February 2, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
97 
disclaiming credit for giving such advice (perhaps all did not know Mr. 
H. P. is a lawyer). Will Mr. Harman Payne say how the sub-Com- 
mittee received the advice ? Are they lamenting in sackcloth and ashes 
the block to further investigation 1 
I have consulted a lawyer, and he informs me that it is ridiculous to 
assert that any society cannot freely investigate a charge of irregularity 
on the part of its members, especially when such charge is likely to 
injure the character of the Society. He says there is nothing libellous 
in it, and the Society runs no risk whatsoever. 
Mr. Harman Payne says there is a vast difference between Mr. Wells’ 
case and mine. Mr. Wells had documentary evidence to prove his ; 
then why, may I ask, did not the sub-Committee give me an opportunity 
to produce what evidence I was able to in support of the charge? 
Can anyone tell us who suggested the appointment of a sub-Com- 
mittee ? My own opinion is that had the General Committee investigated 
the affair we should have heard nothing about consulting a lawyer. 
Mr. Dean in a letter informed me that it was very likely I should be 
called upon to substantiate the charge. As yet 1 have heard nothing 
more about it. I really think, if the offending member must be shielded, 
it should not be at the expense of the innocent members of the Floral 
Committee, for it is quite likely that same of the trade growers are being 
accused wrongfully. Was this why Mr. Cannell wrote 1 —W. J. 
Godfrey, F.R.H.S., The Nurseries, Exmouth. 
That my name has appeared in your papers in connection with this 
case, and being a member of the N.C.S, Floral Committee, will be 
sufficient apology for my writing a few lines upon this subject. I do so if 
possible in the hope of clearing up some of the errors into which several 
of your correspondents have fallen. The length of time that this 
matter has been under discussion, coupled with the many side issues 
which have been introduced, has no doubt been the cause of the very 
hazy ideas many of your readers and correspondents must have of the 
real facts. With the side issues I have nothing to do, and will confine 
myself to the complaints of Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Wells ; and I will first 
deal with the complaint of the former as being to my mind the more 
serious of the two, although that of the latter was brought to the notice 
of the Secretary some three weeks before the Godfrey incident occurred. 
On the 20th October, 1892, you published a short notice that you 
had jiist received a complaint against a member of the N.C.S. Floral 
Committee, and at a meeting of the General Committee on the 24:th 
October, which had been previously convened, our attention was called 
to this paragraph, and at the suggestion of the Chairman, the five 
officers were appointed as a sub-Committee to inquire into the subject. 
Mr. Godfrey’s letter of complaint was at that time in the possession 
of the Chairman, but I, as well as the other members of the General 
Committee present, was quite in ignorance as to the meaning of the 
notice, except that it was a complaint against a member of the Floral 
Committee, to which 1 have the honour to belong ; and we accepted his 
suggestion that these officers should inquire into the matter, feeling that 
they would do what was necessary to protect the good name of the 
Society and denounce the member if he had really acted discreditably. 
The appointment of this sub-Committee was made on the 2J:th 
October, and although the matter was of considerable importance and 
required prompt attention, they did not present their report until eight 
weeks had elapsed, having held three meetings in the meantime. 
Their report (save the mark !) simply recommended that no further 
action be taken in the matter. 
Now, to my mind, this was most unsatisfactory, and as I have given 
much of my time to the Society on Committees, sub-Committees, &c., I 
consider I have a right to look to the officers to protect me and other 
members of the Floral Committee when accusations of this description 
are hurled at that body ; and for this reason 1 took upon myself at the 
meeting on the lOffi December to go into the matter at great length in 
order to point out to the General Committee my disapproval of the 
conduct of the sub-Committee, and gave reasons why 1 should vote 
against the adoption of that report. Several of the Committee spoke 
agreeing with my remarks ; many of them were of my opinion, but few 
indeed have the courage of their convictions, and it is a curious fact 
that not one of the remaining fourteen of my fellow Floral Committee¬ 
men uttered a remark either in favour of or against my comments. 
There is one thing this sub-Committee entirely lost sight of, and that 
was the wording of the resolution of the General Committee appointing 
them to “ inquire into the subject.” Had this resolution read to 
“ inquire into the subject and report to General Committee the best way 
they could shuffle out of it ” we could have understood their report. 
