MR. AYRTON'S DEFENCE.
AYRTON'S Defence is another indefensible attack
upon Dr. Hooker. Owing partly to the publication of a Treasury Minute highly favourable to Dr. Hooker, partly to the refusal of the Peers to lose the Goodwood for the sake of any interest so contemptible as that of science, and partly to the reluctance of journalists to deal with a Blue-book pur- posely prepared to confuse and weary them, an impression has began to prevail that too much has been made of the " Kew affair," that Mr. Ayrton has been guilty only of roughness, and that Dr. Hooker is a great deal too thin-skinned. Those who accept this view have neither studied the Memorandum of 15th July, in which the First Commissioner of Works defends himself, nor comprehended the nature of the charge which is made against him. Mr. Ayrton is not accused of roughness in his treatment of Dr. Hooker. He is not a bit rougher than Sir Benjamin Hall, who in the same office once or twice reprimanded Sir W. Hooker with some asperity, but who gave but momentary offence, because he neither designed nor offered any humiliation to his correspondent, but merely for- warded curt orders to his official subordinate. Roughness does not hurt where there is a certainty of bona fides, and Dr. Hooker has never pleaded, or attempted to plead, independence of the Parliamentary chief of his department. Mr. Ayrton is not charged with roughness, but with disregard- ing, in his enjoyment of the pleasure of giving pain, one of the most valuable of all our administrative etiquettes, without which the majority of the Departments could not be worked at all. It is the misfortune, the inevitable misfortune, of our system of government, that the responsible chief of each department must have a seat in Parliament, and that con- sequently the expert who is permanently in charge, whose experience keeps the machine in order, and who does four- fifths of the actual work, can never be independent, never quite sure of carrying out his own ideas. No Bismarck with us can be made Foreign Secretary, no Moltke Secretary at War, no Nelson First Lord. Mr. Waddington cannot be Home Secretary, nor can Mr. Scudamore be appointed Postmaster- General. The Minister must be selected from the small cluster of men to whom the House of Commons will attend, and must therefore often be ignorant of his department, or even, as in Mr. Ayrton's case, impressed with the idea that its existence at all is but a bit of sentimental surplusage. The only palliative of this great evil, the only aid which has enabled a system theoretically absurd to work at all, has been the won- derful fidelity of the permanent chiefs, who under various names govern the departments, who obey and advise Ministers of both parties with equal zeal, but consent, for the sake of Parliamentary government, to a self-effacement which, except in some very few cases, in which reputation has been due to exceptional knowledge, has been complete and utter. Of all the readers of this journal, for instance, not one in fifty will have the smallest idea why, in our list of the unused capa- cities of the Empire, we include the late Mr. Waddington, and this though for a quarter of a century he was the British Minister of Justice and the Interior. To secure this fidelity, to avoid a jar which in a month would break the machine in pieces, it is indispensable that the responsible Minister should either trust or remove the irresponsible but experienced sub- ordinate, should win his confidence, and should obtain from him willing as well as conscientious aid. To this end he must treat him with courtesy, must acknowledge his value, must refer to him in public, if he does refer, with respect, must evince some sense that it is he rather than the subordinate who is benefited by the subordinate's un- recognised efficiency. The Minister who cannot or will not do this is a bad Minister, as bad as if he would not or could not understand the tone of the House of Commons, or catch that tradition of office the absence of
which throws public business so hopelessly out of gear. Mr. Ayrton clearly will ixot do this. He treats Dr. Hooker, the permanent head of Kew—a man who should be treated with exceptional courtesy, first, because- his knowledge is excep- tional ; and secondly, because he has much of that sensitive- ness to non-professional comment which all experts exhibit— like a foreman of works ; issues orders of which he has no knowledge, draws away subordinates without his consent, and even supersedes him without warning. Then, when compelled by Dr. Hooker's remonstrances, and by the pressure of scientific Liberals in Parliament to explain himself, he writes this Memo- randum, which is neither more nor leas than an elaborate and exceedingly clever affront to a man who he knows maybe goaded by such affronts into indiscreet letter-writing, perhaps even into resignation. He delays the publication of his reply till Dr. Hooker's friends are out of town, alleging the old non- sensical excuse about delay in printing, and then publishes it in the middle of a Blue-book of a hundred pages, crowded with useless business notes, without arrangement, without an index, and without even the usual and obscure " table of contents."
