[ X ] 



History of pre- 

 vious enquiries 

 into the advan- 

 tage or possi- 

 bility of union. 



Eoyal Commis- 

 sion of 1S50. 



Other arguments What other arguments can be adduced in the same sense, and what in 



f or and agamst ^ contrary sense ? The question may conveniently be put in this form. 

 collections ^ ^'''^ What are the advantages of maintaining two national botanical collections 

 within a few miles one of the other, each having a separate administration, 

 and each being conducted with the desire to make it as complete as possible "? 

 Do these counterbalance the disadvantages of a duplication of work, 

 involving a waste of scientific energy which might be more profitably other- 

 wise employed ? 



Such a question is not now raised for the first time. 



A Royal Commission "• to inquire into the constitution and government 

 of the British Museum," appointed in 1847-8 and reporting in 1850, put to 

 Mr. Robert Brown, then Keeper of the Department of Botany, questions 

 relating to the desirability of his (botanical) collections being united with a 

 botanic garden such as that at Kew. Mr. Robert Brown was of opinion 

 that such a step was not desirable, basing his opinion on the distance of 

 Kew, on the absence from the gardens of an adequate library, and on th& 

 slight advantage to botanic researches carried on in a herbarium of a 

 connection with a botanic garden. 



In 1858, upon the death of Mr. Robert Brown on the 10th of June in 

 Trustees o/lSSS ^^^^^ J^ar, the Trustees instituted an inquiry, by means of a sub-committee, 

 as to " whether it may be expedient or otherwise to remove the botanical 

 collection from the Museum, as it presents a case in some degree peculiar." 

 The sub-committee heard the evidence of Sir W. J. Hooker, Dr. J. D. 

 Hooker, and Dr. Lindley in favour of the removal, of Mr. G. Bentham in 

 favour of moving the Banksian Herbarium only, of Professor Owen that 

 the removal oi the botanic collections would not be any material dis- 

 advantage to the other great natural history collections, and of Dr. Falconer, 

 Sir Charles Lyell, and Professor Henfrey against the removal. The sub- 

 committee, partly influenced by the conflict of opinion among the witnesses, 

 and partly, if not chiefly, l^y the fact that the herbaria and library at Kew 

 were largely private property and by the want of accommodation there, 

 reported against the removal. 



Towards the end of the same year a memorial signed by nine eminent 

 Zoologists and Botanists was presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

 urging upon Her Majesty's Goverment the recommendation that the whole 

 of the Kew Herbarium, a large portion of which was at that time private 

 property, should become the property of the State, that the Banksian Her- 

 ]:)arium and the fossil plants at the British Museum should be transferred to 

 Kew, and that suitable accommodation should be made for the national 

 scientific museum of botany so formed. 



Select Committee In 1860 a Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to 



of House of consider the separation of the Natural History Collections from the rest 



of the British Museum, incidental!}^ received evidence relative to the 

 removal of the botanical collections to Kew, but in its Report merely 

 points out the relatively small needs of the Keeper of Botany. 



Memorial to 

 Chancellor of 

 Exchequer in 

 1858. 



Commons of 

 1860. 



Devonshire Com- 

 mission of 1871- 

 1875. 



Par. 47. 



Par. 52. 



In 1S71 the important Commission on Scientific Instruction and the 

 Advancement of Science generally known as the Devonshire Commission 

 w^as appointed. The fourth Report of the Commission presented in 1874, 

 and dealing with the British Museum as a whole, discusses at length pro- 

 posals for dealing with " the Botanical Establishments noAv maintained at 

 the expense of the State, the one at the British Museum, the other in the 

 Royal Gardens at Kew," concerning wdiich it had received much evidence. 

 It says " the evidence which has been laid before us leaves us no alternative 

 but to recommend that these two Botanical collections . . . should not 

 be merged into one, but that both be kept in a state of efiiciency, and that the 

 special scientific direction which each has spontaneously taken should be 

 retained." The special direction here referred to is in the case of Kew that 

 of systematic botany, in the case of the British Museum that of botanical 

 palaeontology. The Commission were also impressed with the desirability 



