July 11, 1872. ] 



JOUENAL. OF HOETICULTUEE AND COTTAGE GAEDENEE. 



31 



committed to the charge of a first-rate man of science, and, -with- 

 in reasonable limits of expense, he must be entrasted with full 

 control over its internal management. The gardens are, of 

 course, under the control of the First Commissioner of Works, 

 but it is evidently impossible that the changing occupants of 

 that office should be sufficiently acquainted v>dth botanical 

 science to superintend the management of conservatories, or to 

 direct the prosecution of scientific inquiries and publications. 

 Kew has hitherto been exceptionally fortunate in this particular. 

 The first Director, Sir William Hooker, not merely devoted the 

 best labours of bis life for twenty-five years to its interests, but 

 expended considerable sums from his private fortune in com- 

 pleting its collections and prosecuting scientific researches in 

 connection "with it. During the greater portion of this time his 

 son, Dr. Joseph Hooker, the present Director, gave him constant 

 assistance alike in the gardens and in various voyages and travels 

 for the purpose of botanical discovery. Dr. Joseph Hooker was 

 naturalist to the antarctic expedition ; he has explored regions 

 in the Himalayas, in Borneo, in Western Asia, and South Africa, 

 and has published for the Admiralty the botanical discoveries of 

 various voyages, from those of Captain Cook to his own. One 

 evidence of his devotion to the gardens, which are practically his 

 father's creation, ought not to be omitted. The herbarium at 

 Kew, while unrivalled in its collection of the floras of Asia. 

 Africa, and America, had a comparatively imperfect collection 

 of the floras of Europe. Three years ago a collection contain- 

 ing the very flora needed was offered for sale at Paris, and Dr. 

 Hooker, at a cost of .£400 from his own purse, presented it to the 

 herbarium. It is neither creditable to the Government of a 

 wealthy country, nor, perhaps, desirable, that its servants should 

 be permitted thus to endow its scientific establishments out of 

 their private incomes ; but this narrative of the connection of 

 Sir William and Dr. Joseph Hooker with Kew shows that their 

 scientific services have been unusually generous and valuable, 

 and that the country is very fortunate in possessing a Director 

 for the gardens who is so completely identified with their past 

 development and present excellence. 



The public will hear, therefore, with regret that, since Mr. 

 Ayrton's appointment to the post of First Commissioner of 

 Works, such difficulties have arisen with respect to the manage- 

 ment of the gardens as to occasion imminent danger of Dr. 

 Hooker's resignation. W.e state the facts as they are at present 

 known, subject to correction by future explanations ; but the 

 correspondence which has passed with the Treasury leaves little 

 doubt of their substantial accuracy. One of Mr. Ayrton's first 

 acts after taking office was to send a reprimand to Dr. Hooker. 

 It is said the occasion was supplied entirely by the First Com- 

 missioner's own misconception, but, at all events, it was the 

 first experience of the kind during Dr. Hooker's thirty years of 

 service. But more material acts of interference followed. A 

 previous First Commissioner had entrusted Dr. Hooker with the 

 task of remodelling the heating apparatus throughout the esta- 

 blishment, and, in accordance with the Director's plans and 

 estimates, a range of hothouses was constructed which is the 

 completest in existence for scientific purposes. In 1871, with- 

 out any notice being given him or any reason assigned, he was 

 superseded in the control of this apparatus, and he was left to 

 discover his supersession accidentally, through one of his own 

 subordinates. On addressing an "inquiry to the First Com- 

 missioner, he was simply informed that he had been superseded, 

 and would have to govern himself accordingly. Dr. Hooker 

 seems to have reason in arguing that to trust a cultivator with 

 the care and treatment of valuable collections, and make him 

 amenable to the opinions of others in respect of the apparatus 

 he requires, is as wrong in principle as to refuse a surgeon his 

 choice of instruments and hospital appliances. But, at all 

 events, courtesy and justice alike required that Dr. Hooker 

 should have been consulted before the change was made. It 

 would seem, in fact, that in 1870 a Director of Works was ap- 

 pointed under the Board of Works, and that measures were 

 taken to re-organise the management of the gardens. It is 

 alleged that since then the Curator has been removed from his 

 duties under Dr. Hooker without any previous communication, 

 and has been empowered in various respects to act independently. 

 Plans and estimates were submitted to the Treasury for exten- 

 sive alterations in the museum at Kew without Dr. Hooker 

 being so much as informed of the intention. These works, it is 

 said, would have greatly embarrassed him as Director of the 

 museum, and they were eventually abandoned on reference to 

 Mr. Stansf eld. It is even alleged that Mr. Ayrton invited the 

 Curator to accept a position which would have involved au- 

 thority over the works at Kew, requesting him, at the same 

 time, to keep the invitation from the knowledge of Dr. Hooker. 

