das rs A HO SCENTS > : sc : SENT, g la ——— C7 we {7 Paws tH ‘ a a Pate pA - bj a o 4 = 3 * 5 . . aS i cI 4 vel? wet A i heats J mn a =! = i ~ CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON CAMBRIDGE PRINTED BY JONATHAN PALMER ALEXANDRA STREET ‘one a CHARLES CARDALE B ABINGTON. F M.A. F.R.S. F.LS. F.S.A. F.G.S. , ere ; FELLOW OF ST, JOHN’S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE AND PROFESSOR OF BOTANY - IN THE UNIVERSITY , R45) A ‘ tsar at ole ie yes Stay yi : Pec, te. YURK = tag a! ' re | : BULASXISAL UAL Ia PEER Ge Cambridge MACMILLAN AND BOWES 1897 The Father of modern philosophy observes, ‘‘ Certain it is that truth and good- ness differ but as the seal and the print; for truth prints goodness.” This is the impression which we would have continually made on the learner’s mind by all his studies, whether they relate to the works or to the ways of God, to nature, or to history. In all he should be led to seek, and to love, wherever it is found, the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. Where such is the prevailing spirit of the place, the School becomes holy ground; a temple ever ringing with the exhorta- tion: “‘Sursum Corpa.’ Upwarp, Hearts—upward, above all paltry, sordid, grovelling aims and desires; upward, to a level with the dignity of your calling, the privileges and duties of your station, the importance and arduousness of your work; upward, to a fellowship with the wise and good of all ages and all nations; upward, to the Father of Lights, the Fountain of all Goodness: Lirr uP your Hearts. And from the inmost depths of many devoted wills there rises the clear response: Wk LIFT THEM UP UNTO THE Lorp. CONNOP THIRLWALL, The excellence of wisdom, a Sermon preached at Llandingad Church, Llan- dovery, on the occasion of laying the Foundation Stone of the Welsh Hducational Institute, Dec. 13th, 1849 (Remains, London, 1878, 11. 352). + (} v t ha . : Ty Lae } i : yo opr Ligne Vel corks crab dod oe t <9, ful ey bi plar " ’ 7 F } ho ; "a5 7 athaey vi i dt {iy 1") 4 a : ‘yy ‘ wheter ionmdsn md cop de aot sna i PON els rs Ha a ; asd : ebhinh in a f My Vv ghd [hy u TaN) & je , fo the Dear Kiel Hi od BAN ‘ dibbind me im mobsor 7s) ih ; +. i ’ N, j i ‘I ; S52 ras : whose precious affection fas been anv 1s —GOn's vichest gift to me Pert ‘10 at . ’ ais this bolum: dike « Viasat | fase ts tener ne reberently Dedicated. ! By Seda ve f pay i pel ‘y Me i | rio wo Bl BROW LLY ni art hs Mi Biieinrege ere a CHE Ny eat Ba Ot My | (ERT & : ' Q ; ' ctrl } hes a mY ! ’ Thy fruit full well the schoolboy knows, Wild bramble of the brake! So put forth thou thy small white rose, I love it for his sake. Though woodbines flaunt and roses glow O’er all the fragrant bowers, Thou need’st not be ashamed to shew Thy satin-threaded flowers; For dull the eye, the heart is dull, That cannot feel how fair, Amid all beauty beautiful Thy tender blossoms are! How delicate thy gauzy frill! How rich thy branchy stem! * * * * € The primrose to the grave is gone; The hawthorn flower is dead; The violet by the moss’d grey stone Hath laid her weary head; But thou, wild bramble, back dost bring, In all their beauteous power, The fresh green days of life’s fair spring, And boyhood’s blossomy hour. Scorn’d bramble of the brake! once more Thou bid’st me be a boy, “ To gad with thee the woodlands o’er, In freedom and in joy. EBENEZER ELLIOTT, To the Bramble Flower. PREFACE. This volume is issued in response to the earnestly expressed wish of many friends. It would be difficult _ for any one pen to pourtray a life so many-sided, so varied in its interests. This difficulty has been met, it is hoped, by combining within the compass of one volume the following threefold arrangement—Memorials and Remi- niscences ; Journal; and Botanical Correspondence. It is thus hoped that every class of reader may have brought together each side of this beautiful life, even though all may not be able equally to enter into each portion of it. J. Memorrats and Reminiscences. It has been distinctly felt that little if anything could be added to the rich and graceful tribute from the pen of the Rey. Professor J. E. B. Mayor, written for the Hagle (St. John’s College magazine) in the Michaelmas term, 1895, which, expanded by himself, forms the open- ing portion of this volume. Another article by the same hand is reprinted from the Cambridge Chronicle of ., Aug. 30th, 1895, and, with the remaining articles from various able and admiring contributors, completes this portion of the book. It is difficult, indeed impossible, to convey to the readers of these pages how deep is the debt due to Professor Mayor, for all the valuable time so freely given, the labour and minute care so unweariedly bestowed, whilst aiding in the compilation of a work, which from the very first has received his warmest encouragement and sympathetic support. His heart wy has found delight in the progress of every page of the = book, and thus has he set his seal to the faithful, sted- cS fast friendship which has extended over very many years. Vili PREFACE. It is felt that his best reward will be the consciousness that in thus generously contributing of his learning and time, he has largely enabled a wide circle (to whom this life may be at present perhaps too little known) to realise what a possession has been entrusted to Cambridge for well-nigh sixty-nine years, in having had enrolled amongst her members the pure and noble name of him herein pourtrayed. Thus will he have contributed to hand down to future generations of students the priceless inheritance of so inspiring a record. Special thanks are. due to the writers of each of the other ‘‘ Reminiscences ” for permission to reproduce them here, as well as to other friends who have written for this volume. IT. Journau. From this record, which extends over well-nigh a whole life, extracts have been carefully made, as far as was possible to unfold the daily life in special connexion with its botanical, archaeological, and philanthropic interests. The record in its simplicity, and truth-loving utterances, furnishes its own portrait of the mind therein revealed. This portion of the book closes with “‘ Notes” by Professor Mayor which help to elucidate various points contained in the articles. III. Boranican CorREsPonDENCE. It is earnestly hoped that botanical readers will feel that a right selection has been made from the very large supply of letters kindly placed at the disposal of the Editor. Nearly eight hundred of these were received and copied. This selection owes much to the able assistance of I. H. Burkill, Esq., Gonville and Caius College, late Assistant Curator at the University Herbarium. It has been a source of much regret that many letters were unattainable, whose insertion here would have been heartily welcomed by botanists, eg. a large number written to the revered and valued friend of many years, PREFACE. ix the late Rev. W. W. Newbould; also those written to the brilliant young naturalist of Shetland, T. Edmondston, Esq.; whose early death cut short a career of much promise. In both the above instances the letters have been destroyed. It was hoped that some written to Herr Baron Sir Ferdinand von Miller, K.C.M.G. (Mel- bourne, Australia) would have been included; he had kindly promised to send them, but his sudden death on Oct. 9th, 1896, has rendered it impossible to hope for what he had himself said would be difficult to find. There are other names amongst our botanists to whom letters extending over many years were written, but of which no trace can be found. The Editor is most grateful to all who have aided in this search. Should it happen that the publication of the letters included in this volume may lead to the discovery of others of equal interest to botanists, the Editor will only too gladly take measures to render them as accessible as possible to the class of readers who would welcome their appearance. No letters to foreign botanists are included (with _ the exception of three inserted in an Appendix), for in addition to the extreme difficulty of obtaining them, owing in many cases to the impossibility of tracing the representatives of these correspondents, it was felt that their insertion—had they been attainable—might cause the volume to exceed the limit in size which was deemed desirable. The following are the names of some of the leading foreign botanists who may be considered corres- pondents: Elias Fries (Upsala), J. Lange (Copenhagen), W. O. Focke, M. F. Crépin (Brussels), H. Reichenbach, O. Gelert, Jacques Etienne Gay, C. H. Schultz, F. Schultz, J. Lloyd (Nantes), L. Rabenhorst, R. Lenormand, Reuter, A. Jordan (Lyons), A. Huet de Pavillon, Ch. Grenier, C. Billot, L’Abbé Questier, Philipp Wirtgen (Coblenz), 4 PREFACE. C. J. Lindeberg, R. B. Van den Bosch, Henri von Heurck, R. C. Du Mortier, and Asa Gray. Special thanks are due to R. F. Scott, Esq., Bursar of St. John’s College, for his great kindness in bestowing so much time in the careful preparation of the beautifully executed abstract of a pedigree, which is inserted in the volume at the request of friends. Also to E. Magnisson, Hsq., Assistant Librarian to the University, for his kind- ness in verifying Icelandic words. Grateful reference must again be made to the kind assistance of I. H. Burkill, Esq., who has made Index I., as well as for all his unfailing readiness to help in a work which has had his heartfelt interest, and whose true affection for and admiration of his revered Chief have found expression in his words to Mr. Britten (see article by James Britten, Esq., Journal of Botany, Sept. 1895). To the publishers and printer the Editor desires to convey her special gratitude for the ability and sympa- thetic interest bestowed on every detail of the work. As the one aim in this book has been to let the life therein unfolded be its own witness, it is hoped all shortcomings and imperfections on the part of the Editor may be forgiven. Should the perusal of these pages inspire other lives to desire to walk as he walked, the path of stedfast integrity, reverent humility, and un- swerving faith and love, this record will indeed fulfil its mission. Great deeds cannot die: They with the sun and moon renew their light For ever, blessing those that look on them. A. M. B. 5, BROOKSIDE, CAMBRIDGE, August 26, 1897. CONTENTS TITLE . ‘ , Connor THIRLWALL, ‘The School a Temple’ DEDICATION ExsEenezer Extiott, ‘The Bramble Flower’ . PREFACE P CoNTENTS A : MEMORIALS Witt1am Worpswokrts, ‘ Hallowed Ground’ Memorr by Professor Mayor. ; ; vi vii—x Xi—x1v XV—XCI1V xvi XVlI—xxix Cambridge in 1826, xviii—Founder and active member of scientific societies, xvii.— Loyalty to College and University, xviii.—Travels, xviii. —Services to Botany and Natural Science, Camb. Philos. Soc., Ray Soc., Marlborough College, xix.—Member of British and Foreign Societies, British Association, xx.—Babingtonia pestifera, Field Botany, xxi.— Printed works, xxi-xxiii—Camb. Ant. Soc., xxiii, xxiv.—Helper to unknown merit, R. C. Ready, T. H. Corry, Jani Alli, xxiv.—Interest in Missions, Home and Foreign, xxv, xxvi.—Inner life, xxvi-xxviii.— Pedigree and cardinal dates, xxviii, xxix. Notes on Memoir . ‘ 3 XXIX—XXX1V Inscriptions on tomb at Cherry Hinton and on brass in St. John’s chapel, xxx.—Ray Club, xxxi, xxxii.—Oxford Meeting of Brit. Assoc. 1860, d¢d.— Elodea Canadensis, xxxii.—S. §. Lewis, R. C. Ready, T. H. Corry, xxxiii. REMINISCENCES . i é ‘ 1. By the Rev. J. A. Babington : XXXV—XXXVIil His humility and faith, xxxv, xxxvi.—Sincerity and reticence, xxxvi. —Interest in Missions, xxxvi, xxxvii.—Love of reading; of College and University, xxxvii, xxxviiiiIndustry, xxxviii. 2. By H. R. Francis, Esq. : Sense of stewardship; the two great commandments, xxxviii. FIELD PREACHING . ‘ s : 1. By Professor Cowell : Enthusiasm and power of teaching, xxxix. 2. By Mrs. R. B. Batty: XXxix—xli Heaths in Connemara, xl.—Irish Church Mission at Roundstone, xli. xii CONTENTS. PAGE Letters To Mrs. Basineton : : * : xlii—li From the Bishops of Durham and Gloucester, xlii.—From the Master of Trinity, :t:d.—(St. Barnabas’ Memorial Institute, xliii).—Masters of Clare and St. Cath. xliv.—Bishop Selwyn, the Rev. A. M. W. Christopher, Baron Ferd, y. Miiller, xly, xlvi. —Nath. Bridges, Esq., xlvi, xlvii—Miss Marsh, the Rey. Dr. James Macgregor, xlvii.—Professor Liveing, Alfred Fryer,. Esq., xlviii—The Ray Club, xlviii, xlix.—Camb. Philos. Soc., Camb. Ant. Soc., xlix.—Report of Museums Syndicate, 1895, 1.—E. ’s. Cobbold, Esq., 1.—Extract from Sermon by Master of St. John’ Bult. In Memoriam, by Professor Mayor . ; : ‘ li—lvii St. John’s hall, 1853-66, liiHis reticence, liii—Library and favorite studies, lii, liv.imLove of Missions, liii.—Publications, lili—aAddress to the Ray Club, 1887, liii, liv.—Interest in Reform movements in Italy and © Spain, liv. —The Girls’ Orphan Home, lv.—Sunday Rest in the Botanic Garden, lv.—Postal and Telegraph Christian Association, lvii—The two Bibles, lvii. In Memoriam, by Professor Liveing . . : - lvii—lx Centre of activity (1846) to students of Natural History, lviii.i—A study then neglected, lviiiitEncouraged students, lix.—Liked to study the living plant or animal, lix.—The British Association, lix, lx.—No one- sided man, Ix. In Memoziam, by Dr. H. C. G. Moule 5 ‘ : lx—lxii At Glas Meol in 1888, lxi.—His love of history and recollections of old Cambridge, lxi.—His interest in Christian work, lxii.—Mottos, lxii. From “Tuer Cristian” . : ; : lxiii—lxiv God in Nature and Grace, lxiii.—Love of Missions, lxiii, lxiv. On InisH Distress. . Letter to Camb. Chron. Jan. 20, 1840, by C. C. B. : : : , ; } lxv—lxvii OxituaRy, by James eines F.LS. sons Journal of Hetasy, Sept. 1895) : . lxvii—lxxvii Parentage and schools, lxviii—Henslow’s lectures; Flora of Bath, and of the Channel Islands, lxviiii—Manual, lxviii-lxxii—Work at Cambridge, Ray Club, lxxii.—Ray Society; papers on plants and insects, lxxiii.— Rubi, |xxiv.—Professor of Botany; his assistants, lxxiv, lxxv.—As a correspondent, lxxv.—Religious life, lxxv, lxxvii—And the new Botany, Ixxvi, lxxvii.—Closing years, lxxvii. BaritisH Rust, by James E. Stree A.LS. . ; . lxxvii—lxxx Proressor BaBINaTON on Rvuzvs 1n 1891 (from Journal of Botany, July, 1896, sent by the Rev. W. Moyle Rogers) Ixxx—Ixxxvii Osituary Noricr, by J. G. Baker, F.R.S. (from sates Notices, Proceedings of R.S. Vol. 59). . Ixxxvii-lxxxix CONTENTS. Xili PAGE PrRoFEssoR BABINGTON AND THE CAMBRIAN ARCHAEOLOGI- ‘caL Association, by Archdeacon D, R. Thomas, F.S.A., Chairman of the Association y 2 : Ixxxix—xec ProrEessoR BAaBINGTON ON THE SUNDAY OPENING OF THE Botanical GARDEN, 1881—82 . é - , XCi—xciii A Drires, by T. H. Corry, M.A. xciv JOURNAL . i" Aree ‘ " ‘ xcv—261 Connor THIRLWALL, ‘ The Christian Naturalist’ xevi 1808-26, Birth and childhood, schools, study of botany, 1-3.—1826-30, Enters at St. John’s, father’s death, Henslow’s lectures, B.A. Degree, 3, 4.—1830, Welsh tour, F.L.S.; 1832, Welsh tour, Shropshire, 4-16.— 1833, M.A., Brit. Assoc., Entom. Soc., mother’s death, 16-19.—1834, Flora Bathoniensis, Norfolk, Bath, North of England, Scotland, Thirlwall’s dis- missal, 19-34.—1835, University interference in Town Elections, Bath, Wales, Ireland, 34-48.—1836, F.G.S., Ireland, Bristol, Bath, Southamp- ton, 48-59.—1837, Ray Club, Suffolk, Cambs., Leicestershire, Channel Islands, Liverpool, Fitzwilliam Museum, 59-69.—1838, Channel Islands, Scotland, 69-78.—1839, Primitiae Florae Sarnicae, Bristol, Cornwall, Devon, Wales, Henslow leaves Cambridge, 78-85.—1840, Bath, Norfolk, Suffolk, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, 85-97.—1841, Bath, Cambridge, Ireland, Hebrides, Scotland, 97-110,—1842, Editor of Ann. Nat. Hist., Manchester, North of England, Scotland, 110-117.—1843, Manual, the Lakes, Ireland, 117-123.—1844, New Botanic Garden, Scotland, 123-127.—1845, Scotland, 128-131.—1846, Iceland, Scotland, 131-138.—1847, Oxford, Prince Albert Chancellor, Wales, 138-1438.—1848, Wales, 143-147.—1849, Somerset, North Devon, Sussex, Herefordshire, Camb. Nat. Club, 147-152.—1850, Bath, Cambs., Suffolk, Oxford, Somerset, North Devon, Scotland, 152-157. —1851, Ipswich, Somerset, Wales, 157-162.—1852, Cambs., Ireland, flood at Cambridge, 162-166.—1853, Norfolk, Cambs., Sussex, Bath, Hull, Herefordshire, Bath, 166-172.—1854, Cambs., Wales, Liverpool, Bir- mingham, EK. A. Freeman, 172-176.—1855, Cambs., Herts., Wales, 176-179. —1856, E. A. Freeman, Wales, Cambs., West of England, Herefordshire, Wales, 180-185.—1857, Cambs., Wales, Dublin, North Wales, flood in Cambridge, 185-188.—1858, Botanic Garden, Cambs., Bath, E. A. Freeman, Wales, Ireland, Leeds, 188-192.—1859, Cambs., Aberdeen, 192-194.— 1860, Hurricane at Cambridge, Oxford, Wales, frost at Cambridge, 194- 196.—1861, Elected Prof. Bot., Wilts., Peterborough, Wales, Yorks., 196-199.—1862, Lectures, Wales, Brit. Assoc. at Cambridge, 199-200.— 1863, ‘‘ Labyrinth” taken down, Wales, 200-202.—1864, Member of Council of Senate, Wales, Bath, 202-203.—1865, New Botanical Museum, Isle of Man, Ireland, Wales, New Hall of St. John’s, 203-205.—1866, Marriage, Wales, 205-206.—1867, Devon and Cornwall, 206-208.—1868, St. Barnabas Church, Yorkshire, Wales, whirlwind at Shelford, 208-209. —1869, Wales, Ludlow, 209-211.—1870, Iceland Flora, Wales, North of England, 211-213.—1871, Cambridge Orphan Home, Scotland, 213-215. —1872, Wales, 215-216.—1873, Wales, Ireland, Irish Church Missions, 217-219.—1874-75, Wales, 219-222.—1876-77, Wales, Jani Alli, 222-224. —1878-79, Wales, Yorkshire, thunderstorm at Cambridge, Derbyshire, Wales, Yorkshire, 224-229.—1880-81, Wales, Shropshire, Yorkshire, 229- 234.—1882, Wales, Yorkshire, 234-237.—1883, Bucks., Wales, Cornwall, 237-240.—1884, Devon, North England, 240-244.—1885, ‘‘The Cambridge Seven,” Oxfordshire, Scotland, 244-247.—1886, North England, Scotland, Bishop Parker, 247-250.—1887-88, Sussex, Braemar, 250-254.—1889-90, Death of Churchill Babington, Braemar, 254-257.—1891, Braemar, 257-258. L’Envo1.—1891-95, Closing years, 258-261. xiv CONTENTS. PAGE Notrs oN JOURNAL . : 4 : : 262—270 Pupils of the Rev. W. Hutchins, 262, 263.—J. B. Hollingworth, John Edward and Charles Henry Bromby, James Bowstead, 264.—Connop Thirlwall and Tests; John Lawes, M. J. Berkeley, 265.—Charles Simeon, the influenza (1837), J. S. Henslow, W. H. Stokes, J. A. and Joseph Power, John Ball, W. P. Baily, 266.—W. L. P. Garnons, J. J. Smith, W. Borrer, J. S. Howson, G. E. Paget, W. Christy, L. Jenyns, 267.— George Bullock, H. Comyn, H. Penneck, C.J. Bird, W.S. Hore, Hendeka Club, 268.—Wilse Brown, A. W. Franks, W. C. Mathison, Fred, Town- send, C. E. Broome, J. B. Wilson, G. F. Reyner, Thomas Overton, W. H. Coleman, 269.—W. P. Wilson, Simeon Hiley, G. O. Fenwick, W. K. Clay, 270. BOTANICAL CORRESPON DENCE , : : 271—445 C. C. B. 1833, ‘Through Nature up to Nature’s God’ : 272 T. Gisborne, W. A. Leighton, 273.—Mr. MacCalla, of Roundstone, 274.— Channel Islands, 276-280.—Arthur Biggs, curator of Cambridge Garden, 278, 369.—T. Edmondston, 282.—Professor Balfour, 283.—Death of C. E. Sowerby, 287.—Rubi, 293, 296.—Graham’s herbarium, 294-5.—Iceland, 297-300, 302, 356.—Oken’s book, 302.—Anacharis Alsinastrum, 305, 444. —British Association at Edinburgh (1850), 308-9.—Stratton, curator of Cambridge Garden, 319, 329, 330.—A. G. More, 326,351.—W. W. New- bould, 332, 337, 344, 345.—Flora of Cambs., 335, 336, 342, 351.—Local floras, 344.—Henslow’s death, 352.—Professor of Botany, 352.—Barley and wheat raised from oats! 357.—Charles Darwin, 359, 361.—University herbarium, 361.—Botany at Harrow, 365.— Botany at Marlborough, 365-6. —Irish Church Missions, 371.—Death of G. R. Crotch, 372.—Dr. George Johnston, of Berwick, 373.—Death of Sir Chr. R. Lighton, 377.—Assist- ant curator of Cambridge Herbarium, 382.—How to find Chara at Water- bech, 388.—Genevier’s herbarium, 392.—Mr. Lynch, new and most valuable curator, 393, 396.—F. Townsend’s Hants. Flora, 397.—T. H. Corry, 399.—New London Catalogue, 408.—James Backhouse, 409.— Evolution, 414, 438.—Too old to attempt the tops of mountains, 420, 421, 424, 434.—Varieties of peat, 426.—Scottish Naturalist, 485.—Cone of Pinus Mughus under six feet of solid bog, co. Mayo, 441.—New Botanic Garden, 443.—Death of J. E. Gay, 445.—(For names of plants see Index L.; for names of correspondents see Index I1.). Norrs on CorRESPONDENCE—Lives of botanists; L. Oken . 446 BIBLIOGRAPHY 7 , : ; i 447—454, 475 Inpex I. (Journal and Correspondence) | “ : 4 455—467 InpEx II. (Memorials) 3 : : ; : 467—475 Early Portrait to face page 1. Late Portrait to face Title. Babington Pedigree (in pocket). Fn ie) Mare Fsi'5 tay: ion ar ] alr? oa 4) greeny tom, bles ¥ : Ds oar ei OY fat, a tt I wat ORY ans Nem f i oki Eseries) pao RD. iy Odi i oon te sage areedl dt) 28! BLBoe! EGS ‘ “ are OMINONS TPE NDE gil Sk eRe AN. oc, ; - ve s * ‘ 7k bi dee UR Seas. ded Toeh eo te? ea : ay ) 4% ue et «hy . Bd oe cs Ce RB ROO 98 eat Doak t7? Poof 24 sf 4 wk Stee Rie SeetioOcinds iyaitiok mien HOS © uy 4 alarm _ * 1 yy div epay ne " 4 4 is) 53 = yee te ' i Pesan a east ras BDA ay often ri Sees Sh Loh) tne } ik : oy ~ x y rors sal HeTeoho ovont alin. ’ Snakr He Waheed Epabht ar avo tony toni ¢ P* Ser” pea ey eke mes) Wie.) jhe 2s feet ty ‘Fie Psst tts: sali eal res } | rr iovin i ktiartiameiag etuteod a hoe oriwas,. way te ve Bay, tei dtl Fay eb gee sp kb wnour MD ik Py tA ’ ein Enasanyndtin mbitetteme' earn emry IF SORRY Kats era Haar i, Fi q ) : oe a | t i } ' i n ry Bee ( 4 Wise, 4 af aa 7 \ A +f Pete hye coe Ay _ ; i PalAheg , F Ais f \ ' ; 7a ot i yi j 4 ty . P by I” ohaihide i Da (pe BL ‘aes r ; j ‘| ne - r 4 ii ‘ dary Po af 4 ta ‘ . i i oy { ar ea ’ t " oy i :? aes) +45 ‘ CaN e's CL 4 Cur Tiles wie yi c i) Y ryt 1 tri $22), eerie rena eh h yait ie: I could not print Ground where the grass had yielded to the steps Of generations of illustrious men, Unmoved. I could not always lightly pass Through the same gateways, sleep where they had slept, Wake where they waked, range that enclosure old, That garden of great intellects, undisturbed. Place also by the side of this dark sense Of noble feeling, that those spiritual men, Even the great Newton’s own ethereal self, Seemed humbled in these precincts, thence to be The more endeared. Their several memories here (Even like their persons in their portraits clothed With the accustomed garb of daily life) Put on a lowly and a touching grace Of more distinct humanity, that left All genuine admiration unimpaired. WILLIAM WORDSWORTH, The Prelude, 111. 258—274. MEMOIR. A courage to endure and to obey; A hate of gossip parlance, and of sway. TENNYSON. But you have made the wiser choice, A life that moves to gracious ends Thro’ troops of unrecording friends, A deedful life, a silent voice. TENNYSON. The University has lost the Father, not of the professoriate alone, but of the entire resident body. The tale is rapidly shrinking, even of those who came to Cambridge before the Eastern Counties Railway; nay, before the Market-place was opened out; but Cardale Babington’ remembered King’s Parade a narrow street, while Kingsmen still kept in the court now annexed by the University Library and Geological Museum. St. John’s had not enlarged its borders for one hundred and sixty years; it boasted only three courts when he was an undergraduate; as a B.A. he found quarters in the New Court in January 1831, For nearly ten years he ever and anon heard Charles Simeon preach. He had dined with William Wilberforce (+1833), who gave him his “ Practical View.”? He subscribed in 1835 £20 towards Cockerell’s Building. None but Masters of Arts, in his recollection, might enter the Public Library. He never set foot in the Library of his own College until it was thrown open to all degrees. In every effort to widen University studies he bore a part; also in the birth of not a few scientific or antiquarian brother- hoods: he belonged to many and was a sleeping partner in none. Others of us might adorn councils by our names, while conspicuous by our absence; he by his presence; he was always “of the Quorum’; of him it might be said, as of Socrates, idem. semper vultus, eademque frons ; were the audience overflowing or scanty, he was always alert, patient, untiring as that Nature which he loved. Benjamin Franklin betrayed to sluggard Paris a priceless secret: the Sun keeps his word; he never, by forslowing dayspring, ‘gives almanacs the lie’; even so some- b ag xviii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. thing must indeed be wrong if Cardale Babington were missing at any board. No private summons, however alluring, might cancel a public ‘ duty.’ The Babington family, with its allies, Gisbornes, Cardales, etc., had long been staunch Johnians, as may be seen in the printed pedigree given by Cardale, this very year (1895), to the library. From this I pluck below enough to link together the two cousins, with so many tastes in common, though the enthusiasm of the one was subdued, of the other more mettlesome and catching. In unquenchable thirst for knowledge, single-eyed service, loyalty to the College and to Cambridge, there was nothing to choose between them. Perhaps no copy of the Eagle* was more wistfully scanned or wears a daintier dress than that in No. 5, Brookside, though whether sporting news found there a wakeful listener, is a moot point. In dubiis libertas. Grateful to the College for lending him a home, as a simple M.A. not on the foundation, Cardale shewed his thank- fulness by giving £100 for the new Chapel. His wider patriotism was not less deep. Not without cause did he choose as the motto of the Cambridge Flora those words of Linnaeus: Turpe est in patria vivere et. patriam ignorare.* Few men ever rifled, as he did, throughout their length and breadth, England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland,® and their satellites, Orkney, Shetland, Achill, Arran, the Hebrides, ete. As a boy he explored the country around Bath. In manhood, and even to old age, he spent vacations in tours, several times. taking Glasgow students with him, while Professor Balfour led a troop from Edinburgh. His journals resemble Ray’s in the even justice meted out to Natural History and Antiquities. Were a doubt started about any statement in his books, he seized the earliest opportunity to probe the matter to the bottom on the spot. Once he went to Iceland, twice to the Channel Islands. When urged to visit Switzerland, he pleaded: “If I go, I must botanize; I cannot help it. If I fall into a mistake there, I may never be able to go over the ground again.” One main stumbling-block, so I am told, of which he rid Botany,’ was this. During the long war, botanists here and MEMOIR. xix beyond seas, had lost touch; their terms being different, they were ‘ barbarians’ one to another. Babington discovered com- mon ground, first with Germans, then with Frenchmen. Before his wedding, he must have been hard put to it to cope with foreigners; for he had no turn for the tongues. Scandinavians he always addressed in Latin. As regards his influence here, a chum of forty years and more bears witness: he was “then the central figure among those in Cambridge who took delight in Natural History. And his simple character and keen interest in Nature were very attractive to younger men who had similar likings. He certainly did more, in my time, than any one else to promote the study of Natural Science in the University.” The Cambridge Philosophical Society was indeed born while he was in jackets (under Henslow and Sedgwick in 1819), but he was a member very early in his course, and long a Secretary. Of the founders of the Ray Club® Sir George Paget’s death left him the only home survivor. Many younger members dropt off, but the ripe fruit hung on the bough to the last. In this year (1895), when rheumatism tied him to his chair, the Club still met in his drawing room. He also helped to create the Entomological Society, being at one time known as ‘ Beetles Babington’; several years ago he made over to the University his store, some 4000 insects. He was among the friends who sorted Charles Darwin’s booty.® Marlborough College, when I knew it (1849—53), paid no heed to Natural Science. It has since stood high in that pursuit, thanks to a pupil of Babington’s. In his journal we read, under 18 June 1861: Went through London direct to Marlborough College, to help Mr. T. A. Preston” in the determination of a botanical prize. _ What a spur he gave to young students may, it is said, be learnt from essays of undergraduates in botanical magazines. For a sample of his correspondence see seven letters to him by Dr Johnston." When the customary notice of his death was sent to freemen of the mystery, one hundred and twenty-three copies were needed. xx CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. To the British islands and colonies they sped forth, to the United States, to Germany and Austria, Holland and Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, France, Switzerland, Italy, Venezuela— even to Japan. In 1894 the “Académie Internationale de Géographie Botanique” awarded him its gold medal. More than ~ the homage to his mind was the posy on the reverse: Laus et gloria Scientiarum Domino. } Among his titles—which, by the rule noblesse oblige, were to him new burdens—I may name F.RS., F.LS., F.G.S., F.S.A,, Hon. Member of the Botanical Society of the Province of Brandenburg, Foreign Member of the Royal Botanical Society of Belgium, Corresponding Member of the Botanical Society of Holland, Member of the British Archaeological Association, of the Royal Archaeological Institute, of the Irish Archaeological Society. The Botanical Society of Edinburgh” elected him a member at their second meeting. Till about 1889 he was Chairman of Committee of the Cambrian Archaeological Asso- ciation. More than once or twice he was called on at a pinch, in default of the advertised speaker, to describe a church which he had never seen. He would crave a respite of some twenty minutes; even that hasty survey furnished stuff for a pregnant discourse: the truant lecturer, bustling up at the close, has been known to wish the company joy on their choice of a makeshift, and himself on masking his ignorance. Babington belonged to the inner circle of the British Asso- ciation ;° first the ‘Red Lion Club,‘ then the ‘Thorough.’ I well remember his glee over Samuel Wilberforce’s discomfiture by young Huxley.” In creed, doubtless, he held rather by the Bishop than by his rival, but he distrusted and hated clap-trap in the room of argument and fact. In later life he lamented the freak of fashion, banning Huxley’s Physiology as outworn. To cite all records of his friendly aid to fellow-labourers would drive me to rambles far and wide in a terra incognita, Take a sample. In the preface (p. vii) to Memorials of John Ray (Ray Society 1846) Dr Edwin Lankester writes: For the identification of Ray’s plants in the ‘ Itineraries,’ for the botanical notes, and the Catalogue of Ray’s Works, I am indebted to Mr Babington of Cambridge. MEMOIR. =i That Cardale, not Churchill, is here in question, appears from the initials ‘C.C. B’ (pp. 126,7, 186). His name, in Cambridge, stood (like Bacchus, Ceres, Pallas of old) by metonymy for Botany in general. Thus when a weed!® began to choke the Cam, as also Trent and Severn, it was christened Babingtonia pestifera. The term was handy as easily remembered ; a spice of malice added flavour to the dish; that Babington was guiltless of the rover’s growth did not concern the wags; nor indeed him: they had their jest, and kept their friend. For his part he pitied the botanist who, never seeking living plants in their homes, armed with microscope ransacks their cell and fibre, spurning meanwhile the name of ‘florist. A student of the first class in the Natural Sciences Tripos, espying _stems of (what I will call) X in his drawing-room, on learning the name cried, “So that is really X? I know all about that ; I guessed it would be set, and it was.” Science which cannot see the wood for the trees, growing herb or animal for cell laid bare by scalpel, had for him no charm, His joy in Nature was the joy of a child. “My heart leaps up when I behold.” “Solomon was not arrayed like one of these.” From the soul he could echo Seneca’s moan: Non vitae sed scholae discvmus. This freshness kept his old age green. Doctors, as he rallied from seemingly deadly fits of disease, would bear witness: “ You were born to an iron constitution, nor have you trifled with the trust. Had you not been a plain liver, had you been even a smoker, you would not be alive at this hour.” Verily old Dollinger is right: L’homme ne meurt pas, il se tue. Field Botany certainly has length of days in her right hand. One hundred and sixty-two years (1733—1895) saw only four Professors of Botany: the two Martyns, John and Thomas, spanning 92 years between them. Arm-chair scholars (Stwhengelehrte), wheedled into a walk with the Professor, have not only found their eye quickened, and a keener zest given to communion with Nature, but have with new habits taken a new lease of life. His chief works are:—Flora Bathoniensis ; a catalogue of the plants indigenous to the vicinity of Bath. E. Collings, xxii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. Bath; G. Tremlett and W. Strong, Bristol; and Longman & Co., London, 1834. 