DOCUMENTS AS SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE. 



179 



I did not imagine tihat the declaration of Mr. Holmes 

 referred to tlie herbarium of Edward Forster, jun., for 

 tihat formed part of the hea'barium ol British Algoe. I 

 supposed he referred to tlie few plants which were not 

 placed in the herbarium, and which were oibtadned yMi 

 the Ddekson collections. 



I trust Tou will be able to place IVir. Baibters's state- 

 ment before the Committee. 



I am, faithfully yours, 



(Signed) Wm. CASR-aTHERS. 



(Enclosure No. 1 in No. 10.) 



Copy of a letter from Mr. Edward Arthur Lionel 

 Batters, LL.B., F.L.S., to Mr. Carrutliers, F.RS. 



The Laurels, Wormley, Herts, 



January 2nd, 1901. 



Dear Mr. Oairuthers, — Thank you for your letter, 

 ■which I should have answered yesterday, but I wished 

 first to see what Mr. Holmes had said. Mr. Murray 

 Mndly let me see a copy of Mr. Holmes's evidence. It 

 is most extraordinary ! I have made out a short state- 

 ment of the facts as I remember them, which y;ou 

 ■siioulS receive with this. In haste to catch, post, wish- 

 ing you a very happy and prosperous now year. 



Tours very sincerely, 



(Signed) Edw. A. Batters. 



(Enclosure No. 2 in No. 10.) 



(Statement on the part of Mr. E. A. L. Batters.) 



When collecting material for my contemplated mono- 

 graph of the British marine Algse, I was surprised to 

 find that three contradictory sbatemenits as to the 

 whereabouts of W. Hudson's herbarium had been pub- 

 lished. 



1. In 1801, only eight years after Hudson's death. 

 Mr. Stackihouse speaks of " Mr. Lambert's specimens, 

 the remains of the late Mr. Hudson's collection" 

 (Nereis Britannioa, p. 86). 



2. A year later Mir. I>awaon Turner, when speaking 

 ■ol "W. Hudson, the learned author of tlie Flora 

 Anglioa," says, " The relics of his herbarium, now in 

 the possession of my friend, Mr. E. Forster, ]un." 

 (Tiirner, Synapsis of the British Fuoi, 1803, p. VA) ; 

 and again on page 375, " There are specimens of it 

 (Fucus clavellosus) also among the relics of Mr. 

 .Hudson's collection, in the possession of Mr. E. 

 Forster, jun." That the remains of Hudson's her- 

 barium were in the possession of E. Forster is further 

 ecmfirmed by a statement in "English Botany," where 

 Ulva rubra is said "to be figured from an authentic 

 specimen of Hudson's species, lent by Mr. E. Forster 

 (E. Bot. pi. 1627, August 1806). 



3. On the other hand, Messrs. Trimen and Dyer, 

 in their "Flora of Middlesex," p. 392, say, "Hudson 

 died in 17S3, and left his herbarium to the Apothe- 

 caries' Society." 



I searched the collections mentioned, and found that 

 ithe Hudsonian specimens in Herb. Lamibert (in Herb. 

 Hooker at Kew) were, like those in the herbaria of 

 Rev. Hugh Davies, Sir J. Frankland, and others, evi- 

 dently only specimens presented by Hudson to the 

 various gentlemen in whose collections they are found. 

 Those in Ed. Forsiter's herbarium however, appear to 

 be the remains of Hudson's own herbarium, rescued 

 friom the " (fisiastrous fire at his house," some of the 

 specimens showing evident miarks of fire. The sheets 

 •on which, they are mounted are marked in Forster's 

 ihandwritiing "Hudson's sale," either on the bottom 

 left-hand corner or on the back. It is quite incorrect 

 to say th-i't I asserted that this or any other of the 

 older collections in the British Museum had been lost 

 eight of by the officials in whose keeping they were. 

