7 ° 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
charge of the various Royal Gardens. At this period 
landscape gardening was undergoing an organic change; 
Addison wrote convincingly, on the demerits of formal 
gardening and Pope of Twickenham delivers himself of 
satirical complaint in opposition to the regular style. 
Their writings influenced Switzer but to a greater extent 
Bridgeman, a contemporary of Switzer. It was in Rich- 
mond Gardens that Bridgeman introduced forest scenes 
and cultivated fields. It was that same Bridgeman, who 
at Stow, Lord Cobhams’ residence in Buckinghamshire, 
ventured to sink the boundary fence, which was then 
dubbed the “Ha Ha,” for the purpose of introducing 
the surrounding country beyond the confines of the par- 
ticular estate into his vistas. The “Ha Ha” was intro- 
duced into Kew also. 
While the individual beauty of the gardens was be- 
ing developed, its scientific influence was looked after 
with particular zeal. In 1772, King George III, on rec- 
ommendation of Sir John Pringle, President of the Royal 
Society, sanctioned the sending of Francis Masson, one 
of the Kew gardeners, to the Cape of Good Hope to 
“collect there seeds and living plants for the Royal 
Botanical Garden at Kew.” This was a new innovation 
in the policy of the garden and served to extend its 
prestige far and wide. Masson was a sedulous collector 
and during his life explored the Cape of Good Hope 
twice, the Canaries, Azores, Madeira, Portugal, Spain, 
Majorca, Minorca, Canada and the West Indies. He 
eventually died in Montreal, Jan. 1806, and Mr. Dryan- 
der observes that “he was the first and one of the most 
successful of the numerous gardeners, sent out from 
Kew, to collect living plants for the Garden.” 
During the years 1768 and 1780, Cook’s expeditions 
were undertaken and Mr. (later Doctor) Banks and Dr. 
Solander were naturalists on the voyages. 
Closely following Masson, other collectors were sent 
out, David Nelson went with Cook’s third expedition; 
and again with Mr. Brown on the “Bounty” to the South 
Seas to introduce the bread fruit tree into the British 
West Indies. 
During the life time of Princess Augusta who died in 
1772, Lord Bute was botanical adviser at Kew, the im- 
portant office that Dr. Banks so creditably filled after 
Lord Bute. Dr. Anthony Howe was employed by Sir 
Joseph Banks during 1787-9 to collect plants in India. 
We must note that Wm. Aiton died in 1793 and was suc- 
ceeded by his son Wm. Townsend Aiton, usually referred 
to as the “younger” Aiton — in the same capacity, the 
latter holding his position until 1841, when he resigned. 
Continuing the list of botanical explorations, we find 
Archibald Menzies, as Botanist and Surgeon, accompan- 
ied Captain Vancouver on the latter’s survey (between 
I 79 I " 95 ) to S. W. Australia and from there introduced 
numerous Proteaceae. Menzies, introduced Araucaria 
imbricata and in 1796 discovered the California Sequoia 
Sempervirens. 
Christopher Smith went to the West Indies on 
Captain Bligh’s second voyage. Smith’s assistant, 
James Wiles, was later dispatched to the West Indies to 
grow the 300 bread fruit trees sent there. 
Later on Smith was appointed Botanist to the East 
India Company and in its interest went to Calcutta. 
Peter Good, a gardener of Kew, was sent to Calcutta in 
1795 to deliver to Kew the plants collected at Calcutta 
by Smith. Good later went as an assistant to Robert 
Brown, the botanist on Flinder’s survey of the Austra- 
lian coast. On this voyage, large collections of Pro- 
teaceae were made by Good until 1803 when he died 
but his collection of seeds reached Kew, nevertheless. 
In 1801 George Caley was sent by Sir Joseph Banks 
to New South Wales in the interest of Kew. Among his 
introductions the Livistona Australis is perhaps the most 
notable. 
In 1803 Wm. Ker, a gardener in whose honor, the 
genus Kerria was established by De Candolle, was sent 
to China and visited Java and the Phillipines by the 
way; striking among his introductions were Lillium Ja- 
ponicum and L. tigrinum. 
In 1810, the affliction of the Royal and loyal sup- 
porter of the garden, George III, became permanent and 
from thence the gardens retrograded for thirty years. 
The British conquest with France endangered En- 
glish commerce and thus prevented dispatching botani- 
cal pioneers from Kew but when at an end, Sir Joseph 
Banks revived the custom and in 1816 David Lockhart 
was appointed as collector to the ill-fated Congo expe- 
dition. 
At this point the Herbarium demands attention. The 
present building containing the Herbarium was formerly 
knowm as “Hunter House,” having been the property of 
Robert Hunter. It was probably purchased in 1818 
for the King at the instigation of Sir Jos. Banks, who 
earnestly strove to found a herbarium and library at 
Kew. Banks died in 1820 and in 1823 George IV sold 
Hunter House to the nation, the Bank.-ian herbarium 
and library having been bequeathed to the British Mu- 
seum, for which it served as a foundation to the present 
herbarium at South Kensington. 
It was in 1852 that Hunter House, later known as the 
“King of Hanover’s House,” was made an Herbarium for 
the present institution. 
In 1820, death ended the brilliant career of ever 
memorable Sir Jos. Banks. With the decease of George 
III, in the same year, Kew practically ceased to be a 
royal residence. 
On the demise of Sir Jos. Banks, it seems that Sir 
Everard Home filled the position so creditably con- 
ducted by Lord Bute and Sir Jos. Banks. Sir Everard 
died in 1832. 
Practically a National institution, and demanding 
a large annual expenditure the Royal Gardens 
aroused a public discussion of abolition. This unrest 
continued in the popular mind until 1837, the death of 
William IV. In January 1838, a committee of which Dr. 
Bindley was one, and Joseph Paxton of Chatsworth fame 
another, was appointed to inquire into the management, 
etc., of the Royal Gardens. The younger Aiton was 
curator at the time, and John Smith — who was later cre- 
ated curator was a foreman. After Smith’s promotion 
to the Curatorship, he expressed his w’ounded feelings 
caused by the injustice of the inaccurate report, one that 
scarcely exposed the real existing merits of the gardens. 
Smith had undoubted reason to be offended. In 1840, 
the report submitted by the committee in 1838, was pre- 
sented to Parliament. During this interval the Lord 
Steward, then Lord Surrey had entire control of the gar- 
dens. 
It was learned that he intended to offer the plants to 
the Royal Horticultural Society for their Chiswick Gar- 
dens and the Royal Botanic Society for their garden at 
Regents Park and then to convert the glass structures 
into vine and pine houses, A comment contemporary 
with this development is: “The council of the Horti- 
cultural Society, with a spirit highly favorable to them- 
