410 
NATURE 
[ Sept. 22, 1870 
S. Newall, Mr. L. B. Phillips, Mr. W. Pole, Mr. F. C. 
Penrose, Prof. Tyndall, Mr. R. Webster, Mr. J. E. Back- 
house, Mr. E. E. Bowen, Col. Drayson, Admiral Omman- 
ney, Mr. Thos. Slater, Mr. P. E. Sewell, Mr. W. 
Rossiter, Capt. Noble, Mr. W. K. Clifford, Mr. W. H. H. 
Hudson. 
Here was arich promise of a victorious campaign, and 
the scientific world already congratulated itself on being 
able at last to “settle the corona,’ when suddenly, as a 
bolt out of the blue, came a letter from the Admiralty 
declining even a single ship, on the ground that such a 
purpose was entirely foreign to the purpose for which 
Parliament places funds at the disposal of the Naval De- 
partment.’ 
We think we had better leave this astounding statement 
as it stands. It seems really as if the present Admiralty 
authorities are in absolute ignorance as to the real facts 
of the case ; as to what England has done before ; as to 
what precedents exist to which men of science can point. 
Under these circumstances we trust that an appeal will 
be made to Mr. Gladstone, whose culture, wider than that 
of his more prominent colleagues, will at once grasp the 
huge Philistinism of this proceeding. Should he reverse 
their decision, which he may fairly do, on the mere ground 
that it is against all precedent, assuredly the scientific men 
of Britain will hail it as a happy omen—an indication 
that the hope experienced by Prof. Huxley at Liverpool the 
other day will, in time, be realised. If, on the other hand, 
the decision is to stand, it must be distinctly understood 
that, both in the judgment of our contemporaries and of 
posterity, it will, as has been already been pointed out 
in the daily press, bring shame upon the scientific repute 
of England, who now, with her forces all ready to achieve 
another victory over nature, is held back by “ My Lords” 
for the sake of a few pounds sterling. Surely there is little 
hope for us if in such a campaign as this we are to suc- 
cumb toa 
Lust of gold 
And love of a peace that is full of wrongs and shames ; 
Horrible, monstrous! not to be told. 
REPLY TO PROFESSOR HUXLEY’S INAUGURAL 
ADDRESS AT LIVERPOOL ON THE QUESTION 
OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE 
I 
PEAKING with all the authority which years of earnest and 
successful labour have conferred, and,. moreover, ‘‘ from the 
elevation upon which the suffrages of his colleagues had for the 
time placed him,” Prof. Huxley has just given us in his Inaugural 
Address, as President of the British Association for the Ad- 
yancement of Science, a ‘‘history of the rise and progress of a 
single biological doctrine”—that first proclaimed by Francesco 
Redi, and to the effect that Lvery living thing proceeds from a 
pre-existing living thing. 
However reluctant to enter a protest against what has been 
said by an eminent scientific man, for whom I have always en- 
tertained the greatest respect and esteem, I feel so strongly that 
the representations which have been made concerning a subject 
to which I have directed the most earnest attention for the last 
eighteen months, are not only inadequate, but altogether in- 
capable of being regarded as an impartial statement of the 
main points atissue, that I cannot hesitate as to the propriety 
of publicly expressing this opinion. 
Fearful, therefore, lest harm should be done to the cause of 
science by this address, through the great influence of the 
speaker, and mindful of the momentous issues which turn upon 
the proper solution of the question under discussion, I—sinking 
all personal feelings, risking all imputations, anxious only that 
the truth should be known—will venture to state what really 
seems to me to be the true aspect of the problem, and how far 
the remarks of Prof. Huxley really bear upon this, or have been, 
in other respects, not sufficiently explicit. 
The doctrine, whose history Prof. Huxley professes to trace, 
and whose probable truth he thinks remains unshaken, has re- 
ference to a question which is of more fundamental importance 
than any other throughout the whole range of Biological science. 
It is either true that a// living matter, without exception, comes 
into being in connection with pre-existing living matter, or else 
it is true that some living matter can arise from non-living mate- 
rials free from all connection with pre-existing living matter. 
