156 



NA TURE 



[June 13, 1901 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



[ The Editor does not hold himself responsible for ofinioiis ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neit/ter can he wtderlake 

 So return, or to roy respond with the writers of, rejeciei 

 .naniiscripts intended for this or any other part of NATURE. 



A'o notice is taken of anonvnoits communications.^ 

 The National Antarctic Expedition. 



I HAVE recently been made acquainted with certain hypotheses 

 which are believed to explain the motives which induced Prof. 

 Gregory to resign the position of scientific director of the 

 National Antarctic Expedition. Thus, it is commonly believed 

 that he was influenced by his family and friends. Indeed, the 

 opinion has recently been expressed that I was, perhaps, the 

 cause of his withdrawal, or that, at least, I advised it. It is 

 impossible to imagine how such an opinion can have arisen if 

 my letter to the Fellows of the Royal Society had been read 

 with any attention, unless, indeed, I have failed to give a fair 

 and accurate account, in spite of most serious efforts, put forth 

 with a grave sense of responsibility. 



I am, however, now able to set the matter at rest by a quotation 

 from Prof. Gregory's letters received since the circulation of my 

 account of the negotiations. I am quite sure that Prof. Gregory 

 would have no objection to this use of his words in order to 

 confront the unfounded rumours which have obtained currency. 



It may be remembered that after the meeting of the Joint 

 Committee on March 5, at which Major Darwin's proposed 

 changes in the conditions offered to, and accepted by, Prof. 

 Gregory were approved, although I had strongly opposed the 

 introduction of any alteration whatever, " I wrote to Prof. 

 Gregory a full account of what had happened, carefully ex- 

 plaining that his representative and many of his friends supported 

 the changes, that I had confidence that the proposal was made 

 to enable the Geographical Society to accept the instructions, 

 and that it was not intended to prevent, and, I believed, would 

 ■not prevent, his being landed " (p. 6 of my letter). 



I have now received two letters from Prof. Gregory, one 

 written on April 16, before he had received mine, the other on 

 April 23, after he had received it. 



In the former he says : " I hear that the Joint Committee 

 has accepted some of Darwin's amendments ; but as I do not 



know what they were I can form no opinion. But , 



and say they make no difference. I hope not." 



In the latter, written in reply to my letter, he says: "Very 

 many thanks for your fight against Darwin's amendment, which 

 I should not have accepted had I been in London or been 

 advised of it by cable. However, I suppose it is now too late 

 to go back on it ; and as it has [been] accepted for me I must 

 trust to luck." 



Later on in his letter the explanation of his resignation be- 

 comes perfectly clear ; indeed, he asks me to make it known. 

 In the event of the President of the Geographical Society de- 

 clining to sign the instructions, he says : " Please let it be 

 known that, except for a modification backward of Darwin! s 

 amendment, I will not accept another cha7tge." 



Between my letter describing the meeting on March 5 and 

 May 15, when his final resignation was known, I held no com- 

 munication of any kind with him. But others had communicated 

 those further changes which he was determined not to accept. 



It must be clear to any one who will read the history of the 

 negotiations carefully, that he thought, and had good reason to 

 think, that he was being trifled with, and felt that the time had 

 come — to a less patient man it would have come long before — 

 when he would no longer .submit to the vigorous attacks of the 

 Royal Geographical Society and the weak, half-hearted defence 

 of the Royal Society. 



A few hours after the above words were written a letter 

 arrived from Prof. Gregory dated May 5, just after he had 

 received the cable from the new Committee of six. The letter 

 indicates clearly the reasons which induced him to withdraw, 

 and I therefore quote several passages from it. The letter was 

 written hurriedly, and not intended for publication ; but I know 

 that Prof. Gregory would assent to my action, pursued as it is 

 with the object of preventing the misinterpretation of his motives. 

 A few unimportant verbal changes have been made. 



"You at least," he says, "will not have expected me to 

 accept the cabled terms. I was not surprised at them ; only sur- 

 prised that the Royal Society had given way apparently so readily 

 and that I heard the result a month earlier than I expected." 



