But I know another school-all interns-of gentlemanly nice fellows, whose masters were ignorant, ill-bred muffs. One of the senior students told me that the moral state of the place was excellent; whereas, when he came, a youngster of eight, it was a sink of iniquity. Now, the change here was certainly not wrought by the masters. Morals are like epidemics. I have no doubt that in the cases cited by Mr. Proctor the change did emanate from the masters. But that must have been by accident. It is as in society. The standard of morals is always fixed by the laitywhatever they determine on doing, the clergy must sanction eventually, or else they would have no adherents. Of course, they ought to submit to that disaster; but then they don't. I felt pained at the admission of Dr. Stokoe that he did not know of the bullying in question; but I feel sure there must have been some special cause for his ignorance. It seems a pity, any. how, to increase, at this moment, the very deep concern he must feel. HALLYARDS. " 'THE COMITY OF NATIONS." [1817]-I always understood this to mean "that mutual urbanity which nations find it convenient to show toward each other" (from cōmis, polite). But in April, 1871, a great lawyer made a great speech, in which he spoke several times of the "comity of nations" as synonymous with "community of nations." I turned up Johnson and others, but could find no trace of the word comity other than as above. The Times based a leader on the speech, and repeated several times the same phrase in the same sense, with capital letters. I wrote to the Times expostulating, but was not inserted. Now, in the Saturday Review for May 30, p. 718, I find "Japan's policy aims at the adoption of the fruits of Western civilization, and the attainment of a status of recognised equality in the comity of nations." Here is the self-same error. There might, of course, be a word comity = company, from comitatus, whence comes our word county; but it would be most inconvenient to have two words of identical spelling, but diverse derivation and meaning; for then we might praise a judge and a riding-master, each for his equity-the one for æquitas, the other equitatus. HALLYARDS. "PRINTERS' DEVILRY." [1818]-That "Hallyards" is a most exceedingly learned man, I have no earthly doubt; but (letter 1811) he does not seem to be quite so well acquainted with the writings of "the Divine William" as he might be, or else he would have known that the Saturday was quoting from Mrs. Quickly, "Henry V.," act ii., scene 3:-" Nay, sure, he's not in hell; he's in Arthur's bosom, if ever man went to Arthur's bosom." G. SMALLPEICE. GEORGE ELIOT. [1819]-There is still a necessity, I think, for another word to be spoken in connection with George Eliot and her partner. The relationship has been too severely censured by "Commentator" and too much defended by Mr. Proctor. While sympathising with a great many observations ably expressed by the latter, I cannot help thinking that he has allowed his love and reverence for the writer to plead on behalf of what has always been considered reprehensible in Sand and Chopin. It is surely a healthy sentiment which demands from our teachers a higher morality than exists in the multitude. If there is virtue in our laws, surely it is right for one who could create for us an Adam Bede to make a sacrifice on their behalf. It is all very well to say that if Eliot and Lewes wronged no one personally, it was justifiable. In the first place, a wrong might occur to children. In the second place, the question, I think, is a far deeper one. Do such acts discredit the law, and is such an example a salutary one for society? While, no doubt, many things can be urged in defence of the happy fellowship of these celebrated people, surely a more heroic line would have been more in harmony with their teaching. A LONG SPELL. GAMMA. [1820]-In your "Gossip" in KNOWLEDGE you say, "It is a misfortune that few men of science will condescend to avoid the use of technical terms." This is the more to be regretted when technical terms assume the form of those in the following paragraph, which I extract from Science Gossip for July, p 162: "It appears that some supposed pentanitrodimethylaniline has been shown to be trinitromethylnitroniline. The substance in question has been obtained from napthyldimethamidophenylsulphone." G. H. DIVERS REJOINDERS. [1821]-Condor 40 ft. from tip to tip of wings. I saw this about forty years ago, noted on the fly-leaf of a book, by my father, from (I think) Humboldt. It struck me so much that I have never forgotten it. I could wish it verified. It is not likely my father was wrong, as he had succeeded, before