37° 



NATURE 



{Feb. 14, 1884 



first president of the Society ; and the second by Mr. Macijowan, 

 kept at Hawkhill, near Edinlmrgh, from 1770 to 1776. In the 

 first, the mean temperature of the ten years is 44° ; in the second, 

 45" — not a vei-y genial retrospecc. Tilings must have been some- 

 what discouraging for the farmers in 1782, for a paper is noticed 

 in the second volume of the Transactions, by Dr. Roebuck, of 

 Sheffield, who was the manager of the Carron Iron Works, 

 recommending farmers not to cut their corn green in Octolier, 

 although there was ice three-quarters of an inch thick at Borrow- 

 stounness, because corn would fill at a temperature of 43°. Things 

 looked brighter from 1794 to 1799, for which years we have 

 results ftirnished by T-layfair. For the first three years— 1794, 

 '795. '""id 1796 — the mean temperature was 48°; and that 

 although 1795 was one of the most severe winters on record, the 

 thermometer having stood frequently several degrees below zero, 

 and a continuous frost having lasted for 53 days. The mean 

 temperature in 1794, however, was 50°. The account of the great 

 frost of 1795, which is given in the Transactions, is well worth 

 referring to. In the next three years the mean temperature was 

 48°, that of 1798 being 49»-28. Of this year (1798) Playfair savs 

 that the climate of this part of the island hardly admits of a finer 

 season. No tables were furnished to the Society, in continuation 

 of those of Prof. Playfair, until 1830, «hen fortunately Dr. 

 Barnes of Carlisle communicated to the Society a series of 

 meteorologica' tables kept at Carlisle for the first twenty-four 

 years of the century. The results .=eem mainly to concur with 

 those of Prof. Playfair — the mean temperature for the twenty- 

 four years being 47°-4547, being 3° higher than the aveiaiie 

 of the ten years from 1773 to 1783 at Branxholm, and "2' 

 higher than the mean temperature of the seven years from 1770 

 to 1776 at Hawkhill. The highest temperature I have noted 

 in these returns is that of May 1807, when the thermometer 

 stood at 85" at Carlisle, and the next, that on the 5th of August, 

 1770, when the thermometer at Hawkhill was at 81°. The two 

 years of the century in which the mean temperature was the 

 highest were iSri and 1822, in both of which years it was 49°. 



"Of the purely scientific part of the Royal Society's work for 

 the first fifteen years of its labours, while Hulton and Black and 

 Playfair and Stewart were in full vigour, it is not too much to 

 say it was brilliant— full of interest, full of power, and full of 

 enthusiasm. The first great founders of course gradually waned, 

 and all such associations are necessarily subjected to alterations 

 of the tide, but as the tale goes on the mathematical papers 

 begin to bear the names of John Leslie and William Wallace. 

 We encounter Walter Scott in 1800, in iSoS the name of David 

 Brewster, and in 1811 that of Sir Thomas Macdou 'all Brisbane, 

 whose names adorned and whose labours were in the future the 

 prop and stay of the Society. Of Scott I need not speak ; hut 

 of the services rendered by Brewster it is impossible to express 

 myself too strongly. He, too, like Playfair, had a mind 

 of rare versatility. He could observe, as well as dra-.v from his 

 own resources. He could reason as well as describe. He could 

 build a framework of sound deduction from the most unpromis- 

 ing hypothesis, and work out with unflaoging spirit the thread 

 of demonstration, however slender. He was the most prolific 

 contributor of his day ; nor do I think that any one but himself 

 in these times could have kept the fire lighted by Ilutton and 

 Playfair burning so brilliantly. For it is not to be disguised that 

 in the heat of the Continental struggle an air of languor creeps 

 over the proceedings. The joyous enthusiasm of 1783 refuses 

 to be invoked, and is elicited in vain. Nor is it wonderful. 

 When the Gauls were so nearly at our gates, the safety of our 

 own commonw^ealth was comparatively our only care. But when 

 1815 had arrived, and men's minds, set free from the long 

 anxiety, had again tranquillity lo cultivate the arts of peace, the 

 energy of the rebound was great, and the history of British 

 science has been one continued triumph ever since. By the 

 exertions of Brewster and Brisbane, and many other associates, 

 our Society again began to flourish, both leading and following 

 the course of discovery as the stream flowed on. Both of these 

 men continued to be the pride and ornament of the Society long 

 after the expiration of the half-century which I have assigned 

 to myself as my limit, for Thomas Brisbane succeeded Sir Walter 

 Scott as president in 1832, and survived until i860. Long before 

 that a new generation had surrounded the veteran philosophers, 

 and their destiny has been to recount and carry forward dis- 

 coveries of which even Brewster and Brisbane hardly dreamt. 



