief attempt to situate instrument making in the historiography of the Industrial Revolution. Morrison-Low's argument here primarily hinges on their use in surveying canals, roads, and later railways, coupled with their key role in navigation and thence trade. She is rather critical of past secondary texts on scientific instruments—in particular for their lack of historical context. One of her primary objectives is to move away from the traditional all-embracing Londoncentric model of instrument making and map their production in the provinces.

Drawing on economic historian Martin Daunton, Morrison-Low convincingly shows how the production of instruments followed the increased specialization of regions (chapters 2–5). In chapter 6 the preeminence of London—both nationally and internationally—is described, especially in the realm of precision instrumentation. Some attempt to describe the labor process involved in instrument production is provided, but the lack of records, the secrecy, and the diffused subcontracting aspect of production make it possible to shed only glimmers of light on the process.

In chapter 7 Morrison-Low addresses the critical role of available materials fueling instrument production, the extent of technological convergence, and the function of imported foreign skilled labor. In the following chapter she examines the importance of bringing instruments to the attention of consumers. Here she places a great deal of emphasis on marketing techniques and the essential job of improved transport and communication. With regard to the former she rehearses the techniques devised by leading manufacturers such as Wedgwood and Boulton and aspects of a similar approach adopted by instrument makers—especially the role of exhibiting and catalogs. In chapter 9 she turns her attention to demand and usefully divides the customers for instruments into six categories, ranging from the "dilettante" who purchased instruments primarily to demonstrate intelligence and social standing, to the "state" which purchased navigation instruments for the Royal Navy, surveying tools for mapping, and hydro-meters for the revenue departments.

Morrison-Low struggles to make any new or penetrating conclusions, but this—as she herself makes clear—partly stems from the difficulty in finding any truly helpful records. Despite a brief page or two on France, there is no real European comparison to reveal how far England differed or converged with its neighbors. On the whole, Morrison-Low is more successful in revealing the structure, size, and scale of the instrument trade. She also provides some excellent examples of the role of the state and the market in fueling the production of instruments, although the balance between their roles is a little ambiguous.

Although Morrison-Low rightly points to the problematic term of "scientific instruments," since they were "not particularly 'scientific'" (p. 3), she largely fails to interrogate this point. At a time when historians are increasingly debating the role of science and its application to Britain's industrialization, a good opportunity was missed here to take the debate farther. Instead, Morrison-Low prefers to uncritically follow the arguments of Joel Mokyr, Larry Stewart, and Margaret Jacob and the growth in instrument making forged by the rise of public science. This also allows her to situate the...