4 PRESIDENTS ADDRESS. 



For some time before Oersted's clear reasoning- led him to 

 the precise point at which his discovery was made, Ronalds, of 

 Hammersmith, had been busy devising an electric telegraph, and 

 succeeded in working it on a small scale between two stations 

 525 feet apart. When the possibilities latent herein were com- 

 municated to the Admiralty, the reply was received that " tele- 

 graphs of any kind were wholly unnecessary, and no other than 

 the one in use would be adopted." The British Admiralty's stolid 

 refusal to see any better way of doing things than that of the 

 time-worn groove was emulated by a large proportion of the 

 British nation when war was declared four years ago, and the 

 silly formula, " Business as usual," was flaunted about. The dis- 

 illusionment soon came, for the voice of Science began to assert 

 itself, and demanded audience, until the stolidity that was pro- 

 verbial began to melt, and the need of organising the stud\- and 

 application of science was realised simultaneously with the dawn- 

 ing of an unpleasant feeling that the enemy had been beforehand 

 in this matter. 



Then it was that the leaders of science laid the responsibility 

 for the lethargic condition of the nation at the door of the Gov- 

 ernment, and charges of administrative inertia with respect to 

 the support of science as a national duty were heard. 



The reply of the British Admiralty to Ronalds, of Hammer- 

 smith, is an instance by no means unique of ci>rjx)rate self-com- 

 placency in regard to science : an entire nation exhibited a similar 

 mental twist when that brilliant chemist, Lavoisier, was executed 

 by the French Republic in 1794. After his sentence he had 

 pleaded for a fortnight's reprieve in order that certain experi- 

 ments on which he had been engaged might be completed, but the 

 reply was. " The Republic does not need such," and so the guillo- 

 tine terminated Lavoisier's researches. We speak of Liebig as 

 the father of modern agricultural chemistry, and justly so, but 

 the extent to which Liebig might have been forestalled had not 

 the blundering short-sightedness of the French Revolution 

 sheared Lavoisier's life away nine years before Liebig was born 

 we shall never know. 



" Wholly unnecessary !" " We do not need such !" The 

 ejaculations, we say, of a purblind administration — of an ob- 

 sessed nation! And yet. to-day, 120 years after Lavoisier's death, 

 even to-day, after four years of intense warfare, it is surprising 

 how much we are still inclined to echo the stupid cry of the 

 Republic, " We do not need such !" 



What foundation is there for such an assertion ? What 

 w'arrant has one for diagnosing national lethargy and adminis- 

 trative inertia? Listen to some evidence. Many of us in South 

 Africa have most perverted notions of what the national attitude 

 with regard to the study and encouragement of science should 

 be. In the United Kingdom, they probably imagine, that attitude 

 is all that could be desired, and here, most likely, it is just what 

 it is there. Both assumptions are incorrect, but as I do not wish 

 you to accept such a statement on my bare assertion, I ask pardon 

 for introducing several quotations. Much strong language has 



