February 17, 19 16] 



NATURE 



68; 



<niild, and the Imperial Arts League. Mr. As- 

 <liuth, emphasising the need for economy in every 

 direction, explained that the Government had not 

 accepted the recommendation of the Retrenchment 

 Committee in full, since, in addition to the Read- 

 ing Room of the British Museum, it had decided 

 to keep open the National Gallery and the Vic- 

 toria and Albert Museum. In vie\v of the numer- 

 ous colonial visitors and wounded soldie-rs who 

 resorted to the Natural History Museum, a further 

 concession might be made. "I have," said Mr. 

 Asquith, "come to the conclusion that the por- 

 tions of the museum which most interest ordinary 

 visitors should remain open, but I do not think 

 that the argument applies to the geological and 

 mineralogical sections. In addition, I hold that 

 facilities should continue to be offered to students 

 at the museum." It was further made plain that 

 the closing had nothing to do with the question 

 of safety ; also that the authorities of provincial 

 jTiuseums were at liberty to do what they thought 

 ;st. The galleries and the students' rooms 

 ccept that of Manuscripts) at Bloomsbury will 

 closed on and after March i. As for the 

 fatural History Departments, it remains to be 

 ;n which will be closed by the trustees as not 

 ^teresting ordinary visitors. 



We regret that the Prime Minister should have 

 ^d stress only on popularity, and should have 

 lid no attention to usefulness. It is not always 

 le most popular exhibits that are the most 

 ;ful. Galleries left alone by the "ordinary visi- 

 )r," e.g., that of fossil invertebrates, are much 

 frequented on certain days by collectors and stu- 

 dents (not the " students " whom Mr. Asquith had 

 in his mind). But, if popularity is to be the test, 

 surely the Egyptian Department at Bloomsbury 

 and the Fossil Mammal Gallery at South Kensing- 

 ton should not be closed. " Such limitations," said 

 Mr. Asquith, "will last only for a time"; but on 

 what the length of that time is to depend no indi- 

 ration has been given. Our leaders in all branches 

 if intellectual study must be prepared for a 

 struggle lest this action should prove a serious 

 and permanent set-back to research and educa- 

 tion, especially in the realms of science. 



The following report of the speech made by Sir 

 Ray Lankester as one of the deputation received 

 by the Prime Minister will be of value to those 

 who may be called upon hereafter to discuss this 

 matter. 



I am sure that we all agree as to the necessity for 

 retrenchment in public expenditure and sympathise 

 most heartily with the general purpose of the Govern- 

 ment in this matter. But we think that the exclusion 

 >f the public from the national museums and picture 

 ^.'lUeries is not well advised, because it will result in 

 I very small saving and a very great public loss. The 

 \ Idespread feeling against this closure has-been made 

 vident in the daily Press and by the support given 

 10 the present deputation. But I should not wish to 

 urge this as decisive. We fully recognise that the 

 Prime Minister may consider it to be necessary, how- 

 • ver reluctantly, to effect this economy; our object 

 s to state facts which seem to us to show that the 

 idvantages of such a course are altogether out- 

 Nveighed by the disadvantages. Wc think that the 

 NO. 2416, VOL. 96] 



Committee on Retrenchment which has reported to 

 the Government in favour of the closure of all public 

 museums and galleries, excepting the reading-room 

 of the British Museum, has not had the facts fully in 

 view. 



The great national museums and picture galleries 

 are not mere shows. They, like the great cathedrals 

 which stand always open, are places of rest and 

 mental refreshment in this time of stress and anxiety. 

 They are also a continual source of education and 

 instruction which should not be abandoned even 

 during war, except in case of dire necessity- Were 

 they closed those who now frequent them would seek 

 distraction in less worthy resorts. 



It seems to many of us that, in regard to the 

 question of closure of the museums, it is undesirable 

 to make a rule of "all or none." Each case should 

 be judged on its own merits. The saving of expense 

 would be greater in one case than another, and the 

 public disadvantage greater in, one case than another. 

 The Government, we are told, has recognised this, 

 and has decided not to close either the National 

 Gallery or the Victoria and Albert Museum. 



I shall- therefore confine my remarks to the case of 

 the Natural History Museum, concerning which I 

 have special knowledge, having been for some years 

 its director. The Government does not propose to 

 arrest the work which is done by the curators and 

 other members of the staff in this and other museums. 

 There is no suggestion that the collections should be 

 allowed to deteriorate for want of proper supervision, 

 cleaning, and protection from cold and damp. It is 

 merely proposed to stop the free daily access of the 

 public to the exhibition galleries of the museum. This 

 would tend to ' a saving at the Natural History 

 Museum of about 2000J. a year, and no more. It 

 would be made by the reduction in the number of 

 police and guardians en^ployed in the public galleries. 

 On the other hand, the building, the glass cases, 

 and the specimens, together with the cost in the past 

 thirty years of arrangement, preparation, and labelling 

 of the exhibited specimens, represent a capital ex- 

 penditure of not less than a million ana a half 

 pounds sterling, which, at 5 per cent., corresponds 

 roughly to an annual sum of 75,000/. To this we 

 must add the expenditure of an annual grant, voted 

 by the House of Commons, of 45^,000/. (reduced from 

 60,000/. to that smaller sum by special economies 

 during the war), giving as the annual cost of the 

 Natural History Museum to the nation a sum of 

 120,000/. It is proposed to exclude the public from 

 this great and beautiful show in order to reduce the 

 annual expenditure on it by one-sixtieth. This 

 is recommended by the Retrenchment Com- 

 mittee as "an object-lesson in national economy." 

 It is no doubt necessary to save small sums 

 here and there in many directions of public 

 expenditure. But it must seem to most people absurd 

 to spend so large a sum on a splendid institution and 

 then, for the sake of a relatively minute reduction of 

 that expenditure, to sacrifice one of the main pur- 

 poses — if not the main purpose — for which the great 

 expenditure is made — namely, the public edification. 

 It is a maximum of loss and injury to the public with 

 a minimum of financial profit to the National Ex- 

 chequer. 



To obtain a small saving in this way by excluding 

 the public, for whom it exists, from one of its most 

 costly and valued possessions would, moreover, show 

 not only an almost ludicrous misapprehension of the 

 relative proportions of sacrifice and gain, but would 

 be open to the objection that such action involves a 

 breach of trust oii the part of the Trustees, and is 

 rontrarv to the .Act of Parliament under which they 

 exist. The monev bv which the Natural History 



