134 



Tins manifestg how widely and generally Gardening nas 

 pursued, and that a disappointment in its products was 

 esteemed by the monarcli, worthy of the exercise of his prero- 

 gative to prevent. I by no means approve of the spirit of 

 monopoly by \vhich it supports, and am as hostile to any thing 

 in the form of legal regulations, for the conducting of private 

 business. If left to themselves, the most honest tradesman, 

 and the best goods will soon find the greatest encouragement, 

 penal enactments generally retard improvement, and if they do 

 otherwise than effect that which it is evident will be brought to 

 pass speedily by public exi)erience, it is worse^than useless. 



An institution arose in the same reign that requires no such 

 restricted approbation. An academy was formed in Scotland 

 for the improvement of Gardening, which it would appear, was 

 in existence as late as 1724. — It had professors who delivered 

 Lectures.* The same monarch appointed a Royal Botanist in 

 the person of Matthias de Lobel, the first of whom we have 

 mention since the time of Richard the II. (see p. 46.) Lobel 

 was under the patronage of Lord Zouc"h, and cultivated a gar- 

 den at Hackney of which his lordship bore the expense. 

 Lobel had a considerable correspondence with Foreign Bota- 

 nists and by that means was enabled to introduce many new 

 Exotics into England. f He died about 1610, aged 78. 



The succeeding Monarch, Charles the I, was particularly 

 fond of Gardening, as we shall see when considering the art of 

 design as practised in his reign. Gardening continued greatly 

 to improve and met with general patronage. 



Some persons state that in this reign a proclamation was 

 issued directing all magistrates to assist the company of Gar- 

 deners instituted by James, in the execution oft heir authority. 



* Bradley's General Treat, on Hudbandry nud Gardening, v. i. p. 134. 

 + Pultney'i Sketchei of Botany, v. i. p 98. 



