MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



57 



disposed at that time to tlie transference of the Bank- 

 sian Herbarium to Kgw. A committee of the Trustees 

 on that occasion took evidence on the subject, and 

 I aim inclined to think tliat if the present facilities of 

 access had existed it is not improbable that it would 

 have been earned out. Sir Richard Owen stated in 

 evidence that: — "Believing that, for some years past, 

 the present botanical collection at Kew has to a certain 

 extent, fulfilled the functions of a national one, I 

 should be disposed to regard that locality as the more 

 advantageous one for carrying out the design of a com- 

 plete national botanioal collection." 



In later years this opinion seems to have changed, 

 and he indulged in embittered attacks on Kew and its 



administiation, being at the time in the pay of the 

 State. 



7. The question was again investigated at great 

 length by the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruc- 

 tion and the Advancement of Science in 1874. A kind 

 of ccmpvomise was suggested, which is not readily 

 intelligible, and is certainly unworkable. 



8. I can only, therefore, venture to express the hope 

 that "the Committee will arrive at some definite and 

 final decision which will dispose of the question once 

 for all. My own official career is drawing to a close, 

 jind that decision will not therefore, whatever it may 

 be, probably materially affect myself. But it is of the 

 deepest moment to India and the Colonies that the 

 botanical assistance which the Home country can sup- 

 ply to them should not be impeded by defective organi- 

 sation for affording it. 



9. There are two other matters which I trust will en- 

 gage the attention of the Committee, and which I am 

 most anxious to submit to it. 



During the time that Kew was a private establish- 

 ment belonging to the Crown it fulfilled very similar 

 functions to the Colonies and to botanic science gene- 

 rally to those it does at present, though on a smaller 

 scale. This secured for it a place in public esteem. 

 When, therefore, the Government proposed its abolition 

 in 1838, public opjposition led to the appointment of a 

 Treasury Committee, which reported to Parliament in 

 1840. In 1841 Sir William Hooker was appointed 

 Director to carry out its recommendations. They were 

 faithfully adhered to. And looking back on the his- 

 tory of Kew for the last sixty years I cannot see any 

 point on which those recommendations have either been 

 deviated from or exceeded. Xo Government has ever 

 complained of the ambitious initiative of any director. 

 There has been expansion and development. But both 

 have flowed from a well-conceived initial scheme. 



10. The recommendations of the report are, however, 

 buried in Parliamentary archives, and have perhaps 

 been in a measure less present to the minds of succes- 

 sive Governments than they have been to the Kew 

 staff. It appears to me much to be regretted that the 

 duties and functions of Kew were never laid down for- 

 mally at the start in a Treasury Minute from the provi- 

 sions of which it would not lia-s-e been possible to deviate 

 without Treasury sanction. When I myself was ap- 

 pointed Director I was not furnished with instructions 

 of any kind or description. When, therefore, my action 

 has, as has sometimes been the case, been challenged, 

 I have had no defence to offer except the fact of the 

 unbroken tradition of the establishment, a defence 

 which necessarily requires prolonged explanation and 

 argument to support. It cannot be said that this dif- 

 ficulty was not foreseen. It is dealt with in an im- 

 portant letter signed by Lord Duncannon, dated 24th 

 April, 1^9, of which I have verbally requested you to 

 obtain a copy' for submission to the Committee. Its 

 recommendations were, however, never acted upon. 



The want of a definite constitution for Kew made 

 itself manifest when the late Mr. Ayrton was First 

 Commissioner. That imdoubtedlv aible Minister, 

 largely under the influence- of Sir Richard Owen, 

 arrived at the conclusion that the scientific work of 

 Kew should be transferred to the British Museum, and 

 that the establishment should be merely maintained 

 as a place of public recreation. This was reverting to 

 the position which Parliament had decided against in 

 1840. He received at least no opposition from the 

 Prime Minister. It must be admitted that both were 

 animated with views honestly held, however limited, 

 and both, subject to Parliamentary approval, were 

 within their rights. But once again the disintegration 

 of Kew was defeated by popular opposition. 



3499. 



