HO EVOLUTION [Chap. II 



Letter 65 my opinion on the subject of your note can be of any 

 value, as I have not much considered the subject, or had the 

 advantage of discussing it with other naturalists. But my 

 impression is, that there is much weight in what you say 

 about not breaking up the natural history collection of the 

 British Museum. I think a national collection ought to be 

 in London. I can, however, see that some weighty arguments 

 might be advanced in favour of Kew, owing to the immense 

 value of Sir W. Hooker's collection and library ; but these 

 are private property, and I am not aware that there is any 

 certainty of their always remaining at Kew. Had this been 

 the case, I should have thought that the botanical collection 

 might have been removed there without endangering the 

 other branches of the collections. But I think it would be 

 the greatest evil which could possibly happen to natural 

 science in this country if the other collections were ever to 

 be removed from the British Museum and Library. 



Letter 66 To T. H. Huxley. 



The memorial referred to in the following letter was addressed on 

 Nov. 1 8th to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was signed by 

 Huxley, Bentham, W. H. Harvey, Henfrey, Henslow, Lindley, Busk, 

 Carpenter, and Darwin. The memorial, which is accessible, as pub- 

 lished in the Gardeners' Chronicle, Nov. 27th, 1858, p. 861, recommended, 

 speaking generally, the consolidation of the National Botanical collections 

 at Kew. 



In February, 1900, a Committee was appointed by the Lords Commis- 

 sioners of the Treasury " to consider the present arrangements under 

 which botanical work is done and collections maintained by the Trustees 

 of the British Museum, and under the First Commissioner of Works at 

 Kew, respectively ; and to report what changes (if any) in those arrange- 

 ments are necessary or desirable in order to avoid duplication of work 

 and collections at the two institutions." The Committee published their 

 report in March, 1901, recommending an arrangement similar to that 

 proposed in 1858. 



Down, Oct. 23rd [1858]. 



The names which you give as supporting your memorial 

 make me quite distrust my own judgment ; but, as I must say 

 yea or nay, I am forced to say that I doubt the wisdom of 

 the movement, and am not willing at present to sign. My 

 reasons, perhaps of very little value, are as follows. The 

 governing classes are thoroughly unscientific, and the men of 



