200 Mr. T. S. Davies on Geometry and Geometers. 



own day ; and it has very recently been mooted in the Philo- 

 sophical Magazine. It was a scene which showed undeniably 

 the decadence of the philosophic spirit in the Society, rather 

 than the overriding of one branch of science by another ; 

 although it has been almost uniformly represented that the 

 "mathematical sciences were ousted from the Society by the 

 overwhelming influence of the naturalists," The terms them- 

 selves were mere symbols of party: but we are not to assume 

 that mathematical science was excluded from the Society be- 

 cause Dr. Horsley was foiled in his aspirations for the Chair, 

 and Dr. Hutton divested of the Foreign Secretaryship. The 

 " little band " overrated their influence in the Society; and 

 the time is come when some definite idea of their mathematical 

 powers and pretensions can be formed, quite independently 

 of factious prejudices. It would be well, therefore, to judge 

 the question apart from all party considerations. 



That Horsley had as good a claim to the Chair as Banks, 

 there is no doubt: but he attempted to carry his purpose on 

 fictitious grounds — as the representative of the mathematical 

 section of the Society. That his claims, however, were not 

 overwhelming, but only comparative with those of his compe- 

 titor, no mathematician will now venture to assert. Every 

 work he published is " completely shelved," and no one, I 

 believe, reached a second edition. His name indeed is only 

 remembered in scientific circles by his connexion with these 

 unhappy disputes. That his supporters and fellow-sece- 

 ders were so many Newtons and Halleys, who will assert, 

 even though the names of Maskelyne, Maseres and Hutton 

 were on that list? Waring, Milner, Landen and others, kept 

 aloof from all share in such a partisan-system of enforcing the 

 superiority of the mathematical sciences over those of obser- 

 vation. 



So much has been said on the other side that it does not 

 become me to speak upon it. I am no judge of the scientific 

 merits of the actors in it. Of the long period of " misrule " 

 which followed, I have only to say that something of the kind 

 might have been expected : the reign of " naturalism " was the 

 reign of actual conquest — the conquest of a faction bearing 

 one symbol over another faction bearing another symbol. 

 Perhaps the political condition of Ireland at this moment is 

 only the same history on a larger scale. 



I have been tempted into this long digression, from the 

 consideration that it is high time that disputes of so long 

 standing should be looked at apart from the symbols of the 

 respective parties — symbols to which the actors on either side 

 had little claim. It is certainly absurd enough that because 