he was twenty-four, in having his name given to two places on the earth's surface; which, as σ'ανδρῶν επιφανῶν πᾶσα μῆ τάφος,” is certainly the neatest way of appearing on the tombstone. (Could I live in libraries, I would make a dictionary of all men in like case, with brief notice. This would be a geographical peerage, and useful companion to every geography.) Satellites. Jupiter and Saturn certainly have some larger than the moon in apparent diameter; but, as J. and S. are held to be not yet condensed, and to be going to be very much smaller than they are at present, is it not reasonable to suppose that their satellites are in a similar puffy state ?t Now, the one thing certain about the moon is that she is solid, and final, at all events. Infinite divisibility. I am unable to see why one should be able to halve everything, without getting to a point indivisible. If we could, then I might say that because I have a pound in my pocket, I shall always have some money, because, however small the balance, I can always halve it. (This is flippant, of course.) BENEDICITE! HALLYARDS. [1822]-I am deeply pained to find from Mr. Proctor's note on p. 11 that I have (it seems) wasted valuable space on nonsense. The only exit seems to be "the Hundreds." "I guess I shall jine a church this fall," as Artemus Ward says (or, stay-perhaps it was some other A. W.-Archbishop Whatily, for instance.) I was perfectly certain the two statements in question had been made by Mr. Proctor; I cannot tell where, nor does it matter, since (at any rate) they do not represent his opinion. But this defect of apprehension convinces me that it is not only my sight that is failing me, and that I am not much in the right place in discussing science. I remember Mr. Proctor writing of me years ago "by no means a fool, but fitter to be taught than teach." I never tried to do that. I have ventured to put certain sceptical ideas on paper, supposing that the acting Editor would not print absolute bosh. The fact that a scientific opinion is universally received in no way proves its truth. Mr. Proctor himself (am I mistaken here ?) showed that all astronomers had been childishly wrong about resolvable nebulæ being galaxies; and that Sir G. Airy was also in error as to a transit of Venus. He also wrote a paper called "A Menacing Comet," which frightened numbers of people. He has since explained that no comet, in his opinion, is likely to do any harm. If that be so, what did it "menace"? In spite of my almost extravagant admiration for him, I could not help feeling that the Saturday Review was on the side of reason about "the Spectator's comet." As regards the reply to me on p. 14, I should be really obliged if the following emasculated (but is that admissible ?) statement be allowed to appear. The Editor severely snubbed a correspondent who wrote about what the Editor calls "a savage rite,' and said it did no good. I wrote, showing, not only that it was invented by the beginners of all civilisation, but that it is alleged to produce the most serious moral and physical benefit. My language was carefully chosen-virginibus puerisque-though it is absurd to regard any such restrictions in a scientific discussion-it is like fighting with one arm tied-and the Editor burkes my letter. Probably he does right; but it does seem to me hard on the correspondent who was originally snubbed, and to whom our good Editor now devotes sixteen lines of disquisition on the merits of the rite in question, which he allows no one to defend.‡ I am extremely obliged to Mr. Butler for his courteous note and sketch of a buff spider, but it is not the same species as mine, which I examined with a lens. The legs are longer, there are five Peccavi. I was wrong originally in permitting the initiation of a discussion which (however suitable to the columns of the Medical Press and Circular) was wholly out of place here. Had I, in common parlance, "had my wits about me," I must have foreseen how practically certain such a question must be to drift into all sorts of collateral issues more or less unsavoury, and unsuitable to the ordinary student of science. I am bound to say that nothing advanced either by Mr. Collins or "Hallyards" himself has caused me, in the slightest degree, to modify my opinion.