permission, he would like to say how privileged he felt himself to have been in having spent much the greater part of his life as a member of the staff of Greenwich Observatory. One thought which had often been on his mind had been emphasized by Dr. Chapman's paper, namely, the continuity of the work of Greenwich Observatory.

It was more than 240 years since John Flamsteed became the first Astronomer Royal, with full permission to provide himself with what instruments he thought necessary at his own expense. Amongst those instruments was a magnetic needle, the forerunner of the magnetic observatory that was established by Airy 80 years ago. Halley, the second Astronomer Royal, as Dr. Chapman had told them, was one of the great founders of the science of terrestrial magnetism; he was the first to make a magnetic chart of the world, undertaking several voyages for that purpose. The latest magnetic chart of the world was that to which, since the War began, Dr. Chapman had devoted himself at Greenwich Observatory.

Airy had founded the magnetic department for the study of magnetic variation, but when iron ships superseded those of wood, and steamers the sailing vessels, fresh problems had to be solved. The best way of dealing with the disturbance of the mariner's compass-due to the presence in ships of great masses of iron, and of powerful machinery in rapid motion-had to be sought out, and Airy took a leading part in that work. Now when seamen had learnt to rely upon the performance of their chronometers as the simplest way of determining their longitude at sea, fresh difficulties had arisen, for electric dynamos were part of the equipment of modern vessels, and the magnetization of a chronometer or watch might seriously affect its performance.

When Dr. Chapman first came to the Observatory, seven years ago, this had become a practical question: What intensity of magnetic field would alter the rate of a chronometer by one second a day?" and Dr. Chapman at once set to work to obtain the answer, and he succeeded. His work at Greenwich Observatory had therefore been entirely on the lines of its historic continuity, and had been of great practical importance to the nation. And that afternoon he had given in short compass a complete review, admirably clear and simple, of a wide subject, some branches of which were quite new, and in which, moreover, he has himself been one of the

leaders. On these and many other grounds, he (Mr. Maunder) begged to second the resolution.

The resolution was duly carried.

Several members asked questions of the lecturer, Colonel ALVES inquiring "Is there any idea as to the approximate depth of the magnetic poles beneath the surface of the earth? As far as is known are there, as supposed by Dr. Halley, two magnetic poles in each hemisphere-four in all-or only one?" Mr. W. HOSTE asked How is it accounted for that the northern and southern magnetic poles are not exactly opposite, but are actually in the same hemisphere, seeing that the earth is of regular shape? Is there a tendency for this relative position to vary, and for the two poles to become opposite eventually?"

LECTURER'S REPLY.

The LECTURER replied: "The term magnetic pole' usually denotes a point on the earth's surface at which the dip needle becomes vertical. The poles roughly located by Ross and other polar explorers were of this kind. By definition, these lie at no depth, but on the surface. The word " pole "is also used in reference to the "foci" or points of maximum magnetic force, such as that in Siberia. It cannot at present be stated at what depth these local irregularities in the earth's magnetism have their origin.

"Halley's conception of the earth's magnetism, as resulting from the combination of magnetizations in two directions resulting in there being two magnetic poles in each hemisphere, is now known to be too simple to represent the actual facts. It is indeed hardly correct to speak of the earth as possessing a definite magnetic axis and magnetic poles at all, except in the sense above defined.

"The precise positions of the northern and southern magnetic poles are not of fundamental importance in the theory of the earth's magnetism, as they are determined partly by local irregularities in the earth's field. Why the main direction of magnetization of the earth is inclined to the geographical axis, however, and why there are such pronounced irregularities in the surface magnetic force, cannot yet be explained. Similarly it is at present impossible to say whether the poles will in time become opposite to one another.

There is no reason to suppose that this condition, even if attained, would long persist."

THANKS TO THE ASTRONOMER ROYAL.

