

NATURE 
273 

the comparativelv coarse whole, we should have had something 
barely distinguishable save by want of instincts trom the living 
model. But Jet no one imagine that, shou'd we ever penetrate 
this mystery, we shall thereby be enabled to produce, except from 
life, even‘he lowest form of life. Our Presidert’s splendid 
suggestion of Vortex-atoms, if it be correct, will enable us 
thoroughly :o understand matter, and m thematically to investi- 
gate all its properties. Yet its very basis impiies the absolu'e 
necessi'y of an intervention of Creative Power to form or 
to destroy one atom even cf dead matter. The question 
really stands thus: Is Life physical or no? For if it be in any 
sense, however slight or restricted, physical, it is to that extent 
a subject for the Natural Philosopher, and for him alone. It 
would be entirelv out of place for me to discuss such a question 
as this now and here; I have introduced it merely that I may 
say a word or two about what has been so often and so persist- 
ently croaked against the British Association, viz. that it tends 
to develope what are called Scientific Heresies. No doubt such 
charges are brought more usually against other Sections than 
against this ; but Section A has not been held blameless. It 
seems to me that the proper answer to all such charges will be 
very simply and easily given, if we merely show that in our 
reasonings irom observation and experiment we invariably con- 
fine our physical conclusions strictly to matter and energy (things 
which we can weigh and measure) in their multiform combina- 
tions. Excepting that which is obviously purely mathematical, 
whatever is certainly neither matter nor energy, nor dependent 
upon these, #s 7ot a subject 10 be discussed here, even by implica- 
tion. All our reasonings in Physics mest, so far as we know, be 
based upon the assumption founded on experience, that in the 
universe, whatever be the epoch or the locality, under exactly 
similar cir umstances exactly similar results will be obtained. If 
this be nct granted there is an end of Physical Science, or rather, 
there never could have been such a Science.* ‘To use the word 
** Heresy” with reference to purely physical reasonings about 
Geological Time, or matters of that kind, is nowadays a piece 
of folly from which even Galileo’s judges, were they alive, would 
shrink, as calculated to damage none but themselves and the cause 
which of old they, according to their lights, very naturally main- 
tained. 
There must always be wide limits of uncertainty (unless we 
choose to look upon Physics as a necessarily finite Science) con- 
cerning the exact boundary between the Attainable and the 
Unattainable. One herd of ignorant péople, with the sole 
prestige of vapidly increasing numbers, and with the adhesion of 
a few fanatical deserters from the ranks of Science, refuse to admit 
that all the phenomena even of ordinary dead matter are strictly 
and exclusively in the domain of physical science. On the other 
hand, there is a numerous group, not in the slightest degree 
entitled to rank as Physicists—though in geveral they assume 
the proud title of Philosophers—who assert that not merely 
Life, but even Volition and Consciousness are mere physical 
manifestations. These opposite errors, into neither of which it 
is possible for a genuine scientific man to fall, so long at least as 
he retains his rea-on, are easily seen to be very closely allied. 
They are both to be attributed to that Credulity which ts cha- 
racteristic alike of Ignorance and of Incapacity. Untortunately 
there is no cure—the case is hopeless—for great ignorance al- 
most necessarily presumes incapacity, whether it shows itself in 
the comparatively harmless folly of the Spiritualist, or in the 
pernicious nonsense of the Materiali-t. 
Alike condemned and contemned, we leave them to their 
proper fa‘e—oblivion ; but st1l we have to face the question :— 
where t» draw the line between that which is physical and that 
which is utterly beyo.d physics. And again, our answer is 
—Experience alone can tell us; for experience is our only pos- 
sible guide. If we attend earnestly and honestly to its teachings, 
we shall never go far astray. Man has been leit to the resources 
of his intellect for the discovery not merely of physical laws, 
but of bow far he is capable of comprehending them. And our 
answer to those who denounce our legitimate studies as heretical 
is simply this:—A_ revelation of anything which we can dis- 
* It might be possible, and, if so, perhaps interesting, to speculate on the 
results 0! secular changes in phy-~ical laws, or in par icles o ma ter which 
are subject to +hem, buc (so far ax experience, which is our ody guide has 
taught us since the beginning of inoderu scie:.ce) here seems no trace of 
such. Even ii thers were, as these changes must he of uecessi y extr m ly 
slow (because no: y t even susp ce ) we may reasonably expect from the 
analogy o th_ history of such a quest on as gravitation, espec «lly in tne 
di covery of Nep une, tha our work, far from vecoming impossible, w Il 
mer-ly becume comusiderably more d fficult as well as more laborious, but on 
that account, all the more creditable when successfully carried out. 


