628 EEPORT— 1887. 



unknown but for the labours of Bunsen and Kirchboff in perfecting and applying 

 that instrument. 



I must not, however, omit all reference to a department of chemistry which has 

 been, one may almost say, created -wdthin the time to which I am referring — I mean 

 that of synthesis. When I began to study chemistry we only heard of analysis ; of 

 synthesis, so far at least as regards organic bodies, we only dreamt as a remote and 

 unattainable region. The only instance then known of the synthesis of an organic 

 substance was that of urea by Wohler. Synthesis was, indeed, supposed to be an 

 essentially vital process effected under the influence of the vital force, and quite out- 

 side the sphere of the chemist. Since then what marvels have we not seen? 

 Alizarin and purpurin, the colouring matters of madder, have been prepared 

 artificially by Graebe and Liebermann, indigo by Baeyer, not to mention bodies of 

 simpler constitution obtained by comparatively less complicated processes. We are 

 honoured to-day by the presence of Professor Ladenburg, who has succeeded in arti- 

 ficially preparing coniin, the alkaloid to which hemlock owes its poisonous properties ; 

 the first natural alkaloid, indeed, which has been obtained artificially. Looking back 

 at what has been achieved I think we may entertain the confident anticipation that 

 all the most important organic bodies — acids, alkaloids, and neutral substances — will, 

 in course of time, be obtained in a similar manner, though of one thing we may be 

 pretty sure, viz., that we shall never succeed in forming any really organised 

 matter as distinct from organic. The term organic matter is in fact only employed 

 for the sake of convenience, and as an expression handed down to us from former 

 days, since so-called organic compounds are subject to the same laws with regard 

 to composition as the bodies which we name mineral or inorganic, but organised 

 matter such as we find constituting the vessels of plants and animals is a different 

 thing. The protoplasm contained in the vegetable and animal cell is something 

 very distinct from the same matter after the death of the organism, but the 

 difference between living and dead matter is not of a chemical nature. In referring 

 to chemical synthesis I cannot refrain from expressing regret that so Uttle has 

 hitherto been done in the artificial production of minerals with a view to elucidating 

 the processes by which they were formed in nature, but it is possible that more has 

 been done in this direction than I am aware of, since this is a department of 

 chemistry with which I am not familiar. It is certain that inorganic chemistry 

 generally does not now receive the attention which it formerly did. The exclusive 

 devotion to the chemistry of the carbon compounds which we find in most of our 

 laboratories at the present day may, however, be accounted for when we see the 

 brilliant results to which the study of those compounds has led. 



After these few remarks on the development of chemistry during the last fifty 

 years, of which I know a little, it may seem presumptuous on my part, in the 

 presence of some of the most eminent chemists of our day, whose opinions must be 

 of infinitely more value than mine, to say anything about the future of our science 

 and the direction it will probably take. Nevertheless, trusting to your kind 

 indulgence, I will venture on some speculations in this direction, which, "if they do 

 not instruct the younger members of the Section, may serve to amuse their seniors, 

 and at all events will refer to subjects on which some thought is well bestowed. 



As regards the future of chemistry, the question has frequently suggested itself 

 to me as it has doubtless done to others — Will chemical science go on expanding 

 and developing during the next few generations as it has done in the course of the 

 last hundred years ? Will discovery follow discovery, and fact be added to fact, imtil 

 the record occupies not a few volumes only, but a whole library ? Will systematic 

 chemistry, i.e., the history and description of all possible combinations of the 

 elements, have any limits ? I am inclined to answer in the negative. All human 

 institutions pass through the same phases ; they have their rise, they culminate, 

 and decay ; and I do not see why the science of chemistry should form an excep- 

 tion. Moreover, it is a natural law that whatever develops rapidly also declines 

 rapidly, and the development of systematic chemistry since the commencement of 

 this century has been perfectly unprecedented. 1 think it probable that in the 

 course of time, at the rate at which we are now progressing, nearly all possible 

 compounds will have been prepared, aU the most important chemical facts will 



