NA TURE 



[May 23, 1901 



The Committee deputed me to ask Prof. Gregory if he would 

 consent to be nominated. In doing so I carefully explained that 

 he could not ha%-e the full powers of the German scientific leader. 

 He consented to consider the offer favourably, but wished for a 

 more definite statement of his position and powers, and for a 

 programme of the Expedition. Shortly after this he was ap- 

 pointed Professor of Geology at Melbourne, and left England. 

 On the voyage he wrote a long letter to the Executive Com- 

 mittee (dated January 19, 1900), which he posted to me at Port 

 Said. In it he said, " I have heard so many rumours as to what 

 is wanted, that I cannot be sure whether I correctly understand 

 the views and wishes of the Executive Committee : I therefore 

 write mainly for the sake of correction, so that I may avoid any 

 misstatements in communicating with the Council of Melbourne 

 University, when the proposal from the Committee reaches me." 

 The plan drafted by Prof. Gregory in this letter included the 

 provision of a landing party with house, observing huts, dog- 

 stable, &c., and he argued that its organisation should be placed 

 " in the hands of the scientific staff," but that, under any cir- 

 cumstances, the Scientific Leader should have the opportunity 

 of controlling a small independent party on land. This letter 

 was read by all the members of the Executive Committee, and, 

 on June 15. at the close of the meeting, the Secretary despatched 

 a cable to Prof. Gregory containing the information " Your letter 

 of January 19 has been received and approved." As soon as 

 Prof. Gregory received this he .sent a decoded copy to Sir 

 Clements Markham, who did not correct it. Indeed, at this 

 period Sir Clements Markham frequently expressed opinions 

 which implied that he contemplated the establishment of a land- 

 iaig party independent of the ship. Prof. Gregory applied for 

 and received from the Council of Melbourne University per- 

 mission to take the appointment on the lines of his letter of 

 January 19. 



Prof. Gregory's name was very warmly received by the Joint 

 Committee and he was appointed Scientific Head on t'ebruary 

 14, 1900 : the words "Formally appointed, wire when fully 

 able to decide," being cabled to him a few days later by Sir 

 Clements Markham. 



Lieutenant Robert F. Scott, Torpedo Lieutenant of H.M.S. 

 Majestic, was appointed Commander of the Expedition by the 

 Joint Committee on May 25, 1900. 



In June 1900 my attention was called to a statement in the 

 Press descriljing Prof. Gregory as " Head of the Civilian 

 Scientific Staff." Feeling confident that the word "civilian" 

 was not employed in the resolution accepted by the Joint Com- 

 mittee I wrote to Sir Clements Markham on the subject. In 

 his absence the Secretary replied, " The words ' Head of the 

 Civilian Scientific Staff' are the exact words of the resolution 

 passed by the Joint Committee appointing Prof. Gregory, and I 

 know Sir Clements himself was very anxious to have the word 

 'civilian' in, so that no difficulty might arise between Prof. 

 Gregory and the Commander of the Expedition, since the 

 Civilians w-ould not be the only scientific men on board." The 

 word "civilian'' does certainly occur in the minutes of the 

 meeting. On the other hand. Sir Clements Markham was not 

 present on that occasion (February 14, 1900) ; the word 

 "civilian" did not occur in the instructions issued to the 

 Executive Committee, and was not used in my letter to Sir 

 Clements (February 15) describing the result of the meeting and 

 asking him to cable. The words I used, " leader of the Scien- 

 tific Staff," were not commented upon in his reply (February 

 16), stating that the cable should be sent. The word "civilian" 

 was not used by Dr. \V. T. Blanford writing to convey the 

 unanimous recommendation of the Geological Sub Committee 

 that Prof. Gregory should be " chief of the Scientific Staff of 

 the Expedition. " Prof. Herdman, who seconded the resolution 

 on February 14, and I who proposed it, both remember the 

 words "Scientific Leader of the Expedition." I have not been 

 able to recover a copy of the notice convening the meeting, 

 in which the agenda were put down. It would, however, have 

 been unreasonable for the Joint Committee to have accepted 

 the word " civilian " when it had no information before it which 

 justified the expectation that naval officers would be lent by the 

 Admiralty. 



