In his (1797) Encyclopædia Britannica article on "Philosophy", John Robison, Professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, noted (p. 582) that the threefold duties of the natural historian were "description" ("to observe with care, and describe with accuracy, the various objects of the universe", "arrangement" ("to determine and enumerate all the great classes of objects ... and to mark with precision the principles of this distribution and arrangement, and the characteristics of the various assemblages"), and "reference" ("to determine with certainty the particular group to which any proposed individual belongs").
Note that, despite Darwin's specific reference ([1]) to Büchner's opinion, there is no trace of any such statement in either the French translation ([2]) to which Darwin refers, or the German original ([3]) of the Büchner work cited by Darwin.
Of the four Supreme Court Judges, only three (Martin, Hargrave, and Faucett) were available, because the fourth, Cheeke, "was in England on Leave of absence" (Fitzhardinge & Paterson (1877), p. 280..
Essentially, in accepting the restoration of his £1,000 lost salary, Krefft had to renounce (a) his claim for compensation (for, among other things, "the expense [incurred] in procuring another residence for himself and his family" (Fitzhardinge & Paterson (1877), p.280)), and (b) his claim to the Museum's curatorship ("Intercolonial News", The Queenslander, (16 December 1876), p.11).
darwinproject.ac.uk
Krefft specifically mentions the "Noahs Arck [sic]" lectures, O'Malley ("a priest over here from Melbourne), and Faucett ("one of our Supreme Court Judges (Facett Rom. Cath.)) in his (c.12 July 1873) letter to Charles Darwin.
"Deaths: McIntosh", The Sydney Morning Herald, (10 November 1884), p. 1. They were married in 1883; "Conjugal Felicity", The (Sydney) Globe, (10 February 1886), p. 3.
"Births: Krefft", The Sydney Morning Herald, (9 October 1879), p. 9; "Deaths: Krefft", The Sydney Morning Herald, (20 October 1911), p. 8; and "Naturalist's Death", The Sydney Morning Herald, (20 October 1911), p. 12.
"Births: Krefft", The (Sydney) Evening News, (3 July 1874), p. 2.
"We utterly refuse to recognise any such limit or distinction as that attempted to be drawn by those who, while denying the leading facts of the Pentateuch, claim to be regarded as believers in other parts of the Old Testament, or at all events as recognising or acquiescing in the authority of the New Testament. As we observed last week in reference to the theories of Messrs. Darwin and Crauford [sic] (viz., John Crawfurd), they directly assume the utter falsity of what both Testaments teach us; whereas our blessed Lord and the Holy Spirit, speaking by Evangelists and Apostles, as directly assume the truth of those events and circumstances which such men deny. To deny the Pentateuch is to deny every portion of God's word in which the facts of the Pentateuch are recognised and reiterated as real and true. He who denies the Scriptures of the Jews denies the Scriptures of the Christians, and is an infidel to both." ("A Heterodox Bishop", The South Australian Advertiser, (23 December 1862), p. 3: A reprint of the (late-1862) Editorial in the English Churchman).
It is significant that the advertisements for O'Malley's earlier Melbourne lectures on the same topic appeared under the Jesuit motto AMDG (see, for instance: The Advocate, (9 July 1870), p. 7).
"Lecture on Noah's Ark, by the Rev. J O'Malley, S.J.", The Freeman's Journal, (12 July 1873), pp. 9-10.
Somewhat later, in 1877, O'Malley delivered a comprehensive series of thirty lecture/sermons in Melbourne, entitled "Modern Thought", which collectively (the Roman Catholic newspaper The Advocate supposed) would "be extremely instructive to Catholics, whose faith is whole and sound; very useful to others, whose views on religious questions are infected by the course of contemporary thought, and extremely unpleasant to the disciples of Tom Paine, Renan, Huxley, and Darwin" (Modern Thought, The Advocate, (21 April 1877), p. 9), which extended from the First (22 April 1877) Lecture to the last, Thirtieth (1 December 1877) Lecture.
"Royal Society", The Sydney Daily Telegraph, (7 August 1879), p. 3.
"Royal Society", The Sydney Daily Telegraph, (14 May 1880), p. 4.
"The Revenue, from New York, has had a good run from that port. She brings a large number of apparently very respectable people, attracted hither by the fame of our gold fields": "Melbourne Shipping", The (Sydney) Empire, (23 October 1852), p. 2.
"May 31. One of the appointments of the month was that of Mr. Gerard Kreft [sic] to be Curator of the Australian Museum. This gentleman has performed the duties of the office since the death of Mr. Pittard.": at "Chronicle of Occurrences, 1864", The Sydney Morning Herald, (31 December 1864), p. 4.
See news item on Krefft's appointment and attesting to his value to the Museum: "The Australian Museum", The Sydney Morning Herald, (13 May 1864), p. 2.
"Under [Krefft's] supervision the various specimens have been so arranged as to become far more valuable to the public and to scientific men, than under their old somewhat confused classification" ("The Sydney Museum", The (Sydney) Empire, (16 May 1868), p. 5).
