438 
THE LATE SIR WILLIAM HOOKER. 
Iii conclusion, I may add that the names of two other chemists in this city, 
who have each only paid one subscription some years since, also appear in the 
present list, and that one, if not both, have declined to renew the connection. 
I am, Sir, yours, etc., 
Bath, January 25, 1866. H. J. Walker. 
THE LATE SIR WILLIAM HOOKER. 
The following paragraphs form the concluding portion of a very able notice of the 
labours of the late Sir William Hooker, which has recently appeared in Silliman’s ‘ Ame¬ 
rican Journal of Science and Art.’ The author (Dr. Asa Gray), from his intimate know¬ 
ledge of and associations with our late eminent botanist, and being an American, is 
peculiarly well adapted to form an unprejudiced opinion:— 
‘‘Our survey of what Sir William Hooker did for science would be incomplete indeed, if 
it were confined to his published works—numerous and important as they are—and to the 
wise and efficient administration, through which, in the short space of twenty-four years, 
a Queen’s flower and kitchen garden and pleasure grounds have been transformed into an 
imperial botanical establishment of unrivalled interest and value. Account should be 
taken of the spirit in which he worked, of the researches and explorations he promoted, 
of. the aid and encouragement he extended to his fellow-labourers, especially to young 
and rising botanists, and of the means and appliances he gathered for their use no less 
than for his own. 
“ The single-mindedness with which he gave himself to his scientific work, and the 
conscientiousness with which he lived for science while he lived by it, were above all 
praise. Eminently fitted to shine in society, remarkably good-looking, and of the most 
pleasing address, frank, cordial, and withal of a very genial disposition, he never dissi¬ 
pated his time and energies in the rounds of fashionable life, bnt ever avoided the social 
prominence and worldly distinctions which some sedulously seek. So that—however it 
may or ought to be regarded in a country where Court honours and Government rewards 
have a factitious importance—we count it a high compliment to his sense and modesty 
that no such distinctions were ever conferred upon him, in recognition of all that he accom¬ 
plished at Kew. 
“Nor was there in him, while standing in a position like that occupied by Banks and 
Smith in his early days, the least manifestation of a tendency to overshadow the science 
with his own importance, or of indifference to its general advancement. Far from 
monopolizing even the choicest botanical materials which large expenditure of time, and 
toil, and money brought into his hands, he delighted in setting other botanists to work 
upon whatever portion they wished to elaborate; not only imparting freely, even to 
comparatively young and untried men of promise, the multitude of specimens he could 
distribute, and giving to all coiners free access to his whole herbarium, but sending por¬ 
tions of it to distant investigators, so long as this could be done without too great detri¬ 
ment or inconvenience. He not only watched for opportunities of attaching botanists 
to Government expeditions and voyages, and secured the publication of their results, but 
also largely assisted many private collectors, whose fullest sets are among the treasures 
of far the richest herbarium ever accumulated in one man’s lifetime, if not the amplest 
anywhere in existence. 
“ One of the later and not least important services which Sir William Hooker has 
rendered to Botany, is the inauguration, through his recommendation and influence, of a 
plan for the publication, under Government patronage, of the Floras of the different 
British colonies and possessions, scattered over every part of the world. Some of these 
(that of Hongkong and that of the British West Indies) are already completed; others 
(like that of Australia, and the Cape Flora of Harvey and Sonder, adopted into the 
series), are in course of publication; and still others are ready to be commenced. 
“ The free and cordial way in which Hooker worked in conjunction with others is 
partly seen in the various names which are associated with his in authorship. This came 
in part from the wide range of subjects over which his survey extended, a range which 
must have contributed much to the breadth of his views and the sureness of his judg¬ 
ment. Invaluable as such extent of study is, in the present state and prospects of our 