11. As a result the Treasury at length issued a 

 jMinute dated 24th July, 1872. This is the nearest 

 approach to a constitution which Kew possesses. It 

 however, very imperfectly defines the relations of Kew 

 t'.i the Office of Works. This has at various times led 

 to a good deal of friction. Lord Welby has laid it 

 down that "nothing is so important as that the per- 

 manent staff of a department should be able to reh- 

 upon the hearty and loyal support of their superiors.'' 

 And it cannot be said that in iDerforming the functions 

 imposed uiDon it, Kew has always received that support. 

 I may mention that there was a proposal for a Depart- 

 mental Committee in 1883 on the administration of Kew, 

 but it came to notliing. 



12. A second question on which I wish to engage the 

 attention of the Committee is the nature of the rela- 

 tions which have for a long time subsisted between 

 Kew and the Botanical Department of the British 

 Museum. I have always held that it is no part of the 

 duty of a Government servant to criticise, especially in 

 a public manner, the arrangements which the Govern- 

 ment thinks proper to make. If there were a dozen 

 bcit-anicai deparfanents madntained at public expense I 

 should not concern myself about it. But I should cer- 

 tainly endeavour in the interests of science and of the 

 public service to maintain friendly relations with them 

 all. But in the case of the Botanical Department of 

 the British Museum, I regret to say that this is all but 

 impossible. I have had to encounter from members 

 of its staff public attacks which I have felt obliged to 

 bring under official notice — attacks on my good faith 

 in my official capacity, and also statements calculated 

 to sow dissension amongst my staff. It is obvious that 

 such attacks damage and lower the prestige of the 

 establishment, and are read in foreign countries with 

 perplexity and astonishment. On at least two occa- 

 sions apoiogies of a kind have only been extorted under 

 official pressure. 



Now Kew is responsible to the First Commissioner, 

 who in turn is responsible to Parliament. ±>.nj griev- 

 ance which the British Museum feels can be at once 

 submitted officially to the First Commissioner. Ic is 

 therefore as unnecessary for one joublic sei-vant to attack 

 another in the public prints, as it is contrary to official 

 disoipMne. But 'tJiough the British Museum is main- 

 tained out of 'public funds, it appears to be exempt 

 from Government control. 



On one occasion wh'en an accaisatiion of bad faath 

 towards my staff was launched against me in print by 

 a member of the staff of the Natural History Museum, 

 the matter was brought under the notice of the Director 

 of the Natural History Museum. It appeared, how- 

 ever, that though nominally under his control, the 

 Botanical Department is not so as a matter of fact. 

 And it is not easy to ascertain to whom it is actually 

 subordinate. I therefore applied, as in duty bound, 

 to the First Commissioner, for leave to ad- 

 dress my complaint to the Treasury. Mr. Shaw- 

 Lefevre went into the matter very Thoroughly, but 

 withheld his consent on the following ground: — ''The 

 Trustees of the British Museum are, I think, in a 

 more independent position than the heads of ordinary 

 Government Departments, which are under the control 

 of the ■Treasury, and they, and not the Treasury, are re- 

 sponsible for maintaining discipline in their staff." 



It is important, I think, to clearly recognise that 

 the Trustees are an imperium in imperio, and that there 

 is no means of bringing Government influence to bear 

 upon them. 



13. From time to time the Trustees have asserted 

 their claims to various collections at Kew, some even of 

 private origin. I am entirely unable to ascertain on 

 what ground these claims proceeded. I have set out 

 some of these documents in my reply. ' Kew holds these 

 collections not in a private capacity but on behalf of 

 the nation, and in the interests of science. Tiie only 

 valid ground of complaint would be the assertion of 

 some public loss or injury due to neglect. So little, 

 however, does this seem to have existed that the Royal 

 Commission of 1874 expressly recommended that the 

 collections of public expeditions should be sent to Kew. 

 It is to be observed that the Trustees suggested an en- 

 quiry into the matter, but declined to take steps to 

 procure one. 



I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



(Signed) W. T. Thiseiton-Dxbe. 



B. Daydon Jaokson, Esq., Sec. L.S., 

 Botanical Work Committee, 



8, Delahay Street, S.W. 



H 



Sir_ W. I. 

 Thiielton- 



Dyer, 

 K.C.M.G., 



K.U.S. 



•2!) Nov. 1900. 



