Horticultural Society and Garden. 87 



write. Mr. Knight, by showing the utility of general knowledge to gar- 

 deners, and advocating the cause of garden hbraries as the means for acquir- 

 ing this knowledge, might do more for the advancement of horticulture, than 

 by all the practical papers that he has ever written, or ever will write. Among 

 practical gardeners these papers go for nothing, and deservedly so ; for what 

 is the result of all that Mr. Knight has stated in regard to the culture of the 

 pine-apple, the strawberry, or the mango ? Are we one step advanced in 

 consequence of these papers ? It is in physiological experiments that Mr. 

 Knight excels, and it gives us pleasure to state, that by these he has esta- 

 blished his reputation far beyond the reach of our praise or blame.] 

 The following is the letter of the Council * : — 



" HorticuUiiral Sociely, Regent Street, London, August 28. 1828. 



" The Council of the Horticultural Society have directed that the last 

 Number of the Gardener's Magazine shall be returned to Mr. Loudon, con- 

 ceiving that they would be wanting in all due feeling towards their respected 

 President, were they to accept, as a present to the Library of the Societj', 

 a publication in which such reflections on that gentleman and his writings, 

 published in the Transactions of the Society, exist, as will be found at 

 page 284. of the book in question. The Council have further to observe, 

 that these reflections are introduced into a statement officially conmiuni- 

 cated, by order of the Council, to Mr. Loudon, and they do unhesitatingly 

 declare their opinion that the assertion of the inutility of Mr. Knight's 

 pa])ers is decidedly unfounded and untrue." 



The offensive passage in the brackets we wrote in the margin of the 

 proof, having in truth not read over the MS. account of the Meetings be- 

 fore it went to press. Had we seen a revise, it is possible we might have 

 modified the expressions ; and certainly we regret that we have not done 

 so, for we have a very great personal regard for Mr. Knight. It is impossi- 

 ble to be in his company without feeling him to be a benevolent and most 

 ingenious man, and in so far as we have hurt his feelings by tlie above pas- 

 sage we are sincerely sorry. 



Speaking of Mr. Knight as a cultivator, however, and of his practical 

 papers in the Transactions of the Horticultural Society, we cannot retract 

 one word of what we have asserted. We stated nearly the same opinion in 

 a sort of historical treatise on the culture of the pine-apple, published some 

 years ago {Encyc. of Gard., p. 1112., A. D. 180J, 10.); and every subse- 

 quent paper that I\Ir. Knight has written, and especially his latter papers on 

 the pine-apple and mango, confirm us in our opinion. We leave oin- readers 

 and time to decide between our unhesitating opinion, and the unhesitating 

 opinion of the Council of the Horticultural Society, and we are not afraid 

 of the decision. What tempted us to write the paragraph at all, was the 



Thomas Andrew Knight, Esq. F.R.S. F.L.S., President. 



Edward Barnard, Esq. F.L.S., Vice-Secretary. 



Henry Moreton Dyer, Esq. Vice-President. 



John Elliot, Esq. F.R.S. F.L.S., Vice-President. 



Alexander Henderson, M.D., Vice-President. 



Robert Henry Jenkinson, Esq. F.L.S., Vice-President and Treasurer. 



Mr. John Lee, Nurseryman. 



j\Ir. George Loddiges, F.L.S. 



xVlr. William Malcolm, F.L.S. 



Roger Pettiward, Esq. F.R.S. F.L.S. &c. 



Joseph Sabine, Esq. F.R.S. F.L.S., Secretary. 



^Marquess of Salisbury. 



Sir Claude Scott, Bart. F.L.S. 



Alexander Seton, Esq. 



Alexandre Comte de Vandes. 



G 4 



