December 30, 1909] 



NATURE 



255 



ties, and new salary. The Director was made entirely 

 independent of the Principal Librarian, except in financial 

 matters. Financial independence was offered him, but 

 declined. This meant that the Trustees had accepted the 

 recommendations of the Duke of Devonshire's Commission 

 so far as concerned the independence of the Museum. In 

 1S98, on Sir W. Flower's retirement, it became known 

 that the Trustees had in contemplation the revocation of 

 the position of comparative independence assigned in 1885 

 to the Director of the Natural History Museum. Accord- 

 ingly, a memorial was presented to the Trustees stating 

 that, in the opinion of the memorialists, it was " of great 

 importance to the welfare of Natural History that the 

 principal officer in charge of the national collections 

 relating to the subject should not be subordinate in 

 authority to any other officer of the Museum." This 

 memorial was published in the Times on July 9, 1898, 

 and on the following day a letter appeared from the Prin- 

 cipal Librarian stating that the petitioners had been mis- 

 informed, and that no change in the status of the Director 

 was in contemplation. In spite of that public statement 

 the fears of the memorialists were realised, for either in 

 July or .August of that year the position of comparative 

 independence assigned to the Director of the Natural 

 History Museum in 1885 was revoked, and the new 

 Director who waaappointed shortly after found himself — 

 quite unexpectedly in view of the 'letter just referred to — 

 in a position very different from that of his predecessor. 

 In September, 1907, a memorial praying that advantage 

 might be taken of the approaching vacancy in the Director- 

 ship to hold an inquiry into the administration of the 

 Museum was sent to the Prime Minister, who in July, 

 .'908, received a deputation on the same subject. As 

 nothing resulted from this last effort, a letter was addressed 

 lo the Times on April 19 of this year calling the atten- 

 tion of the public to the matter. So much for the sugges- 

 tion that the agitation on this matter has been a Press 

 F.gitation. 



I must now pass to consider the suggestion contained in 

 the words " supported by some well-known men of 

 science." The memorial of 1866 was signed by G. 

 Bentham, W. B. Carpenter, W. S. Dallas, Charles 

 Darwin, F. D. Godman, Joseph Hooker, T. H. Huxley, 

 John Kirk, Lord Lilford, A. Newton, W. K. Porter 

 O. Salvin, P. L. Sclater, S. J. A. Salter, H. B. Tristram! 

 A. R. Wallace and others. The Report of the Royal Com- 

 mission was signed by the Duke of Devonshire, Sir J. 

 Lubbock, Sir J. P. Kay-Shuttleworth, Dr. Sharpey, T. H. 

 Huxley, G. G. Stokes, Prof. Henry Smith, Mr. B. 

 Samuelson, Sir Norman Lockycr being Secretary. The 

 memorial of the Council of the British Association was 

 signed by W. Spottiswoode, Douglas Galton, P. L. Sclater, 

 on behalf of the Council. The memorial to the Trustees 

 m 189S was signed by Lord Kelvin, G. G. Stokes M. 

 Foster, A. Rucker, John Murrav, Francis Galton, Henry 

 Thompson, W. Turner, Benjamin Baker, A. R. Wallace, 

 \\ . F. R. Weldon, amongst others — I have not access to 

 a complete list. The memorial of 1907 was signed by all 

 the Professors of Zoology in the United Kingdom except 

 two, and was supported by all of them. The deputation 

 t3 the Prime Minister of 190S consisted of some of these 

 Professors, supported bv Mr. Francis Darwin and Dr 

 Marr From these lists it is clear that, although it would 

 not be correct to say that this long-continued agitation 

 has received the support of all well-known men of science, 

 vet It would have been nearer the truth if Sir Archibaltl 

 Geikie had used the word most instead of some in re- 

 ferring to the support it has received, for the cream of 

 certainlv two, and perhaps three, grnerations of English 

 inen of science have taken part in the agitation. Having 

 thus shown that Sir k. Geikie has been inaccurate, not to 

 say loose, in two of his statements of fact, what weight can 

 be attached to any opinion that he formulates in his letter 

 on the subject under discussion ? He says that the result 

 of his inquiry has been to convince him " that the agita- 

 tion has no substantial justification, but has arisen from 

 misapprehension and ignorance," and he goes on to re- 

 prove those who have taken part in it in these words:— 

 If the actual state of the matter had been realised no 

 agitation ought ever to have been started." This is Sir 

 Archibald Geikie's opinion. Let us try to realise for a 

 NO. 2096, VOL. 82] 



moment what an extraordinary state of mind it reveals ' 

