NATURE 



[Nov. 6, 1873 



to sack more than a million of pounds sterling realised 

 from the taxes imposed on inventors' patent fees, and has 

 not allowed one farthing to be spent for the provision of a 

 suitable building for the "Patent Museum." Anything 

 more discreditable to the nation than the building now 

 crowded with models cannot be conceived. Many of the 

 passages are not eighteen inches wide ! What the present 

 Lord Chancellor, the head Patent Commissioner, would say 

 if he were ever to see it, cannot easily be imagined. We 

 advise his Lordship to hold a Board in the building as 

 soon as possible. It will probably be the first Board of 

 Patent Trustees that ever sat there. We are satisfied 

 that the result would be that he would instantly cause the 

 present exhibition to be closed; and adequate space found 

 elsewhere. Then what have inventors got in return for 

 the tax of a million drawn from them ? And what may 

 not invention have lost by this indefensible principle of 

 taxation ? 



Here then is already a very practical illustration of dual 

 government in the South Kensington Museum already ; one 

 part of that government being composed of Trustees,who,it 

 is reported traditionally, have never once met as a Board in 

 their own Museum to see what was imposed upon a suffering 

 public, upon their responsibility. We do not believe such 

 a state of things would have been suffered under South 

 Kensington administration. Mr. Lowe, when Vice-Presi- 

 dent, of the Council would not have suffered it. 



The indifference of the British Museum Trustees 

 to some of the best interests of Science in their own 

 museum has been denounced again and again by 

 commissions and committees, who report and report, but 

 make no impression on a corporation of fifty trustees. 

 That alone is a reason why they should not be allowed to 

 meddle with South Kensington. 



Although, as we have stated, this proposal was madewith- 

 out reference either to theopinion of those to whom theinte- 

 rests of Science and Art are more precious than they are to 

 the members of the present Government, or to the opinion 

 of the House of Commons, we learn that Mr. T^Iundella has 

 extracted a promise from Mr. Gladstone that nothing shall 

 be decided until Parliament meets again. Mr. Gladstone 

 is perhaps surprised that there is any public interest 

 in the subject. In the meantime, to assist him to form a 

 correct judgment, we advise every learned society, which 

 takes any branch of Science under its care, to memorialise 

 the Prime Minister, and point out the crying necessity of 

 a Minister, who shall be responsible to Parliament for 

 Science, among other matters, and for all museums ; that to 

 transfer a museum already so represented to irresponsible 

 trustees is a step worthy of the Middle Ages ; and finally, 

 that while the South Kensington system represents every- 

 thing that is best in the way of progress, so much, to say 

 the least, cannot be urged in favour of the present manage- 

 ment of the British Museum. 



We can well understand the reason for the proposed 

 change. It lies in the individual responsibihty of a Minis- 

 ter and the energetic executive management which have 

 raised in a fewyears the South Kensington Museum into an 

 institution of which the nation has the greatest reason to be 

 proud; whichhasmade it the centre of the chief intellectual 

 activity of the country, which has utilised its resources for 

 the teaching of hundreds of thousands of our teeming 

 populations. The British Museum Trustees have done 



none of these things ; they have given no trouble ; they 

 have borne snubbing admirably when they /iiiTt- moved, 

 which has not been often. They have, in fact, proved an 

 admirable buffer between subordinates anxious for pro- 

 gress and the Government ; and, further, they have not 

 been represented in the Cabinet. The moral which the 

 Government has drawn from these facts is, that the South 

 Kensington energy should have such a buffer, and in the 

 existing members of the British Museum have found one 

 ready to their hand. Hence the proposal which, if we 

 mistake not, will, when it is generally known, not find a 

 single supporter out of the Cabinet. It is quite possible 

 that already it finds not many supporters in it. 



BAIN'S REVIEW OF "DARWIN ON EX- 

 PRESSION" 



Rci'iciij of"' Dariuiii on Expression." Being a Postscript 

 to " The Senses and the Intellect." By Alexander 

 Bain, LL.D., Professor of Logic in the University of 

 Aberdeen. (Longmans, Green, and Co.) 



'T'HERE is nothing in this Postscript to " The Senses 

 and the Intellect" so important to psychology as 

 the declaration and announcement contained in the 

 following sentences : " In the present volume I have not 

 made use of the principle of Evolution to explain either 

 the complex Feelings or the complex Intellectual powers. 

 1 believe, however, that there is much to be said in 

 behalf of the principle for both applications. In the 

 third edition of ' The Emotions and the Will,' now in 

 preparation, I intend to discuss it at full length." No 

 man can claim to have done more for the study of psy- 

 chology than Prof Bain ; and in now recognising the 

 principle of evolution and in incorporating it with his 

 system, he is doing the science the greatest possible service. 

 This is more than in some quarters was ever hoped from 

 Prof Bain, and more than was ever feared by those of his 

 disciples who— after the manner of disciples — have clung 

 most tenaciously to the defects of his system. 



Though accepting the principle of evolution, Prof Bain 

 does not, it would seem, always look at phenomena from 

 the evolutionist's point of view, as we understand it. 

 Thus, in speaking of the large extent to which Mr. 

 Darwin uses the principle of inheritance to account for the 

 phenomena of expression, he says : — " Wielding an instru- 

 ment of such flexibility and range as the inheritance of 

 acquired powers, a theorist can afford to dispense with 

 the exhaustive consideration of what may be due to the 

 primitive mechanism of the system ; he is even tempted 

 to slight the primitive capabilities, just as the disbeliever 

 in evolution is apt to stretch a point in favour of these 

 original capabilities.'' But whence the so-called "primi- 

 tive mechanism " which is here made separate and dis- 

 tinct from, set over against the products of inheritance ? 

 is not the " primitive me chanism " the " original capa- 

 bilities " of every creature the res ults of evolution ? 



Mr. Darwin is accused of not having given sufficient 

 attention to " spontaneity of movements," which, accord- 

 ing to Prof. Bain, " is a great fact of the constitution." 

 Now it may be that a " readiness to pass into movement, 

 in the absence of all stimulation wh atcver," is a fact of 

 the constitution ; but we fail to see that Prof. Bain has 