 In short, Dr. Hooker charges Mr. Ayrton with " evasion, mis- 

 representation, and mis-statements " in his communications on 

 the subject to Mr. Gladstone, with ungracious and offensive con- 

 duct towards him self, and with acts injurious to the public 

 service, and tending to the subversion of discipline. Mr. Glad- 

 stone, having been appealed to, referred the matter at last to a 

 Co mmi ttee of the Cabinet. After their inquiry, Mr. Ayrton was 



told that Dr. Hooker should in all respects be treated as the 

 head of the local establishment at Kew, of course in subordi- 

 nation to the First Commissioner of Works. But Dr. Hooker, 

 not unnaturally, wishes to be more definitely informed respect- 

 ing his future duties and relations to Mr. Ayrton ; and he has 

 addressed distinct inquiries to the Treasury whether he is to 

 have restored to him the control of the heating apparatus, 

 whether he is to be consulted respecting estimates, whether he 

 is still to be entrusted with the custody and distribution of 

 scientific works, whether he is to be consulted in case of pro- 

 posed changes in the position and duties of his subordinates, 

 and in case of proposed works which would affect his duties and 

 responsibilities, and whether he or the Director of Works is to 

 have control in matters for which they are jointly responsible. 



It is to be feared the matter is another instance of Mr. Ayrton's 

 unfortunate tendency to carry out what he thinks right in as 

 unpleasant a manner as possible. It may be that some re- 

 arrangement of the establishment at Kew was desirable, but, as 

 a mere matter of prudence, Dr. Hooker's advice should have 

 been asked, and his acquiescence, if possible, previously ob- 

 tained. Mr. Ayrton ought to have been the more sensible of the 

 wisdom of such a precaution since, as he frankly confessed on 

 taking office, he is, as he considers it, happily ignorant of market 

 gardening and other fine arts. We can only ask, as the Govern- 

 ment has given us repeated occasion to ask, What is the use or 

 need of provoking all this animosity ? Even if a little more 

 money is spent at Kew than a rigid economist would justify, 

 the nation gets full value for the expenditure. But if existing 

 establishments must needs be cut down, a task sufficiently un- 

 pleasant in itself might at least be discharged with courtesy and 

 consideration towards eminent individuals. Perhaps such men 

 are apt to be sensitive or even irritable ; but when they have 

 rendered to the country such services as those of Dr. Hooker, 

 they have a claim on the consideration of their temporary su- 

 periors. It is not, after all, the money bestowed on such esta- 

 blishments as Kew which burdens the country and perplexes 

 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it would be better, perhaps, 

 to spare a round now and then from a " Woolwich Infant," than 

 to deprive the greatest botanical establishment in the world of 

 the man who is more competent to administer it than any other 

 living botanist. 



HORTICULTURAL CONGRESS AT BIRMINGHAM, 



SULPHOZONE, A SUBSTITUTE FOE SULPHUR. 



By Charles Eoberts, F.B.C.S., &c. 



(Communicated by Dr. Masters, F.R.S.) 



Sulphur in the sublimed, precipitatetl, or powdered form, is 

 extensively employed by medical men, veterinary surgeons, and 

 horticulturists, for destroying the animal and vegetable parasites 

 infesting man, animals, and plants. The substance to which I 

 have given the name of sulphozone (from its strong smell and 

 powerful chemical action), in order to distinguish it from the 

 sulphur of commerce, is a preparation containing free sulphurous 

 acid as its active and essential principle. 



For many years past large quantities of sublimed and powdered 

 sulphur have been used in this country and on the Continent for 

 the destruction of the mildew and blight attacking Vines, Hops, 

 Koses, fruit, and other trees ; and it is now, I believe, almost 

 the sole remedy employed for that purpose, as no other has been 

 found so generally effectual or so convenient of application. 



From careful and often repeated series of experiments, I have 

 arrived at the conclusion that the beneficial action is to be at- 

 tributed to the presence of a small but variable quantity of free 

 sulphurous acid (occasionally hyposulphurous acid), which exists 

 as a constant impurity in the sulphur of commerce. Sublimed 

 sulphur contains more acid than powdered crude sulphur, and 

 is more certain in its action, while precipitated sulphur, being 

 almost, or altogether, free from acid, is quite useless. I find that 

 when substances are carefully purified from all traces of sul- 

 phurous acid by repeated washing with spirit and water, they 

 are equally ineffectual in destroying mildew and other vegetable 

 and animal organisms, and that seeds germinate as quickly and 

 vigorously when sown in pure sulphur as in fine sand, and that 

 moulds grow on the surface when a little organic matter, as 

 flour, has been mixed with the sulphur. I find also that cheese 

 mites are not destroyed by pure sulphur, but live and multiply 

 indefinitely in cheese covered with sulphur ; though they are 

 immediately destroyed by oommercial sublimed sulphur. On 

 the other hand, when pure sulphur is impregnated with sul- 

 phurous acid, it destroys mildew and other minute organisms 

 with an energy proportioned to the quantity of acid it contains, 

 and it does not appear that one form of sulphur possesses any 

 advantages over the others, provided the quantity of acid is 

 uniform. Many other substances which contain no sulphur, 

 when impregnated with sulphurous acid in a similar manner 

 and to the same extent, are equally effectual in destroying 

 mildew. 



It has been observed that when a piece of silver leaf is sus- 

 pended over a roll of sulphur, it is slowly converted into the sul- 



