55° 
the Archives of the Royal Society. If this be regarded as a 
valid document and date of departure, I shall have something 
more to say about Prof. Bose’s methods. If this date and 
document be not valid, his claim rests upon a paper at the 
Linnean Society of July 21, 1902, which seems to me to be a 
very interesting instance of scientific mimicry. Anyone 
interested in the study of such phenomena will find it instruc- 
tive to compare the papers mentioned by Prof. Bose, of 
November 9, 1901, and July 21, 1902, to the Physiological and 
Linnean Societies respectively. I think he should also, as 
regards the general method, consult my Lectures on Animal 
Electricity of 1897 at the Royal Institution, which have been 
adopted by Prof. Bose as his point of departure. : 
A. D. WALLER. 
British Association Meetings. 
THE gradual decrease in the number of those attending the 
recent meetings of the British Association might suggest that 
the popularity or the usefulress of these scientific gatherings is 
on the wane. The opportunity for an instructive comparison 
exists in the fact that on the last three occasions on which the 
Association has met, it has repeated its visits to well-known 
centres, widely distributed. It might have been anticipated that, 
owing to the growth of material prosperity and of the population 
of these towns, a continually increasing number would have 
availed themselves of the advantages of these meetings. The 
following figures show, however, that the contrary is the 
case :-— 
Wear Place of Number Year of pre- Number 
2 Meeting. attending. vious Meeting. attending. 
1900 ,.. Bradford TODS Were 1873 1983 
1901 .., Glasgow 1912 1876 2774. 
1902 Belfast TOZOusee ees 1874 1951 
Naturally the amount of grants for scientific purposes shows 
a similar decline :— 
Bradford, 10722, against 1685/7. in 1873 
Glasgow, 9454 ,, 10922 ,, 1876 
Belfast, 960/. So LLG Id: ery US TIA: 
The usefulness of the Association in one direction is ap- 
parently lessened, since it has distributed about 10007. less in the 
three years, but it may be that there is not the same necessity 
for assistance as was the case a quarter of acentury ago, and that 
consequently the amount applied for by the different sections 
has not been as large as on previous occasions. But this does 
not put aside the fact that there is a distinct falling off in the 
interest exhibited, as tested by the numbers attending. 
Supposing there is any decrease in the popular favour, and 
the smaller figures are not due to temporary causes, it seems 
worth while to ask whether any portion of the decline is 
traceable to reasons connected with the Association itself. This 
is a question which can be answered only by those who are 
intimately connected with the management, but there was a 
feeling among some of the members that the business was 
unduly protracted, and it was asked, with some apparent show 
of reason, why the meeting must always begin on a Wednesday. 
If the President’s address, it was urged, was given on Monday 
evening, it would allow four clear, uninterrupted days for the 
business of the sections, which in most cases would be found 
sufficient, and then the Saturday could be employed in the 
manner it now is, or in winding up the unfinished sections. 
There may, of course, be an insurmountable objection to altering 
the arrangements which have existed for so many years, but 
which scarcely seem to meet the conditions of modern life, and 
it is with the view of hearing from some authoritative source 
the object of maintaining the old order of things that I have 
ventured to trouble you with this note. W. E. PB: 
September 19. 
Helmholtz on the Value of the Study of Philosophy. 
THE opinions of Helmholtz, even as expressed in his popular 
scientific lectures, have such permanent weight that you may 
consider the following correction of sufficient general interest to 
publish it in your journal. 
On p. 234 of Dr. Atkinson’s ‘* Popular Lectures on Scientific 
Subjects by H. von Helmholtz” (second series, new edition, 
Longmans, Green and Co., 1893), lines 7 to 11, we read :— 
*“ And the physician, the statesman, the jurist, the clergy- 
man, and the teacher, ought to be able to build upon a know- 
NO. 1718, VOL. 66] 
NALORE 
[OcToBER 2, 1902 
ledge of physical processes if they wish to acquire a true scien- 
tific basis for their practical activity.” (The italics are mine.) 
