is not surer than the inference that the particles described in the Times as rising in clouds from shaken hay are the seeds of bacteria. Having thus set his seal upon Nature's possibilities, a corresponding interpretation of his experiments and those of other workers is freed from all difficulty. Whenever fermentation occurs in guarded and previously superheated fluids, the interpretation is, to Professor Tyndall, always plain and simple. He says: "I have had several cases of survival after four and five hours' boiling, some survivals after six, and one survival after eight hours' boiling. Thus far has experiment actually reached, but there is no valid warrant for fixing upon even eight hours as the extreme limit of vital resistance.' He holds out the hope that further researches might reveal germs more obstinate still.' Now, one's comment upon all this is, that with Professor Tyndall it is not a question of revelation at all, but rather one of mere assumption. What could be clearer than his reasoning? He argues from a one-sided analogy that bacteria must spring from seeds, and then uses this must as the ready interpretation of all his experiments, shutting his eyes apparently to all other considerations, even though this interpretation violates all antecedent knowledge,' as it certainly does. What present warrant is there for supposing that a naked, or almost naked, speck of protoplasm can withstand four, six, or eight hours' boiling? To which I can only answer, none. Let Professor Tyndall's statements in regard to the existence of invisible bacteria germs and their properties be contrasted with those which other more sober believers in the same germ theory, who are similarly indisposed to admit spontaneous generation, feel entitled to make. The medical profession has recently been told, through the Pathological Society, by Professor Lister,15 that he thinks it highly improbable that bacteria have any germs at all, and that, whether they have or not, he has never met with any whose reproductive elements (in whatsoever state or condition they may exist) could survive an immersion for half an hour to a temperature two degrees below the boiling point of water (212° F). He says: I am aware that there are two instances, the Bacillus anthracis and the Bacillus subtilis, in which it is said that the actual germs of bacteria do exist. I have seen nucleated bacteria myself. I confess I have never seen things which resisted such treatment as these germs are said to have resisted in the hands of others. But even these germs are not ultra-microscopic. They are bright points that are seen, bright granules. There has never been evidence of any ultra-microscopic germ. For my own part I think it extremely improbable that bacteria in general have germs. They are actual reproductive organs, constantly multiplied by segmentation; and if there be any organism in existence that does not require germs, I should say it is the bacterium. . . . I have never yet found any organism which resisted the temperature of 210° continued for half an hour-I mean to say 15 See Brit. Medical Journal, Dec. 22, 1877, pp. 905 and 902. ... in the moist state. I have seen no organism in a liquid continue fertile after exposure to 210° F. for half an hour. On the other hand, in direct reply to Professor Tyndall, Professor Burdon Sanderson 16 recently made the following statements before the Royal Society : Dr. Tyndall has demonstrated, by the experiments to which I have already alluded, that the ordinary air also contains germinal particles of ultra-microscopic minuteness. . . . That such particles exist there can be no question; but of their size, structural attributes, or mode of development we know nothing. . . . If for the sake of clearness we call the particle a, and the organism to which it gives rise A, then what is known about this matter amounts to no more than this, that the existence of A was preceded by the existence of a.17 Whilst at the meeting of the Pathological Society shortly afterwards, to which I have above referred, Professor Burdon Sanderson said concerning the question whether things can be shown to exist which are the seeds of bacteria: 'I entirely agree with Professor Lister in the opinion that no proof has been given of any such seed with reference to common bacteria.' Having had to occupy so much space in attempting to correct the very erroneous impressions which Professor Tyndall's paper in the last number of this Review were calculated to spread abroad, I have no room, even if it were desirable for me, to add anything further as to my present views on this question, or on that of the derivative problems concerning the origin of communicable diseases. It has only been with great reluctance and inconvenience to myself that I have been compelled to come forward now as I have done, to defend my views from the misrepresentations of them which have of late been made by Professor Tyndall. I felt also that it was incumbent upon me to endeavour to rescue the general question from the confusion in which it is fast being involved by so many contradictory utterances on all sides. All scientific readers who care to go further in regard to my views, will find that I have pretty fully considered the present bearings of the evidence in relation to these problems in a recent paper in the Zoological Section of the Journal of the Linnean Society. What I have said, however, in these pages will, I trust, be sufficient to make it clear how much the weight of reason is on my 16 See Nature, Nov. 29, 1877, p. 85. 