NATURE 



38: 



THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1892. 



THE SCIENCE MUSEUM AND THE 

 TATE GALLERY. 



WE are informed that various Government Depart- 

 ments are now considering the many questions 

 raised by the Tate Gallery controversy in the real spirit 

 of scientific inquiry — that is, they are at last attempting 

 to deal with the facts, and they are consulting some 

 people who ought to know something about them. 



As the President and Officers of the Royal Society, and 

 many other representative men throughout the country, 

 have stated their opinion on the matter to Lord Salis- 

 bury in a memorial last year ; and as they were pretty 

 certain to have known the facts before they committed 

 themselves to any statement involving them in great 

 responsibility if they were wrong ; the friends of science 

 can only rejoice that at last the Government Departments 

 are dealing with the matter in a scientific way. 



The facts are as follows. In our Museum arrange- 

 ments, while books and pictures — or, in other words, 

 literature and art — are thoroughly represented, from the 

 Museum point of view, on a scale worthy of the nation, 

 only three branches of science— natural history, geology, 

 and mineralogy — have so far been provided for, and by 

 the Natural History Museum. This was pointed out 

 about twenty years ago by the Duke of Devonshire's 

 Commission ; and the many advantages which would 

 be certain to accrue to an industrial nation like ours, 

 from collections representing the various physical, che- 

 mical, mechanical, and metallurgical sciences and their 

 applications to industry, were very clearly referred to. 



The Government, one may almost say, of course, took 

 no notice of this important recommendation, or next to 

 none. In 1876 the Royal Commissioners for the 

 Exhibition of 1 851 — a body thoroughly well capable of 

 judging of the importance of the Duke of Devonshire's 

 recommendation— showed their opinion of its importance 

 by offering a plot of ground stretching from Queen's 

 Gate to Prince's Gate, and ^100,000 to build this 

 Science Museum. This offer, the Government of the 

 day — most of the Governments of the day knowing and 

 caring little about science, although they are so glad to 

 receive donations for art— declined. So matters went 

 on. Committee after Committee being appointed, re- 

 porting, and having their deliberations ignored, until at 

 last, as a result of a Committee appointed by the 

 Treasury itself, the plot of ground which the Govern- 

 ment might years ago have had for nothing, was pur- 

 chased, and purchased, of course, in strict relation to 

 the discussions which, as we have shown, had been 

 going on for the last eighteen years. At least, if that 

 be not so, why was it purchased at all ? 



We now come to the plot of ground. It contains 

 350,000 square feet. What facts have we before us to 

 aid us in answering the question as to whether this plot 

 of ground is sufficient to do for all other sciences what 

 the Natural History Museum does for three? Here, of 

 course, if possible, we must appeal to facts, if facts exist. 

 Let us assume that the new Museum is to be built on the 

 precedent afforded by the Natural History Museum. 

 NO. I 165, VOL. 45] 



The exhibiting space in the Natural History Museum 

 consists of 152,000 square feet. To provide this exhibit- 

 ing space in a building in which, of course, many other 

 things besides exhibiting space have to be considered, y 



the ground plan of the existing building contains an ^ 



area of 162,000 square feet. The building itself, however, 

 stands in a plot of ground covering about 500,000 square 

 feet, and in this way ample possibilities of future extension 

 are provided. 



We are first, then, face to face with the fact that, as- 

 suming the Museum which is to do for all the other sciences 

 what the Natural History Museum does for the three 

 named, can, in a few years, be restricted to the same 

 exhibiting area ; we begin with a space of, roughly, 

 1 50,000 square feet less for that which must eventually be 

 the larger Museum. Anyone will see that, in the nature 

 of things, it is unlikely that the Museum which has to look 

 after the interests of all the inorganic sciences, and their 

 infinite applications to the arts (by which, of course, the 

 industrial arts ai-e meant), will always remain smaller 

 than that Museum which has to. provide for biology chiefly. 

 But the matter, unfortunately, does not end here. It is 

 practically certain that the Royal College of Science 

 will require considerable additions to meet the demands 

 made upon it for science teachers. It is perfectly well 

 known already to all educationists that it has already 

 entirely overflowed the small and ill-contrived building 

 in which it is located ; and the Professors of Physics 

 and Geology are already camping out in temporary build- 

 ings of the most inconvenient description. We believe it 

 is thoroughly conceded by the Government that new 

 laboratories for physics, astronomical physics, and 

 chemistry must be at once erected. Now, it is perfectly 

 certain that, at this time of day, such laboratories as 

 those, with their various appendages, cannot be erected 

 on a space much less than 100,000 square feet ; so 

 that it comes to this, a site already too small for the 

 purposes of a Science Museum and its future extension 

 — if it is to be treated like the Natural History Museum 

 — must have filched from it, for other scientific needs, 

 another slice of 100,000 square feet. 



This may be, perhaps, permitted, because, although 

 the Science Museum may lose in area, it would gain 

 enormously in advantage, for the reason that the teach- 

 ing in the future may be given in close relation with the 

 instruments which are used in it. 



The suggestion that Mr. Tate should be allowed still 

 another 100,000 square feet from this plot — from a plot 

 containing less than 300,000 square feet available for 

 building purposes — of course was preposterous from the 

 beginning, and would have been at once shown to be 

 impossible if the problem had been considered at all from 

 the region of hard, dry fact. Unfortunately, it was not so 

 considered, and hence an apparent antagonism between 

 the interests of science and art, which has been going 

 on now nearly a year. We have attempted to show that 

 the question is not a question of sympathy — it is a question 

 of fact ; and now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is 

 dealing with the facts, as they ought to have been dealt 

 with in the first instance, there can be no longer any 

 doubt as to which way the issue will be decided. 



We believe it is contended by some who are not 

 acquainted with the exact terms of reference to the last 



S 



