SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENQUIRIES. 



15? 



P. 4 



P. 5 



its application to naming the new species of living plants 

 received at Kew was slightly exemplitied in my " state- 

 ment." I have already alluded to Dr. Hooker's dii^- 

 paraging deHnition of the work cited. It compels me 

 to trespass on the time of the First Commissioner 

 by other instances of the legitimate application of the 

 national collection of dead plants to the national collec- 

 tion of living plants. 



Of the botanical specimens brought home by the . 

 carcumnarigafcing expeditions of Cook and his successors 

 to Flinders, the living plants were transferred to the 

 Royal Gardens, the dead ones to the Metropolitan Her- 

 baria. 



The naming and description of the new species were 

 done by the Keeper of the herbarium ; and the Kew 

 plants duly received the names applied to them by 

 Robert Brown, F.E.S., etc. The majority of the living 

 specimens of -Australasian plants in the Royal Gardens 

 bear the names assigned to them in the " Prodromus 

 Flora; Novae Hollandioe," 8vo., 1810. I trust that no 

 other botanist could now be found who would define, 

 or write of this work, in its relations to Kew Gardens, 

 as 'the naming of a few new and rare plants" cultivated 

 at the beginning of the century in a private garden of 

 nine acres." Such definition, however, must also include 

 fThe Cruciferse, with Cleome, Leguminosse, Myrtacese, 

 CompositjE, Orchideffi], " Genera et species plantarum e 

 variis familiis, quse in horto Kewensi coluntur" [in 

 Alton's Hortus Kewensis, ed. II. 1812-13]. 



These works by Robert Brown, doing the work of his 

 herbarium in behoof of the living plants at KeWj are of 

 such value in botany, as to have been selected by the 

 Ray Society for republication [with the rest of Brown's 

 memoirs] in one of their volumes for the year 1867. 



Tliey were done as metropOlitaai herbarian work, 



leaving the officers at Kew free for their legitimate 



labours and applications of the national collection of 



living plants. 



» * * 



[Brown's papers on Salt's plants from Abyssinia, 

 Tucker's plants from the Congo, Ross's, Parry's, and 

 Scoresby's Arctic plants, Denham and Clapperton's 

 African plants. Stirling's and Sturt's Australian plants; 

 his work on Wallich's Indian collections, and help in 

 Horsfields " Plantte javanica; rariores," are then taken 

 in detail.] 



I submit that the number of plants now cultivated at 

 Kew, which bear the names as.signed to them in this 

 series of works extending over a period of half a century, 

 is not accurately defined as "few," or as "being culti- 

 vated at the beginning of the century, in a private garden 

 of nine acres." 



The successors of Robert Brown, are fully as wUling 

 and as competent to perform the duties of the National 

 Herbarium in the British Museum in relation to the 

 National Botanical Garden at Kew, as was their exem- 

 plary predecessor. They have no duties in connection 

 with such collection of Uving plants to set aside for her- 

 barian work, or to relegate to men of lower grade in 

 science or education. 



• • « 



A vague recommendation from whatever quarter to 

 " maintain the scientific work at Kew," really signifies 

 at the present phase of the competing national her- 

 baria, the suppression of such works, at the British 

 Museum, as are exemplified in the immortal contri- 

 butions to the science of botany, which I have cited 

 above, and which were continued there from " the 

 beginning of the century " to the year 1852, and until 

 the requisite subjects were diverted to Kew. It 

 signifies that the Director of the Royal Gardens should 

 continue lo occupy himself with "herbarian work" in 

 placing the more important scientific observations and 

 experiments truly appropriate to the national collec- 

 tion of living plants . . . the colleotion of dried 

 plants and parts, should be relegated to, with a return 

 to the practice of locating Government collections of 

 plants in, the British Museum. 



* * * 



The formation of a private collection has always 

 seemed to me to be incompatible with the duties of a 

 custodian of a public or State collection. 



# « • 



Of the numerous herbaria added by purchase to the 

 British Museum, we obtained the collection made by 

 Gardner, including 5,476 species of rare Brazilian 

 plants, for £110. The still more numerous and valu- 

 able selection from the famous herbarium of Aylmer 

 E. Lambert, Esq., Yice-President of the Linnean 



3490. X 



Society, was obtained for the sum of £393 19s. This 

 is the largest amount of a single purchase for the 

 National "Hortus siccus," for which the Trustees have 

 sanctioned the application of the Parliamentary grant. 

