The first of these statements is not correct; the endowment of research does not amount to "payment without corresponding labour." Scientific discoverers have always been distinguished as a body of men intensely devoted to their labours, and willing to perform much work for small payment. Most of the great advances in science also in England, have been made not by "amateurs," but by men of great experience, such as Newton, Herschel, Priestley, Davy, Faraday, Graham, and many others. Endowment of research is not desired for wealthy amateurs, but for investigators of proved ability and small pecuniary means and who require assistance. Such men, although not infallible, are the least likely to "work wrongly," and much less likely to do so than amateurs. Many scientific investigators also of repute, object to give their services wholly to a wealthy nation, because they cannot afford to do so, and because it is only just that the nation should make them some pecuniary return for their skill and labour. The great evils {174} in this country requiring new knowledge to remedy them[28] also prove that there are not "plenty of amateurs ready and willing to assist in research here," or that "the researches may be very well left to them." Whilst some investigators have had abundant means to carry on research, and have excelled in that occupation, many of the most eminent have been persons of limited circumstances; and their insufficient pecuniary means has often restricted their degree of success. The argument also that insufficiency of means stimulates research, is only employed by persons who are not making investigations under such a condition.