CO885-(21-23) — Page 45

יוןד

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

5

19

C.O.8

Reference :-

885

21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

68

5. The importance of insects in relation to the spread of disease among men, animals and crops is now so widely recognised that there can be no need for me to emphasise it in bringing this scheme to your notice. I cannot but think that an institution of the kind proposed would be of the greatest utility, and I feel sure that your. Government will desire to participate in the facilities which will be afforded by this organisation.

6. I should be glad to receive a reply to this despatch at your earliest con- venience.

7. [To Fiji only: I take this opportunity of acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Eyre Hutson's despatch, No. 267, of the 26th of October, 1911, which was sent in reply to my despatch of the 22nd of March, 1911,† regarding the possibility of co-operation between your Government and the Entomological Research Committee, and to observe that the Government Entomologist is incorrect in thinking that the Committee confines itself solely to the "blood-sucking" group of insects. But in view of the wider scheme which I have outlined in this despatch, it is not necessary for me to comment further on the despatch under acknowledgment.] I have, &c.,

27163

SIR,

No. 72.

COLONIAL OFFICE to INDIA OFFICE.

[Answered by No. 102.]

L. HARCOURT.

Downing Street, 3 October, 1912. WITH reference to your letter of the 25th of July,‡ and previous corres- pondence, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Harcourt to request you to inform the Secretary of State for India in Council that a Conference was held at the Colonial Office on the 12th of August to discuss the proposed scheme for Imperial co-operation in preventing the spread and furthering the investigation of noxious insect pests.

2. It will be seen from the Report of the proceedings of the Conference,§ six copies of which are enclosed, that representatives of most of the self-governing Dominions were able to attend, although, unfortunately, it was not possible to arrange for every Government to be represented.

3. The Marquess of Crewe is aware that the Entomological Research Com- mittee had previously put forward for consideration a scheme of which the main points were :-

(1) that the Committee should undertake a general survey of the more

important plant pests occurring within the British Empire;

(2) that they should organise a system for securing the prompt identification of any noxious insects which might be submitted for that purpose by officials of any of the Governments concerned; and

(3) that they should publish a journal monthly containing concise summaries of all the current literature which has a practical bearing on the investi- gation and control of noxious insects.

This scheme, as stated in the letter from this Department of the 21st of Sep- tember, 1911, originated from a suggestion made by Mr. Maxwell Lefroy, Imperial Entomologist for India. The proposals outlined above, when submitted to the self- governing Dominions and States and to the Government of India, met with a favour- able reception generally. The Canadian Government, however, were anxious that the scheme should be wider in scope, and it will be observed from the Report of the proceedings of the Conference that there was entire unanimity of opinion among all those present as to the desirability of adopting a more extended scheme of inves- tigation on the lines proposed by Dr. Gordon Hewitt, the representative of the Canadian Government. Mr. Harcourt fully concurs in this opinion, but as the ments in favour of this course will be found in the Report there is no need to elaborate argu- them further in this letter.

4. It will be remembered that the Indian Government, in replying to the despatch in which the proposals of the Committee were submitted for their con- sideration, also took the view that a bureau which did not include within its sphere of investigation all the chief countries of the world would be of little value to India.

• No. 113 in Miscellaneous No. 231. 23415 not printed.

No. 56.

† No. 78 in Miscellaneous No. 231.

[No. 98 in Miscellaneous No. 231,

69

It was pointed out that the insect pests with which India is mainly concerned are those of foreign countries; that, to take one instance, India imports more living plant produce from Italy than from any British possession, and that an organization confined to the British possessions would not adequately meet the needs of India. It was further stated that as the Government officers in India are already in receipt of publications dealing with insect pests from the chief stations throughout the world, there would be little advantage in combining matter relating to insect pests in one monthly journal to be published in England unless the publications of foreign countries were also included. In reply to these criticisms, I am to observe that, if the revised proposals now put forward are adopted, information as to the insect pests occurring in foreign countries will be collected as well as information as to those occurring within the limits of the British Empire, and that the publication of the Bureau will include summaries of all current literature, foreign as well as British, which has a practical bearing on the investigation or control of injurious insects. The main objection, therefore, of the Indian Government to the scheme will disappear. The second objection raised by the Indian Government was to the effect that the Bureau would be duplicating work which is being done or about to be taken in hand by the International Institute of Agriculture at Rome. On carefully examining the matter, Mr. Harcourt sees no reason to suppose that the fears of the Indian Government as to a duplication of work are well founded; nor does he anti- cipate any difficulty arising as to the relations between these two organisations if co-operation is arranged on the lines suggested at the Conference. It will, however, be useful to treat this point somewhat more in detail. A comparison of the objects of the two institutions shows that they would differ in the many important respects which may be summarised as follows:-

(1) The Bureau would undertake the identification of insects, whereas the

Institute does not undertake any work of this kind.

(2) As regards its publication-the Institute seeks to furnish information as to agriculture in general, with the result that comparatively little space in its very bulky volumes is devoted to entomology. Moreover, the reviews furnished by the Institute are very far from complete, for, with very few exceptions, the more purely scientific periodicals are not consulted; for example, the four leading scientific journals dealing with entomology in Great Britain are never reviewed. The Bureau on the other hand, would confine itself to entomology, and could, there- fore, treat the subject much more fully. Further, the injurious insects sent for identification furnish much information which would not ordinarily find its way into print, and all such useful records would be included in the Bureau's journal.

(3) The Institute does not profess to deal with any matters other than those connected with agriculture, whereas the Bureau would include in its publication a resumé of literature bearing, not merely on agricultural entomology, but also on medical and veterinary entomology. "But, even where the two publications deal with the same matter, the one would, no doubt, supplement the other, as in the case of the Zoological Record and the corresponding German publications.

(4) The publication of the Institute is not in the hands of the majority of entomologists; the Entomological Research Committee, on the other hand, is already in touch with a large number of entomological experts, and the publication of the Bureau, being concerned solely with ento- mology, would quickly find its way to all those who are interested in the subject.

(5) Finally, the Bureau contemplates the compilation of a comprehensive card index to the literature, which would eventually enable them to supply, with a minimum of labour, a full statement of, or references to, all the information that has been published concerning any particular insect pest.

It would appear, therefore, that the second objection raised by the Indian Government is founded on a misunderstanding of the objects which the Committee had in view in proposing the formation of an Imperial Bureau. It follows from what has been said that there would be no question of those Governments which now con- tribute to the Institute discontinuing their contributions to that organisation as the result of a decision to support the Bureau.