TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION H. 937 
Cost.—The site would continue to be productive except where actually built 
over. For every 100 bays, or 1,600 feet of gallery, a clearance 75 feet wide would 
be needed, or an area of 22 acres. Capital value (say) 1007. The estimate for the 
gallery is 200/. per bay of 16 feet length, or for 1,600 feet 20,0007. For cottage 
and ends (say) 500/. 
For comparison it may be stated that the whole exhibition floor-area of the 
British Museum for antiquities and ethnology is about equal to 3,200 feet length 
of such galleries, or two galleries such as above described, which would cost about 
42,0007. 
Thus the exhibiting space of the British Museum might be reduplicated 
at a prime cost equal to three or four months’ maintenance of the existing 
Museum. 
If the repository were started with one gallery, equal to half the British 
Museum exhibiting area, and if a full allowance of ground were secured for future 
expansion, the cost might be estimated as follows :— 
Prime Cost per 
Cost. Annum. 
500 acres at (say) £40. R ; 5 . =£20,000 at 24% £500 
[Any increase in the cost of the land above this amount 
might be balanced by the produce of the land, the loss 
remaining at £500. | 
Building 100 bays of gallery . : : ; £20,000 at 22% £500 
Repairs and renewals (say) : : : : . : 4 250 
Shelving and glass (say) . - ; - : 2 : : : 200 
Keeper and house. : : ; : 3 : ; “ - 500 
Policeman, carpenter, and labourers ‘ ‘ 4 i s - 600 
Total cost perannum . ° . : ‘ - £2,450 
for a building equal to half the British Museum exhibiting area, and the 
securing of space for future building up to 50 or 100 times the present ex- 
hibiting area. This amounts to 14 per cent. on the present annual grant of the 
British Museum at Bloomsbury. 
The foregoing memorandum was submitted for criticism by the Committee of 
the Council to several distinguished men of science, and the remarks received in 
reply show what points of the scheme should be discussed more fully and modified 
and what points need further explanation. I therefore beg to suggest the follow- 
ing amendments and additions to the memorandum :— 
The scope in one opinion should be restricted to anthropology. As the utility 
. of such space for other subjects was only hinted at, and does not enter into the 
proposals, this limitation may be accepted without altering any point. 
In form the use of such long low galleries is said to be ‘simply impossible, on 
account of its extreme ugliness.’ As part of the original proposal is to entirely 
screen the buildings with trees outside, and divide them by stands and cases 
inside, the zsthetic consideration need hardly compel extra expense, for the 
building would not be seen. 
Another proposal is to add a second story or provide for such. As the extra 
building work would be more than double the proposed, and the added floor equal 
in cost to a roof, there would only be saved the value of land and a concrete floor. 
Against this the lighting would be so bad in a low wide gallery with only side 
windows that the space gained would be worth far less than if all were top- 
lighted. As the essence of the scheme is cheap space, there does not seem to be 
much gained by a second story. 
In the question of fire, insurance is stated by one authority to be essential. 
If, however, there be nothing inflammable in the construction (for the building 
itself may be absolutely incombustible), and if there is only the risk of detached 
stands and cases being set on fire, the risk is so very minute that even if insured 
1896. 3P 