12mo. Preface dated Bath, November 1833. A supplement was issued in 1839 (preface dated February 1839). The whole in pp. vi, 110 (not in British Museum Catalogue).'® He had the use of the MS. Flora of Heneage Gibbes, M.B. of Downing College, for whom see Alumni Oxonienses.® Primitiae Florae Sarnicae ; or, an outline of the Flora of the Channel Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, and Sark. London, 1839, 12°. Manual of British Botany, containing the Flaurie Plants and Ferns arranged according to the Natural Orders. London, 1843. 12mo. Second edition, 1847; third, with many additions and corrections, 1851; fourth, 1856; fifth, 1862; sixth, 1867; seventh, corrected throughout, 1874; eighth,” 1881, pp. xlviii, 485. A synopsis of the British Rubi.“ London, 1846. Svo. The British Rubi ; an attempt to discriminate the species of Rubus known to the British Islands. London, 1869. 8vo. Many critics lamented that all the species were not figured in this book. The riddle may now be read. The artist em- ployed, J. W. Salter?” was indeed master of his craft, but fitful and wayward of mood. The press halted for the completion of the plates, till at last it seemed better not to mar the effect by employing a meaner pencil to finish Salter’s work. A new edition has long been in hand; it is hoped that the Rev. W. Moyle Rogers, who has Be ee all additions, may carry it to a close. The study of brambles brought Babington into daily fellowship with F. J. A. Hort. The Cambridge Syndics bore the cost of paper and print of this book. In 1848 appeared Index to the Baker Manuscripts by four members of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society. Cambridge. 8vo. (The preface, dated 7 January, bears the initials of J. J. Smith, C. C. Babington, C. W. Goodwin, and Joseph Power). As one who has been called to use these manuscripts more than anyone else ever did or is likely to do, I venture to express the gratitude of Cambridge antiquaries for this precious boon, MEMOIR. Xxiil To return to his works :— Flora of Cambridgeshire. London, 1860, 12°. Ancient Cambridgeshire: or, an attempt to trace Roman and other ancient roads that passed through the county of Cambridge; with a record of the places where Roman coins and other remains have been found. Cambr. Ant. Soc. Publica- tions, octavo series, No. 3,1851. Sec. ed. much enlarged, 1885, pp. viii, 116, 8vo. History of the Infirmary and Chapel of the Hospital and College of St John the Evangelist at Cambridge. Cambr. Ant. Soc. 1874, 8vo. He was not yet a Fellow, and it may be doubted whether any resident Fellow could have enriched us with such a record of the thirteenth century buildings. He like- wise had a hand in the “ Architectural History of Cambridge,” by Professor Willis and J. W. Clark. Not without a weary chase could one overtake all his fugitive articles; see meanwhile the Catalogue of Scientific Papers (1800—1863). Compiled and published by the Royal Society of London. London, 1867, 4to. Vol. 1 pp. 186—139, one hundred and six numbers.” Vol vil 1877 (1864—1873), p. 62, twenty-two. Vol 1x 1891 (1874—1883), p. 91, four. In the Catalogue of MSS. in the Cambridge University Library, edited first by C. Hardwick, then by H. R. Luard, Cardale Babington undertook the heraldic and monastic cartu- laries; but lack of mediaeval scholarship made this the least successful of his works. After the third volume he made way for George Williams and Thomas Bendyshe. Two only now (1895) remain (Sir H. E. L. Dryden and James Heywood) of the builders of the Cambr. Ant. Soc. (March 1840). In March 1848, Babington was chosen Treasurer, and long held the Society together. Many and many a meeting I have attended, from 1853 onwards, in which Geo. E. Corrie, George Williams, C. H. Cooper, H. R. Luard, Churchill and Cardale Babington, F. J. A. Hort, Henry Bradshaw, W. G. Searle, Thomas Brocklebank, John Rigg, T. G. Bonney, E. Ven- tris, or some of them, stood for the whole body. Papers of sterling worth were read at these small musters, and treasure xxiv CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. trove discussed. But for Babington, I make bold to assert, the Society would never have formed a Museum, and must, in all likelihood, have crumbled to pieces. Now that through the zeal of S. S. Lewis® our numbers are large, we should recover and carry out the platform of a “Cambridge Historical Society,” which proposed all that the Oxford Historical Society is doing, but fell stillborn, blasted by chilling frowns, somewhere in the fifties. | In the Report presented to the Society at its fifty-fifth Annual Meeting, May 29, 1895, we read (he also—I am glad to add—was able to read before his last seizure) — | The long services of Charles Cardale Babington, M.A., F.R.S., F.S.A., Professor of Botany, one of the founders of the Society, and for many years its most active supporter, appear to the Council to demand some special recognition. In accordance with the Laws, Professor Babington’s term of office as Vice-President terminates to-day. The Council propose therefore that he be asked to accept the permanent post of Honorary Vice-President of the Society. He had the rare gift, ripened by use, of bringing to light buried talents, and would spare no pains in clearing for them a fair field. In the year 1854 he beckoned Mr. Robert Cooper Ready,”* then struggling for a living at Lowestoft, to Cambridge. I took him to our treasury, when in quest of college seals. Ready has since, at the British Museum, with the aid of his sons, outstript the boldest forecast, charming into shapes of bygone life beaten bronze—the Balawat gate ornaments—from Babylon, to lay eyes warped past hope in the devouring fire. Babington’s assistant, Thomas Hughes Corry” (1st cl. Nat. Sc. 1882, drowned 9 Aug. 1883), revered in him a father. So too Jani Alli, the Mohammedan missionary to the Crescent (C.C., B.A. 1877, M.A. 1888), looked to Brookside as his home. After Alli’s death (15 Oct. 1894)*8 his Bible, Prayer-book, and gold watch were sent back to those who would cherish them more than any one on earth. Wherever Babington went, he fell in with homebred votaries of Nature who could give and take. So in Connemara with “ Mac Calla.” His name for active kindness threw countless chances in his way. This year (1895) a voice of gratitude reached him from a freeholder in Manitoba. A boy, beaten and starved by a MEMOIR. XXV drunken father, had been brought to Brookside, sent for four or five years to the Industrial School, on Boning’s death placed for a year with Dr. Barnardo, and then on a Canadian farm. The made man fosters a sense of pious duty to the maker of his fortunes. To many charities Babington’s drawing-room supplied the fulcrum to move the world’s pity. The London City Mission, Dr. Barnardo’s Homes, Irish Church Missions, Church of England Zenana Mission, Bishop Cabrera, Count Campello (Bishop-elect of the Italian Reform), the China Mission, can all tell of the breadth and warmth of his sympathy. When, some ten years back, the Cambridge Seven went out to China, they turned a deaf ear to all denial; he and no other must take the chair. The large room in the Guildhall was crowded to the doors, and 600 undergraduates sat on the platform. What he has done for Cambridge will never be known. As a friend of Sir Arthur Blackwood’s he turned his thoughts to our neg- lected benefactors the postmen and telegraph boys. At a hint from him they formed a Missionary Society among themselves, and so learnt the blessing and dignity of giving. More than twenty-five years ago he settled here a Cottage Orphan Home, and feasted our choristers after the foundation-stone had been laid by Mrs. Harold Browne. St. Barnabas’, St. Philip’s, and other Cambridge churches owe much to his coy bounty. To brave hearts called to die in the mission field he was a Gaius, nor did he, as the blind “common-sense” of clubs and smoking-rooms is now doing, grudge them the supreme crown of martyrdom; even women, he held, could not spend their lives to better purpose.” Henry Perrott Parker (B.A. of Trinity 1875, M.A. 1878), lighting upon Jani Alli in Babington’s house, caught there the hallowed fire, laboured for some years in India, with a heavy heart consented to succeed Bishop Han- nington, and died in Africa 26 March 1888. He had been Superintendent of the St. Barnabas’ Sunday School. Mr. and Mrs. Stewart, Miss Stewart, Miss Hessie Newcombe —martyrs whom the world of fashion mocks or condemns—and the enlightened convert Mrs. Ahdk, were all familiar faces xxvi CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. round Babington’s fireside. Many a bud of spiritual life, nipt by frosts of cynic scorn without, burst into full bloom in that sunny atmosphere. “Cardale Babington is common sense in flesh and blood; a Nathanael without guile.” Such is the likeness caught to the life by one long near to him, John Couch Adams; and the painter himself might have sat for the portrait. Sir Thomas Wade, hearing that Babington bemoaned his enforced absence from a lecture, delivered in the Lent term (1895) in King’s Hall, and had read the report with great relish, came to sit an hour with him, repeating the pith of what he had said. As the two veterans were so soon to be united in death this last meeting will long haunt the mourners’ memory. Two or three shreds from a favorite poet will divulge to by- standers something of the image of his character and principles left upon those who knew him from the inside, intus et in cute. But here was ne’er a Complement, not one Spruce, supple cringe, or study’d looke put on. All was plaine, modest truth. Hengy Vavueuan’s Sacred Poems (1847) p. 19. Walk with thy fellow-creatures; note the hush And whispers amongst them. There’s not a Spring, Or Leafe but hath his Morning-hymn. Each Bush And Oak doth know J AM. Can’st thou not sing? O leave thy cares, and follies! go this way; And thou art sure to prosper all the day.—ibid. p. 56. Teach both mine eyes and feet to move Within those bounds set by Thy love; Grant I may soft and lowly be, And minde those things I cannot see. * * * * * Above all, make me love the poor, Those burthens to the rich man’s door; Let me admire those, and be kinde To low estates and a low minde. If the world offers to me aught* That by Thy book must not be sought, Or, though it should be lawful, may Prove not expedient for Thy way, To shun that peril let Thy grace Prevail with me to shun the place. Let me be wise to please Thee still, And let men call me what they will.—zdzd. pp. 168, 169. * So read for nought, as it stands in the book. MEMOIR. ‘XXxvii Surely, no man of books—and such he was—ever less ‘favoured’ a bookworm. ‘I am a man, and count nothing human strange to me’ would win applause from him, as the words in Terence did from the gallery of Augustine’s day. Whether or no he had read the noble Anti-gnosticus of R. C. Trench, I cannot say, but it spoke his inmost thoughts :— For I was thankful now, and not alone That I had been brought under the blue sky, With winds of heaven to blow upon my cheeks, And flowers of earth to smile about my feet, And birds of air to sing within my ears— Though that were something, something to exchange Continuous study in a lonely room For the sweet face of nature, sights and sounds Of earth and air, restoring influences Of power to cheer; yet not for this alone, Nor for this chiefly; but that thus I was Compelled, as by a gentle violence, Not in the pages of dead books alone, Nor merely in the fair page nature shews, But in the living page of human life, To look and learn—not merely left to spin Fine webs and woofs around me like the worm, Till in my own coil I had hid myself, And quite shut out the light of common day, And common air by which men breathe and live. Like Samuel Johnson and Legh Richmond, he regarded Jona with peculiar reverence. In its ruins he hailed a rampart against Vatican pride, a keepsake from the days when Ireland (the last Western church,—if I may steal a shaft from Lord Plunket’s quiver—to bow the neck to Rome) was indeed the Mother of Saints. Nor did he despair of the return of the Green Isle to that high estate. One who knew him well, Dr. H. C. G. Moule, has darted (Record, 9 Aug. 1895) some glances into his friend’s inner life. Of the three mottos there printed Bishop Hacket’s ‘Serve God, and be cheerful’ (Johnson’s ‘Serviendum et laetandum’), inspired by the Jubilate and by Ps. ii 11, bespeaks the spirit which bound Babington’s days, from infancy to hoary hairs, ‘each to each in natural piety.’ Even when consciousness had well-nigh fled, he breathed a faint ‘yes,’ when in the hymn ‘I heard the voice of Jesus say,’ (one of those sung in chapel at his funeral), he caught the words ‘And He has made me glad.’ xxviii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. His herbarium and the bulk of his technical library (some 1600 volumes), kept in the Museum. during his life, are be- queathed to the University. Overtures for purchase of the books had come from Germany. He had already given much and widely, e.g. to St. John’s, copies of his own books in 1885, and the entire series of Votes and Queries; to other public libraries, the transactions of various societies to which he belonged. His loss in these respects, as in others, will long be felt. PEDIGREE AND CARDINAL DATES. Thomas Babington, of Rothley Temple, born 26 May 1715, died 20 June 1776, married 9 January 1758, at Wanlip, Lydia, daughter of Joseph Cardale (Vicar of Hinkley, died 20 June 1752, aet. 73, of Magd. Coll., Oxford, B.A. 24 March 1706—7, M.A. Queens’ Coll., Cambr. 1725), and sister of Joseph Cardale (Fellow of St. John’s, B.A. 1734—5, M.A. 1738, B.D. 1746, Rector of Houghton Conquest 1766, died 2 June 1786). She died 4 May 1791. He was Sheriff of Leicestershire in 1750. They had issue, among other children, four Johnians. Thomas (born 18 December 1758, died 21 November 1837), Sheriff of Leicestershire and M.P., B.A. 1779. Matthew (born 24 June 1761, died at Lisbon, 6 May 1796), B.A. 1782, M.A. 1785, Fellow of the College, Vicar of Rothley 1787. William (born 11 March 1763), B.A. 1786, Rector of Cossington 1787. Joseph (born 2 January 1768, died 16 December 1826), B.A. 1791, M.A. 1794, M.B. Oxon. 1795. He married Catherine, daughter of John Whitter, of Bradninch, Devon, who died 18 November 1882. Matthew’s eldest son, Matthew Drake (born 11 July 1788, died at Messina in July 1851) was at Trinity, B.A. 1812, M.A. 1816, Incumbent of Shepeshed, Leicestershire. He married, 7 June 1820, Hannah, daughter of Benjamin Fleetwood Churchill, of Northampton, who died 5 December 1873, and was buried at Cockfield. Their only child was Churchill, the late Disney Professor (born 11 March 1821, died 12 January 1889, B.A. 1848, M.A. 1846, B.D. 1853, D.D. 1879), who MEMOIR. xxix married 28 January 1869, Maud (daughter of Col. John Alexander Wilson, R.A.), who is still living, and married again, 17 Sept. 1896, Col. W. H. Wright, R.A. Churchill was buried at Cockfield, and is commemorated by a brass in the College. Chapel. Churchill’s great uncle, Joseph, had two sons, Charles Cardale (born at Ludlow, 23 November 1808, died at 5, Brookside, Cambridge, 22 July 1895, at 4.45 am., buried 26 July in Cherry Hinton churchyard), and Frederick John (born at Ludlow 20 February 1810, died same year). Cardale (as he was always called, to distinguish him from his cousin) took his B.A. 1830, M.A. 1833. He was elected, without opposition, Professor of Botany in succession to J. S. Henslow, on 12 June 1861.2 On the 3 April 1866, he married at Walcot Church, Bath, Anna Maria, eldest daughter of the late John Walker, Esq., of the Civil Service, Madras. He was admitted Fellow of St. John’s, under the new statutes, 1 November 1882. While they here sojourned, their presence drew us By the sweetness of their human love; Day by day good thoughts of them renew us, Like fresh tidings from the world above; Coming, like the stars at gloamin’ glinting Through the western clouds, when loud winds cease, Silently of that calm country hinting, Where they with the angels are at peace. * * * * Yea, Amen! O changeless One, Thou only Art life’s guide and spiritual goal, Thou the Light across the dark vale lonely, Thou the eternal haven of the soul! J. C. Smarep, “ Memories.” JOHN E. B. Mayor. NOTES ON MEMOIR. Perstat in incepto.—Ovin. My love for Nature is as old as I1.—Tzwnyson. Chi va piano, va sano; e chi va sano, va lontano.—PRrov., 1 From the Eagle, Michaelmas Term, 1895. A still career, all of one piece, has few landmarks. Cardinal dates however may be of service. Born at Ludlow, 28rd November 1808; came to the University, October 1826; B.A. 1830; M.A. 1833; XXX CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. Professor of Botany, 12th June 1861; married at Bath, 3rd April 1866; Fellow of St. John’s, lst November 1882; died at 5, Brookside, 22nd July 1895; funeral service in the College Chapel and at Cherry Hinton, 26th July. Cherry Hinton, which he often searched with foreign botanists, is a fit resting-place for his remains. The grave, to the north east of the Church, lies under the shade of three noble elms. As he loved the ancient crosses of Ireland, relics of a day when her Church was still free and a far-seen beacon of the Faith, a stately Irish cross, of grey Kemnay (Aberdeen) granite, arrests the visitor's eye. The inscription is SACRED | TO THE DEAR MEMORY OF CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON, M.A. FELLOW OF ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE AND PROFESSOR OF BOTANY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. BORN NOVEMBER 23 1808; FELL ASLEEP JULY 22 1895. ‘¢Thou hast made him most blessed for ever.’”’—Ps. xxi 6. In the College Chapel, on the right side of the screen as you enter, is a brass bear- ing the inscription IN LOVING MEMORY OF CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON B.A. 1830, m.a. 1833. PROFESSOR OF BOTANY, 12 JuNnE 1861. FELLOW OF ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE, 1 nov. 1882. BORN AT LUDLOW, 23 Noy. 1808. DIED AT CAMBRIDGE, 22 sJuLy 1895. ‘Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.” Ps. xxxvii 37. The brass to his cousin Churchill is on the left side, just opposite. In the College Hall hangs a portrait, an excellent likeness, by Mr. William Vizard of Brighton, the gift of Mrs. Babington. 2 This Mentor, handsomely bound in calf and religiously guarded, is of the 15th ed., Lond. 1824. See Journal p. 3, 27 May 1826. Harford, Reminiscences of Wilberforce, 47, 1083—110 (long in vogue, in several versions. Madame de Staél, after drawing a copy from the author by a broad hint, dubbed it /’aurore de Vimmortalité). 3 The subscription list is given in the Cambr. Calendar for 1836; see also Sedgwick’s Life 1 440, 1. 4 Cardale communicated to the Eagle memoirs of H. Cory Cory (prius H. C. Eadie, d. 9 Jan. 1887) and of his cousin Churchill. 5 Leonard Blomefield (formerly Jenyns) Chapters in my Life (Bath, 1889) 31, 32: “I have never been abroad,...... many of those who are in the habit of going abroad simply following the fashion, and remaining through life more or less ignorant of their own country.” 6 In his first visit to Ireland in 1835 (Mag. Nat. Hist. rx 119—180) he was accompanied by Robert Maulkin Lingwood (B.A. 1836, M.A. 1840) and John Ball, both of Christ’s (Mr. Britten). 7 See preface to Manual, first edition. NOTES ON MEMOIR. XXxX1 ® Three papers by Babington on the Ray Club, dated 11 March 1857, 14 Dec. 1868, and 29 November 1887, contain earnest addresses to his mates; the first and third give a list of members and associates, with an outline of their lot in life; the second and third, lamenting the decay of zeal, fan amain the lukewarm embers, if it might be, into a blaze. Sedgwick’s Life, 1 447, 19 May 1869: “In the evening the Ray Club will assemble in my rooms. It is a melancholy thought that this will be my last Club meeting, for the infirmities of old age compel me to resign my place.” Life of J. Clerk Maxwell (1884), p. 155 (1855): ‘‘ Went with Hort and Elphin- stone to the Ray Club, which met in Kingsley of Sidney’s rooms. Kingsley is great in photography and microscopes, and shewed photographs of infusoria, very beauti- ful, also live plants and animals, with oxy-hydrogen microscope.” Ibid, p. 168, 14 February 1856: ‘“ Yesterday the Ray Club met at Hort’s. I took my great top there, and spun it with coloured discs attached to it.” Ibid. p. 294: ‘* But if there is sufficient liveliness and leisure among persons interested in experiments to maintain a series of stated meetings, to shew experi- ments, and talk about them as some of the Ray Club do here, then I wish them all joy.” 9 Dytiscidae Darwinianae, in ‘Trans. Entom. Soe.,” m1 1841. His first entomological papers (relating to Cambridgeshire) were published in 1829, before he took his degree, in ‘‘ Magazine of Natural History,” 111. None occur after 1844. Lists in Hagen, “ Bibliotheca Entomologica,” 1 (1862), 22, 23.—(Information from Dr. David Sharp). 10 Thomas Arthur P., of Em. B.A. 1856, M.A. 1859. In holy orders. Author of “The flowering plants of Wilts, with sketches of the physical geography and climate of the county. 1888.” 8vo. 11 Selections from the Correspondence of Dr. George Johnston, Author of ‘A Flora of Berwick-on-Tweed.” . . . . Edited by James Hardy LL.D. .... Edinb. 1892. 8vo. 12 Founded by Prof. John Hutton Balfour, 17 March 1836; he died 11 Febr. 1884 (memoir in Hist. of the Berwicksh. Naturalists’ Club, xi 218—226). 13 Tn his library is a book now rare: ‘“‘The Natural History of Dee Side and Braemar. By the late William Macgillivray LL.D..... Edited by Edwin Lankester, M.D. F.R.S. London: Printed for private circulation, 1855.” The manuscript was bought by the Queen. When Prince Albert was President of the Association, the Presidents of sections (Babington among them) were invited to Balmoral, and received copies: ‘‘ This work, printed by command of the Queen, is presented to Mr. C. C. Babington by H.R.H. Prince Albert.’’ LEditor’s Preface, p. v: “The list of plants have . . . been submitted to . . . Mr C. C. Babington, of Cambridge.” 14 Richard Owen’s Life 1 288. 15 Leslie Stephen, Life of Henry Fawcett, 99: ‘‘He had been present at the smart passage of arms (in 1860) between Professor Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce at the British Association meeting in Oxford.” Lord Monboddo’s ape had startled the Bishop, a beast then strange and skittish, but now, thanks to Huxley and his brother-showman Ernst Hiackel, tame (save with the hardened recusant Rudolf Xxxii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. Virchow) and domestic. Disraeli’s quip ‘I am on the side of the angels,’ speedily cleared the air. For ‘ wit of one’ was faithful mouthpiece to ‘wisdom of many.’ A motley throng, three parts idlers, one part specialists, might question till dooms- day of life and death, final causes and free will, and find itself ‘in wandering mazes lost.’ Solventur risu tabulae. All breathed more freely when discharged from a panel beyond their scope. The most enduring trophy of the fray is Dr. Kennedy’s sprightly epigram on the Ennian text: sIMIA QYAM SIMILIS TVRPISSIMA BESTIA NOBIS. 16 Now known as Elodea Canadensis, described in his ‘‘ Manual,” 8th ed., p. 339, as Anacharis Alsinastrum. Belongs to the family of Hydrocharidaceae Hydrilleae. Indigenous in North America, from Canada to the Southern States; observed 3 Aug. 1842 by Dr. George Johnston, in the Lake of Dunse Castle, Berwickshire; in North Germany it wrought mischief to navigation and water-mills and nett- ing in the Spree, and other rivers. It has proved perhaps less baneful than was feared by those who called it a ‘ Vegetable Hydra,’ ‘ waterpest’; having disappeared from’ many waters which it once infested. Where plentiful, it serves as manure, as food for waterfowl, harbours the spawn of fish, and disinfects the streams (Pierer’s Conversations-Lexikon, 6th ed. 1876, s.v. Elodea. Meyer's Conversations-Lexikon, 3rd ed. 1874, s.v. Anacharis Alsinastrum). Babington himself wrote a paper on Anacharis Alsinastrum (Edinb. Bot. Trans. 111, 1850, 27—34; Ann. Nat. Hist. 1, 1848, 81—88; Ann. Sci. Nat. x1, Bot., 1849, 66—82). See especially Sowerby’s English Botany, 1x° (1869) 81—85. Compare the giant growth of water-cress in New Zealand. Zoology tells like tales of acclimatisation and its perils: sparrows in the United States, rabbits in Australia. 17 Babington’s lay sermon to the Ray Club, 29 Nov. 1887, p. 4: “‘ But there is another point in which we necessarily differ greatly from our state in former times. Then the Natural History part of Natural Science was pursued with great earnest- ness and activity by some of our Members and many of the young men in the University: now it is rare to find an Undergraduate or B.A. who knows, or cares to know, one plant from another, or distinguish insects scientifically. I am one of those who consider this to be a sad state of things. I know that much of what is called Botany is admirably taught among us; but it is not what is usually known as Botany outside the Universities, and does not lead to a practical knowledge of even the most common plants. It is really Vegetable Physiology, and ought to be so called. It is « very important subject, but does not convey a knowledge of plants. A similar distinction should be made in Botany as is done in Zoology.” See also the preface to his Manual, ed. 5. 18 See Leon. Blomefield (Jenyns) ‘‘Sketch of the Flora of Bath, 1864,” in “Wright’s Historical Guide Book to Bath,” pp. 401—415. ‘The Bath Flora. Lecture delivered to the Members of the Bath Field Club, Dec. 5 1866.’ 8vo, pp. 89. '8 Died 18 March 1887, Seaton Avenue, Mutley, Plymouth, aet. 85. Mark the age, a twelvemonth short of Berkeley’s and Babington’s span. 20 See Linn. Soc. Proc. 1885—6, p. 146: ‘‘ Babington’s Manual is now (1886) in the eighth edition, and the influence of the successive editions on field-botany can hardly be measured.” Mr. James Britten, Journ. Bot., Sept. 1895: ‘ Of this work it is not too much to say that it revolutionized the study of British plants and gave an impetus to thought and work among British botanists to a degree unequalled by any publication of the century.”’ NOTES ON MEMOIR. XxXxiil 21 Extracted from the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Vol. xv111, and transactions of the Edinburgh Botanical Society, Vol. 1. 22 See the Index to Prof. Sedgwick’s Life, by J. W. Clark. There isa life of Salter by Huxley (Quarterly Journ. Geol. Soc., XxvVI, pp. Xxxvi—xxxix). Sedgwick also coveted Salter as artist for his British Palaeozoic Rocks and Fossils, but the scheme fell through (Life, 11 304); ‘‘his work was irregular and interrupted by long absences” (¢bid. 467). 28 No. 20, A notice, with the results, of a botanical expedition to Guernsey and Jersey, in July and August 1837. No. 58, List of plants gathered during a short visit to Iceland in 1846. #4 No. 19, A revision of the Flora of Iceland [1870]. Linn. Soc. Journ. Bot., x1, 1871, pp. 282—348. 25 See his Life (Cambr. 1892) ch. 8, pp. 117—122. After his death, Babington said (p. 121): “ He had himself personally known the Society from its foundation ; had seen its early prosperity ; then its decline when its founders and early friends left Cambridge; then the long period of its obscurity when it was difficult to keep it in existence; and then the happy return of prosperity, resulting in a great degree from Mr. Lewis’s acceptance of the office of Secretary.” W.M. Fawcett added (p. 122): ‘When he began, he (Mr. Fawcett) did not think there were more than thirty members, and, chiefly through Mr. Lewis’s exertions, the number was now raised to about 300.” The real increase was greater (p. 117), from eighteen members in 1873 to 320 in 1890. 26 His father hada nursery garden at Cambridge, near to the present station. His uncle, the late Thomas Ready, was gardener of Christ’s. R. C. Ready has been attached to the British Museum since 1860, and still (1895) goes down to it, though he completed his eighty-fourth year in June 1895. In the same season that he worked in my tower in the second court, striking moulds of seals from charters which we carried down, drawer by drawer, from the ‘treasury’ (the barred room over our entrance gateway), he also knocked at the doors of all college charter rooms. In return for my help, he gave me a card framed and glazed, dis- playing the seals most to my liking, either as works of art, or as bearing on college history. This hangs now in the College Library. ‘‘ He knew the late Professor C. C. Babington very well indeed, and for a very long time.” His son, William Talbot Ready, is now (1895) a dealer in antiquities, ancient coins, English medals, gems, etc., 55, Rathbone Place, W. 27 In Babington’s library hangs a speaking likeness of Mr. Corry, coloured from an enlarged photograph. This, a birthday present, and two volumes of poems, rich in promise, formed highly-prized mementos of his best-loved pupil. See 4 Flora of the North-East of Ireland, including the Phanerogamia, the Cryptogamia, Vascu- laria, and the Musciniae. By Samuel Alexander Stewart . . . and the late Thomas Hughes Corry, M.A., F.L.S., F.Z.S., M.R.1.A., F.B.S. Edin., Lecturer on Botany in the University Medical Science Schools, Cambridge; Assistant Curator of the University Herbarium, etc., etc. Published by the Belfast Naturalists’ Field Club. Cambridge: Macmillan & Bowes 1888, cr. 8vo, pp. xxxvi, 331. In the preface is some notice of Corry. P. viii: “‘Professor Babington, F.R.S., has from time to time c XXXIV CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. examined the Rubi, and given his opinion on the specimens submitted.” See Babington in Journ. Bot. 1883, 313. Unknown to D.N.B. 28 See Record newspaper, 26 Oct. and 16 Nov. 1894 (pp. 1055, 1136a). Church Missionary Intelligencer, Jan. 1895, article by Phil. Ireland Jones. Portrait and memoir in Church Missionary Gleaner, March 1895, p. 44. 29 Mrs. Saunders, of Melbourne, “spoke of the honour the Lord had put upon her in permitting her to see two of her children crowned with the martyr’s crown. . . . . She wants to go to China as soon as she can, and see a martyrs’ memorial at Ku-Cheng built of precious living stones, some of them the murderers and their children” (Church Missionary Gleaner, Oct. 1895, p. 146a). She has since gone. Miss Codrington, who alone escaped death of the devoted band, has, after recovering from her wounds, rejoined the Mission; and the old saying, ‘‘ The blood of Christians is a seed,” is once more proved true, for converts are more numerous than ever. 30 Sir T. F. Wade, of King’s College, Professor of Chinese, died 31 July 1895, and was buried (like Cardale Babington) at Cherry Hinton 5 Aug. 3! His application, a model of modesty, dated 24 May, is preserved in his journal. Two Johnians, his cousin Churchill and Leonard Jenyns (afterwards Blomefield), would have done honour to the chair. His friend, M. J. Berkeley, was certainly named at the time. But the man who had watched each plant and tree from the first, Henslow’s squire in thirty campaigns and upwards, was allowed to walk over the course. ADDENDUM, insert in p. xxx 1. 5 (after elms). ‘ Ev’n from the tomb the voice of Nature cries.’ No marble slab, flat and unwieldy, encumbers his bones, but Earth, as in the old-world blessing, sinks light upon them, turf around growing green at will, flowers gleaming on the mould, birds warbling overhead, winds, showers and sunshine in full play. It is a haunt of Peace, emblem of a gentle life, of a guide who, like Eastern and Grecian sages, set up his school by babbling brook or still tarn, in hidden glen or on open mountain side. REMINISCENCES. Yet nature’s charms, the hills and woods, The sweeping vales and foaming floods, Are free alike to all. In days when daisies deck the ground, And blackbirds whistle clear, With honest joy our hearts will bound To see the coming year. Burns. I By THE Rey. J. A. BABINGTON.