CORRESPONDING SOCIETIES. 25 



When the Committee met on March 19, 1897, only twenty-six answers 

 had been received. The Secretary was accordingly directed to write to 

 eleven of the Corresponding Societies which had not replied asking for 

 some expression of their views on the subject of federation before the end 

 of April. This second application produced eight additional replies, 

 making the total received thirty-four, which may be thus classed : — 



Answers from Corresponding Societies 20 



„ other local Societies 14 



34 



As regards the nature of the replies the Societies may be thus 



arranged : — 



Belong to Unions already ........ 9 



In close touch with a Union ....... 1 



Prevented by circumstances from joining Unions . . .2 



Undecided 4 



Generally favourable to Unions 9 



Unfavourable in their own cases 9 



34 



The answers received from Societies which already belong to a Union, 

 or are in close touch with one, call for no remark. The two Societies 

 prevented by circumstances from joining Unions are the Cambridge Philo- 

 sophical Society and the Marlborough College Natural History Society. 

 In the replies from the four Societies classed as ' undecided,' perhaps the 

 most significant remark is to the effect that the Club in question is doubt- 

 ful whether economy of energy might not be dearly purchased by loss of 

 'enthusiasm, and whether ' a deadening uniformity ' might not result from 

 Unions. Of the nine Societies generally favourable to Unions, two only, 

 the Hertfordshire Natural History Society and the Leicester Literary 

 and Philosophical Society, sent definite, detailed plans of what they pro- 

 posed to accomplish in their own localities. And a thii'd, the Essex Field 

 Club, stated that it was in communication with the Norfolk and Norwich 

 Natural History Society with the view of establishing some degree of co- 

 operation between the two Societies in the future. The others contented 

 themselves with the remark that union was a step in the right direction, 

 or with some other phrase expressing vague approval. 



The replies received from the Societies classed as ' unfavourable in 

 their own cases ' vary very much as to their apjjroval of federation in the 

 abstract. All these Societies are Corresponding Societies, and have 

 counties or other large areas as their spheres of work. 



It is noticeable that while most of the replies received before March 19 

 were, more or less, favourable to federation, those sent in answer to the 

 second application are all, more or less, unfavourable. This difference 

 between the character of the earlier and the later replies seems to point 

 to the conclusion that the local Societies addressed which have sent no 



