590 CONFERENCE OF DELEGATES 
be nameless, steps were taken for the first time since the war to organise 
an international conference. All went well until the question of locale 
arose ; and in the controversy which ensued, the detached observer could 
not but recall to himself Mr. H. G. Wells’s remark that ‘ Europe is sunk 
in pits of stale and unventilated history.’ As a matter of interest, I may 
add that, out of the whole of Europe, only in two regions would the delegates 
of the various nations consent without exception to meet in conference— 
namely, in Scandinavia or in Great Britain. ‘The choice of Scandinavia, 
which has, I suppose, always been the least provocative part of Europe, 
calls for no comment. But it cannot by the most ardent patriot be averred 
that Great Britain has always maintained a similar detachment, and we may 
perhaps flatter ourselves that the final choice of this country for the inter- 
national conference in question was due to something more than a purely 
negative quality in our national character. 
This mention of national character brings me to a point which will 
probably be implicit in much that will be said to-day. My main subject 
is the problem of co-ordination of effort amongst the various scientific 
societies of Great Britain; and our discussion will be more than tinged 
with unreality unless we realise quite clearly at the outset that neither 
co-ordination nor effort is, in the senses which we have in mind, an out- 
standing quality of the British character. We make a fetish of individual 
freedom to the extent of inhibiting ourselves with all sorts of restrictions 
to prevent that freedom from being violated ; and so inclined are we to 
laziness that we impose upon ourselves all manner of strenuous enjoyments 
as an alternative to work. ‘To these queer complexes we shall have per- 
petually to refer any scheme of formal co-operation to which logical argument 
may lead us. We may all agree in the abstract that duplication of research 
is a waste of time and money, and that some efficient mechanism whereby 
results may be freely interchanged and policies co-ordinated would 
materially hasten the advance of knowledge. It is, however, one thing to 
draw up a logical scheme of the kind and quite another thing to put it 
effectively into operation. ‘The personal qualities to which I have alluded 
do not induce us in this country, even as scientists, to conform easily to 
the dictates of logic and method, that blessed word to which our Teutonic 
friends are so devoted. One may perhaps go so far as to say that any 
Englishman is perfectly prepared to make a principle of his practice, but 
will see you further before he makes a practice of anyone’s principle. In 
other words, any effective attempt at further co-ordination amongst the 
various bodies which we represent here to-day will proceed rather by the 
amplification of present effort than by any attempt to impose a brand new 
complete and highly-principled scheme. 
By way of introduction, therefore, to the discussion which is our main 
function this afternoon, it may be useful to review briefly some of the 
efforts which have been or are now being made to collate and to prevent 
waste of effort amongst scientific bodies. I shall take my examples mainly 
from the province with which I myself happen to have an immediate 
contact—that of archeology, though, at the same time, I am fully conscious 
that, in certain respects, other branches of research have already reached 
a more advanced stage alike of centralisatiori and of judicious delegation. 
In his Presidential address to the Society of Antiquaries a few years 
ago, Sir Charles Peers dealt in some detail with the desirability of reviewing 
the whole field of scientific archeology in this country at the present 
time and of drawing up a considered policy of research. Subsequently, 
Sir Charles opened a discussion on the same subject at the Annual Congress 
of Archeological Societies at Burlington House. He pointed out, on the 
