214 



NATURE 



{July 11,1872 



intention on Mr. Ayrton's p.iit to disregard his feelings or with- 

 hold the consideration dueljuth to his person and his office." 



Stress of public duty is quite sufficient to account for the fact 

 of your overlooking the serious omissions and inaccuracies of tlie 

 First Commissioner's "explanations." These, however, were 

 immediately pointed out to you by Dr. Hooker. His object in 

 addressing you was not simply to complain of personal dis- 

 courtesy on the part of the First Commissioner, but of five oflicial 

 acts subversive of discipline in the Kew establishment, and 

 fraught with mischief to the public service. Had these acts 

 merely affected him personally, lie would have been perfectly 

 willing to accept the assurance of Mr. Ayrton's consideration, 

 , though he failed to discover any trace of it either in his e.xplana- 

 tions or in the treatment wliich official papers sent from Kew 

 continued to receive from the office of Works. He regarded it, 

 however, as his duty, as an officer in the public service, to the 

 Government and the scientific public, to spare no effort to pro- 

 cure a reversion of the policy introduced into the management 

 of each and all of tlic departments of Kew (the Gardens, Mu- 

 seum, and Herbarium) by the present First Commissioner. 



The specific acts enumsrated by Dr. Hool^er in answer to tlie 

 request of the First Commisaioner are thus-summarised in a letter 

 to yourself : — 



" I. A transaction with my subordinate of a nature so new to 

 my long experience of official life, and so repugnant to 

 my principles, that I refrain from characterising it. 

 " 2. Removing tlie Curator from his duties under me, without 



any communication with me. 

 "3. Empowering the Cnrator to act independently of lue in 

 regard to the times he sliould consider himself under my 

 orders, and instructing me to make my arrangements in 

 deference to his, and in concert with him. 

 "4. Submitting to the Treasury plans and estimates for extensive 

 alterations in the Museum at Kew, without even informing 

 me of his intentions ; which works would have most 

 seriously embarrassed me, as Director of tlie Museums, 

 and would have involved a large expenditure, for whicli I 

 believe no estimate was submitted, and which would have 

 been in every respect detrimental. 

 "5. Superseding me, without previous or subsequent com.nuni- 

 cation, in duties for the execution of which I held the Board's 

 authority, and which I am of opinion should unquestionably 

 be performed by the Director, /.c., the control of the heat- 

 ing apparatus of the hot-houses, &c." 

 In Mr. Ayrton's letter of "explanations," which you considered 

 so satisfactory, the first three of these charges are skilfully ignored, 

 and tlie other explanations contain statements which are demon- 

 strably at variance with fact. 



In tlie very considerate note above referred to, whicli was ad- 

 dressed by you from Balmoral to Dr. Hooker, you say : " Tliere 

 must be some mistake about Mr. Ayrton's falling to see you at 

 Kew, as he assires me that he paid the visit there for the very 

 purpose of personal and friendly communication." 



We respectfully ask you to consider how this ' ' purpose " was 

 carried out. Dr. Hooker was at home when the First Commis- 

 sioner paid this visit to Kew. He omitted to Inquire for the 

 Director at his house, or at the Gardens, or of his subordinate, 

 to whom Mr. Ayrton's visit was really paid. He held a conver- 

 sation with this subordinate seriously compromising the Director's 

 position and authority, which conversation lie subsequently 

 desired should not be communicated to the Director. The result 

 of this conversation, moreover, was a communication to the 

 Treasury affecting Kew, which was also kept from the knowledge 

 of the Director. You will learn from these facts what the First 

 Commissioner understands by "personal and friendly communi- 

 cation." 



From its effects upon himself, Dr. Hooker could infer how 

 disturbing the continual intrusion of this subject upon your atten- 

 tion must be. He was anxious to reduce this disturbance to a 

 minimum, and therefore ventured to sugsjest that lie should be 

 put in communication with one of your private secretaries, to 

 whom he might explain his position. To this request you, in 

 the kindest manner, assented, and placed Mr. West in commu- 

 mcatlon with the Director of Kew. 



Sorely against his inclination, but driven to it by the necessities 

 of the case. Dr. Hooker, at an interview with Mr. West on the 

 30th of October, distinctly pointed out tlie grave errors and 

 omissions contained in the " Explanations " given by the Fii^t 

 Commissioner to the First Lord of the Treasury. 

