1883.] The Crisis at the British Museum . 71 7 
Natural-History collections. The Elgin marbles, &c., being 
almost exclusively examined by students of the Fine Arts, 
would have there been in place. In short, the South Ken- 
sington Museum being devoted to objects of the Arts, a 
further collection of the same nature would have been “ like 
to like.” Why should the art-student be compelled to make 
a pilgrimage to Great Russell Street, instead of finding in 
some one spot — be it South Kensington or elsewhere — all 
the objects he might wish to study concentrated for ever ? 
I hold, in short, that all the Art collections, now scattered 
abroad, should be assembled in one locality, even if their 
different arrangements should prevent them from being 
united in one grand Art Museum, a London Louvre. Had 
this been done the Natural-History collections might have 
found ample space in Great Russell Street for many years 
to come. 
Again, even supposing that these collections should ever 
require removal, surely a more suitable locality might have 
been found than the one to which they have been consigned. 
The arguments to this effeCt are so exceedingly plain and 
cogent, and have been so often put forward, that I should 
feel ashamed of once more repeating them save for the cir- 
cumstance that they have never been met, save with the 
“ conspiracy of silence.” Surely all persons possessing the 
least residue of common sense will grant that the first 
essential for the site of any public office or institution is 
centrality, or the nearest practicable approach thereto. It 
must further be admitted that the need for such centrality is 
more pressing in a large city than in a small one, and in 
London strongest of all. If this condition is overlooked 
the inhabitants of some one district are favoured at the cost 
of the majority. This principle is admitted and aCted upon 
as regards public buildings for other purposes. When, e.g., 
it became desirable to provide better accommodation for the 
courts of justice, and to collect them together in one spot, 
no such considerations as cheapness of land, abundance of 
space, and scope for architectural display were entertained 
as arguments for removing the law-courts from Westminster 
to some remote suburb. Had the suggestion been made it 
would doubtless have been dismissed as not worthy of a 
serious consideration. Why, then, should the case be 
different as regards a Scientific Institution ? 
It may, indeed, be said that by means of the District or 
the Metropolitan Railways we may be carried from many 
parts of London, and put down — in the absence of explo- 
sions — at a spot very near the new Natural-History Museum, 