-ED.] depressions instead of three, and the corners are much sharper. I have since (in the very same place) seen one that was buff with green markings, recalling a jockey. In 1882 I addressed to K- a long letter, showing that the chronology of Miss A. B. Edwards, in her "Pithom and Ramses" articles was totally impossible. This was not inserted, but sent to Miss E., who addressed to me in next no. a very courteous note. I then resolved to confine myself to enriching K. with auroras, zodiacal lights, and other meteors, which are to scientific what the humble "enormous gooseberry" is to general journalism; and I renew this resolution now. Should I ever be tempted to write mere opinions, or quotations, or arguments, I really think the kindest course for the editor to follow will be simply W.P.B. and silence-but a note based upon a burked letter is very apt to prejudice the correspondent. Vaya con dios! HALLYARDS. I P.S. At first I did not intend to comment on Mr. Proctor's notes; but it has occurred to me that it was inferred from the probable rectilinear motion of the majority of stars that there would be collisions; that these, though apparently accidents, might in reality be foreseen, and part of the provision of the cosmos. incline to believe that this was in the papers on Sir W. Herschel's views as to the distribution of the stars, this year (to which I am unable to refer at present). If it was not there, it was certainly not an "" outer barbarian who wrote it, but one of the "inner circle" of "the clever ones" (Mrs. Clennam & Co.)-of those who justly say we are they that ought to speak-who is lord over us ?" If the above (about collisions) is pure imagination, how is it that I am aware that the following is indeed so? A century ago Sir W. H. discerned that the sun is moving, very much slower than the earth in her orbit, towards a point in Hercules. There is, hitherto, no change in direction observed (though the no. of miles per second is declared ?). Therefore, if the sun is moving in a curve, it is so vast that in a century it does not appreciably differ from a straight line. This does not show it to be one; but, so far, it may be supposed to be straight. Mr. Proctor (?) has shown that Mädler was quite mistaken in his "central sun theory. When I wrote "It will be replied," I had not the least idea of Mr. P.-so there is no creation of a 66 semi-idiotic second self." "It will be replied that their rate of translation will overcome the pull of the nearest body-though any one who would reply thus would say anything." ("I think my friend Mr. of the club said he knew yon."- -"There's fellers in that club would say anything,”—replied the-(certainly not amiable)—character. here cite from Thackeray.) I I am disconsolate to be found wrong about so simple a matter. I thought that in the case of one body revolving round another there are but two forces in question. The smaller may be conceived passing in a straight line; the pull of the larger is just sufficient to convert this motion into a curve; erroneously described formerly as centrifugal and centripetal force. That is what I meant. Put so much more "rate of translation " on the earth, and it would overcome the sun's pull, and she would go off in space in a straight line-saving accidents. The suspected companion of Venus is supposed to have got loose in some such way. A correspondent pointed out the other day that Mr. P. had stated that space must be infinite. I refrained from saying that that in no way convinces me he has not said also the contrary. (Because it is a mere matter of speculation; a wise man's opinions are liable to change; and when a man writes a great deal he cannot possibly remember all he writes. "Commentator complained lately that Mr. P. had contradicted himself flatly about the present habitability of the planets; I believe he did.) He tells me he has said "we cannot conceive infinite space,-a mightily different matter." Different, concedo; mightily so, nego: contrariwise, it is a long step towards my version. It is still more inconceivable that space should be finite. I believe the human mind will never be able to comprehend the real state of the question at all. It was created for its own special needs, and no higher. I can imagine a mind as far above it as Mr. P.'s is above my own. H. A DREAM. [1823]-I subjoin an extract from a letter, received on Monday last, from a son of mine who is in command of the fastest s.s. in the New Zealand waters, merely premising that the “poor Nreferred to was a younger brother of his who was washed overboard in mid-Atlantic, and the "poor P-" a quadroon, who returned with me from the West Indies in the eventful year 1848, and who nursed him and all his brothers and sisters, except the eldest, but died last January twelvemonth :-"Now, my dear father, I am going to tell you an astounding fact. On the date poor N was drowned I saw him struggling in the water on the port-side of a steamer in a stormy sea, when all at once he disappeared, and directly after, in my dream, I saw poor