i6 
tions, intended for the benefit of the people, 
are rendered useless for the amelioration of 
the community. The point of view of those 
who despise and contemn Natural Science is 
exemplified by the statements of the Russian 
Procurator-General Pobiedonostelf, who has 
described parliamentary institutions as “one 
of the greatest illustrations of human 
delusion” and as “the supreme political Lie 
that dominates our age.” In making these 
statements, Pobiedonostcll was, I am sure, 
quite sincere. That is the view taken by his 
school and on the surface it would appear to 
be just as likely to be right as any other 
view. His expressions did not, of course, 
refer to the cultivation of natural 
knowledge, which is my present sub¬ 
ject; yet as they appertain to the dog¬ 
matic and authoritative side of human 
opinion in opposition to the positive and 
progressive side they serve to illustrate my 
argument and are, a fair representation of 
the views of those who oppose our institu¬ 
tion and who are inimical to freedom of 
thought and of political action. To such 
persons it seems that if people were taught 
such things as I am now advocating—that is, 
if the study of natural knowledge were 
encouraged—that the foundations of human 
society would be overturned. I do not 
par ticipate in any such fear. I believe that 
the study of natural knowledge and the pur¬ 
suit of truth would tend to the advancement 
of humanity in happiness as well as in wealth 
and prosperity and that no class or order of 
society would really lose anything thereby. 
Views and opinions having a similar 
tendency to those I now enunciate were set 
forth in my paper on the Victoria Institute 
(see Proc. VI , 1897 p 181—1821 and were 
veiy favourably noticed by the Gover nor of 
the island, patron of the Institute, Sir Hubert 
Jerningham (see Proc. VI., 1899, p. 338—339). 
A too common error which I may here notice 
is that if we provide at the public expense 
for the employment of a botanist, a chemist, 
a geologist and other officials whose func¬ 
tions involve the use of scientific knowledge 
that we have done all we need do in this 
direction, and that we are thereby exoner 
ated from any further development of such 
knowledge. The growth of thi3 idea is 
carefully fostered by those who are opposed 
to the education and elevation of the people. 
But this is no substitute for what is really 
needed. It may be likened indeed to what 
would be the case if we had schoolmasters 
without schools or scholars. Taking the 
•xpression “geology” to include the history 