* The following lines from the pen of a relative who knew him intimately may be of interest to some readers. It is always difficult to give strangers a true and adequate picture of a dear relative and an intimate friend; but to draw a picture of Charles Cardale Babington is a task of peculiar difficulty, for no one could have been more retiring and self-repressed, or more reluctant to obtrude his thoughts and opinions unsolicited. Indeed, his humility was perhaps the most striking feature of his beautiful character. You might have discussed Botany with him by the hour, without discovering from any words of his that he had gained a European reputation in that particular branch of science. There was nothing dogmatic in his tone, nothing overbearing in his arguments, no shade of contempt for the opinions of others less gifted, no tinge of jealousy lest his reputation should be eclipsed by the fame of rivals. It was probably this virtue which made him so patient a listener. The most ignorant and importunate questioner could not weary or annoy him; he was as ready to bring out the rich stores of his knowledge for the humblest be- ginner as for the ablest man of science, to explain what was obscure, to restate truths which were not apprehended, to set facts in their true relation to theories. If it be asked what was the source of this humility, I should unhesitatingly reply, his religious faith. His life was a perpetual commentary on St. Paul’s words, “What hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not * The Rev. John Albert Babington, third son of Thomas Gisborne Babington (of Trinity College, Cambridge, B.A. 1811, M.A. 1815), Esq., of Namur. The son was of New College, Oxford, B.A. and M.A. 1872. Born 13 Nov. 1848, married 29 June 1876 Emily Elizabeth, daughter of William Gardner (of Qu. Coll. Cambr. B.A. 1848, M.A. 1852), Vicar of Orpington. Mr. Babington was Assistant Master at Marlborough College 1867—75, Head Master of Lincoln Grammar School 1875 —80; he has been Assistant Master at Tonbridge School since 1880. XXxvl CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. received it?” If, as he firmly believed, the student of science was not only increasing the sum of human knowledge, but was also consecrating his powers to the service of God, what possible reason was there for petty self-glorification or for idle vanity ? How could the sense of mental powers or intellectual achievements dare to fling its shadow upon the awful light which encompassed the God of Nature? Scarcely less remarkable than his humility was his sincerity. In an age of exaggerated expressions and emotional writing, it was a real lesson to listen to the conversation of one who set a watch upon his lips with jealous care; who never said a word more than he really meant; who was never betrayed into the use of superlatives for the sake of effect, and who eschewed all epithets of high-flown eulogy or extravagant depreciation. He did not need to retract opinions which he had expressed, to qualify admissions which he had made, to modify statements which he had hastily uttered. He did not, when speaking, think of the impression which he was making on his hearers. An inmate of the fabled Palace of Truth could not have been less self-conscious or more perfectly natural. This sincerity was especially conspicuous in his religious faith. Deep and intense as his convictions were, he bore them in his heart, not on his lips; he shewed them by his life, not by his words. Though he was always ready to obey the Apostle’s maxim by giving a reason for the hope that was in him, he did not think it necessary to prove the sincerity of his religion by his vehemence or his persistency in asserting it. When he had occasion to give his opinion on sacred subjects, his utterances were as measured and weighty, as unaffectedly simple, as free from all taint of insincerity, as his ordinary conversation. It may be well to point out how influential his religious example was. In the life of a University, where spiritual aims are only too often overborne by intellectual and scientific interests, a religious layman in many ways wields a greater power for good than a clergyman. If he is really earnest, he is not suspected, even by the most sceptical, of being actuated by self-interested motives or professional zeal. The reality of his spiritual life appeals even to those who are generally indifferent to religion. Such was the force of Charles Babington’s example during sixty years in the University which he loved and served so well. Those who scrutinized him most closely, could detect no inconsistency in his spiritual walk and conversation. It was evident to the most careless observer that his life was built upon the One Foundation, and that the truths which he held had been proved by him to be the power of God unto salvation. The consciousness of this practical power of true religion led him to take a peculiar interest in the history of Christian missions. In his opinion they pre-eminently justified the application to the Christian church of the famous motto, ‘Esse quam videri,’ for there could be no unreality about a faith which gave men strength to renounce their whole past, to break the strongest ties which bind ‘REMINISCENCES. XXXVii men to the life of this present world, and to become humble and sincere followers of the crucified Galilean. The same feeling made him turn instinctively, not so much to religious books and to commentaries on the Bible, as to the constant study of God’s Word, and to the ceaseless repetition of the beautiful hymns which during the course of two centuries and a half have enriched our English hymnals, and which were dear to him as the simplest and most complete expression of the Christian’s deepest emotions. It would be a mistake to suppose that Charles Babington’s intellectual tastes were exclusively scientific. The fact that he devoted himself at the same time to two branches of study differing so widely as botany and archaeology, would be sufficient proof to the contrary. Indeed, his study of archaeology may be said to have widened his interests until they extended over almost the whole field of human thought and action. He was a great reader, and his reading covered a singularly wide range. In addition to books which dealt with his special lines of study, he devoured books of travel, biographies, histories, and fiction.* During his prolonged retirement after his serious illness, all Sir Walter Scott’s novels were read through to him, and he delighted in their racy humour, as well as in their inimitable portraiture of every type of human character. But, as was natural, the antiquarian spirit of the great magician had a special attraction for him; and he profoundly admired the genius which clothed the dead bones of the past, and made them start to life in the crucible of a glowing imagination. There are two more traits in his character, upon which I would fain touch in a few words before I close. The first was his deep though undemonstrative devotion to his University and College. No one could have lived more completely in the spirit of the ancient maxim, “‘Spartam nactus es, hanc exorna.” It is scarcely an exaggeration to say, that every stone in Cambridge was dear to him. I well remember the eagerness with which, not long before his death, he sent me to inspect the recent excavations at Jesus College. A talk about University and College antiquities had a real fascination for him. He watched with eager solicitude the wide and numerous changes in the educational course at the University, and spoke with deep thankfulness of the opportunities which had been given young men within recent years of studying fresh subjects of world- wide interest. Such subjects, he would emphatically add, had in his undergraduate days been almost a sealed book. The affection which the University as a whole called forth in him, was lavished with a peculiar tenderness upon his own College. Everything Johnian had a marked claim upon his sympathy and interest ; he was jealous with a noble jealousy, for the honour, the efficiency, and the prosperity of St. John’s; and it may confidently be asserted, * This latter only of the highest kind.—Eb. XXXViii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. that if he had succeeded to an earldom or a dukedom, it would have given him far less pleasure than his election as Fellow of the College, with which his life for more than half a century had been identified. The second trait of which I would speak was his unflagging industry. Up to the close of his life he could not endure an hour of idleness: waste of time, whether it took the form of aimless frivolity, or of dislike of work, provoked his gentle spirit to undis- guised impatience. His own success in life, and his distinguished reputation, were largely due to his never wasting a single day. He could heartily endorse Buffon’s famous definition, that genius is a long patience: and when we remember the spirit of consecration which he brought to all his work, we may truly say that he was a perpetual witness to the truth of the motto, ‘Laborare est orare.’ II By H. R. Francis, Esq.* When I wish to arrange and put into shape my recollections of Professor Babington—and the wish comes to me very frequently —though my shallow smattering of popular science places me in one sense quite beyond all hope of comprehending the range of his scientific attainments, I find myself dealing with a character which was deeply interesting in a moral point of view. I can see that there must have been essentially kindred spirits among the very foremost of our scientific men. Faraday, for instance, must have had the same divine gift of feeling all his intellectual powers as something not his own, but given him in trust, as talents for the profitable employment of which he would be held responsible on the Great Day of Account. But Professor Babington was the only man of that rare and exalted stamp with whom I could claim a certain intimacy. And I always felt that his simple sense of stewardship over all his mental stores was at once a rare and beautiful thing. He seemed to have no need for bewildering him- self with nice items of debt and credit, with “the lore of nicely calculated less or more.” All that he knew, all that he was, seemed to be held by him in trust, not so much from a strict calculation of duty, as from a loving instinct of usefulness, coupled with a sense of gratitude for being permitted to be an instrument of good. So again, were I questioned as to his moral and religious views, I could not pretend to analyse or separate them. I should find myself carried back to the comprehensive simplicity of the Saviour’s teaching ; to the “first and great commandment,” which was the mainspring of my friend’s blameless life, and to “the second, like * Son of Philip Francis, of St. John’s (son of ‘“ Junius’), B.A. 1790, M.A. 1794. Henry Ralph Francis, of St. John’s, B.A. 1834, M.A. 1837. Elected Foundation Fellow 6 April, admitted 7 April 1835. Onthe 19th March 1839 Benj. Morgan Cowie, now Dean of Exeter, succeeded to his fellowship. He became District Court Judge of Sydney, N.S.W., 28 Jan. 1848. REMINISCENCES. XXx1x unto it,” which claimed his free and joyful obedience. More than this can hardly be said, yet to say less would be a wrong to his memory. FIELD-PREACHING. The meanest floweret of the vale, The simplest note that swells the gale, The common gun, the air, the skies, To him are opening Paradise.—T. Gray. I By Proressor E. B. CowE Lu. [Professor Cowell kindly sends reminiscences of “ walks with Babington,”’ a frequent entry in Hort’s journals, from an early date. I never had the luck to watch the Naturalist in his element. Often as we were together, it was always under cover, till towards the end, when I sur- prised him now and again gazing peacefully on his lair, the Botanic Garden, from a Bath-chair. Otherwise the passion for hunting plants, strong in my boyhood, must have cast its spell upon me once more, after many days.—J.E.B.M.] Professor Babington knew every corner of Cambridgeshire from long personal examination ; it was his botanical parish ; and he could tell always beforehand what plants to look for in any locality at any given season. He was thus the very person to inspire a botanical enthusiasm, for his eye at once detected the objects of interest, and he knew all that they had to tell. Expe- ditions with him to Thetford, Chippenham, the old Roman Road, Wicken Fen, and many a similar locality, remain golden retrospects in one’s life; they opened his companion’s eyes to hitherto un- noticed interests in field and lane. He had learned by experience that everybody, unless he has already an absorbing pursuit of his own, is a potential botanist; it only requires an enthusiastic teacher, and the ready audience will be found everywhere. ’ He knew North Wales nearly as well as Cambridgeshire, and I shall never forget our many rambles in the neighbourhood of Snowdon,—one especially in Cwm glas in 1878, when we hunted out all the rare plants which hide themselves in that rocky solitude. One could have almost fancied that they were glad to attract his eye as he passed. His great interest was in the plants themselves as living organisms, and in tracing their relations to each other and their surroundings ; and his enthusiasm could hardly fail to kindle an answering glow in the listener. I have often seen him interest a casual audience in a railway carriage, as he pointed out an unknown part or function in some apparently well-known flower; a furze blossom or an umbellate flower would thus gain a new significance ; and these accidental hints might easily wake up a new and life-long interest in a young hearer. I have often since adapted his lessons to small audiences of my own, proud to be thus the medium to hand on the benefits of his teaching. Aug. 15, 1895. xl CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. II By Mrs. R. B. Bartty.* You kindly say you would like to have my reminiscences of your husband, my own husband’s valued friend of Cambridge days, my reminiscences especially of the meeting with you and him in lovely Connemara. I remember my joy at finding you both in the primitive inn at Clifden,—an abode which proved so delightful to me, and I think to yourselves, although the old French chevalier, our fellow-guest, would have had “ plus de convenances, et beaucoup plus de complaisance!” Professor Babington’s kindly nature over- looked deficiencies, accepted unsophisticated civilities, heeded not broken panes, nor the necessity to prop the windows with forks or bottles ; and when you invited a party of friends, including myself, and some of the clergy and young school teachers of the place, to tea in your private room, and the teapot, weighted with tea-leaves of many days’ accumulation, fell from your hand to the floor, how ready he was, after assuring himself that you were not hurt, to laugh heartily at the little contretemps, and its evident cause. How pleasant and enjoyable was the meal, seasoned with his gentle courtesy, and always instructive conversation, followed at his sug- gestion by the reading of a chapter, and singing of some hymns before we separated. Truly he was a man of science loving God, and acknowledging Him in all His works. . How charming was the drive, in which I was privileged to join, to the romantic village of Roundstone, in that ancient full- bodied coach, of the comforts or discomforts of which no heed could be taken, whilst he called attention to the wild and beautiful landscape, or the little sparking lakes with which the district abounds, explaining how those to the right were salt water, being in connexion with the Connemara Bay, with ebb and flow from the Atlantic Ocean, whilst those on the other hand are fresh water lakes, fed by numberless mountain streamlets. How his eye was ever on the alert for blossoms amidst the wide expanse of golden, fruit-scented gorse, and heaths of every tint of pink or white. Then came the hush, and our excitement, as we neared the spot where the Professor expected to find one rare and choice variety. Presently leaning out he called to the driver to stop, left the coach, and walking a few steps forward, plunged his hand into a tuft of crimson heather. He plucked out a spray of heath,— I see him now, as I saw him then, with the look of quiet satisfaction on his earnest, kindly face: ‘“ Yes, I have it,” said the Professor, as _ * Widow of Robert Braithwaite Batty, fellow of Emmanuel (second wrangler, B.A. 1853, M.A. 1856). He was elder son of the late Lieut.-Col. Batty, Grenadier Guards, of Ridgmount Place, Ampthill. On 24 July 1860, he married at St. James’s, Piccadilly, Beatrice, eldest daughter of Hen. Stebbing, D.D., Rector of St. Mary’s, Upper Thames Street (Cambr. Indep. Press, 28 July 1860). He died, as a missionary of the C.M.S., at the mission house, Amritzar, 22 June 1861, aet. 32 (Cambr. Chron., 17 Aug. 1861 43s). REMINISCENCES. xli he stepped, happy and content, into the carriage. How eagerly we all regarded the treasure! to us it looked much like the other heaths around, but he assured us that it was not so. Often have I told this story since, and I love to think of it now, and to remember that I was a privileged witness of the interesting incident. How delightful was the further drive that day, over the heathy hills, and down to Roundstone Bay, your husband telling of how strange plants have been floated across in the seed from the Spanish Main; and discoursing of the formation of rocks and boulders—and anon speaking of the foundation of the church and school at Moyrus, that far outlying district of the Irish Church Missions, which we were to visit from Roundstone. The nearest access from the mainland being nine miles across a rough bit of sea, the poor inhabitants had been left in a state of heathen darkness and neglect, till the Irish Church Missions took it up. How interested your husband was, in the reception of school- children, pastor, and people, on that rugged shore,—so wild and lonely and far-away, that everything appeared, as he said, almost patriarchal ; the simple hospitality at the parsonage, the hymns of welcome on the beach, the little children coming to help you to pick up pink cowries and beautiful shells upon the shore. But why do I write this? All this, and more, you may so much better recount, only perhaps it may serve as the testimony of one apart from yourself, to the largeness of heart and religious earnestness of character which so enhanced the value of that life, which although a long one has proved all too short, alas, for you, and for those many friends by whom your husband was beloved, honoured, and admired. Enthusiastic botanist as he was, he could lay aside his flowers, and give up his search for specimens, to listen to the examination of a bevy of Irish village children on the ‘Hundred Texts ;’ he could as sincerely give his mind to the subjects brought forward at a missionary meeting, as to the matter discussed at a meeting of the Natural History Society; and some of my most delightful memories of him attach to a happy visit to your Cambridge home, when, after a breakfast at which various guests had assembled, those guests were invited by the Professor to join in family prayers before they separated. This is the touch which gives the key note to his life. With you I truly mourn his loss,—how many must do the same! A valued friend less in the world, one more link with Heaven. God bless and comfort you with that last thought. P.S.—His radiant, boyish delight over the scenery and flora, on that delightful drive which you took with us from Braemar to Glenshee, on one of the brightest of bright September days in 1888, I cannot forget,—nor I am sure, can you.—B. B. xlii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. LETTERS WRITTEN TO A.M. B. From the Lorp BisHop oF DURHAM. AvuCKLAND CastTLE, Bishop AUCKLAND, Aug. 3, 1895. . . . * I will not weary you with many words, but I should like to assure you that Mrs. Westcott and I most truly sympathise with you in your sorrow. Cambridge has indeed suffered many and heavy losses since we left five years ago. . Your own work will give you the fullest consolation, and keep fresh the happiest memories. I have often thought of our meeting at the top of Morrone in 1888. From the LorD BisHoP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. Tue Patacre, GLOUCESTER, Sept. 29, 1896. ... [return you my best thanks for having sent me a memorial of your very distinguished husband. I have read it with great interest, and though I well knew how earnestly your dear husband worked, I was really amazed at the long record of his successful and ceaseless industry and talent. The sample of his journal is extremely interesting. It must be a great consolation to you to see how heartily, not only his works, but his simple and high character are appreciated... . From the Very Rev. the Master oF TRINITY CoLLEeGE, Cambridge. July 23, 1896. .... I see that the long dreaded blow has at last fallen. Pray accept the true Christian sympathy of us both. Your dear husband has long enjoyed the profound respect of Cambridge, and his pure and gracious memory will long live among us. You will have many hearts near you in these lonely hours, and your own faith and hope will not fail... . Sept. 19, 1895. .... I cannot thank you enough for your letter, and for sending me those two most beautiful tributes to your dear husband’s memory. The example he has set during these long years of all that is truth-loving, tender, and Christ-like, cannot be without its fruit, even in years to come. To yourself the change must indeed be sad, but there is a loneliness not always lonely, into which it is your privilege to enter ; a loneliness full of a Heavenly Presence in which what we seem to have lost lives again, and lives even more fully. (To Prof. Mayor.) Oct. 13, 1895. Thank you much for so kindly sending me your translations of those pithy and pious German words. Mrs. Babington sent me your really beautiful tribute to her excellent husband. He belonged to a noble type. REMINISCENCES. xliii One asks oneself whether that particular mould of goodness and intellectual power is yet broken. I hope not... . [Cardale Babington toward the end of his life endorsed the Vicar’s appeal for a Memorial Institute in St. Barnabas’, Cambridge, a parish of near 7000 souls, the second parish in Ely diocese in point of population. ‘From the intimate connexion,” he said, “which I have had with the parish of St. Barnabas from its very foundation, I am able most cordially to support this appeal. Such a building is indeed very greatly wanted, and I hope and fully believe that the sum required will be obtained. I also heartily concur with the Vicar in his touching desire thus to commemorate my dear and lamented friends, Bishop Parker and Jani Alli, in the parish where they did much good work when undergraduates at Cambridge.” After Babington’s death his name was added to those of his friends. Some £1400 are required in all. The site for the Institute was given by the Master and Fellows of Gonville and Caius College, and the foundation-stone was laid by Dr. Charles Taylor, Master of St. John’s College, on St. John’s Day, 6 May 1897. The Master of Trinity, as reported by the Cambridge Chronicle, 7 May, p. 7, spoke as follows—J. E. B. M.|: So far they might have been assisting at almost any one of those remarkable developments of Christian zeal for the purpose of Christian teaching under the very shadow of their parish church. All such works were the sign of true Christian growth, and every man in every parish ought to be thankful to be able to take part in it. But most of them, he was sure, must be aware that that particular function of theirs that day had something special and peculiar, and, he would add, pathetic, connected with it, which made it different in some respects from other functions which otherwise were similar. They were not only that day in the faith of Christ erecting a solid work which they believed to be for the good of His children, but they were also erecting a memorial to a good man, a devout Christian, a deeply loved and revered friend. There were many friends present, he doubted not, who knew even better than himself the great services which Professor Babington rendered both to the College and the University in which for so many years he held so commanding a position, but still more to the cause of Christ and His Church. Happy was that University which could count amongst its public servants one distinguished man after another who was not only recognised as an expert and an authority in his own special branch of learning, but also as a devout, an energetic, and deeply earnest Christian. It was a remarkable fact that the last two Professors of Botany held their distinguished office for no less a period than seventy years together— from 1825 to 1895, and both were members of the illustrious college, the Master of which had that day laid that foundation-stone. Each of them was a great light to many in his day. They knew that the memory of Professor _ Babington was one of those which neither the University, nor the Town of Cambridge, nor the Church of Christ in Cambridge, would readily allow to die. They knew how rapidly the names even of the most beloved slipped into forgetfulness, but so long as this building, which was about to be reared, remained to do its beneficent work for Christ in that parish, and so long as that stone was seen by passers-by to record the day of its foundation, so long, he ventured to say, the name of their dear friend and benefactor, Professor Babington, would be a name in Cambridge for reverence and for love. xliv CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. From the Rev. the MASTER OF CLARE CoLLEGE, Cambridge. Oct. 2, 1895. .... I beg you to accept my sincere thanks for your kindness in sending me a copy of Professor Mayor’s Memoir of Professor Babington. I have read it with great interest and admiration of the character and many-sided acquirements of our late Professor. He was indeed a great power for good in Cambridge throughout an unusually long term of years, and retained to the last a power for influencing younger men which is rare in persons of advanced years. I learn a great deal from the Memoir which I did not know of his. earlier years in the University, and he is quite one of those of whom the more we know, the more we regret their loss. . . . From the Rev. the MASTER OF ST. CATHARINE’S COLLEGE, Cambridge. July 23, 1895. . . . Your dear husband has gone down to the grave “as a shock of corn cometh in his season,” beloved, honoured, and esteemed above. all who have left us in Cambridge in recent years. If one point in his character struck me more than another it was his spirit of bene- volence and Christian charity—the charity that thinketh no evil ; that hopeth all things—that would embrace all men. It must be some help to you to know how universally he was beloved, and now how deeply he is regretted by all. I suppose my knowledge of him goes back further than most residents’, for I used to meet him at our college table as Archdeacon Hardwick’s guest in and after 1853. And in all those years there was no other opinion that. I heard except that of respect and affection. How much he enjoyed life to the end: those visits with you to the Yorkshire dales, will be treasured recollections of unmixed enjoyment and bright mental activity. . . . And now you will feel that with enlarged faculties of mind and heart—of intelligence and of love—he is happy for ever with his Saviour, only waiting for the- meeting which knows no parting. I shall never forget the happy visits I have paid to him, and regard them as some of my happiest. memories. .. . (To Prof. Mayor.) Nov. 15, 1895. . . . I have just read for the second time your genial and delightful account of our dear old friend, Charles Cardale Babington, and I should like to thank you heartily for the pleasure, and more, I hope, and for the justice: which it has done to the memory of one whom most of us will never forget. Of course it goes without saying that your tract. surprises a reader with its wide and varied information, to which Babington’s wide range of interest is in a sense a parallel. But to- us its great value is, that it shews the world how wide was the reach of Babington’s knowledge, and how far juster and broader were: REMINISCENCES. xlv opinions which were drawn from an extensive view of his science and of other sciences, than those which are now drawn from the knowledge which, however acute, is after all only specialistic. Such may be far more narrow, cramped, and even shallow than the older science, which surveyed an ampler field. On higher points you have left no doubt,—his breadth of sympathy with good men and good works and, as might be added, his charitable estimate of all men —I never heard a bitter or bigoted word from his lips—his joyous religion, and his life and death in Christ. Every friend of his will thank you that he passes from our sight yet not from our recollec- tions, with such a record as yours... . From the Right Rev. Bishop SeLwyn, Master of Selwyn College. . . . . How sorry I am that I cannot attend the funeral of your dear husband, as I am so far away from Cambridge. I should like to have done so, both for my own sake, and because I think you would have liked to have had one of my name doing honour to your husband’s memory, I shall be holding a Confirmation about the time the service begins, and hope to remember you in my prayers then... . From the Rev. A. M. W. CHRISTOPHER. St. Aupate’s Rectory, OxForp, July 30th, 1895. .... 1 Peter 1 3—9 will cheer youin your mourning. How near the Lord’s coming and the resurrection may be! Your beloved one was spared long to you, but is now present with the Lord. The tenderest cord which has tied you to this earth has been snapped, but it is still round your heart, and the broken end is in your Father’s hand, drawing your heart towards Heaven. Very many friends have been, and are still praying for you. May the love of God be shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Ghost with very special power at this time. . . . May you know more and more by experience of the ‘“unsearchable riches” in Christ. Be sure of the deep sympathy of my dear wife and myself. . . . From Herr Baron Sir FERDINAND v. MULLER, F.R.S.