18G2.] IN MEMORIAM. 75 



It was his well-known reputation for trustworthiness, for accu- 

 racy, fidelity, comprehensive views, and the like, that rendered 

 his judgment on the questions of nativity, spontaneous growth, 

 etc., so peculiarly valuable. It is well known that he personally 

 visited every locality where unheard-of plants were to be seen, or 

 had been reported as seen. He spared no expense, and under- 

 went much toil, in order to ascertain the truth of whatsoever was 

 reported on this subject. 



For many years his exertions were incessant to ascertain by 

 personal observation what truth there was in any reported new 

 acquisition ; and he underwent much toil to verify old and long- 

 known stations for rare plants. There were few interesting bo- 

 tanical localities in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales which 

 he had not at some time or other, in the course of his long and 

 active life, personally visited. In proof of this, the pages of 

 ' Sowerby's English Botany,^ and especially those of the supple- 

 mentary volumes, also the excellent ' British Botany' of his 

 friend Sir W. J. Hooker, may be cited as ample evidence that 

 he spared no labour and endured much fatigue in his many 

 botanical excursions in pursuit of these objects. 



In order to the identification or the distinction of species, he 

 cultivated probably more British species than were ever pre- 

 viously brought within the boundaries of a garden, with the ex- 

 ception of the late Mr. Forster's collection. Here, in the coun- 

 try, at Henfield, under his own eye and at his leisure, he grew 

 the doubtful or critical species side by side, that he might be 

 the better qualified to decide about either their distinctness or 

 their identity. 



One of the most amiable traits in this humble man's cha- 

 racter was his readiness and zeal in aiding authors of esta- 

 blished reputation. He was more solicitous to assist others than 

 ambitious himself of enjoying the honours of autliorsliip. Of 

 fame he appears to- have been more singularly negligent than 

 most men, but few appear to have enjoyed in a greater measure 

 than he did the luxury of doing good. His liberality, his care- 

 fulness in describing, the truth-loving character of all his com- 

 munications, are notorious to those who had the honour and 

 privilege of corresponding with him on scientific subjects. 



Science might still profit, and our contemporaries and pos- 

 terity might still gain something from the labours of our lamented 



