sioner of Works, representing Her Ma- so far as they have any politics-practijesty's Government, on the other. I re- cally, most are neutrals; and it is imposgret the delay which has occurred in sible to doubt that the only feeling that bringing forward this subject; but though has actuated them in this matter is zeal to me, personally, most of the facts are for justice and for the interests of science. familiar, I could not, in fairness to one They declare that the resignation of Dr. of the parties concerned, bring them for-Hooker-which they assume to be ineviward until the argument on both sides table as a consequence of these transactions —the justification, such as it is-was-unless some interference takes place, before the public. And even now I do would be a calamity to English science, so under great difficulty, for these Papers and a scandal to the English Governof 180 pages have not been yet quite ment. Further, since this matter has 48 hours in either mine or your Lord- been in my hands I have received numeships' hands, and being without index or rous letters from men of more or less lists of subjects, and classified in a way distinction in various lines of scientific which I do not profess to understand, I study, all expressing the same feeling of am not at all sure that I may not have sympathy and of indignation, though omitted some circumstance material, or from various reasons the writers are unat least important, in its bearings on the willing to mix personally in the dispute. case. They, moreover, contain a mass Memorials, too, from the Royal Hortiof very trivial and irrelevant matter, cultural Society, the Meteorological Sowhile a good deal of what has passed be- ciety, from the Royal Botanic Society, tween Dr. Hooker and the Government from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, does not appear. Now, the case is one and I believe from various other similar which, during the last few months, has bodies, have been addressed to the Treaattracted an unusual degree of attention, sury, and I affirm confidently that all not only among members of various these individuals and public bodies have scientific professions, but also among the so bestirred themselves without pressure, general public, which does not often in- or canvassing, or solicitation, and withterest itself in departmental controversies out the use of any one of those devices of this kind. Indeed, I can hardly call by which artificial agitation can be someto mind an instance when a subject not times got up. My Lords, I set no undue of a political character-using the word value on what is called public opinion; in its conventional sense-not appealing to it may be hastily formed-it may be party feeling, or to class interest, or to sec-formed on imperfect knowledge, or under tarian zeal, has created so general a sym- the influence of strong prejudice; but pathy with the person attacked, or elicited where there has been time for considerso unanimous an expression of publication and reflection, where the facts are opinion. Dr. Hooker's case has been taken up by the various representatives of science, with a degree of earnestness and warmth not often shown by persons occupied in these tranquil pursuits, and the substance of his complaint is contained in a Memorial addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury, by 11 gentlemen eminent alike by personal attainments and by professional position. I will enumerate them-Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Darwin, Professor Huxley, Professor Tyndall, Sir James Paget, Sir Henry Holland, the President of the College of Physicians, the President of the College of Surgeons, the President of the Linnæan Society, Sir Henry Rawlinson (President of the Geographical Society), and Mr. Spottiswoode. No words of mine are necessary to point out the weight of authority which attaches to these names. Many of them are Liberals in politics, simple and generally known, where party or sectarian feeling does not and cannot operate, I think a Minister may reasonably suspect that he has put himself in the wrong when many voices are raised against him, and when not a single independent voice is raised in his support. I will say further-I cannot allow that this is a matter which concerns the First Commissioner of Works personally and exclusively; if it did so, as he is not a Member of this House, I should have preferred to leave the matter to be dealt with where he is able personally to reply. But though the acts complained of may have been his acts in the first instance, the responsibility of them is not confined to him; they have been made subjects of general complaint; they have been brought under the notice of the Treasury and the Cabinet; and there has been ample his father many years without pay in the scientific work of the Gardens. He served during four years as naturalist to the Antarctic Expedition; he was sent out by Government, first to the Himalayas, visiting there a country never traversed before or since by any European; he was afterwards employed on a scientific mission in Borneo, and I may mention that the cost to him of the Indian expedition more than doubled the allowance made for it by Government, while the collections at Kew have been largely enriched at his own cost. opportunity to disavow any act which | Hooker, the present Director, assisted was disapproved, or to repair any wrong admitted to be such. But no such disavowal has taken place; no such reparation has been made, except in one instance, where an objectionable appointment was cancelled, and except the very slight and inadequate explanation contained in a document from which I shall presently quote. And as I would not lightly charge noble Lords opposite, or their Colleagues "elsewhere," with the childish folly of proposing to defend