* MELBOURNE, August 17th, 1895. (To R. Irwin Lynch, Esq.) It is with deep sadness that I learn of the venerable Professor Charles C. Babington passing away from us, the Nestor of the Linnean Society for many years, the true and acute investigator of the British Flora, from whose work I have also * Died 9 October 1896 (Times, 10 Oct. p. 9 col. 5). xlvi CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. profited for my key to the system of Victorian plants, the genial friend to so many Phytologists, including the writer of these lines. You will particularly feel his loss, as you so long particularly cooperated with this distinguished veteran... . . Perhaps he saw still the aged Todea-fern, which I sent to your garden, and it may have been a source of novel joy to him to have seen unfolding the numerous fronds of this ancient specimen. (To Mrs. C. C. B.) . . . . I now express once more my high sense of appreciation of the services which he has rendered to the science of plants, not only through his admirable teachings, but also by his applying it to special research both in the study rooms and in the fields of free nature, and this unabatingly through so long a space of time, as to render him through the autumn of his life the Nestor of the Linnean Society. As the genus Babingtonia of our never-to-be-forgotten friend, Professor Lindley, has been transferred to the Linnean genus Baeckea, it is my intention to bestow that name on the first new genus which may here in Australia be dis- covered among plants, and which would be worthy of dedication to an illustrious savant. . . . Since the last fifty years and more, is cultivated in Britain as a summer annual, and in conservatories at all times, what may be considered the most graceful and handsome of all everlastings, the Helipterum Ehodanthe Manglesu. As collater- ally I am identified with this charming flower, perhaps you may like to place a wreath of it occasionally on the tomb of your celebrated consort, which would signify, that also here at the Antipodes we fully recognise the important bearings of Professor Babington’s discoveries and work towards biomorphic knowledge. From NATHANIEL BRIDGES, Esq. Buackxueaty, §.E., July 23, 1896. . . . cherish a very warm recollection of the dear Professor’s sweet Christian character, and must always feel thankful to have been from time to time in contact with it. . . . Many will miss at Braemar his well-known form, and his impressive and courteous presence, as also his well-considered words on interesting subjects, always so modestly expressed. In these bustling, hurrying days, such characters can ill be spared, but we must not lament, when we may well dwell on the peace and blessedness which is now his heritage. May you receive, dear Mrs. Babington, every consolation which He alone can bestow who gave you that which He has now taken to Himself. Sept. 29.0... The papers you have sent have interested me deeply ; these are among the many testimonies to the power of the dear Professor’s character, upon those (of all kinds) with whom he was in contact, a power expressed by few, rather than many words, and sometimes even by those silent influences which are incapable REMINISCENCES. xlvii of definition. Underneath the surface of things, his mind would appear to have been always at work, and the pen followed, and now one can realize to the full the power that was there, reminding one of Keble’s lines : Like the violets one by one, Soon as their fragrant task is done, Are wafted high in death. If this were true of his character as a natural philosopher, I feel sure it was true of his character as a Christian, whose influence, without many words, was always felt by those who were in touch with him. I know it was felt by many at Braemar, who would not have sympathised with those deep and distinct principles of Divine Truth on which his mind rested, and which found expression in the life. It cannot but be useful, in this sceptical age, that men should know, by an example such as this, how the highest attainments in the studies of Nature, can be blended with and sanctified by an un- swerving belief in the Divine Revelation. From Miss Marsu. July 24, 1895. . .. God Himself comfort you in this deep affliction. It is indeed the uprooting of your tender heart from earth—by carrying away him who was its joy and strength—to Heaven. But oh! what rest for him, after all his sufferings, to be where “Health triumphs in immortal bloom,” and resting with infinite content in the presence of his Saviour; and amidst angels and archangels, and all the company of Heaven. Soon . . . soon you will see him coming with that glorious Saviour, to regain the garment of his soul, raised in incorruption, in glory, in power, and we shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, and be caught up together with our beloved saints to meet the Lord in the air, and so (together with them) to be forever with the Lord. And meanwhile the promise is yours, from the Prince of Peace, your own beloved Lord and Saviour, “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come unto you.” From the Rev. JAMES Macarecor, D.D. 3, Eron Terrace, Epinsuren, Aug. 10, 1895. .... Let me express my deep sympathy with you under the loss of your noble husband, who has gone before you to the Blessed Rest. , You were all in all to one another, and you were never dearer to one another than now. His memory is a glorious legacy: but what shall we say of the Blessed Hope? God bless and comfort you. xlviii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. From Prof. G. D,. Livetne, F.R.S. Pension DE Bet Oiseau, Finsuauts, SwiTzERLAND, July 25, 1895. © .... I cannot let the sad announcement which I have seen to-day in Tuesday’s Times pass without writing a line to assure you of my sympathy. Professor Babington had well passed the usual term of human life, but however well we mayh ave been prepared for the event, the separation after all comes as a shock, and to you on whom he has been for some time so much dependent, his departure will leave a great gap. I cannot help looking back to the time, more than forty years ago, when I first made his acquaintance. He was then the central figure amongst those in Cambridge who took delight in Natural History, and his simple character and keen interest in Nature were very attractive to younger men who had similar likings. He certainly did more in my time than anyone else to promote the study of Natural Science in the University, and I, who have lived through many changes, can perhaps appreciate better than most how much the cause of Natural Science owes to him. Such a one cannot pass away without our recalling how much he has done in his time... . From ALFRED FRYER, Esq. CuHattErRis, June 3, 1895. . .. . I did not like to trouble the noble Professor with my small botanical affairs more than was absolutely necessary. .. . The greater part of the valuable instruction he so kindly gave me, was on the rare occasions when I visited the Herbarium. Then I learned to love and esteem the goodness and greatness of the man, even more than I valued the teaching of the greatest living authority on British Botany. This feeling of personal regard was common to . many of the botanists who consulted the Professor in their difficulties. I find traces of it constantly shewing in letters from several corres- pondents. A photograph of the Professor has been over my mantel- piece for some twenty years. From Prof. ALFRED NEWTON, F.R.S. MaGDALENE CoLLEeGE, CAMBRIDGE, Oct. 30, 1896. .... At the desire of the members of the Ray Club, meeting to-night for the first time this term, I write to express their very deep sense of the loss which the Club has sustained by the death of its oldest and last surviving original member. They feel very strongly the indebtedness of the Club to the late Professor Babing- ton, who, until incapacitated by ill-health, had been its Secretary REMINISCENCES. xlix from its foundation in 1838, and during the fifty-five years that he had held that office, he had not only maintained the efficiency of the Club, but the harmony which has always been its characteristic. I am also respectfully to offer you the sincere condolence of the Club on the grievous bereavement you have suffered, and to assure you of the sincere sympathy of its members. Cambridge Antiquarian Society. Sr. Mary’s Passacz, CAMBRIDGE, Oct 22, 1895. DEAR Mrs. BABINGTON, At the meeting of this Society held yesterday the following Resolution was proposed by the President and carried, and I was instructed to forward to youacopy. Resolved: ‘That the members of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, at this their first meeting held since the death of Professor Babington, desire to express their sympathy with Mrs. Babington, and their sense of the loss which they have sustained in the person of one who was an original member of the Society, and one of its most zealous and most distinguished workers.” Believe me to be, dear Mrs. Babington, Yours faithfully, T. D. ATKINSON, Hon. Sec., Camb. Antig. Soc. Cambridge Philosophical Society. Oct. 27, 1895. Dear Mrs. BABINeron, We desire on behalf of the Philosophical Society to forward the following Resolution which was passed at our meeting to-day (the first meeting of the Society since the death of Professor Babington) : ‘‘ That this meeting desires to place on record its sense of the loss the Society has sustained by the death of Professor Babington, and to convey to Mrs. Babington the expression of their sympathy and condolence in her bereavement.” The resolution was proposed by Professor Liveing, seconded by Professor Hughes, and carried unanimously. We are, with deep sympathy, Yours very sincerely, J. J. THOMSON, President. H. F. NEWALL, Secretary. d ] CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. Extract from the Thirtieth Annual Report of the Musewms and Lecture Rooms Syndicate for 1895. Tue Museums, May 12, 1896. Since the last Annual Report was published, the University has had to deplore the loss of the venerable Professor Babington, who had occupied the Chair of Botany for thirty-four years. Though for some time past he had been unable to take any active part in the administration of the Museums, the Syndicate cannot forget that throughout the tedious controversy which preceded the com- mencement of the New Museums in 1863, he steadily maintained the necessity for erecting such a structure without further delay, and that his personal influence contributed in no small degree to the result. Moreover, during his long tenure of the Professorship, he did all in his power to increase the collections under his charge, and to:promote the study of physiological as well as systematic Botany. His munificent bequest of his Herbarium and Library was announced to the Senate at the beginning of the last Michaelmas Term (Reporter, p. 23), and gratefully accepted by them (Graces 24 October, 5 December 1895, Reporter, pp. 171, 305). The value of these bequests is recorded in detail in the Report of his successor. The Syndicate have further the pleasure of stating that Mrs. Babington has presented to the University a photograph (life size) of her late husband. This has been hung in the Syndicate Room. Report of Professor Marshall Ward. The death of Professor Babington has deprived the Herbarium of a Curator, who for many years had devoted himself unremittingly to its welfare. The Department of Botany has lost in him a friend, who though prevented by failing health during recent years from taking an active share in its work, retained to the last his interest in those parts of the science which he had made his own. His munificent bequest to the University has enriched the Department by a most valuable collection of over 1600 volumes, and nearly 50,000 sheets of mounted specimens. From EpGaR STIRLING COBBOLD, Esq. Carapoc AND SEVERN VALLEY Fiextp Cuvp, SHROPSHIRE. July 23, 1895. It was with great regret that I received the news of yesterday. I had never had the pleasure of meeting Professor Babington, but his life is one which excites my admiration and regard, and I feel that we and all like clubs have lost a true friend. There is too much dilletante-ism in our clubs now-a-days, a fact which he saw and deplored. Let me assure you that you have not only my sincere sympathy in your loss, but that also of our members, and REMINISCENCES. li specially of those that knew him. For him, a quiet child-like learner from his two Books of Revelation, I cannot help feeling that he has even now perhaps opened a third, and a far wider and deeper volume than those that he had here. . . . Extract of Sermon preached in St. John’s College Chapel, Cambridge, by the Rev. C. Taytor, D.D., Master, on Sunday, Oct. 18, 1895. _ Charles Cardale Babington, Professorial Fellow of the College ; since June 12, 1861, Professor of Botany in the University ; died full of years on the 22nd of July last; born in Nov. 1808. At the time of his death he was the oldest resident member of the Univer- sity. He had joined heartily in wise endeavours to widen the studies of the place, and make Cambridge what it is to-day. In his prime he was (as it has been said) “the central figure among those in Cambridge who took delight in Natural History.” Rooted and grounded in faith as he was devoted to Science, at the end of many years of patient continuance in well-doing, he passed to his rest at length, known and honoured as Botanist, Archaeologist, Christian, and Philanthropist, in Europe, America, India, China, and Japan: his whole life one bright manifestation of a three-fold ardent love, “the love of Man, of Nature, and of God.” ‘Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his.” IN MEMORIAM. By Proressor Mayor. (From the ‘Cambridge Chronicle,” August 30th 1895, revised.) His careless scorn of gold his deeds bewray’d: And this he crav’d,—no longer for to live Than he had power and mind and will to give. Tuomas GREENE. Still unbroken Age to age lasts on that goodly line, Whose pure lives are, more than all words spoken, Earth’s best witness to the life divine. J. C. Suarrp. One, who wore ‘the white flower of a blameless life’ in the face of Cambridge for three score years and nine, must not pass from sight ‘unwept, unhonoured,’ even if Cam’s reeds are vocal no more, and he must perforce abide ‘ unsung.’ From 1853 to 1866 I met Babington well-nigh daily during term. In Hall, at the ‘Bursar’s (W. H. Bateson’s) table,’ sat, among others of the reforming ‘Caucus,’ the two Babingtons, Overton, Adams, Todhunter, Bashforth, Liveing; many have gone, but all saw plans, there first broached, take shape and ripen into li CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. act. We also formed, the two cousins and I, a large part by count of the Antiquarian Society, as represented in session—often the half, seldom less than a third. As with Todhunter and Charles Henry Cooper, so with Cardale Babington ; I knew him well, and yet, save for the weekly ‘wine’ of the Junior Book Club, I doubt whether he ever ate or drank in my rooms orI in his. His devotion to Natural History and Antiquities, to the past, present and future of Education, lay on the surface; but the higher life, which, as I now know, he had embraced from a child, was ‘hidden.’ William Wilberforce, Charles Simeon, and their peers, had indeed moulded his thoughts and will; but his messmates never pierced the secret. Talkative, son of one Say-well of Prating Row, must have felt ill at ease in the Cambridge of those days. Ransack his library; ask his aims from ‘the dead alive and busy’ there. You will find in the Museum—for the bulk of his botanical books, with his entire Herbarium,* both now bequeathed to the University, have long dwelt there for public use, he claiming his share as one of the public—more than 1600 volumes. Some journals of associations he lodged on public shelves, number by number, as they came. In his study still nestles something of Botany and Zoology, far more of Archaeology. English, Irish, Scotch, Welsh societies, national or local,—he seems to have been parcel of all, to have worked for all. E. A. Freeman, Basil Jones, G. T. Clark, Henry Bradshaw, Irish Crosses and Round Towers, Minsters and Roman Roads, Roman Bath for auld lang syne, pot- tery and coins, were fish welcome to his net as Hooker, Berkeley, De Candolle, mosses and brambles, moths and beetles. Humboldt’s “Kosmos” and Gilbert White’s “Selborne,” Lives of Adam Sedgwick, J. S. Henslow, Edward Forbes, the Voyage of the Beagle, tell of labours which prompted and guided his. History was his pastime ; whilst feeling safer with his friend Freeman, he still would not blush to be caught with Froude’s “Armada” or “ Erasmus.” The quarterly of his choice was “The English Historical Review.” At home in every nook of the British, including the Channel, Isles, ;— for he paced them, north and south, east and west, chasing flowers and insects, works of stone age or of bronze, of Celt or Roman, Saxon or Norman; he was scarcely less at home, by others’ eyes all the world over—eyes of Franklin or Cameron, Nordenskjold, Curzon, Huc, Palgrave, Tristram. He was no stranger to Milman’s “ History of the Jews,” Stanley’s “Sinai and Palestine.” For indeed he loved to link Nature with Mind, wherever he strayed. Scott’s poetry or novels, Wordsworth’s verse, were his guides through scenes which they paint; at Dunblane he went on * The University can now shew 400,000 specimens. The collection to which he succeeded would long ago have perished, had he not ‘ poisoned’ the sprigs. + Once only, in 1846, did he stray where the Queen’s writ does not run,—to Iceland. Else he was home-sick as Socrates, though citizen, it is true, of a larger state. REMINISCENCES. liii pilgrimage to Archbishop Leighton’s library. Nor did man’s lower works content him. ‘ Affection dwells in black and white the same.’ Not Cowper only, but Henry Martyn, Selwyn, Patteson, Mackenzie, Mackay of Uganda, William Ellis of Madagascar, Dr. Paton of New Hebrides, drove this quickening truth home. And yet nearer ties drew his thoughts to the mission field. Jani Alli of Corpus, the Moslem missionary to Moslems, lured Henry Parker to India, who thence followed Hannington to Africa and to the tomb. And by Babington’s hearthstone they first met. He was spared the tidings of the late martyrdoms in China. His sorrow for the loss would have been tempered with the joy of triumph. But scribblers who backbite the dead, as rash and vain—even as cowards—would have aroused unmixed shame and wrath. To him the martyrs— then in will, now in act—had come, in order to win a God-speed from Cambridge, the teeming mother of missions, from John Eliot to Delhi and East African brothers. His first book was a “Flora of Bath (1843),” the place of his education, and afterwards of his marriage. Then followed the “Flora of the Channel Islands and of Cambridge ;” a ‘“ Manual of British Botany” (eight editions between 1843 and 1881; this still holds the field); works on brambles and countless articles on Natural History and Antiquities. Cambridge owes to him an “Index of the Baker MSS.” (1848, in conjunction with three friends) ; ‘‘ Ancient Cambridgeshire” (2nd ed. 1883); ‘History of the Infirmary and Chapel of the Hospital and College of St. John the Evangelist, 1874.” The work freely done for others, will never be known. The Ray Club, Cambridge Antiquarian Society, Entomological Society, honour him as a founder. Throughout the United King- dom, whoever laboured to promote Science, Natural or Archaeo- logical, turned to him for help, not in vain. On the 29th of November 1887, he addressed to the Ray Club a pastoral. For many years the Club “included active field Naturalists of various ages, who brought to our meetings the results of their researches, and submitted them to the members and their friends. This was of much use to those students and collectors ; especially to such as were turning their attention to Botany and Zoology, many of whom have since become well known as Naturalists. . . . “The Club is not performing its original functions, nor is it even a social meeting of those interested in Natural Science. The present members do not think it worth while to act as the early members did: viz. to look upon the meetings of the Ray Club as engagements, and not accept invitations to parties on those days. If it is likely that this is to continue, and I fear that that is the case, it seems to me that the Club has run its course. The older members can look back upon the time when important discoveries in Science were mentioned at its meetings before they had been known to the scientific public elsewhere, or even here. Now nothing of the kind takes place or is expected... . liv CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. “The admission of associates was for a time a very valuable addition to the Club, and to be elected as such was an object of ambition to many deserving and diligent students; but for many years the meetings have not proved interesting to them, and there- fore very few of them attend... . “T have now... been, I venture to say, the most regular attendant at its meetings for the long period of fifty years; and hence seen its great usefulness in its earlier period, and its more recent decline. . . . But whatever befalls our Club, let us beware lest luxury and self-indulgence take the place of the learning, science, and abnegation of self, which were so remarkably present in the great men of the recently departed generation of the Univer- sity.” These lessons are enforced by lists, with biographical notes, of former and present members and associates. Let us cull a few names. Among original members—C. C. Babington, Sir G. E. Paget, John Ball; of later recruits—Adam Sedgwick, Sir G. G. Stokes, J. C. Adams, Alfred Newton, William Clark, James Cumming, W. H. Miller, F. J. A. Hort, G. D. Liveing, Sir G. M. Humphry, F. M. Balfour, Churchill Babington, T. M. Hughes, J. C. Maxwell, Sir A. W. Franks, R. B. Clifton, G. R. Crotch. Of these, next to his cousin, Sedgwick and Adams perhaps were most akin to Cardale Babington ; their engraved portraits adorning his dining room, with those of Bishops Lightfoot and Westcott. The functions of these Cambridge societies, it is pleaded, are now swallowed up by London. Babington would retort: Pleasure tracks students to their rooms; surely our duty is to follow the bane with the antidote ; to dog idleness to its haunts, and fight it there. His love of letters was genuine, his taste sound and manly. Of poets he affected, as one might surmise, Wordsworth and Cowper, spokesmen of Nature. ‘God made the country, and man made the town.’ Crabbe he prized for plain dealing. Sober-suited hymns— Thomas Ken’s and George Herbert’s—were more to his mind than raptures. Did you mention Ken, he was apt to ask, ‘Do you know his Midnight Hymn? Most folk neglect that.’ If ever there were a Bible Christian, it was he. The book he judged, as he judged men, by its fruits. These he gathered, not from critics, or word-painters, but from the voice of Missions. ‘There,’ he would say, ‘you have the romance of real life.’ In the last few years I saw him often; for I bore messages from the Spanish and Italian Reforms, from Campello and Cabrera. In faith and hope he greeted for Southern Europe the dawning of a brighter day. Countrymen of Savonarola and Father Paul, of Enzinas and Cyprian de Valera, must at last awaken from millennial slumber and challenge a place in ‘the parliament of man.’ Stedfast he was, some whispered strait-laced, in the resolve never to worship God and the world together. No bribe, no threat, REMINISCENCES. lv could bend him to what he thought evil, that good might come. He would break first. Did a charity, a chureh, eke out its funds by raffles; with such he would have neither art nor part. He found honesty the best policy. The light of his eyes, the Girls’ Orphan Home, was like to expire for lack of funds. The inmates must be - warmed, clothed, fed; ways and means nowhere appeared. His extremity was, in his old-fashioned phrase, God’s opportunity. By what we call chance, after no appeal on his part, visitor after visitor turned up,—like the ‘god from the machine’ (the stage heaven) of Greek theatre, like ‘the angel entertained unawares’ of a lore deep- rooted in his heart,—to lift his cart out of the mire; that he put his own shoulder to the wheel, stands to reason ; it was the instinct of his life, I might say, watchword, but that he was given to ‘do noble things, not dream them, all day long.’ To return to the visitors, the good fairies. One brought serge for frocks, one flannel petticoats, one gloves, one (in guise of a shoemaker) boots—in each case, to rig out the whole dozen. £10 came for coals ‘by order’ ; a legacy of £100 fell in at the very nick of time; need highest, help nighest. Would you read the riddle? ‘For the good man some will even dare to die.’ ‘Love is love’s loadstone.’ From mouth to mouth the news had flown; he wanted aid: who so niggardly as to withold a trifle? The very orphans went out (like a certain widow) to gather sticks for fuel: worked list slippers on the sly, to save shoe-leather—‘ after dusk,’ you understand ;—a widow’s mite out- weighing in his mind the greater gifts and bringing tears to his eyes. He dwelt much on the responsibility of graduates to tradesmen, servants, students. Jealously he guarded Sunday rest for his staff. Not that he was a pedantic Sabbatarian. Certain plants could not safely be left thirty-six hours without tendance: they must have it, it is their right. A short time would suffice for the job, and all be set free to serve God in His courts or to tighten home bonds, according to their conscience. To open a pleasure-ground to saunterers was quite another matter—no ‘work of necessity,’ as he construed the words ; the demand was hollow, and must be withstood. Business were on a sounder footing in Cambridge—in the world —if we one and all would take pattern by him. Where he gave his custom he never withdrew it, never went to London for what he could buy here, never left a bill unpaid. ‘I have lost the best friend I ever had: my own for fifty years, my father’s before me.’ Such tributes fellow-townsmen laid on his grave. When he lay tethered to his chair, a cab-owner, employed by him from the first, went out four miles to pick flowers, such as he loved, for his table. Better, far better was he known in the town—aye, over Europe, and beyond—than in the modern University ; and wherever known, honoured and loved. Unwittingly we have lost our Cambridge Lord Shaftesbury : consult the clergy of St. Barnabas’ and St. Philip’s. Like his friend, Professor Miller, he was a cunning craftsman with tools, so keeping on a better foot with artisans than they who lvi CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. look to shops for their every need. Such teachers breed manlier pupils, and are less costly to society. Self-help was the rule of Cambridge seventy years ago. 4 Having already, since 1877, shewn an interest in the postmen, in the Jubilee Year he invited all ranks in the Cambridge Post Office to meet Sir Arthur Blackwood, their official chief, at tea, and to hear addresses from him. Meeting on meeting was held from 6 to 10 p.m., the Professor presiding throughout, and 147 members of the staff being present in batches (three only were unavoidably absent). As a result of this effort arose a branch of the Postal and Telegraph Christian Association. Of this branch Babington was President at his death; it numbers eighty from central office and smaller offices in town and neighbourhood. In the fifteen months ending 15th August 1895, the branch collected the sum of £15, allotted to (a) the China Inland Mission, (d) Native Officials in India, sent through Catechists of the C.M.S., (c) distri- bution of Christian literature among the 4000 offices of Japan. “It was always a pleasure to note the interest taken by the Professor in all that appertained to the moral, social, or spiritual welfare of the staff; 115 packets of religious literature, each con- taining three publications, are received at the head office monthly, for distribution amongst those who wear H.M. uniform in the postal and telegraph departments. . . . By the death of Professor Babington the Cambridge Post Office has lost a most valued friend and helper. Six members of the staff were present at the funeral service in St. John’s College Chapel, J. Lambert, Esq., the Post- master, being absent through an official engagement which could not be set aside.”* When he became a fixture he wrote to the Athenaeum Club: “T have been a member forty-four years ; our roll is stinted. Pray, lest I play dog-in-the-manger, keeping out some younger man, strike out my name.” One who knows him well, hearing this story, asked “Why then did he not resign his chair?” For ' reasons stated to the Vice-Chancellor of the day. ‘‘ My successor will draw £600 a year from the chest; I draw £300. Already it is hard to furnish all that the garden craves.; it will be harder then. I pay a deputy, and the work is well done.” Deputies must receive one third, may not receive more than two-thirds of the stipend. He split the difference and paid one-half. The staff will say whether he was idle since 1891; whether no glory has passed away from their earth. The electors have to find a candidate worth to the Univer- sity, to science, to Cambridge town, double of Charles Babington. They may search long and far. His tolerance was catholic and unfeigned, cherishing as allies and teachers ‘Agnostics’ and Romanists, a Huxley and a Ball. For why? Frederick Maurice shall tell: charity is wide where faith is * Information from Mr. Samuel Ellis, Assistant Superintendent, Post Office, Cambridge. REMINISCENCES. lvii sure. ‘ Apology for the Bible? I didn’t know it needed an apology.” So cried bluff George III; so thought my friend. Heartily as he revered Truth’s champions in Thirlwall, Julius Hare, Maurice, from the clash of debate he stood aloof. To him it was given, not to thread the tangled maze of doubt, but from dawn to sunset of life’s day to walk right onward in the light of his two Bibles—so, on the 6th of May, 1835, Edward Stanley bade him call them—God’s works. and Word. Sir Henry Wotton, stunned with the din of strife, left, with his parting breath,* a warning to mankind: ‘Itch of disputing, scab of churches.’ By this itch Babington’s withers were unwrung. One very dear to him, Fenton Hort, plunging into the sea of meta- physics, rose from the bath braced for action. Did he therefore scorn unclouded child-like belief? Nay, he half envied it. Rebuking eredulity—on the side of ‘Nay,’ not less than of ‘Yea’—as ‘a dangerous disease of the time,’ he confesses :— The vast multitudes of simple Christian people who know no difficulties, and need know none for themselves, are of course not in question here. Fundamental enquiries constitute no part of their duty; and though the exemption disqualifies them for some among the higher offices of service to their fellows, it leaves them perhaps the more capable of others, according to the Divine allotment of various responsibility. What doughtier master of tongue-fence than Schleiermacher ? Yet even Déllinger asks: ‘When all is said, where is the harvest?” Professor John Campbell Shairp gives body to a thought after which many minds were groping, Cardale Babington’s earnestly as any :— % I have a life in Curistv to live, I have a death in Curist to die ;— And must I wait till Science give All doubts a full reply ? Nay rather, while the sea of doubt Is raging wildly round about, Questioning of life, and death, and sin, Let me but creep within Thy fold, O Curist, and at Thy feet Take but the lowest seat, And hear Thine awful voice repeat, In gentlest accents, heavenly sweet, Come unto Me, and rest; Believe Me, and be blest. J. E. B. M. By Proressor LIveine, F.R.S. (Reprinted from the “Cambridge Review,” October 17th 1895.) Generations come and go so quickly, and changes, not only of men, but of the customs and whole procedure of the University, succeed one another nowadays with such rapidity, that the past, * His epitaph in Latin: ‘Here lies the first author of the sentence: Itch, etc. Seek his name elsewhere.’ The passage cited occurs in a panegyric on Charles I. liii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. even the immediate past, and the men who figured in it, are soon forgotten. A cold shade too often falls on the men whose work has been done so quietly, and at the same time so well, that we hardly perceive that it is not part of the ancient structure of the University. Hence it will not be superfluous if one who had the privilege of being acquainted with the late Professor Babington for nearly half a century, and of working with him for a large part of that time, puts on record a brief sketch of his remembrance of the man and of his doings, in so far as the two were occupied with the same or kindred pursuits. I did not come into residence at Cambridge until 1846, and at that time Babington was well on to middle age. He lived in College in the simple way which was the happy custom at St. John’s, then, as now, one of the poorest, in proportion to the number on its foundation, of the Colleges in Cambridge. But he was then, and for some time after, the centre of activity in the University in the cultivation of Natural History. In his rooms, or in rambles over the country to explore, under his guidance, the peculiarities and products of diverse soils and climates, I met almost everyone living in Cambridge, or in the country round, who took any active interest in Natural History. In this way the lovers of Nature became acquainted with each other through him, and I can say for myself that I learnt more from my companions in study than from lecturers or private tutors. The condition of the University at that time was so utterly unlike what it is now, that the younger men amongst us will per- haps find a difficulty in crediting what I have to tell of it. We were living under the Elizabethan Statutes, and the only avenue to honours at the B.A. commencement was the Mathematical Tripos. Although the Classical Tripos had been instituted for a quarter of a century, none but graduates in mathematical honours had access to it. There was absolutely no opening for those who followed after Natural Science. Not only were there no prizes or honours in that line of study, but no one could obtain any credit at all, except incidentally in the medical course, either in University or College examinations, for a knowledge of it. There were professors of some branches of Natural Science to be sure, but the professorships had hardly any endowment and were mainly honorary appointments. Men like Sedgwick and Henslow and Miller and Clark kept the lamp of science burning and kindled many lamps besides their own ; but there was no laboratory of any kind in which an undergraduate could work, and such opportunities as existed for the study of Natural Science were created by the few men who loved it at their own cost. At the time of which I am writing Henslow had gone down to a living in Suffolk, and it was Babington more than anyone else who drew around him the young men, and the older ones too, who took pleasure in Natural History. This he did because his love of Nature was cosmopolitan, and he had a ready sympathy with all REMINISCENCES. lix of kindred tastes. The shyest lad was never afraid of him when once the ice had been broken, and we used to question him freely, without any reserve, about any natural objects we had noted or collected. He never betrayed the least impatience with any young- ster who came to him for information, and if his own stores of knowledge did not supply the answer to the question, he could generally tell where it might be found. The appearance of his rooms testified to the methodical habit of mind which made him so useful to other people. He was always willing to take an under- graduate as a companion for a walk, in the days when walking, riding, or boating were the only modes of exercise in vogue during the winter half of the year; and a walk with him was as healthy and pleasant a recreation as a student jaded with mathematics or classics could well have. He knew all the haunts of plants and insects in the county, and it was a pleasure to him and to the four or five who sometimes accompanied him on a long day’s ramble, to try and find something new to him as a denizen of the locality we were exploring ; while such a search exercised in the best possible way our own knowledge and powers of observation. Of course his science was not exactly what is most cultivated at the present day. We now delight to scan the minute anatomy of plant or animal, and to trace the physical or chemical actions by which it grows and breathes, lives and dies. But Babington, while he did not in the least despise such researches, loved Nature in its completeness ; it was the living plant or animal he liked to study, its likes and dislikes, its choice of domicile, its habits and inherited instincts. In fact, its manner of life and the way in which it adapted itself to circumstances, the modes in which it approached to being an intelligent creature, were much more to him than the machine, however beautiful. His was just that love of living Nature which makes Gilbert White’s letters so charming, and which Hens- low and Charles Darwin had in a marked degree, and like true love it was utterly unostentatious. No one who does anything to advance science can entirely escape controversy, and Babington was no exception to this rule, but I never knew him use unkind words of any opponent, though I have heard him, with good-humoured sarcasm, express his contempt for mutual admiration societies, and for the desire to make capital out of scientific discoveries. By such a life Babington did more than the University at large are now at all aware, to promote the study of biology in the dark days that immediately preceded the dawn of the present system. I have dwelt on matters which my personal acquaintance with Babington brought under my notice, but there were more public ways in which he shewed his readiness to work, unpaid if need. be, for the advance of science. At the first meeting of the British Association in Cambridge, in 1833, when it was much less of a holiday gathering than it has since become, we find him acting as secretary of Section D, Zoology and Botany ; and in subsequent years, 1853, 1858, and Ix CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. 