BOTANY OF THE VOYAGE OF THE ‘‘ENDEAVOUR:’ 
41 
to “suppression” and to Brown’s being “controlled by superior authority”; 
but there is, as I said before, absolutely no ground for supposing that anyone but 
FJrown himself was responsible for the non-publication of bis MSS. 
The value and bearing of the Solander and Brown MSS. can only be fully appre- 
ciated if they are correlated with the specimens to which they refer, and this can 
only be done at the National Herbarium. Would it not be possible for some 
com))ctent Australian botanist to come over and see for himself what material 
exists, and how it can best be employed? It must, I think, rest with the colony 
to decide whether “ the jwivilege [shall] be denieil to the living and only bestowed 
on a generation yet to be born.” {Journal of Botany, xlv, 68, 
Hit:).) 
To this paper the following reply was sent to Mr. Britten, the Editor 
of the Journal of Botany, but it was not pultlished; — 
I'Jth .March, 19U7. 
Referring to your notes at i>. 68-70 of the Journal, I realise that the preparation 
of the plates (Illustrations of Cook’s Voyage) was a private undertaking on the 
part of Banks, and that they must have cost him large sums of money. 
Banks was a Trustee of the British Museum, and he took the liveliest interest 
in the welfare of that institution, but the jilates did not belong to the museum 
until 1820, so that the delay on the part of the museum was only eighty years. 
The Banksian Herbarium appears to have been the repository of many collections 
which really belonged to the State. Sir Joseph was himself a public institution, 
and there is no doubt, in my mind, that his taking jios.session of certain ])lants 
ensured their safety during critical periods. If he had handed them over to Kew 
one shudders to think what the younger Aiton would inobably have done with 
them when he left that establishment in 1840. 
But those plants not collected nor |)urchased by him nor presented to him by 
private individuals stand in a different category' to tho.se which were ])laced in 
his care on behalf of the nation. 
One may say that these plants were jiresented to Sir .Io.se)>h Banks, but they 
realty were, it seems to me, the property of Sir .loseph only in trust, and this trust 
was carried out by him honorably. 
la-t me specifically refer to the .\ustralian collections made by Robert Brown. 
Brown was appointed naturalist to the “ Investigator” by Banks, who acted, 
in this respect, on behalf of the .\dmiralty. His pay was £-100 per annum. He 
left Spithead on 18th .Jidy. 1801. and rejiorted himself to Banks from Liverpool, 
on his return, R?th October. 180.5. 
Brown’s appointment uniler the .\dmiralty thereu])on came to an end, but 
Banks, in .lanuary, 180t«, proposed to the Admiralty that Brown and Bauer should 
be continued in their employment, the former to work up the plants and the latter 
to finish his drawings and make others. 
The Ailmiralty re([ueste I Banks to supervise Brown’s work and receive his 
reports. The last progress report of Brown to Banks that I have seen is dated 
tlth January, 1810, but he continued in his employment until the imhlication of 
his “ Prodromus.” .\bout this time Drvander was in failing health (he died in 
October), and Brown succeeded him. His salary having ceased to be a charge 
against the Admiralty, Sir .Joseph Banks took him into his emiiloyment. 
The Brownian Australian (dants were, therefore, the property of the nation. 
Robert Brown apparentlv looked upon them as his jwivate property, and so, it 
would appear, did .Mr. .1. .1. Bennett. Mr. Bennett in 1876 distributed* these 
plants to herbaria throughout the world, and I was shocked to learn, during my 
visit to EurojH* in 1900, that a set had been offered to my predecessor, and that the 
offer had not even been acknowledged. Chiefly through the kindness of Prof. 
It is more correct to say that they were distributed under Ids will. He died in February. 
