Fan. 27, 1870| 
NATURE 335 
assertion should be mistaken, he explicitly tells us that “Space 
and Time are not merely forms of sensuous intuition, but intui- 
tions themselves” (Meiklejohn’s Trans., p. 98): that is, sevseous 
intuitions, as he has been just before asserting that all human 
intuitions must be. It is precisely on this distinction of pure 
sensibility and pure thought that Kant founds the possibility of 
Mathematics—a science which could never be derived from a 
mere analysis of the concepts employed, but only from the 
construction of them in intuition. He ridicules, for example, the 
idea of attempting to deduce the proposition, “ Two right 
lines cannot enclose a space,” from the mere concepts or 
notions of a straight line and the number two, “All your 
endeavours,” says he, “are in vain, and you find yourself 
compelled to have recourse to intuition, as in fact Geometry 
always does.” (Meiklejohn, p. 39 : see also his long contrast of 
Mathematical and dogmatical methods in the beginning of the 
“*Methodology.”) And not only is Kant’s Mathematical theory 
founded on this distinction but his Physical theory also, since it 
is only by means of pure intuition that he connects pure thought 
with sensations (see the ‘‘Schematism” and still more the 
“©General Remark on the System of Principles,” Meiklejohn, 
pp. 174-7); and when he fails to make out this connection he 
regards the Ideas of Pure Reason as possessed of no objective 
validity (Transcendental Dialectic). In the first edition of the 
*Critick” he went still further, and in his remarks on the Second 
Paralogism of Rational Psychology he speaks of ‘‘that some- 
thing which lies at the basis of external phenomena, which so 
affects our sense as to give it the representations of sface, matter, 
Jorm, &c.” And while he abbreviated his discussion in the 
second edition he tells us in his preface that he found nothing to 
alter in the views put forward in the previous one. 
I might quote whole pages of the ‘‘Critick” in proof of these 
views, but I ought rather to apologise for writing so much after 
the letters which you have already published. I believe the 
mistakes as to Kant’s doctrine of Space and Time, his refutation 
of Idealism, and his discussion of the Antinomies of the Pure 
Reason, are almost without a parallel in the History of Philosophy, 
Trinity College, Jan. 22 W, H. STANLEY MONCK 
State Aid to Science 
TopsERVE that both in your leading article and in the correspon- 
dence upon Mr. Wallace’s letter, the soundness of his theory of 
taxation seems to be conceded, though you quarrel with his 
inference that Science ought not to receive Governmentaid. But 
will his theory hold water fora moment? The theory as I under- 
stand it is this: “‘ No money raised by general taxation ought to 
be applied for any purpose which does not directly benefit every- 
body.” In other words, ‘‘It is not fair to take A’s money and 
use it for the benefit of B.”” Why not, if at the same time you 
take a proportionate amount of B’s money and use it for the 
benefit of A? Suppose you tax people who don’t want gratuitous 
education for themselves, and spend the money on primary 
schools. ‘This is expenditure for the direct benefit of one class 
only ; and indirect benefits, according to Mr. Wallace, are not to 
be taken into account. This, according to the theory, would be an 
unfair application of public money. But if at the same time 
you apply a proportionate amount of public money for the 
benefit of all those who reap no direct good from gratuitous 
schools, you exactly redress the injustice ; and, so faras it goes, 
expenditure on Science is an expenditure of this character. 
If Mr. Wallace’s theory were sound, there is no conceivable 
application of public money which it would not condemn, There 
is no public expenditure which directly benefits all. Take the 
payment of dividends on Consols, which eats up a third of our 
revenue. How does an agricultural labourer benefit by this? 
Not directly, certainly, and I am not sure that he does even indi- 
rectly. The only indirect good is, that it maintains public credit, 
and enables the Government to borrow again and to go to war on 
the strength of it. What good does that do to the labourer? 
Perhaps it may be said itis the fulfilment of a moral obligation. 
But whose moral obligation? Not Hodge the ploughman’s. Even 
the least exceptionable of all outlay, that on police, is of very 
doubtful benefit to those who have nothing to lose. And the 
theory, if sound, must goa step further than Mr. Wallace carries 
it. Ifall public expenditure ought to benefit all, it ought by the 
same reasoning to benefit each in exact proportion to his contri- 
bution, and no system of taxation and expenditure even pretends 
to approach this condition. 
