That, so far as my own personal feeling was concerned, it was opposed
to anything of the kind for Science. I said that in Science we had two
advantages--first, that a man's work is demonstrably either good or
bad; and secondly, that the "contemporary posterity" of foreigners
judges us, and rewards good work by membership of Academies and so
forth.

In Art, if a man chooses to call Raphael a dauber, you can't prove he
is wrong; and literary work is just as hard to judge.

I then spoke of the dangers to which science is exposed by the undue
prominence and weight of men who successfully apply scientific
knowledge to practical purposes--engineers, chemical inventors, etc.,
etc.; said it appeared to me that a Minister having such order at his
disposal would find it very difficult to resist the pressure brought by
such people as against the man of high science who had not happened to
have done anything to strike the popular mind.

Discussed the possibility of submission of names by somebody for the
approval and choice of the Crown. For Science, I thought the Royal
Society Council might discharge that duty very fairly. I thought that
the Academy of Berlin presented people for the Pour le Merite, but Lord
Salisbury thought not.

In the course of conversation I spoke of Hooker's case as a glaring
example of the wrong way of treating distinguished men. Observed that
though I did not personally care for or desire the institution of such
honorary order, yet I thought it was a mistake in policy for the Crown
as the fountain of honour to fail in recognition of that which deserves