36 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 8, 1885. 
T. J. Smith & Son. The mounts on which the portraits or views are 
usually placed are, in this case, beautifully and artistically enriched by 
landscapes and drawings of flowers ; the former are in the best style of 
chrome-lithrography, so well executed as to give them the appearance of 
water-colour drawings. The example before us contains views of Pang- 
bourne-on-the-Thames, Windermere, Loch Katrine, Grasmere, Henley-on- 
Thames, in all twelve views, besides the numerous floral subjects which 
are printed in gold. The fastening arrangement is clever and the 
boards are luxuriously padded. It is the best thing of the kind we 
have seen. 
THE NATIONAL AURICULA AND CARNATION AND PICOTEE 
SOCIETIES (SOUTHERN SECTION). 
When I read the extraordinary letter on page 7 I wondered if Mr. 
Dean had been appointed by a majority of one at a general meeting 
whether he would have considered himself rightly empowered to act or 
not. If he had been so chosen, and any individual had taken strenuous 
action against him, and he had been prevented from acting in his elected 
capacity he would have had some reason for complaining that he was 
“ rudely thrust aside still, he is such a defender of legality that he 
would, if he could, thrust aside (I will not say “rudely ”) the right of the 
majority in favour of the minority if that minority favoured himself. 
That is, I think, a fair deduction in moderate language from Mr. Dean’s 
letter of last week. 
I make no pretensions to being generous, but I try to be just, and 
should not like to see myself complaining because I have never been 
placed on the Committee. I consider those who appointed the members 
are honourable men with a better knowledge of what is required in the 
interests of the Societies than I have, and even as good, if I may say so 
respectfully, as is possessed by Mr. Dean with his “ something like twenty 
years’ experience, ’ if for no other reason than that the experience of 
some of those of whom he complains is longer than his. 
I, as I have said, am not a member of the Committee, and 
am quite without a grievance, neither was I present at the general 
meeting held at South Kensington in December; but, although 
not present, I have a fairly good idea of what transpired on that 
occasion. I am credibly informed that the “ protest ’’ read there by Mr. 
Dodwell was the result of an urgent private appeal that had been made 
by circular to each member of the Societies, and one of those circulars is 
in my possession ; but no similar and widely distributed private appeal 
was made to the members to support the action of the Committee as 
determined at the meeting held in October. Had any such appeal been 
made, I know quite well the majority at the general meeting would have 
been larger, but as it happens it was quite large enough. I am further 
informed that the Committee was appointed “ with power to add to the 
number,” and that Mr. Dean was distinctly invited to act by the Chair¬ 
man, but as distinctly refused, on the ground that he refused to be a 
member of the Carnation Society. 
Again, as to Mr. Dean’s complaint of his not having received an 
invitation to attend the Committee meeting that he is pleased to call an 
illegal meeting, my first observation is that it seems a little strange that 
he should feel hurt because he could not attend a meeting which in his 
view was not legal ; and my second is, after it was explained that 
his non-receipt of an invitation was, for reasons stated to him and to the 
meeting, purely accidental, and after he explicitly accepted the explana¬ 
tion in “ good faith,” that it does not seem to exhibit great generosity of 
mind to reiterate his complaint in a public manner, and to suppress his 
acceptance in “ good faith ” of the explanation that was tendered 
to him.—A Country Florist. 
My attention has been directed to a leaflet circulated by Mr. Dodwell, 
in which. he states the vote I gave at the general meeting of the 
above Societies was “ a fraud. Mr. Wright of the Journal of Horticul¬ 
ture office, who never was a member, never paid a subscription of any 
kind, held up his hand, and was counted by the Chairman as entitled 
to vote and Mr. Dean, relying on Mr. Dodwell’s accuracy, has also, in 
a communication rejected by the press and published in another manner, 
emphatically declared my vote “fictitious.” This is not the proper 
place for discussing that matter, and I only allude to the subject now to 
state that both of those gentlemen are in error, and that neither of them 
sent me a copy of the gross fabrication they caused to be circulated in 
other directions.—J. Wright. 
In reference to Mr. Dean’s letter at page 7, allow me to say that the 
custom has always been for one united Committee to manage the business 
of both ; and yet the two Societies have been perfectly distinct. Mr. 
Dean has never asked for information, and but for his observations on 
December 9ih I thought he cared nothing about the management even of 
the Auricula Society. Mr. Dean’s last attendance at a meeting, either 
general, special, or Committee, was on March 14th, 1882. When a 
member of any society absents himself from its meetings for two years 
and seven months, and when that member gets up and declares his deep 
interest in the S jciety he has thus neglected, one may almost be excused 
for doubting his sincerity. Mr. Dean has evidently made some new dis¬ 
coveries since he avowed “his deep interest in the Auricula Society.” 
One of his discoveries is this : “ That when the Secretary is one of the 
principal exhibitors it always leads to unpleasantness.” Mr. Barlow of 
Stakehill was one of the principal exhibitors in the north of the Tulip, 
he was also Honorary Secretary and Treasurer of the National Tulip 
Society. Did unpleasantness occur there? Mr. Horner has been for 
years, and still is, Hon. Secretary and Treasurer of the Auricula Society. 
