NATURAL SCIENCE: 



A Monthly Review of Scientific Progress. 



No. 43. Vol VII. SEPTEMBER. 1895. 



NOTES AND COMMENTS. 



The Geographical Congress. 



THE Sixth Session of the International Geographical Congress was 

 held in London from July 26 to August 3. Its proximity in date 

 to the General Election was most unfortunate, as it kept away many 

 men who might have helped with cash or in kind. Nevertheless, it 

 certainly achieved a striking success, credit for which is mainly due 

 to the two secretaries, Mr. J. Scott-Keltie and Dr. H. R. Mill, who 

 represented respectively — and no better English representatives could 

 have been found — the practical and commercial, and the abstract and 

 scientific branches of geography. The Congress met twice a day for 

 the reading of papers and discussions thereon. These meetings were 

 held at the Imperial Institute, which is certainly admirably adapted 

 to serve as the headquarters of such a congress, though it does not 

 appear to be particularly cheap. Garden parties, evening fetes and 

 functions gave the geographers opportunity for social intercourse. 

 The papers read were, as a rule, of a high order of merit, though a 

 few trivial and some rubbishing productions, which certainly would 

 never have been accepted for an ordinary meeting of the Geographical 

 Society, were allowed to waste the time of the Congress. The 

 discussions on Polar exploration and on the possibilities of African 

 colonisation attracted most general attention. The former was 

 introduced by papers by Professor Neumayer, Admiral Markham, 

 General Greely, Herr S. A. Andree and M. E. Payart. The 

 latter was introduced by a symposium, to which contributions were 

 made by Sir John Kirk, Captain Lugard, Count Pfeil, Mr. Stanley, 

 Mr. Ravenstein, Mr. Silva White, M. Decle, and Slatin Pasha. 

 This was followed by a general discussion, which was an amusing 

 game of cross questions and crooked answers. Mr. Stanley soon fell 

 foul of the rest, owing to a different use of the word science and a 

 different dividing line between common sense and scientific reasoning. 

 Both sides seem to have meant exactly the same thing, but for a while 

 the heat of the discussion was dangerously near tropical. Then, again, 



r.i 



