On the London Horticultural Society. 395 



multiplying extravagant publications, not of use adequate to 

 the expense. 



I differ from your correspondent on the subject of the 

 Society's sending out botanical collectors ; in my opinion such 

 can only be sent out by a joint purse, and as far as I am able 

 to judge, this part of the business of the Horticultural Society 

 has been better managed than any thing they have done. 

 Had they confined themselves to this, and an experimental 

 garden about twice the size of that at Hammersmith, I feel 

 convinced they would have done much more good than ever 

 they are likely to do with a garden of thirty acres to keep up ; 

 and to keep up for what ? Certainly, as your correspondent 

 observes, not as an example of a good plan. What then — 

 to prove fruits ? That could have been done, as you observe, 

 in very little space. 



I trust, however, that the evils of this Society are not yet 

 past remedy. Only let a system of retrenchment and economy 

 immediately take place, and let the outgoings not exceed 

 three-fourths of the present income. Unless this is done, I 

 predict that, in a few years, the consequences will be ruinous 

 to the Society. Only conceive the tide of its popularity, now 

 at the full, to be turned ! Look at the expenses, as com- 

 pared with the receipts, and say how long such a system can 

 go on. As to finishing the garden on the plan contemplated, 

 with all the hot-houses, dwelling-houses, lodges, &c, that I 

 think entirely out of the question. Would 10,000/., in addi- 

 tion to the sum already, expended, finish it ? No ! Would 

 an additional 20,000/. finish it ? You hesitate ! Suppose it 

 were finished for that sum, will the advantages to the public 

 be adequate to the expense ? If the garden could be finished 

 by subscriptions of the surplus incomes of the rich, certainly 

 in that case I have nothing to say ; but if the money is to be 

 borrowed and repaid, or bestowed by the government, I as 

 a Fellow of the Society, and the public as taxed for the gift, 

 have a right to speak. I cannot help indeed regretting with 

 vour correspondent, that with the large income and vei'y 

 handsome subscriptions it should have been thought necessary 

 either to borrow or to beg; and having both borrowed and 

 begged, I do deplore the circumstance that with such means 

 so little has been done ; or rather so much done to so little 

 purpose. 



But your correspondent only hints at the assistance of 

 government. If he means a loan from government to be 

 repaid by the Society, why not borrow from individuals ? If 

 he means a gift, I for my part have a better opinion of minis- 



Vol. I. No. 4. E E 



