xoo 



NA TURE 



[March 25, iqoo 



tical, economic, and social problems which were to be 

 found in the countries of the West, and he had very 

 great doubts whether it was wise to bring the same 

 problems into China by the introduction of ^^'estern 

 science and methods. The Chinese now see that they 

 cannot isolate themselves from the other countries of 

 the world, and they are anxious to accept from them 

 sufficient, at least, to preserve their national integrity, 

 but the forces behind them will make it impossible to 

 draw a limiting line. 



For many years I have been watching with interest 

 the great evolution which is going on in the countries 

 bounded by the Pacific area. Japan led the way, and 

 now China follows, probably, however, at a slower 

 rate ; but, as my Chinese friend sometimes said to me, 

 " I wonder where you people of the West think you 

 will be as regards trade and industry, as well as 

 other things, when China is fully awake? " This 

 opens up a wide vista for speculation, and I merely 

 mention it in the hope that those who are proposing 

 what seem to be small things may consider their 

 future possibilities and their results on the civilisation 

 of the world. Henry Dyer. 



THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS AND 

 THE LONDON INSTITUTION. 



IN Nature of April 6, 1905, attention was directed 

 to negotiations that had commenced between the 

 .Society of Arts and the London Institution having 

 for their object the amalgamation of the two institu- 

 tions. A special meeting of the promoters of the 

 London Institution was about to be held to consider 

 the scheme, which was supported by a joint com- 

 mittee of the two institutions ; and whilst it was 

 recognised that some opposition on the part of 

 members of the London Institution would have to 

 be reckoned with, it was assumed that amalgamation 

 would be brought about. This expectation was not 

 realised. Whilst there is reason to believe that the 

 members of the Society of Arts would have been 

 practically unanimous in their support of amalgama- 

 tion, a vigorous minority of the London Institution 

 opposed, with the result that the scheme was never 

 voted upon. It was shelved, and for the time being 

 no more was heard of amalgamation. After the 

 failure to bring about union between the two institu- 

 tions, no attempt was made to vitalise the London 

 Institution. It remained, as it had been for some 

 years, practically moribund. 



Impressed with the undesirability of allowing 

 matters to continue as they are, and as convinced 

 as ever that amalgamation would be for the advan- 

 tage of both institutions, those members of the 

 London Institution who moved in the matter in 1905 

 have now renewed their efforts to bring about an 

 amalgamation of the two institutions. They first 

 tested the feeling of members by means of a post- 

 card ballot, which resulted in 526 supporting the pro- 

 posal for amalgamation and 84 voting against, some 

 400 remaining neutral. This was a sufficiently 

 decisive vote to warrant the managers of the London 

 Institution in approaching the Royal Society of .Arts, 

 but before that could be done certain members of 

 the institution, strong opponents of amalgamation, 

 moved in opposition, with the result that there was 

 a special meeting of members of the institution, and 

 a ballot taken. This ballot resulted in 322 voting 

 in favour of amalgamation, and 21S against it, 

 leaving between 400 and 500 who preferred to be 

 neutral. The managers of the London Institution 

 did not consider that this vote was sufficiently decisive 

 NO. 2056, VOL. 8oi 



to warrant them in approaching the Royal Society 

 of Arts without further consideration, and accordingly 

 a meeting was arranged for March 10 to consider 

 the position. The result of that meeting has not 

 been made known to the public, but it is understood 

 that it disclosed considerable hesitation in proceeding 

 with the scheme unless, and until, the minority, or 

 some of them, could be induced to waive their 

 opposition. 



So the matter stands. It would be rash to predict 

 the upshot. There is no reason to suppose that the 

 members of the Royal Society of Arts are not as 

 willing as they were three years ago to support a 

 scheme of amalgamation approved by the secretarv. 

 Sir Henry T. Wood, and the committee. Nor do the 

 arguments of the minority of the London Institution 

 seem very convincing. One of their objections is 

 that, under the proposed scheme, the institution would 

 be moved from the City to somewhere " east of 

 Charing Cross and west of Chancery Lane." We 

 can understand this objection having considerable 

 weight fifty years ago. Founded in 1805 by merchants 

 and bankers of the City of London, the object of 

 the London Institution was to maintain, in what was 

 then a central position, an e.xtensive general library 

 of reference, and to promote the diffusion of know- 

 ledge by lectures and conversazioni ; for at that time, 

 and for many years afterwards, the City contained a 

 large residential population. This population has now 

 practically disappeared, and the number of proprietors 

 who use the institution is small, and every year 

 becomes smaller. To remove the institution to a 

 building just outside the City boundaries, at or near 

 the east end of the Strand, would not be incon- 

 sistent with the objects for which the institution is 

 intended. The dissentient minority urge again that 

 the Corporation of the City of London ought to take 

 action to amalgamate the institution with the 

 Gresham Trust. But whatever may be said in favour 

 of this proposal, it means that the Corporation would 

 have to endow the London Institution, and that, 

 there is good reason for believing, they would 

 not do. 



The arguments in favour of amalgamation seem 

 to us very strong, and we hope that in the end they 

 will prevail. The history of the Royal Society of 

 Arts has been a highly creditable one. It is 

 under sagacious control. Its financial position is 

 sound, and its services to the community great. 

 Amalgamation with the London Institution would 

 mean for it some sacrifice of sentiment, but the union 

 would be advantageous to it in certain ways. It would 

 give it the permanent local building that it lacks. 

 The site of the London Institution is estimated to be 

 worth at least 150,000!., and this would be amply 

 sufficient to provide an adequate building, and might, 

 indeed, supplv accommodation for several other 

 societies disposed to join in the scheme of building. 

 The library of the London Institution, joined to that of 

 the Royal .Societv of Arts, would make one of the best 

 reference libraries in the metropolis, and the com- 

 bined revenues would enable much more to be done 

 in the interests of science, and provide a better know- 

 ledge of scientific work and methods than is possible 

 at present. On the whole, the arguments seem greatly 

 in favour of amalgamation between the two institu- 

 tions on terms equitable to both, and it may be hoped 

 that when the dissentient minority of the London Insti- 

 tution realise more fully than they seem to do at present 

 that the Corporation of London is not prepared to 

 subsidise their institution, their objections to amal- 

 gamation with the Royal Society of Arts will not con- 

 tinue to be pressed. 



