Ferdinand von Mueller

Melbourne

Christmasday 1875

Private

I have given, dear Dr Gray, to the Secretary of the Victorian Exhibit. Commission

1

George Collins Levey.

an introduction-letter to you.

2

Letter not found.

He is very influential & intelligent, and I recommend him to your special attention, should you come with him at the Philadelphia Exhibition

3

Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, 1876.

in official contact. The articles which he takes from the Melbourne bot. Garden, are most miserable.

4

At the preliinary exhibition in Melbourne, the ‘Director of the Botanic Gardens’, i.e. William Guilfoyle, exhibited a large ‘carpological collection’, bark, roots of native sarsaparilla, jam, fibre and tow, resins and gums, cloths dyed with dyes from Australian plants, and paper ((Commissioners for Victoria at the Philadelphia Exhibition (1875), pp. 38-48, 48-9, 58, 61, 70-1, 119, 150-1, respectively. The exhibits were differently grouped when sent to Philadelphia; see Commissioners for Victoria at the Philadelphia Exhibition (1876), pp. 101, 106-7, 199-212, 213-4, 221.

Even the laboratory articles are only a repetition of what I sent to the London-Exhibition,

5

London International Exhibition of 1873 (Melbourne, 1872-73) (1873). For the list of M’s exhibits see pp. 18-21 of the section 'Catalogue of exhibits [sent to London]'; the exhibits were credited to the Commissioners, but said to have been prepared by M.

and this on a small scale only and of inferior samples. There is nothing new among them, except indeed paper from

Dais

Search for Dais in

• This website
• Australian Plant Name Index

!

6

Exhibits 1243 to 1288 were specimens of paper exhibited by Guilfoyle (Commissioners for Victoria at the Philadelphia Exhibition (1876), pp. 106-7), while exhibit 1545 was made from ‘Dias continifolia’ [= D. cotinifolia?]. M was one of the five ‘experts’ for ‘Department 16. Cardboard and paper’.

Of course no one could make even paper profitably out of it at the Cape of Good Hope. All this miserable failure arises from the botanic Garden being withdrawn from my control, to become a sinecure of a near relation of the former Minister, an ordinary Gardener.

7

Elsewhere M asserted that Guilfoyle was a cousin of James Casey's wife; see M to J. Haast, 1 April 1874, and M to W. B. Clarke, 19 August 1876. Casey was part-owner of the sugar mill at Cudgen, NSW and in this capacity had extensive business dealing with the Guilfoyle family who had a large sugar plantation there; see R. Pescott (1974), p. 57.

This man has even the Laboratory & apparatus, with a view of excluding me not merely from the Garden but also from the ground. I will not enter on this painful subject at any length, as you have not written to me in a manner so miserable to me as Dr Thwaites did to his former colleague.

8

Letter not found, but see G. Thwaites to J. Hooker, 4 March 1870 (in this edition as M70-03-04).

It is however important, that I should put you on your guard, so that you may not unconsciously work perhaps into the hands of my adversaries, by giving your opinion on my ruin to our emissary, Mr. Levey. My position was exactly at the same footing as Hookers at Kew . It was not nor ever can be one as Balfours of Edinbourgh. Hookers is essentially an administrative position, Balfours is essentially an educational position. In your own case, though you are happily not banished out of your garden as I am, you may not have the responsibility of Gov. Botanist for the Unit. States, as Hooker has for Britain & I for Australia.

9

M was Government Botanist for Victoria only, but he clearly saw himself as serving all the Australian colonies.

In any conversation with Mr. Levey you can of course only show the absurdity, supposed Dr Hooker was deprived of his garden, where his plants, his staff, his votes and his buildings are. How could he then carry on the departmental service? — I was only able to keep a small portion of the Department going by spending almost the whole of my modest salary for keeping the wreck of the department afloat! Indeed I am socially, domestically, financially and to a great extent also departmentally & scientifically ruined. Not even an office room is left me, I have no longer a collector, no vote for books, instruments, journals, travels &c, yet the daily demands on me by the Australian public daily increase, with a scope for information on culture, resources, traffic industries &c, very wide indeed in this clime.

To you, my dear Dr. Gray, the resignation of your Directorship under friendly arrangement may be an advantage, provided you have no responsibilities of a Gov. administrative kind. To me the withdrawal of the Directorship is a deathblow, and this is all the more painful to me, as I was purposely starved out in the last period of my administration, while the young Sydney Nurseryman, who in reality is now Dr. Hooker's colleague, was supported with enormously increased means so soon as he came.

10

In 1872/73, the last year in which the Botanic Gardens and the Government Botanist’s department were funded as a single unit, the vote was £4,741, including sums of £610 for M’s salary and £250 as salary for the Inspector of Forests, William Ferguson (Victoria, Estimates of revenue and expenditure… for the year ending 30th June 1873 (Parliamentary Paper B 5), p. 38). For 1873/74, the vote for the Botanic Gardens, including William Guilfoyle’s salary of £500 but no longer including the salary of the Inspector of Forests which was provided separately, was £9,170 (Victoria, Estimates of expenditure … for the year ending 30th June 1874 (Parliamentary Paper, B 4), p. 39). Thus, setting aside the salaries mentioned, the effective working budget for the Botanic Gardens (including wages of other staff) increased from £3,881 in 1872/73 to £8,670 in 1873/74. Meanwhile, in the Estimates for 1873/74, p. 14, £1,100 was provided for the Government Botanist’s department of which £800 was earmarked for M’s salary, increased in recognition that accommodation was no longer being provided, leaving only £300 to cover the operating expenses of the department.

I demand a honorable restoration of the bot Garden to the Gov Botanist, and a transfer of the ordinary gardener for plebejan cultures to the numerous reserves and parks around Melbourne, which are largely endowed specially. This is the only principle, on which you can support me; if you cannot do this, then at least do not hurt me as some other former colleagues have done, by rejoicing of my being relieved of drudgery !, for which I had all along far better gardeners than the new comer. Ever regardfully your friend