What may have been Helmholtz’s opinion of the value of a 
knowledge of physical science to the groups of specialists above 
named may be gathered from other parts of his writings, but in 
view of the surely unjust discredit into which the study of 
genuine philosophy (such as Helmholtz defines it) appears to 
have fallen in the eyes of the followers of the ‘‘ Naturwissen- 
schaften,”’ it would appear just to quote the original passage, 
whereby it will be seen that what was perhaps a printer’s error 
in the translation has altered the whole gist of the passage :— 
““Und auf die Kenntniss der Gesetze der psychzschen Vor- 
giinge miisste der Arzt, der Staatsmann, der Jurist, der Geist- 
liche und Lehrer bauen k6nnen, wenn sie eine wahrhaft 
wissenschaftliche Begriindung ihrer praktischen Thatigkeit 
gewinnen wollten” (Helmholtz, ‘‘ Vortrage und Reden,” p. 
189, fourth edition, second vol., Braunschweig, 1896). (The 
italics are mine.) That “‘psychischen” is mo¢ a printer's 
error for ‘‘physischen”’ in the original is evidenced by the 
context, which is so interesting that I venture to quote it. 
After a brief comparison of the relation of philosophy to meta- 
physics with that of astronomy to astrology, Helmholtz says :— 
““Ebenso bleibt der Philosophie, wenn sie die Metaphysik 
aufgiebt, noch ein grosses und wichtiges Feld, die Kenntniss 
der Geistigen und seelischen Vorgange und deren Gesetze. Wie 
der Anatom, wenn er an die Grenzen des mikroskopischen 
Sehvermogens kommt, sich Einsicht in die Wirkung seines 
optischen Instrumentes zu verschaffen suchen muss, so wird 
jeder wissenschaftliche Forscher auch das Hauptinstrument, 
mit dem er arbeitet, das menschliche Denken, nach seiner 
Leistungsfahigkeit genau studiren miissen. Zeugniss fiir die 
Schidlichkeit irrthiimlicher Ansichten in dieser Beziehung ist 
unter Anderem das zweitausendjahrige Herumtappen der 
medicinischen Schulen.” 
I have not access to earlier editions of the original German 
than 1896; relatively to my object, such reference seems 
unnecessary. B. BRANFORD. 
The Technical College, Sunderland, September 23. 
Trade Statistics. 
Dr. MOLLWO PERKIN repeats in NATURE, p. 443, Mr. 
Levinstein’s statement that in foreign trade ‘‘we went back 
during the ten years 189t-1g00” (Journ. Soc. Chemical 
Industry, pp. 893-4). The evidence given is that ‘‘in the year 
1890 our total exports amounted to 328 millions sterling,” 
whereas “the average amount during the decade 1891-1900 
was only 300 millions.” But why should 1890 be taken as the 
standard year? It happens that the exports in that year were 
unusually high—higher, indeed, than in any other year from 
1880 to 1898. Had Mr. Levinstein been in a hopeful frame of 
mind, he might have chosen 1888 or 1892 as his normal year, or, 
much more rationally, he might have taken the average of five 
years, 1886-1890 (299 millions), or the average of ten years, 
1881-1890 (297 millions). Any of these methods would have 
brought out the more pleasing conclusion that our foreign trade 
is advancing. My object is not to decide whether it is or not, 
but to protest against Mr. Levinstein’s method of proof. Can 
we imagine a meteorologist contrasting the average rainfall of a 
series of years with the rainfall of a szzg/e preceding year and 
on that basis announcing a change in the climate ? 
The facts (often exaggerated and misunderstood) as to the 
more rapid advance of German exports are fully and clearly 
stated in ‘‘Comparative Statistics of Population, Industry and 
Commerce,”’ recently issued by the Beard of Trade at the price 
of 54d. Itis not clear why Mr. Levinstein makes use of the 
British ‘‘ total” exports, including all the transit trade, while 
for Germany he takes the ‘‘ special” exports, from which the 
transit trade is, as far as possible, excluded. This swells all 
the British amounts by something like 25 per cent. beyond what 
they would stand at if they represented native produce only. 
It does not, however, much affect comparisons of rates of 
progress. But it confuses abstractors—in Dr. Perkin’s abstract 
the distinction is overlooked. F. EVERSHED. 
Kenley, Surrey, September 9. 
Ir is quite true, as Mr, Evershed points out, that the 
exports for 1890 were unusually high, but those of 1899 and 
1900 were also exceptional, owing largely to war exports ; this, 
however, hardly alters Mr. Levinstein’s contention—that the 
trade of the country shows a decline as compared to the trade of 
