12 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 5, 18'93. 
The National Chrysanthemum Society. 
The members of the General Committee of this Society held a 
meeting at Anderton’s Hotel, Fleet Street, on Friday evening last, to 
consider the report of the Schedule Sub-Committee, and transact other 
routine business. Mr. Rd. Ballantine occupied the chair, 
Mr. R. Dean, in presenting the report, announced that the 
Dowager Duchess of Sutherland and Lady Saunders had consented to 
become patronesses of the Society, and that Sir Trevor Lawrence, 
Bart., President of the Royal Horticultural Society, Sir Hy. Peek, C, C. 
Paine, Esq., and Leopold de Rothschild, Esq., would be added to the list 
of Vice-Presidents. The Sub-Committee recommended that in future the 
Floral Committee consist of eighteen members, instead of fifteen as 
hitherto, one-third retiring annually, but being eligible for re-election. 
It was further recommended that the Chairman of the Floral Com¬ 
mittee shall be annually elected by the General Committee at their first 
meeting after the Society’s annual meeting, and that such Chairman be 
elected from the members of the Floral Committee. In the general 
regulations for exhibitions a few verbal alterations were recommended, 
the principal one being that the Arbitration Committee shall have power 
to reject any products not considered worthy of exhibition. 
There will be no September Show held by the Society. This has 
been taken over by the Royal Aquarium authorities, but the N.C.S. will 
provide a sum of money to be offered for early flowering Chrysanthe¬ 
mums at that Show. Mr. G. Gordon and Mr. H. J. Jones will be the judges 
the Chrysanthemum classes ; the other judges will be appointed by the 
Aquarium Society. An October Show will be held, as was the case 
last year ; the judges appointed will be the same. At the great Novem¬ 
ber Show Mr. J. Lyne and Mr. S. Gilbey were recommended as judges 
in classes for plants, and Mr. A. F. Barron for fruit and vegetables, in the 
place of Mr. G. T. Miles ; all the others remain as before. On that occasion 
the Floral Committee will meet on the second day of the Show, instead 
of the first as heretofore. There will be an Exhibition of late flowering 
varieties in December, and the classes proposed were announced. Mr. 
J. Kipling and Mr. H. J. Jones were proposed as judges. 
An addition to the special regulations will be made to the following 
effect:—All cups or wires for exhibiting Japanese blooms shall be 
limited to 3 inches in diameter, and no extra supports of any kind 
shall be allowed. The alterations proposed in the various classes are 
too numerous to oe dealt with in detail, and readers must be referred 
to the document itself when published, which will be somewhat earlier 
in the new year than before. 
A list of special prizes was read from Major Collis Browne, Mr. 
W. J. Godfrey of Exmouth, Mr. R. Owen, Mr. H. J. Jones, C. C. Paine, 
Esq. Mr. E. C, Jukes intimated his willingness to offer a silver-gilt 
medal, a silver medal, and a bronze medal as prizes, to be offered in a 
new class composed only of small flowering incurved varieties like those 
of the Rundle family. 
After some little discussion the report was adopted. 
A member inquired whether the Society had any rule by which 
another member guilty of irregular conduct could be expelled, and was 
answered in the negative. _ Mr. Addison thereupon stated be had drafted 
a rule to that effect, and intended to move its adoption at the annual 
meeting. Several inquiries were made as to when the annual meeting 
would be held, and-the Secretary stated it would be announced in the 
gardening papers in due course. 
I SHALL be glad if you will allow me to reply, as briefly as possible, 
to the letters from Mr. Chas. E. Pearson and Mr. Henry Havelock, 
which appeared on page 553 (December 22nd). Both correspondents 
condemn the preponderance of metropolitan growers and exhibitors on 
the General and Floral Committees of the N.C.S. 
As I pointed out at the annual dinner of the Society, this, if true, is 
entirely the fault of the country growers. Each affiliated provincial 
society (of which there are now eighty-six) has the right to send a repre¬ 
sentative to the General Committee, and this right, if acted upon to any 
considerable extent, would place the country members in a large 
majority on the governing body. The representatives of affiliated 
societies are usually, I am sorry to say, “ conspicuous by their absence.” 
I, personally, do not believe that it is the slightest use to have on the 
Committee men who cannot or do not regularly attend its meetings ; and 
1 entirely fail to see how the stability of the N.C.S. would be 
increased by electing such. However, the country members have the 
matter in their own hands. 
One-third of the General Committee (by whom the members of the 
Floral Committee are appointed) retire from office at the annual meet¬ 
ing, and the country growers can easily, if they choose to attend that 
meeting, secure the election of a fair proportion of men who do not 
reside in or near London. If they will not take the trouble to do this 
it is surely unreasonable to blame those who do take an active interest in 
the Society and regularly attend its meetings. 
As regards the “ Beauty of Exmouth’ case, Mr. Henry Havelock will 
see from the report of the Committee meeting held on Monday evening, 
Dec. 19th, that the Committee have not “ treated the charge with 
indifference,” but that, after investigation of the circumstances, they 
have found it impossible to deal with it effectively without laying them¬ 
selves open to a charge of libel. The “Wells” case was also fully 
discussed, and a resolution passed with regard to it. 