what they know to be indefensible, rather than seem to give way to pressure from political opponents, I am thrown back One instance is mentioned in on the only other alternative, and com- which half his yearly salary was expelled to assume that, on a deliberate pended on a single purchase. The investigation of the whole matter, they Gardens under his care now extend over think Mr. Ayrton has been right and 300 acres; and, as a scientific establishDr. Hooker wrong. Now, my Lords, ment, they are said by botanists to have who is Dr. Hooker, and what is his no rival in Europe. As a place of popuposition in regard to Kew Gardens? I lar enjoyment, they receive an average will rather remind your Lordships of of 600,000 yearly visitors; while more facts which have been made familiar to than 130 volumes on subjects connected you through the Press than state them with botany have issued from Kew, and at length, but they are a necessary part all this has been done at a cost of not of the case. Rather more than 30 years more than £20,000 a year. These are ago Kew Gardens were handed over by the antecedents of the gentleman who Her Majesty-in whose personal occu- has been unfortunate enough to incur pation or that of the Royal Family they the displeasure of the First Commiswere to the use of the public. They sioner of Works. It is also stated-and, were to be maintained, as they have I believe, not denied-that in 30 years been, as a national scientific establish- of public service Dr. Hooker had never ment, as well as a place of popular en- received a reprimand from an official joyment and recreation. Sir William superior; and there is not the least exHooker, father of Dr. Hooker, was at cuse for saying that there had been, that time Professor of Botany at the on his part, either extravagance or waste. University of Glasgow. He gave up his The Estimates for the last few years post, sacrificing more than half his in- will show that the expenditure on these come, to undertake the management, Gardens, at all times moderate, has, since and was appointed Director at £300 Dr. Hooker's control of them, rather a-year, which sum was raised to £600 diminished than increased. He was and £800, as the Gardens extended, and undoubtedly subject to the Board of the work in connection with them became Works, and it was a matter of official heavier. Three botanical collections, routine that his estimates should be containing 50,000 specimens, were made scrutinized and his plans approved by at his private cost and given by him to his official superiors; but he may reathe country, and they are said to be the sonably have expected-and I presume most complete now existing in the world. he did expect-that, being master of his The Herbarium, too, was made by him, subject, having a long experience and and was bought by the State at a very almost unequalled knowledge of it, and low valuation. Considering the labour, that subject not being one with which the skill, the scientific knowledge, and Parliamentary officials are likely to have the personal outlay of Sir William made themselves acquainted, he would Hooker on these Gardens, it is no ex-be left to manage the ordinary business aggeration to speak of them as being his creation. The State gave the opportunity, and provided the funds; the rest was done by him. His son, Dr. of the Gardens in his own way, using such means as seemed to him most suitable within certain definite limits of expense. Now, my Lords, what are the acts of which Dr. Hooker complains? | which business is done among gentleThe first he describes as "A transaction with my subordinate of a nature so new to my long experience of official life, and so repugnant to my principles, that I refrain from characterizing it." The circumstances appear to be these The First Commissioner of Works called at Kew in December, 1870, Dr. Hooker being then on the spot. He did not see Dr. Hooker, nor ask to see him, but held a confidential conversation with the Curator, Dr. Hooker's subordinate, in which he offered to the latter a position in London as Secretary of the Parks, which, in regard to some of the duties which it involved, would have placed that gentleman over the head of Dr. Hooker himself. He was said to have added a request that the Curator would keep this proposal a secret from Dr. Hooker. That request-if it was made -very much to his credit, the Curator disregarded. I understand that fact is denied by the First Commissioner in his reply; but he admits that he told the Curator that it was unnecessary to mention the subject to Dr. Hooker, as he meant to do so himself, which he never did. My Lords, to anyone accustomed to official life, it is hardly possible to conceive a more singular violation of official discipline and custom, or even of the rules of fair play, than is involved in this transaction. The subordinate is consulted as to the placing him in a position of independence of, and even of superiority to his chief, and the offer is kept whether by accident or design seems to be in dispute, but it is keptfrom the person who is principally affected by it. In every branch of the public service of which I know anything, a head of a Department so treated would feel that in self-respect he had no alternative left except to resign. Only imagine the Foreign Secretary-I beg pardon for the supposition-corresponding privately with the Secretary of Embassy at Paris or Vienna, on the arrangements of those Embassies, and adding that it was not necessary that the Ambassador should be told of what was going on! I do not want to exaggerate, or use strong words, but it is difficult to speak of such a proceeding otherwise than as deliberately offensive. It may not have been meant so I hope it was not; but if not, I must say the First Commissioner has a very odd idea of the way in men. The