From 'Pruning Knife' to the Editor of the Weekly Times   11 Dec 1869

THE BOTANICAL GARDENS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE WEEKLY TIMES.

Sir,—In 1857 Dr. Mueller became director of the Botanical Gardens, through the influence of the late Mr. Haines. Mr. Dallachy, the former practical curator, a man of great experience as a professional gardener, was at once deprived of the semblance of a position or of any control over the employés, was retained for three years longer as a collector of plants; his weaknesses then taken advantage of, he was dismissed under circumstances of great hardship, and finally re-engaged as a collector at half his former salary, was at once sent to the extreme north of Queensland, where he still remains out of the way.

The new director immediately put into operation a system of arranging and managing the employés in the Botanical Gardens, which is, and ever must be, totally opposed to British ideas and practice, but which has been eminently conducive to the end for which it was established, that of "allowing no rival near the throne."

Almost every man was made the "head of a department" of some kind, all having direct communication with the director, and a thoroughly continental system of espionage inaugurated under the specious name "principle of emulation." This system has been since then maintained in full force, has emasculated the majority of the employés, and has much to do with the present miserable state of the Botanical Gardens.

Dr. Mueller has, during the whole period of his reign, enjoyed the most despotic sway; has been permitted to exercise an authority no other Government officer ever attempted to do; has had the most ample funds and other means at his disposal, while whatever he asked for or proposed was at once acceded to by the different Governments of the day. The adulation of flatterers, the sunshine of Vice-regal favour, the support of the Press and public generally, have all been his; and where could more favourable circumstances for building up a reputation have been obtained? The result is seen in the long string of adjuncts attached to his name, but not where it ought to be, in the utility, appearance, and beauty of the Botanical Gardens. In support of these assertions I append a statement of the public money expended on and for the Melbourne Botanical Gardens since 1858, and for the application of which Dr. Mueller is wholly responsible:—

A special sum of £600 was voted in 1865 "for the purchase of books to be available to the public, subject to such regulations as may be made by the Governor-in-Council." These books were, in fact, Dr. Mueller's private library. They are not yet accessible to the public, nor are the regulations by the Governor-in-Council yet framed.

Now, Sir, what have we to show, scientific or practical, for the enormous outlay of £93,000; in fact, £100,000 would be within the mark. I have not included many items connected with the then existing zoological department, though these equally were administered by Dr. Mueller, and should have been credited to his account. The zoological portion, while in existence, was a fruitful source of "honours;" the foreign interchanges of black swans and kangaroos brought with them their own reward.

I would have detailed the items of this vast expenditure, but fear that space would not be available. But under whatever heading they may come, the money clearly was voted for the purposes of the Botanical Gardens, and some tangible return should have accrued from it. What do we see? Will any sane man pretend to say that there is the shadow of what ought to be seen at the Botanical Gardens for this large outlay? There is not a single rod of lawn properly so called, lawns which, when properly kept, are one principal feature in pleasure gardens, and which can be kept even in this climate, as witness the University Gardens. There is not a walk fit to walk on; in dry weather they are covered with rolling stones, and in wet weather they are a swamp. The avenues are miserable misnomers—in fact, perfect caricatures, many of them not eight feet wide, and the trees planted and kept under circumstances that for ever prevent them from becoming anything else than stunted scrubs. The ordinary requirements of nature and common sense have been so neglected that the trees have to be stayed up with ropes, like the mast of a ship, and I would seriously advise Mr. M'Kean to apply to Admiral Hornby to leave a "seaman rigger" behind him for the purpose of being permanently attached to the Melbourne Botanical Gardens.

In the portions of the garden where cultivation has been attempted, there is no order or system to be found. Plants from the equator and the poles are to be seen in juxtaposition; unmitigated confusion is rampant everywhere, and we are told that all this is proper and right in a scientific establishment. Well, it may be so in such as one as the Melbourne Botanical Gardens, but, for myself, I can only say, with Bernal Osborne, in the British Parliament, when similar vagaries were defended under the plea of science:—"O science! what atrocities are here committed in thy name."

I have, thus far, dealt with the gardening aspect of the establishment; in a future letter, with your permission, I will make a few remarks on the assumed scientific results and usefulness of this much puffed-up establishment.¹—Yours, &c.

PRUNING KNIFE.