PUBLIC MONEY FOR SCIENCE AND ART.
Cur any of our correspondents give us a satisfactory answer to a plain question ? Before we put the question, however, we must explain the circumstances which have led to it. On the 5th of May last, the House of Lords ordered " a return of all sums granted in the five years ending 5th April 1856 to the Royal So- ciety, Antiquarian Society, British Museum, Establishment at Mailborough House, Geological Society, Society of Arts, Entome- loirical Society, and Zoological Society ; distinguishing each year, with the manner in which such sums have been expended ; dis- tinguishing the salaries or other remunerations given out of the same." The return was made by all the scientific bodies in ques- tion, but not in the same manner. The Antiquarian, Geological, and Entomological Societies, and the Society of Arts, stated in their return that they had never had any grant of public money. In one case the fact was the very reverse of a public grant to the society : within the five years specified the Zoological Society will have paid to the Crown the large sum of 2117/. for the rent of twenty-six acres and a half in the Regent's Park.
The Royal Society has received, during the five years 5172!.; and there is a peculiarity in this return. The expenditure of the society is devoted to one purpose: it is used for enabling scientific men to perform their experiments and inquiries ; and the return not only states the nature of the work done, but, specifically, the names of all the gentlemen who have received payment. Any one who looks at the description of the work will be disposed to ' believe that the pay has not been in any way excessive. The return of the British Museum is made in a very formal manner ; specific sums being set down as granted and expended under the heads "Salaries, &c., House Expenses, Purchases and Acquisitions, Bookbinding, Cabinets, &c., Printing Catalogues, making Casts, &c., Law Expenses, Fees, &c., Excavations, &c. in Assyria and Transport of -Marbles." The return for the last five years has a questionable addition—" Purchase of the Bernal Antiquities." The grants have advanced slowly from 52,5391. for the year 1852 to 62,0121. for the year 1856; the sums ex-
nded for the same years have amounted to 51,386/. and 62,0041. We have no further particulars.
The return of sums granted to the Establishment at Marlborough House is much more voluminous. It shows us that in the five years the grants have amounted to 241,6601., the expenditure to 206,7191. Of the amount granted, 155,983/. is under the head of "Grant to the Department " ; the rest goes to Geological Surveys, Museum of Practical Geology, Museum of Irish Industry in Dub- lin, Designs Office, Industrial Museums in Scotland, Royal Dub- lin Society, and Meteorological Observations at Sea. "The De- partment" gives its expenditure more in detail ; but here we en- counter a peculiar difficulty. We have, for example the salaries of "the Head School," and then the salaries in detail of "the Head Masters," "Assistant Masters," and so forth. There are a few names' but they appear to be those of tradesmen, such as persons who have executed repairs, supplied materials for cleans- ing, coals, ironmongery, drawing materials, &e. There are also the names of gentlemen who have delivered lectures. The sums under these heads are considerable for exam.ple, under the head "No. 1, General Management," the salaries amount to 4948!.; under the head "No. 2, the Department of Science and Art," the salaries of "Principal Officers" amount to 4963/. ; the salaries of " Subordinate Officers," 21711. ; of "Professors," 30221. Besides these there appear to be sa- laiies for inspection, special lectures, and travelling expenses. Now it is possible that the Department may be entirely free from plurality of offices but it is possible also that it may not be free from plurality of offices; and we cannot tell whether it is or is not while we have no names against the sums allotted to the different officers. The return therefore fails to give the information re- quired; and it is strikingly in contrast with the return of the Royal Society. For example, Professor Owen appears in two or three different years ; we have the exact description of the work which he undertook, and we know exactly, therefore, what the Royal Society allotted for the assistance of Professor Owen in his scien- tific labours under the society. If Dr. Stenhouse is the recipient of money, or Colonel Sabine, the precise nature of the work done is stated in each case exactly- in the same way. The least in- formed reader can therefore tell accurately how the public money was distributed, and what was done for it. Not so in the public department of Marlborough House : we only know the gross sums and its distributive allotment to several titles ; we do not know who got it, nor what is really done with it. The distinction be- tween the private society and. the public department is the more remarkable since the sums are so much larger, and we might have supposed the sense of responsibility stronger in the appointed servants of the public.
The question we have to ask is, whether the information de- sired by the Lords, but omitted in the return, exists in any other form, or whether it can be supplied ? It would be welcomed by many to whom the return is most unsatisfactory.
Previous page