Lieut.-Colonel MACKINLAY proposed a vote of thanks to the Astronomer Royal for presiding. He said: We have heard how much the Royal Observatory has helped our Navy: it has also very greatly helped the Victoria Institute, for at the present moment three of its most distinguished members are prominently doing so. I have had the temerity to make some observations on the Royal Observatory. I have observed, not only its great and continuous progress, but also the longevity of the successive Astronomers Royal. I venture to think there is some connection between these two facts. I am sure we all unite in expressing a hope that the present Astronomer Royal will maintain the high standard of his predecessors in this, as he does in all other respects; and that he will long occupy his distinguished position, allotting some of the time before him to presiding on future occasions at Meetings of the Victoria Institute. Having been duly seconded, this resolution was also carried, and duly acknowledged.

601ST ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING,

HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, ON MONDAY, JUNE 3RD, 1918, AT 4.30 p.m.

The Chair was taken by Professor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., who explained the absence of Professor Margoliouth, and that the Council had requested him to take the Chair instead of Professor Margoliouth.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on May 13th, 1918, were read, confirmed, and signed.

The CHAIRMAN explained that, though Chancellor Lias was present, the paper would be read by Mr. F. J. Lias, son of the Chancellor.

I'

"GERMANISM." By the Rev. Chancellor LIAS, M.A.

HAVE asked leave of the Council to read a paper on Germanism generally. I do not propose to make it altogether a scientific paper, but largely a literary one. That is to say, I shall not aim throughout at a categorical proof of what I say, but simply give some general impressions of the facts drawn from a long experience and not a little study.

I have long felt that the way in which Germany has, during my own recollection, been elbowed, or has elbowed herself, into the front rank, and her taking the place in literature which, in my younger days, was given to Italy, has not been altogether a gain, and demands some explanation. I could not but feel that the country of Dante, Petrarch, Tasso, Ariosto, Boccaccio, and others too numerous to mention, could boast of a language and literature far superior to that of Germany, though I have not, unfortunately for myself, been able to give so much attention to Italian as to German literature.

I ought not to leave the subject without mentioning the vast superiority of Dante, in breadth of thought, in intense religious and moral tone, in knowledge of history and fact, in power of imaginative detail, combined with wondrous simplicity of language, and in thorough independence of spirit, to any German author I have come across. Tasso, again, although coming

far behind Dante in intellectual power, has so finished a style, and so keen an appreciation of beauty, that he cannot be denied a very high place in literature. Even Boccaccio, offensive in moral principle as he often is, has great literary merits, and a strong sense of humour. In ability, however, though not in the moral sense, he must, I think, be held to surpass even Cervantes. I cannot deny that the predominance which Italian music enjoyed over German music in my younger days was not merited, and that the superiority of German music over that of every other nation cannot for a moment be disputed. The favourites of my youth, Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini, Verdi, were frivolous when compared with Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, and even Meyerbeer, to say nothing of the most recent idol, Wagner. In the sister arts of painting and sculpture, France and England have, I must think, unquestionably surpassed Germany more even than Germany has surpassed them in music.

For a good many years I could not at all understand the substitution of German for Italian literature in the estimation of the inhabitants of this country. But attention has lately been called to the fact that it was chiefly due to Carlyle, who first "boomed," as the Americans say, German literature into the first rank, and then, having influenced English opinion in that direction by his Hero Worship, elevated the most morally contemptible and unprincipled of the great men of the world, Frederick the Great-for he really was a great man as a soldier and a statesman-into the first rank of the world's heroes. I must say that Carlyle never carried me away by his enthusiasm. I remained in the same mind as I was when I read, as a boy, Canning's Rovers of Weimar, and felt not a little contempt for German sentiment and German intellect as there burlesqued. Carlyle's earlier style, a clear and manly English one, was much superior at least so I thought-to the artificial mannerisms into which his German proclivities led him. I did not like his heroes very much, and when I embarked in his Life of Frederick the Great, I fairly stuck fast. I could appreciate Greek history, or Latin history, or English history, or French history, because they are written by and for reasonable beings. But I absolutely failed to tolerate the eccentric style in which Carlyle's Frederick the Great was written, though I must admit that Ranke, Mommsen, and Neander are a triad of historians of whom any nation might be proud. As to Jean Paul Richter,