183 
[ March 5, 1891. 
JOiRNAL or HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
■may be deemed incapacitated who is absent from England for more 
than three months.” And 7G orders that, in the event of a vacancy in 
the Treasurership through incapacity, “ such vacancy may be filled up 
by the Council.” Mr. Morris became incapacitated under 68. The 
Council appointed Mr. Crowley under 67 to the vacant seat on the 
Council, and under 76 to the vacant Treasurership. (I need hardly 
eay the numbers refer to the by-laws, and have no reference to 
the gentlemen’s ages). Kindly note that there is no mention of 
the word “ resignation ” in by-laws 67 and 68, under which the Council 
-acted ; whereas by-law 66, in which you are so “ interestedrefers only 
and solely to resignation. There is no question of Mr. Morris’s resigna¬ 
tion, that is an erration of your own invention. Mr. Morris became 
j-D.capable, and it does not appear to me to require any Machiavellian 
intellect to perceive the distinction between “ resignation ” and “ inca¬ 
pacity ”—the former is active, the latter passive. The former says, for 
some reason, “ I will not continue ;” the latter, “ I cannot continue. I 
am forbidden by the by-laws to continue.” And the by-laws, very 
reasonably, in my opinion, direct (by-law 66) that the man who, in 
the interval between two annual meetings, says, “ I will not,” shall, at 
the next annual meeting, give a reason for such active resignation and 
sudden throwing up of his responsibilities, and his place be left open 
(his resignation not being complete) until after such annual meeting ; 
whereas equally reasonably when a man dies, or becomes incapacitated 
and cannot continue. Then (by-law 68) the Council is to fill the place, 
and the new occupant is “ to be deemed,/or allimri^oses, to occupy the 
position of ” him incapacitated. 
Again, you do not appear to dispute that the appointment of Mr. 
Crowley was valid ; you only question the duration of such validity. 
Now there would have been no need for Mr. Morris to have been re¬ 
elected on to the Council at the annual meeting had he continued in 
England. Does it not, therefore, follow that if Mr. Crowley “/or all 
purj)oses occupied ” Mr. Morris’s place that therefore there was no need 
for Mr. Crowley to undergo a process which Mr. Morris would not have 
undergone ? 
By-law 81, in which you now for the first time profess an “ interest,” 
does not appear to me to touch the subject from either point of view, 
and I am entirely at a loss to understand your reference to it. I do not 
question but that a member of Council may resign. By-law 65 says he 
■may. Nor do I question that the annual meeting may remove an in¬ 
capable. By-law 71 says it may. I can only imagine the figures 81 
were a misprint. Your argument that by-law 66, which treats of 
resignation,” overrules 68, which treats of “ death and incapacity,” 
because the one happens to be numbered 66 and the other 68, is of such 
■ astounding audacity that the mere writing of it down would suffice, 
'except that evidently you do not perceive what a ludicrous position it 
lands yon in, and how clearly it proves your whole argument wrong. 
Sixty-eight says that if a member of Council die, or become incapaci¬ 
tated, the Council are to fill the vacancy—that is plain, you do not 
dispute it—but you say 66 overrules this. Very well, let us try. Sup¬ 
pose a member of Council die, and under 68 the Council fill the place, 
. as you admit they should do, then if 66 overrules it, “such resignation 
shall not be deemed complete until it has been accepted by a resolution 
of the next annual meeting, and the acceptance of such resignation 
shall not be entertained by the meeting unless the member proposing to 
resign has signed a paper, &c.” Poor member of Council, he is not 
-completely dead until the next annual meeting of R.H.S. ! Poor E H.S., 
it is not to accept such resignation until the dead man has signed a 
/paper ! I Really, Sir, I think even you must perceive what a ludicrous 
/:orner your argument lands you in, because if 66 overrules 68 in the 
case of an incapable, it obviously does so also in case of a death, for 
the two things are bracketed together to be treated in the same 
way, “ If a member of Council die, or become incapacitated, &c.” 
After this I hardly think we need pursue the subject any further. 
That you should take so much interest in the old Society is not sur¬ 
prising, as you certainly are aware of all that it has done and is still 
doing for gardening in all its branches and aspects, and you know how 
hard some of us have worked during the last three or four years to 
■ deliver the Society from the almost Slough of Despond in which we 
found it. Pleased as I am, therefore, at this great interest on your 
part, I venture to hope that your particular interest just at the present 
may admit of a slight period of rest and quiescence, as it really is 
difficult for me to find time to as.suage your strange and devouring 
appetite for the Society’s by-laws. You had the first word, and as an 
omnipotent Editor you will doubtless also claim a right to the last (it 
seems to be a peculiarly editorial view of a fair argument), but as I 
really must make this my concluding letter, allow me to assure you 
that there can be no one who values the Society’s chartered position 
or is more careful to keep to the rules and regulations enjoined than 
—W. Wilks, Vicar of Shirley, Sec. R.II.S. 
[In this not unimportant discussion we have studiously avoided the 
vise of language that would be in the least likely to unduly excite Mr. 
Wilks. We hope he appreciates this, and that the Vicar of Shirley does 
not intend to be severely satirical, though it is quite clear that the 
rejoinder of the Secretary of the Royal Horticultural Society lacks 
the calm dignity of conscious strength. 
We have no desire to prolong the discussion, but must point out 
how distinctly wrong the writer of the above communication is on one 
important point. He says, “ By-law 81, in which you now, for the first 
time, profess an interest, does not appear to touch the subject ” (of Mr. 
