470 



NATURE 



[Sept. 30, 1875 



membrancer. You have the Observatory at Edinburgh 

 as part of the University of Edinburgh, and you have 

 the Observatory at Greenwich under the Admiralty, be- 

 sides several others. You have every possible variety 

 of jurisdiction, and, consequently, it seems to me that 

 you have a great waste of power ; there is the School of 

 Chemistry, and the School of Mines, and the Museum at 

 Edinburgh, all under South Kensington Museum, and 

 the Meteorological Department, which is partly under the 

 Royal Society and partly under the Board of Trade. 

 There is no possibility of getting any correlation between 

 those different scientific bodies, and if you are to get 

 proper unity of administration you must bring them all 

 under one head, or to one focus. I should recommend 

 placing thexn all under a scientific commission or council, 

 and I should place that council probably under the Privy 

 Council ; but I should make it a body for administering 

 all questions connected with all the scientific institutions, or 

 all grants made by the Government for scientific purposes 

 in the country, and I should give to this council the same 

 status, with regard to its administration, or very much the 



same, that the Indian Council have The 



parliamentary head of the department, if he differed from 

 them in opinion as to their recommendations upon the 

 scientific questions connected with those institutions, or 

 any other that might be founded, should record his differ- 

 ences of opinion in a minute." 



Dr. Siemens would " assemble the heads of depart- 

 ments at frequent intervals for the discussion of general 

 questions, and would propose to add to their number such 

 men as the president of the Royal Society, the president 

 of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and at least one 

 representative of the two great Universities. This Board 

 would decide general questions appertaining to the ad- 

 vancement of science." 



We could fill many more columns with evidence 

 analogous to the above samples. Making due allowance 

 for the different ways in which a new and complex ques- 

 tion like this, compounded of scientific, political, and 

 administrative elements, must present itself to a variety 

 of minds trained to dissimilar pursuits and habits of 

 thought, the almost general consensus as to the necessity 

 of some such advising body as that proposed is most 

 striking. 



Still those who object to the creation of a Council on 

 various grounds are not wanting, and we now glance 

 briefly at the evidence of these witnesses. 



Sir G. Airy thinks a paid Consultative Council ^could 

 not do very much to assist the Government, and that the 

 Council of the Royal Society would be the best body to 

 which the Government could have recourse in any 

 matters of that kind. 



Prof Owen prefers a Minister of Science, with a per- 

 manent Under-Secretary and administrative staff, as in 

 his opinion the representative of any particular branch of 

 science on the Board would have too great an influence. 



The Earl of Derby is very sceptical either as to the 

 iiecessity, or as to the utility, or as to the successful 

 working of such a Council. One objection he urges is 

 that if matters for which the head of a department is 

 responsible are to be referred to the Council, and if 

 upon those matters the Council is to pronounce an 



authoritative opinion, the responsibility of Ministers to 

 Parliament will be considerably lessened. 



In reply to the suggestion that one function of the 

 Council would probably be to advise the State as to the 

 application of money for the higher teaching of science 

 and for scientific research, and also to advise the Govern- 

 ment with respect to any applications that may come 

 before it for grants of money connected with science, 

 whilst objecting to a Council, Lord Derby thinks that it is 

 a matter which falls strictly within the province of the 

 Minister of Education. 



Lord Salisbury is opposed to a Council because he has 

 never seen anything to lead him to believe that such a 

 Council of Science would have anything to do ; and he 

 considers that the Government would always get better 

 opinions on any scientific point that arises, by applying 

 to the most distinguished scientific man in that particular 

 branch at the time, than it would by having a set of per-, 

 manent officers to give advice on such subjects. 



There appears to have been before the Commission 

 practically three solutions of the question. First, that no 

 change should be made in the present condition of things. 

 The Astronomer Royal is apparently the sole witness of 

 eminence in science who seems to desire no reform in the 

 scientific administration of the country. Secondly, that 

 the Council of the Royal Society should be constituted the 

 official advisers of the State — a view held generally by 

 those who are adverse to the creation of a new Council ; 

 and third, that a Council!-' be provided to assist the 

 Minister charged with science and the;Departments con* 

 cerned with science. 



The Commission arrive at the conclusion that the 

 balance of argument and authority is in favour of the last- 

 named arrangement, which accordingly they recommend 

 in terms which, though general, leave no doubt that they 

 contemplate the creation of a new official body so consti- 

 tuted as fairly to represent the various branches of 

 science. We think that no unprejudiced and competent 

 person can read the whole evidence without accepting 

 this conclusion as undeniably sound, if not indeed abso- 

 lutely unavoidable. 



THE GOVERNMENT RESEARCHES IN 

 PATHOLOGY AND MEDICINE 



THE third volume of the " New Series of Reports 

 of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council and 

 Local Government Board," brings before us another 

 instalment of the work paid for by the annual grant 

 of 2,000/. "in aid of scientific investigations related 

 to pathology and medicine." This grant has been 

 actively opposed by a small minority in the House of 

 Commons mainly upon the narrow and invidious ground 

 that the medical profession was thereby obtaining know- 

 ledge and instruction which the medical profession ought 

 to obtain at its own expense. " The medical profession 

 lives upon the public ; the medical profession makes 

 use of its knowledge to extract money from the public ; 

 the grant will add to the knowledge which the medical 

 profession uses with such object — therefore the grant is 

 money drawn from the pockets of the public to aid in 

 the further depletion of the pockets of the public." 



Such appears to be the main inspiration of the 



