The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: Melbourne botanic Garden ¶ 14 May 62. ¶ Sir ¶ ¶ In compliance with your request ¶ I have the honor of submitting for your consideration a copy of the proposed rules, which I would beg to recommend t...

Melbourne botanic Garden

14 May 62.

Sir

In compliance with your request

1

On 5 May 1862 William Perry, who signed himself 'Secretary', wrote to the Chief Secretary, John O'Shanassy: 'I am instructed by a committee of Nurserymen to Solicit the honor of an interview with you, for the purpose of presenting a petition against the distribution of Plants &c from the Melbourne Botanical Gardens Shall therefore feel obliged if you would grant the same and by informing me the time most convenient you will greatly oblige'. On 6 May O'Shanassy minuted on the back of this letter: 'Ask Dr Mueller to attend. Say the meeting may be held on Wednesday week at 12 o'C' (W62/2920, unit 468, VPRS 3991/P, Public Record Office, Victoria). Presumably O'Shanassy made his request at this meeting.

I have the honor of submitting for your consideration a copy of the proposed rules, which I would beg to recommend to be sanctioned by Government for guiding me in the distribution of plants from this establishment.

In accordance with your order I beg also to afford the departmental information on the various points, raised in a memorial, which a deputation of the nurserymen had the honor of submitting to you this day during their audience.

2

The nurserymen's petition, dated 5 May 1862, read as follows: 'We the undersigned Nurserymen, Seedsmen, Florists, and others connected with the trade in and near Melbourne and other districts of the Colony have the honor to represent to you that our interests have for some time past, been very seriously affected and our business considerably curtailed by the system (now existing) of distributing large quantities of Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceaous Plants, Cut Flowers, Seeds &c from the Melbourne Botanical Gardens to Private individuals, Municipal and other Public Institutions | Whilst your memorialists fully recognize the propriety of some return being made in the shape of the rarer plants and trees ( Not obtainable from the trade ) for valuable contributions to these gardens, but we have reason to believe that the rules of the Institution are not sufficiently explicit on this head, and they have been taken advantage of to the serious detriment of our profession and trade[.] Your memorialists would therefore respectfully submit that no Private individuals are entitled to receive from these gardens (Even in cases where contributions have been made) any plants, Flowers or Seeds that are obtainable from the trade and that all reciprocations should be made with due regard to the value of such contributions received | And your memorialists would humbly suggest that in addition to the names of the donors published in the annual report of the Botanical Gardens the nature and value of the contributions as well as what is given in return for the same should also be included for the information of the Public | That your memorialists view with alarm and apprehension the immense stock of Trees &c which Dr Mueller informs us he has this year ready for distribution namely 300,000 | That the system now carried on of supplying on so large a scale Municipal and other Institutions is we respectfully submit very injurious to the interests of a most important trade and in consequence to the progression and development of Horticulture in this Colony | That this system is a misappropriation and a diversion of the Government Grant from the Botanical Gardens (in itself a most costly department) to other institutions, and raising plants, Seeds &c at an unprecidented [sic] public cost to supply local institutions which we respectfully submit should be thus provided for by the ratepayers of the several districts | We would therefore with all due respect suggest that the rules and regulations enforced and provided on this subject in the management of the Kew gardens and other similar institutions in England, Ireland and Scotland would also be applicable for the Melbourne Botanical Gardens and acceptable to your memorialists and doubtless tend very materially to create a favorable and legitimate reaction in an important trade now languishing through the system complained of'.

Referring to the proposed rules, submitted for your consideration, it will be observed, that I prefer to excluse certain plants (generally obtainable from the nurserymen) vize fruit trees, pines, avenue trees & florist flowers, from those held available for reciprocation, instead of adopting the suggestion, that plants purchasable in Melbourne nurseries should be withheld from donors, in as much as it will not be possible for me to know at all times with precision, what plants may be obtainable from the trade.

