Commissioners obtained this arrangement of natural knowledge.  It is not supported by any authority that I am acquainted with.  If the scheme just set forth is the correct one, it has three defects.  First, it does not embrace in one group the remaining parts of natural philosophy, the experimental branches which, with the mathematical treatment, complete the department; one of these, Heat, is attached to chemistry, to which undoubtedly it has important relations, but not such as to withdraw it from physics and embody it in chemistry.  Then, again, the physical branches, Electricity and Magnetism, are coupled in a department and made of co-equal value with chemistry together with heat.  I need not say that the united couple—­electricity and magnetism—­is in point of extent of study not a half or a third of what is included in the other coupling.  Lastly, the three remaining members of the enumeration are three natural history sciences; geology being coupled with mineralogy—­which is a secondary consideration.  Now I think it is quite right that these three sciences should have a place in the competition.  What is objectionable is, that Biology is represented solely by its two classificatory components or adjuncts, botany and zoology; there is no mother science of Physiology:  and consequently the knowledge of the vast region of the Laws of Life goes for nothing.  Nor can it be said that physiology is given with the others.  The subject of vegetable physiology could easily enough be taken with Botany:  I would not make a quarrel upon this part.  It is zoology and animal physiology that cannot be so coupled.  If we look to the questions actually set under zoology, we shall see that there is no pretence to take in physiology.  I contend, therefore, that there is a radical omission in the scheme of natural science; an omission that seems without any justification.  I am not here to sing the praises of Physiology:  its place is fixed and determined by the concurrence of all competent judges:  I merely point out that Zoology does not include it, but presupposes it.

The Science scheme of the London University, to which the first Civil Service Commissioners, Sir Edward Ryan and Sir John Lefevre, were parties, is very nearly what I contend for.  It gives the order—­Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, Biology, Mental Science (including Logic).  In the working of that scheme, however, Biology is made to comprehend both the mother science, Physiology, and the two classificatory sciences, Botany and Zoology.  Of course the presence of two such enormous adjuncts cramps and confines the purely physiological examination, which in my opinion should have full justice done to it in the first instance:  still, the physiology is not suppressed nor reduced to a mere formality.  Now, in any science scheme, I would provide for the general sciences first, and take the others, so far as expedient, in a new grouping, where those of a kind shall appear together, and stand in their proper character, not as law-giving, but as arranging and describing sciences.  There is no more reason for coupling Zoology with Physiology, than for tacking on Mineralogy to Chemistry.  In point of outward form, Mineralogy and Zoology are kindred subjects.