li 
West Park and Kew , 1841-1865. 
to any enlargement of them and to any further expenditure 
upon them, all hopes of their forming the nucleus of an 
establishment worthy of the nation appeared, for the time 
at any rate, to be frustrated. The. view taken by the Govern- 
ment of the expenditure and the responsibilities to be incurred 
in establishing the Gardens on a national footing, may be 
learned from a Report addressed to the Treasury by the Com- 
missioners of Woods and Forests, signed by Lord D uncannon 
and other members, dated April 24, 1839. It points out 
that Parliament must find, in addition to the present annual 
expenditure on the Botanic Gardens, £ 20,000 for new works ; 
and goes on to say, that though the services of the Board are 
available for the execution of the new works and supervision 
of the annual expenditure, neither it nor its officers can 
efficiently assist in the scientific management of the establish- 
ment and its adaptation to useful purposes ; adding that such 
management and control would be most properly invested in 
trustees to be named by Her Majesty and to consist of 
persons holding high office in the State, and others at the 
head of institutions in the metropolis for education and science, 
as suggested in the Report of the Committee h 
It is difficult to see how ,£20,000 could be profitably ex- 
pended on new works in so confined an area as the Botanic 
Gardens then occupied. 
After the Bedford family, Lord Monteagle, when, as 
Mr. Spring Rice, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, was 
the most powerful advocate for the retention of the Botanic 
Gardens and for my father’s being placed at their head ; but 
at that particular time the national finances were in a straitened 
condition, and he could not propose a vote in the House of 
Commons for a Kew subsidy ; nor could he influence Lord 
D uncannon in favour of the Botanic Gardens. Writing from 
Glasgow to Mr. Turner in December, 1840, my father says : 
6 From Lord Monteagle, indeed, I hear that the obstacles to 
my having an appointment at Kew are insurmountable. 
1 To which Report this refers does not appear. It is certainly not that of 
February, 1838, drawn up by Dr. Lindley, which contains no such recommendation. 
