590 
NMATORE 
[April 7, 1870 
nistration, supported by the State at considerable cost. Enormous 
sums of money have been spent on special inquiries of a scientific 
character, such as those on armour-plate structures, ordnance, 
ammunition, small arms, explosive agents, and projectiles. The 
Parliamentary votes show also 10,0007. a year as given for 
meteorological observations. We also find a large number of 
small sums, forming, however, a considerable aggregate amount, 
given in aid of the funds of various colleges, universities, and 
museums ; in some instances towards the salaries of specified 
professors, in others towards general purposes. The Royal 
Gardens of Kew receives 22,075/. ; the Botanical Gardens of 
Dublin and Edinburgh receive respectively 1,931/. and 1,893/ ; 
20,900/. is spent on geological, and 92,790/. on the Hydro- 
graphic Department and naval surveys, besides very large sums 
on other miscellaneous objects.* Some of the institutions above 
named issue reports, from which the results of the expenditure 
on them may be inferred. In other cases this is not done. The 
wording of the votes seldom conveys any useful information on the 
subject whatever, and sometimes conveys incorrect information. 
The grant of 1,000/. a year distributed by the Royal Society is an 
example of such inaccuracy. This is said, in the words of the vote, 
to be given to the Royal Society “to enable the society to carry on 
certain experiments for public objects,” whereas, instead of being 
given, as here stated, to the Royal Society, or for public objects, it 
is given to the community at large, and a committee of the Royal 
Society undertakes gratuitously the very laborious task—which 
does not even receive nominal acknowledgment—of distributing 
it with the strictest economy and impartiality, to such persons, 
whether belonging to the Royal Society or not, as may prove 
U eir ability to make good use of the aid they solicit in prose- 
cuting scientific research. 
Now, the results supposed to be obtained by the large expen- 
diture recorded in the estimates may be thus enumerated :—(1). 
The maintenance of the efficiency of the public services in mat- 
ters of a scientific nature. (2.) The teaching of science, directly, 
as by payment of professors, or indirectly, as by the maintenance 
of museums, botanical gardens, and the like. And (3), direct or 
indirect scientific progress, whether observational or experi- 
mental. What is wanted is, a clear statement of the degree in 
which these several results are attained in each particular case. 
With this information before us, we shall be in a position to 
arrive at trustworthy conclusions as to whether the money 
brings in each case an adequate return; whether the inadequacy 
of the return is due to defective organisation or to abuse ; 
and whether, therefore, a more satisfactory result may not be 
obtainable in each case by a process of remodelling, without 
increased expenditure. We shall also ascertain, probably, that 
the whole expenditure in some particular case is needless, and is 
at present absolutely wasted. We shall learn, too, no doubt, 
that there is much divided, and probably much utterly undefined, 
responsibility in many of the cases in which large sums of public 
money are spent. Another fact, already patent, will be brought 
out prominently, namely, the entire absence of any pervading 
system by which the expenditure on scientific objects is regulated. 
Finally, it will clearly appear that the expenditure is very par- 
tially distributed, some branches of science receiving a very large 
amount of assistance from the public purse, whilst others, of 
equal importance to the community, receive none at all. 
This taking stock of our present scientific arrangements, it 
can hardly be doubted, is an absolute necessity to the success 
of the proposed inquiry. 
Much of the information above adverted to will bear more or 
less on the question of ‘‘the higher scientific education.” But 
in indicating the scope of the inquiry in this direction, it is very 
desirable that a clear conception should be formed of the meaning 
of this phrase. My own conception of it is this. Public opinion 
has decided that science should form part of the general 
education given at large and public schools, and at the univer- 
sities. Such scientific education should comprise the elements 
of scientific knowledge, and the results of scientific labour, so 
far as these results are generally accepted as settled. Teaching 
of this kind forms, in my opinion, a portion of the great educa- 
tional question which has been for some time occupying public 
attention, and which is now in a fair way of being put on a 
satisfactory footing. To impose on the Royal Commission the 
consideration of such teaching would be doing the same work 
twice over, and adding, therefore, unnecessarily to their already 
most laborious inquiry. But beyond the scientific teaching of 
* The amounts above given are quoted from the Civil Service Estimates 
or 1869-70, those for the present year not having yet been published. 
schools and universities, there is much to be done in order to 
train advanced students to become investigators and observers, 
and this I conceive to be the object intended to be described by 
the phrase “higher scientific education.” 