1861, we find him presiding over the same section. For the 1862 meeting at Cambridge he was one of the local secretaries. For many years he was the active secretary of the Cambridge Philo- sophical Society ; and he was one of the founders of the Ray Club for weekly meetings of field Naturalists in Cambridge, and was always the most regular and active of its members. Besides, he took part in, or corresponded with, a number of other societies with kindred aims in various parts of the kingdom, and published more than one local flora, and many articles on Natural History, as well his “Manual of British Botany.” As he was essentially a field Naturalist, he was led to pay particular attention to systematic Botany and Entomology, and his published work on Natural History relates very much to the same, and he has left his mark in the University by the care and labour he bestowed on the Herbarium. Such a collection, from the perishable nature of its material, cannot last for ever, but Babington did all that labour of love could do to render it perennial and hand it down in the best condition for the use of future generations. Perhaps some day Systematic and Field Botany, of which Henslow made such an admirable educational instrument, will be revived amongst us. Babington was, however, no one-sided man; he had other pursuits besides those which I have mentioned, and the same method and discrimination which he shewed in one pursuit were conspicuous in the others. It is only with that one side of his life and character which bore most distinctly on his official position that I have proposed to deal, because I feel that his influence in the promotion of Natural Science here had been very real and effective at a time when there was no outward encouragement given to such pursuits, and because that influence was so modestly exercised that it escaped general observation, and runs the risk of being entirely forgotten, as soon as the generation which knew pre-scientific Cam- bridge shall have passed away. G. DMZ By THE Rev. H. C. G. Mouts, D.D. (Reprinted from the “ Record,” August 9th 1895.) The Record of last week contained a brief notice of Professor C. C. Babington’s life, and an account of the funeral service. It will not be thought superfluous, however, in the case of a man so eminent for ability and knowledge, and so decided as a Christian believer, to offer a few additional notices. For many years, up to the last of the Professor’s honoured life, it was my happiness to know him, and to enjoy the great privilege from time to time of his conversation. Hours which cannot be forgotten are lived again as these words are written. “Their very memory is fair and bright.” It must be left to others to speak of Professor Babington’s. REMINISCENCES. lxi excellence as a Naturalist. It will be enough here to say that he was the worthy successor (1861) of Henslow, and that he combined, in a degree not always attained by younger botanists, a deep insight into botanical law with a personal knowledge of plant-life as it is, which was at once vast, and lovingly intimate. His active field-work was continued with wonderful energy till his eighth decade was over. I remember well a walk with him at Braemar, up the long green slopes of Glas Meol, in 1888, when two little girls, the eldest not quite six, found in the savant of eighty the kindest companion, with a heart as young as theirs; and ever and again, quite to the hilltop, he would hurry aside to botanize with eyes and mind as keen as ever. It is generally known that his antiquarian knowledge was second only, if second, to his botanical. It used to be pleasantly said of him and of his cousin, Churchill Babington, when the latter was Disney Professor of Archaeology, that either might well occupy the chair of the other. Charles Babington’s F.S.A. was as well won as his F.L.S. and the crowning honour of F.R.S. I hold in grateful memory walks by his side in Scotland and long sittings in the bright drawing-room at Brookside, Cambridge, when it was my easy part to draw him on to give out some of his great and - accurate knowledge, perhaps about the ethnology and antiquities of Ireland (a favorite subject), or about the Icelanders, whom he visited in 1846, or the beginnings of Christianity in Scotland, or about the Roman occupation of Britain. Something, but all too little, of his researches has been preserved in print; but even his writing cannot fully do the work of his singularly informing manner of conversation, absolutely devoid of the show of superior knowledge, but stimulating while it answered enquiry at every turn. His long Cambridge life made him extremely interesting as the man of personal recollections. He entered St. John’s in 1826, took his first degree in 1830, and was continuously an academical resident till his death last month. I have heard him describe the look of the old High Street which preceded King’s Parade, and the west side of which was pulled down (to give room for the screen and new buildings of King’s) in his first year; and how he had an under- graduate friend whose rooms were in that old court of King’s where Simeon was first lodged, and which was sold to the University in 1828, to form part (as it now does, rebuilt) of the Public Library. Tf I am right, some of his Cambridge reminiscences were dictated within the last few years. Should they ever be allowed to appear, they will be a contribution to our local history of rare interest and value. No one who knew Babington needs to be told of the noble harmony in him of ample and penetrating knowledge, with a faith perfect alike in simplicity and strength. Like Sedgwick, his elder friend, and Adams, his younger, he seemed to live above perplexity and doubt, in a bright, pure air and light, in which the imagined ]xii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. conflict between research and the believer’s hope was nowhere to be seen. To him the Bible was the Word of his Lord, reverenced and believed without reserve ; worship was his delight ; and his keen, practical interest in Christian work ran side by side with his enquiries into Nature and History. ‘The calls on this interest were many. Now it was the spread of Scriptural Christianity in Ireland; now it was the admirable work done by Mrs. Babington among the Cambridge postmen and telegraph boys; now it was Jani Alli’s work among the Mohammedans of Calcutta; now it was Henry Parker, another beloved personal friend, going out to live or die in Eastern Africa; now it was a gathering of undergraduates in his house, invited to meet some well-known Christian visitor ; it might be Sir Arthur Blackwood, who again and again spoke in the drawing-room to hearts which had cause to bless the hour. And behind all these activities the Christian savant was living the personal life of faith and prayer. When after his great illness at Braemar he found himself at Cambridge, debarred from active life, it was the privilege of one friend or another to be asked to help him almost pastorally (not to speak now of the valued ministries of the Vicar of St. Paul’s); and the helper’s own soul was always greatly helped when the very simplest reading and prayer by his side carried evidently his whole heart with it, and was answered by his strong Amen. Since his death some cards have been found amongst his papers each containing a motto written in his own hand. One is inscribed with Bishop Hacket’s watchword, “Serve God and be cheerful,” another with the verse, ‘‘ Because Thou hast been my help, there- fore in the shadow of Thy wings I will rejoice,” a third with the stanza written by Dr. Valpy, of Reading, in his closing days (see Memoir of the Rev. W. Marsh, D.D., p. 199)— In peace let me resign my breath And Thy salvation see; My sins deserve eternal death, But Jesus died for me. This meagre obituary notice is a little better than nothing, but it seems sorrowfully inadequate as I review this noble life, with its great human endowments, its strenuous and elevated work, its pure domestic happiness (the Lord be with her whose devoted companion- ship and perfect care is now succeeded by such a solitude), its firm and living faith, and its blessed end. His saltem accumulem donis et fungar inani munere. But the briefest account of such a man is not quite “empty” if it convey a witness to Christ’s truth and glory. For myself, the recollection of Professor Babington is full of that witness. He is present to me as a man who knew much in the human. field, and was always learning more, but whose inmost and ruling characteristic was, that he knew Christ and was found in Him. H. €:: Gm REMINISCENCES. lxiii Reprinted from “The Christian,” October 3rd, 1895. _ Professor Charles Cardale Babington, M.A., F.R.S., was the son of Dr. Joseph Babington. From earliest childhood he was sur- rounded by healthful stimulating influences, receiving from the lips of parents and relatives that sound teaching, both in doctrine and practice, which can only come by careful obedience to the one infal- lible guide—the Word of God. Through the long life which lately closed, that faith was never shadowed, but, with the simple trust of a child, the great student of Nature, the keen observer, the profound admirer of every detail in God’s wonderful world, ‘kept the faith.” “The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein”—this was a verse he loved, and he longed that his own keen delight in the minutest outcome of the Creator’s power might be widely enjoyed by others. _ Many a young man attending his lectures as Professor of Botany at Cambridge, must recollect how carefully he ever sought to remind his class that in no study could the mind be more led to contemplate with wonder and adoration the God of Power and Love. And in these days of excitement and rush for pleasure, would it not be well if time were given, even during a busy period of the year, and far more during a vacation, for the quiet pursuit of some study in Natural Science, which not only furnishes opportunities for the awakening and strengthening of the observing powers, but which aids the heart in looking up and entering more fully into the words of the Psalmist: ‘‘Thou, Lord, hast made me glad through thy work”? Professor Babington was a man of many-sided sympathies. The Irish Church Missions Society commended itself to him through personal knowledge gained when visiting Ireland botanically and archaeologically ; and his deep interest led him to visit the missions in Dublin and Connemara, and also that in the Achill Islands. The C.M.S. had in him a warm and true friend, and few of its supporters could be found more keenly interested in the perusal of its monthly Intelligencer. The work in Uganda had a large share of interest for him, but his warmest sympathies with the C.M.S. were in connexion with the beloved and honoured Rev. Jani Alli and the work he carried on amongst the Mohammedans in Calcutta. This name recalls the large numbers of University men who gathered from time to time in the home at Brookside, either for social inter- course amongst a very few at a time, or in crowded audiences to hear some chosen speaker on missions, or for a Bible-reading. For the latter, none was ever more warmly welcomed than the beloved Sir Arthur Blackwood, whose last Bible-reading in that Brookside home was given on Nov. 23, 1890, the eighty-second birthday of the Professor. Among the audience was a member of the Brahmo Somaj, who had expressed a desire to attend, and who afterwards said he would carry back to India the memory of the words he heard on that day. xiv CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. Time would fail to tell of all the sacred influences exercised by Professor and Mrs. Babington amongst University men. It was in their home that the sainted Bishop Parker first met the Rev. Jani Alli, and formed the friendship which gave that devoted worker to India, and afterwards to his noble life-sacrifice on far Nyanza’s shore. When the “Cambridge Seven” were dismissed for China, their choice of a chairman fell on Professor Babington, because, as they said, “he is so large-hearted, he loves all who love the Lord Jesus Christ.” What a gathering it was; and on every subsequent visit of the China Inland Mission, the secretary, Mr. Broomhall, sought and invariably obtained the services of the same honoured chairman, until sickness deprived him of what he ever considered a privilege. The London City Mission was a specially favorite Society with him; he often said he knew not what London would have been without it. Medical missions had for years a large place in his heart, and he delighted in the thought that here was a work in which all denominations could join, and with one heart unite in fulfilling our Lord’s own command to preach the Word and heal the sick. : Last year, when the venerable Dr. Paton, of New Hebrides, was in Cambridge, he most kindly gave half-an-hour to visiting the Professor, whom he found well up in all the details of his grand and heroic labours. Spain and Italy found in him a warm friend. He largely aided the work in the former country, in which the Archbishop of Dublin takes so warm a share. Count Campello’s work in Italy was also a cause of deep interest. Dr. Barnardo found in the late Professor a faithful and true friend. To these may be added liberal support of local work in Cambridge, into which time and space forbid us to enter. A prolonged illness of nearly four years laid him aside from active work, but not from active heart-interest in the extension of our Saviour’s Kingdom ; and when able, as he was for much of that time, he followed with sympathetic eagerness the work at home and abroad. This is not the place in which to speak of the sacred memories which cluster round these later years. They brought him much of suffering and weakness, but the Hand that had led him all through his lengthened life, sustained him still. His peace, his patience, his praise, were lessons for all who came within his influence, and with unfaltering trust and unbroken peace his gentle spirit passed into the presence of the Lord he loved. Thus will it be seen that the subject of this brief sketch furnishes a noble evidence of union in science and faith. Cambridge has lost one of her most distinguished sons. The gates of glory have opened to admit into the King’s presence this cherished saint, who lives for ever with Him who is our Life. “Che memory of the just is blessed.” REMINISCENCES. Ixv IRISH DISTRESS, JANUARY, 1840. From the “Cambridge Chronicle,” January 25, 1840. [The following letter shews the interest which Professor Babington took from ‘early days in the welfare of the Irish people. ] A WINTER WITHOUT FUEL! DESTITUTION OF THE IRISH PEASANTRY. To the Editor of the ‘Cambridge Chronicle.” St. Joun’s Cortes, Jan. 20th, 1840. Sir,—I feel no doubt of your allowing me to occupy a small portion of your next number with the following statement of the resent state of total destitution which exists in Ireland, in order that the attention of the members of the University and inhabitants of the town of Cambridge may be called to the great necessity which exists for vigorous measures being taken for the relief of our suffering fellow-countrymen, who are totally without fuel during this incle- ment season of the year. It will be seen from the following short extracts from letters addressed to the Rev. H. Marriott, Rector of Claverton, near Bath, that the poor people inhabiting the central counties of Ireland have been, owing to the continued wet weather, unable to provide their usual supply of fuel during the last summer ; and that they are at the present time in want of a supply sufficient even for the purpose of cooking that scanty stock of potatoes which the late rainy season has permitted them to raise; and that from their distance from the sea, and their extreme poverty, it is not in their power to procure coal to replace the turf, upon which they have been accustomed to depend for winter fuel. I know from experience that the roofs of their wretched cabins are at all times quite insufficient to resist even the usual rain of that wet climate, and am now informed upon good authority, that in many cases the wet has penetrated through the mud walls with which they are constructed, so as not to leave a single dry spot within them; and that from that cause the potatoes—of which the crop has been far less productive than usual—cannot be prevented from decaying, so that the population of a large part of Ireland will certainly be soon reduced to a destitution of food and shelter,—if, indeed, they are not already in that deplorable condition. The resident gentry of that country have been doing all that their means will allow, to remedy the evil; but from its magnitude it is quite impossible for them to do more than will slightly alleviate the miseries of the people ; and it is only by the liberal assistance of the English that they can hope to prevent the most appalling results. The Rev. R. Daly, Rector of Powerscourt, writes: “‘We have reason to think that we are about to enter upon a year that will be marked with peculiar sufferings. Food is dear, and, what is worse é lxvi CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. —of bad quality ; and the common firing of the country is in most. places entirely destroyed. I doubt not, but toa great extent, the people were prevented from cutting their turf; but the common evil is, that there has been an impossibility of drying and saving that which was cut. In travelling, this year, through much of the south of Ireland, I have seen the low-lying bogs covered with water, and the stacks of turf just appearing above the water. There is no turf fit for fuel to be had. How must they suffer, who depend entirely on turf! A sister of mine living in the county of Cavan, which depends on turf for firing, was obliged to send forty miles for coal! The poor cannot do this. I do not know what can be done ; the evil is of such universal extent. I fear one result will be fever in the spring and summer. It is, indeed, beginning already.” Lord Powerscourt says: “I assure you I am not saying anything beyond the most bare fact, when I say that such a season and such a consequent prospect has not occurred in the memory of the oldest inhabitant.” The Rey. A. Douglas, Rector of Drumgoon, county of Cavan, writes: “I can bear the most ample testimony to the truth of the destitution and misery under which our poor now labour from the total want of fuel. This part of Ireland (Cavan) depends altogether for firing on a species of turf, called mud-turf; the mud is mixed up like mortar, then spread and divided by hand into the size for burning ; it requires much fine weather to dry it; it is also a most expensive operation ; and should a wet summer, like the last, come, the poor lose their labour and their winter provision of fuel. Iam Protestant Rector of a large parish, which contains sixteen thousand acres, with a dense population of thirteen thousand souls ; the poor have no means to procure sea-coal, being more than thirty miles” from any port. I have been over my parish, and can state, with truth, that scarce a turf-stack can be seen, even at the cottage-door of the most respectable farmers; the fuel, or mud-turf, all out in the bogs; the tops of the small stacks just above the water. The evil does not stop here; the frost which has come the last few days bursts and ravels the turf, so that it is altogether destroyed, and the whole of last summer’s labour of the poor is lost.” He adds, that the people must, under the best circumstances, be “ without any fuel for more than eight months,” as no new turf will be ready to burn till August ; and that he has been a constant resident rector for more than thirty years, and says, “in the presence of God, I declare I never saw or felt before, such a scene of horrors for the poor, as that which now presents itself to my contemplation.” The Earl of Cloncurry writes: “The statement as to the nearly total loss of the year’s fuel is by no means exaggerated ; and to those who inhabit damp cottages, with scanty clothing, and more scanty diet, the want of a fire is a dreadful privation.” I could give further extracts, but that I think it unnecessary ; and now, Sir, let us who sit by our comfortable fire-sides, and have REMINISCENCES. lxvii good and sufficient food upon each succeeding day, consider these statements, and endeavour to alleviate, as far as lies in our power, the miseries of our unfortunate fellow-countrymen ; giving at the same time, thanks to Almighty God, that we and those around us are not reduced to a similar state of destitution. In the city of Bath, a public meeting was held, and subscriptions to the amount of £211 were collected upon the day of the meeting. I would propose that a Committee be formed in this town, for the purpose of collecting subscriptions from the University and Town,— entering into communication with the Rev. H. Marriott (who has taken the lead in this charitable object), and with the Committee which is now forming in Dublin—and taking such other steps as may appear to be advisable. Apologizing for the space I have occupied in your columns. I am, Sir, your obedient Servant. CHARLES C. BABINGTON. By JAMES BRITTEN, F.L.S. (Reprinted from the “Journal of Botany,” September, 1895.) Charles Cardale Babington was born on November 23rd, 1808, at Ludlow, in which town his father, Joseph Babington, was a physician. When he was four years old, the family removed to Spaw Place, Humberston Gate, Leicester, and subsequently, Mr. Babington having received ordination in the Established Church, to Hawksworth, in Nottinghamshire. Mr. Babington had a fond- ness for botany, and contributed a list of plants found near Ludlow to Plymley’s Agriculture of Shropshire. While at Ludlow he sent lichens to Sir J. E. Smith, some of which were figured and described for English Botany (see E. Bot. 450, 740, 887). When he was eight years old, young Babington was sent to Needwood Parsonage, Staffordshire, for private tuition, where his diary tells us, he was not well treated. After being at another private school, he was sent (in 1821) to the Charterhouse, but here he did not stay long. “Not getting on well with my learning,” says his diary, ‘“‘I was removed at my own wish from the Charter- house and went to Mr. W. Hutchins’s school at Bath.” His father, whose infirmities had compelled him to abandon clerical duty, had at this time settled in Bath. During the time that young Babington was a day-scholar at the school mentioned, he “formed an intimate acquaintance with the neighbourhood of Bath, and began to study its botany and to collect plants and insects.” His father had previously taught him the elements of botany, from Lee’s Jntro- duction and Withering’s Arrangement. Ixvili CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. On Oct. 11th, 1826, Babington took up his residence at St. John’s College, Cambridge. In the following year, he notes under April 30th, ‘Went to Prof. Henslow’s first lecture on Botany,” and on May 2nd, “‘Conversed with him after the botanical lecture, and was asked to his house. Assisted Prof. Henslow in putting things in order before and after the lectures.” In 1830 he took his B.A. degree and became a Fellow of the Linnean Society, of which at the time of his death he was the “father.” In 1833 he went into college, and was created M.A. It was in this year that his more definite botanical work began. We have seen that during his school days he studied the plants of Bath, and on visiting that city in July, 1831, he was requested by Mr. E. Collings ‘‘to look over a list of the Bath plants, and make additions and corrections. I found the list so imperfect that it was determined to endeavour to complete my own list of those which I had observed. I worked hard all the summer, and finished the manuscript on the 15th October, having had the loan of Dr. H. Gibbes’s Flora Bathon. and assistance from Mr. E. Simms and Dr. J. F. Davis.” The Flora Bathoniensis was published at the beginning of 1834 ; it contains a few critical notes and references to continental floras, which indicate the lines of the author’s future work, and adds Euphorbia pilosa (called epithymoides) to the British Flora. In 1836 (at its second meeting) Babington became a Fellow of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh. In 1837 (at the beginning of which he ‘“‘ was taken with the prevalent influenza”) he made his first visit to the Channel Islands, in company with Rk. M. Lingwood, with whom and John Ball, another Cambridge friend, he had visited Treland in 1835.* He returned in 1838, and the results of his observations are embodied in his Primitiae Florae Sarnicae, published in 1839. A much more important work, however, was already in progress. In his diary for 1835 is the entry: “May 11. Com- menced my Manual of British Botany,” and with this his time was largely occupied until 1843, when the last proof of the book (“‘ which has kept me most fully occupied all the winter”) was corrected ; the preface is dated May Ist, 1843. Of this work it is not too much to say that it revolutionized the study of British plants, and gave an impetus to thought and work among British botanists to a degree unequalled by any publication of the century. To say this is by no means to ignore the excellence of Smith’s English Flora (1828), or to depreciate other books then existing, such as the seventh edition of Withering’s Arrangement (1830). But the bulk of these, aug- mented as it was in the latter case by the addition of a vast quantity of extraneous though not uninteresting matter, rendered them cumbrous for field work; and although the useful Compendium of * Babington’s account of this visit will be found in Mag. Nat. Hist. ix. 119—130 (1836). REMINISCENCES. lxix the English Flora (which first appeared in English in 1829) was sufficiently convenient in size, the descriptions were meagre. Hooker’s British Flora, which first appeared in 1830, successfully supplied the demand for a compendious handbook, as is shewn by the fact that four large editions were exhausted in less than twelve ears. These were all arranged on the Linnean system, but the fifth edition, published a year before the Manual, followed the natural arrangement. But by this time Sir William Hooker had become Director of Kew Gardens, and it is not astonishing that his new labours left him but little time for British botany. Save in its rearrangement, this edition shews little advance upon its pre- decessors ; and the time was ripe for the appearance of a new book. Other important reasons for the production of such a work are well set forth in the preface to the first edition of the Manual— a thousand copies of which, as of subsequent editions, were printed. Babington tells us that, having taking up British botany, he ‘had not advanced far in the critical examination of our native plants before he found that a careful comparison of indigenous specimens with the works of eminent continental authors, and with plants obtained from other parts of Europe, must necessarily be made, for it appeared that in very many cases the nomenclature employed in England was different from that used in other countries, that often plants considered as varieties here were held to be distinct species abroad, that several of our species were only looked upon as varieties by them, and also that the mode of grouping into genera was frequently essentially different. The discovery of these facts produced considerable astonishment, and the author was led to consider what could have been the cause of so remarkable a discrepancy. The following appears to be the most probable explanation. It is well known that at the close of the last century Sir J. E. Smith became the fortunate possessor of the Herbarium of Linnaeus, and was thus enabled to ascertain, with very considerable accuracy, the British species which were known to that distinguished man, and to publish, in the most improved form that he had given to his system, a remarkably complete and excellent Flora of Britain. Then followed the long-continued separation of this country from France, and indeed from most of the European nations, by which we were almost completely pre- vented from observing the progress which botanical science was making in other countries, and at the same time our own flora was continually receiving accessions of new plants which it was nearly impossible to identify with the species detected and published in France and Germany. At the conclusion of the war we had become so wedded to the system of Linnaeus, and, it may even perhaps be allowable to add, so well satisfied with our own proficiency, that, with the honourable exception of Mr. Brown, there was at that time scarcely a botanist in Britain who took any interest in or paid the least attention to the classification by natural orders which had lxx CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. been adopted in France, and to the more minute and accurate examination of plants which was caused by the employment of that philosophical arrangement. ... . The publication of so complete and valuable a Linnaean work as the English Flora greatly con- tributed to the permanency of this feeling, and accordingly we find that at a very recent period working English botanists were un- acquainted with any of the more modern continental floras, and indeed even now many of those works are only known by name to the great mass of cultivators of British botany.” The continental floras mentioned as having been consulted for the Manual are entirely German—Koch’s Synopsis, Reichenbach’s Icones and Iconographia, and Sturm’s Deutschlands Flora. In the second edition (1847) Nee’s Genera and Schkuhr’s Auedgriser are added. The third and fourth editions (1851 and 1856), although including “many additions and corrections,” do not present many noteworthy changes, except in detail: but the care which the author took in revising each edition should be mentioned ; Babing- ton’s interleaved copies of each issue are preserved in the Cambridge Herbarium, and afford ample evidence of the conscientious work which rendered the often abused phrase “new edition” no empty formula. Mr. Newbould had a similar copy ; his suggestions were always at Babington’s service, and frequently proved useful. The fifth edition, published in 1862, is noteworthy for the recommendation of numerous French works, especially Grenier and Godron’s Flore de France, and of Fries’s Novitiae. From this it will be seen that by this time Babington had mastered the contents of the principal critical floras of the Continent, and had recognized their bearing upon British plants. Following his dictum “It is most desirable that the students of our native Flora should not confine their attention to books published in this country,” comes the sound advice which even at the present time cannot be con- sidered altogether needless:—‘ It is necessary to warn students against the very common error of supposing that they have found one of the plants described in a foreign Flora, when in reality they have only gathered a variety of some well-known British plant. The risk of falling into such errors renders it necessary to consult such works as those of Messrs. Boreau and Jordan with great caution, lest we should be misled by descriptions most accurate indeed, but often rather those of individuals than species. Amongst plants so closely allied as are many of those called species in some continental works, it is scarcely possible to arrive at a certain con- clusion without the inspection of authentic specimens.” Shortly after the publication of the fourth edition of the Manual, an important rival had appeared in Mr. Bentham’s Handbook of the British Flora (1858). There is no need here to enter upon a discussion as to the relative merits of these works, each of which has proved useful to many generations of botanists ; but it may be well to reprint the remarks which Babington made in the preface REMINISCENCES. Ixxi to the fifth edition of the Manual—the next which appeared after the publication of Bentham’s book, which latter, as every one knows, considerably ‘“‘reduced the number of our native species.” No one would disparage for one moment the value of Bentham’s work or the sanity of his conclusions; yet it is well known that it was mainly based upon the examination of herbarium specimens, and this in spite of the large number of living plants always at hand in the Gardens to which the Kew Herbarium is an adjunct. ‘An attempt has recently been made,” says Babington, “greatly to reduce the number of our native species. The results obtained seem to be so totally opposed to the teaching of the plants them- selves, and the evidence adduced in their favour is so seldom more than a statement of opinion, that they cannot safely be adopted ; nor does the plan of the present work admit of discussion of the many questions raised by them. Also, it has been laid down as a rule by some botanists that no plant can be a species whose dis- tinctive characters are not as manifest in an herbarium as when it isalive. We are told that our business as descriptive botanists is not ‘to determine what is a species,’ but simply to describe plants so that they may be recognised from the dry specimen. The author cannot agree to this rule. Although he, in common with other naturalists, is unable to define what is a species, he believes that Species exist, and that they may often be easily distinguished amongst living plants, even when separated with difficulty from their allies when dried specimens only are examined. He also thinks that it is our duty as botanists to study the living plants whenever it is possible to do so, and to describe from them; to write for the use and instruction of field- rather than cabinet- naturalists—for the advancement of a knowledge of the plants rather than for the convenience of possessors of herbaria ; also, that the differences which we are able to describe as distinguishing plants, being taken from their more minute organs, is not a proof ‘that they constitute only a single species. It seems to be our business to decide upon the probable distinctness of plants before we attempt to define them ; to make the species afford the character, not the character form the species.” The sixth (1867), seventh (1874), and eighth (1881) editions were reviewed at some length in this Journal on their appearance by Mr. Carruthers, Dr Trimen, and myself respectively,* and the principal changes which accompanied them duly noted. One sen- tence may be quoted from the last of these which is applicable to every edition: ‘The words ‘corrected throughout’ which appear upon the title page are always amply justified by the contents of the volume ; and although many of the alterations introduced into each successive edition seem in themselves trifling, they shew a gratifying anxiety for accuracy in detail, and that no pains have * Journ. Bot. 1867, 184; 1874, 215; 1881, 280. Ixxii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. been spared to ensure a satisfactory result.” Babington’s depre- . catory note regarding these alterations and the modest statement. of his aims with which it concludes are very characteristic: “The progress of our knowledge has caused changes in the nomenclature in successive editions of this book and in the author’s views of the value of forms—as species or varieties. The inconvenience of these alterations to all, especially to statistical botanists, is fully ad-. mitted ; but the author does not know of any mode by which it can be avoided if each edition is to be brought up as completely as is in his power to the contemporary knowledge of our plants. No altera- tions have been admitted until careful study has convinced the. author that they are required. He may have fallen into error, but has earnestly endeavoured to ‘discover the truth.” With regard to: nomenclature, however, Babington was by no means rigorist, as. will be seen by a reference to his paper on the subject in this. Journal for 1888, pp. 369—371, although in the case of the trans-- ference of a species he supported ‘tthe plan adopted by most botanists until very recently, of giving as the authority for the — binomial name the author who placed [the species] in its new and apparently more correct genus.” Although, as every one knows, Babington was, even before the: publication of the Manual, the recipient of communications from “botanical friends and correspondents almost too numerous to» mention,” it may be of interest to cite the names of those whom he. singles out for special mention. In the first edition he names. J. H. Balfour, D. Moore, W. Borrer, E. Forster, J. E. Henslow, and W. A. Leighton, and most of these are mentioned in the second edition. Thereafter none are named; had any been mentioned, it would assuredly have been Mr. Newbould, whose devotion to the Manual and its author amounted almost to a cultus, and whose excitement during the preparation and on the publication of a new edition was almost ludicrous in its intensity. It seemed desirable to say what had to be said about the Manual: in a connected form; but we must now return to the period when the first edition appeared. Before Babington had any official con- nection with the University, his influence was apparent in many directions. He took an important rather than a prominent part— for he was always of a retiring disposition—in numerous projects. which space will not allow us to enumerate here, and was generally helpful. A resident of more than forty years testifies that he was. then ‘the central figure among those in Cambridge who took delight in Natural History: and his simple character and keen interest in nature were very attractive to younger men who had similar likings. He certainly did more, in my time, than any one else to promote the- study of Natural Science in the University.” As an archaeologist. he took a high position; he published papers on “ Ancient Cam- bridgeshire ” and the history of the chapel of his college. In 1836 a society called the Ray Club was formed, to take- REMINISCENCES. xxiii the place of Henslow’s Friday evening parties: in this Babington took a leading part, and he was the last survivor of its founders. In 1844 the Ray Society was established; Babington was on the council, and many of the publications, such as the Memorials of Ray and the volume of his Correspondence, owe much to his help: the preface to the latter says that he had “looked over the proof sheets, given the modern names of the plants referred to, and added many valuable notes.” In or about 1862, a Committee of the British Association, consisting of Babington, Newbould, and J. E. Gray, was appointed to prepare a report on the plants of Ray’s Synopsis Stirpwwm, but this, unfortunately, was never presented. The list of papers under Babington’s name in the Royal Society’s Catalogue, which extends down to 1883, is 131, and several have appeared since then in this Journal. His first paper, however, was not botanical, but entomological ; it appeared in the Magazine of Natural History for 1832, and enumerated certain ‘Additions to the List of British Insects,” among which are some beetles new to science. He was an ardent student of insects, and at first his work seems to have lain in that direction, as out of the first twelve papers which he published, seven were entomological. But his last contri- bution to entomology was the “ Dytiscidae Darwinianae,” published in the Entomological Society’s Transactions for 1841—43, since which time his published papers have been almost entirely botanical. A large number of these appeared in the short-lived Botanical Gazette (1849—51) and in the pages of this Journal, of which he has always been a friend and supporter: the first article in our first volume is from his pen, and his name appeared in our list of contributors for 1891. Among papers calling for more especial mention may be noted the “Revision of the Flora of Iceland,”* in which he brought together with much care the results of previous investi- gators, embodying with these his own observations made during a brief visit in 1846. This and his visit to the Channel Islands were the only occasions on which Babington left England. Besides the papers which stand in his name in the above- mentioned Catalogue, Babington described several plants for the Supplement to English Botany (Glyceria Borrert Bab., t. 2797), the first and last plates of which were accompanied by text from his pen. The first Glyceria Borreri (t. 2727, issued 1837), had been previously detected by Borrer, and Babington named it “after its discoverer, as a slight acknowledgment of the many favours received from him.” The figure had been drawn by Sowerby as far back as 1829, and is marked by him “Glyceria species nova (?)”: Hooker, however, notes on the drawing, “I cannot make this a new species”: there are also notes in Borrer’s and Babington’s writing. The last Anacharis Alsinastrum (t. 2993), was not published until 1865. This plant, as it is well known, shortly after its introduction * Journ. Linn. Soc, xi. 282—348. lxxiv CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. to the Cambridge Botanic Gardens, made its escape through a waste pipe, found its way into the Cam, and in 1852 impeded navigation and threatened to injure the drainage of the fen country. The plant was styled by some humorous undergraduate Balbingtonia, to which some uncomplimentary epithet—diabolica, pestifera, or damnosa—was added. It is unnecessary to say that Babington was in no way directly responsible for the introduction, and the name does not find any place in the Index Kewensis, although it certainly has some claims to inclusion. The genus named in his honour by Lindley (Bot. Keg. 1842, t. 10) is now by common consent referred to Baeckea, so that no distinct generic type is associated with him, although Atriplex Babingtonii commemorates his early critical work at a difficult genus. It was in 1846 that the “Synopsis of British Rubi’—the fore- runner of the important book issued in 1869—appeared in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. It was reprinted in pamphlet form, and gave an impetus to the study of this trouble- some group, the effects of which are by no means expended. The later work, The British Rubi, was printed at the cost of the University Press, and was to have been accompanied by a volume of plates by Mr. J. W. Salter. Some of these were completed and printed off, and are extremely beautiful ; but the work was arrested by Salter’s death, and has not since been proceeded with. The acquisition of Genevier’s great Rubus herbarium enabled Babington to pursue the study of this, his favourite group, with the assistance of a large series of French types: he had for many years been preparing a new edition of the fubi, in which the comparison of our English plants with these would have doubtless suggested interesting con- clusions. In 1851 he was elected F. R. 8. In 1860 Babington published his Flora of Cambridgeshire—an excellent book, to which may be largely attributed the historical treatment which prevails in our best local floras. On the death of Prof. Henslow, on May 16th, 1861, it seemed obvious that Babington would be his successor, and in less than a month he was appointed to the post. He at once set to work to improve the Herbarium, which was in an unsatisfactory condition ; additions were steadily made, both to it and to the library, some of them, such as Genevier’s Rubi, at Babington’s expense. His own time was so much occupied, as he states in the Museum Report for 1881, in examining plants for other people, that the work of in- corporating additions and rearranging the collections was mainly left to his assistants—Messrs. W. Hillhouse (1878—81), T. H. Corry (1881—83), M. ©. Potter (1884—91), and I. H. Burkill, who still occupies the post, and to whose kind helpfulness in the preparation of this memoir I am largely indebted. Mr. Corry, it will be remem- bered, met his death by drowning, and Babington’s notice of him (Journ. Bot. 1883, 313) shews a warm appreciation of his talents and personal qualities—“I lose in him not only an excellent scien- tific helper, but also a very greatly valued friend.” REMINISCENCES. Ixxv Mr. Burkill writes: ” His extreme kindness kept him always busy for others—this was one of his most noticeable characteristics. When he appointed me as his assistant in 1891, it was but a month before his illness; but then and during the three previous years, when from time to time I had had occasion to ask his advice about any plant, I always found him busy with the same work—either Rubi from his own collection or Rubi for some one else: more rarely it would be something of a different genus, but nearly always it was work for somebody who had written to him. I myself owe much to him for his great kindness. When I began work here, he used to come down an hour earlier than usual, because he found it suited me better, and he liked to be there to help me in getting started. He was extremely retiring in many ways, and though he usually spent more money on the maintenance of the Herbarium than the allowance, he never mentioned it in his report. He was extremely methodical : everything was noted down at once. His critical work was rather slow and sure, for he always said that another would take in the difference between the plants in less time than he could. He did not see differences at the first glance, but worked them out slowly and thoughtfully.” The extreme kindness which Babington shewed to all with whom he came in contact, and especially to beginners in his favourite science, was very marked. He answered letters promptly, and his replies were full of interest; many of those who subse- quently made for themselves a name among British botanists were stimulated by his encouragement. He was glad to share his pleasure with others ; when away on a holiday in some place where interesting plants abounded, he would say, “‘ We must get Newbould down here,” conscious that his old friend and admirer would take keen delight in the things which gave him so much happiness, as well as in the genial company which would recall early rambles together. For, as the sketch which I published of Mr. Newbould* shews, a warm attachment existed between the two botanists, dating from their college days. Newbould had met Babington in Scotland in 1845, had accompanied him to Pembrokeshire in 1848, to Ireland in 1852 and again in 1858, and to North Wales (with Jacques Gay) in 1862: they had previously worked in Cambridgeshire and Essex, and in later life a visit to Babington was one of the keenest joys of Newbould’s existence. They spent a pleasant time together at Grange-over-Sands in 1884, after the meeting of the British Asso- ciation at York. Babington’s affectionate tribute to the memory of his friend will be found in this Journal for 1886, p. 159. Any account of Babington would be incomplete which did not contain some reference to the strong religious spirit which domi- nated his life. Brought up in the Evangelical school of thought, which at that time aroused the Established Church from the lethargy * Journ. Bot. 1886, 161— 174. Ixxvi CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. into which it had sunk, he, unlike so many of his contemporaries, —the two Newmans, for instance—never deviated from his early beliefs. As a boy he became acquainted with William Wilberforce, an old friend of his father; at Cambridge as an undergraduate he heard Charles Simeon preach, and later took others to hear him ; he attended missionary meetings where Baptist Noel spoke; he supported Connop Thirlwall in the action which he took as to the admission of dissenters to academical degrees; and in later life— indeed, up to his death—actively supported a number of philan- thropic societies, all characterized by a strong Protestant tone. His drawing-room was a centre for meetings of these bodies, and, in conjunction with Mrs. Babington, he promoted missionary work both at home and abroad. But all was done quietly and unosten-- tatiously ; and however strong his principles might be, his natural kindliness of heart and consideration for others prevented that. aggressive assertion of them which characterizes the less cultured representatives of Protestantism. The various and ever-varying aspects of Biblical criticism and the evolution hypothesis never disturbed him. His friend, the Rev. H. C. G. Moule, Principal of Ridley Hall, writing in the Record for Aug. 9th, says: “ Like Sedgwick, his elder friend, and Adams, his younger, he seemed to live above perplexity and doubt, in a bright, pure air and light, in which the imagined conflict between research and the believer's. hope was nowhere to be seen. To him the Bible was the Word of his Lord, reverenced and believed without reserve ; worship was his delight ; and his keen, practical interest‘in Christian work ran side by side with his enquiries into nature and history.” But he was. fair to those from whom he differed. Prof. Mayor, writing of a memorable encounter of the British Association, of which body Babington was always a member,—it was at a meeting of the Association that he first met the lady whom he married in 1866, —says: ‘‘I well remember the glee which he displayed over Samuel Wilberforce’s discomfiture by young Huxley. In creed, doubtless, he was much nearer to the Bishop than to his conqueror, but he distrusted and hated clap-trap as a stop-gap for argument and fact.. In later life he lamented the tendency to forsake Huxley’s Physiology as outworn.” Like many of the older men, Babington was not in sympathy with the more recent tendencies of botanical research, the intro- duction of which by Dr. Vines, coupled with the non-insistence of the attendance of medical students, caused a great diminution in the number of those present at his lectures. Prof. Mayor says: “He pitied the botanist who, never seeking living plants in their homes, armed with microscope, ransacks their cell and fibre. A student of the first class in the Natural Science Tripos, observing a specimen of (what I will call X) in his drawing-room, on learning the name cried, ‘So that is really X? I know all about that; I guessed it would be set, and it was.’ Science which cannot see REMINISCENCES, Ixxvii the wood for the trees, growing herb or animal for cell laid bare by scalpel, had for him no charm. His joy in Nature was the joy of a child.” On one of his few visits to the Botanical Department of the British Museum he told us with much relish a story which may be a variant of the foregoing—how a young lady, coming into his room and seeing a specimen of Peziza coccinea on his table, was struck by its beauty, and asked its name. On being told, she exclaimed, “‘Peziza! why I have been working at that for a fortnight !” During the later years of his life, Babington—always in com- pany with his devoted wife, who shared all his interests—spent long periods of rest in various parts of the country—Yorkshire, Cornwall, Durham, and Scotland, especially at Braemar, which they visited annually from 1886 to 1891. The rest of the year was spent at Cambridge, where on a fine day he might be seen in his wheel chair either in the Botanic Gardens or on the Trumpington Road, or at other places, or occasionally going for drives, almost the last drive being to Cherry Hinton Chalk-pit close (1894). All the winter he would be in the house, and read from morning to night, his sight being excellent. He was never in the Herbarium after August, 1891, but he retained charge of this till his death, his assiduous assistant, Mr. Burkill, visiting him weekly to receive such instructions as were necessary. Some two or three years since he appointed Mr. Frank Darwin Deputy-Professor, with the charge of the laboratories. His own herbarium and library, the latter containing some 1600 volumes, are bequeathed to the University; the interest of the former, of course, lies mainly in the Rubi, but there is also an extremely interesting collection of British plants, formed during his long botanical career. His end, like his life, was peaceful. When the news of his death, which took place on the 22nd of July, reached me, I was staying at a Benedictine abbey in the far north; and the motto of the house—“ Pax”—seemed the most fitting message of sympathy which could be sent. It is pleasant to know that the message gave comfort to the one for whom it was intended. The funeral took place at Cherry Hinton on July 26th, none but friends and the Cambridge botanical staff being present. BRITISH RUBI. By JAMES E. BAGNALL, A.L.S. To no British botanist are we more indebted for our knowledge of critical plants than to Professor Babington, who in the various editions of his great and classical work, The Manual of British Botany, has always been the advanced leader, giving to its students descrip- tions of all recent additions to our flora; and the results of his extensive knowledge of the botanical literature of the continent, and of his examination of the herbaria issued by continental experts. lxxvili CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. But the special work of Professor Babington has been the study of the Rul. For more than fifty years his earnest attention was given to the plants, and by his patient plodding and careful investigation, the chaotic state in which he found Rubi in the earlier days has been transformed into the more systematic arrangement of recent times. The first work specially devoted to the study of the Rubi, “A Synopsis of British Rubi,” was published by Professor Babington in The Annals of Natural History (1846). This was afterwards issued as a separate work, and was the first complete and systematic account of the British Rubi that had at that time been given, but both the nomenclature and arrangement were merely tentative, and were modified as knowledge grew from more to more. In this essay descriptions are given of thirty species and thirty varieties, together with valuable notes and comments following the description of each. In a condensed form, but with one or two additional species, this was afterwards given in the second edition of The Manual (1847). The influence of this work “The Synopsis” is shewn in the fact that, in the third edition of The Manual (1851) forty species and thirty varieties are described, but there is very little alteration in the systematic arrangement, Rubus Leesu, LR. hystriz, R. pallidus, R. scaber, hk. pyramidalis, being amongst the additions to his former list. In the fifth edition of The Manual (1862), forty-three species and nineteen varieties are enumerated and described, some of the varieties of former editions being raised to specific rank. The arrangement of the plants gives evidence of careful thought and study ; this was much modified, and was that which has since been adhered to in all his later editions of The Manual: R. Colemanni, R. Bloxamii, R. rosaceus, R. pygmaeus, R. diversifolius, R. foliosus, being now described as species, whilst PR. calvatus became a variety of Ff. Salteri. In 1869 Professor Babington’s great work, The British Rubi, an attempt to discriminate the species of Rubi known to inhabit the British Isles, was published. The value of this work can scarcely be estimated. If it had been published in the form originally intended, i.e. with plates illustrating each species, it would have been a grand work, but I think scarcely so useful as in its present form ; its cost would have placed it far above the reach of the ordinary student, so that only the few more wealthy ones could have availed them- selves of its help. ‘This was the first work published in Britain in which an elaborate account was given of these plants, and for the first time the British student of the Rubi had a guide, helpful and trustworthy. In The British Rubi, forty-three species and twenty varieties are described with a fulness not before attempted, so that all the minuter details, of habit, clothing, leaf form, and margination are given; but that which adds so materially to the value of this work, is the commentary which follows each description, shewing the fulness of knowledge and vast experience of the author, and REMINISCENCES. Ixxix rendering the work not only valuable as a guide, but also of the greatest charm to one interested in this study. Beside the descrip- tions and valuable comments, the area of each plant is given, together with the geographical distribution throughout the British Isles, so far as was then known; the Watsonian provinces being adopted. The result of the publication of this work was a great increase in the number of the students who gave special attention to the Rubi, and all that has since been done in this study among British botanists owes its origin to The British Rubi. The fundamental knowledge of the plants, and the higher critical power of our modern British students, have been mainly gained by the use of this book. The seventh edition of The Manual (1874), contained the condensed descriptions of the uli given in the above work, with the same arrangement of the species, two varieties, R. Briggsii and f. Reutert being the only additions; but between 1869 and 1878 very much work had been done by British specialists in the Ruli ; many of the students had availed themselves of the help of Professor Babington in determining their plants (help always given, with the prompt, courteous kindness, so characteristic of our leader in this study) ; the result being that very much material of great value and interest had accumulated ; and in the Journal of Botany (1878), Professor Babington gave a series of papers, Notes on Rubi, in which he carefully reviewed certain critical species, with a fulness so characteristic, and a courteous respect for the opinions of other workers, so specially his own. The plants more especially treated being: &. ramosus, k. Warrenii, R. festivus, R. obliquus, R. mutabilis, fi. cavatifolius, R. emersistylus, R. heteroclitus, R. Purchasii, some of which were retained as additions to our flora. The salient features of these ‘‘ Notes on Rubi” were afterwards given in the eighth edition of The Manual (1881). This was the last edition published of this great work, which for fifty years had been the text-book of all advanced British botanists. In a footnote on page 106, the author gives evidence that a closer examination of continential herbaria, and the study of the works of Genevier and Focke, had influenced him. He says, ‘‘When the continental plants are better known, it is feared that considerable changes of nomenclature will be necessary.” This sentence was characteristic of the writer, who appears to have been always ready to receive new opinions, if those opinions appeared the more worthy of acceptance. In the eighth edition of The Manual, forty-eight species and twenty-seven varieties are given, and in addition to the plants noticed in “ Notes on Rubi,” &. hemistemon and fh. hirtifolius are described as species, and &. adornatus as a variety of R. foliosus. After the publication of this edition of The Manual, Professor Babington seems to have very closely studied the Herbarium speci- mens of Genevier and typical specimens from Dr. Focke, and to have carefully compared our British species with these; to have also given much attention to the published works of these great. lxxx CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. authorities, and to the writings of P. J. Miiller and L. V. Lefevre, and these studies evidently influenced his later views, so that in the list of Rutt published in the London Catalogue of British Plants (8th edition, May 1886) we have sixty-one species and thirty-five varieties given as natives of Great Britain, with several changes in the nomenclature ; and in the Journal of Botany (July and August, 1886) he published a most valuable paper, ‘‘ Notes on British Rubi,” with special reference to the list given in the London Catalogue (8th edition). In this all the special plants are noticed, and the new species are fully described. This was the last important communi- cation from Professor Babington, and though published just forty years after his first special work on this subject, ‘‘The Synopsis” was still as full of vigorous thought as was his earlier production. Through his influence great advances had been made in the study of these difficult plants, and from first to last we find him ever ready to accept new light, and as enthusiastic in his love of his study in the latter days as he had been half a century before. But it was not merely as our greatest authority on the Rubi that Professor Babington was known, but also as one ready to devote his valuable time, and to give his great knowledge to the help of others far less favoured, and I know by my own experience that his help was always given without stint, and with a courteousness that enhanced the service. I think I ought to have added to my notes that the latest published opinions of Professor Babington, 7.