From first to last in the Memorandum there is no word of apology, no scintilla of evidence that the First Commissioner regrets having hurt an experienced servant of the State, no indication of a wish to smooth away any professional feeling he has excited. On the contrary, the paper is full of covert taunts, which in the aggregate amount to a charge against Dr. Hooker of culpable inefficiency,—a charge Mr. Ayrton has clearly a right to bring, but which he has no right what- ever incidentally to insinuate. There is a very gross case of this at page 60. One of Dr. Hooker's complaints was that the Curator of the Gardens, who is his official subordinate, had been withdrawn without his consent to superintend some additions to Kensington Gardens, some six miles away. Mr. Ayrton, who throughout tries to insinuate that Mr.. Smith created the gardens, Dr. Hooker being merely a useless kind of scientific botanist, admits this, and appears at first inclined to explain it in the regular official way. He had given the order, but as Dr. Hooker complained, Mr. Smith should send in a report and go back to Kew. Reflecting, however, that this statement would probably be satisfactory, and at all events would not wound Dr. Hooker, the First Commissioner adds :— " Not having heard anything more of this transaction, the First Commissioner did not deem it necessary to enter into any further details. He had, in the first instance, supposed, from Dr. Hooker's long connection with Kew Gardens, that he was perfectly able to manage them during the Curator's slight absences in visiting Kensington Gardens, but as soon as the First Commissioner was satisfied of his inability in this respect he put an end to the Curator's special employment. The First Com- missioner regarded it as a question of public importance that any one employed under the Office of Works should make a considerable sacrifice to render whatever service could be per- formed to meet an emergency of which the First Commis- sioner was the proper judge, but he waived the discussion of the point then, and sees no occasion to revive it now." If that does not mean that Dr. Hooker is an incompetent pretender who takes credit for Kew Gardens, and is really helpless without his Curator, what does it mean ? And if it means that, why does not Mr. Ayrton charge Dr. Hooker, in the teeth of the botanists of Europe, with not knowing his trade, and supersede him by a better man? But for the Treasury Minute, Dr. Hooker must have resigned upon this sentence alone— which is a clear statement of no confidence—that is, must have been dismissed from a post in which he has benefited India and been honoured through Europe, without a fault, a formal charge, or an opportunity of explanation. How is it possible for a department so treated to obtain a Head of the reputation which, from its peculiar function as the experimental garden of the Empire, is essential to its efficiency ? No opinion given by a mere gardener—which is the kind of person Mr. Ayrton wants at Kew—would be accepted as conclusive on any point of acclimatisation, a subject on which the garden is so great. Mr. Ayrton neither knows nor cares, for in his view a botanist, however great, is ex necessitate an unpractical dreamer, who ought to be set to lecture to girls, or dispensed with altogether in favour of some man of the Joseph-Paxton sort, a man who can see that lotuses or mangos- teens get their proper quantum of heat. Here are his own words :—" Whether, having regard to the fact that the Ken- sington Museum will be close to one station and Kew Gardens close to another, on a short line of railway, with telegraphic communication between one institution and the other, the chief botanist in the public service might superintend a com- plete botanical collection at Kensington, and illustrate it by lectures to male and female classes, and might give directions to the horticulturist at Kew to cultivate whatever specimens were required, and to forward such of them as might be necessary or convenient to be added to the museum, or to be used for demonstration ; whether the chief botanist could visit Kew as often as he desired, with or without his classes, or reside there, coming to the museum during museum hours? Whether the sum now spent on the collections, library, and establishment for botany at Kew, might be expended in completing and improving the establishment at Kensington, or be saved? Whether the Curator of the Gardens, receiving and complying with botanical requisitions, and obtaining botanical advice from the chief botanist, could manage Kew Gardens as effectually as accomplished and experienced horti-
• culturiste manage other gardens ; and whether, having his efforts recognised by and known to the public, he would be encouraged to new exertions by the well-merited reward of public approbation? Though these questions need not, and as the First Commissioner thinks ought not, to be solved until the circumstances which may exist at the time of the completion of the new museum are fully considered, it appears to the First Commissioner to be his duty to take care that in the meantime no new expense is incurred at Kew." Dr. Hooker is an inefficient Director, who cannot manage his own gardens, who would make a decent lecturer, who ought to be superseded by his own Curator—just as if Mr. Reed were superseded by his first marine architect—and who ought "easily to conduct [sic] the science of botany, and the art and practice of horticulture, without recurring again and again to little official omissions, whether they have arisen from zeal, haste, or inadvertence," who ought, in fact, not to mind any amount of snubbing from a First Commissioner like Mr. Ayr- ton, a man who—the pose is really too beautiful to be lost in a Blue-book—" has disentangled the science of botany, and the art and practice of horticulture, from occurrences which have happened in the course of business." Is not that delicious ? The employer who wants a house kicks his architect, collogues with the contractor, and when work stops says he has " disentangled the science of architecture and the art and practice of build- ing from the accidents of business " I The Memorandum was apparently too much for Mr. Glad- stone, for although desirous to support their subordinate, " my Lords," on 24th July, record their opinion that the First Commissioner should exercise his superior authority " with due regard to the feelings and position of the officers under him "—precisely the thing he is accused of not doing—that Dr. Hooker " has deserved the gratitude of the country " —which Mr. Ayrton does not believe—that " they are not surprised Dr. Hooker should have thought he had just cause of complaint "—which is just what Mr. Ayrton denies—and that in future "his opinion is to be followed, subject only to the consideration of expense," which in this instance is no consideration at all, as it is Dr. Hooker who is on the side of economy, and Mr. Ayrton, with his " short railway " through Kensington, who wants to expend money. That is of course sufficient to satisfy Dr. Hooker, who, moreover, is dis- tinctly reinvested with full authority over his Curator, and we suppose will, on explanation, also regain charge of the Arbore- tum, which is by an accidental blunder in the Minute withdrawn from him, and will, we presume, remain at the head of the de- partment which he and his father created until fresh discourte- sies compel him to ask Parliament to decide finally whether a Minister who implies that the permanent chief of his staff is a dreamy incapable who ought to be teaching girls, can bring strength, or confidence, or respect to the Government he represents. We are unable to believe it, and shall continue so, even though an exhausted House of Commons, impatient of crises in August, and eager for the heather and the grouse, should content itself, like the Treasury, with bringing in a verdict of "Not guilty, and he must never do it again."
Previous page