This alternative is one the full meaning of which may, perhaps, 
be realised better by putting another, which, though strictly analo- 
gous, is somewhat freer from mystery. It may,then, similarly 
be said, it is either true that @// crystalline matter, without ex- 
ception, comes into being in connection with pre-existing erystal- 
line matter, or else itis true that some crystalline matter can arise 
from non-crystalline materials, free from all connection with pre- 
existingcrystallinematter. Matter when it passes into thecrystalline 
condition exhibits properties of acertain kind, and when it passes 
into the ving condition it exhibits properties of another kind, to 
which we commonly apply the term “ vital.” Now the question in 
each case is, whether by mere concurrence of certain physical con- 
ditions, aiding and abetting the inherent properties of the matter 
itself, some kinds of matter can fall into modes of combination 
called crystalline, whilst other kinds are capable of falling into 
modes of combination called /iz/zg; or whether, in each case, a 
pre-existing ‘‘germ” of the particular kind of matter is neces- 
sary, in order to determine, in suitable media, either of these 
modes of combination. Are we to believe that crystals can 
appear in no solution whatsoever without the pre-existence 
in that solution of certain crystalline germs,* and similarly 
that living things can arise in no solution whatsoever with- 
out the pre-existence in such solution of living germs? To 
many persons it may at first sight seem that there is no analogy 
between the two cases ; such, however, is not the opinion of yery 
many who are best entitled to speak on the subject.j| It is ad- 
mitted by them that the analogy is of the closest description ; 
and it is interesting to note that although the actual evidence 
which can be brought to bear upon these two questions is very 
similar in kind, and alike conflicting in nature, the generally 
received opinions as regards the proper answers to be given to 
these two questions have inclined to the view that, whilst it is 
possible for crystals to originate de ovo, it is at present impos- 
sible for living things to originate after this fashion. 
*TIt must not be supposed that this is a mere hypothetical case. 
On the subject of crystallisation generally in supersaturated solutions, I 
will quote the following passage from Watts’ Dictionary of Chemistry, 
Vol. v., p. 349. :—‘* This sudden crystallisation, if not produced by cold, ap- 
pears to depend essentially on contact of the solution with small solid, perhaps 
crystalline particles ; for it isnot produced by passing air previously purified 
oil of vitriol through the solution, or by agitation with a glass rod pre- 
v.ously purified from dust by ignition. According to Violette and De Gernez, 
the sudden crystallisation ts in all cases induced only by contact with a 
crystal of the same salt, possessing the same form and degree of hydration 
as the crystals, which separate out; and in the case of those supersaturated 
solutions which crystallise suddenly on exposure to the air, it is due to the 
presence of minute particles of that salt floating in the air. From an experi- 
ment of De Gernez it appears that microscopic crystals of sodic sulphate may 
be obtained by passing air, even in the open country, through pure water, 
and evaporating the water on a glass plate. Jeannel, however, denies the 
necessity of contact with the salt actually contained in the solution. He 
finds, indeed, that a supersaturated solution of sodic acetate may be made to 
crystallise by contact with any solid substance (a piece of paper for example), 
and a solution of sodic tartrate by contact with a clean, dry, glass rod ” Here, 
then, we have also a veritable “‘germ” controversy. I was informed, how- 
ever, a few weeks ago by Prof. Frankland that even in the case of sodic 
sulphate it had lately been shown that, wder certain conditions, crystal- 
lisation can certainly take place where no crystalline germ could possibly 
have existed. ‘he ‘‘germ” theory of the origin of crystals in supersaturated 
solution, has, therefore, been overthrown. This has been possible, however, 
only because it has been more easy to show that a given set of conditions are 
inimical to the existence of a crystal, than it has yet been to induce people to 
believe that any given set of conditions are incompatible with the existence 
of living matter. 
It is worthy of remark, however, that the germ controversy concerning 
crystals can only be settled in the minds of those who are content to accept 
the high probability that the properties of any zxvéstb/e portions of crystalline 
matter would correspond with the properties which similar visible crystalline 
matter is known to display. It is this reluctance to admit an equally high 
probability in the case of living matter, which alone causes the sister contro- 
versy to continue. Otherwise the question would have been settled longago. 
+ The analogy between the supposed possible origins of crystals and 
organisms in solutions has been rendered much more obvious since the dis- 
covery by the late Professor Graham, that when dissolved the saline sub- 
stance does not remain as such in solution, but that the acid and the base 
exist separately, and are separable by a process of dialysis. When crystallisa- 
tion takes place, therefore, we have a combination of materials taking place 
similar to, though simpler than, what may be presumed to take place in the 
genesis of a Living thing. ; 
Vente mel 