 "Throughouit my examination of the old collections at 

 the Museum, I received 'the greatest assistance from 

 Mr. W. Carruthers and the other officials, and I well 

 remember many occasions on whidh Mr. Carruthers 

 spent <?everal consecutive hours examining with me olrl 

 collections of Algse like those of Buddie, Uvedale, 

 Pefciver, Pulteney, etc. Mr. Carruthers showed me a 

 small package of Alsrse which had formed part of either 

 the Rev. Hugh Davie.s' or Pulteney's herbarium, and 



asked me to examine them. I did so, and found among 

 them a few, I do not think more than half a dozen, 

 specimens, which I could identify as having been 

 named by Wra. Hudson; these were at once marked 

 and incorporated in the hoibaiiiini by -Mi'. Cnir;ithers's 

 orders. 



In reference to a request for information as to 

 Hudson's herbarium, I told Mr. Holmes in substance 

 what I have above stated. It is possible I may have 

 said in the course of conversation that I had " dis- 

 covere<l " Hudson's type of this or that species in Hcall). 

 Edw. Forster, but, so far as I am concerned, there is 

 no foundataon whatever for saying that the few speci- 

 mens (they can hardly be called a collection), saved 

 from the fire at Hudson's house had been lost aiight 

 of by the officials of the British Museum. As I have 

 already stated, the sheets had been marked by Forster, 

 before they were acquired by the Museum, and were 

 consequently easily identified. I did not even hajve 

 ocoasiion to ask any of tho officials for information. All 

 I required to know, was marked clearly on the speci- 

 mens themselves. 



No. 11. 



Biitdish Museum, 



12th July, 1899. 



My Lords, — ^In reply to Sir Francis Mowatt's letter 

 of the 21st April (6681/99), communicating, for the con- 

 sideration of tlie Trustees of the British Museuan,, oopy 

 of a minute of your Lordships' Board respecting the re- 

 lations between the botanical work carried on at the 

 Natural History Museum and that carried on at the 

 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, I am directed by the 

 Trustees to inform your Lordships that they have care- 

 fully considered the subject, and desire to submit the 

 following rem-arks : — 



Having thoroughly enquired into the question of the 

 possible saving that would be effected by the amalgar 

 mation of the Bortianical Departmenrb in the Botdsh 

 Museum and the herbarium at Kew, they are of opinion 

 that the resultant economy would be but small. 



A large part of the annual grant appropriated to 

 the department is expended in the salaries of the 

 higher officers whose scientific work would, presumably, 

 in any case be continued ; nor is it to be anticipated 

 that the cost of publications would be diminished. 



It is presumed that the typical colleobion of Brita'sh. 

 plants, the Index Museum, and a general typical col- 

 lection would still have to be kept up in the Natural 

 History Museum. 



At the utmost, under the most favourable economic 

 conditions, the Trustees doubt if a saving of more 

 than a few hundred pounds would be effected by the 

 suggested amalgamation. 



The Trustees further submit that the absence of any 

 botanical collection in London would certainly be a great 

 loss to botanists and botanical science. Without taking 

 account of numerous casual inquirers, about seven hun- 

 dred botanical students make use of the collection in 

 Cromwell Road during the year ; and without a 

 Botanical Department the Natural History Museum 

 wotild be incomplete, particularly in relation to geology, 

 palaeontology, and entomology. 



It appears that the duplication of work carried on in 



the two establishments is but small', thete being -con- 

 stant and friendly communication between the officers. 



The Trustees would therefore recO'inmend the main- 

 tenance of exiting arrangements, and they are doubtful 

 whether any advantage would result from the appoint- 

 ment of the proposed Committee. 



I have the honour to be. 

 My Lords, 

 Your Lordships' most obedient humble servant, 



(Signed) E. Matjnde Thompsos. 



The Right Honourable 



The Lords Commissioners of 



Her Majesty's Treajsurr 



Appendix 



jri. 



