February 21, 1865. ] 



JOUEKAL OF HOETICULTUEE AND COTTAGE GAEDENEE. 



149 



almost in a state of bankruptcy when the connection was 

 formed with the Commissioners, and by this time they would 

 have been in the Gazette, but for the assistance tliey got 

 from the Commissioners. Eegarding the situation of Chis- 

 wiob, he could speak from experience. For thirty or forty 

 years he had been connected with Cliiswick, and he must 

 say that some of his happiest days had been spent within its 

 walls. Consequently, his feelings were entirely in favour of 

 Chiswiok. At the same time they could not shut their eyes 

 to the change which was taking place in the aspect of horti- 

 culture in England, and in this metropolis in particular. 

 He remembered the first show held at Chiswick. It was a 

 poor affair, but still it was a beginnvng. He saw gradually the 

 interest increase in those shows uMil the flood-tide of pros- 

 perity set in and poured along until they came to form a very 

 large, not to say the largest portion of the income of the 

 Horticultural Society. He then with much eloquence ex- 

 plained four points, in which he said, Chiswick was eminently 

 useful in former days — first, as an experimental garden, in 

 which were gathered together a large collection of varieties 

 of fi-uits, to which constant additions were made as fresh 

 varieties were introduced ; second, as a nucleus for the in- 

 troduction and dissemination of rare plants, which he 

 believed gave Chiswick its prestige in the first instance; 

 third, as a garden where especially hardy plants might be 

 seen in the greatest perfection ; fourth, as the theatre of 

 great shows. He looked upon it that with a few exceptions 

 the whole of the known regions of the world, where speci- 

 mens of horticulture could be found had been explored ; 

 consequently, he argued that there was not that necessity 

 for an establishment like Chiswick, which there was before 

 those regions had been visited. There might not be as 

 many eminent horticulturists on the Council as was desir- 

 able, or as there were in former days, but it was not from 

 any disinclination on the part of the powers that be, but 

 rather a diminished supply of these worthies. !N'over was 

 there a time when there were so few eminent and practical 

 men in the horticultural world as at the present day. 



Mr. Edgak Bowking (Secretary to the Commissioners of 

 1851), said he was glad to hear that the accounts were in- 

 tended to be simplified, because in their present state they 

 were difficult to understand. It was a great fallacy on the 

 part of Mr. Godson to say that their expenditure was ^£20,000 

 a-year, and that they had only jESOOO to meet it. It was 

 very true the accounts showed a balance on the wrong side ; 

 ^620,000 expended, and only .£13,000 or ^14,000 received. 

 On the face of the accounts that- might appear to be the 

 case. If the Commissioners treated their accounts in the 

 same way, they, too, would appear to be in a state of bank- 

 ruptcy, which was a position they could not for a moment 

 admit. It was the way in which the items should be separated. 

 He showed that several accounts ought to be struck off, if a 

 true representation of the state of the Society was to be ren- 

 dered. It would then, he argued, appear in a much more 

 favourable light than it did at present. The Commissioners 

 had put on record their satisfaction at the great decrease 

 which had been made by this Society in the way of expendi- 

 ture. The -1^. rent put down in the published balance-sheet of 

 the Society, was merely a nominal matter, simply a recog- 

 nition of the Commissioners' right as landlords of the pro- 

 perty. Instead of owing to the Commissioners ^64000, as 

 Mr. Godson represented, this Society owed not a single 

 farthing. It was necessary that the Fellows should know 

 their position with regard to the rent to the Commissioners. 

 The sum fixed as rental was ^2400, or such less sum as 

 might be their surplus. If their surplus was nothing, they 

 did not owe the Commissioners a farthing. It was not till 

 the summer of 1S66, that the Commissioners' rights as land- 

 lords would begin to arise. That was five years after the 

 agreement. If at the end of ten years after the agreement, 

 the Society had in no single year paid the ^£2400, then the 

 Commissioners had a right to step in and claim their rent. 

 For the first five years it had so happened that they had 

 paid rent, a very considerable sum of rent, nothing this 

 year, a small amount last, ^£3000 in the Exhibition year, and 

 iglOOO the previous year ; therefore, if the Society by hook 

 or by crook was able to pay the Commissioners jS2400 in any 

 one year of the second five years, the Commissioners' right 

 to forfeitm-e would not arise. 



Mr. S. H. Godson, in answer to what fell from Mr. Bate- 



man, said he had yet to learn in what way he was connected 

 with the observations of his sou. He then attempted to 

 show the position of Chiswick at the time it came into the 

 hands of the Kensington Board. Chiswick was .£11,000 in 

 debt, and he mentioned the circumstance to the Council, 

 and asked for a committee of investigation. Several noble- 

 men were present, and acquiesced in the motion, saying that 

 if there was anything to explain it should be explamed, and 

 if there was anything to be laid before the Committee by 

 them it should be laid before them. Their notion was, that 

 the more the matter was inquired • ito, the better they 

 should be able to get out of the diflicul ■ y. That was simply 

 the object, he understood, of the motio., now in reference to 

 the affairs of this Society. Five of )'ie members of that 

 Committee became personally responsii.ie until the debt was 

 paid off, and it was paid off by reducing the salaries of the 

 officers £700 a-year — by cutting down a fruitless expendi- 

 ture. He then went on to argue that the Commissioners, who, 

 he said, were bound to spend as much on the Kensington 

 Gardens as the Society had not done so. The rental 

 fixed for the grounds was more than they were worth; there- 

 fore he wanted to know where was the liberality of the Com- 

 missioners. Certainly the Society did not pay the rent, but 

 at the end of five years the Commissioners could take the 

 property, on which the Society had spent upwards of ^£70,000. 

 The time, he thought, really had arrived when there should 

 be an understanding between the Society and the Commis- 

 sioners. 



Cries of " Divide " were raised when Mr. Godson resumed 

 his seat. 



Mr. A. P. Godson begged to say that as the propriety of 

 his using the words "true" and "honest" with reference to 

 the accounts had been questioned, he used them in the 

 sense of their own bye-laws, which provided for a full, 

 straightforward, and clear account being rendered, and he 

 had shown it was not a full, straightforward, and clear 

 account. 



The Chaikjian claimed the right to say a few words. 

 After explaining how he came to occupy the chair, and that 

 he had considered it his duty to encourage discussion from 

 all sides, he congratulated the Society upon the unanimity 

 with which he believed the Eeport was about to be adopted. 

 The opposition arose, as it were, from a family party. "With 

 the exception of the three gentlemen — Mr. Godson, sen., 

 Mr. Godson, jun., and Mr. Weston — they had had no speeches 

 in any way reflecting on the Council. Mr. Godson, sen., 

 had attempted to excuse his son using strong language on 

 the ground that it was impossible to put old heads on young_ 

 shoulders. Mr. Godson was a friend of his, and he had to 

 offer him his congratulations, as he, too, appeared, although 

 advanced in age, to have a young head on his shoulders ; 

 for, if anything, he ha,d been more energetic, and shown more 

 warmth, than his sou [laughter]. With regard to Mr. Godson, 

 jun., he (the Chau-man), like everybody at the meeting, de- 

 plored the language he used. He possessed great fluency, and 

 could tm-n figures from what they were intended to repre- 

 sent to something else he wished them to mean. That, in 

 a young financier, was no inconsiderable merit. He had 

 fifteen years' experience of parliamentary life, and he would 

 recommend Mr. Godson, jun., if he wished his facts to be 

 taken as true, to clothe his remarks with less suggestions 

 of bad motive. He had to thank Mr. Bowring for his 

 explanation — an explanation which he gave last year. It 

 proved that nothing was so difiicult as to explain a matter 

 to persons whose whole object in life appeared to be not to 

 learn, and who persistently declined to be informed. Mr. 

 Godson objected very much to the form in which the accounts 

 were drawn. Mr. Bowring likewise objected on the same 

 score; and if he (the Chau-man) chose he was at liberty 

 to object, as they were put into the present form long before 

 he had a seat at the Council. This, however, might be said, 

 if aught were wanted in their justification, the archives of the 

 Society would show that, at the time the form was adopted, 

 Mr. Godson, sen., held the post of Finance Chairman. He 

 hoped, however, as an objection was raised, the matter 

 would be looked into. As to tlie conversauons, he fully 

 justified that step. ' 



The motion for the adoption of the Keport was carried by 

 a large majority. 



Some questions affecting the admission of members and 





