Ferdinand von Mueller

Melbourne,

7 Nov. 1887.

The honorable Alfred Deakin, M.L.A.,

Chief Secretary.

Sir

I have the honor to address you in reference to the wish, recently expressed in Parliament, that a special botanic Museum should be formed,

1

The file includes a clipping from the Argus of a parliamentary debate on 13 October 1887: in which L. L. Smith felt it was 'extraordinary' that Melbourne did not have a botanical museum such as Adelaide had, for the exhibition of 'the various stages through which a plant passed until it became a manufactured commodity'. He noted that M, 'a man renowned all over the world', was 'located in a poky hole, in which the great quantity of botanic specimens he had collected could not be seen'. J. Bosisto enlarged on Smith's sentiments, but felt that Melbourne already had a botanical museum which 'if it was properly developed, would be unequalled by any similar museum outside of England'. Deakin 'understood that there was a botanical museum of some sort in connexion with the Technological Museum, and also that other establishments were in a similar position'. He felt that 'union and mutual organization … would be of great advantage', and would bring a 'common focus' to botanical work in Victoria. He added that he believed that Bosisto 'had been consulting with the Minister of Public Instruction [Education] and other authorities on this subject, and whenever any advice came from that quarter he would be happy to consider how far he could follow it'.

as I deem it my duty to point out the precise present position of this subject. When the Exhibition of 1866-1867

2

Intercolonial Exhibition of Australasia, Melbourne, 1866-7.

closed here, the building and material available were utilized to form the technologic Museum, which became placed under the surveillance of the trustees of the public library and under the administration of Mr J. C. Newbery. Furthermore it was then decided that the botanic articles of industry emanating from my Department, should form a section in the technologic Museum; and therefore the extensive collections of wood specimens, of tar, acids, oils, potash, wood alcohol, dyes, resins, gums, fibres and other vegetable products and educts were also placed into the technologic Museum, as that institution was centrally situated in the city and thus so readily accessible to the general public and particularly to artisans, whose time is always particularly precious. As other advantages for that central location it was also then recognized, that the botanic articles would not be severed from the zoologic and mineralogic, and that for study the rich public library would be in the closest vicinity. A disadvantage through this arrangement has however arisen, because the vegetable products became within the walls of one hall scattered among all the other various articles of technologic industry, and thus are much lost sight of. As the botanic industrial collections in the technologic Museum are already very extensive and so the agricultural articles, and as the Exhibition of 1888-1889

3

Centennial International Exhibition, Melbourne, 1888-9.

will give the means of adding easily and largely to them, I would now recommend, that on the yet ample spare place behind the public library a separate hall be built, where all the phytologic products, whether rural or technological — be put together, and that at a very modest payment a person of practical aptitude be engaged for the thus created phytologic section of the Museum, who could consult me for augmentation of the collections and for daily oral explanations thereon

4

On 24 November 1887, Wilson forwarded M's letter to 'the Trustees of the Public Library, Museums and National Gallery for their consideration. On 1 December, [T. Bude] replied: 'I am directed by the Trustees to say that the question referred to in this correspondence will receive consideration when the enlargement of the Industrial & Technological Museum is being dealt with'. H. Moors, for the Under Secretary, forwarded this reply to M for his 'information' on 5 December. The next day M returned the file 'with grateful acknowledgment'.

M to A. Deakin, 14 May 1888, again urged the case for the extension.