290 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



all representative scientific bodies in the kingdom and the heads of science 

 faculties of the universities. A large number of replies were received, with 

 requests to be associated with the memorial ; in some cases information was 

 sent which proved of the greatest assistance to the joint committee in pre- 

 senting the case to the Treasury. 



In June 1920 a letter was addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 

 enclosing a copy of the memorial with a list of signatories, requesting that a 

 deputation be received by him at an early date. Mr, Chamberlain finally 

 arranged that a deputation should be received by the Inland Revenue 

 Commissioners on Friday, December 10, 1920. The deputation, introduced 

 by Professor Leonard Bairstow, O.B.E., F.R.S., President of the National 

 Union of Scientific Workers, were received by Sir Richard V. N. Hopkins, 

 K.C.B., Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Mr. C. C. Gallagher, and Mr. C. G. 

 Spry. 



Sir Richard Hopkins asked the deputation to state their case, after which 

 the Commissioners were prepared to enter into a discussion on the points 

 raised, without prejudice to the decision of the Treasury. Professor Bairstow 

 made an introductory statement, in which he explained the scope of the 

 Union and the economic position of the majority of its members. He 

 explained that the National Union was the most typical body, because it 

 represented all grades of qualified scientific workers in all branches of science, 

 the standard of qualification being a university degree. The salaries of its 

 members ranged from the lowest taxable limits to about ^3,000 per annum, 

 and had not been increased in proportion to the cost of living. Present 

 conditions of the law and the great differences of practice in regard to the 

 treatment of claims for abatement both pressed hardly on scientific workers, 

 and now the income-tax was so high it had become a matter of urgency 

 to secure uniformity of treatment for all classes. 



The six points of the memorial were then dealt with, viz. : 



I. Subscriptions to Scientific and Technical Societies and Libraries, and 

 to Scientific and Technical Periodicals. 



II. Purchase and Renewal of Scientific and Technical Books, Instruments, 

 Apparatus, Chemicals, and other Materials. 



III. Rent and Expenses of Study and /or Laboratory. 



IV. Travelling and other Expenses incurred in attending Scientific 

 Meetings. 



V. Provision of Special Clothing for Work and Renewal of Clothes damaged 

 in course of employment. 



VI. Other Expenses incurred in the Course of Research and the Prepara- 

 tion of Scientific Memoirs. 



These were considered from two points of view : 



1. The necessity of the expenses incurred from the point of view of — 



(fl) Personal efficiency. 



{b) Demands of employers and terms of contracts. 



2. Inequality of treatment — 



{a) Of salaried scientific workers as compared with manufacturers, 

 manual workers, and consultants in their own and other professions. 

 (6) In different districts, by local assessors. 



Replying to the members of the deputation, Sir Richard Hopkins spoke 

 most sympathetically of the value of the work of those engaged in scientific 

 research to the community. He was not convinced, however, that ameliora- 

 tion of the conditions of the scientific workers should take the form of con- 

 cessions with regard to income-tax. It was the obvious duty of the Com- 

 missioners to deal impartially with all classes of the community under the 

 existing laws ; but in principle there was no distinction drawn between 