I deem it inappropriate to recommend to the Government that the request should be complied with, to publish annually an explicit statement of all the contributions received and of all the distributions made at the botanic Garden, as it appears to me perfectly sufficient, that such should be recorded (as usually) in the official books for any subsequent information of the Government. Nor is it customary to publish such special records in kindred establishments.

I beg further to inform you, that the statement of 300,000 plants being this season available for distribution, rests on an error of which I cannot trace the origin. Some weeks ago an approximate calculation of the stock contained in the nurseries of the botanic Garden, gave about 200,000 plants. But of these only a proportion, about equal to those distributed last year (namely about 45,000) would be available for distribution this season, whilst a large share of others are either intended for our own garden or for extensive plantations in the adjoining Governments reserves or they are too small for being given away before the season of 1863 or 1864.

I may be permitted to add, that it was on an especial wish of the Government and after a public expression in Parliament and after many public calls by the press (to which the nurserymen gave a tacit consent), that plants for final distribution have been so largely cultivated at our botanic Garden.

It will be, Sir, for your consideration to decide, whether the principle of supplying to public institutions, should, at the petitioners desire, be absolutely abolished. I fear that such course would draw forth a counter petition, unless sufficient means should be specially voted by the legislature for the purpose of endowing all the public institutions (now struggling on in their formation) for enabling them to purchase the plants, now supplied from this garden. The facilities offered in this establishment are such, that for an annual outlay of about £200 the public institutions can be supplied, and hence it would be to the detriment of some of the interests of the garden, if with the abolishment of the distributions a larger sum was withdrawn from its fund.

In referring to the establishment, over which I have the honor to exercise the directorship, as "a most costly department" the petitioners seem not cognizant of the fact, that in this establishment we have combined an important scientific office with that of an horticultural estate, the combined cost of which must be naturally much larger than each isolated.

The petitioners in recommending, that in each districts the ratepayers should provide for their respective institutions, seem not to be aware, that whatever the ratepayers can contribute is in most instances barely sufficient to fence the ground and to prepare it for the reception and maintenance of the plants; hence in the generality of cases no fund is available for the purchase of plants and therefore the question arises, whether public institutions should be provided from here or through some other medium of the Government or be altogether deprived of their future horticultural embellishments.

It appears, that there exists such a wide discrepancy between the requirements of a young country like Victoria and those of Britain, that I cannot consider, regulations held up in British Gardens would be sufficient for the present demand of our state.

I consider it also incumbent on me to state, that I do not think any losses accrue to the traders in the supply of cutflowers being made to charitable institutions on their occasional festivals, as on these occasions no resources are available for their purchase.

Finally I beg to observe, that no regulations have been previously fixed by Government in reference to the distribution of plants, that the restrictions hitherto adopted emanated from myself with a view of favoring the trade of the nurserymen and that I have during the time of my directorship of the botanic Garden always endeavoured to exercise the discretionary power, which my office enjoyed from the Government to the best of my ability and judgement.

I have the honor to be,

Sir

your most obedient and humble servant

Ferd. Mueller,

Director of the botanic Garden

The honorable the Chief Secretary

&c &c &c

Proposed regulations in reference to the distributions of plants from the Botanic Garden of Melbourne:

3

Letter written by M, but the accompanying draft set of regulations is in another hand.

1, Government Establishments may be supplied with any plants, cuttings or seeds (fruit trees excluded) as far as such can be made available, such plants not to be increased for redistribution to private gardens.

2, For the gardens or reserves of public institutions plants, cuttings and seeds may be supplied as far as they are conveniently available, but exclusive of avenue trees

4

avenue trees underlined and marginal note by John Brooke, former President of the Board of Land and Works: 'I cannot understand why in deference to the outcry of the nurserymen "avenue trees" should be excluded'.

and fruittrees, and with an understanding that the plants are not to be multiplied for redistribution to private gardens.

3, Donors or Gentlemen who have rendered services to the botanic garden, may on their special request be supplied in a proportion not exceeding the approximate value of their contributions, or in a rate approximate to the service rendered, with plants, cuttings, seeds or cut flowers, but can not obtain plants of the ordinary kinds of florists flowers, or pines or fruit trees or avenuetrees from the garden.

