[ Sir Frederick Snow, structural engineer. ] Two Typed Letters, one Signed 'Fredck. S. Snow' and the other signed on his behalf, to the Secretary, Royal Society of Arts, with typed synopsis of a proposed paper on 'Steel or Concrete Structures'.

Five items: Snow's two letters and carbons of three of Mercer's replies (5 and 25 March, and 24 June 1964). ONE: Typed Letter from Samson, signed on his behalf, to the Secretary (i.e. G. E. Mercer), Royal Society of Arts, 28 February 1964. 1p., folio. Confirming that he wishes to give a paper on 'The Relative Merits of the use of Steel or Concrete in Structures', 'with a number of slides showing comparisons of various materials'. At the foot of the page is a signed note from Mercer to Sampson, dated 2 March 1964: 'Do we want this? We seem to have a number of lectures on this topic in recent years. Has he got anything new to say?' At the foot of the page is Samson's signed reply of the same date, in which he points out that Snow is 'one of our foremost consulting engineers who has been responsible for world-wide projects (see Who's Who) & would give an authoritative talk'. Accompanying the letter is Snow's 'Synopsis of Paper entitled The Relative Merits of the Use of Steel or Concrete in Structures', dated 28 February 1964, and 1p., folio. TWO: Typed Letter Signed from Snow to Mercer, 23 March 1964. He stresses that his approach to the topic will be 'entirely different': 'As you may well know, there is in general considerable competition between structural steel users and reinforced concrete users, as to which is the best material. The object of the Paper would be to show that the necessity for such competition does not in fact exist adn that money spent on advertising these materials could be used on research, to very much better purpose.' Signed note from Samson at foot of letter, promising Snow 'a full House on this subject'. THREE to FIVE: Carbons of three typed letters from Mercer to Snow, 5 and 25 March and 24 June 1964. In the first, Mercer states that it is 'the Society's policy that so far as possible papers read to it should deal with new developments', and giving details of three papers read to the Society on kindred topics in recent years. In the third letter Mercer reports that, while realizing the importance of the subject, the Society's 'Committee which draws up our lecture programme' have decided not to proceed with the lecture, having had 'a number of lectures in recent years dealing with various aspects of it'.