P sitting at the foot of my bed. She said, "Not you," and vanished. I woke up, went on deck, and told the chief-officer of it, and, on my return below, I made a note of it in an almanack. Since then I have worked it out, and it tallies to the moment of the sad occurrence (I having given him, in a letter to which the above was his answer, the latitude and longitude, with local time of it). W. A. MENTAL PHENOMENA. [1824]-I was much struck the other day by a little French boy informing me that his grandfather's peacock was sometimes heard as far as Noirmentier (an island ten miles off). This, examined, turned out to be based on a reported fact that some one had heard it on the sea-i.e., a few hundred yards away. But, on reflexion, I could not deny that the original statement was specious. Thus :The peacock is heard on the sea,— Noirmentier is on the sea, Therefore the peacock is heard at Noirmentier. Just after, I took up a printed letter of the Card. Abp. of Paris to the Pope. In the first two lines H. E. tells H. H. that he had recovered from a dangerous illness, “thanks, I think, to your H.'s blessing." Now, was the Abp. more logical than the child? Does he hold that none ever recover without the Pope's blessing? If he does not, how does he connect cause and effect? It is like Tenterden Steeple and the Goodwin Sands; and not altogether unlike some modern speculations on cause of man's survival. I believe there will always be Christians: bat it is surely time for churchmen to " report progress " on some points, and "tacitly recede from" (Card. Newman's phrase) prayers for fine weather, and against earthquakes, thunderstorms, and pestilences. There is a collect (8th after Trinity)-which I never could read gravely. Who are "we," that we should get all profitable things (the orig. has "cuncta" and "omnia") and escape all hurtful things (of course to the detriment of some of our dearly beloved brethren" elsewhere.) HALLYARDS. MEAN-TIME SUN-DIALS. [1825]-I propose having a mean-time sun-dial constructed, and shall be much obliged to "E. L. G." (with reference to his letter, No. 1724, page 465) if he will tell me how he derives his rule for the ordinates. It had seemed to me that if the radius of the hour circle were multiplied by the sine of half the equation of time, plus the quantity 8 (expressed as angle), we should have the true length of the ordinate, the axis of the gnomon passing through the centre of the circle; but I have no doubt that he is right. In the expression for the abscissa, the factor (1-sin2 N + 8) might, I think, be omitted, as (except in the case of very large dials) its effect on the length would be inappreciable. Since writing the above I have seen E. L. G.'s letter, No. 1658, p. 290 (previously overlooked), which gives the explanation asked for. The factor (1- sin' N+S) may certainly be omitted. In small dials it would make no difference, and in large ones the edge of the shadow is so vague that great accuracy is impossible. MUSAFIR. LETTERS RECEIVED AND SHORT ANSWERS. Jos. HORNER. The reply which you enclose was written by the Conductor of KNOWLEDGE, and I had never even seen it before. Nor, so far as I am aware, was your MS. in existence when I took over the editorship about the end of last June. Hence the seeming inconsistency, which I can only sincerely regret.-AN ANONYMOUS CORRESPONDENT forwards a leaf cut from The Bazaar of July 3, containing grave charges against the promoters of the Golden Argosy scheme of prizes, and complaining that these prizes were advertised in KNOWLEDGE. I must reiterate that the appearance of an advertisement of any sort in the columns here devoted to them can and must in no sense whatever be held to imply any sort of editorial guarantee for its bona fides. Of course, an announcement known to emanate from a doubtful source would be refused insertion, but advertising belongs to the business department of the paper, with which the editor has nothing whatever to do.J. WEBB asks Mr. Clodd for the name of the publisher of the reissue of the "Biblia Pauperum"? With regard to your request for a Greek Lexicon, I myself always use the English edition of Schrevelius, in which the definitions are, as you require, framed on philological and not on merely doctrinal grounds.