Fe 
3 
x 
May 29, 1873} 
NATURE 
83 
collodion process, considerable space is devoted to the 
more modern subject of dry-plate photography. The 
many precautions necessary in the employment of the 
collodio-bromide negative process, as introduced by 
Messrs. Sayce and Bolton, and improved by Mr. Carey 
Lea and Colonel Wortley, are fully entered into ; and the 
very rapid method introduced by the latter gentleman, in 
which the collodion is saturated with nitrate of silver, is 
given with some very recent formule, The subject of 
printing in pigments, so important in the present day, 
which “ doubtless would become universal were the pro- 
cesses unfettered by patents,” is fully described, with the 
difficulties attending the “double transfer” of the gelatin 
film. Following the details of photolithography, photo- 
zincography is that of collotype printing, which has 
become so prominent of late. A vocabulary of chemicals 
ends this valuable and suggestive work, of which, from 
want of space, we have had to omit the mention of many 
points. 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
[Zhe Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 
by his correspondents. No notice is taken of anonymcus 
communications. } 
Science at Cambridge 
THERE are some points in two articles which have lately ap- 
peared in your periodical upon which I should like to make a few 
remarks. First, however, allow me to congratulate the author 
upon having deprived the opponents of ‘*Science” of a time- 
honoured monopoly. For a certain quiet insolence of conscious 
superiority and an inability to see more than one side of a ques- 
tion, his articles equal any diatribes that I have heard or read 
from the most intolerant supporter of ‘‘ the old ecclesiasticism 
and false culture.” 
Let that pass, however, and let us proceed to examine one or 
two statements in detail. ‘‘ Science is all but dead in England, 
. . . perhaps deadest of all at our Universities.” Now on 
reading the word science, one has always to ask what a writer 
means, and the probability is that he means what is commonly 
called natural science; our writer, however, kindly gives us a 
definition—“ that searching after new knowledge which is its 
own reward,” 
Most certainly the more eminent among our Professors and 
resident Fellows (and some of them are known even in Ger- 
many) cannot be said to have followed learning for any other 
reward ; or if so they have taken their pigs to a very poor 
market. Ie will, perhaps, say that they have fellowships and 
professorships. Yes, the aggregate value of which will vary 
from probably six to nine hundred a year, coupled, in some 
cases, with conditions which seriously diminish their value. Is 
this so great a prize? 
Again, we are represented as encouraging by prize fellow- 
ships and “ that kind of liberal education which softens the cha- 
racter and prevents it being strong.” I hardly know what the 
writer means ; however, the following are the studies which we 
do endeavour to encourage :— 
(1.) Mathematics.—Does the writer seriously mean to apply 
his remark to this study? If so, I can only say that to those 
who can appreciate sound and unsound reasoning, there is a 
marvellous difference between the work of (say) such a geologist 
as the late Prof. Sedgwick, trained in the school of mathe- 
matics, and not a few, whomit would be offensive to name, who 
have never had that advantage. 
(2.) Language.—Perhaps in comparison with looking at mites 
in a microscope, or analysing some very rare but useless mineral, 
the attempt to enter into communion with the thought of the 
master-minds of our race in the past time is a contemptible 
pursuit ; but though with a great regard for both the above 
pursuits myself, and with no pretension to refined scholarship, 
i cannot—and hope but few can—agree with this opinion. 
(3.) The moral sciences.—If this is meant, I give the writer 
over to the tender mercies of the philosopher, who, I think, will 
be able to give an account of him: so also as regards legal 
studies. 
(4.) Natural Sciences.—These are encouraged in precisely the 
same way as the others (in the case of most colleges), Is this 
then culture which produces effeminacy ? 
But perhaps the writer will say that only classics and mathe- 
matics are encouraged. To this I reply that the other studies 
are of recent growth in the University—I admit that they ought 
to have taken root long ago—that however is not our critic’s 
charge—he is dealing with the present—and I have no hesita- 
tion in affirming that in all the important colleges the students of 
natural science have just as good a chance of honour and rewards 
as those of other branches of learning. The number of rewards 
that have been given is small, because the number of really first- 
class students has hitherto been small. The number of 
students (and their quality) increases year by year. I have no 
fear that as a rule they will meet with their deserts. 
Or does the writer mean to say that our fault is teaching and 
examining, that we ought to open laboratories (for notwith- 
standing his definition, I think his science means only one thing) 
and simply exercise a general superintendence over students ? 
After an experience of some years I can only say that though I 
do not worship either lectures or examinations (especially the 
latter), with a blind ‘‘ idolatry,” I believe without them the 
majority of young students are very apt to become slipshod and 
slovenly in their work. 
But the trumpet’s sound is so uncertain that I know not 
exactly what the writer does mean, I have read over and over 
again his dertinm guid (p. 41), in supporting which he confesses 
he is with a select few—doubtless the salt of the earth—and I 
stillam doubtful. They be very ‘‘ brave words”—but ‘to 
make the University a place where anyone and everyone may 
be trained for any and every respectable path of life,” is just 
the aim of every change that has been made since I have known 
the place. Our students—of subjects not classical—certainly 
increase yearly, and I have not heard of any marked deportation 
to the Elysian fields of either Manchester, London, Newcastle, 
or Germany. Neither have I found that such ‘‘ master minds 
of the age” as are within our walls (and I think, subject to the 
writer’s approval there are some) inaccessible to students. 
In conclusion I must state in self-defence that I am not usually 
considered a conservative. I have done all that was in my 
power to help the cause of University Reform, and especially 
of Natural Science. But much as I delight in the latter I de- 
cline to regard it as the only culture, the only training worthy of 
respect. I trust to live to see yet greater changes. These how- 
ever will not be obtained by vague declamations or reckless 
accusations—such as ‘‘long years of misrule have left suckers of 
jobbery, like bind-weed in an old garden, which come up re- 
freshed with every stirring of the soil.” After twelve years of 
active life in the University—and often failing to obtain what I 
wanted—I unhesitatingly assert that there is no place where 
there is so little jobbery, or where the motives that actuate men, 
even if mistaken, are so generally pure as here. There are 
jobs everywhere now and then, even in scientific societies or 
coteries. 
There are indeed difficulties in the way of reform, but the writer 
of the articles, I venture to think, has not hit the nail on the 
head. May I, before ending this long letter, in a few words 
indicate one or two—1. The workers in the University should 
govern it. At present a body called the Senate, ‘consisting 
chiefly of non-residents, has the final decision of everything. 
Throw all the power into the hands of the working bees, and we 
will reform ourselves fast enough. 2, The waste of money in 
non-resident fellowships. There are very few here who would 
defend the present system, but we have no power to change it 
ourselves. 3. The poverty of the Universities. To relieve this 
we must have power given to colleges to alter their statutes, and 
so long as the University is governed by the Senate, we in the 
colleges do not care to put beyond ovr control funds which 
might then even be applied to political or theological squabbles. 
4. An improvement of the Professorial System—more teachers 
and rather less routine work, with greater unity of action between 
the former. Give us powers, and we will soon settle that. We 
are bound, like the Jews, ‘‘ by a chain of ordinances,” and till 
that is broken cannot help ourselves, T. G, BONNEY 
St. John’s College, Cambridge 
Arctic Exploration 
THE news of Mr, Hall’s Arctic Exploration is important from 
two points of view, and I shall be obliged if you will allow me 
the space to point out the lessons to be derived from it, and the 
way in which the new facts strengthen the arguments for Polar 
exploration. 
