179 
of Edinburgh, Session 1867-68. 
to the statesman — to the men who preside over the life and death 
of the nation, — who make its laws and direct its battles.* To them 
the British Association has applied in vain for the national recog- 
nition of science. Its parliamentary committee, presided over by 
Lord Wrottesley (a patriotic nobleman, now removed to a brighter 
sphere), and containing members of both Houses of Parliament, 
have pleaded in vain for a board of science, to extend its influence 
and to introduce it into our schools. They have proclaimed to 
successive governments “ that science has not its due weight and 
importance in the councils of the nation that “ a feeling per- 
vades the community at large that our country’s welfare, and even 
safety, depends on its due encouragement and fostering;” — and 
adopting the words of our great political economist, Mr Mill,f — 
“ that no limit can be set to the importance, even in a purely pro- 
ductive and material point of view, of mere thought,” — and “ that 
every extension of knowledge of the powers of nature is fruitful of 
application to the purposes of nature and life.” 
But there is another class of public servants to whom scientific 
education must be of great importance. Peaceful as science is in 
its theoretical as well as its practical aspect, it has often to wage war 
against pirates ; and with its meagre exchequer to struggle against 
the hoarded pelf of unprincipled capitalists, or the combined 
resources of needy speculators. The discoverer or the inventor is 
thus driven into a court of law, and our judges and juries have to 
decide in the most perplexing suits where profound science can be 
their only guide. To decide against a pirate who has stolen the 
intellectual property of his neighbour, and can plead only a mis- 
take in the specification of his patent, is a trivial error, even if 
the decision is unjust ; but it is a deeper injustice, and one not to 
be forgiven, when an inventor is deprived of a property which he 
had provided for his family, and when the verdict rests either upon 
the ignorance of the judge, or upon the erroneous appreciation of 
scientific testimony. 
* The Earl of Harrowbv, as one of the Parliamentary Committee of the 
British Association, stated “ that those who administer the affairs of the 
country ought, at least, to know enough of science to appreciate its value, 
and to be acquainted with its wants and bearings on the interests of society.” 
t Political Economy, vol. i. p. 52. 