-W. invites "Coleford's" attention to the circumstance that, according to his ("Coleford's") theory, if Mr. and Mrs. Jones have four children, EDITOR DEAR SIR If the "Tit Bits" in KNOWLEDGE June 19th, 26th; came from Hallyards, Commentator, Gamma, A Welshman, F. W. H. and others,-If they would read their Book of Time, which is composed by the matter of thought and printed only on The mind of man, -They would surely have one and the same idea about "Darwinism or Protoplasm or the immanence of Life in matter," Mr R. A. Proctor says, men were once deceived with regard to time. They thought the duration of this earth represented all time-was, at least, central in time; But, they know it now as infinite time; What says the Book,-I am, no other substitute is capable of holding the same power's as I am the main-spring of life, and the duration of all existence. It seems to me bosh, to fancy that duration can be parted from existence, how can any-thing exist without time or how can time proceed without the motion of something existing. As there is no substitute for time, as it is composed of intervals of infinite variety, as it will have its own way so must things be so:-Time keeps the matter in motion continually by its exigence and granulating process, which forms the river's of life going out of one element into another, each element been refreshed and restored by receiving supplies of energies passed down from one element to another. This change of matter proceeds from the granulating process, were the heavy particle's displace the lighter particle's, caursing the formation of gravity to set in, as a momentum action between the centre point and the external points. Mr Proctor says, The actual process of -restoration, which, to us, seems so simple a matter, could not possibly suggest itself to creatures having their limited knowledge and experience. That the air in which they lived contained the stores from which the river's, so unlike in all respects, was constantly nourished,-It could not occur to their minds at all:If (tit bits) cannot follow "Darwin" through his little stream of life. How-ever will they be able to follow through the great sea's of time. time with its infinite season's will bring our earth to what it was once before, and what it was ten thousand times before that, it must return with its season, no change. Infinite time produces infinite season's, years don't count.-Yours, truly, J. MURRAY. UN Our Whist Column. BY "FIVE OF CLUBS." DECLINE AND FALL OF WHIST. NDER this title, Pembridge, author of the lively treatise, "Whist or Bumblepuppy," has published a jeremiad-an old-fashioned view, as he calls it, of new-fangled play. He rejects the developments of modern whist as tending to the injury and eventually to the destruction of the fine old game. There is so much truth in what he says, though it is not all truth, that I take pleasure in helping to make as widely known as possible his protest against the mischievous tendencies of some of the modern teachings. OBJECTIONS TO THE PETER." Pembridge first attacks the signal for trumps. And truly when one considers how the signal is too often used, one cannot wonder (I beg and entreat the compositors not here to substitute the offensive "he" for my "one")-one cannot wonder, I say, if a strong player should be disposed to rail against the abuse of a signal which, properly used, is very valuable. The signal ought to be an imperative call for trumps; but nine times out of ten it is an unwise proclamation of trump strength. To such a pitch has foolish signalling passed, that for my own part, I decline to respond to the signal until I have become satisfied by a sufficient amount of play, that my partner knows when he ought to signal and when he ought to refrain. Pole's perfectly preposterous rule that you should always signal from five trumps,-a rule which he gives as general for all except strong players! -and the absurd misinterpretation of Clay's correct rule, have done more to make weak players mischievous than perhaps any thing since the modern conventions were first started. Clay's rule, which ought to act as a corrective of Pole's later absurdity, is used by many to intensify the mischief. Says Clay, correctly, you should make it a rule never to signal from less than five trumps one honour, or from four trumps two honours. The tyrò adopts instead as his rule, always signal from five trumps one honour, and from four trumps two honours. Yet Clay was careful to say, in so many words, that he would by no means recommend signalling from a hand containing the specified strength in trumps. (I note here in passing that in America, Clay's negative rule, even, would not be sound; for in American Whist honours are not counted, and thus the conditions for signalling are entirely altered. When in England and Europe generally, for instance, you hold four trumps two honours, the odds are in favour of your holding, with partner, two by honours, in which case only three tricks are required-supposing the score at "love"-to win; and again, with five trumps