In its review ("The Animal Kingdom in Tasmania", The Sydney Mail, (20 June 1868), p. 3) of Krefft's (1868c), Notes on the Fauna of Tasmania, the Sydney Mail characterized Krefft as "the talented and indefatigable, curator and secretary of the Australian Museum, (whose assiduity in the cause of science has already been fully recognised in other countries besides these colonies, the immediate sphere of his labours)".
Rowley (1865). ("Deaths: Rowley", The (Sydney) Evening News, (1 March 1873), p. 2.)
See Krefft's (1874) description of the internal barricades and the Museum's closure at Krefft, G., "Letter to the Editor", The (Sydney) Evening News, (6 July 1874). p. 3; and the Trustees' subsequent (April 1875) justification for the 1874 museum closure and the barricading of Krefft in the section in the Trustees report for the year 1874 dealing with the twelfth charge levelled against Krefft in July 1874 at "Australian Museum", The Sydney Morning Herald, (17 April 1875), p. 9.
"The Museum Difficulty", The (Sydney) Evening News, (1 September 1874), p. 2: The newspaper report, in noting that both Bennet and Clarke had previously acted as secretaries of the Museum, "and always had the interest of the Museum at heart", also observed that, "it is much to be regretted that circumstances should have arisen to induce gentlemen of such high attainments to sever their connection with the institution". In view of Krefft's subsequent eviction, it is significant that this report, whilst dealing with the "consequences" of "steps recently taken", also clearly indicates the likelihood of certain 'future steps': "It is rumoured, we know not with what truth, that the remaining trustees are about to take energetic steps to remove Mr. Krefft, the curator, from the premises".
"As for Mr. Krefft, that jovial giant seems to have behaved throughout the trying scene of the expulsion from his house and home just as a jovial giant should, with wonderful good temper. To be sure it was four to one, two out of the four being professional pugilists, specially retained in compliment to the "giant's" proportions and presumed prowess, which might well have a wonderfully mollifying effect on the indignant courage even of a man-mammoth. But if the odds were great, the provocation was greater, and it is much to the credit of the curator that having a giant's strength, ho did not use it like a giant, but was content with such passive, inert resistance as some twenty stone [viz., 127kg] of very solid flesh was well able to present ..." ("Town Talk", The (Sydney) Evening News, (21 November 1874), p. 2.)
In its brief report on the Krefft v. Hill case, The Riverine Grazier (25 November 1874, p.2) explained that Hill's reference to Krefft as "the giant" was due to the fact that Krefft was "a fine specimen of the Bismarck type".
Krefft, G. (12 June 1876). Letter to the Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald, p. 2.
Taken directly from the Report of the Trustees of the Museum of Australia, for the year 1874, tabled in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, in June 1876, at: "Intercolonial News", The Queenslander. (8 July 1876), p. 18.
For the Sydney Punch's satirical explanation of precisely how the (supposedly) powdered fossil specimen had been magically re-materialised, by Krefft, by uttering the magic word "Diprotodon!!" — and revealing, with a flourish of his magic cloth, that the powder from the box beneath his left foot had been transformed into the original complete jaw bone, see: (Scott, Montague, "DIPROTODON!!", Sydney Punch, (26 June 1874), p. 5.)
Essentially, in accepting the restoration of his £1,000 lost salary, Krefft had to renounce (a) his claim for compensation (for, among other things, "the expense [incurred] in procuring another residence for himself and his family" (Fitzhardinge & Paterson (1877), p.280)), and (b) his claim to the Museum's curatorship ("Intercolonial News", The Queenslander, (16 December 1876), p.11).
" Mr. Krefft's book is illustrated by 12 carefully executed lithographs from drawings by two sisters, Miss Harriet Scott, and Mrs. Edward Forde, daughters of Mr. A.M. Scott M.A. and the printer and engraver have co-operated with the author and the fair artists to produce a work which is both a valuable contribution to science and a credit to New South Wales." (The Snakes of Australia, The Australasian, (4 June 1870), p. 8)
"The Australian Museum – We are requested to mention that this institution is closed for a short time. Due notice will be given on its being re-opened.": "The Australian Museum". The Sydney Morning Herald, (6 July 1874), p. 4.
"In the Supreme Court, on Tuesday [5 December 1876], an application on the part of Mr. Krefft for a mandamus to compel the Colonial Treasurer to pay him the sum of £1000 voted by the Assembly last session was refused unanimously by the Chief Justice [viz., Sir James Martin] and Judges [John Fletcher] Hargrave and [Peter] Faucett. The money, though placed on the Estimates to meet Mr. Krefft's claim for back salary, was included by the Appropriation Act in the general sum for the Museum; and, as there was nothing in the Act to direct the Treasurer to pay it over to Mr. Krefft, there was no legal obligation resting upon the Treasurer to pay it which Mr. Krefft had a right to call upon the Court to enforce." — "Mr. Krefft and the Government", The Sydney Mail, (9 December 1876), p. 752, emphasis added to original.
See the Public Notice of the auction of Krefft's furniture and effects: "Auction Sales", The Sydney Morning Herald, (30 July 1880), p. 7.
On 4 March 1874, in the earlier stages of the dispute, and in a private and confidential letter to Krefft (see: SLNSW, pp. 91–93), Henry Parkes, the Premier of New South Wales, stated unequivocally that he was fully confident in Krefft's qualification for the office he held at the Museum.
