JUNE 7, 1901.] 
The words I used, ‘leader of Scientific 
Staff,’ were not commented upon in his re- 
ply (February 16th), stating that the cable 
should be sent. The word ‘civilian’ was 
not used by Dr. W. E. Blanford, writing to 
convey the unanimous recommendation of 
the Geological Sub-Committee that Professor 
Gregory should be ‘chief of the Scientific 
Staff of the Expedition.’ Professor Herd- 
man, who seconded the resolution on Feb- 
ruary 14th, and I, who proposed it, both re- 
member the words ‘ Scientific Leader of the 
Expedition.’ I have not been able to re- 
cover a copy of the notice convening the 
meeting, in which the agenda were put 
down. It would, however, have been un- 
reasonable for the Joint Committee to have 
accepted the word ‘civilian’ when it had 
no information before it which justified the 
expectation that naval officers would be 
lent by the Admiralty. 
At the meeting of the British Association 
at Bradford, I explained the situation to 
Professor Rticker, whoagreed with me that 
it was full of danger, on account of the 
reasons alleged for the use of the word 
‘ civilian,’ viz., in order to discriminate be- 
tween the science under Professor Gregory 
and that under the Commander. Heagreed 
with me that the coordination of all the 
science of the expedition ought to be in the 
hands of the scientific chief who had been 
selected, because his reputation was a guar- 
antee that all interests would be properly 
looked after. Sir Michael Foster, to whom 
I mentioned the matter at a later date, 
quite agreed with this opinion, but was un- 
willing to contest the use of the term 
‘civilian.’ Furthermore, when I raised 
the question at a meeting of the represent- 
atives of the Royal Society on the Joint 
Committee, it appeared that the term was 
actually preferred by certain influential 
nayal authorities who were preseut, so that 
it was impossible to resist it without divid- 
_ ing those who desired to give Professor 
SCIENCE. 
893 
Gregory such a measure of freedom of ac- 
tion as he was prepared to accept. 
At the meeting (November 20, 1900) of 
the Joint Committee, following the conver- 
sations with Professor Rucker and Sir 
Michael Foster, a report from the Execu- 
tive Committee and submission and esti- 
mate from Captain Scott were read and 
received, with certain modifications. JI in- 
dicated to the Secretaries of the Royal So- 
ciety, who were sitting opposite to me, that 
this was a favorable opportunity to raise 
the question of the powers of the Scientific 
Director over the whele of the science of 
the Expedition. They were, however, un- 
willing to do so, hoping, I believe, that all 
difficulties would be smoothed away by per- 
sonal negotiations between Captain Scott 
and Professor Gregory, who was expected 
home in a fortnight. 
For nearly two months these negotiations 
proceeded between Professor Gregory on the 
one side and Captain Scott and Sir Clements 
Markham on the other, and between Sir 
Clements Markham and me. 
The principles held were irreconcilable, 
and it only remained to appeal to the Joint 
Jommittee for a decision. 
On January 9, 1901, Professor Gregory 
wrote to Professor Riicker, explaining the 
_ failure of the negotiations, and on January 
28th he addressed a letter to the Royal 
Society’s representatives on the Joint Com- 
mittee, from which I select the following 
paragraphs : 
I landed at Liverpool on December 5, and went 
straight to Dundee to meet Captain Scott, and showed 
him a copy of my letter of January 19 [1900]. As he 
returned it to me next day without comment, I be- 
lieved that he understood and accepted the general 
conditions therein stated. On January 7, in order to 
settle the exact terms of our mutual relations, I sub- 
mitted to Captain Scott a draft of the instructions I 
expected to receive from the Joint Committee, and 
which I had previously shown to Professor Poulton. 
To my surprise Sir Clements Markham and Captain 
Scott expressed disapproval of these instructions, 
practically on the ground that there could be only 