¢. his Preface and Introductory Note on the Rubi, published in the Jowrnal of Botany (July, 1896), which was prepared for the work which he had in hand, and did not alas! complete, shews that had he been spared to have published The Revision of British Rubi, he would have given to the student of the Audi a work of surpassing interest and of greatest worth. No one could read (as I have been permitted to do) the MS. itself without being astonished at the fulness of knowledge of which the entire work gives noble evidence. PROFESSOR BABINGTON ON RUBUS IN 1891. [Reprinted from the “ Journal of Botany” for July 1896.] [Professor Babington, some years before his death, had nearly completed a work which he hoped to publish as a Revision of British Rubi. Ill health unfortunately prevented him from finishing it; and so much additional light has been thrown on the subject since he was last able to deal with it (i.e. in 1890 or 1891), in consequence of Dr. Focke’s visits to this country and the increased activity of British students of the genus, that very much of what he left in MS. is now necessarily out of date. To so great an extent, indeed, is this the case, that I believe no British batologist who read it through could desire the publication of the work as it has been left. I have ventured, however, to recommend the printing of the completed introduction, as well for its own intrinsic value as on account of the position the Professor so long REMINISCENCES, Ixxxi occupied as our greatest authority and most patient teacher and guide in our study of these puzzling plants. No British botanist who realizes even partially the invaluable work done by him throughout the course of his long professorial career can, I think, fail to be both interested and instructed by this fragment of his last work for us. With Mrs. Babington’s permission, I have also extracted from the body of the work the Professor’s account of R. lentiginosus Lees. I have thought this too obscure a form to claim a place in our Rubus list; but I have now had the advantage of seeing Lees’s authentic specimens in the Cambridge Babington Herbarium, and I find them identical with the plant described by Dr. Focke, and published only last year in Griffith’s fl. Angl. and Carnarv. as R. cambricus Focke. This latter name must now of course give place to FR. lentiginosus Lees, published so long ago as 1849 in Steele’s Handbook, p. 60. Dr. Focke would place it next to R. Questierii Lefvy. and Muell_—W. Moritz RoaeErs.] PREFACE. The time seems to have arrived when a new treatise on the British Rubi is required, and as I am told that this is expected from me, I have endeavoured to prepare one. It does not supersede my British Rubi, the object of which was to ascertain the plants intended by British authorities up to the time (1869) of its pub- lication. My chief object now is to endeavour to identify our plants with those of the continental authors, especially Focke and Genevier. I now possess the means wanting to me in 1869, for the whole herbarium of Genevier has come to Cambridge, and through the kindness of Dr. Focke I possess named specimens of most of his species; many others which he could not give me, have been obtained by the liberality of English botanists, who have had their plants named by him. I feel therefore that probably the duty of preparing a new British Rubi has really devolved upon me. But the further I go in the study of our native plants, the clearer it becomes that we really are far from truly understanding them. As my former book was only provisional, this also cannot claim any higher position. If it helps forward those who are studying this difficult genus, my wishes are fully met. Not only is much continued study of the plants required before we can decide what forms are to be accepted as species, what are permanent varieties, and what are only variations which may be expected to revert when propagated by seed to the more permanent forms, and also which of them may be fairly considered as the result of hybridization, but a careful study of them all in the living state must be made. Unfortunately living in a district where Rubi are far from abundant, it has been out of my power to do this, and therefore I may, nay must, have fallen into error in many cases. Those botanists who are more favourably situated must be looked to for making the necessary corrections. This book can only be considered as a preliminary, very far from a final, determination - lxxxii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. of the Ruli to be found in Britain. I have therefore named and described many forms which seem to be well marked, but may not prove to be permanent after the requisite study has been bestowed upon them in their native places of growth. Focke justly remarks that “Very few botanists recognize the fact that there are in Europe at the present time perhaps fifty times more apparently permanent forms of plants reproduced from seed, than we find species recorded in books. According to my View, it is therefore erroneous to take permanency from seed as a decided criterion of species."—pp. 89, 90. He also justly remarks that ‘it is only by means of minute descriptions that we are able to recognize with certainty the various forms of plants. Those who rely too much on single characters for the recognition of species in very short diagnoses or tabular forms, will only too often find themselves in a maze of error, for there is not one single character that can be considered as absolutely permanent and reliable.” —Focke, p. 91. INTRODUCTORY. After much consideration I have arrived at the conclusion that Dr. Focke’s arrangement is more satisfactory than that of Genevier, for it does not separate allied plants so much. Genevier seems to have wished to use an artificial arrangement, which he probably believed to be more convenient for the readers of his book, than a more natural one. Although he has to some extent succeeded, he is far from having wholly done so. I have therefore chiefly followed Focke in this essay; merely deviating from him in those cases where our views do not quite agree. M. Camus, in his recently published Catalogue des plantes de France, de Suisse, et de Belgique (1888), has made a bold attempt, with some success, to form what may be called aggregate species. I fear that we can only approach to the formation of such definite and natural collections of named forms at present. I have endeavoured so to arrange our forms, as far as they are yet determined, for there may probably be many more than we know at present, in as con- venient and at the same time natural a manner as is in my power. It will be seen that the present arrangement is fundamentally the same as I have always followed, although it will be new to our botanists in some few points. I do not see how to improve it. It must be always remembered that a linear arrangement is necessarily unnatural ; for the affinities of the different plants do not lie in only two, but in many directions. We must therefore not be surprised by finding plants, which are manifestly allied, placed in distinct groups, when they seem, taking all the characters into account, to be more fitly there placed, than with the others to which they shew a relationship. Of course this adds much to the difficulty of REMINISCENCES. lxxxili arranging them upon anything approaching to a natural system ; we are obliged to employ a linear arrangement. Gandoger, in his remarkable Flora Europaea, tom. viii., divides the genus into three, and has taken much pains to reduce the number of species by arranging under each of his species those of other authors which he combines with them severally. To this attempt I have paid much attention, but have not thought it desirable to adopt the new genera into which he divides Rubus. Unfortunately he gives no definition of these genera, nor of the species, although he points out innumerable varieties under each of the latter. As Dr. Focke remarks, there seems to be endless variation amongst brambles, and therefore endless forms which may and perhaps ought to be named and defined. It matters little whether we call them species or varieties, or only forms ; for who can define a species, now that we have had to give up the old view that all species were intended to be permanently distinct? Now that we know how extensively, slightly varying forms are reproducible from seed, we must either accept each of these forms as an aboriginal species, or give up the theory that those first created have been kept specifically distinct until the present time. We who have been trained to hold this latter view, find it difficult to give up. But the search after truth leads us necessarily to accept the former view. Although therefore I have called many species forms in this essay, I must not be supposed to state or believe that their characters do not vary to a greater or less extent under changed circumstances of climate or locality. We find that very similar plants gathered in the north or west are often only very similar, although we give them the same names. For this reason, when we gather a plant in Devon or Cornwall, we look to M. Genevier’s elaborate book for its name, when working in the east or north-east of England and Scotland, our attention is necessarily directed to the valuable descriptions of Dr. Focke, or the Scandinavian botanists ; and even then we must not always expect the plants to be absolutely identical. In accepting nomenclature, I quite agree with Dr. Focke that we are not obliged to “waste our time in studying the foolish writings of every ignorant and mischievous manufacturer of names” (Journ. Bot. 1890, 98). I may quote another remark of the same author which seems to be very applicable to what is being attempted in botanical nomen- clature. He says, ‘‘ We have far too many botanical rag-collectors, who, in following out their view of priority, penetrate everywhere, dragging matters again into the light of day which had better have been left in the shades of night” (Focke, Syn. p. 58). It is a matter of mere convenience what plan of nomenclature we follow. Calling plants species or sub-species makes very little difference, for we have to define the plants just as much on one plan as on the other. If we are to advance our knowledge and ascertain the extent of variation of each form (and that is, I conceive, our duty lxxxiv CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. as students), we may fairly say with Lindley (Synopsis, ed. 1, ix.) that “our daily experience shews that excessive analysis is far preferable to excessive synthesis.” As has been remarked, it is quite apparent that there are very many more forms of plants that are continued by seed than we have been accustomed to believe ; and that we must give up the favourite idea that those are distinct species which are easily and fully reproducible by seed. We must also give up the once prevalent view that a single marked character may always be depended upon as the mark of a species. After much study we learn how difficult it is to define almost any one of the recognised species, so as to include all its possible forms, and so as to separate it clearly from all possible forms of allied plants. In this book I do not pretend to have entered into that difficult subject with the elaborate detail which has been so well carried out by Dr. Focke ; but I have done so rather more than is usual with other rubologists. Neither have I attempted to form an analytical table such as that of Genevier; for I have not found even that, with all its excellence, to be a true and certain guide. And if not so, an analytical table is very liable to lead us astray. As I have said in my Manual of British Botany, such a Synopsis “must be used with caution, as a very slight error will totally mislead.” We are accustomed, and perhaps advisedly, to look for such distinctive marks as are afforded by the direction of the stem: (1) either quite or nearly upright ; (2) more or less highly arching, but turning down at the end in the autumn so as to reach the soil, and then penetrating into it and throwing out roots, and thus forming a new centre for the growth of the following year; (3) or rising with a very small arch and then becoming prostrate, and often following the inequalities of the ground with singular exact- ness for a considerable distance, but in the late autumn again forming a small arch so as to present its growing point directly towards the earth and penetrating into it, and rooting there as in the former case. It often happens that these naturally prostrate plants rise to a considerable height by being supported by the neighbouring shrubs; and in such a case they treat the top of a hedge as if it was the surface of the ground, and run along it fora considerable extent ; in such cases the end frequently is not able to reach the earth before being killed by the cold of winter: for this condition I have with Focke used the term scandent. The form of the terminal leaflet has been justly much trusted by us. The form and character of the panicle, or rather inflorescence, and direction of the sepals require much attention. : Until recently we have in this country systematically neglected the valuable characters which appear to be afforded by the colour of the different parts of the flower, and their relative proportions and direction. We had been taught to consider such points as undeserving of attention, from being too variable to be of any use. REMINISCENCES. lxxxv The colours are apparently somewhat variable, but less so than we have been led to suppose; but their proportions and direction in the several stages in the course of reproduction seem to be very constant. It has been said that the relative length of the stamens and styles is the result of dimorphism. It is doubtless so in many plants, but observation has not led rubologists to the conclusion that such is the case amongst Rubi. It would appear that the dehiscence of the outer ring of anthers at the time when the stigmas are ripe affords a sufficient security for cross-fertilization ; the fertilization has usually taken place before the inner rows of stamens have produced any pollen ; but insects continue to frequent the flowers, and convey the pollen of these later stamens to another flower, having already done this with the product of the first ripened anthers. It is very much to be wished that collectors would make a note of the characters afforded by the flowers, as well as record the direction of the growing stem; as the want of such information renders their specimens of very much less value. I have been as much at fault as others in former years, and thus a considerable part of my collection consists of specimens scarcely determinable. The points which seem to require especial attention are the direction of growth of the barren stem of the year, the form of its transverse section, and its armature; also when leaves are men- tioned without any distinction, those found on that stem are intended. In the description of those leaves attention should be paid to the stalked or sessile state of the leaflets, especially the lower or outer pair; the form of the terminal leaflet, all parts of it being considered ; and the relative length of it and its partial petiole ; and the character of its toothing. The form and structure of the panicle is also very important; the form and direction at different stages of the sepals and their armature; the length and direction of the stamens relatively to the pistils and their colour, and that of the petals. Colour is usually considered by botanists to be of very little value, but it seems to be important and often quite permanent in many Luli. There is also another point concerning which I know very little, which our great masters in this study consider of value; I mean the presence or absence of hairs on the young germens. It will be seen that many of these things can only be observed on the living plant ; it is therefore most important that they should be noted at the time when the specimen is collected. The want of this care on the part of collectors has caused exceeding difficulty in correctly naming many of their specimens which may be in most other respects well preserved. It has been well remarked by Weddell (Ann. Sci. Nat. sér. 6, ii. 356) that, “Except in a very few cases, it is impossible to distinguish exactly one species from its neighbours by one single character alone.” This is the case in all groups where the species lxxxvi CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. are numerous and closely allied, and in such cases we are deprived of the use of analytical keys such as that prepared with so much care by Genevier. In almost all cases there are intermediate forms which are not discoverable by them. Also they require the presence of much knowledge which is often absent when the key is brought into use. I refer to such points as (1) the direction of barren growing stem of the year; (2) the form and especially the colour of the petals; (3) the length and direction of the stamens; (4) the direction of the sepals both in the flower and with the fruit. The question of nomenclature is very difficult. We have been used primarily to look to the Rubi Germanici as a great authority. But there a difficulty meets us. The descriptions and plates do not always seem to correspond. The two authors appear to have worked independently. The specimens named by Nees for Leighton have rather confused our ideas instead of clearing them. This is now more apparent since Banning and Focke have determined thirty- three out of the forty-two species of Weihe “with absolute certainty.” The latter distinguished botanist has cultivated many of them, and described them with remarkable care in his Synopsis. He also holds, as I do, that it is not advisable, nor for the promotion of science, to “drag into the light of day obscure matters which had better have been left in the shades of night.” Thus names buried in little-known tracts or neglected books had better not be hunted out to replace universally recognised names, however much it may seem to be required by the rigid application of laws of nomenclature. The great variability of some “ species ” causes much trouble to the describer of plants. Many of these forms seem to retain, even from seed, marked and often striking peculiarities, and deserve distinctive names, although we can hardly call them species. Hybrids also seem to be not very uncommon, and when their parents can be discovered they are well deserving of notice. But such plants often are mistaken for species, for, owing to the way in which brambles increase by offsets, one of them may be found covering a large space, although possibly never producing ripe seeds. Such ought to be described, but doubtful isolated plants should be neglected until we can learn more about them, and that seems to be the duty of the botanist who observes them in a living state. Rubus lentiginosus Lees, Stem ‘“ suberect,” furrowed upwards, slightly hairy. Prickles conical, slightly declining from dilated compressed base, on angles. Leaves 5nate-digitate. Leaflets thin plicate, not imbricate, doubly and irregularly serrate, green, nearly glabrous, but slightly hairy on veins beneath ; terminal 2-3 times as long as its petiole, obovate-acuminate, narrowed and scarcely notched below. Branches of rather long narrow leafy panicle ascending, race- mose, its rachis and peduncles pilose, not felted, with many strong declining or deflexed prickles. Sepals oval, linear-pointed, slightly setose, aciculate, adpressed to fruit. R. lentiginosus Lees in Steele, 60 (1849) ; Phytol. iv. 927. REMINISCENCES. Ixxxvii Rh. affinis, B. lentiginosus Bab. B. R. 72. The stems apparently do not root at end, but the plant can hardly be placed with the Suberecti. It seems far more nearly allied to R. Lindleianus, but is abnormal in respect to stem among Lhamnifolii. The panicle-branches have a long naked unbranched base as in R&. Lindleianus, and the rachis has many rather strong deflexed prickles. I have no certain knowledge of the relative lengths of stamens and styles, but apparently the former exceed the latter.* This is an interesting plant as connecting the two sections, but being apparently far more allied to the plants included in Rhamnifolii than to Suberecti. Hab. Capel Curig (Lees) and Aber (Bloxam) and Llanberis (J. H. Lewis). Near Plymouth, Devon (Briggs). Mr. Lees says in the Phytologist that the flowers are in general small, and the whole plant weak, yet the stem is very prickly, and the point of the prickles are sharp and attenuated. The stem seems to be constantly suberect, but bent to the ground with the flower-shoots. Leaves sometimes 7nate. Panicle flexuose on luxuriant plants, with many alternating axillary racemes of small flowers. Peduncles and bracts covered with long spreading hairs, with a few glands (setae) on the latter. Sepals patent with flower and young fruit, then becoming loosely reflexed. Petals very small. Stamens and styles pale green. [Reprinted from the OsiruaARY Notices of the PROCEEDINGS OF THE Roya Society, Vol. 59.] Charles Cardale Babington was born at Ludlow on the 23rd of November, 1808. His father, who was originally a member of the medical profession, afterwards becoming a clergyman of the Church of England, took considerable interest in botany. Whilst his son was still a schoolboy, he retired from work and settled at Bath. The subject of our present memoir entered St. John’s College, Cambridge, at the age of eighteen, took his B.A. degree four years later, and his M.A. at the age of twenty-five. At first his inclina- tions were towards entomology, but he attended Henslow’s lectures on botany, and like so many others, fell under his magnetic influence. He joined the Linnean Society in 1830, and for a short time after the death of the Rev. L. Jenyns,+ was its oldest Fellow. His first botanical book was the Flora Bathoniensis, published in 1834. He visited Ireland in company with the late Mr. John Ball, in 1835, and gave an account of his tour in the 9th volume of the Magazine of Natural History. His Primitiae Florae Sarnicae was the result of excursions taken during two long vacations, in one of which the Rev. W. W. Newbouldi was his companion, and was published in * “Stamens and styles about equal.” —Focke. + [Afterwards Blomefield]. + [Not Mr. Newbould. See Journal.—Ep.] Ixxxviii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. 1839. In company with Professor J. H. Balfour, he visited the Outer Hebrides, in 1841, and reported on their scanty vegetation. His work was almost entirely confined to British botany, but he published in the eighteenth volume of the Transactions of the Linnean Society, a monograph of the Indian Polygonums, and in the 11th volume of the Jowrnal of the Linnean Society, a paper on the “ Flora of Iceland,” giving a complete list of the Phanerogamia of the island, which he had visited during the year 1846. The first edition of his magnum opus, the Manual of British Botany, appeared in 1843. This work ran through eight editions during his life-time and was for fifty years almost universally used as a hand-book and standard of nomenclature by local botanists who made a study of critical British plants. The special feature of the work was a careful study of the difficult genera by means of the books and fasciculi of dried specimens published by the critical botanists of neighbouring continental countries. In the early editions he relied mainly upon Koch, Fries, and Reichenbach, and in the later to these were added the writings of Grenier, Godron, Boreau, Jordan, and Lange, and the Exsiccata of Reichenbach, F. Schultz, and Billot. This book brought him into frequent communication with nearly all the active collectors in different parts of Britain, and entailed upon him a mass of correspondence as referee, which occupied a large proportion of his time. The writer of the present notice remembers with feelings of gratitude the kind and patient way in which the Professor helped him in his difficulties when, between forty and fifty years ago, he was beginning the study of British botany, and was living in a small country town where there were no herbaria or books of reference. Professor Babington generally spent his long holidays in exploring some rich botanical district at home, such as the Snowdon country, Braemar, and Teesdale, and in this way made acquaintance in a living state with most of the plants with which he had to deal. Amongst the genera and sub-genera that he revised may be mentioned Atriples, Arctium, Fumaria, Batrachium, Cerastium, Dryas, Armeria, Saxifraga, Hieracitum, Potamogeton, and especially Rubus. He con- tributed about 150 papers, mainly on critical British plants, to different periodicals and societies. In 1846 he published the first edition of his Synopsis of British Rubi, and a much-enlarged second edition in 1869. This was in- tended to have been illustrated by a series of plates drawn by Mr. J. W. Salter, but the preparation of these was stopped by Salter’s death, and they were not published. In the Ray Society, which was founded in 1844, as an enlarge- ment of a Ray Club, which was started in 1836, he took an active interest, serving on its council and helping in the editing of some of its publications, especially the volumes devoted to the memoirs and correspondence of the great naturalist from whom the Society took its name. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1851, the same REMINISCENCES. Ixxxix year in which Huxley, Sir James Paget, and Lord Kelvin were also elected, but he never took any active part in the affairs of the Society. In 1860 he published his Flora of Cambridgeshire, in which the distribution of the species through the different districts of the county is traced out very carefully, and the changes in the vegetation caused by the drainage of the fens are dwelt on. On the death of Professor Henslow in 1861, Babington succeeded him as Professor of Botany at Cambridge, and held the chair up to the time of his death, on the 22nd of July, 1895. His lectures dealt mainly with organography and systematic botany, and were not accompanied by laboratory work. They were discontinued for several years before his death, and as years went on, the teaching of botany in the University passed into the hands of the men of a younger generation, with different ideals and different plans of work. J. G. BAKER. By THE VEN. ARCHDEACON D. R. Tuomas, F.S.A., Canon of St. Asaph, Chairman of the Cambrian Archaeological Association. Of Professor Babington’s eminence in other fields of science and of literature, or of his high personal character, it is not my purpose to write ; but only of his distinction as an archaeologist, and of his long and valued services in connexion with our Cambrian Association. It was in the year 1850 that Mr. Babington joined the Association, when it was just emerging from its tentative stage of infancy and beginning to launch out on its own responsibility. The journal, the Archaeologia Cambrensis, which down to that year had been the private venture of the editors, now became the property and the acknowledged organ of the Association. The first Annual Meeting he attended was the one held at Tenby in 1851, when he took part in the discussions. In 1853, at Brecon, he was elected a member of the General Committee, and in 1855, at Llandilo, he was chosen to be its Chairman, and at the same time was placed on the small Publication Committee of three. As Chairman of the Committee it was one of his duties to give at the evening meetings a reswmé of the day’s excursion, and to point out the chief objects of interest visited, with their bearing on general, as well as local, archaeology. The purpose of the reswmé was twofold; to enable those who had been unable to accompany the excursions to follow their proceedings, and to elicit a fuller discussion of the more important points than was possible in the limited time available on the spot. Such a duty required not only a wide and accurate knowledge of archaeology, but also a thoughtful arrangement and a clear and ready expression ; and so efficiently did he discharge this duty that for thirty years in xc CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. succession he was re-elected to the position. To mark still further their appreciation of his services the Association chose him to be their President for the year 1881, when it met at Church Stretton, a compliment which he acknowledged in his address to be peculiarly gratifying, not only because of the special interest he felt in the botany and archaeology of the district, but also because it was in his native county of Salop.* Under the pressure, however, of failing health, he was reluctantly compelled in 1885 to resign the chairmanship which he had filled so long and well, and the Annual Report of that year bore testimony to the onerous duties which he had discharged with unfailing courtesy and with a breadth of knowledge in archaeological subjects which had been of great service to the Association ; and when finally he passed to his rest in July, 1895, a resolution was carried in the following month, at the Annual Meeting held at Launceston, expressive of the loss the Association had felt in the death of one of its most learned members, and of its sympathy with Mrs. Babington in her affliction. On looking back over the records of the discussions at the Annual Meetings, and the witness they bear to his knowledge of general archaeology, we find that the phase which appeared to have most attraction for him was that of the ancient defences and fortifications of the country, and it was on these that almost all his articles in the Journal turned. Indeed, this line was foreshadowed in his article on “ Ancient Cambridgeshire,” in the publications of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, reviewed in the Archaeologia Cambrensis, 1856, and it was wound up in his presidential address at Church Stretton on “The Classification of the Camps and Primeval Fortifications of Wales.” The list of his contributions to the Journal comprise :—in 1857. ‘Gaervawr, and a supposed Roman Road near Welsh- pool.” 1858. “The Firbolgic Forts in the South Isles of Arran, Ireland.” 1861. ‘Ancient Fortifications near the Mouth of the Valley of Llanberis, Carnarvonshire.” 1862. “The Kjékkenméddings of Denmark.” 1863. ‘The Hospital of St. Lawrence de Ponteboy, Bodmin.” 1865. “Cyclopean Walls near Llanberis.” 1876. “An Ancient Fort near St. Davids.” 1879. ‘On the supposed Birth of Edward II. in the Eagle Tower of Carnarvon Castle.” 1880. ‘On several Antiquities in North Wales.” 