cover for ourselves, by studying the ordinary course of nature, 
would be an absurdity. 
A profound Jesson may be learned from one of the earliest 
little papers of our President, published while he was an under- 
graduate at Cambridge, wi ere he shows that Fourier’s magn ficent 
treatment of the Conduction of Heat leads to formulze for its dis- 
tribution which are intelligible (and of course capable of being 
fully verified by experiment) for all time future, but which, 
except in particular cases, when extended to time past, remain 
intelligible for a finite period only, and then indicate a state of 
things which could not have resulted under known laws from any 
conceivable previous distribution. So far as heat is concerned, 
modern investigations have shown that a previous distribution of 
the matter involved may, by its potential energy, be capable of 
producing such a state of things at the moment of its aggrega- 
tion ; but the example is now adduced, not for its bearing on heat 
alone, but as a simple illustration of the fact that all portions of 
our science, and especially that beautiful one the Dissipation of 
Evergy, point unanimously to a beginning, to a state of things 
incapable of being derived by present laws from any conceivable 
previous a: rangement. 
I conclude by quoting some noble words used by Stokes in his 
Address at Exeter, words which should be stereotyped for every 
meeting of this A-sociation :—‘* When from the phenomena of 
life we pass on to those of mind, we enter a region still more 
profoundly mysterious. Science can be expected to do but 
little to aid us here, since the instrument of research is itself the 
object of investigation, It can but enlighten us as to the depth 
of our ignorance, and lead us to look toa higher aid for that 
which most nearly concerns our well-being.” 
SECTION B. 
CHEMICAL SCIENCE. 
OPENING ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT, Dr. ANDREWS, F.R.S. 
AMIDST the vicissitudes to which scientific theories are liable, 
it was scarcely to be expected that the discarded theory of phlo- 
giston should be resuscitated in our day, and connected with one 
of the most important generalisations of modern science. The 
phlogistic theory, elaborated nearly two hundred years ago, by 
Beccher and Stahl, was not, it now appears, wholly founded on 
error ; on the contrary, it was an imperfect anticipation of the 
great principle of energy, which plays so important a part in 
physical and chemical changes. The disciple of phlogiston, 
ignorant of the whole history of chemical combination, con- 
nected, it is true, his phlogiston with one only of the combin ng 
bodies, instead of recognising that it is eliminated by the union 
of all. ‘* There can be no doubt,” says Dr. Crum Brown, who 
first suggestea this view, ‘‘that poteutial energy is what the 
chemists of the seventeenth century, meant when they spoke of 
phlogiston.” ‘* Phlogiston and latent heat,” playfully remarks 
Volhard, ‘* which formerly opposed each other in so hot a com- 
bat, have entered into a peacetul compact, and to banish all re- 
collection of their former striie, have assumed in common the 
new name of energy.” But as Dr. Odl ng well remarks, ‘In 
interpreting the phlogistic writings by the light of modern 
doctrine, we are not to attribute to their authors the precise 
notion ot energy which now prevails. It is only co: tended that 
the phlogistiaus had in their time possession of a real truth in 
nature, which, altogether lost sight ot in the intermediate period, 
has since crystallised but in a definite torm.” 
But whatever may be the true value of the Stahlian views, 
there can be no doubt that the discoveries which have shed so 
bright a lustre round the name ot Black, mark an epoch in the 
history of science, and gave a mighty impulse to human pro- 
gress. A recent attempt to 'gnore the labours of Black and his 
great contemporaries, and to attribute the foundation of modern 
chemistry to Lavoisier alone, has already been amply refuted in an 
able inaugural address delivered a short time ago from the chair 
formerly occupied by Black. The statements of Dr. Crum 
Brown may indeed be confirmed on the authority of Lavoisier 
himself. ‘Through the kindness of Dr. Black’s representatives, 
I have been permitted to examine his correspondence which has 
been carefully preserved, and I have been so fortunate as to find 
in it three origimal letters trom Lavoisier to Dr, Black. They 
were written m 1789 and 1790, and they appear to compris- the 
whole of the correspondence on the part of Lavoisier which 
passed between those distinguished men. Some extracts {rom 
these letters were published svon after Dr. Black’s death by his 
friends, Dr, Adam Ferguson and Dr, Robison; but the letters 
