great value are exhibited—most of them are as a matter of fact stored out of view—in inflammable sheds. The secretary makes a comparison with the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, which shows that while the number of specimens in the National Museum is more than double the number in the American Museum, the space of the American Museum is ten times as great as that of the National Museum, and the cost of the buildings was also ten times as great. If New York City spends $4,000,000 on its museum buildings, it seems strange that the general government can not do at least as much. Our national government has been extremely liberal in its appropriation for scientific purposes, surpassing in this respect other governments, but for some reason—probably by mere accident—-the museum has been neglected. Washington is becoming a scientific center, rivaling London, Paris and Berlin, but compared with the museums maintained in these cities by the government our national museum is not creditable. The collections though large are not systematic, having resulted from expeditions, gifts and the like, while no appropriations have been available to fill in the gaps which always arise when collections are formed by such methods. The curators do not receive adequate salaries; indeed, of the twenty-one curators, twelve serve without any salary at all, and the average salary of the others is only about $2,500. The keepers of the British Museum of Natural History receive salaries of $4,000. It should be only necessary to point out these matters to congress in order that appropriations may be made for the National Museum commensurate with those of foreign governments. The difficulty is that there are no members of congress who are scientific men, or who are primarily interested in science, such as are to be found in all foreign legislatures, and there is consequently no one who will present to congress the consensus of opinion of scientific men.
A NEW BRITISH ACADEMY.
National Academies had more important functions in the past than they have now. Still the honor of being officially recognized as one of a small body of eminent men may be a stimulus to scientific work, and academies may be among the best existing means of forwarding international relations. Neither in the United States nor in Great Britain has an academy of letters arisen. It seems, however, that a British Academy for the promotion of historical, philological and philosophical studies will soon be established by royal charter. The question of such an academy has been discussed in England since the organization in 1899 of the International Association of Academies. Literary as well as scientific academies are part of this association, and Great Britain can only be represented by the Royal Society. The International Association will hold its next meeting in London in 1904, and the lack of representation of historical and literary studies would thus be emphasized. The question arose as to whether the Royal Society might be enlarged to include students of history, economics, philology, etc., as was apparently intended by the original charter of King Charles II. Many members of the Society favored the plan, but it was rejected by the council. It is probable that the leading English students of the humanities from the scientific side will be permitted to organize themselves into an academy, and that there will hereafter be in Great Britain a new Royal Academy as well as a Royal Society. The National Academy of Sciences was intended to include students of economics, philology and similar sciences, but the few representatives of these sciences have died and no successors have been elected. It seems likely that, unless the National Academy decides to give