NO. 1650, VOL. 64] 



" The terms proposed appear to me, as far as I understand 

 them from the cable, a complete surrender of what the Royal 

 Society's representatives declared in February was essential to the 

 proper execution of the magnetic work. The position gives no 

 power to secure a fair opportunity for work to the man who would 

 have to bear the blame for scientific failure." 



" To accept responsibility without adequate power is a false 

 position which is almost sure to lead to trouble. No man has a 

 right to take such a position. As I do not think the powers are 

 adequate to the responsibilities, it is my simple duty to with- 

 draw. I hope the Royal Society will find a better man, who 

 will be satisfied that he can make the Expedition a scientific 

 success on the instructions given. I am not ; therefore I must 

 withdraw' my provisional acceptance of the appointment." 



" It will be difficult to prevent my withdrawal being mis- 

 interpreted. I had thought of cabling to ask you to publish an 

 explanation, but thought it best to leave you to act as you 

 thought best. I can absolutely rely on your judgment, and 

 know you will have done anything necessary to repel insinua- 

 tions." 



I have done my best to prevent Prof. Gregory's motives from 

 being misunderstood, and it is with the same object that this 

 communication is now written and accompanied by quotations 

 from his letters. 



He concludes with a reference, which is far too appreciative, 

 to the support which— unfortunately for the scientific prospects 

 of the expedition and, I must add, unfortunately for the credit 

 of the Royal .Society as the guardian of the interests of science^ 

 received, at the later stages of the negotiations, the help of so 

 small a proportion of my colleagues. 



Oxford, June 11. Edward B. Poulton. 



A Raid upon Wild Flowers. 



• Prof. L. C. Mi ALL, in the last number of N.^iTURE, makes very 

 definite and serious charges against the organisers of the vaca- 

 tion course for Essex teachers in the New Forest. As author 

 of the programme so severely, and, as I contend, unfairly, 

 criticised by your correspondent, I should be glad to be allowed 

 an opportunity for reply. 



The programme, as you will see by the copy enclosed, consists 

 of two parts, the first dealing with a series of Saturday afternoon 

 botanical rambles in our own county and the other with the pro- 

 posed vacation course to be held at the New Forest. The first 

 is of a pioneer character, and is open to all teachers whether 

 they are familiar with botany or not, while the v.acation course 

 is organised for those of our teacher-students who have already 

 received one, two or more years' instruction in laboratory and 

 field-work in botany at the central institution here. For this 

 course special application must be made to the committee. 



From a perusal of the programme Prof. Miall accuses the 

 Committee for Technical Instruction in Essex with organising 

 a raid in the New Forest especially upon wild flowers tending 

 to extinction, and bases his charge upon certain alleged facts. 

 Your readers are told that with respect to these rare plants 

 our intention is to collect. Sec, "not only single specimens 

 but duplicates for special fascicles." There is no such reference 

 in the programme of the vacation course in the New Forest, 

 but in a note at the end of the Saturday afternoon programme 

 occurs these words. 



" Opportunity might be taken, during the course of the 

 Saturday rambles, of commencing a school herbarium, or col- 

 lection of dried plants illustrative of the flora of collector's own 

 district. A type collection would naturally be arranged in 

 botanical order, but duplicates might be used for special fascicles 

 representing, for example, ' meadow plants,' ' cornfield weeds,' 



&.C." 



The letter continues — " Local guides are to direct them to 

 the last retreats of the rare plants of the New Forest." This, 

 too, is a mistake. In the Saturday afternoon rambles we are to 

 be accompanied by local guides whose names and addresses are 

 given in the programme, but no such arrangements were made 

 for the New Forest. It is true that I sought the sympathy of 

 local naturalists, and, indeed, so anxious was I to prevent even 

 the suspicion of "raiding" that I wrote to the Rev. J. E. 

 Kelsall, the local representative of the Selborne Society, whose 

 strong views on the preservation of the plant and bird life of 

 the New Forest are so well known, to tell him of our proposal 

 and to assure him that our chief object was the study of living 

 plants, and that if we discovered anything rare, or even scarce, 

 it would be left untouched by our students ; and I thought that 