And now, as to the appointment of Judges. From personal experience 
I can unhesitatingly say that these are selected without the slightest 
regard to their place of residence, or to their connection with the 
N.C.S., and that personal fitness for the post is the only consideration 
which has any weight with the Committee. That several of the Judges 
appointed are members of the Floral or General Committee can hardly 
be avoided, since most of the leading authorities upon Chrysanthemum 
culture belong to one or other of those bodies. 
Nor is the method of the N.C.S. in this matter different from those 
of the R.H.S. and other National Societies, yet your correspondent 
does not find fault with these. Whilst agreeing with him as to the 
inadvisability of appointing local judges for local shows, I cannot see 
that the cases are at all parallel, or that the objections to such a mode 
of procedure apply in the least to the question under discussion.— 
Edward C. Jukes. 
The action of the Committee of this Society in relation to two com¬ 
plaints, made by exhibitors of new Chrysanthemums for certificates, 
against members of the Society’s Floral Committee is astonishingly 
inconsistent. In the first case, that of Mr. Godfrey’s complaint, the 
Editor of the Journal of Horticulture is taunted with not having 
published Mr. Godfrey’s letter, and thus being rendered liable to an 
action for libel. The Committee shelters itself behind the very same 
plea in refusing to publish the name of the member of the Floral 
Committee implicated. Then, the Committee is careful to express no 
opinion as to whether Mr. Godfrey’s charges are true or false, beyond 
saying that they are “ vague.” What is the natural deduction ? 
Why, that the Committee prefer not to have to make the inquiry Mr. 
Godfrey desired. The country will draw its own inferences. Then in 
the second case, the charges made against a member of the same body 
also (I do not say “ another ” member), the Committee admit that the 
charge is proved by giving to the offender a severe reprimand. If one 
charge be substantiated, what is the natural corollary but that the 
other is not groundless ? But mark this ; whilst the Committee reflect 
strongly and most unjustly upon the action of the Editor in refusing to 
publish Mr. Godfrey’s letter, containing what they call a “vague” 
charge, they having before them a charge from another source which is 
found to be true, and of which the offender is found guilty, yet them¬ 
selves refuse to publish the offender’s name. How grossly inconsistent! 
Can anything said by critics which so severely reflects upon the Com¬ 
mittee of the N.C.S. as their own action in this case ? One thing is 
certain—w.hilst,.thus protecting offenders, most persons appear to know 
very well who aimed at.— Alpha. 
I HAVE noticed in the Journal of Horticulture that a member was 
condemned at the N.C.S. meeting. Was that me do you know? By 
the Gardeners' Chronicle it certainly looks like it (see page 773). 
Surely honest truth ought not to be condemned, and I can prove that 
all I have said is true. I do not know what rH the members of the 
N.C.S. Committee think, but I know what sotne of them, and also the 
outside public, think of the peculiar proceedings. 
I certainly do think the Secretary of the N.C.S. ought to bring all 
letters before the Committee which are addressed to them. Had he 
done so in this case, and I received an apology, the affair would have 
ended, but to have a letter from an individual member of the Floral 
Committee of the N.C.S. telling me he will take steps to prevent me 
showing among them if his small account is not paid is intoler¬ 
able. The letters I have recefjjed from various people do not condemn 
me for the steps I have taken ;^hat could I have done otherwise ? I 
do not believe in sitting down and being trampled upon, and I resent 
petty tyranny. I did not intend the matter should be smuggled over. 
The photograph of the famous letter was exhibited at the Aquarium 
because my letter was not brought before the Committee. Mr. Dean, 
in acknowledging the receipt of my letter, said he did not think “ it a 
matter for the Committee.” He passed the letter to Mr. Ballantine, 
who told me in his reply that “ the matter must be settled in the 
County Court, and not by the Committee of the N.C.S.” Mr. Dean 
expressed his surprise (page 400, November 3rd, 1892) that Mr. Godfrey 
“ did not address his complaint in the first instance to the Secretary of 
the Society.” This is just what I did, with the above result, and I was 
driven to take strong measures to get my case considered on its merits by 
the Committee. Their decision is my justification ; but they have not 
published the name of the member whose action they condemned, much 
as they cry out for the publication of a name in another case which 
seems to have been “ investigated ” and (so far) settled on the mere 
word of the defendant? Can a precedent be found for this method? 
I think it must be new. 
I am very pleased to learn there are gentlemen making inquiries 
into the whole matter. I should be very sorry to see the N.C.S. suffer 
for just one individual, but suffer it must by such indiscretions as have 
been dragged to the light. Is a man who wrote such a letter as that 
referred to a fit and proper person to be on the Committee of a National 
Society? Men of known discretion and free from all trade bias are 
neeied there if anywhere. What is the effect of one weak link in an 
otherwise strong chain ?—W. Wells. 
[We shall be pleased to insert a characteristic letter from Mr 
Henry Cannell in our next issue. We should like a fair argument on 
