124 



Appendix I 



Mr. G. R. 



WATER- 

 HOUSE. 



1860. 



William B. Carpenter, M.D., F.R.S., andZ.S., Registrar 



of the University of London. 

 Chas. Darwin, Esq., F.E.S., L.S., and G.S. 



This memorial was reproduced in " The Gardeners 

 Chronicle," 27 November, 1858, p. 861 ; and a leading 

 article, being an abstract of the foregoing appeared m 

 the same journal, 15 January, 1859, from the pen of the 

 Editor. Somewhat similar notices may be found in the 

 Fame, under date of 16 AprU, 1859, pp. 335-336, and 24 

 December, 1859, pp. 1035-1036. 



PARLIAMENTARY ENQUIRY IN 1860. 



A Select Committee of the House of Commons was ap- 

 pointed in 1860, and reported during the same session. 

 The Report adverts to the proposed separation of the 

 Natural History Collections from the remainder and the 

 library, but its direct recommendations as regards botany 

 are merely, " The Keeper of this department states that 

 with a small amount of easily accessible store-room, he 

 would have ample space for all his present collections 

 future wants." 



The Minutes of evidence given before this Committee 

 comprise many items of interest and value, as follows : 



Mr. George Robert Waterhouse, Keeper of Geology, 

 in the course of his evidence was asked — 



847. Are you at all aware whether the British Museum 

 is in what I may call the centre of the scientific quarter ; 

 da a number of scientific men dwell in the neighbourhood ? 

 and replied — 



"■ I dc not know that ; I only know that some time ago, 

 when the subject was introduced as to whether the natural 

 history collections should be removed, it cieated a. very 

 great sensation amongs't naturalists, and a memorial was 

 drawn up and numerously signed, and I was very much 

 Btrufk with the circumstance of meeting amongst the sig- 

 natures, the names of persons who live very far from tli'^ 

 Museum. There was a question at one time as to the re- 

 moval of the herbarium from the Briibish Museiium to Kew ; 

 but one of our active botanists who was living at Hammer- 

 smith, and was consequently within a short distance of 

 Kew, stated that it was much more convenient for him to 

 come to London to' examine the collections than to go to 

 Kew. His explanation was this, that he constantly had 

 occasion to come to London for other purposes ; at least. 

 I believe, that was the explanation ; and he then took 

 advantage of his visit to clear up his doubts upon botanical 

 questions, whereas he was seldom led out in the direction 

 of Kew. I have to-day heard of another person, living at 

 Turnham Green, also a botanist, who has said that it was 

 more convenient to him to consult the herbarium in 

 London that at Kew." 



Questioned with regard to the plan of separating the 

 j^atural history collections from the rest. Professor Thomas 

 Henry Huxley said that he considered the fossils should 

 go with the recent forms, but did not consider it abso- 

 lutely necessary for the botany to go with the zo-ology. 



Mr. John Joseph Bennett, Keeper of Botany, was ex- 

 amined, and preferred to give his views in writing, as 

 under : — 



1215. " I believe the first question on which the Com- 

 rnittec is desirous of information is, with reference to 

 space. My answer on that point is this : The Botanical 

 Depariment consists of two principal subdivisions, the 

 hei)>arium, which is open to consultation, and the ex- 

 hibition, which is open to the public at large. The her- 

 barium, which is one of the most extensive in existence, 

 and of high authority throughout the world, is contained 

 in two rooms lighted from above, with about 3,000 feet of 

 floor space ; but a portion of this space is now occupied 

 wi':h store presses, or with presses containing specimens 

 gocjo'raphically arranged, or in progress of arrangement, 

 for which a good and easily accessible store-room would be 

 sufficient. IcE tihis were provided, there is ample apace for 

 our present herbarium, and for the probable additions of 

 half a century to come. The exhibition, which is of small 

 importance as compared with the herbarium, but in which, 

 since its opening, we have found the public take a great 

 deal of interest, is provided with about 1,500 feet of floor- 

 space, also lighted from above. A part of this space is at 

 present unoccupied, but we have materials to fill it. I 

 do not contemplate any great addition to this part of the 

 collection. It was always Mr. Brown's object, as it has 

 been my own, to limit it as much as possible to structural 

 botany.' leaving the useful applications of vegetable pro- 

 ducts to the economical museums of Kew and Kensington. 

