Nov. 24, 1887] 



NATURE 



77 



the House as the political representative of the Royal Society, 

 for two reasons : first, because the Society has, in its corporate 

 capacity, notoriously no political opinions to be represented ; 

 and, secondly, because we have not sent him to the House. 



Alex. W, Williamson. 

 High Pitfold, Haslemere, November 19. 



"The Conspiracy. of Silence." 



Though I am sorry to have misunderstood the meaning of 

 the Duke of Argyll in his " Great Lesson," when I supposed 

 him to accuse scientific men of virtually conspiring to suppress 

 any unwelcome truth, I think I am not without excuse. 

 Certainly I was not alone in the illusion, and I believe that 

 many would even now say that the Duke of -Argyll — in writing 

 some of the passages which I quoted, and in using such phrases 

 as "reluctant to admit such an error in the great idol," "slow 

 and sulky acquiescence," "reluctantly, almost sulkily," "a 

 grudging silence," not to quote any others — has certainly not 

 expressed with felicity the lesson which he intended to inculcate. 

 Further, in regard to the special instance brought forward by the 

 Duke (that of Mr. Murray's paper) it does not appear to me 

 that he has even now established his charge. The Duke states 

 that he has seen a letter, written by the late Sir Wyville 

 Thomson, most strongly urging Mr. Murray to withdraw the 

 paper which he had sent to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 

 The Duke further tells us candidly that no reason is alleged in 

 the letter. Hence, Sir Wyville Thomson's motive is a matter 

 of inference only. I hope I shall not give offence to my friend 

 Mr. Murray if I suggest that it may have been different from 

 that which the Duke supposes. In 1877, so far as I can ascer- 

 tain, Mr. Murray had not had much practice in writing papers. 

 There is an art in this, which we have to learn by practice and 

 the kindly criticism of our manuscripts by friends. As the best 

 meat may be spoiled by an inexperienced cook, so the best mate- 

 rial may be damaged by an inexperienced author. Sir Wyville 

 Thomson would naturally feel very sensitive about any com- 

 munications bearing the names of members of the Challenger 

 Expedition, for if among its first-fruits had been a paper un- 

 satisfactory either as to style or arrangement, yet controverting 

 the deliberate conclusions of those hardly less well qualified to 

 judge, a spirit of criticism and of distrust as to the thoroughness 

 of the work of the Exped ition would have been aroused. Of course 

 this is an hypothesis only, which I trust Mr. Murray will forgive 

 me for making, but I can assure him that I am conscious of my 

 own youthful imperfections (not to mention the mistakes of 

 maturer years), and I submit that it is at least as good as the 

 Duke's, and more charitable to the memory of Sir Wyville 

 Thomson. 



In regard to the new case which the Duke of Argyll brings 

 forward, and with which he connects my name, he is not quite 

 accurate in his facts and is wrong in his inference. Mr. Guppy's 

 paper was not "refused" by the Geological Society o' London. 

 The President has the power in certain cases, and under certain 

 conditions, to refuse to put down for reading a paper written by 

 a Fellow. I did not exercise that power. The Council, after 

 a paper has been read, can refuse to print it. As Mr. Guppy's 

 paper was never read, obviously this did not happen. Probably 

 the circumstances were as follows, — I say probably, for I have 

 no distinct^recollection of them. Mr. Guppy's paper may have 

 been sent, as is often done, for an informal expression of opinion 

 as to whether the paper seemed suitable for the Society's con- 

 sideration. In such case it would be shown either to one of 

 the secretaries or to the President, and the opinion, favourable 

 or otherwise, communicated to the author, who would then 

 be free to act as he thought best. Now, if Mr. Guppy's 

 paper was identical with that printed in the Proceedings 

 of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (vol. xiii. p. 857) I have 