Enough for the present of thisretrospect, and theslender tribute 

 I have attempted to pay to the memory and labours of a mascu- 

 line and powerful generation. That we have built on their 



discoveries and learnt even by their errors is quite true ; for the 

 histoi7 of the second half of the century exhibits science far in 

 advance of 1783, and even of 1S33. In 17S3 geology was in its 

 infancy ; pala:ontology was all but unknown. Cuvier was only 

 then commencing his pursuits in comparative anatomy, which 

 w ere to end in reproducing the forms of extinct life. The Glacial 

 epoch had not then been elucidated by the research and genius 

 of Forbes and Agassiz, and the dynamic theory of heat was still 

 unproclaimed. The wonders of the photographic art were 

 unknown even in 1833, for Talbot and Daguerre did not come 

 on the scene for several years afterwards. In 1S33 the apostle 

 and disciples of evolution had not broken ground on that vast 

 field of inquiry. Spectrum analysis and the marvellous results 

 which it has already furnished and tho^e which it promises have 

 in our day only heralded the advent of a new science. But 

 however far in advance of the founders of the Royal Society the 

 current philosopher may be, there was a robustness and charac- 

 teristic individuality about the great men of that generation 

 which we may not hope to see replaced. We may assume — 

 indeed, we hope — that the close of the next century will find the 

 progress of knowledge as far advanced beyond its present limits 

 as we think that the science of to-day is beyond the point reached 

 a century ago. We'may be assured that before that time arrives 

 many surmises, still in the region of hypothesis, will have be- 

 come certainties, and that many supposed certainties will have 

 turned out fallacies. Many errors will have been corrected, 

 many dogmas discredited, many theories confirmed or refuted, at 

 the bar of ascertained fact, as those of 1783 have been. Yet 

 even then will our successors, I trust, as we do now, stand 

 reverently before the memory of our founders. Hapjiy i> the 

 institution which can show such a muster-roll, and happy the 

 country which can boast such sons. I take leave of my theme 

 with the fervent hope and firm conviction that in the century 

 which we now inaugurate the Royal Society will continue 

 with success the noble task to which by its charter it is devoted, 

 of investigating the hidden treasures of nature and ajjpropriating 

 them to the benefit and happiness of mankind." 



INSTINCT 

 I . Is there a Scii nee of Comparative Psychology '! 

 " TN the family of the sciences Comparative Psychology may 

 claim nearest kinship with Comparative Anatomy; for just 

 as the latter aims at a scientific comparison of the bodily struc- 

 tures of organisms, so the former aims at a similar comoarison 

 of their menial structures." These words form the opening sen- 

 tence of Mr. G. J. Romanes' Introduction to his recently puli 

 lished volume on "Mental Evolution in Animals," and in a 

 footnote he is careful to remind us that the phrase "mental 

 structures " is used in a metaphorical sense. Let us consider 

 how far a comparison of the mental structures of animals, even 

 in a metaphorical sense, is possible. 



Our knowledge of mind is either direct or inferential: direct 

 on the part of each individual so far as his own individual mind 

 is concerned ; inferential so far as the minds of others are con- 

 cerned. For it is a law of our being that mind cannot come into 

 direct contact with mind. This fact —that the mental ])rocesses 

 of our neighbours can never come within the sphere of our 

 objective knowledge — has long been recognised (see ex. gra. 

 Berkeley, " Princ. Hum. Know.," §§27 and 145; Kant as 

 quoted in F. Pollock's " Spinoza," p. 177) ; and the late Prof. 

 Clifford (see " Lectures and Essays," vol. ii. p. 72) coined the 

 exceedingly convenient term cjectize as descriptive of that class 

 of phenomena which belong neither to the subjective nor to the 

 objective category. My neighbour's mind is not and never can 

 be an object ; it is an eject, an image of my own mind thrown 

 out from myself. Into every human being that I meet I breathe 

 this subtle breath ; and that man becomes for me a living soul. 



Our knowledge of mind is therefore partly subjective, partly 

 ejective. Now it is perfectly obvious that, were I an isolated 

 unit, shut off from all communication w ith my fellows, no science 

 of psychology would be possible for me. I might by the analysis 

 of my own mental processes arrive at certain conclusions with 

 regard to my own states of consciousness ; I might reach some 

 .sort of knowledge of the working of myo«nmind. But this 

 would not be a science of mind. A science of mind only becomes 

 possible when I am able to compare my own conclusions with 

 those which my neighliours have reached in a similar luannei-. 

 By means of language human beings can communicate to each 