Obviously Mr. Wallace could not have meant what he said. 
He must have meant this: ‘‘ Public expenditure as a whole 
ought to benefit taxpayers in proportion to what they pay.” 
Put in this way it is a fair doctrine, to which our actual adjust- 
ment of taxation and expenditure ought to approximate as 
nearly as may be. But this is quite consistent with special 
expenditure for the benefit of special classes, provided it is 
fairly balanced by other special expenditure for all other classes. 
If, on the whole, men of science are getting more than their share 
of the good things going, by all means stop the supply; if 
they are getting less than their share, give them something 
more. This is surely fair, and it is an intelligible working 
principle. Mr. Wallace’s principle has only this to recommend 
it, that it would be impossible to find any object which would 
justify the levying of a single sixpence from your humble servant 
or any other TAXPAYER 
P.S.—I hope that in discussing Mr. Wallace’s argument on 
his own grounds, I shall not be supposed to agree with him that 
the direct and immediate benefit is the only thing to be looked 
to. If aman or a class gets a benefit, it does not lose its 
value by coming indirectly. And, asa matter of fact, expen- 
diture on Science does, as you and others have sufficiently 
pointed out, confer indirect benefits on the non-scientific classes, 
incomparably beyond any little direct advantage to the scientific 
students whose work is promoted by it. 
Use of the word ‘Correlation”’ 
I OBSERVE in your last number you adopt the phrase of Mr. 
Barrett, ‘* Correlation of colour and music.” Will you and Mr. 
Barrett pardon a criticism on the application of the word ‘‘ corre- 
lation ?” 
I believe I was the first who ever used the word at all as an 
English word, though the words ‘“‘ correlate,” ‘‘ correlative,” &c., 
are to be found in Johnson. At all events, I stretched the mean- 
ing, and apologised for so doing in my essay on the ‘‘ Correlation 
of Physical Forces.” Wherever the word ‘‘ correlative” was used 
to express a mutual and inseparable relation of two ideas, such 
as parent and offspring, height and depth, &c., I ventured, for 
want of a better term, to apply it, and the new substantive ‘‘ cor- 
relation” to reciprocal relations of phenomena, such as heat and 
electricity, electricity and magnetism, &c.—not then (1842) sup- 
posed, except by me, to be relations of necessity, and not eyen 
now supposed to be inseparable in idea. 
The application of the word has latterly been much extended, 
and we hear of correlation of growth, correlation of diseases, 
correlation of sciences, &c. I rather regret this ; there is nothing 
of greater importance, especially for works on physical science, 
than accuracy, as far as may be, in the use of words : perfect 
accuracy is impossible. 
Mr. Barrett has, I think, extended the import of the word 
beyond reasonable limits. There is no correlation between colour 
and music, further than there isa correlation between anything and 
everything. The word ‘‘analogy,” used also by Mr. Barrett, is, 
in my humble judgment, far more accurate as applied to the 
classes of phenomena he treats of. I hope he will excuse a 
‘parent ” when complaining of ill-treatment to his ‘‘ offspring,” 
although the offspring may have had a little congenital deformity. 
January 22 W. R. GROVE 
Rainbow Colours 
I AM reminded by Mr. Grove’s statement at p. 314 (that he has 
seen three repetitions of the spectrum within the primary) of a 
splendid rainbow, which I saw at the Falls of the Handeck, near 
Meyringen, last summer. 
The sun was very bright, about midday, and looking down at 
the Fall there appeared the most beautiful rainbow I ever saw. 
The colours were intense, probably from the spray being in 
fine drops ; and I observed between the primary and secondary, 
z.¢. between the two violets, a band of @ fixe rich brown colour. 
Ihave often observed when rainbows are bright, that there 
is a dark band of a neutral tint between the two. ‘This effect 
was shown very beautifully in a drawing by Mr. Alfred W. Hunt, 
exhibited at the Water Colour Society two or three years ago. 
He appears to have seen the same effect, but I had never seen 
the rich brown colour before. It was no effect of background, 
for when I varied my position the brown moved with the bows. 
I have also often seen four or five, what may be called ter- 
tiary bows, inside the primary. They are grouped together as 
it were, and form a band of alternate red and green, becoming 
fainter as they recede from the primary. They appear to be a 
repetition of the primary in which the red and green are the 
most prominent colours. 
Gateshead, January 23 R. S. NEWALL 
