It is indeed very much to be questioned whether the under- 

 taking so large and costly an establishment with no more 

 surplus revenue than 1800/. (and this may be assumed to 

 have been the Society's utmost means after the old Garden at 

 Kensington and its auxiliary at Eahng had been relinquished), 

 was acceptable to the Fellows generally ; for although the 

 resignations do not appear to have been much more numerous 

 than usual, yet there zbcis a greater mimber, and the very 

 significant fact was observed, that the amount of elections 

 during the first year of holding the Garden fell from 328 to 

 209, making a difference against the Society of 119 ; which 

 was equal to nearly 500/. a year. 



Unfortunately the falling off in elections did not terminate 

 in 1823 ; on the contrary, not only did the annual balance 

 of elections over resignations steadily diminish by the numbers 

 285, 311, 189, 176, 155, 100, 38, 36, between 1821 and 1828, 

 but it proved to be annually against the Society from 1829 to 

 1833 to the extent of 22, 110, 155, 56, 20. This no doubt 

 arose from several causes, the more important of which were the 

 following ; — 



In the year 1826 it became known that a considerable sum 

 of money belonging to the Corporation had been misappro- 

 priated by an officer who had absconded, leaving the Society a 

 large loser by his defalcation. This created distrast, and 

 immediately reduced the elections, which had been 126 in the 

 previous year, to 88. 



Further, it had hitherto been the practice to hold an anni- 

 versary dinner annually in London, at which the Fellows met 

 and cemented by moderate conviviality the friendship begun 



