THE RELATIONS OF GEOLOGY. 379 



hilii that the useful side of geology is as iniportant as the intellectual 

 and, indeed, of the necessity there is for the constant union of science 

 and practice, or, as he puts it himself, *" Science and practice are not 

 antagonistic; they are mutual aids." And mainly, perhaps because 

 of this conviction, he was also a keen educationalist; for, as he himself 

 expresses it, as "some reason, right or wrong, is sure to be assigned 

 to every practice, it is most important for those connected with that 

 practice that the}^ should possess the existing knowledge upon which 

 it rests." 



De la Beche devoted some of the best \'ears of his life to the task of 

 convincing the Government and the people of this country of the 

 importance of the knowledge of the science and practice of geology 

 and its related sciences to the material and intellectual advancement of 

 the nation. He l)rought round the (xovernment of the day to his 

 views, and the ])est minds of his time, from the Prince Consort down- 

 ward, became his enthusiastic supporters. He created the British 

 National Ueological Survey, which has proved itself as t)eneticial to 

 the advance of pure geology as it has to the dev(dopment of the min- 

 eral resources of the Kingdom, while it has been the prolific parent of 

 similar national geological surveys in almost all countries of the civi- 

 lized world. He founded the Museum of Practical (xeology as a national 

 home for the collections made l)y geological research and for tlie illus- 

 trations of geology in all its practical applications, consecrating the 

 building, even in its title, to that idea of tlie coml)ination of knowledge 

 ,and utility which justified the nation in its foundation and its main- 

 tenance. And more, he made that museum, through his genius and 

 his knowledge of men, a living and growing center of instruction in 

 geological science and its useful applications, selecting as the teachers 

 of that special education some of the highest intellects of his day. 



What other scientitic leader of the nineteenth century can show so 

 famous a roll of lieutenants^ It is almost invidious to select names 

 from th(> list. But so long as natural science, pure or applied, shall 

 command the respect of men the names of Thomas Huxley, Lyon 

 Playfair. Edward Frankland, John Percy, Edward Forbes, and 

 Andrew Ramsay will be held in honored memory as those of men 

 whose life woi'k in science, or in practice, or in education, or in all 

 three combined, place them in the front raidv of the l)enef actors of 

 their da}" and their generation. 



We might go on to point out how the success of De la Beche's scheme 

 caused it to outgrow rai)idly the limits of its original home, for we are 

 most of us familiar with the fact that while the geological survey and 

 the national geological collections are still retained in the original 

 museum, the educational sections became developed into the Royal 

 School of Mines and eventually into the Royal College of Science, 

 which in its turn practicall}- bc^-ame the center of that widespread 



