= 
Fuly 2, 1885 | 
NATORE 
203 
then complete, for the proposal was adopted by twenty- 
one votes, without one dissentient voice. 
Such is the work of the Congress. 
This work is considerable. Its importance, however, 
is derived much more from the principles enunciated by 
the Congress than from the solutions it adopted. 
The establishment of a single meridian and of a uni- 
versal day, the unification of the astronomical and civil 
days, the extension of the decimal system,—these are 
reforms which the progress of science and of international 
relations rendered opportune and desirable. 
In the application, however, of the principles, the Con- 
gress has been less successful. 
In the choice of a primary meridian it allowed itself to 
be too much carried away by the practical and immediate 
advantages of a meridian already in very extended use, 
and disregarded the conditions which would have assured 
to its work a universal and definitive adoption. 
In regard to ourselves we have in this question adhered 
to the part prescribed to us by our past, our traditions, 
and the very character of our national genius. Our pro- 
posal was precisely that which we should haye adopted 
ourselves if we had had to take the initiation of this 
reform. The nation which created the metrical system 
could propose none other than it did. If our purely 
scientific and disinterested opinion did not unite the 
majority around it, the reverse was not for France, but 
for science. But science is the sovereign of modern times 
and one cannot now detach himselffrom it with impunity. 
It is vain to say that the meridian of Greenwich is de 
facto the universal meridian, that it reigns to-day over 
almost all the navies of the globe, and that its adoption 
only consecrates a fact which has already established it- 
self and transforms into law the institutions of fact. 
I reply that that is all true. I even add, if it is desired, 
that such is only what is merited by the great labours of 
the English marine—labours which we, the initiators of 
hydrography, more than any others appreciate at their 
true value. But however considerable may be these 
labours and however great the numbers of those availing 
themselves of them, yet with the experience of the past 
and in the name of history I say that these merits will 
not be able to prevent the inevitable consequences result- 
ing from the personal character of this meridian. And in 
point of fact, has not France—she, too—had a great geo- 
graphical career? The meridian of the Island of Ferro, 
which soon, in the hands of Gillaume Delisle and of our 
great geographers of the eighteenth century, became 
French—did it not bear sway in cartography for more 
than two centuries, and that with an authority not even 
equalled to-day by that on the other side of the Channel? 
And yet the meridian of the Isle of Ferro, after that 
brilliant career, is to-day more and more abandoned, and 
the fair attempt of the seventeenth century finds itself 
entirely compromised ! 
What is the cause, then, which has led to this vexatious 
result? Apparently a mere trifle. It is because, as we 
have already said, instead of leaving the meridian of the 
Isle of Ferro in conformity with its first intention, instead 
of maintaining it in the purely scientific character which 
it received from the hands of Richelieu, that great spirit 
who so well understood that an institution of a universal 
order must bear no personal investiture, this character 
was imprudently changed by bringing the position of this 
meridian into relation with that of Paris, in place of 
bringing the position of this capital, like any other point, 
into relation with it. 
That is the mistake which compromised the fortune of 
this reform so firmly and so judiciously established by its 
illustrious author. Now, this mistake, is it not committed 
to-day by once more taking a national meridian and 
making it the universal point of departure for longitudes ? 
Is one not then justified in foreseeing that the same 
causes would produce the same effects, with this difference, 
nevertheless, that in the advanced state of civilisa- 
tion prevailing to-day among the nations, a particular 
supremacy, of whatever nature, would be much more 
promptly abandoned than it was two centuries ago ? 
It is, accordingly, much to be feared that the establish- 
ment of the new meridian, if it even succeed in getting 
established, would again be but an attempt without a 
future. 
France who finds in the history even of her own past 
the double lesson of the progressive abandonment of her 
national meridian and of the ever growing appreciation 
of the scientific and impersonal system of weights 
and measures, ought to make known to the Congress a 
counsel dictated by her own experience. 
Does this attitude, however, sufficiently absolve us? 
Have we discharged towards the world and towards our- 
selves the debt due by a generous and enlightened nation 
which has always been delighted to take the initiative in 
tasks conducive to the general well-being? I do not 
think so; and, were it allowed me to express a wish, it 
would be that we should on this occasion again join 
example to precept. I should like that the France of the 
nineteenth century, considering herself the heir of the 
France of the seventeenth, would, with the benefit of the 
experience she has in that interval acquired, resume the 
fair attempt of Richelieu and herself establish the neutral 
meridian. 
This institution, well conceived and planted on exclu- 
sively scientific bases, would gradually rally to it the ad- 
hesion of all. England herself, who, if possessing a lively 
national sentiment, has likewise an appreciation of what 
is just and great, would end by attaching herself to it. 
and then would this reform so long desired, always 
attempted in vain, and again quite recently compromised, 
be finally secured to the world and to science. 
Be that as it may, and outside the question of th 
meridian, which is not yet settled, let us not forget tha 
the accession of England to the Metrical Convention and 
the resolution for the extension of the decimal system 
are results demonstrating that our presence at Washing 
ton was not useless either to science or to progress. 
THE VOYAGE OF THE “CHALLENGER”: 
I. 
INE years have slipped away since the memorable 
expedition of the Challenger came toa close. Dur- 
ing this interval from various published accounts of the 
voyage, the route around the world, the places called at, 
the life on board, the impressions, social or biological, left 
on the minds of the voyagers—are all now more or less 
familiar to us. There have likewise appeared numerous 
detailed quarto reports from different experts, into whose 
hands the great natural history collections amassed during 
the expedition were placed for description. We know 
precisely the additions made by the naturalists of the 
Challenger and their collaborateurs to our knowledge of 
the foraminifers, corals, medusz, ostracods, brachiopods, 
echinoids, shore fishes, birds, and many other groups, 
and from the list of memoirs yet to come we can see how 
ample a store of detail is still to be produced. We know 
also how vast an amount of additional information has 
been gathered by the expedition regarding the physics 
and chemistry of the ocean. But as yet there has been 
no condensed official record of it all. The general public, 
and even the man of science, cannot be expected to master 
the series of special reports ; life is too short for this, even 
if the power of comprehension were adequate. Admirable 
and exhaustive as the reports are, and indispensable for 
experts in the various branches of which they treat, each 
of these must necessarily appeal to a comparatively small 
t “Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Chadlenger 
during the years 1873-76.” Prepared under the direction of the late Sir 
C. Wyville Thomson, and now of John Murray. ‘‘ Narrative,” vol. I., 1885 