second charge is, removing the Curator from his duties under Dr. Hooker without communication with Dr. Hooker. What appears to have happened in this matter is, that some alterations being required in Hyde Park, or Kensington Gardens, with which Dr. Hooker had nothing to do-his functions being limited to Kew-the First Commissioner proposed to place this work under the charge of the Curator, removing him thereby for several weeks from the duty for which he was employed and paid, leaving Dr. Hooker to do without him as best he could, and this without so much as asking beforehand whether the Curator's services could be spared or not. I need hardly point out either the official irregularity or the substantial injustice of this proceeding. It was, of course, objected to, correspondence ensued, and, finally, the idea was dropped, but not until an appeal to the Treasury or the Prime Minister personally I do not know which had been threatened. My Lords, the third grievance is, that Dr. Hooker having been charged by a former First Commissioner with the duty of re-modelling the heating apparatus used in the Department, the plans and estimates having been supplied by him, and the apparatus being, as is stated, for scientific purposes the most perfect that exists, he suddenly in June of last year discovered that without notice given or reason assigned he had been superseded in this duty. He appeals to the First Commissioner to know if this is so, and he is told in reply curtly that he had been superseded and that he was "to govern himself accordingly." I could hardly believe, when I first read this statement, that it was an accurate representation of the facts. I searched through the Papers for an explanation of it, and I can find none except that the Chief Commissioner supposed the transfer to have been notorious-not a reason for not communicating it to the person most concerned; but even if that had been so, and if the ignoring of Dr. Hooker in the first instance was a mistake or act of omission, I venture to say that the proceeding described is equally objectionable in substance and in form. The more public it was, the greater was the necessity of explaining that it was not intended as a censure. does not require any argument to show It that to take from the head of a Department-such as Kew-the control of the hot-houses, is to deprive him of all power over a very important part of his business, while leaving him responsible for the results. I believe that among botanists and horticulturists in this country there is on that point an absolute unanimity, and I have seen a letter stating that in the Jardin des Plantes, at Paris, the practice which prevails, and always has prevailed, is that which Dr. Hooker contends for. But even if the matter in dispute were more contestable, that could be no justification. It is one thing to limit in the first instance the functions of a public servant, and it is quite another thing to take away from him functions which he is actually performing, and as to his discharge of which no complaint has arisen-without warning, without an opportunity for discussion or appeal, and even without the common courtesy of informing him that these powers were to be withdrawn. Done in that way the act is an official censureyou can make nothing else of it—and a censure the more gratuitous, becauseand I repeat it-anyone who looks at the Estimates will see that there was really no pretext for a charge of waste; on the contrary, since Dr. Hooker took charge of these Gardens the cost of them has been diminishing and not increasing. Another complaint is that the First Commissioner, without the knowledge of Dr. Hooker, the responsible person, did on his own account lay before the Treasury plans and estimates for an alteration in the Museum, which Dr. Hooker believes would have been entirely useless, which would have involved the closing of the Museum for months, and have led to great expenditure, for which Dr. Hooker would have been held by Parliament and the public to be the party responsible. What happens? He hears of this accidentally he remonstrates. High powers interfere, the estimates are taken back and the matter is reconsidered. But even then the withdrawal is done in the most ungracious manner. Dr. Hooker, in this as in other cases, is not consulted nor informed; but the Curator, his subordinate, is sent for, and through that gentleman, without reference to his chief, the obnoxious act is cancelled. I am unwilling to go more than I can help into these details-but, as a sample of the way in which matters have been carried on at Kew, I must refer to a matter which occupies the first 25 pages of the Blue Book, and which appears to me a signal instance of how Departments contrive to make unnecessary work for themselves. It appears that an assistant was wanted for the Curator to perform certain special duties. Those duties involved the keeping of accounts, the custody of stores, the conducting of a large correspondence, and the direction of the foremen employed in the Gardens. The appointment is competed for not by an open, but a special examination, showing that special qualifications were required, and is given, without any reference to Dr. Hooker, to a man who had been employed in the Gardens, well known to the Director, and of whom both the Director and the Curator had formed a very unfavourable opinion. Dr. Hooker's Report upon him is- "Writes indifferently, spells badly, incompetent to direct foremen in regard to stores, no prelimi. nary education or training to fit him for the situation. Ile has never kept accounts, he has never been in charge of stores, and cannot conduct a correspondence creditably." Dr. Hooker entreats that he may be removed. The Treasury concur; in a letter dated May 2, of this year, the First Commissioner