one honour, you know that the odds are in favour of honours being either easy or in your favour. It should, indeed, be always remembered by Americans, in reading English books on Whist, and especially on "Short Whist," that American Whist and English Whist are different games.) But "Pembridge" would not be justified in his opposition to the signal if the following conditions for signalling were always obeyed:-A player should only signal for trumps when, holding at least five trumps, or four headed by Ace, King, by Ace, Queen, by King, Queen, or by Queen, Knave, Ten, he has (or sees that his partner has) both length and strength in one suit, and protection in the enemy's suits, while the state of the score requires that a long suit should be established and brought in to win the game. If there is any rule at Whist which should be regarded as absolutely general perhaps the following is one:-NEVER signal when you want only the odd trick to win or save the game. It is a good rule to pay no attention to the signal unless given by a player who knows what he is doing when he signals. You will often expose yourself to the angry comments of "duffers" by declining to respond to their signals, when by accident it has chanced that they had really justification for " petering." But you must play in accordance with the chances, and it is certain that when your partner is a duffer he will signal at least five times for each single occasion when he ought to have signalled; consequently you do much more harm by responding to all his signals than by paying no attention to them, beyond regarding them as signifying a certain amount of trump strength in his hand. For, apart from the circumstance that you will only fail to answer a justified signal once in five times, there is, after all, much less harm in omitting to lead trumps when you should, than in leading trumps when you should not. It is only very seldom that omitting to lead trumps when you should has serious bad effects; but it is absolutely disastrous to lead trumps when by so doing you are playing your adversaries' game. (To be continued.) (a) At this point the doctors differ as to whether it is best to play 5. B to B4 or 5. P to Q3. We imagine that a disinclination to adopt a defence leading to dull and heavy play causes players to revert to 5. B to B4. The objections against 5. B to B4, how. ever, are, in our opinion, of considerable weight. White may play B to K3. If Black exchanges Bishop's, White's centre will be strengthened. Black cannot conveniently retire his B, as in the Giuoco Piano, to Kt3, in consequence of having played P to QR3. If B to R2, White exchanges, placing Black's Rook very awkwardly. Again, White may reply with 6. P to QB3, as in the text; then by playing P to Q4 at an opportune moment, he may derive a benefit in position, while the White B is available on B2, to support the centre advance, and may ultimately become a very commanding piece by attacking the KRP. To avoid this unmasking, Black is prevented from playing P to Q4 after he has Castled. In fact, in most cases it is dangerous for Black to Castle too early, as White may get up a strong attack against Black's K's side. These are the principal objections against 5. B to B4, and, as will be seen from the game (which occurred in the Tournament of the B. C. A.), nearly all of them are exemplified here by a corresponding inferiority in Black's position. (b) Necessary, in order to play P to Q4. If P to Q3, Black would have an inconvenient position, owing to his QKt being pinned, and the probability of the advance of the White QP, an inconvenience which a player ought to avoid if he can do so; at the same time, P to QKt4 brings White's B into better play. (c) Of course general principles must always be subordinate to the opponents' tactics, as otherwise a player will win in spite of bad development. 9. B to Kt5 is the right move here, for if 9. B to K3, Bx B, the P cannot retake, as Black could double White's P's by Px P. It may be seen here that the Black KB would be far better placed on K2. (d) Here the principle as regards pinning is amply illustrated. By placing his R on Q sq. Black doubly pins his own Kt, and thereby creates another weak point in his position. (e) This move is valuable as an instance of a deviation from a general rule in a particular case. The general rule being that it is advantageous to secure one's own position by Castling before proceeding to the attack, but, as stated in note c, circumstances alter cases. In this instance it would be somewhat inconvenient to Castle QR (it being clearly part of White's plan and to his advantage to attack Black's King's side) on