Under the couple Psychology-Ethics, the question was raised as to whether Ethics in reality fulfilled its pretended object of investigating and inculcating moral and social duties. The point of departure here was the Protagoras of Plato, which, for the first time, referred moral teaching to the discipline of the family and the state as its primary and perennial fountain-a portion of Plato signally overlooked by subsequent writers on Ethics. was maintained that the real importance attached to Ethics, in its innumerable embodiments, could be accounted for only by its bearings on Theology. This position was discussed at considerable length, and may be called my last word on Ethics.

It

The final issue as to the contents of Philosophy led to an enumeration of matters suitable to be isolated and embraced in this department, and further led to an inquiry as to the bearings of Theism upon the entire group thus isolated.

I thought it worth while to append to the article a note upon the meanings of the term Philosophy, and especially its modern usage as applied to physical science as well as to morals and metaphysics. The use of the designation in reference to university teaching in this country had some important bearings on the application of the word.

I was invited, at the instance of Mr. Cattell, to go down to Cambridge and re-deliver the paper in St. John's College, before the Ethical Society, under the presidency of Mr. Henry Sidgwick. It was attentively listened to, but neither there nor at the Aristotelian was there any attempt to criticize its positions.

While in London, I attended a meeting in

Willis's Rooms, on the 25th of June, to confer upon the Population Question. A number of persons had formed themselves into a Society for holding consultations on this question. Their purpose was to bring together those that were in favour of the Malthusian view, and to deliberate on the most advantageous means of securing the full discussion of the question, and to ascertain how best to press its acceptance on the community. The Hon. Norman Grosvenor, of the Westminster family, became president of the Society, and occupied the chair at the meeting in Willis's Rooms.

Among those who took part at the meeting was Surgeon-General Robert Harvey, son of Professor Harvey of Aberdeen, who holds a high office in the Army Medical Staff of Calcutta. He opened the proceedings by a paper on the merits of the question, which was vigorously argued and expressed. Although the meeting was avowedly constituted of those that had made up their minds on the subject, as might have been expected, there were not wanting those that came for the purpose of counterarguing the Malthusian view. The most prominent of the latter class was Dr. Alfred Carpenter, who became so heated in denouncing Malthusianism that he had to be called to order and set down. A London clergyman took part on the side that the meeting was called to maintain, with only some objections in detail. Professor Ray Lankester made a telling speech in answer to physiological objections brought by Dr. Carpenter and others. I had to make a speech in explanation of the course of my own opinions, which dated from the reading of Malthus on

Since deceased.-[ED.].

CONFERENCE ON THE POPULATION QUESTION.

393

population many years before. The importance I attached to Malthus's book as marking a great epoch in the physical prosperity of mankind was received with murmurs of dissent by a certain number, and there the matter ended. In the subsequent proceedings of the Society, I had no opportunity of taking part.

In the month of August, occurred the grand political demonstration connected with the Irish Crimes Bill. Meetings took place in Aberdeenone in the Palace Hotel, at a luncheon, when Sir John Clark was in the chair, and where addresses were given by Bryce and Sullivan. This was the last occasion that I had for making a political speech. I chimed in with the others on the Irish Home Rule cause.

Dr. J. F. White's term of office as Assessor to the General Council of the University expired in October; and an opposition was organized against his re-election, the candidate chosen being the Rev. Mr. Smith of Newhills. This occupied two or three weeks of agitation, and ended in the election of Smith.

Session 1888-89, and Recess following.

This year and the following I gave contributions to Alma Mater, our University magazine.

The first was in January and February, in three parts, consisting of a discussion of the proper province of English Literature. The point of it was to distinguish works of

celebrated authors whose merit lay exclusively in the subject-matter, from others valued wholly or partly for their style. The writings of Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke, and Bishop Butler-almost always mentioned in histories of Literature-should not strictly be so included, but find their place in the history of the several branches of knowledge that they refer to.

The retirement of Professor Brazier from the Chair of Chemistry led to a contribution extending over three numbers in October and November, on the history of chemical teaching in Aberdeen. It was mainly through my acquaintance with Thomas Clark, and the facts and incidents obtained verbally from him, that I was able to impart any novelty to the narrative.

I was led to put in print my recollections of Dr. Knight, professor of Natural Philosophy in Marischal College, through the circumstance that no proper biography, or, indeed, none at all, had as yet been given of him. He had left behind him a large quantity of MSS. relating to the history of Marischal College and to the incidents of his own connexion with it, while nothing had been done to work these up so as to set forth his own career and remarkable individuality. What I undertook was simply to furnish my own recollections as material to be employed by any future biographer.

Having had an application from Auberon Herbert to contribute to a volume he was about to

REMINISCENCES OF DR. KNIGHT.

395

publish on the injurious pressure of examinations, I had to prepare a statement of views on the subject, and had to counter-argue what I considered the extreme position he had taken up on the matter. The paper appeared in his published volume, with the omission of what I regarded as an essential part of the argument.

We went to London in January (1889), and saw Robertson as usual, but did not stay in his house. I had discussed with him, in the previous year, the preparation of a statement and defence of the Empiricist position, which had been frequently adverted to and misconceived by writers in Mind, as well as others. He was decidedly of opinion that a paper should be drawn up such as to do justice to our common views on the whole subject. This had been my chief writing occupation in the autumn of 1888. It was read at the Aristotelian Society, on the 21st January, 1889. The discussion in the Society had no serious import; it being scarcely to be expected that the members could offer an effective criticism on the spur of the moment to such a large number of vital questions. The paper appeared in the July number of Mind.

The proper position of Experience as the real source of our knowledge had first to be cleared up. The old antithesis of the innate and the experiential is hardly suitable at the present time; and the nearest approach to an indi