570 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



GARDEN DESIGN. II. 

 By Edward White. 



[Read December 2, 1913; Mr. W. A. Bilney, J. P., in the chair.] 



Notwithstanding the complexity of the subject of garden design, 

 there is generally one issue which is quite simple. One may say 

 that it is always desirable to arrange in a garden a few principal 

 pictures which are commanded by the house, and to combine with 

 them a number of secluded scenes of a specialized character, a condition 

 being that the latter should not obstruct the breadth of the chief 

 views. 



In a former lecture I suggested that the instant attraction of a 

 garden depends upon the skill with which these principal scenes 

 have been composed, while the enduring charm of a garden depends 

 upon variety and individuality, derived preferably from some character 

 peculiar to the site. I urged that instead of adopting conventional 

 ideas and methods simply because they had proved successful else- 

 where, one should try to introduce, as far as possible, a note of distinct 

 originality. If this view is accepted it follows that the continued 

 endeavour of a landscape gardener should be to cultivate his own 

 imagination and stimulate the same quality among his clients. 



It is thousands of years since the charm of the ordered arrangement 

 of flowers as an accessory to a building was first realized, but it is 

 conceivable that there is no very great difference between the form 

 of the first flower-garden and many that now exist. The origina- 

 tor of the idea would have been gratified if he could have foreseen 

 its development through the ages, and interested in the con- 

 troversies which have since been inseparable from the subject. 

 We know that ever since printing was introduced the experts of 

 successive generations have indulged in animated discussion on the 

 question of garden planning, and it is an anomaly that, in spite of 

 the peaceful virtues attributed to gardening, the principles of the 

 art are sometimes debated with unnecessary acrimony. It is good to 

 study all sides of a question, but it is desirable that conflicting 

 opinions should be put one against another by the student of garden 

 design, who should reserve his judgment until he has had sufficient 

 experience to entitle him to take an independent view. 



I refer particularly to the well-worn discussion concerning the 

 respective merits of formal and informal gardens. It would appear 

 that sufficient service has already been effected by argument. The 

 tendency of much controversy has been to demonstrate the weak 

 points in each form of gardening, and to lead to the gradual ex- 

 tinction of inartistic details. We know that there exist in this 