5

can not ... the garden. underlined and marginal note by Brooke: 'as there is no restriction with respect to what private individuals may give &c there ought not to be any with respect to the kind of plants given in exchange[.] If this proposed limitation be carried out private individuals will have little or no motive for gifts to the garden. However this principle is not proposed to be applied to foreign individuals.'

4, Cut flowers may be supplied for benevolent or artistic purposes, or for public festivals.

5, Plants needed in a fresh state may, when available, be supplied for medicinal purposes.

6, Plants or seeds of any species promissing to be of extensive utility to the colony may, when available be distributed in small quantities to private gardens with out restriction.

7, Interchanges with public or private gardens beyond the Colony may be carried on unlimited by the above rules.

6

On 12 June 1862 O'Shanassy minuted: 'Return these papers to Dr Mueller and direct his attention to Mr Brookes marginal notes. The rules might now be passed and Gazetted when appd by the Governor in Council.' The Under Secretary, J. Moore, drew M's attention to the minute on 13 June. M returned the file on 19 June with a new draft 'of proposed regulations for the consideration of the hon the Chief Secretary', as set out below. This was then annotated by Charles Gavan Duffy, President of the Board of Land and Works, before final decisions were made by O’Shanassy.

Proposed regulations in reference to the distribution of plants from the Botanic Gardens of Melbourne.

1.) For the gardens or reserves of public institutions plants, cuttings and seeds may [shall inserted above may by Duffy] be supplied as far as they are conveniently available, but exclusive of fruit trees, and with an understanding that the plants are not to be multiplied for redistribution to private gardens.

[marginal annotation by Duffy I propose to omit the words within brackets (i.e. as far as ... available, but and and with an ... private gardens.) In the draft, the second of these clauses is crossed out, presumably by O’Shanassy.]

2.) Donors or Gentlemen who have rendered services to the botanic Garden may, on their special request, be supplied in a proportion not exceeding the approximate value of their contributions, or in a ratio approximate to the services rendered with such plants, seeds, cuttings or cut flowers as may be available, but no fruit trees will be distributed in such exchanges.

3.) Cut flowers may be supplied for benevolent or artistic purposes, or for public festivals.

4.) Plants for medicinal use, needed in a fresh state, may, when available, be supplied.

5.) Plants or seeds of any species promising to be of extensive [economical interlined by Duffy] utility to the Colony may, when available, be distributed in small quantities to private gardens without restriction.

[marginal annotations by Duffy 6. Any request for plants seeds or cuttings approved of and initialed by the Chief Secretary, the Comr of Crown Lands or the Comr of Public Works shall be complied with as far as the supply in the garden warrants. All applications from private persons must be approved of by the Chief Secretary except in the case of purchases of land within agricultural areas when applications shall be approved of by the Comr of Crown Lands. All applications from public institutions must be approved of by the Comr of Public Works. Duffy's regulation number six was crossed out, and marked 'out', presumably by O'Shanassy.]

On 27 June O'Shanassy minuted: 'Ask Dr. Mueller what he thinks of Mr Duffy's recommendations & if he concurs let the regulations be published in the Government Gazette.' M replied the same day: see M to J. O'Shanassy, 27 June 1862, stating his opposition to supplying plants to purchasers of Crown lands, and to having all distributions vetted by the Chief Secretary.

On 30 June the Under Secretary, J. Moore, minuted: 'Mr O'Shanassy approves of the Regulations ommitting the words scored out in the first page "and with an understanding that the plants are not to be multiplied for redistribution to private Gardens" and the additional one (No 6) on the third page —'.

The regulations were published as 'Distribution of plants, etc., from the Melbourne Botanic Gardens' in Victoria Government Gazette, 7 October 1862, p. 1917, with several substantial changes from this draft.

See Cohn & Maroske (1996).

The correspondence of

Ferdinand von Mueller

Physical location:

Preferred Citation: