Visits to Suburban Gardens. 423 



character of the species, not the effect which has been produced on the indi- 

 vidual plant by extraordinary culture. 



This hall is certainly far better adapted for exhibiting plants to advantage, 

 than any tent or other structure that we have seen in the neighbourhood of 

 London ; and we only wish it were three times as long as it is, and placed 

 adjoining and connected with the gardens of the Horticultural Society, in order 

 that that body, and the Stafford House establishment, might hold their exhi- 

 bitions in it alternately, and that the Horticultural Society's garden might be 

 no longer disfigured with the skeleton tent, which is a most unmeaning object 

 nine months in the year, when not covered with canvass. We can easily 

 foresee the superior degree of effect and comfort that will attend the exhi- 

 bitions in the Flower Hall to those in the Horticultural Society's tents ; or, 

 indeed, to exhibitions of flowers in any tents whatever. Independently of the 

 bad light which is unavoidable in them, no tent can be contrived to exclude 

 the heat to the same degree as a structure of masonry like the Flower Hall ; 

 which, by being syringed with water inside and out, the evening before the 

 flower show, might be rendered, if it were desirable, almost as cool as an 

 ice-house. We have one fault to find with this building, which is, that there 

 are only two doors at the ends, instead of three. We presume the reason 

 to be, that three are not required for use ; but we submit to the public mind 

 generally, whether, in the building before us, three are not required for effect. 

 Something also might be said about the tie rods ; but great allowance ought 

 to be made for the haste with which the whole was got up. Perhaps we may 

 return to the subject, and illustrate our ideas by sketches. 



Though we have found only one fault with the Flower Hall itself, we have 

 nothing but faults to find with the manner in which the ground round it is 

 laid out. The general outline of the plot is a parallelogram lying in the 

 direction of north and south, containing, perhaps, an acre, and the surface is 

 flat, enclosed with a brick wall, and without any prospect. The Flower Hall 

 itself is a parallelogram, and it is very properly placed in the middle of the 

 plot. Now the question is, how is the ground between this building and the 

 boundary wall to be disposed of? In our opinion, the Flower Hall ought to 

 have been placed on a platform of turf, raised at least one step above the 

 general surface of the ground ; and between this platform and the boundary 

 wall, there should have been, first such a breadth of lawn as the space would 

 afford ; then, all round, a straight broad gravel walk parallel to the Flower Hall 

 and the boundary ; and, lastly, a border, chiefly of evergreen shrubs, to disguise 

 or conceal the brick wall. This, in our opinion, is all that was necessary, and 

 all that can be made of such a limited space, consistently with unity of design 

 and expression. But, instead of this, there is no platform raised for the 

 Flower Hall. The walk between it and the boundary wall is of the serpentine 

 kind, and there is a curvilinear border of shrubs to disguise the boundary. 

 This taste we consider to be at variance with the obvious principle, that 

 the lines and forms immediately surrounding any building should partake 

 of the lines and forms of that building : and it is, we are certain, contrary to 

 the principles of utility ; for what can be more inconvenient for persons 

 visiting this Flower Hall, who will naturally walk round it in parties to talk 

 of the exhibition, than to have their attention distracted from what they 

 have seen, by the necessity of guiding their steps along the windings of a walk, 

 however broad it may be ? It is true that the whole work has been got 

 up in a hurry, and this is an excuse for errors in execution ; but it is 

 no excuse whatever for the errors in the design, which, we contend, are 

 here displayed to a degree which, considering the well known taste of 

 the architect (Mr. Hakewell), and the liberal expenditure of the pro- 

 prietor, deserves severe reprobation. We consider it the more necessary 

 to point out what we consider to be erroneous in the laying out of this piece 

 of ground, since it shows an indiscriminate imitation and adoption of a st}-le 

 of laying out grounds which, though the fashion, and admirably adapted for 

 grounds of considerable extent, is, we think, altogether unsuitable to the case 



F f 4 



