30 
NATORE 
& 
4 
(Vou. 10, 1888 
orderly arrangements of a very simple kind which do not neces- 
sarily suggest Mental Purpose. They may be the effect of what 
we call accident, or of the action of elementary laws under no 
guidance or direction. Inorganic phenomena furnish many ex- 
amples of such arrangements,” &c., the argument proceeding 
to the conclusion that ‘‘the writers of the last generation were 
perfectly right in resting the general Argament from Design on 
the separate instances of adaptation in which the mark of Mind 
is most signal and conspicuous”—z.e. in organic structures. 
Now until it is shown wherein we are justified in classifying 
natural laws under two such categories as ‘‘elementary laws 
under no guidance or direction,” and laws whose ‘‘ action” gives 
rise to ‘‘ separate pieces of evidence pointing to the operations 
of special design ”—until this is shown I must remain of the 
opinion that ‘‘ Mr. Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection” 
does ‘‘touch this argument” of scientific teleology. The dis- 
tinction between two such sets of general laws is clearly not one 
that can be recognised by science, and if it is conceded that the 
theory of Natural Selection is competent to explain the proxi- 
mate or physical causation cf ‘‘structural adaptations,” we have 
no more right to refer the latter to ultimate or metaphysical 
causes than we have so to refer ‘‘ orderly arrangements of a very 
simple kind which do not necessarily suggest Mental Purpose.”’ 
For if this concession is made it means that the one set 
of causes differs from the other only, as I have said, in 
being somewhat more complex in character and less obvious in 
operation. 
Again, the Duke of Argyll says he is ‘‘not able to accept” 
the distinction which I drew between scientific and metaphysical 
teleology. The distinction nevertheless remains, and it seems 
to me so obvious that I must suppose the Duke has in some way 
failed to appreciate my meaning. However he says, ‘‘ The 
fundamental proposition of all arguments from Design is simply 
this: that the exquisite adaptations to special ends which are 
conspicuous in organic nature are, ani can only be, the work of 
physical forces when these are under the combination and direc- 
tion and control of Mind.” But this is not ‘‘ the teaching of the 
great masters” whom Dr. Carpenter names in his letter.) To 
some of them, at any rate, such a needless restriction of the 
argument to special adaptations in ‘‘organic nature” seemed 
unwarrantable, and since Mr. Darwin has shown how these 
special adaptations may be proximately explained by the opera- 
tion of certain physical causes, the tide of theistic opinion has 
more than ever turned towards a still more ‘‘ fundamental propo- 
sition ” of the argument from Design, viz. that the harmonious 
uniformity of Nature as a whole demands some one co-ordinating 
principle as its explanation. And when from this proposition it 
is argued that the principle in question must be of a psychical 
character, the argument belongs to the province of what I have 
called metaphysical teleology. This, indeed, is merely the 
“© Cosmo-theology ” of Baden-Powell, who saw very clearly the 
distinction which I have endeavoured to present, and while 
inveighing more heartily than I have done against ‘‘ the narrow 
and unworthy form in which the reasoning has been too often 
conducted,” maintained that the ‘fundamental proposition,” 
“the very essence of the whole argument, is the invariable 
preservation of the principle of order,” &c. - 
Lastly, I do not understand the Duke where he says that I am 
much mistaken if I ‘‘suppose that the present generation is 
satisfied with the purely materialistic explanations of adapted 
structures which are erroneously supposed to be the final result 
of Mr, Darwin’s theory.” I have not said anything to imply 
that I supposed these explanations to be ‘‘ purely materialistic.” 
As a matter of individual opinion I do not think that in them- 
selves they are. I see plainly enough that they have reduced 
the “‘ exquisite adaptations conspicuous in organic nature.” to the 
same general category of physical causation as all other pheno- 
mena in the physical universe ; but for this very reason, if for 
no other, I should fail to see that they can be ‘‘ purely material- 
istic” in the sense of touching the transcendental or extra- 
scientific question of Theism. 
Having thus stated my views at some length, I shall take no 
further part in this correspondence, unless it should appear that 
some further explanation is desirable, 
GEORGE J]. ROMANES 
* Except, perhaps, Mill, who thought highly of this form of teleology. 