account of several harassing moves which are at Black's disposal, such as P to Kt5, P to Q5, &c. Moreover, by the text move White obtains an immediate advantage in position. (f) Black could not otherwise prevent White from playing P to Kt5. (g) This sacrifice is possible, on account of the position of Black's Q and R, and the general aspect of the game. Similar opportunities occur in many variations of the Giuoco Piano. A thorough examination of the position is, however, required in most cases, to see whether the piece may safely be given up. Thus, for instance, if the square on Black's K3 were unoccupied, it would enable Black to play Q to K3, followed by B to K2. (h) Black wanted to prevent the advance of the White QP. (i) The QKt does good service on the K's side. (5) White's attack being now far better developed, he may Castle more effectively and with greater security. (k) Although Black would have still had a bad game, he would have done better to take the Kt with the R. In that case White would have proceeded to double the Rooks on the Kt's file. (1) This brings about a speedy loss, but Black had no satisfac tory move at his disposal. (m) Better late than never; White seizes the opportunity which brings his B to bear on the attack. (n) If Px R, then 25. P to K5 discovering check would be fatal. (0) White now simply breaks up Black's game. We have given the above game, as promised, as the first of a series of real games, in which we endeavour to explain the principles which ought to guide players in the conduct of games. We shall, however, be pleased to enter into any discussion or give further explanation upon any point in these games which appears doubtful to our readers. Each Lecture is profusely illustrated. Arrangements are now being made for the delivery of Lectures by Mr. Proctor from August onwards. Communications respecting terms and vacant dates should be addressed to the Manager of the Tour, Mr. JOHN STUART, Royal Concert Hall, St. Leonards-onSea. Aug. 11 and 12, Worthing. Aug. 13 and 14, Eastbourne. Aug. 17, 19, and 24, Tunbridge Wells. Aug. 25 and 26, Folkestone. September.-Buxton, Matlock, Bath, York, Scarborough, Whitby, Ilkley, &c. (Particulars next week.) Nov. 4, Burnley. Nov. 17, Darwen. CONTENTS OF No. 193. PAGE (Ilus.) 17 18 20 21 Feminine Volubility. Curran 24 25 PAGE Thought and Language. By Ada S. Ballin 26 First Star Lessons. (With Map.) By Richard A. Proctor...... Gossip. By R. A. Proctor............ Reviews.... Correspondence: The Great Sunspot-The Oldest Solar MythThe Mathematical Theory of Evolution-The Nature of Consciousness-Vital Force-Infinite Divisibility, &c. ...... Our Inventors' Column.................. 37 Our Chess Column ...................... 38 NOTICES. Part XLIV. (June, 1885), now ready, price 18., post-free, 1s. 3d. Volume VII., comprising the numbers published from Jan. to June, 1885, now ready, price 9s. Binding Cases for all the Volumes published are to be had, price 28. each; including parcel postage, 28. 3d. Subscribers' numbers bound (including title, index, and case) for 3a. each Volume; including return journey per parcels post, 3s. 9d. Remittances should in every case accompany parcels for binding. TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION. The terms of Annual Subscription to the weekly numbers of KNOWLEDGE are as follows: To any address in the United Kingdom....... To the Continent, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, & Canada TRADE RICH IN PHOSPHATES & NITROGEN. We treat, in the course of a year, a great number of children. Since we have used MELLIN'S FOOD the mortality has been reduced by more than one half. Our children have never POW looked so well and healthy as they do at the present moment. H. E. DEANE, M.D., Resident Physician. PRICE 1/6 & 2/6 PER BOTTLE. G. MELLIN, Marlboro' Works, Peckham, S.E. SO PR MARRIOTT & COOPER. MESSRS. MARRIOTT & COOPER, Who, for many years, have been partners in the Firm of Humber, Marriott, & Cooper, beg to inform the Trade and the Public that they have made arrangements for the dissolution of their former firm of Humber, Marriott, & Cooper, and that they have NO CONNECTION therewith, or with Mr. Humber. Under the arrangement for such dissolution, and for their retirement, Messrs. MARRIOTT & COOPER have commenced, and now carry on, an entirely separate business, and have Taken over, and have now on Sale, a Large Stock of Humber, Marriott, & Cooper's Cycles OF THE LATEST PATTERNS, And have also the right of making and selling all the Humber Cycles as heretofore made and sold by Humber, Marriott, & Cooper. The Humber Cycles so taken over are ready for IMMEDIATE SELECTION at |