Document information

Physical location:

72.12.00b

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to James Casey, 1872-12 [72.12.00b]. R.W. Home, Thomas A. Darragh, A.M. Lucas, Sara Maroske, D.M. Sinkora, J.H. Voigt and Monika Wells (eds), Correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller, <https://vmcp.rbg.vic.gov.au/id//letters/1870-9/1872/72-12-00b-final.odt>, accessed May 15, 2026

1
MS not found. For the text given here, see Victoria Parliamentary Debates, vol. 15, Session 1872, pp. 2275-6, Assembly, 4 December.
After receiving notice of a question from Mr W. Clarke alleging 'misappropriation of Government property by the distribution of trees and plants for the purpose of beautifying a private park or garden situated at Point Nepean', Casey, Minister of Lands, had 'directed that information should be obtained from the only two officers in the Department who could possibly have any knowledge of the transaction'. A newspaper paragraph naming the Hon C. G. Duffy as the owner of the private garden in question was sent to William Ferguson and, presumably, also to M (letters not found), and their reports requested. The replies were reported in the Legislative Assembly when Casey answered the question. William Ferguson reported that he had distributed no plants to the Hon C. G. Duffy.
Sir, — In reply to your communication of this date,
2
Letter not found.
I have the honour to inform you that no trees or any other plants have been supplied by me from the Botanic-gardens to beautify the marine residence of the Hon. C. G. Duffy, or any other property of that gentleman. But on the 15th and 29th June of this year, four kinds of creeping grasses were supplied to Mr Duffy, and small quantities of twelve kinds of seeds of other plants, for an experiment to bind drift sand at Sorrento, this supply having been furnished under the 6th clause of regulations. Copy appended.
3
The appended copy has not been found. The 6th clause of the regulations published in the Victoria Government gazette, 10 October 1862, p. 1948, stated:
'Plants or seeds of any species promising to be of extensive utility to the colony, may, when available, be distributed in small quantities to private gardens, without restriction.'
For the background to these regulations, see M to J. O'Shanassy, 14 May 1862.
I may, however, add that, at various times in 1871 and 1872, sand grasses and other sand plants, or seeds of such, were supplied for Sorrento-park; and it is not unlikely that some of the sand pines, &c., so obtained were planted temporarily on the well enclosed area occupied by the custodian of the park, as the latter was, at the time, not yet sufficiently securely fenced to prevent the ingress of goats.
4
The Argus, in reporting the debate, said that 'the park not being fenced in at the time … plants &c, were placed in Mr Duffy's garden, where they still remain' (Argus, 5 December 1872, p. 5). Duffy demanded a 'full, clear and unequivocal withdrawal of this slander', pointing out that his garden was over a mile from the park. In his assurance that the Argus 'had no intention whatever' of accusing him of misappropriation of the plants, the editor argued that M's report had left 'a general misapprehension … in the House' that Duffy was the 'custodian' referred to (Argus, 10 December 1872, p. 6).
Of these supplies a return can be submitted, if required.
I have, &c.,
Ferd von Mueller,
Director, Botanic Gardens.