- 
. ADDRESS. ly 
il 
‘oe es 
of the meteorology of the globe, without a concurrent investigation of its two 
leading departments, Land observations exist in great numbers. In Prussia, 
in Russia, in Austria, and in Belgium, such observations are organized 
under Government direction, or at least with Government support ; in other 
parts of Europe, as in Britain, the labour is left to individuals or scientific 
societies. What is needed is to give unity to these isolated labours—to con- 
nect them with one another, and with the results obtained at sea; and the 
first step to this seems to be, to give them, in each country, that permanence 
and uniformity of system which can only be ensured in measures adopted 
by the State. 
Here, however, we encounter an objection, upon which it is necessary to 
say a few words. 
It has been objected to the Science of Meteorology, as it is usually studied, 
that it proceeds upon a false method; and that, consequently, it has led, and 
ean lead, to no results. I feel myself in a manner compelled to notice this 
grave objection, in the first place, because it proceeds from men, whose 
opinions on this (or almost any other scientific question) are entitled to the 
highest deference; and secondly, because this Association must bear no in- 
considerable measure of the reproach, if it be well founded. 
First, then, as to results. I am free to admit that the number of those 
engaged in the discussion of meteorological observations is disproportionately 
small, and that the results obtained probably fall far short of what may be 
expected from the data already accumulated. But that the methods have 
led, and ean lead, to no results, is, I think, sufficiently disproved by the 
labours of a single man—Professor Dove of Berlin. And if it be true that 
the course pursued in the science has yielded much fruit, in proportion to 
the labour bestowed on the discussion, it will hardly be deemed widely 
erroneous. Stiil, as it is possible that the methods pursued—though not 
_ fruitless—may be inadequate, it seems aaimenacd to notice the objection 
somewhat more minutely. 
It is asserted, then, that the capital vice of the Science of Meteorology, 
as at present pursued, is that it has no definite aim; that it ought to embrace 
an inquiry into the physical constitution of the objects with which the science 
is concerned, and an investigation of causes as well as Jaws of phenomena. 
It may be admitted, at once, in reference to this objection, that the phy- 
sical constitution of the bodies whose changes we are investigating is a proper 
_ object of study to the physicist ; but it does not seem to follow that it should 
necessarily be conducted by the same individuals who are in search for the 
_ laws of the phenomena, or even that the former knowledge is essential to the 
_ progress of the latter. The noblest of all the physical sciences, Astronomy, 
is little more than a science of daws—laws, too, of the simplest kind of 
change; and the knowledge of these laws is wholly zndependent of the physi- 
_ eal constitution of the: masses whose movements it studies. A similar obser- 
- yation may be made regarding the science of Terrestrial Magnetism; and 