Morris’s vacation or Mr. Crowley’s appointment). 
The Secretary must either read hurriedly, write hastily, or forget 
quickly. If he has time to turn to page 140 of the Journal of 
Horticulture he will find we took so much real interest in by-law 81 as 
to quote it, and point out that the action was in conflict with it, yet 
now we are told we for the first time (on page 172) “profess” an 
interest. If page 172 comes in chronological order before page 140 
Mr. Wilks will be right in his assertion ; if not he must be wrong, 
and we are ready to leave it for himself to determine whether he is 
wrong or right. Surely he will not find fault with that. 
The Secretary has never answered what we said on page 140, and 
of which he was reminded on page 172, and we have yet to learn that 
it is in his power to give a good answer to what was then advanced, and 
to reconcile the action with the law which should govern that action. 
He even says he is “ entirely at a loss to understand our reference to the 
by-law.” That confession is significant, and there is no wonder the 
clearly prescribed form was not complied with. Mr. Wilks would now 
have us believe he does not know the difference between ordinary and 
extraordinary vacancies, and it is perfectly certain there has been a 
misconception on the point. 
Neither does Mr. Wilks appear, until now, to have been able to dis¬ 
tinguish between vacancies caused by resignation and those caused by 
death or incapacity “ from any cause whatever.” The former (resigna¬ 
tions) are governed by by-law 66, and the latter by by-laws 68, 69, 70, 
71, and 81. This he has found out, except in respect to the latter, and 
we suspect he will comprehend the influence of this before he is a year 
older. 
Our remarks in previous issues have been, however, based mainly on 
Mr. Morris’s resignation both from the Council and as Treasurer. Why ? 
Because Mr. Wilks, in answer to a direct question at the annual meeting, 
stated that Mr. Morris had “ resigned.” We therefore took him at his 
word ; and we have been justified in this by Mr. Wilks in every allusion 
he has made (until now) to the circumstance, speaking of the vacancy 
caused by Mr. Morris, as “ Mr. Morris’s resignation and we have said 
all along, and we say still, that this resignation has never been com¬ 
pleted according to the by-laws. Nor has it. 
But noio —and we draw particular notice to this fact—Mr. _ Wilks 
states “ there is no question of Mr. Morris’s resignation, that being an 
erration of our own invention and this, notwithstanding the direct 
and specific answer he gave to the contrary at the annual meeting ! In 
another part of his letter he says something about “ audacity,” and 
evidently we do not monopolise it. 
The Secretary now, for the “ first time,” admits that Mr. Morris’s re¬ 
tirement was not a resignation under by-law 66, but a vacancy created 
by incapacity. He is evidently beginning to understand the case. 
That has been our contention all along ; and he now completely turns 
round on himself—an example of “ machiavellism ” (to quote his own 
epithet)—that is, without a parallel in this discussion. By the admis¬ 
sion, at last extorted, the vacancy was an “ extraordinary ” one, and 
could only be legally filled by the procedure under by-law 81. That is a 
fact, and there is another—namely, the procedure has not been complied 
with. 
Mr. Wilks places emphasis on the condition that when Fellows are 
appointed to fill temporary vacancies they shall Ao so for all purj}oses. 
Of course, or what would be the use of the appointments? That is a 
rudimentary matter, as is another—that both are bound within the same 
limits by the Charter. 
The Vicar of Shirley, as becometh a clergyman, charitably imagined 
that our reference to by-law 81 was a “ misprint.” There was no mis¬ 
print ; but we did give Mr. Wilks an opportunity of indulging his 
humour for facetiousness by an allusion we made to by-law 66 governing 
by-law 68 on a vital point, and if he thinks we were in error he is quite 
welcome to make the best he can of the discovery. 
We should be sorry to spoil Mr. Wi.ks’ attempt at being funny, but 
we would remind him that the little word or, in by-law 68, is disjunctive, 
and that any member of the Council who dies is not in the same position 
as one who becomes “incapable from any cause whatever,” as is set 
forth in by-law 69. No person in his senses would suggest that the 
imaginary dead man should be asked to “ sign a paper,” but he would 
insist on the living man conforming to the conditions of the by-law. 
The broad facts remain as we have previouely stated them, and 
one of them is that Mr. Morris is still Treasurer of the Royal Horti¬ 
cultural Society, and the only person who can be held legally responsible 
for the duties pertaining to that office. 
We fully accept Mr. Wilks’ assurance that he values the chartered 
position of the Society, and desires to keep to the rules and regulations 
enjoined. It would sooner or later (to adopt his euphemism) be 
“ poor old R.H.S.,” if he did not, and through a misconception the 
recent action has been in conflict with them. This might have been 
averted, as we pointed out, and we suspect no such confusion as exists 
now will be allowed to occur another year. The Charter is right, the 
bydaws are right ; but they have not been properly comprehended, 
and therefore the procedure has been wrong. That is the “ case.”] 
MR. E. R. CUTLER. 
Both those of our readers who had the pleasure of the acquaintance of 
the late indefatigable Secretary of the Gardeners’ Royal Benevolent In¬ 
stitution, and those who were familiar with his name alone, will be 
pleased to see his portrait, which represents him as he appeared not 
very long ago. The sad news of his sudden death at Wimbledon on 
the 24th ult. only reached us in time to make the announcement last 