 The end of the year approached without any answer being 



made to these communications and representations, and towards 

 the close of December Dr. Hooker wrote again to Mr. West, 

 who thereupon replied that a plan was under the consideration of 

 the Government wliich would materially alter his position with 

 reference to tlie First Commissioner of Worlcs. He was subse- 

 quently informed senii-officially that the sclieme was maturing, 

 and the hope was expressed that he would take no step likely to 

 embarrass the Government. This was far from his wish or in- 

 tention. But after waiting till the 21st of February, the Director 

 was semi-oliricially informed that tlie Government plan for his 

 relief, and for the protection of Kew, had been abandoned. 



In the liope of a satisfactory settlement, the matter was subse- 

 quently placed by you in the hands of the Marquis of Ripoii, 

 and on the 13th of March, 1872, before a Committee of the 

 Cabinet, consisting of the Marquis, Lord Halifax, and Mr. 

 Cardwell, Dr. Hooker, by the desire of the Committee, liamled 

 in a memorandum containing a statement of the points wherein 

 his relations to the Government required definition and correction. 



The upshot of these friendly efforts was this : On the 15th of 

 April, 1872, Lord Ripon wjs asked to convey the following 

 verbal message from yourself to Dr. Hooker, which, the noble 

 Marquis added, was to be regarded by the Director of Kew as a 

 final answer to his appeal : " Mr. Ayrton lias been told that Dr. 

 Hooker should in all respects be treated as the head of the local 

 establishment at Kew ; of course in subordination to the First 

 Commissioner of Works." 



At this time the controversy had, unhappily, reached a pitch 

 far too serious to be stilled by sucli a message. In a letter to 

 your private secretary, written immediately subsequent to tlic 

 interview on the 30th of October, Dr. Hooker put his case thus : 

 " I am at a loss what to say as to my future position under a 

 Minister whom I accuse of evasion, misrepresentation, and mis- 

 statements in his communications to the First Minister of the 

 Crown, whose conduct to myself I regard as ungracious and 

 offensive, and whose acts I consider to be injurious to the public 

 service, and tending to the subversion of disci|iline. Granting," 

 he continues, " that the functions of a Director are restored to 

 me, how am I to act when ordered to undertake works that in- 

 volve wasteful expenditure, or are otherwise detrimental ? I 

 should be thankful for Mr. Gladstone's instructions on this 

 head." 



With great deference, we submit that the verbal intimation 

 conveyed from you to Lord Ripon, and from Lord Ripon, 

 tlirough IMr. Helps, to Dr. Hooker, by no means met the issues 

 here raised by the Director of Kew. He had suffered from the 

 secret tampering of the First Commissioner with his subordi- 

 nates ; he had successfiiUy resisted extravagant and foolish pro- 

 posals made by tho same Minister. His duties and responsibih- 

 ties as regards the 'varmiug of the plant-houses had, to the im- 

 minent jeopardy of plants of the rarest value, been transferred, 

 without notice or justification, to the Director of Works. 

 Another class of duties had, in the same secret manner, been trans - 

 ferred to the Secretary of the Board of Works. Sarely, Sir, 

 your message through Lird Ripon, to all intents and purposes, 

 empowered tlie First Commissioner to continue his course of 

 studied indignity ? Wrong upon wrong had been committed, 

 whicli your answer left unredressed. No wonder that, notwith- 

 standing his esteem and regard for you personally, and his 

 lespect for all authority rightly exercised, the Director of Kew 

 should be driven to address to you, on the 22iid of April, a 

 letter containing the following remonstrance : — 



"The fact is, that the Directorship of Kew, whicli was 

 formerly subordinated to the First Commissioner alone, has been 

 by Mr. Ayrton officially subordinated to the Secretary of the 

 Board and the Director of Works in London, and this surrepti- 

 tiously, without fiult found or notice of any kind given, the 

 Director being left to discover his altered position as best he 

 could : and the Director has further been subjected to a series of 

 arbitrary and offensive measures on the First Commissioner's 

 part, against which he could not defend himself These measures 

 being destructive of discipline, and injurious to this establish- 

 ment, the Director felt it to be his duty to bring both their 

 nature and consequences officially under your notice, and to seek 

 from you that justice which (as he had been assured by the 

 officers of the Treasury) could be obtained only through an 

 official appeal to the Prime Minister. 



" After eight months' interval, during which fiirllier arbitrary 

 measures have been resorted to by the First Commissioner (and 

 four of which were passed under the assurance that a measure 

 for effectual relief was under consideration), the position of the 



