TREASURY REBUKE TO AYRTON 173 



lue to Hooker's management ; the additional estimates were 

 those he had protested against. Accordingly Lubbock gave 

 notice that he would raise the question on the 30th, and called 

 for papers to be laid before the House. On the 25th the 

 papers were tabled. These 128 folio pages were remarkable 

 as combining redundancy with incompleteness ; redundancy 

 in irrelevant matters of ancient history, of which The Times 

 remarks that ' so scrupulous an economist as Mr. Ayrton might 

 have been expected to save the country the expense of printing 

 such trivialities ' ; incompleteness in the omission, save for 

 one memorandum, of the correspondence between Mr. Ayrton, 

 Mr. Gladstone, and Dr. Hooker, on which the latter's charges 

 of ' evasions, misrepresentation and misstatements in his 

 communications to the First Minister of the Crown ' were 

 based. 



Additional papers, however, were presented to the House 

 of Lords, and formed the basis of some discussion on the 29th. 

 They gave fifty pages of correspondence between the Treasury, 

 the Board of Works, the Civil Service Commissioners, and Dr. 

 Hooker, showing that in the ordinary course of business the 

 Treasury ' intimated to Mr. Ayrton a very decided opinion ' 

 that ' he has failed to treat Dr. Hooker with proper considera- 

 tion,' while ' in addition to this, the Return closes with an 

 important Treasury Minute, dated July 24, which deals 

 generally with the whole controversy, and with ample con- 

 sideration for Mr. Ayrton, admits substantially the justice of 

 Dr. Hooker's remonstrance.' It was very plain speaking to 

 say that ' the Lords of the Treasury are not surprised that in 

 various cases Dr. Hooker should have thought that he had 

 just cause of complaint,' and ' they direct so decidedly that 

 in all matters connected with the scientific branch of the 

 Gardens Dr. Hooker's opinion should be followed, subject only 

 to the consideration of expense, and lay down so distinctly 

 his right to be consulted in all matters relating to the manage- 

 ment of the establishment, that there can hardly be room in 

 future for substantial disagreement.' 



The most unpardonable feature, however, of the Return 

 laid before the House was the publication of an official report 