 Uhat a contempt for his colleagues, some of them among 

 the greatest naturalists of the world's history, not to 

 mention great names in other branches of science, some 01 

 whom had made a special and prolonged inquiry as 

 members of a Royal Commission speciallv deputed to deal 

 with this rnatter, and were masters ai administrative 

 methods ! His contempt for the knowledge and judgment 

 of his most distinguished scientific contemporaries is so 

 colossal that it almost touches the infinite. But I need 

 not abour this point, nor need I refer to his estimate of 

 the knowledge of those of his zoological colleagues now 

 living, all of whom by their avocations have a special 

 interest in the Museum. 



We no\y come to the last and most important point of 

 all. Sir Archibald says that " the allegation so constantly 

 made, that the Director of the Natural Historv Museum is 

 under much more than merely nominal control of the 

 Director and Principal Librarian at Bloomsburv is with- 

 out any real foundation." This, of course, is his opinion 

 on the question which has always been at issue. We that 

 IS my colleagues and myself, traverse it absolutely ' Can 

 It be supposed that all the distinguished men in the past 

 whoni I have mentioned, and all the biologists now living 

 who have paid special attention to the matter, have under- 

 gone the labour and expenditure of time and money which 

 this prolonged agitation has involved without convincing 

 themselves of the reality of this basal element in the 

 question? It is true they may be wrong and Sir Archi- 

 bald right, but what, I ask all unpreiudiced men, are the 

 probabihties? It may be said in reply, " Ves, but what 

 are your reasons for holding this view? You must at 

 least state them." A most reasonable request, with which 

 we are only too anxious to comply if the opportunity is 

 given us. Unsupported statements are worth little 'and 

 may easily be turned into personal attacks and lekd to 

 useless and hurtful recriminations. An inquiry must be 

 held before a proper tribunal which can receive and sift 

 evidence on this question so important to biological science 

 in England. 



At theend of his letter Sir Archibald Geikie draws a 

 red herring across the scent by referring to a matter 

 which however deeply we may fee! it, we have always 

 avoided. It IS not the question at issue. That question 

 existed long before the recent circumstances to which he 

 refers arose, and will, unless dealt with, continue long after 

 they are orgotten. Adam Sedgwick. 



Imperial College of Science and Technology, 

 December 20. 



I am sure that everyone connected with natural history 

 or with the Royal Society recognises the amiable tactful- 

 ness and discretion of our worthy President. These quali- 

 ties explain the opinion which he has expressed in reply 

 to an inquiry from the Speaker as to the government of 

 the Natural History Museum. They do not, however 

 give any weight to it. The essential qualification for exl 

 pressing an opinion of value on this subject is a know- 

 ledge of the facts. Of that, I am sorrv to be obliged to 

 say. Sir Archibald Geikie is entirely innocent. The Speaker 

 says in his letter that he understands that Sir Archibald 

 Gcikie " has recently made special inquiries on this sub- 

 ject. Sir Archibald himself says he has "had occasion 

 to make a careful investigation of the facts of the case " 



Sir .Archibald, though he has recently become a Trustee 

 o. the British Museum, has not become one of the inner 

 circle of the standing committee. No doubt he supposes 

 that he has acquired some knowledge of the " facts of the 

 case." He has been permitted to see the Red Book of 

 Regulations ! But he does not duly estimate the secrecy 

 with which the business of the Trustees is conducted by 

 the standing committee. He knows so little of the matter 

 that he is unaware of his own ignorance. There are only 

 three people who really know the facts as to the proceed- 

 ings of the Trustees of the British Museum in regard to 

 the Natural History Departments during the last twelve 

 years. The Trustees themselves, even those of the inner 

 circle, do not understand what has been done in their 

 name. Sir Archibald Geikie has not sought information 

 from any one of the three per.sons who could (were they 

 willing) give it. The individual who really knows every 



