Ferdinand von Mueller

1

For a copy of this letter see Natural History Museum, London, Museum Archives, DF3/1/folder 2, Cranbourne, Australia 1861-1936.

Melbourne botanic Garden

28. Nov. 1863.

Sir Charles.

In accordance with your Excellencys command I have the honor of submitting a succinct statement in reference to the arrangements entered into for effecting the exchange of the Brucean and Abelian Meteorites between the Melbourne and British Musea.

Professor Maskelyne, Custos of the mineralogical collections of the British Museum, in opening a correspondence with me on this subject, requested me to secure, if possible, the Great Cranbourne or Brucean Meteorite for the British Museum. (Vide letter No. 1.)

2

Letter not found, but a minute in the bundle identifies the letter as: N. Maskelyne to M, 3 October 1861, 'desiring to obtain the Great Cranbourne Meteor for the British Museum'.

Not being at the time aware who claimed the ownership of the specimen, nor whether perhaps unsurmountable difficulties would impede the removal of the specimen, I communicated the letter to the Mining Department with a verbal request, that means might be adopted for obtaining a report on the possibility and probable cost of the removal of this Meteorite.

Having missed one mail in replying to Dr Maskelynes letter, I waited prior to the departure of the next mail on his Excellency Sir Henry Barkly, who at once placed into my hand a letter from E. Fitzgibbon Esq to Capt Bancroft (vide letter No. 2),

3

Letter not found.

according to which Mr James Bruce of Cranbourne, the owner of the great Meteorite, positively declined to accede to the request of presenting his specimen to the Melbourne Museum, in as much as that Gentleman intended it as a Donation to the British Museum. Under these circumstances his Excellency desired me to initiate at once the necessary measures for the removal of the Meteorite, and was pleased to declare his readiness of placing the requisite fund for the purpose at my disposal.

Various pressing engagements in my department rendered it at the time difficult for me to proceed personally to Cranbourne; hence I directed one of my assistants, Mr E. B. Heyne, to visit Mr Bruce and to offer on behalf of His Excellency and the British Museum assistance for the conveyance of his meteoric mass to London.

Mr Bruce most gladly embraced this opportunity for accomplishing his object, and gave me an unrestricted authority to effect the transmission.

Some days afterwards, when prearrangements for the removal of the specimen were completed, I learnt accidentally from Professor M'Coy, that Mr Bruce in response to a second request of ceding his Meteorite to the Melbourne Museum, had offered to divide his specimen between the national Musea of London & this city, a fact not previously known to myself. On enquiry I learnt from Mr Heyne, that altho' Mr Bruce had incidentally referred in conversation to this offer, he had regarded it as quite unacceptable to Professor M'Coy, since he had received no notification of his proposition having been viewed in a favorable light (vide letter No. 3).

4

Letter not found, but see James Bruce, letter to the Editor, Argus , 5 December 1862.

Feeling nevertheless that some moral obligations were existing for honoring the claims of the Melbourne Museum and feeling an extreme regret that thus a possibility existed of so magnificent a Cabinet-piece being divided, I made an appeal to Prof. M'Coy (vide letter No. 4)

5

See M to F. McCoy, 14 February 1862.

to waive his local claims and interests in an instance like this in favor of the British Museum, and pointed out the indesirability of mutilating so unique a specimen, which then no longer properly could crown the large series of specimens of meteoric masses collected already within the walls of the British Museum. Prof. M'Coy in a most generous manner responded to my call (vide letter No. 5),

6

See F. McCoy to M, 17 February 1862.

provided that the Abelian Meteorite (valued by its owner at £300) and transmitted by the Exhibition Commissioners to London, could be secured by the authorities of the British Museum for that of our city, it being at the same time still left to the option of the authorities of the latter institution to arrange for dissecting the specimen, should such a measure be deemed preferable (vide letter No. 6).

7

See M to N. Maskelyne, 20 February 1862.

In reply both Prof. Owen and Dr Maskelyne (vide letter No. 7)

8

Letter not found, but a minute in the bundle identifies the letter as R. Owen to M, 19 May 1862, 'deprecating the proposed division of the Brucean Meteorite and intimating readiness of securing in lieu Abels Meteorite for the Melbourne Museum, and expressing his and Sir Rod. Murchisons and Prof Maskelynes desire to crown the series of meteorites in the British Museum by the Great Cranbourne specimen'.

deprecated, as I anticipated, the division of the specimen and ratified the arrangements proposed for effecting the exchange of the two meteorites, Mr Bruce having likewise given his consent to this measure.

Meanwhile the Meteorite was with my consent and under Mr Selwyns surveillance conveyed to its temporary place at the University-Ground, his Excellency the Governor rendering kindly the outlay of £100, incurred by the transit of the specimen from Cranbourne to Melbourne.

It is now but right to remark, that Mr Bruce, when proceeding to England and then leaving his meteorite in my trust, requested me repeatedly in a most inequivocal manner, that nothing should be left undone for carrying out his final wish of placing his specimen within the walls of the British Museum (vide letters No. 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12.)

9

Letters not found.

I beg also to append a copy of a letter published on this subject by Mr Bruce in the Argus (vide letter No. 13)

10

See Lucas et al. (1994).

and a communication from Major Scratchley, R.E., in which that Officer consented to superintend the necessary measures of precaution to effect the safe shipment of the specimen, therewith & subsequently expressing his persuasion, that the transit could be effected with safety (vide letter No. 14).