1882. ‘On the Circular Chapel in Ludlow Castle.” * He was born at Ludlow, and his last contribution to the journal was on “The Circular Chapel in Ludlow Castle.” REMINISCENCES. x¢cl PROFESSOR BABINGTON ON THE SUNDAY OPENING OF THE Botanic GARDEN, 1881—2. On the 5th of April, 1881, seven Syndics of the Botanic Garden Syndicate reported to the Senate, enclosing two Memorials, one {a) very numerously signed, representing “that it would be a great boon to Members of the Senate if they could be permitted to visit the Botanic Garden with their friends on Sunday afternoons during the months of May, June, July, August, and September.” (0) as follows (eporter, 26th April, 1881, pp. 496—498) : We, the undersigned Resident Members of the Senate, having learned that a Memorial has been presented to the Vice-Chancellor in favour of opening the Botanic Garden to Members of the Senate and their friends on the afternoons of Sundays during the summer months, beg leave hereby to express our objection to such opening of the Garden: J. BARTON. G. PHILLIPS. A. W. W. STEEL. E. B. CowE.u. C. K. Roprnson. A. W. STREANE. J. T. Lane. H. E. Savaaee. H. Trotter. F.C. Marswauty. C. HE. Srarze. B. F. Westcort. H.C.G. Movute. R&R. SInKER. On the 28th of April the Report was discussed in the Arts’ School (Reporter, 3rd May, pp. 519—521). The Vice-Chancellor said that he had received a memorial signed by six out of the eight men employed in the gardens. The memorial is as follows: Having learned from the public prints that an application is to be made to the Syndicate to open the Botanic Garden during some part of Sunday, we, the men employed in the Garden, beg most respectfully to represent that it would cause much additional work, and that we have always understood that Sunday is intended to be a day of rest from all but absolutely necessary work. We therefore venture to hope that we shall not be required to work on that day in opposition to conscientious opinions. We are quite ready to attend to the necessary duties of the Garden, but not to work on Sunday for the pleasure of others who desire to walk there on that day. Professor Babington had not signed the report. . . . He quite agreed with all that had been said against the report. He asserted that it would be impossible to do without additional attendance; he need not say why, but he was convinced of it. There must be some one to see that the right persons and not the wrong were admitted to the Garden. For himself, he felt it would be absolutely wrong to give additional employment on Sunday for his own gratification. The number of persons for whom the proposed change would be useful was exceedingly small. .... He objected entirely to anything which would interfere with the holiday which labouring men should have on Sunday. The following memorandum is printed from Professor Babington’s manuscript : “ Asit is my intention to oppose the Grace concerning the Botanic Garden which is to be offered to the Senate on May 19, I venture to place before the members of the University some of the reasons which lead me to do so. xcli CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. “It is proposed to open the Garden on Sundays, but it must be manifest that that can be a real advantage or even convenience to very few. It is only those who live near to the Garden who can suppose it to be important to them; and of them very few of the class contemplated are not provided with private gardens, well fitted for quiet Sunday recreation ; and still fewer would probably wish to give trouble and discomfort to the persons employed in the Garden by requiring their presence on that day, or knowingly ask work from those who have scruples as to its lawfulness. It has been well remarked that ‘it is impossible to change the manner of spending the day of national rest without seriously affecting the comfort of all who live by labour.” “The following questions must be answered in the affirmative before we have any right to require work on the Sunday— “1, Are we justified in sanctioning, far less requiring, any un- necessary work on the Lord’s Day, which will deprive others of the rest for which it was instituted ? “2. Have we a right to bribe any man by extra wages, or in any other way, to do unnecessary work on that day ? ‘3. Is our own fancied comfort or convenience any excuse for making our dependents work unnecessarily on that day ? ‘“‘In my opinion absolutely necessary work is alone allowable : such as the preservation of a Garden and its contents from injury : not the enabling people to walk and take their pleasure in it. The proposed plan excludes the undergraduates who might wish (un- advisedly in my opinion) to use the Garden as a place of study on Sunday. They have six days in the week for study, and could not advantageously have the seventh added to them. “ Also, as I have already said, those who wish to use the Botanic: Garden on a Sunday have mostly gardens of their own, even though (as in my case) small ones, or they live at such a distance from the Garden, and are so much nearer to the grounds of the colleges, as to render the addition of this Garden to the places open to them quite unnecessary. I must be allowed, therefore, to be rather surprised by seeing some of the names appended to the memorial to the Vice- Chancellor, unless it has been done with a view to the opening of all museums and gardens on that day. “But I venture to think that the supporters of this proposition have somewhat overlooked the real use of a Botanic Garden, when they look at it from the point of view of a place of recreation, and propose to use it, and the funds by which it is supported, for the purpose of increasing their own comfort or pleasure. It will be found on reference to the original documents that the Garden was given and endowed by Dr. Walker for scientific purposes alone: for the growing of plants to be used in the study of their “ properties and uses for the benefit of mankind” (Endowments of University, 250), and not at all for the recreation of the members of the University ;. REMINISCENCES. Xcill and that all persons are expressly excluded from it on Sundays Ib. 251). “T think, therefore, that I may reasonably ask the members of the Senate not to pass the proposed Grace, by which the character of the Garden would be totally changed from the use for which it was designed by its founder, and the workmen employed in contra- vention of the Divine and human laws regulating the Lord’s Day.” The amended report of the seven Syndics, dated 7th May, 1881, may be seen in the feporter for 10th May, pp. 531—2. On the 19th May, the report as amended, was confirmed by 144 votes against 129 (Reporter, 29th May, p. 589). On the 6th of May, 1882, seven Syndics signed a report recom- mending the renewal for 1882 of the former grace (Reporter, 9th of May, 1882, p. 529). On the 10th of May (Zdid. 16th of May, 1882, pp. 558—9), this report was discussed in the Arts’ School. The Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Porter, Master of Peterhouse, explained that he signed the report only because he thought it right that an opportunity should be afforded to the Senate of considering it. The recommendations of the present report were almost identical with those of last year, the chief change being the omission of the recommendation that the services of a policeman be obtained. This change was due to the fact that the Watch Committee had last year declined to supply the services of a policeman, thinking it undesirable to increase the labours of the police on Sundays. He strongly took the same view, and thought it very undesirable that any unnecessary labour should be placed upon any official on Sundays. Three members of the Syndicate had not signed, viz. the Master of Clare, Dr. Paget, and the Professor of Botany. Two other members of the Syndicate had not been present at the meeting, and had not had the report sent to them. Dr. Paget had no objection to the report being brought forward, but he could not recommend as a member of the Syndicate that the proposals be accepted. He had not a strong opinion on the subject, but on the whole he thought the Garden had better not be opened on Sunday. Professor Babington thought it highly undesirable that either the Curator or his deputy should be required to be in his house or in the Gardens on Sunday afternoon for the convenience of Members of the Senate. It was a Garden for scientific purposes, and there were six days for those purposes, and could be no necessity for a seventh. He did not wish to see the point of the wedge inserted by increasing work on Sunday, and thus encouraging those who were in favour of opening museums and other places of public resort on that day. On the 25th of May, 1882, the report was confirmed, placet 87, non-placet 77 (Reporter, 30th of May, p. 623). On the 10th of May, 1883, seven Syndics again recommended the opening of the Garden for the summer months (Jdid. 15th of May, 1883), but the question was not brought before the Senate. Endowments of the University, p. 529: “'The Act declares the New Botanic Garden to be under the direction, government, management, and superintendence of the same persons, and subject to the same orders and regulations, and with all such powers and provisions for the maintenance, support, and conduct thereof, as the Old Garden.” xciv CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [The following poem is taken from a privately printed volume, “A Wreath of Wind-Flowers,” by Thomas Hughes Corry (Belfast, 1882) pp. 56, 57. See above pp. xxiv, xxxiii.] A DIRGE. “ We thought he slept.” Sleep! is this sleep, this rest so deep, unbroken, Which soothes that burning brow ? Nay, this is death; God’s everlasting token Of peace and comfort now. Yes, he has passed the dim and shadowy portal That bounds our earthly home, And entered thro’ those gates of pearl immortal, Beneath Heaven’s golden dome. Life—life with us, so busy, eager, buoyant, Has passed away and fled; But tho’ its impulse now is stilled and dormant, His spirit is not dead. Yet while we live, he still wiil move around us Till Time shall be no more, Tho’ his triumphant glory would confound us, Should it its radiance pour. His place is set within the throng of blesséd, He sees his Saviour’s face, And knows his name by Christ our Lord confesséd Before the throne of grace. ¥ ¥* * ¥* * But God, who is Himself the Strength and Giver Of all our life and breath, Hath perfect power His children to deliver From the cold seal of death. Grieve, grieve no more, he is not dead, but living In realms that need no sun, But God’s own light a lustrous splendour giving ;. His work on earth was done. HOAs rh Sy) asa eittt tite Gin fa it Ail Pv i ae ait shorbhcdbchintaih 9 : vee MA aR Oe ae Sas tba ki dues Mf divas, “iaitites lds 10 HNL ya iu) Wy aka HK e Wit TOS FERRY Sak Dupe ig yay “mony, ‘old revi tanyineerent SL animea ts yh eve ne ay adsionsi Wide ahd NON hese ys Oo mmte eyed Raat “pater aS ee ayy! +n Dulawverr wih: ase, weeny AE wR Re grid , ae Woliprtto POUR ie A AY ean ATER SEER 8) bbadash! pa “Ot. widkesog Hi aril) POINT Fa at ni eC 4A Pees Ran Pe CO tat ROE NE Rf | rib intr ve iy SL it ay ih hy The student of nature, who, without surrendering one particle of physical truth, or admitting any restriction on the freedom of scientific investigation, is yet able to withstand the most dangerous temptation which besets his favourite pursuits—the tendency to a mechanical philosophy, or the resting in second causes—and who, resigning himself to the consciousness of his limited faculties and imperfect knowledge, clings to the centre of his spiritual being, and finds a secure anchorage in the love of his Heavenly Father, as revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ—such a one exhibits one of the noblest examples of Christian humility, wisdom, and self-control, that in these days it is possible to witness. CONNOP THIRLWALL, Charge, Oct. 1863, p. 36. 5 a8 a ork: hgh ating Pepe’ : ; 5 ‘ 1826 | . Walker &Boutall Ph Se CHARLES CARDALE’ BABINGTON, FEL. LA —————— es LLL hUrrChUr i JOURNAL. _ I, CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON, was born at Ludlow in Shropshire on the 23rd day of November, 1808, as may be seen by the following note in the handwriting of my father, who was the son of Thomas Babington, of Rothley Temple in Leicestershire. (See Babington pedigree, and the History of that County.) My mother was the daughter of John Whitter, Esq., of Bradninch in the County of Devon. They were married at that place on the 15th of August, 1803. My father lived in a house near to the Castle Gate at Ludlow, the first house on the right hand side looking. from the gate. Mr. Charles Rogers, my mother’s uncle, lived in the house exactly opposite, before he purchased and built the house at Stanage in Radnorshire. Note in the handwriting of Dr. Joseph Babington: “ Charles Cardale Babington, son of me Joseph and Catherine my wife, was born on the twenty-third day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight, about twenty minutes after twelve in the day, and was baptized by the Rev. Mr. Baugh, now Rector of Ludlow, on this eighteenth day of January, 1809, being now two months old. He was christened March 2nd, 1809, having as sponsors, Rev. Thomas Gisborne, of Yoxall Lodge, Staffordshire, Charles Rogers, Esq., of Stanage, Mrs. Whitter, his grandmother, and Mrs. F. Cardale, of Cossington, Leicestershire. He was vaccinated by Mr. Adams, Sur- geon, Ludlow, on this 27th of March, 1809, at ten o’clock in the morning, on the left arm; the disease went through its regular course very properly—the scab fell off April 25th. He had the measles in July, 1822. “Frederick John Babington, son of Joseph and Catherine Babington, was born Feb. 20th, 1810.” (He died within the year following.) _ My father left Ludlow when I was not more than four years of age, and lived for about two years at Spaw-Place, Humberston Gate, Leicester. He having entered into Holy Orders, we went to live at Hawksworth in Nottinghamshire, in the summer of 1814. _ I went to school to Mr. Price, of Needwood Forest Church, in the summer of 1817, and remained with him till 1819. Nore in his father’s handwriting: ‘‘ Charles Cardale Babington went to _ Mr. Price for private tuition, at Needwood Parsonage, Staffordshire, on the 28th of July, 1817, aged eight years and a half.” “He soon after composed the following lines extemporary, on the situation of Mr. Price’s residence : “T’m going up the mountains high, And on the top there is a plain, With ridges far and nigh; And on that plain there is a house And near to it a place to douse.” (In my mother’s handwriting, C.C.B.) 2 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1819—26 _ Upon leaving Mr. Price’s, I went to Dr. Knight’s school, at South Wraxhall Hall, Wilts. This was rather a large school, consisting of more than forty boys. My father had removed to Broughton Gifford, Wilts., in June, 1818. At Dr. Knight’s school I became acquainted with S. S. Brown, the son of J. T. Brown, of Winifred House, Bath. About this time my father taught me the elements of Botany from Lees’ “ Introduction,” and Withering’s “ Arrangement.” _ In 1821 I was removed from Wraxhall Hall and sent to the Charterhouse, of which Dr. Russell was then the Headmaster. I was in the house of Mr. Lloyd, which was just outside the gate of the Charterhouse, in the square. During the time that I remained at that school (until Aug. 1823), I used often to spend my Sundays at Mr. Brown’s at Tooting, or at my cousin T. Babington’s at Hampstead. The school at that time consisted of about 480 boys. In the summer of 1822 I had the whooping cough at school. Note by Dr. Joseph Babington: “The following year he had the whooping cough at school. He has also had the chicken pox and scarlatina, 1823. At the age of fifteen he was five feet seven inches in height.” Not getting on well with my learning, I was removed at my own wish from the Charterhouse, and went to Mr. W. Hutchins’ school at 33, Grosvenor Place, Bath. My father and mother had removed to 8, Hanover Street, Bath, in Sept. 1822, he being obliged to give up clerical duties from the loss of the use of his legs. I remained with Mr. Hutchins until I went to college, and got on pretty well with my studies under him. At this school my acquaintance commenced with Thos. Fortune, Heaviside, now Canon of Norwich, and several others. During the years that I was at that school, as a day scholar, I formed an intimate acquaintance with the neighbourhood of Bath, and began to study its botany, and to collect plants and insects. In the month of July 1825 the thermometer registered (at the back of the house in Hanover Street) 89° on the 17th, 87° on the 18th, and on the same day it stood at 92° at Walcote Parade. 1825. Nov. 2. I ordered the first and second volumes of Smith’s “English Flora” of Collings the bookseller, of Saville Row, Bath, and received them on the 7th together with the third volume. Nov. 4. I first began to study Greek plays, “ Philoctetes” of Sophocles. Nov. 13. Saw Mr. Wilberforce for the first time. He called upon my father. Nov. 19. I dined with Mr. Wilberforce at 1, Queen Square. 1826. April 5. Sat for a likeness to be taken by Mrs. Hoare in pencil. She also took pencil sketches of my father and mother (which I still have, 1873). 1826—27] JOURNAL—CAMBRIDGE. 3 April 7. Heard of the death of my uncle, the Rev. F. Bedford. April 28. Dined with Mr. Wilberforce. May 27. Called upon Mr. Wilberforce, when he gave me a copy of his ‘Practical View.” Norr.—On the first page of this volume is the following inscription : “To Mr. Charles Babington, the son of his old friend the Rev. Dr. Babing- ton, this book is given when he is about to enter into life, as a pledge of friendly regard by Wittiam WILBERFoRCE.—Batu, May 26th, 1826.” Oct. 9. Went to London from Bath by coach, which took twelve and a half hours. Went to my cousin G. G. Babington’s house, 26, Golden Square. Oct. 10. Had much difficulty in getting a place to Cambridge ; called at six places before doing so. Went by the “Times” coach at 3.30 p.m., and reached the “ Eagle” at Cambridge at 9.30; slept at the “ Hagle.” Oct. 11. At 11 a.m. called upon Mr. Hornbuckle, the Tutor of St. John’s College. He gave me rooms in the “ Labyrinth,” but in the afternoon removed me to the Second Court (third door to left, door to right, ground floor). My bedmaker, Mrs. Hopper, is the widow of the gyp to my father. Oct. 14. Called with my father’s letter on the Master, Dr. Wood. N.B.—Dr. Wood always comes out at the north-west corner of the second court at 7.30 a.m. and returns at 7.50. Men keeping in College have to keep nine chapels, others seven in the week. Gwatkin recommended me to read with Maddy as a private tutor, and I did so. Dec. 4. About this time Dr. Spurzheim lectured at Cambridge, and a Phrenological Society was formed, of which I was a member. Dec. 15. My father died this day at 8, Hanover Street, Bath, but I did not know of it until some days afterwards, or even of his illness. Dec. 16. Went by coach to Oxford in thirteen hours. Dec. 18. Went to Bath, slept that night at the York House. Dec. 19. Went to Broughton Gifford with the funeral. 1827. Feb. 3. To Cambridge by “Telegraph ” coach. March 27. Attended twentieth Divinity Lecture, and got a certificate from the Professor, Hollingworth. Norr.—* Cambridge, March 27th, 1827. Charles Cardale Babington, of St. John’s College, has attended the Divinity Lectures. J. B. Holling- worth, D.D., Norrisian Professor.” April 30. Went to Professor Henslow’s first lecture on Botany. 4 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1827—30 May 2. Conversed with him after the botanical lecture, and was asked to his house. Put an end to the Phrenological Society this evening. Assisted Professor Henslow in putting his things in order, before and after the lectures. June 9. To Southampton to join my mother and aunt Bedford. June 13. Went by steamer to the Isle of Wight; landed at Cowes, and went by coach to Newport, visited Carisbrook Castle. Left my mother and aunt and walked alone by Pedford, Godshill, Appledurcombe Park, to Steephill and St. Lawrence, returned by Whitwell to Newport. Returned to Southampton next day. June 19. Botanized about Netley Abbey. June 22. We removed to Ryde, going in a sailing packet. June 23. Walked to St. Helens, crossed the mouth of Brading Haven, to Culver Cliffs (Ophrys apifera). Returned by Yaverland and Brading. a July 3. Went by Newchurch to Ventnor, then along the top of the cliffs to Sandrock hotel and Blackgang Chine. Slept at hotel. July 4. Returned to Ryde, Bonchurch footpath through east end, Shanklin and Brading. (No Notes kept between Aug. 26th and the following.) 1830. Took my B.A. Degree in January. April 23. Lodgings at Mrs. Tomlinson’s, Fitzwilliam Street. May 24. Elected a Fellow of the Philosophical Society. May 26. Paid a life subscription as a F.C.P.S. July 3. To Oxford, Mitre hotel.—July 4. To Bath. July 5. To Birmingham and North Wales. Mallet (afterwards Fellow of Pembroke), having agreed to go as tutor with Hockin and Fleming to North Wales, I determined to join them for a time in order to see the country. July 5. Left Bath by Birmingham coach, where we arrived at 7pm. Left it for Shrewsbury at 10 p.m. and arrived there at 5 a.m. Took coach for Bangor in half-an-hour. Country flat until we arrived at the river Dee, when it began to heighten, and con- tinued rising all the way to Bangor. After following the vale of the Dee up the river for some way, we passed over into the vale of Conway, in which the mountains rise to a great elevation on both sides, and are mostly covered with wood. This we descended as far as Bettws-y-Coed, near which we passed over a beautiful iron bridge of one arch, and saw the waterfall of Rhaiadr-y-Wenol, close to which the road runs, and soon arrived at Capel Curig, having been, since we left Bettws, ascending a branch of the Conway, which we followed as far as its source in Llyn Ogwen, from which lake the river Ogwen 1830] JOURNAL—WELSH TOUR. 5 also runs at the opposite end. The road then led us along a ledge on the side of the mountain called Carnedd Davidd, by a waterfall, into the valley of Nant Francon, which we followed by the slate quarries to Bangor. (The quarries are on the side of a mountain, which at a distance looks as if it were formed of heaps of loose slates, and is of great elevation; the slates are brought to Bangor by a railway.) As soon as we got out of the valley, and had left the great mountains behind us, we obtained a fine view of the Bay of Beaumaris, bounded on one side by Priestholme, or Ceriol’s Isle, and on the other by the Great Orme’s Head, which projecting into the sea, and being joined to the land by a low tract of country, looked like an island. Nearer at hand we saw Penmaenmawr, pre- senting its precipitous face to the sea, round which the road from Bangor to Conway winds, the isle of Anglesea, and town of Beaumaris with its Castle, the city of Bangor, and the Menai Straits. On arriving at Bangor, we dined with the rest of the passengers, and after they were gone walked into the inn (Penrhyn Arms) garden, which overhangs the sea, and found ona rocky bank in it the Luzula sylvatica in great beauty. After amusing ourselves for some time there, we took a car and went over the Menai Bridge and along the beautiful road made by the late Lord Buckley, to Beau- maris, where we put up at the Bull, then started to hunt for lodgings, (in which we could not suit ourselves), and inspected the Castle, which is very perfect and well worth examination. The next day (July 7) we determined on walking to Carnarvon, a distance of ten-and-a-half miles, which would have been very pleasant had it not rained the last seven miles, so that we were glad to arrive at the Uxbridge Arms, Carnarvon, to dinner. Went out in the evening and hired lodgings, myself for no fixed time, my friends for three months, to read. July 8. Having obtained lodgings we took a large sailing boat for ten shillings to carry us to Beaumaris and bring us and our boxes etc. back, but after we had had a beautiful sail through the straits, and passed under the Menai Bridge, and taken our things on board at Beaumaris and Bangor, we found that the wind was so high that we should not be able to get back by water and therefore got out and walked, and left the boat to bring our things as soon as it could get (which it did at the next tide). We found on the way Lepidium Smithu, Sagina apetala, ete. _ duly 9. Walked about the town botanizing, etc. Dined at Mallet’s lodgings, where we shall dine every day. July 11. Sunday. Went to the church, which is a neat one, having one of its sides formed of part of the town wall, and its tower being a round stunted one belonging originally to the same. The bell is in a little open arch on the top of the tower. Rained most of the day. Thermometer 61°. 6 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1830 July 12. Found Papaver somniferum, Epilobium angustifolium, and variety of Viola tricolor, with blue flowers, in a corn field near the town, but on the other side of the river, where there are no houses, or I should have thought them cultivated. July 13. Attempted to find the road to the mountains near Llanberis, but by taking what we supposed would be a short cut, arrived at the river having only a foot bridge over it, with a gate in the middle well guarded with spikes. The bridge was formed of two planks parallel to each other, and bent into an elliptical arch by being fastened tight to the rock on each side without any support in the middle. Being stopped by this, we had to return nearly three quarters-of-a-mile, and then continued the road we were in before. After having crossed the river by a stone bridge further up, we were foolish enough to take another short cut which appeared to lead to the mountains, which we followed for about two miles, and then stopped to examine a bog in which we found nothing worth having, and then turned back, not having time to go farther. On our road back we met with Scleranthus annuus and Alchemilla vulgaris, the first in plenty in one place, but only one specimen of the latter. The finest day that we have had this summer. July 15. Wind continued very high so that we did not go far, but only obtained a few plants and insects near at hand. July 19. Walked to the Llanberis lakes and saw Dolbadarn Castle; the view from the top amply repaid the danger of the ascent. ‘The castle supposed to have been in existence in the sixth century, as it is mentioned as occupied by Maelgwm Gwynedd in his contention with the Saxons. July 31. Started with Mallet for Llanberis, and on arriving at the bottom of the lakes, took a boat which carried us to the top of the first lake, from which, after examining the river between the lakes, we walked up the road to the village of Llanberis, the road to which is only passable for horses; it passes under the enormous precipices of Snowdon, near a copper mine. We then returned to the Dolbadarn inn for dinner, just before which, Mr. C. Words- worth, of Trinity College, came in, and not being able to find either a room to sit down in or anything for dinner, he asked and obtained permission to join our party. After dinner we went to see a water- fall about half-a-mile from the inn, which is worth any person’s while to inspect, although small in quantity of water. The name of the waterfall is Cannent Mawr, formed by a stream called Cwm Brwynog, height sixty feet. After inspecting the waterfall, ascend- ing a mountain, and getting into a bog, we returned to the inn, intending to ascend Snowdon the next morning. Aug. 1. Very wet, unable to ascend Snowdon. Aug. 7. Went out to catch water insects, of which I obtained a good many. 1830] JOURNAL—WELSH TOUR. 7 Aug. 13. Started to go to the top of Moel Elion, a high moun- tain on the left of the road to Beddgelert, which we reached after a good deal of very uninteresting climbing, but were repaid by the view from the top. Aug. 15. Started on a walk towards the mountains on the Beddgelert road, and turned off to Mynydd Mawr, which is nearly opposite to Moel Elion on the right of the road. All one side of it consists of a precipice, up the side of which we ascended, where I found the first mountain Saxifrage that I had ever seen growing (Saaifraga stellaris); and on another part of the same side of the mountain we found Cryptogramma crispa in great plenty on our way home. Also saw Callitriche autumnalis in great plenty in the river which runs out of Llyn Cwellyn. Found Carabus glabratus on this mountain running on the grass, never under stones. Aug. 19. Callitriche pedunculata in swamp near Newborough, Anglesea. Aug. 28. Went out to catch water insects, and obtained a good number, but got very wet in doing so. Aug. 29. Went to Mynydd Mawr to look for insects, but found no land ones, and only some water ones; got quite wet through by a storm on the top of the mountain. Aug. 30. Walked out with Mallet, and got geological specimens for England. Aug. 31. Started on foot to ascend Snowdon ; we took no guide, and found our way very well. Obtained a large number of plants in the rocks near the mouth of the copper mine. It was unfortunately very cloudy, so that we lost the view from the top. Returned to Dolbadarn inn, where I slept. Sept. 1. Started at a quarter-past eight in the morning, and after ascending part of Glydr-y-Vawr, passed through Llanberis Pass, at the head of which I ascended another mountain on the left. Descended into Nant Gwynant, which I followed to Beddgelert, where I dined, and afterwards walked back to Carnarvon. Whilst my dinner was cooking, I walked to Pont Aberglasllyn, which is about a mile-and- a-half from Beddgelert. Total distance in day about thirty-two miles. Sept. 4. Started for Llanberis and Snowdon, at the latter of which we (Mallet and I) arrived about 2 p.m. After getting all the plants we could from the face of the precipice in which the ‘copper mine is, we ascended to the top, and re-visited both the tops, finding it happily pretty clear, although, before we had been at the top for any length of time, the clouds collected around the mountain, but quite under our feet, so that we saw a complete sea of clouds, which was the most beautiful sight that I ever beheld. After enjoying the sight for some time, we saw a party of Cambridge men, who were stopping at Beaumaris, coming up, when we started 8 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1830—32 on the descent towards Beddgelert, which led us along a ridge not so wide as the length of my stick; the path followed this narrow ridge for I should suppose about half-a-mile, when it descended one side of it into a very boggy valley, in which after following the path for a good way we quite lost all trace of it, and had a great deal of trouble to find our way to the road, which we reached at about three miles from Beddgelert. Sept. 10. Left Carnarvon, but did not arrive at Bangor in tim for the Shrewsbury coach. Sept. 11. Started at 7 a.m. for Salop. At Capel Curig a gentle- man got upon the coach to go as far as Bettws-y-Coed, who, when we stopped for breakfast at a house not far beyond Capel Curig, said he should walk on to Rhaiadr-y-Wenol. I obtained a crust of bread and some cheese, and accompanied him, and was well repaid for my trouble by the great beauty of the fall... ... Ona high hill near Llangollen is situated the ruin of Dinas Bran Castle, and in a fine valley near it’ Valle Crucis Abbey, and the very small remains of the house of Owen Glyndwyr. Sept. 12. Arrived at Ludlow, and took up my quarters at my aunt Rogers’. Sept. 13. Went with Mrs. Rogers to Stanage Park, through Leinterdine and Brampton Brian, near which last place on the right is situated the hill on which the camp of Caractacus was situated before the last battle with the Romans, and on the left the hill where the Roman camp was situated; both camps are I am told very easily to be traced. (N.B.—The above is doubted by some antiquaries, but believed by most.) Sept. 16. At Ludlow, saw Castle, etc. Sept. 17. Left Ludlow at 2.30 pm. Arrived Hereford at 7. Sept. 19. To Exeter, where my mother was ill. Oct. 15. To Cambridge. Nov. 2. Paid life composition as F.L.S. 1831. Jan. 29. Went into College, New Court OC, left hand top. rooms. May 19. Henslow’s party to Gamlingay. May 22. Henslow’s party to Wood Ditton. Went to Sawtry, Hunts, to entomologize, and returned to Cambridge on the 29th. 1832. June 25. Started from Bath by the Cheltenham mail, passed Tetbury and Cirencester, at which they had just been renewing the church porch in the same style as the original part ; it has the town hall over it. . . . At about two miles from Cheltenham is a country church having a very fine circular window, but, as I heard, very much injured by having been partly filled with modern painted glass. : ( 1832] JOURNAL—WELSH TOUR. 9 June 26. Left Cheltenham at quarter before 6 in the morning by a coach called “ L’Hirondelle,” which runs as far as Liverpool in fourteen hours. It goesthrough Kidderminster, where we breakfasted, from thence to Bridgnorth, which is built on the top, and under a very steep hill, of new red sandstone, having houses cut out of the rock, with chimneys built up the side of it, so as to take the smoke out of the way... . Arrived at Shrewsbury, and was met at the inn by Holmes, who had just arrived by the Bangor mail from London, and Leighton, who lives near to Shrewsbury. June 27. Left Shrewsbury at quarter before 6 am... . At about a mile from Oswestry we passed within about 200 yards of a fine fortification, called Hen Dinas (the old city), and anciently Caer ogyrfan, from a hero of that name in the time of Arthur; it is worth seeing. . . . The next point worthy of notice is the first view of Snowdon, from the vicinity of Cernioge inn ; for some miles of the road in this part the whole of the Snowdonian range is seen to very great advantage, if the day is fine. A short distance before arriving at Bettws-y-Coed, a fine waterfall is passed on the left-hand side of the road, called Rhaiadr-y-Machno ; it is not seen well from the road. At Bettws is left on the right Pont-y-Pair, a curious bridge over the river Llugwy, a short distance up which, and close to the road, the waterfall called Rhaiadr-y-Wenol is situated. The next stage is Capel Curig. . . . The road now continues through the mountains in a very barren but grand country, close on the bank of Llyn Ogwen, and having the lofty and peculiar mountain Trevaen on the left ; it is then carried along the side of Carnedd Davidd till within a few miles of Bangor. June 28. Walked to see the slate quarries at Dolawen, near Llyn Merig, the property of Mr. Pennant, of Penrhyn Castle. They are now cut into the very heart of the mountain, and employ more than 1600 men. The slates are conveyed by a railroad to Port Penrhyn, near Bangor, from which place they are shipped, twelve shiploads having this year gone from them to America. June 29. Went to Carnarvon by the coach at nine o’clock in the morning, and on our arrival there started to walk to Llanberis to see if we could find accommodation for afew days. Having done so at the “Vaynol Arms,” kept by R. Closs (at the rate of one shilling a meal and one shilling a bed), we went back to Carnarvon. On our arrival at the latter place we found Harold Browne (of Emmanuel College), who was going to stop the summer in that part of the country with two pupils, one of whom, Jacob, of Emmanuel College, arrived soon after. June 30. After breakfasting with Harold Browne and Jacob, they started to walk to Tremadoc to see if they could get accommo- dation to stay there, and we took a car to Llanberis. We walked part of the way up Snowdon and found Sazifraga hypnoides, Sedum 10 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1832 Rhodiola, Cryptogramma crispa, Viola palustris, etc. After dinner walked a short distance up the Llanberis Pass, or Cwmglas, as it is called in Welsh. . July 2. Started at a little after nine o’clock to ascend the top of Snowdon, went a short distance on the road to Dolbadarn castle, and then ascended a steep grassy slope extending to the top of the range of hills between the upper lake of Llanberis (or Lyn Peris) and Cwm Brwynog, then turning to the left followed the road to the copper mine for some distance, then ascending the steep bank called Llechwedd-y-Ré we soon arrived at the spring near the place called Bwlch Glas Gap. This is the place at which the horses of those who ride up are left. The ascent from this point is steep and rocky and about half-a-mile. Directly under the top (Y-Wyddfa) is the precipice called Clogwyn-y-Garnedd, at the foot of which is seen the little lake Ffynnon las, and beyond that, connected with it by a river, Llyn Llydaw. We continued for some time at or near the top, collecting in Clogwyn-y-Garnedd. We found, amongst others, Saaifraga nivalis, S. caespitosa and S. hypnoides, Cerastium latifolium, Arenaria verna, Carea rigida, etc. We then descended by the same road as that of our ascent. Holmes found for me in Clogwyn-y-Garnedd Chrysom. cerealis not far from the top; I also observed