December 18, 1890. J 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
531 
m 
MEMORIALS AND 
TESTIMONIALS. 
--+- 
& 
T HE year now drawing near its termination will be remembered 
as a fatal one amongst horticulturists. Many excellent men 
have been called away, and all who knew, and especially who 
worked or associated with them, mourn their loss sincerely. The 
esteem in which they were held is testified to in the most practical 
manner by the movements that followed to perpetuate their 
memories befittiugly. Large sums of money have been collected 
for this purpose, and the amounts have probably been enhanced 
because they either were, or it is understood will be, applied to 
charitable purposes, or to the advantage of the bereaved. Happily 
appeals for funds when so invested, and by which the names of 
departed friends are kept in remembrance, are never made to 
deaf ears or hardened hearts in the gardening community. The 
larger the sums then raised the greater is the general satisfaction, 
not because the dead are more honoured by a few large sums than 
by a greater number of small offerings, but because the larger the 
aggregate amount collected the greater or more extended the 
benefits to the living who need relief or assistance. But even 
when memorial funds are applied in the manner indicated there is 
eio mistaking the feeling which largely prevails that individual 
gifts of large sums and duly published, have two distinct ten¬ 
dencies, neither of 'which is by any means generally approved— 
namely (1) inducing persons to give sums which they can 
perhaps ill spare, yet who object to be “ seen ” contributing, by 
•comparison, ridiculously small amounts ; or (2) declining to con¬ 
tribute anything. It is not in the least necessary to pass any 
opinion on such decisions, they are in accordance with human 
nature, and it is with this we have to deal. It is not to be 
supposed, however, that generous contributors do not give 
willingly and freely. In some cases we are convinced that they 
would prefer not to have their offerings published to the world, 
and we know of those amongst us who do much good by stealth, 
(for we have been made the medium of conveyance of substantial 
assistance in cases of need on the condition that the names of the 
donors should not be disclosed. 
The subject under notice is referred to now because of com¬ 
munications which have been received that it would serve no good 
purpose to publish, and of expressions that are so frequent as to 
have bec-ome common property, that the methods of memorialising 
do not by any means meet with common approbation. Our own 
action, and that of our contemporaries, is objected to in publishing 
printed lists of contributions time after time. In most cases we 
believe this has been done gratuitously to assist charities, and we 
suspect would be repeated were occasion to arise. Then what is 
referred to as “begging and touting” is a practice that is strongly 
•condemned on the allegation that money so obtained is not the true 
way of representing the esteem in which friends are held. There 
ds this to be said on that view of the case—namely, it is not con¬ 
ceivable that any person whose memory is thus honoured could, if 
living, approve of any such thing ; and more, there cannot be a 
•doubt that most persons now striving to do their duty would very 
much prefer silence after their decease to strained action of that 
•kind in raising money to memorialise their names. We are sorry to 
hear the vulgar term “touting” so frequently in connection with 
memorial or testimonial movements of late, with which the practice 
(indicated cannot be otherwise than incongruous. It is right that 
No. 547.— Yol. XXL, Third Series 
the proposals be placed fully and fairly before the public, and then 
persons should be left to make their offerings ; but the persistency 
with which applications are made for some object or other is 
undoubtedly creating a revulsion of feeling against that which is 
good in itself—doing honour to the living or the dead who have, 
by their lives and conduct, merited public recognition. Zeal is an 
admirable quality, but requires to be tempered by discretion for 
producing the most satisfactory results. “ We live in testimonial 
days,” observes one of our correspondents ; “ and it appears as if 
some of the movers in these matters consider that the result is 
not a success if the amount collected is not greater than all 
previous amounts of the same nature. Large amounts were not 
collected, were not thought necessary, when such men as Loudon, 
Lindley, Berkeley, and Rivers died ; but they are not the less 
remembered on that account. Their works are their greatest 
memorials, and the portraits of such of those men as were sub¬ 
scribed for were considered as affording sufficient evidence of 
the esteem in which they were held by their friends and asso¬ 
ciates.” 
This brings to mind the latest case, that of the late Mr. Shirley 
Hibberd. Active, industrious, ever ready to help in any good cause, 
something should be done, and will be done, apart from his own 
works, to keep him in remembrance ; and so far as we can ascertain, 
after taking some pain3 to test current opinion, this is overwhelm¬ 
ingly in favour of a portrait to be placed with those of Lindley, 
Veitch, Rivers, and others in the Lindley library. Recognising 
to the full Hibberd’s services in horticulture, he cannot, under the 
most generous estimate, be regarded as a greater man than they. 
One of those portraits was obtained by subscriptions among the 
Council of the Royal Horticultural Society ; and the other 
(Mr. Rivers) by general offerings of those who had pleasure in 
sending them when they learned of the project in view. The 
cost of the portrait was, we think, about £40 or £50, and the 
surplus, which was similar in amount, was given to the Gar¬ 
deners’ Royal Benevolent Institution. Will not something of 
the same kind meet every reasonable claim that can be advanced 
for our late friend ? But as our charitable institutions are not 
weak and ill supported at the present time, could not the surplus 
be given to h:s child ? This would be the most graceful of all 
tributes to his memory, and one which would touch him the most 
deeply if he could know it was done. It was with feelings of 
gladness that all who attended the meeting last week heard this 
child was provided for, but the provision cannot be so great that 
an addition would be a superfluity ; and as coming from her 
father’s friends it would be to her something very near akin to a 
father’s love, and in time so felt—a token that he was loved in life 
by those who knew him best, and in this meet form remembered. 
For perpetuating Mr. Hibberd's memory in some such manner 
as suggested his friend*, high and low, rich and poor, would, we 
believe, give their offerings gladly, and much more willingly than 
towards raising a large fund for sending young gardeners abroad 
for completing their education, or disbursing among professional 
lecturers at home on scientific subjects connected with horticul¬ 
ture. Granted that those projects are good in themselves, they 
would not only involve the sinking of a considerable amount of 
money, but besides they are not in harmony with the mind or 
habits of the man whose name they would commemorate. Shirley 
Hibberd was not a learned savant, but emphatically a popular 
teacher on gardening, and delighted in garden experiments ; and 
having this in view, another suggestion made at the meeting for 
establishing a Hibberd Fund for conducting experiments at Chis¬ 
wick would be more in consonance with his tastes, also appropriate, 
as he was a member of the Garde i Committee ; and if the surplus 
from a portrait should be large possibly something might be done 
to keep his memory green at Chiswick, as well as for his child* 
These are practical matters, and Mr. Hibberd was a practical man, a 
man of the people too, and the greater the number of small sums 
No. 2203.—Yol. LXXXIII,, Old Series. 
