To John Russell [10 March 1847]1
To The Right Honourable Lord John Russell, M.P., First Lord of the Treasury, &c. &c.
We, the undersigned,2 members of the British Society for the Advancement of Science, and of various scientific societies, respectfully submit to the consideration of your Lordship, that a strong feeling pervades the naturalists of our country, that the promotion of the science of Natural History is very inadequately provided for by the present constitution of the Board of Trustees of the British Museum.3
So long as that institution consisted only of a library, with limited collections of antiquities and natural curiosities, it was easily managed by a body consisting of public functionaries, men of rank and general attainments, and the representatives of the chief donors of the Museum.4 When, however, the establishment was so enlarged as to become a national deposit of the productions of nature, both recent and fossil, together with vast additions to the books, manuscripts, prints, statues, &c., supplemental trustees were elected to aid in the direction.5 We rejoice that eminent men of letters were thus associated in the Trust;6 but even so amended, the Board, with the best intentions, we believe, has found it very difficult satisfactorily to perform the numerous and various duties devolving upon it; for although the “ex officio” Trustees, the Presidents of the Royal Society and of the College of Physicians,7 are necessarily persons of weight in science; and although we gratefully witnessed the election of the eminent astronomer, Sir John Herschel,8 we would earnestly represent to your Lordship, that the qualifications of these gifted individuals do not necessarily include an interest in, or the ability to judge of, many of those measures which may best promote Natural History; and, consequently, that there is no effective provision (in the absence of other men of science) for the proper guidance of the Natural History department, or for having at the Board, trustees who can explain to their associates the desiderata of naturalists, and estimate the value of new specimens, either offered to or purchased by the nation.
Fully acknowledging, that in their accomplishments and high characters the present Trustees offer the best sureties for the satisfactory execution of any duties connected with their own pursuits, we still think that, with the best disposition (and they have already done much good service) these distinguished men are unable adequately to direct the vast and rapidly increasing Natural History departments of the Museum;9 and we can even well suppose that they would themselves be happy to be relieved from the heavy responsibility which must be attached to the application of the large sum annually voted by Parliament for the support of natural science.10
Now, in the event of a knowledge of Natural History being in future recognized among the grounds for election to the Trusteeship of the British Museum, we should have reason to anticipate that the sum allotted to this subject would be applied so efficiently and regularly to its extension and improvement, as would best secure the progress of science, and yield most interest and instruction to the public.
Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we beg to suggest, for the consideration of your Lordship, that steps should be taken to effect such an improvement in the constitution of the Trust, as shall render the management of the Natural History departments of the British Museum, as far as possible, independent of the other divisions; and on this point we would beg to refer your Lordship to the original plan of Sir Hans Sloane.11
In offering this suggestion, we do not contemplate a separation of the Natural History collections from the other departments of the British Museum, as we well know that the cultivation of natural science cannot be efficiently carried on without reference to an extensive library.
What we chiefly desire to see is, the formation of such a responsible system of management as may satisfy the public and ourselves, that in this great national establishment, the interests of all branches of natural science will be thoroughly protected and advanced, and that the halls devoted to it shall be so enriched with well selected and well classified objects of contemplation and comparison, as shall not merely gratify the curiosity and excite the wonder of the multitude, but shall prove of real use to the researches of the student and the man of science.12
Footnotes
Bibliography
Faulkner, Thomas. 1829. An historical and topographical description of Chelsea, and its environs; interspersed with biographical anecdotes of illustrious and eminent persons who have resided in Chelsea during the three preceding centuries. 2 vols. Chelsea: T. Faulkner [and others].
Harris, P. R. 1998. A history of the British Museum library, 1753–1973. London: The British Library.
Rupke, Nicolaas A. 1994. Richard Owen, Victorian naturalist. New Haven, Conn., and London: Yale University Press.
Stearn, William T. 1981. The Natural History Museum at South Kensington: a history of the British Museum (Natural History), 1753–1980. London: Heinemann in association with the British Museum (Natural History).
Summary
Memorial presented by members of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and other scientific societies, submitting that natural history is inadequately provided for by the present constitution of the Board of Trustees of the British Museum.
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-1070F
- From
- Charles Robert Darwin
- To
- John Russell, 1st Earl Russell
- Sent from
- unstated
- Source of text
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 1070F,” accessed on 9 November 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-1070F.xml
Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 13 (Supplement)