17 I would here point out that Dr. Sanderson does not state that the invisible particle (a) grows bodily into the visible organism; he is, of course, quite unable to make any such affirmation, because such particles may give rise to organisms by inciting chemical changes in the organic fluid of such a nature as to determine an independent development of the particles of living matter which subsequently show themselves, and develope into bacteria (4). His use of the epithet 'germinal' is, therefore, as it appears to me, rather open to misconception. It carries with it an unproven implication. side, and to show that the doctrine of spontaneous generation,' far from being worthy of almost universal repudiation, as it was thought to be when I first wrote on the subject in 1870, is one which is now well supported by evidence. Even if it cannot be considered to be absolutely proven, I hope I may have made it perfectly clear that those who would show that the balance of evidence is against its being a common process at the present day can only do so by bringing forward proofs that ferment organisms are really able to withstand a brief exposure to 212° F. in fluids-proofs that are stronger than the evidence which, up to 1870, had engendered the almost universal belief that nothing of the kind was possible. As I have said, a good measure of the intensity of this previous belief is afforded by the incredulity with which my now admitted experiments were at first. received. H. CHARLTON BASTIAN. THE DANGERS AND WARNINGS OF IN common with every naval officer, and with many who do not belong to that profession, the writer of this article has taken the deepest interest in the past and present condition of the British navy. He has had a large share of the responsibility attaching to those who gave that direction to our naval construction which it assumed between the years 1861 and 1871. He knows that since the latter year a flood of light has been let in upon many of the byways of naval architecture which up to that time had been insufficiently explored, and that a still fiercer brightness has illuminated the way and means by which science is prepared to aid man in the wholesale destruction of his fellows. Amidst the ever-varying conditions on which naval supremacy depends, the right course to be followed is not always clear; no one has a right to claim that he alone is in possession of the great secret. The utmost he can hope to do is to contribute the few observations and conclusions he has been able to gather together towards the common stock; and the public have a right to ask from all those who have been or who now are engaged in this work a sound application of uncontroverted principles and a logical if not a scientific method of dealing with disputed problems. In taking up this question, and in endeavouring to treat it in the manner just described, the writer hopes that his antecedents may exonerate him from the charge of presumption, and that all those whose opinions he may criticise, or from whose conclusions he may dissent, will believe that he has only with all sincerity endeavoured to give effect to the old adage: 'Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica Veritas.' The controversy respecting the 'Inflexible' has a far more important scope than the mere decision of the special point at issue between two eminent naval architects. No one can regret more than I the unhappy publicity which has been given to the dispute itself, and to the lamentable mode in which it was carried on by the department to which it related. A scientific question, capable of being solved by scientific calculations and experiments, was treated by that department, both in official documents and in letters to the press, as a personal and audacious attack upon certain individuals whose merits had often been acknowledged, but who were yet mortal and consequently fallible. If the doubt thrown on certain qualities of the 'Inflexible' was well founded, these gentlemen should have been thankful for the light which an outsider had brought to bear upon the subject. Of all persons it could be least their interest to incur the risk of a catastrophe. If again this doubt was ill-founded and unreasonable, the proofs of this view (which they doubtless held) were in their possession; the calculations on which they relied would, if they were accurate, refute those which their opponents had advanced. The whole subject was open to fair and candid discussion, and it ought to have turned only on the merits or demerits of certain features of the new design. A glance at the correspondence1 so unfortunately published shows that in sinuations, imputations of motives, sneers against the designs of former ships, and even representations of facts liable to mislead, were the weapons resorted to. The Admiralty, with no sufficient knowledge of the subject, warmly adopted the views of their servants; and thus the serious objections raised to the safety of a new type of ship by a member of Parliament and a very distinguished naval architect were utterly ignored and disregarded. There remained for him only this alternative: either to see the construction of the British navy take a course which he was persuaded would lead to the most frightful catastrophes, or to use his position and influence through Parliament to save the country from such a misfortune. 6 It is quite certain that if the Admiralty officials had, instead of treating Mr. Reed's remarks as those of an audacious intruder who had no right to know anything about the 'Inflexible,' directed their constructors to consult, in conjunction with him, any naval architect of character outside the walls of the Admiralty, before whom, and in each other's presence, the whole controversy should have been worked out, a far more satisfactory conclusion would have been attained than the Report of the Committee on the Inflexible' has secured. We should not have found the characters of public men or the qualities of our actual ironclads bespattered with insinuations and reproaches, and the confidence of our officers and men in these structures possibly rudely shaken; nor the ex parte decisions of the Board of Admiralty published for the remarks and criticisms of the world, to the serious damage of the prestige of our navy and its administration. Even let it be granted, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Reed had remained unconvinced by the process of investigation which has been described, and had still thought it his duty to bring the case before Parliament, these lamentable letters would not have been written, the case would have been discussed on its merits, and at any rate the naval administration would have shown itself as to its procedure completely in the right. Public opinion has, however, been appealed to, and with it must now rest the ulti 'See Parliamentary Paper, Navy, 'Inflexible,' passim. |