 The result is that there is no pressing necessity for any 

 imracftiate extension, and that with the addition of a small 

 amount of easily accessible store-room we should have 



aniplo space for all our present possessions and future jj-y_ j_ j 



wants. BENNETT. 



1216. I am strongly of opinion that no material ad- 1880. 

 vantage would arise from the removal of the botanical 

 collections to Kew ; but, on the contrary, great and 

 serious disadvantages. In the first place, such a removal 

 would deprive the great mass of Londoners, and of visitors 

 to London, whether foreigners or from tEe country, of 

 the pri-vilege and advantage of ready and easy access to a 

 very large and well-named collection of plants, which 

 they liave enjoyed for a great number of years, at a very 

 small cost to the nation, the whole expenditure on the 

 Botanical Department being under £1,000 a year. I have 

 no hesitation in saying, that this would cause serious 

 inconvenience, and in many instances pecuniary loss, not 

 only ta botanists and amateurs, but to artists, students in 

 public institutions, persons engaged in trade, and others 

 who are in the habit of seeking information of the officers, 

 which they have always been ready to afford to the best of 

 their ability, and which it is often of importance to 

 obtain without loss of time. In the second place, the 

 separation of one department of natural history from 

 the rest, cannot be efi'ected without injury and mutila- 

 tion to all. Such a separation would at once destroy 

 that unity and completeness on which Professor Owen 

 and others have so strongly insisted as essential to a 

 Naitional Museum of Natural History. Miany natur- 

 alists, indeed most, do not limit themselves to the 

 cultivation of a single branch, and it is in the highest 

 degree convenient to them to pass from one depart- 

 ment to another under the same roof. It would be 

 extremely hard upon them if this privilege were taken 

 from them ; and if, instead of passing directly from 

 palaeontology to botany or from botany to zoology, 

 they were compelled to traverse many miles in order 

 to connect the different branches of their study. Then, 

 again, pakeontology is the natural bond of connection 

 between all. To deprive a zoologist or a botanist of 

 ready access to the palajontological collection, is equi- 

 valent to mutilating him of a limb ; while, on the 

 other hand, the whole science of palaeontology reposes 

 on the power of readily and immediately comparing 

 fossil with recent specimens, whether animal or vege- 

 table. But even if little weight were attached to 

 these considerations, which, I have no hesitation in 

 saying, are of the highest importance in the minds 

 both of naturalists and of the public at large, the 

 question of the transfer of the botanical collections to 

 Kew is a very wide one, and opens up an entirely 

 new field of investigation, in which the construction of 

 new buildings, and the providing an efficient staff, be- 

 come prominent and essential objects. At present the 

 herbarium of the British Museum is the only very 

 large herbarium belonging to the nation. Only a small 

 portion, about one-fifth, of the Kew herbaria, is the 

 property of the nation ; the remaining four-fifths are 

 ih^ private property of Sir William Hooker. If this 

 magnificent collection were to become, as in my opinion 

 it ought to become, the property of the nation by pur- 

 chase, it would form a noble accompaniment to the 

 splendid garden of which Sir William Hooker has the 

 direction. But there is no national building for its 

 reception ; it is at present lodged in a house which is 

 the private property of the Queen, and is graciously 

 lent by Her Majesty as a special favour. There is ab- 

 solutely no space for the reception of tlie herbarium 

 of the British Museum. This herbarium, I may add, 

 would add but little to the number of species in the 

 Kew collections, more than nineteen-twentieths of the 

 species being identical ; so that London would be 

 greatly injured by its removal, without any corre- 

 sponding benefit elsewhere. In a letter of Sir William 

 Hooker, addressed to myself, under date of 18 June 

 1858, he says, speaking for himself and Dr. Hooker : 

 " We think that the collection would be more useful, 

 if combined with those of Kew than by remaining in 

 London ; but the more I look into the matter, I see 

 insurmountable difficulties arising to such a removal, 

 whether of the Sloanean or Banksian collections, to 

 say nothing of what Brown had destined for the British 

 Museum, if the conditions were acceded to. To us 

 (Dr. Hooker and myself) it literally and truly can be 

 a matter of no consequence ; such collections might 

 and would add to the character and respectability and 

 usefulness of ours, but we have enough for our own 

 purposes and the means of increase." There are many 

 others objections to which I refer, but I will only add 

 one, viz., the strongly expressed intentions of the 

 founders and donors of the collection. Sir Hans Sloane, 

 in his will, directed his "dried samples of plants," 

 togetiicr with his other collections, to be offered to the 



