Fuly 31, 1873] 
NATURE 
261 
cannot see that there is any reason why the two Societies 
should be in the slightest degree antagonistic. On the 
contrary, they might be mutually helpful, both having 
ultimately the same end in view—to teach the boys to 
examine, think, and act for themselves. Of course it 
ought to be remembered what a great innovation a society 
like that of Wellington College is on the traditional 
methods of instruction belonging to a school. The work 
is entirely voluntary, not clearly defined, as in the regular 
task-work of the school ; and the only rewards held out, 
rewards which it is difficult to get the traditional school- 
boy to understand and appreciate, are, besides the direct 
acquisition of knowledge and the pleasure attending it, 
development of the power of observation, keenness of in- 
sight, and general intellectual vigour, A debating society, 
with all its undoubted advantages, is apt to become a 
nursery of boyish vanity ; the reward of successful speaking 
is immediate and very sweet toa tyro, and can be obtained 
without much labour. The work of a Natural History So- 
‘ciety involves much plodding patience, with very little glory 
to follow ; the rewards are intangible, invisible, especially 
to the boys themselves, and it will take the training of 
a few generations to teach boyish human nature to love 
knowledge for its own sake. One of the most valuable 
means to accomplish this purpose in a school is a society 
like that of Wellington College, and therefore we would 
counsel those who are anxious for its prosperity not to 
be discouraged, but to work on so long as they can get 
any boys to work with them, using all possible means to 
insure success. We hope the merely local obstacles will 
be overcome, and that the next report will have a more 
lightsome beginning ; also that it will contain many 
papers by the boys themselves, nearly the whole of the 
papers in the present report being by Mr. Penny and 
Mr. Lambert, and not one by a boy, though we are glad 
to see that some papers by boys were read at the meet- 
ings. The Rev. C. W. Penny, president of the Society, 
deserves the greatest credit for the interest he displays in 
the Society, and the amount of work he does to help on 
the objects for which it is established. A large number 
of the papers, full of instruction and interest even to boys, 
are by him ; his predecessor in the presidentship, Mr. Lam- 
bert, has also contributed much to make the meetings 
of the Society attractive and instructive. Appended to 
the report are pretty full botanical, zoological, and ento- 
mological lists, 
Familiar History of British Fishes, By Frank Buckland, 
Inspector of Salmon Fisheries of England and Wales, 
Corresponding Member of the “ Deutscher Fischerei 
Verein,” &c. &c. (London Society for Promoting 
Christian Knowledge.) 
THISs is a new edition of the above work, Mr. Buckland 
having found it necessary, he says, almost to re-write the 
book. It may be described as a free-and-easy gossip 
about fishes, the book being largely made up of extracts 
from all quarters, Lavd and Water especially being very 
fruitful in material, As might be expected, Chapter xv., 
treating of Sa/monid@, and occupying upwards of 100 
pages, a fourth part of the volume, is the most original 
and valuable. The chapter will be found useful to all 
who take an interest in the rearing and preservation of 
salmon. The numerous illustrations are very fairly exe- 
cuted, and the general reader will find the book enter- 
taining and informing. 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
[Zhe Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 
by his correspondents, No notice ts taken of anonymous 
communications. | 
Endowment of Research 
Direct and Indirect Endowment 
I sHOULD like to make one or two remarks on Prof, Flower’s 
letter in your last number, 
He modestly suggests that his views respecting the endowment 
of research unencumbered with teaching, or as he felicitously 
calls it, the direct endowment of résearch, may be considered by 
members of the Association for the Organisation of Academical 
Study as ‘‘heretical.” I venture to think that he is orthodox on 
the main theoretical position that, iv the long run, research must 
be endowed directly as well as indirectly (by the subsidy of teach- 
ing professors) and with an eguadly liberal hand. He is at issue 
with us only, if I take him rightly, as to the ze when it will be 
desirable or possible to make a claim for such direct endowment. 
We contend that row is the only time for making such a claim, 
and for a reason which I will give presently. Mr. Flower, on 
the contrary, says that while zzdirect endowment of research, by 
raising the salaries of teachers, may be carried out at once with 
less opposition from old prejudices, ‘‘ the far more difficult ques- 
tion will follow more appropriately and [the endowment] be 
carried out more efficiently when the body of educated scientific 
men in the country is larger than it is now, and the public gene- 
rally, especially those in high places, have more appreciation of 
the claims of Science for its own sake,” z.e. in the more or less in- 
definite future. 
In answer to this I would say :— ; 
(1) The ‘* public in high places,” by which I suppose is meant 
Mr. Lowe, who make a conscience of Political Economy, appear’ 
to appreciate the fact that the support of an useful and necessary 
but essentiaily unremunerative employment like research, out of 
public money is economically a sound investment; whilst the 
subsidy of a remunerative employment like teaching, out of 
public funds, though perhaps unavoidable, is nevertheless, 
economically speaking, an unsound one. We have no fear of 
Mr. Lowe’s opposition. 
(2) If by ‘‘the opposition of old prejudices” is intended the- 
atti'ude of the Conservative party towards the claims of know- 
ledge, I would call Mr. Flower’s attention to the fact that some 
of the warmest supporters of ‘‘ direct” endowment are poli ical 
Conservatives, It is, indeed, one of the soundest elements in the 
Conservative consciousness, the distrust of immature generalisa- 
tions resting upon insufficient inquiry ; and the suspicion that, if 
we insist too much upon exposition, and throw the weight of our 
endowments into that, and if we make it every man’s duty to be 
continually expounding, instead of insisting upon research and 
throwing the weight of our endowments into study, the heads of 
the rising generation run the risk of being inflated with imma- 
ture and windy generalisations. Depend upon it, the Conserva- 
tives are prepared for keeping the endowments of our colleges 
for the support of that lifelong and uninterrupted study for which 
the founders originally intended them. 
(3) Thirdly, Mr. Flower desires to wait till the demand for 
these supports of knowledge is much increased, and the body of 
scientific men wanting them is larger than itis now. But has he 
ever asked himself whether it is likely, that when this millennium 
of expectancy arrives, there will still be any university or college 
endowments undistributed, out of which this increased demand 
is to be satisfied? If Reformers of our old Institutions content 
themselves with sketching merely a teaching organisation on the 
German modcl, and with asking to have that amply endowed, 
and take no thought for the morrow when this larger body of 
trained investigators shall have come miraculously into exist- 
ence—and I think this would bea real miracle, the emergence 
of a set of phenomena for which the conditions do not 
previously exist—if, Isay, they are afraid of asking now 
to have a large fund gradually put in reserve, to be 
gradually drawnupon as the occasion arises, for the support of 
study and of those engaged in it—dves Mr. Flower imagine that 
the remainder of the College endowments which are not taken 
up by the teaching establishment upon the German model, will 
be allowed to lie dead? That no claim will be put in for them 
by the county towns for the erection of more teaching establish- 