It is maintained by very high authorities that it is beneficial 
intellectually to the investigator himself to have to teach, on 
account of the mental discipline and the habit of precise thought 
which it imposes on him. At present, unquestionably many of 
our best investigators are teachers also, and in all Continental 
scientific systems the two functions are combined. Two con- 
ditions seem important. First, that an investigator should not 
be required to impart the mere rudiments of scientific know- 
ledge, but that his students should be far advanced before they 
come under his tuition ; they should, in fact, be men who had 
already gained some distinction at the universities or elsewhere, 
and who had resolved on following science as a profession. The 
second condition is that the labour of teaching should engross 
only a moderate portion of the time’of the investigator, leaving 
him ample leisure and spare energy for original research. At 
present, this latter condition is precisely reversed in the cases of 
most of our professors engaged in investigation, and we accord- 
ingly only reap the benefits of a mere residuum of their highest 
faculties. 
Another matter connected with scientific teaching is con- 
sidered by persons engaged in that important occupation to 
require attention, namely, the possible effect on independent 
educational institutions of rival State schools of science. The 
apprehended interference with such interests may perhaps be 
obviated by restricting State aid to the “higher” teaching which 
I have attempted to define, leaving the preparation of students 
for such higher teaching to the universities and other institutions 
of an independent character. But before any rules on this sub- 
ject can be laid down, it is obviously necessary that the exact 
amount and kind of action now taken by the State in respect of 
teaching, and the effect of that teaching, both on scientific pro- 
gress and on independent interests, should be ascertained with 
the utmost care. 
It is also desirable that the Commission should collect the 
fullest possible information regarding all foreign scientific systems, 
down to the latest period. I by no means consider that any of 
these systems in particular is so perfect as to justify our creating 
a servile imitation of it. But it is only the part of wisdom, be- 
fore organising our own scientific administration, to examine 
carefully the results attained abroad by nations whose experience 
in such matters is now very extensive. This examination will 
suggest many arrangements that we may safely adopt, and, no 
doubt, some that we should do well to reject. Not even the 
nucleus of a scientific system at present exists in England, and 
we are therefore the more free to shape, on the best available 
models, the organisation which a full inquiry will undoubtedly 
show to be necessary. 
A great mass of facts connected with both scientific teaching 
and scientific investigations having been thus accumulated, the 
next step will be to digest and analyse them. The result of this 
most important process will be to show—first, what is redundant ; 
secondly, what is imperfect ; and thirdly, what is altogether 
wanting. It will indicate cases in which separation is desirable, 
as, for instance, cases where the concurrent cultivation of fwo or 
more branches of science, not naturally allied, tends to impede the 
growth of each. Cases will also occur in which combination would 
be beneficial. But one of the most important results of the ana- 
lysis will be the bringing to light the scattered character of our 
scientific efforts; almost every department of the State having 
charge of some scientific institution—the Admiralty of one, the 
War Office of another, the Board of Trade of a third, and so on, 
a dispersion which is absolutely prohibitive of harmonious system, 
of progressive improvement, of efficient superintendence, of 
economy in expenditure, and of definite responsibility. 
The final process will be to reduce to ‘order the chaos of which 
I have merely attempted a broad indication. This will probably 
consist in a total re-arrangement of the internal organisation and 
the official distribution of our scientific institutions, with a view 
to concentrated superintendence and responsibility. It will also 
involve a revision of scientific staffs and salaries, with all the 
attendant questions of patronage, promotions, distinctions, 
privileges, and pensions. 
2. Some of the Probable Results of the Inguiry—The first of 
these will be the accumulation of a vast amount of facts and 
opinions, collected from every available source, and from the 
most competent authorities, regarding an extensive variety of 
