'O 



NA TUBE 



[August 6, 1908 



conimisbion was a strong and representative one — it 

 included, amongst others, the Duke of Devonshire, 

 Si"- John Lubbock, Dr. Sharpey, Mr. Huxle}', and Sir 

 George Stokes — it was anticipated by naturahsts that 

 the Government would give effect to its recom- 

 mendation. In this they were mistaken, for in the 

 Bil' passed in 1878 giving the trustees power to 

 remove the natural history collections to Soutli 

 Kensington, no provision was made for a change in 

 the administration of the Natural History Museum. 



The recommendation of the Royal Commission 

 h.ving been ignored, the British Association for the 

 Advancement of Science in August, 1S78, urged the 

 Government to reconsider the matter, but nothing 

 was done. 



After a lapse of ten years a representative body of 

 scientific men, including Lord Kelvin, Sir G. .Stokes, 

 .Sir M. Foster, Sir A. Riicker, Sir John Murray, 

 Dr. Francis Galton, Sir Henry Thompson, .Sir \V. 

 Turner, Sir Benjamin Baker, and Mr. .A. R. Wal- 

 lace, presented a memorial to the trustees in which 

 it was stated that in their opinion it was " of great 

 importance to the welfare of natural history that 

 the principal official in charge of the national col- 

 lections relating to this subject should not be sub- 

 ordinate in authority to any officer in the museum." 



It may here be mentioned that a concession of some 

 importance was made by the trustees in 1885. On 

 the recommendation of the late principal librarian, 

 .Sir E. Bond, the office of superintendent of the 

 natural history collections was in 1885 replaced 

 by a new office, that of director, with new duties, 

 new responsibilities, and new salary. But the con- 

 cessions made in 1885 which gave the director of 

 the Natural History Museum a position of compara- 

 tive independence were deliberately revoked in i8q8. 



It seems that, though it is generally assumed thai 

 the trustees as a W'hole administer the Natural 

 History Museum and are responsible for the expendi- 

 ture -of the very considerable sum (56,000/.) annuallv 

 voted by Parliament, the museum is actuallv con- 

 trolled by a standing committee, while the director, 

 inferior officers, and assistants down to servants are 

 appointed by the three principal trustees. .\s there 

 are forty-nine trustees, the board cannot act 

 effectively as a single body, and, as the 1874 com- 

 missioners state, it is ," singularly . inappropriate that 

 the three important personages who are the principal 

 trustees, occupied as they are in the discharge ot 

 the highest functions in Church and .State, should 

 be burdened with the duty of making appointments 

 to offices of every grade in the British Museum." 



Prof. Sedgwick, in referring to the memorial pre- 

 sented last .August to the late Prime Minister, said 

 that zoologists thought it desirable to at once call 

 the attention of the Government to the desirability 

 of instituting an inquiry into the methods of adminis- 

 tration of the Natural History Museum, and that, if 

 necessary, a widely signed memorial could be sent 

 later on. In concluding a verv full statement. Prof. 

 .Sedgwick said : — 



We are here to ask for a full oHioial inciiiiry into the 

 organisation and administration of the Natural History 

 -Museum with a view to a reasonable treatment of the 

 matter in the immediate future by His Majesty's Govern- 

 ment." 



Mr. Francis Darwin especially referred to the sub- 

 ordination of Cromwell Road to Bloomsburv. He 

 said : — 



" Quite apart from the welfare of the Natural History 

 Museum, it seems unfair to expect of the principal 

 librari.in that he should be responsible for Cromwell Road 

 in addition to his other heavy responsibilities. Nor can 

 it be to the advantage of the British Museum that its 

 NO. 2023, VOL. 78] 



principal officer should be so occupied. But it is when we 

 look at the other side of the question that the faultiness 

 of the arrangement becomes fully obvious. To choose a 

 man distinguished for his technical knowledge and then 

 to fail to give him reasonable freedom in the employment 

 of his training and experience seems as bad a plan as it 

 is possible to conceive." . . . ' I believe I am right in 

 saying that when the late director was appointed his 

 freedom was curtailed. It was. I think, unavoidable that 

 in these circumstances difficulties should arise, and I 

 feel very strongly that we ought to make the recurrence 

 of such difficulties impossible ; and this can only be done 

 with certainty by makijig the Natural History Museum 

 an independent unit.' " 



This view was supported by Prof. Bourne, who 

 stated that 



" the Natural History iluseum will not be placed upon a 

 satisfactory footing until it is placed under the control 

 of a body of trustees separate from that which is re- 

 sponsible for the control of the British Museum at 

 Bloomsburv." 



Prof. Hickson pointed out that, notwithstanding 

 the representations made by men of science during 

 recent years, 



" no changes or reforms had been effected, and the 

 administration is practically the same now as it was before 

 the collections were removed from Bloomsburv," and that 

 for seven months " the museum has been deprived of the 

 services of both a scientific director and a keeper o'f 

 zoology." 



Prot. Ewart directed attention to the present un- 

 satisfactory method of appointment of the director 

 and of the subordinate members of the staff of the 

 Natural History .Museum; Prof. Kerr said that, 

 owing to the dissatisfaction which exists amongst 

 men of science, it is " essential to hold a careful 

 inquiry into the whole question of the organisation 

 and administration of the Natural History Museum 

 before coming to a decision as to the remedial mea- 

 sures to be adopted," .and Dr. Marr directed atten- 

 tion to the inadequate representation in the museum 

 of those important branches of geology w'hicli are dis- 

 tinct from botany and zoology. 



The Prime Minister, according to an official report 

 which has been supplied, replied as follows : — 



He expressed his profound satisfaction at meeting so 

 many eminent men of science. He pointed out that, as 

 regards the, administration of the museum, the trustees 

 are a statutory body with whom the Government were 

 powerless to interfere. He confessed himself still unable 

 to grasD in what wav the museum failed to perform its 

 functions. The argu:iients advanced by so many of the 

 deputation as to the management by the trustees applied 

 equally to the Bloomsburv museum. The trustees, men 

 of wide experience and great distinction, were equally 

 cognisant of natural history and archaology. He 

 announced that the trustees were about to appoint a keeper 

 of zoology, and that it was not intended to abolish the 

 directorship, but only to wait to ascertain who was the 

 best man for this responsible position. He sympathised 

 with the view that the director should have a free hand 

 in the management of his department, and promised to 

 convey to his fellow-trustees of the British Museum all 

 that the deputation had suggested. 



In reply to the Prime Minister's remarks, it mav 

 be pointed out that, had the Natural History Museum 

 come into existence during the later half of last 

 century it would doubtless, like the .American Museum 

 of Natural History and other recently established 

 museums, have been placed under a separate board 

 of trustees. But for the want of an appreciation of 

 science in England, the request for an independent 

 position for the Natural Historv Museum by men of 

 science would have been almost certainlv granted 

 when the n.atural historv collections were removed 

 fiom IBloomsburv to South Kenshigton. 