11

Letter not found, but a minute in the bundle identifes the letter as P. Scratchley to M, 12 February 1862, 'consenting to aid in the safe shipment of Bruce's meteorite'.

Furthermore I beg to submit a letter from the honorable G. S. Evans expressing the desirability of an opportunity being afforded to myself to give evidence before the Meteorite-Board (vide letter No. 15),

12

Letter not found, but a minute in the bundle identifies the letter as G. Evans to M, 25 May 1863, 'consenting to my giving evidence before the Meteorite Board'.

and with the view of receiving the additional evidence the Report of the Board was remitted by his Excellency Sir Henry Barkly to the honorable the late Chief Secretary (vide letter No. 16),

13

See H. Barkly to M, 27 May 1863.

as I distinctly understood at the time. When then my desire to give evidence was brought by myself under the notice of the honorable John O'Shanassy, that Gentleman referred me at once with perfect readiness to Dr Evans. But when on the 20 of October I attended at the Board, I was informed, that having closed their labours in bringing up their report, the Gentlemen constituting the Board could receive no further information and considered the Board not further in existence and regarded for any of its further actions it necessary that it should be reappointed by Government. Therefore no legitimate meeting of the Board could have been held after the 20 October without this reappointment.

In having the honor of offering now some concluding observations I beg to record Prof M'Coys opinion, expressed conversationally to myself, that the possession of the larger or the smaller Cranbourne Meteorite could not be regarded of so much importance to the Melbourne Museum, as long as our institution was not deprived of either; and when intelligence arrived from Dr Owen (vide letter 17)

14

Letter not found, but a minute in the bundle identifies the letter as R. Owen to M, no date other than '1863' being recorded, 'announcing that the sum requisite for securing Abels Meteorite had been placed on the estimates of the British Museum'.

that the necessary sum for purchasing the Abelian Meteorite was placed by the trustees of the British Museum on their estimates for 1863, Professor M'Coy wished the home transmission of the Brucean Meteorite merely deferred to await the assurance, that the Abelian specimen had been really purchased. This assurance has been conveyed to me by the mail before the last by Dr Maskelyne (vide letter 18)

15

Letter not found, but a minute in the bundle identifies the letter as N. Maskelyne to M, no date other than '1863' is given in the minute, 'announcing the purchase of the Abelian Meteorite'.

By Mr Selwyn, prior to his departure for England, I was informed, that Professor Neumayer had instituted all the magnetic observations on the Brucean Meteorite, which in the present state of science could be carried out. I think the alteration in the magnetic axis, which the specimen will suffer by its transmission to Europe, is therefore not now of sufficient justification to retain the specimen on this ground, especially as Sir Roderick Murchison, Professor Owen & Professor Maskelyne are well aware of such alteration of magnetism, and have still advocated the transmission of the specimen to the British Museum.

I beg further to observe, should any difficulty be raised against the release of the Brucean Meteorite on financial considerations, that I shall be happy at any time to redeem the debt incurred by its transit.

In justice I cannot refrain from remarking, that the proposition of the exchange of the Meteorites did not emanate from myself, but simultaneously and independently suggested itself to the sagacity of his Excellency Sir Henry Barkly and Professor M'Coy. Mr Selwyn, who at the eve of his departure became acquainted with all the main statements, which I have now the honor of submitting to your Excellency, will no doubt bear out their correctness in England, and Mr Bruce, who (as I learn indirectly) is likely to return to Victoria, will unquestionably bear testimony here as well as there of the correct interpretation of all I have advanced on his behalf.

It remains for me yet to observe, that should the views on this subject, which unaltered I entertained from the commencement of this transaction, namely that the specimen in question would be infinitely more accessible and useful to the scientific world if deposited in the great national Institution of Britain, than if retained in Melbourne, be not in accordance with the views of your Excellency or the Ministers of the Crown, to whom your Excellency wish to refer the subject, I will at once relinquish my position as trustee for Mr Bruce and Representant of the British Museum on this occasion, and therefore resign the trust, which unsolicited on my part I am still holding.

But as I feel that I have acted conscientiously throughout to the best of my judgement, I have no fear, that even if my own views were deemed wrong by the Government, my cosmopolitan tendency, will be respected, a tendency to which on so exceptional occasion as this I cheerfully sacrificed that patriotic love, which I have imbibed for this country and the ardent desire of aiding in the rise of its institutions.

Finally I cannot refrain from stating in justice to his Excellency Sir Henry Barkly, that throughout this transaction nothing could surpass the thoughtfulness and care displayed by the late Governor, in serving as far as it could be done the claims of science as well here as abroad, and that the sentiments evinced throughout by your Excellencys predecessor, entitle him to every praise and acknowledgement

His Excellency Governor Sir Charles Darling, K.C.B. &c &c &c

Postcript. Letter No. 10 of Mr Bruce is withdrawn, as it contains some uncontrolled expressions; it is however available at any time for your Excellencys private perusal, if needed.

16

MS file annotation in an unknown hand: 'No 10 Enclosure missing —'. For enclosure no. 19, which is not referred to in M's letter, see M to G. Evans, 11 September 1863 (in this edition as 63-09-11a).