 no doubt that my answer was to this effect : that it contained 

 so much matter which belonged rather to natural history 

 than to geology that I thought it was likely to suffer much 

 excision before it was printed in our Journal, especially at that 

 time, and was more suited for a Society of a wider scope than 

 our own. I have i^ain referred to the paper, and, without 

 entering upon its merits, of which I am fully sensible, am still of 

 opinion that, while it is in its place in the Proceedings of a Royal 

 Society which includes all branches of science, it would have to 

 be considerably abridged to fit it for those of a Geological 

 Society. Of course that is only my opinion, but after full ten 

 years' experience, eight of them as an officer, on the Council of 



the Geological Society of London, I may claim some knowledge 

 of the principles on which that body acts. Moreover, at that 

 time the Society was suffering from a falling off in revenue, with 

 no corresponding decline in the number of papers which it was 

 mvited to publish. This I knew had compelled the Council to 

 exceptional strictness. The difficulties of the Society were 

 indeed so considerable that I commented on them in my address 

 on quitting office in 1886, expressing at the same time my own 

 view as to how they should be met. But though, as I have said, 

 I have no clear recollection of the circum nances, I can speak 

 positively of one thing, that if in any way I discouraged Mr.Guppy 

 from communicating his paper it was not because I " smeU a 

 heresy." It is something quite new for me to stand accused of 

 being a prompt suppresser of heresies. My orthodoxy has not 

 always been considered unimpeachable amon? the clergy, and 

 surely my scientific papers are not generally on the side of 

 " established views." 



To conclude, the Duke still — and this is our special complaint 

 — treats the matter rather according to ecclesiastical than to 

 scientific methods. He is fully persuaded of the excellence of 

 Mr. Murray's hypothesis, and considers it to be "one of those 

 discoveries in science which are self-luminous," and "must carry 

 conviction to all." Very well, but there are some people, not 

 very few in number, who do not share his opinion. He cannot 

 understand that our doubts can be due to anything else but 

 "prepossession," which has prevented our minds from being 

 " alive to the breadth and sweep of the questions at issue." I 

 humbly reply that this is not the case ; that we claim to exercise 

 the right of private judgment, and decline to submit to any pope, 

 from whatever part of the United Kingdom he may issue his 



Bull. T. G. BONNEY. 



Instability of Freshly-Magnetized Needles. 



Your reviewer objects to a statement in my "Theory of 

 Magnetic Measurements," to the effect that freshly-magnetized 

 needles give untrustworthy readings for several minutes after 

 magnetization (see Nature, vol. xxxvi. p. 316). In 

 reply to his statement that this is contrary to experience, 

 I wish to say that it is not ontrary to my experience. 

 In working with two 8-inch needles I continually observed this 

 phenomenon for years, and it was so marked that I could not 

 feel satisfied to omit the piecaution which the critic condemns. 

 I know of one other observer who has had a similar experience 

 with another needle. My needles were not very hard, and 

 perhaps this may have had to do with the phenomenon. 



It is not desirable to make any reply to criticisms, even though 

 they seem not quite fairly taken, but it ought to be suggested 

 that those who are unable to apply general formulae to a special 

 form of instrument after they have been shown how to apply 

 them to a similar instrument might perhaps meet with more 

 success in some other line of business. 



Francis E. Nipher. 



In the passage to which Prof Nipher refers I contrasted what 

 seemed to me the excessive precautions prescribed in the directions 

 for obtaining the dip with a rather rough-and-ready method of 

 manipulation elsewhere suggested by him. That the ma^^etic 

 axis of a piece of steel may shift is possible. My criticism was 

 directed to the question as to whether, as a matter of experience, 

 such a shift is a cause of error of practical importance in the 

 determination of the dip. It would, therefore, be interesting if 

 Prof. Nipher would publish the details of the observations on 

 which his conclusion is based, so that the extent to which a 

 measurement of the inclination may be rendered untrustworthy by 

 not waiting for some minutes after magnetizing the needle may 

 be in evidence. Meanwhile it may be well that I should define 

 my own views on the matter. 



On looking through the observations made in the magnetic 

 survey of Missouri, which Prof Nipher is conducting, I find that 

 the dips obtained with different needles vary widely. Thus, 

 taking the last Report to which I have access, in which the work 

 of the year 1881 is described (Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, 

 vol. iv. No. 3, p. 480), the dip was determined with two needles 

 at fifteen stations. At seven of these the difference between the 

 results obtained by the two needles was equal to, or greater than, 

 4'. At one station it was 24' 8, and at others if '2, ii'7, 9' '4, 

 and 8' -9 respectively. If these are examples of trustworthy read- 

 iness (and from their publication we must suppose that they are 

 sot, and if the differences obtained when the observations are un- 

 trustworthy on account of the shift of the magnetic axis are greater 



