76 



NATURE 



{Nov. 24, 1887 



causal connection between parasitic Bacteria and infec- 

 tious diseases, especially in warm-blooded animals, and 

 on diseases caused by Bacteria in the lower animals and 

 in plants. The work will be very useful to all who may 

 wish to obtain " a general view " of this important sub- 

 ject. It has been well translated, and we may note that 

 a valuable list of publications relating to Bacteria is given 

 at the end of the volume. 



Mattie's Secret. By Emile Desmaux. (London : George 

 Routledge and Sons, 1887.) • 



This book is evidently a French work very well trans- 

 lated into English. It is practically a book of delightful 

 gossip, touching on many important points of science ; 

 while theoretically it is a pleasing story of a sister who 

 devotes her time to her little brother driven from school 

 and books by approaching blindness. The scientific part 

 opens with the explosion of fire-damp, and goes on to the 

 history of coal, how it is found, in what shapes ; and then 

 to the coal-mine itself, how the work is done, and the 

 precautions which have to be taken. Next follows the 

 history of diamonds, what they are, how they are shaped 

 into different forms ; and then comes graphite manufac- 

 tured into pencils. The history of beer here follows, 

 how it is prepared, and its use. Then the author ex- 

 plains torpedoes and torpedo-boats, how they are worked, 

 and the method of launching the torpedo. Glycerine, 

 dynamite, and gunpowder, their dangerous properties, and 

 how they are prepared, are next referred to, and this is 

 followed by an introduction to the phenomena of sound. 



The book contains a hundred good illustrations showing 

 the different scientific processes, and it is thoroughly 

 interesting throughout. 



The question arises whether fairy tales of science are 

 not as interesting to children as fairy tales of the ordinary 

 description. The author is evidently of this opinion, and 

 we are inclined to agree with him. A. L. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions 

 expressed by his correspondents. Neither can he under- 

 take to return, or to correspond with the writers of, 

 rejected manuscripts. No notice is taken of anonymous 

 communications. 



[The Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their 

 letters as short as possible. The pressure on his space 

 is so great that it is impossible otherwise to insure the 

 appearance even of communications containing interesting 

 and novel facts.'] - % 



Politics and the Presidency of the Royal Society. 



Your leader of last week reminds me not a little of one of 

 those days that begin somewhat brightly but end with a thunder- 

 storm. As a Fellow of the Royal Society, I fail to see what 

 our President has done to incur the reprobation of the writer of 

 this article. I will take in order the two charges brought against 

 him. Of these, the first is that he became President of the 

 Victoria Institute, the secoud being that he has allowed himself 

 to be returned as member of Parliament for his own Uni- 

 versity. 



I do not fancy the writer means to assert that the predecessors 

 of Prof. Stokes, more than one of whom held strong views con- 

 nected with theology, virtually laid these aside during their 

 tenure of office. At any rate, they gave ample expression to them 

 both before and after this tenure. I gather that the objection 

 rather is that Prof Stokes, during his tenure of office, became 

 President of another Society — the Victoria Institute. Now, Sir, 

 I can see at once an objection to the President of the Royal 

 Society being at the same time President of any of the other 

 scientific Societies, such as the Astronomical, the Physical, the 

 Chemical, or the Zoological. But I confess I fail to see any 

 objection to his taking office in a Philosophical Society, which 

 treats of subjects not really connected with science. 



It may perhaps be thought that the Victoria Institute was 



deficient in breadth of view, and I think that until lately it 

 was open to this objection. But I have reason to think that 

 Prof Stokes has infused into it a better spirit, and his admirable 

 opening address to this Society has, if I mistake not, appeared 

 in your columns. 



In this address he acts entirely the part of a peacemaker, 

 endeavouring to show that the conclusions of science cannot be 

 held to come into collision with what may be regarded as the 

 essential truths of the Christian religion. It is probable that 

 a minority of Fellows of the Royal Society may believe that 

 certain scientific doctrines have disposed of the claims of Chris- 

 tianity. Must, therefore, the President be precluded from going 

 to church during his tenure cf office ? Unquestionably the 

 going to church implies taking part in a public action about 

 which the opinions of the Fellows could be divided. 



It is in truth exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to formu- 

 late a principle which shall extinguish the peculiarities of one 

 individual while it leaves untouched the field around him repre- 

 senting the rights and privileges of others. The thing was tried 

 once before in the time of Darius the Mede, but the results of 

 the experiment were not of an encouraging nature. 



I come now to the second and most important charge against 

 our President. And here I confess I cannot help being a little 

 amused at the writer's dread that the President will be hunted 

 out of his scientific chair at all inconvenient hours, and driven to 

 his seat at St. Stephen's by one of the Whips of the House. And 

 I confess that I am equally amused at the thought of the Royal 

 Society suffering the fearful political degradation depicted by the 

 writer, entertaining as I do the most complete confidence in the 

 integrity of this Society. I grant freely that under ordinary 

 circumstances it is undesirable that the President of the Royal 

 Society should enter the House of Commons. But these are no 

 ordinary times, and we are now engaged in a struggle that means 

 more than mere party warfare. 



I do not wish to introduce politics into these pages, but I may 

 state that in my opinion, and I think I may say in that of many 

 Fellows of the Royal Society, the question just now is one 

 between law and anarchy. But in a state of anarchy, what will 

 suffer more than knowledge? In such a state will there be 

 leisure to investigate — leisure even to dispute? And if this be 

 so, should not Culture, which is more threatened than anything 

 else, raise her voice in the Legislature and do what in her lies 

 to prevent this deplorable consummation ? 



Surely it is this grave question, rather than any wish to represent 

 the every-day interests of science, that has induced our President 

 to enter the House. He has chosen to be an Englishman first, 

 and a man of science afterwards. Who will blame him for 

 this? Balfour Stewart. 



The able article which appeared in your last number (p, 49) 

 under the title of "Politics and the Presidency of the Royal 

 Society," raises a question of such magnitude, not only in its 

 relation to science, but also to many other branches of human 

 activity, that I trust to your courtesy and impartiality to give me 

 an opportunity of briefly indicating some considerations calcu- 

 lated to lead to a conclusion different from that at which the 

 writer of the article in question has arrived. 



The Royal Society is composed of members who differ from 

 one another in their views on political and many other subjects ; 

 nay, more, of men who differ from one another in their views 

 on many scientific subjects. Their devotion to the advancement 

 of natural knowledge is the common ground on which they 

 meet. 



The political opinions of our President are entirely unknown 

 to us officially, and it may confidently be asserted that he is 

 as highly esteemed and valued as President by those among us 

 who may happen privately to differ from him widely in politics 

 as by those who entertain similar political opinions to his own. 

 His action in political matters concerns us as little as his 

 opinions. No doubt we should be concerned if he were to 

 undertake any duties of so engrossing a kind as to prevent him 

 from fully discharging the duties of President, but we should be 

 so equally if the additional work were not political. 



It is conceivable, though We will hope not very likely, that at 

 some future time the Society might have to return a member to 

 the House of Commons ; the Society would then be in a similar 

 position to that in which several of our Universities are placed ; 

 the arguments used by the writer of the article might then be 

 applied. 



Our President cannot, however, be supposed to have entered 