He was until he came to exhibit in the south one of the principal exhi¬ 
bitors. It never led to unpleasantness. I can tell Mr. Dean what 
causes unpleasantness ; people who cannot control their tempers make 
things unpleasant everywhere. Another new discovery he has made is, 
that the small exhibitors of Auriculas “ felt that their interests were repre¬ 
sented in Mr. Dodwell.” How long have they had this comfortable 
feeling ? Who looks after the interests of the small exhibitors of Carna¬ 
tions and Picotees ? The tumult in 1883 has not yet been forgotten. 
I will leave Mr. Dean to make a few more important discoveries. 
I will now state a few plain facts for the consideration of Mr. 
Dodwell. He is evidently dissatisfied with the result of the meeting of 
December 9th. He has stated publicly that Mr. Wright of the 
Journal of Horticulture was not entitled to record his vote, as he was not 
a subscriber. Mr. Wright joined the Societies a considerable time before 
the general meeting, and he certainly never thought of attending it 
before I told him on the day previous he was entitled to take part 
in it, and I had his subscription of £1 Is. There never has been 
any rule to guide the Secretary how members are to be received, 
or what gives them power to vote. The usual course was followed 
with Mr. Wright, and for it I am entirely responsible. That Mr. 
Pohlman’s son was brought up as a person entitled to vote is to me rather 
mysterious. His name is not in the list of subscribers for last season. 
How came he to be entitlod to vote ? When or for what purpose was his 
subscription paid ? No subscription was due from Dr. Hogg in 1883, as he 
had withdrawn, but on my invitation he again became a member ; but if 
Mr. Dodwell does not object to one thing he will to another. I deliberately 
state that the meeting of Oct. 14th was summoned exactly in the usual 
manner, and with no evil intention, as has been alleged. It was called 
in the same way as that of July 8th, which was summoned by Mr. Dod¬ 
well. There was a complaint at that meeting that some members had 
been left out. Probably Mr. Dean was forgotten ; at any rate, he was 
not present. All the other objections made by Mr. Dodwell can be met 
and refuted. Mr. Fraser never was invited. He is not a member of 
either Society, consequently he was not present. Mr. Dodwell objects 
to Mr. Veitch and Dr. Hogg being present. They both attended at the 
meeting on July 8th, hence they were invited to attend on Oct. 14th. it 
may seem to outsiders not quite in order to ask members not on the Com¬ 
mittee to take part in the proceedings, but it had been done before as a 
matter of courtesy, so very few members of the Committee used to attend ; 
and if there was any member present at the Royal Horticultural Society’s 
meetings who had knowledge of the business they were invited to sit down 
and take part. It had been done before with the approval of Mr. Dod¬ 
well. I say emphatically that Mr. Dodwell had not a majority of votes 
in his favour on Dec. 9th. 
I come now to another question—that of proxy voting. He put his 
case to the members in his own way ; very pathetically, no doubt. He 
sent them a circular containing a copy of a letter he addressed to the 
Editor of the Gardeners' Magazine, but he did not send my answer to it, 
which appeared in the same paper. It was a one-sided affair entirely. 
He brought his proxies to the meeting, and very properly they were not 
admitted. He says he had an overwhelming vote in his favour—fifty- 
three against twenty-two. Who are the fifty-three ? Are not many of 
them his own personal friends, who subscribed small sums to the Slough 
Supplementary Show ? Another question must be answered, and it is 
more important than the other. Who are the twenty-two ? I can 
answer that question. Amongst them are the leading florists of the 
northern and southern section. How many leading men are amongst 
the fifty-three? When there are no rules to guide the execu ive of a 
society it would be impossible to act in such way as to please Mr. Dodwell 
if he wanted to find fault. But Mr. Dodwell objects to rules. He says in 
a new circular just issued, dated December 27th, the sixth of the series. 
It is addressed to Mr. Shirley Hibberd. “ Rules by their very nature 
restrict; I resist restriction.” Mr. Dodwell has no need to state a 
palpable fact. He is an autocrat in his way, and acts just as he pleases, 
and he is pleased to act in the most extraordinary manner sometimes. 
Last summer, for instance, he would not be controlled, he gave me to 
understand, and I would draw particular attention to the words—“ I will 
maintain the position of leader I was pressed into eisiht years ago, and 
except as following a direct vote of the Committee, which I shall always 
uphold, I will tolerate no interference with my direction.” He was at 
this time involving the President of the Carnation Society, the Vice- 
Presidents, and Committee in legal proceedings, entirely without their 
consent or knowledge. I tried in vain to restrain him, warning him that 
the Committee would not support him in such irregular proceedings ; and 
what was the result ? The memorable meeting of July 8th was held, with 
the President of the Carnation Society in the chair, with the result that the 
Committee unanimously refused to support Mr. Dodwell in any further 
action. He might have got out of his difficulty in the usual way, 
but he retained office with the result that his co-Secretary, to save his 
self-respect, tendered his resignation. Yet on this honourable proceeding 
Mr. Dodwell pours his gall, and has shamefully misrepresented me. I 
state emphatically that the manner of my resignation was left with Mr. 
Dodwell. When I had made up my mind to resign, the first person made 
acquainted with my intentions was Mr. Dodwell. I asked him to summon 
a meeting. He sent me an evasive reply. In self-defence I called a 
meeting for October 14th, and invited him to come. The results are now 
well known. 
I now allude to another circular dated December 30th, the seventh of 
the series, in which it is stated by Mr. Dodwell that I perpetrated a 
fraud, and yet another from Mr. Dean, dated December^ 1st (who already 