But he also thought that if Mr. Darwin’s ‘‘ remarkable speculation ” should 
be established as a truth of science, it would seriously ‘‘touch”’ the argu- 
ment, as showing that “creative forethought is not absolutely the only link 
by which the origin of the wonderful mechanism of the eye may be con- 
nected with the fact of sight,’ &c 
a ft 
—— 
. | 
Prof. Stokes’s Lectures on Solar Physics : 
Tue subject of these lectures (NATURE, vol. xxiv. pp. 593, _ 
613) related primarily to the sun, and I was concerned with certain 
magnetic or electrical phenomena which are observed at the 
earth’s surface only in so far as they related to the elucidation of 
the physics of the sun. Accordingly these collateral subjects — 
were treated only very briefly, and I did not attempt to give — 
anything like a history of the discoveries which have been made 
in them, even as regards the portions which bear more imme- — 
diately on the physics of the sun. Indeed in many cases 
designedly refrained from mentioning names, lest the hearers 
should suppose that I was giving a history of the subject, and — 
those whose names might not appear in the very imperfect notice — 
which it would have been should feel aggrieved. When a phe- — 
nomenon was well known I generally contented myself with — 
referring to it as such. Thus, for example, in alluding to earth- 
currents I spoke of them as what the progress of telegraphy had 
made us “familiarly acquainted with”; I said nothing about 
their discovery by Mr. Barlow, as described in his important 
paper published in the Philosophical Transactions for 1849, 
though it was a paper I had studied in connection with the 
lectures. I hope this example may suffice to prevent any one 
whose name does not appear from feeling annoyed at the omis- 
sion, and to prevent the readers of NATURE from taking my 
lectures for what they were not intended to be, namely, a com- 
plete history of the subject. I take this opportunity of referring 
to one passage in my second lecture (NATURE, p. 415, a little 
above the figure), where 1 say ‘‘we might not have tension 
enough to produce such a discharge [z.e. a flash of lightning], 
the resistance to the passage of electricity from one portion of 
the air to another, which at any rate would be comparatively 
dry compared with what we have in warm latitudes, would pre- 
vent it by itself alone.” These words, without actually assert- 
ing, seem to imply that the resistance to such a discharge through 
moist air would be less than through dry. My attention has 
been called by a friend to the fact that it has been found by 
experiment that moist air insulates as well as dry. I have not 
met with experiments tending to show whether the resistance to 
a disruptive discharge is the same or not in the two. Be that as 
it may, it does not affect what follows ; for we know as a fact 
that thunderstorms are absent in high latitudes. 
Cambridge, November 8 G. G. STOKES 
The Society of Arts Patent Bill 
Ir appears that ‘‘the draft of a Bill for the Amendment of the 
Patent Laws has been prepared by a committee of the Society 
of Arts, and is published by the Council of that Society for 
consideration.” 
From the printed bill so prepared and published the following 
extracts are made :— 
Extract from the Proposed Patents for Inventions Bill, 
Section 3. ‘‘An invention is deemed new for the purposes of 
this act if it has not been published or publicly used in the United 
Kingdom, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man within the 
thirty years immediately preceding the date of the application of 
a patent for it. 
*¢5, A patent may be granted under this act for :— 
““(a) Any manufacture or any product not being a natural 
product ; 
“«(s) Any machine, or any means of producing any manufac- 
ture, product, or result ; 
‘*(c) Any process or method of producing any manufacture, 
product, or result ; 
‘*(d@) Any part of a machine, means, process, or method of 
producing any manufacture, product, or result. 
“©8. Commissioners of Patents and Examiners. 
“«(r) There shall be a Board of Commissioners of Patents for 
Inventions, in this act referred to as the commissioners :— 
“*(2) At any time after the passing of this act Her Majesty may, 
by warrant under the Sign Manual, appoint three persons to be 
commissioners, of whom one shall be experienced in engineer- 
ing, one shall be experienced in chemistry, and one shall be 
experienced in the law. : 
“9,—(1) The commissioners may from time to time after the 
passing of this act, subject to the approval of the Treasury, 
appoint such persons qualified by knowledge of manufactures or 
science or arts, as they see fit, to be Examiners of Patents. 
