October 28, 1920] 



NATURE 



277 



American Civil Engineers' Handbook. Editor- 

 in-chief, Mansfield Merriman. Fourth edition, 

 thoroughly revised and enlarged. Pp. 1955. 

 (New York : John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ; 

 London: Chapman and Hall, Ltd., 1920.) 

 Price 33s. net. 

 The seventeen sections into which the volume is 

 divided cover the whole field of civil engineering, 

 together with mathematical tables, mechanics, 

 physics, meteorology, and weights and measures. 

 The fact that there is but little overlapping indi- 

 cates that the work of the editor-in-chief has been 

 done thoroughly. Hooks of this kind must con- 

 tain the information in a condensed form ; in the 

 present volume, however, the condensation has 

 not been carried to the extent which sonietimes 

 obtains, making the contents a mere dictionary. 

 On the contrary, each of the sections is presented 

 in a readable form, and is profusely illustrated. 

 British practice differs in many respects from 

 American, byt there is much in common, and 

 so much of value in the latter as to make it 

 almost essential for students of civil engineering 

 to have some knowledge of American practice. 

 In no other single book that we have seen can 

 so much information be obtained regarding the 

 practice of civil engineering in the United States, 

 and we can confidently recommend the book as 

 a useful addition to the British civil engineer's 

 library. 



Letters to the Editor. 



[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for 

 opinions expressed by his correspondents. Neither 

 can he undertake to return, or to correspond with 

 the writers of, rejected manuscripts intended for 

 this or any other part of Nature. No notice is 

 taken of anonymous communications.] 



The British AsMciation. 



VVb must first tcmli r viiu our best thanks for 

 having, at this time of inevitable reconstruction, 

 op«'ne(l your columns to a discussion which has been 

 of jjreat value in showing the fjencral trend of opinion 

 concerning the future of the British .Association. We 

 have had the benefit o( letters from presidents and 

 secrct.'iries of Sections in addition to those printed in 

 your columns, and now beg to ofTt-r a few general 

 cominents. But we hope we shall not be regarded as 

 attempting thus to closure the debate and disrniss it 

 from our minds ; rather do wc regard the period of 

 discussion, and, wc would add, of experiment, as just 

 beginning. It was with the full consciousness that 

 much new enterprise and revision of old procedure 

 were desirable that we invited the recorders and local 

 secretaries to a friendly meeting at Oxford in the 

 spring of this year, and we hope to continue at 

 regular intervals the discussions then initiated and 

 helpfully continuetl in your columns. We need only 

 atjd here that as it is an essential function of the 

 British .Association to consider and act upon all sug- 

 i;r.,ii(>ns temling in any way to the advancement of 

 siienre, we hope that if you receive further com. 

 munirations for which you cannot find room you will 

 do u« the favour to forward them for our con- 

 .siderafion. 



NO. 26r)I, VMi,. 106] 



Proceeding to general comments, we would first 

 express satisfaction that the undoubted smallness of 

 the Cardiff meeting has not been allowed undue 

 weight, even by critics who did not attend and could 

 not appreciate the unusuallv keen and businesslike 

 quality of the proceedings. Kfany causes contributory 

 to its' smallness are fairly obvious, and incidental to 

 recovery from the war. The high cost of travel and of 

 living (the predatory attitude adopted by one or two 

 of the Cardiff hotels by anticipation was particularly 

 unfortunate), and ultimately the local tram strike, all 

 plaved their part, and it is to be feared that some 

 of them mav continue operative beyond the Cardiff 

 meeting. This we can only endure, reminding those 

 who formerlv urged that we should discourage " camp 

 followers " that it is not for them to complain if the 

 attendance is less. 



But the important criticisms and suggestions have 

 had a more general character. Some of them (for- 

 tunatelv) cancel out, as when Sir Ray Lankester 

 advocates very careful pre-arrangement and Sir Oliver 

 Lodge the throwing over of the time-table in favour 

 of impromptu discussion. Sometimes the cancellintj 

 is kindlv done in the same letter, as when Prof, 

 .Armstrong, another laudator temporis acti, first sings 

 the praises of two long official reigns and then advo- 

 cates a nipid change of officials. Parenthetically, v e 

 mav correct a misstatement in his letter ; the General 

 Committee did not " relegate to a committee the ap- 

 pointment of a new treasurer " ; it only adopte<l 

 the universal practice of appointing a committee to 

 suggest names to the council. We have, however, no 

 wish to curb permanently the picturesqueness of Prof. 

 .Armstrong's exhibitions of hitting out at all and 

 sundry. 



But some of the points on which there is division 

 of opinion cannot be simply dismissed for that reason, 

 and chief among them is the verv important question 

 of the nature of the Sectional oroceedings. Should 

 thev be made tnore "popular"; and can this be 

 done without repelling some of our most regular and 

 most useful supporters? 



Now we fully agree that it is a very important 

 function of the British .Association to attract the 

 public and impress the nation, but even from this 

 point of view alone it may not be the best method to 

 cater directly for them. W'here a frontal attack may 

 fail, more insidious methods may succeed. 



One excellent method of attracting the public is to 

 make sure of attracting the nearest living represent.-i- 

 tives of men like Huxley and Lord Kelvin, who 

 always attracted the public. Now Lord Kelvin used 

 to declare (Sir .Arthur Schuster kindly allows us to 

 quote his authority for the fact) that he came to the 

 meetings of the Britisli .Association "to hear what 

 everybody else was doing"; and the curtailment of 

 " specialist " papers might easily drive away the very 

 people who ensure the success of the meeting, and in 

 some Sections certainly would do so. We need 

 scarcely labour this point, on which Prof. Eddington 

 has alreadv written much good sense ; but we will 

 just add that, in spite of the existence of "special 

 societies " in London, there are many people who 

 have no other chance to hear " what everybody is 

 doinp." Thus there are m;iny who are not near 

 enough to London to attend meetings regularly ; there 

 is the growing army of science schoolmasters and 

 schoolmistresses who can attend meetings only in the 

 summer holidays, when the London societies do not 

 meet ; and there are the numerous members who are 

 interested in more than one Section. All these would 

 l»enefit by meetings of the Sections even if they were 

 conducted on precisely the lines of specialist socie. 

 ties. No one, however, advocates this extreme ex- 