At the meeting of the British Association at Bradford I 

 explained the situation to Prof. RUcker, who agreed with me 

 that it was full of danger, on account of the reasons alleged for 

 the use of the word "civilian," viz. in order to discriminate 

 between the science under Prof. Gregory and that under the 

 Commander. He agreed with me that the coordination of all 



NO. 1647, VOL. 64] 



the science of the Expedition ought to be in the hands of the 

 scientific chief who had been selected because his reputation was 

 a guarantee that all interests would be properly looked after. 

 Sir Michael Foster, to whom I mentioned the matter at a later 

 date, quite agreed with this opinion, but was unwilling to 

 contest the use of the term "civilian." Furthermore, when I 

 raised the question at a meeting of the Representatives of the 

 Royal Society on the Joint Committee, it appeared that the term 

 was actually preferred by certain influential naval authorities 

 who were present, so that it was impossible to resist it without 

 dividing those who desired to give Prof. Gregory such a measure 

 of freedom of action as he was prepared to accept. 



At the meeting (November 20, 1900) of the Joint Committee 

 following the conversations with Prof. Rucker and Sir Michael 

 Foster, a Report from the Executive Committee and Submission 

 and Estimate from Captain Scott were read and received, with 

 certain modifications. I indicated to the Secretaries of the 

 Royal Society, who were sitting opposite to me, that this was a 

 favourable opportunity to raise the question of the powers of the 

 Scientific Director over the whole of the science of the Expe- 

 dition. They were, however, unwilling to do so, hoping, I 

 believe, that all difficulties would be smoothed away by personal 

 negotiations between Captain .Scott and Prof. Gregory, who was 

 expected home in a fortnight. 



For nearly two months these negotiations proceeded between 

 Prof. Gregory on the one side and Captain Scott and Sir 

 Clements Markham on the other, and between Sir Clements 

 Markliam and me. 



The principles held were irreconcilable, and it only remained 

 to appeal to the Joint Committee for a decision. 



On January 9, 1901, Prof. Gregory wrote to Prof. Riicker, 

 explaining the failure of the negotiations, and on January 28 he 

 addressed a letter to the Royal Society's Representatives on 

 the Joint Committee, from which I select the following para- 

 graphs : — 



" I landed at Liverpool on December 5, and went straight to 

 Dundee to meet Captain Scott, and showed him a copy of my 

 letter of January 19 [1900]. As he returned it to me next day 

 without comment 1 believed that he understood and accepted 

 the general conditions therein stated. On January 7, in order 

 to settle the exact terms of our mutual relations, I submitted to 

 Captain Scott a draft of the instructions I expected to receive 

 from the Joint Committee, and which I had previously shown to 

 Prof. Poulton. To my surprise Sir Clements Markham and 

 Captain Scott expressed disapproval of these instructions, prac- 

 tically on the ground that there could be only one leader of the 

 Expedition, and that that leader must be Captain Scott. 



" My colleagues and myself were characterised as civilian 

 scientific experts, accompanying the expedition to undertake 

 investigations in those branches of science with which the 

 ship's officers were unfamiliar, and it was proposed, that to 

 maintain Captain Scott's complete control, all the scientific men 

 should be required to sign articles, 



" According to this theory the position of the scientific staff 

 is accessory and subordinate. The contentions of Sir Clements 

 Markham and Captain Scott would completely alter the position 

 which I was invited to take and which alone I am prepared to 

 accept. Were I to accompany the expedition on those terms 

 there would be no guarantee to prevent the scientific work from 

 being subordinated to naval adventure, an object admirable in 

 itself, but not the one for which I understood this expedition to 

 be organised." 



The Executive Committee met on January 30 and drafted 

 instructions on lines approved by Sir Clements Markham. They 

 were opposed by my colleague Captain Tizard, but in my 

 absence through illness were passed by two votes to one. 



A few days later the draft instructions were considered by the 

 Royal Society's Ixepresentatives, who appointed Sir Joseph 

 Hooker, Sir William Wharton and Sir Archibald Geikie to 

 suggest amendments. They carefully considered the dVaft and 

 suggested several alterations, the most important of these being 

 the instructions to the commander, (i) not to winter in the ice, 

 (2) to establish between two nained points on the coast a landing 

 party with three years' stores, under the control of Prof. Gregory. 

 The Royal Society's Representatives again met and unani- 

 mously approved these amendments, which were submitted 

 together with the draft instructions to the meeting of the Joint 

 Committee on February 8. The Representatives of the Royal 

 Geographical Society objected ihat they had not had the same 

 opportunity of considering the instructions at a separate meet- 