 The late Director of the Royal Gardens, who bad 

 formed a private herbarium, oli'ered it at a valuation 

 to the Government, but the then "First Commissioner 

 of Works" [Sir Benjamin Hall, 1855-58, afterwards 

 Lord LlanovBr] declined to recommend the purchase.^ 

 on the ground that the application of a "hortus siccus " 

 and library to the naming of the new plants received 

 at Kew appeared to have been satisfactorily performed 

 by his predecessors through the "Botanical Depart- 

 ment and Library at the British Museum." 

 » » • 



The official sanction given by the Trustees of the 

 British Museum to their keeper of botany— "3. That 

 Air. Brown have full liberty to assist the superinten- 

 dent of the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, in l;Jce 

 manner as during the lifetime of Sir Joseph Banks ( ) Rep. Com. 

 —has been continued to his successors; and, ii ^^'J^ 1850, p.;528. 

 known to, should have been in the memory of, the 

 Commissioners of Works at every stage of the com- 

 peting herbarium at those gardens. ^ ^ 



Every addition to the "Hortus siccus" since estab- 

 lished at Kew has been, directly or indirectly, at tue 

 cost of the national herbarium at the British Museum 

 —directly, bv the diversion of Government collections 

 to Kew ; indirectly, by the encouragement to dona- 

 tions of dead plants which the Board of Works have 

 permitted to be accepted and located there. 

 • * * 



The . permission to locate this "herbaifiam'" 



in the residence of the late King of Hanover at Kew, 

 Hanover House, led to such issue. 



It was the thin end of the wedge which has smce 

 driven awav from the State collection of dead plants 

 all the herbaria that ought to have been convened 

 thither, and which threatens to split off the botanical de- 

 partment from the rest of the National Museum of 

 Natur-al History. 



To oppose this misfortune to science and to restore 

 the Department of Botany to the consideration and re- 

 spect which it received from the Government at home, in 

 India and the Colonies, up to the time of the competi- 

 tion at Kew I shall pretermit no legitimate opportunity 

 and endeavour. I should be wanting to the departments 

 of Natural History and treasonably indiff'erent to the 

 deep anxieties of my threatened colleagues oi the 

 Botanical Department were I to be found feeble in their 



(iGfdlCG. 



(Signed) Richaed Owen, 

 Superintendent of the Natural History Department. 

 British Museum, 6th September. 1872. 



]S;-ote. — In the report [of the sub-committee of the 

 Trustees of the British Museum, cited on page 122, and 

 quoted by the Devonshire Commission, vol. i., page 531, 

 there occurs this statement] : — " Sir W^illiam Hooker, 

 Dr. J. D. Hooker, and Dr. Lindley have given reasons in 

 favour of the removal of the collection from the British 

 Museum to Kew, with the view of rendering that estab- 

 lishment more complete." For the exception to this 

 recommendation subsequently allowed by the present 

 Director of Kew, see his answers to Qs. 6683, 6684, p. 

 436: "Minutes of Evidence before the Royal Commis- 

 sion on Scientific Instruction, etc." 



BiBLIOGEAPHT, 1823-1891 



1. The "Edinburgh Review," No. 76, May, 1823. Art. 

 V. [on official information issued during 1820-22. By 

 Dr. T. S. Traill, from information supplied by W. 

 Swainson], pp. 379-398. 



2. Report from the Select Committee on the Condi- 

 tion, Management, and Affairs of the British Museum, 

 together with Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index 



House of Commons, 1835, n. 479 ; 1836, n. 440. 



3. Return ... for Copies or Extracts of any Minutes 

 made by the Trustees of the British Museum since the 

 20th of July, 1836, with reference to the resolutions 

 passed by the Select Committee of the House during the 

 last Session of Parliament on the subject of the Museum. 



House of Commons, 1837. n. 409. 



4. Copy of the Report irjade to the Committee appointed 

 by the Lords of the Treasury in January, 1838, to inquire 

 into the Management, &c., of the Royal Gardens, by Dr. 

 Lindley, Professor of Botany, who, at the request of the 

 Committee, made an actual survey of the Botanical 

 Garden at Kew, in conjunction with Messrs. Paxton and 