objects; and on June 26 the Treasury repeat their expression of opinion in a letter which is too long to quote, but which I am bound to say, to the credit of the writers, the Lords of the Treasury, and, I suppose, principally of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does very clearly show that they thought, in this instance, the position of the First Commissioner to be indefensible. The man was discharged at last, and then follows a controversy between the various Departments concerned-Treasury, Board of Works, and Civil Service Commission-which certainly points to a very curious state of confusion and uncertainty as to the status of persons holding appointments in the Civil Service. Justice compels me to admit that in this case the Treasury, though rather tardily, have set themselves right. But the fact remains that everything in the power of the First Commissioner was done to force on Dr. Hooker a man whom he disapproved, whom he knew to be unfit, and for whom he could find no suitable employment. I do not wish either to exaggerate or to overlay my case, and I shall therefore pass | prejudice, my acquaintance with Dr. by without notice the misunderstanding Hooker is extremely slight, and towards which occupies many pages of this volume, the First Commissioner I have no feelabout the keeping and issuing of a cer- ing, except respect for his undoubted tain work called The Flora of Tropical energy and ability, and regret that he Africa, of which Dr. Hooker is the un- should so habitually destroy the effect paid editor. I pass that over, although of those abilities by an overweening the misunderstanding, as far as I can arrogance, and what seems an habitual see, might have been averted if Dr. disregard of the ordinary courtesies Hooker had been consulted frankly, in of official life. I cannot but say that the first instance, or even kept informed his action in this case has been harsh, of what was doing. But it seems pro- peremptory, and vexatious to the last bable that the whole transaction arose degree, and it has not even the poor out of a mistake, which may show care- excuse of being evidence of that zeal lessness, but shows nothing more. At for economy so much boasted of in any rate, that defence is put forward, and, some quarters. Even those who proin case of doubt, it is only fair we lean fess contempt for artists and architects, to a merciful view, although I may point and persons of that kind, may unout that the whole difficulty arose from derstand so simple an economical prothat curious determination, of which we position as this that public services have seen so many instances, to do are paid for not exclusively in money, everything behind Dr. Hooker's back. and if you make any kind of public But, my Lords, I fear that the list of work disagreeable and humiliating, you these complaints is not fully exhausted will have fewer capable persons willing to by what appears in these Papers. I undertake it, and will have to pay more hold in my hand a statement coming for those whom you employ. It is not from what ought to be the best au- every day that you will get men like Dr. thority, to the following effect:-That Hooker to manage your public gardens, within the last 10 days the First Com- and you will not get them at all if they missioner has sent to Dr. Hooker are to be treated like insubordinate servants who have somehow or another managed to secure higher wages and better places than they are fit for. It may be argued that these matters are small in themselves and that their importance has been unduly exaggerated. I deny that proposition altogether. It is not a small matter to anyone at the head of a Department to take away his subordinates; to refuse the help he does want; to force upon him assistants whom he does not want; to deprive him of control over the necessary appliances of his work, and to listen to the most frivolous and ridiculous charges against him. But even admitting that each of these grievances singly was small, it is their collective and cumulative effect that must be looked to. It is not the thing done, it is the animus shown that you must consider. We have all heard of men being driven out of a regiment or out of a public office by a series of petty vexations, each in itself almost too slight for serious complaint; but in the aggregate, making it evident to the person attacked that the object was to get rid of him. Whether the object has been to get rid of Dr. Hooker and put some one in his place I do not know; but I do know "Two letters containing vague charges of jobbery and mismanagement; one from a man of no character, the other from a late foreman of Kew, who is subject to hallucinations, and who, after engaging himself to another place, without informing the Director, suddenly left, wholly of his own accord, bringing purely imaginative charges against the Curator. For these the man abjectly apologized, and wrote to the Director expressing his regret, and begging that he might be taken into favour again. This man is known to have been for some time in communication with Mr. Ayrton, who, at the last hour, brings him forward." I should not put before you a statement of this kind if it did not come from a quarter which is to me a guarantee for the personal knowledge of the person making it. It may admit of explanation, I do not prejudge that; but unless or until explained, it certainly points to a continuance of the system of annoyance and persecution-petty persecution if you will, but not on that account less galling-to which for the last two years Dr. Hooker has been subjected. I need trouble your Lordships no further. I have endeavoured, with some difficulty -I hope not at some sacrifice of the interests which I am defending-to make my statement as brief as I could. I looked into the question first without |