Then, again, much nonsense has been both written and talked about 
publishing the name of the offender, and I do not hesitate to say that 
there never has been any necessity for publishing his name. Mr. 
Godfrey’s letter, published in your paper, sets out without a doubt that 
he is a trade grower, and surely none of us are hard-hearted enough to 
wish to injure a man in his business, whatever.his shortcomings may be. 
A report from the sub-Committee, either condemning the acts of the 
member complained of, or setting out that after investigation the Com¬ 
mittee had found the charges were unfounded, is the kind of report 
which would have done more credit to five business men such as formed 
this sub-Committee. But as the matter now stands, a serious charge 
has been made against a body of men of having one among them who, 
in his capacity as a member of the N.C.S. Floral Committee, acts 
dishonourably, and this charge remains unanswered. 
Finding the cry of “ publish his name ” does not have the desired 
effect of putting an end to the heckling the N.C.S. receive at the hands 
of your correspondents, they then proceed to raise the libel ghost as their 
excuse for allowing the members of their Floral Committee to be dragged 
through the mud consequent upon the act of one of its members. This 
cry I have no hesitation in saying had great weight with the majority of 
the General Committee, and helped the sub-Committee in carrying a 
resolution adopting their report ; and I would remind the sub-Committee 
if they are so ignorant of the law of libel, that an opinion expressed 
honestly, fairly, and without malice, is not libellous. Libel may be 
defined as a tortuous act consisting in the malicious defamation of 
another made public by writing, printing, pictures, or effigy, in such a 
manner to expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, reproach, or 
ignomy. Any fool can institute an action for libel, but to entitle a 
person to succeed he must prove the publication was not made honestly, 
fairly, and without malice. 
The Wells incident also requires a little explanation to make it dear 
to many of your readers. About the 1st October Mr. Wells received 
from a member of the N.C.S. Floral Committee a letter, in which the 
following words occur :—“ I have been expecting to hear from you in 
respect to my account, which I trust will be paid before long 
I shall certainly take steps to prevent you showing among us at the 
National Chrysanthemum Society if the account is not paid.” This 
letter was placed before the officers of the N.C.S. by Mr. Wells, but not¬ 
withstanding the fact that this was a direct abuse of the trust placed in 
this person \vhen elected a member of the Floral Committee, the officers 
declined to interfere, and the complaint was not brought before ‘the 
Society. Upon this Mr. Wells sent round to the members of the N.C.S. 
a circular to air his grievance, as he could obtain no other redress. One 
of these circulars reached me, whereupon I obtained a copy of the 
correspondence, and brought the matter before the General Committee 
at their meeting on the 19th December last. 
Mr. Harman Payne is quite correct in his statement that the two 
cases came before two separate Committees, but this requires some little 
explanation. Mr. Godfrey’s complaint reached the General Committee 
on the 24th October, whereupon they appointed a sub-Committee ; but 
Mr. Wells’ complaint was never mentioned to the General Committee} 
although it had been known to the officers since the first week in 
October. Therefore the General Committee on the 24th October having 
had one exhibition of the careful way a sub-Committee of officers 
watcheJ over the good name of the Society, took upon themselves to 
express an opinion in this case, and on a motion made by myself, a 
resolution condemning the acts of the member complained of Was- 
carried. If anyone is to blame for not naming the individual I. 
accept that responsibility myself, for as I before said, there is no* 
necessity to name him ; he no doubt reads the gardening papers, and 
I venture to think he will not again abuse the position he occupies. 
I have given notice that at' the annual general meeting to be held 
on the 20th February I wi 1 move the adoption of a new rule, by which 
any member guilty of irregular conduct may be expelled, and I trust 
that every member of the Society who can will attend at Anderton’s 
Hotel on the occasion and support this motion.— 'Geo. S. Addison. 
[We also know on high legal authority that the publication of the 
name of the person mentioned in Mr. Godfrey's letter in the first; 
instance was not in the least necessary for the purposes of official 
investigation. We could have published the letter, but had no wish to 
do so ; and with the object of having the matter settled amicably by 
the officials this letter was, with Mr. Godfrey’s ready consent, placed 
in the hands of the Treasurer. We had in view a complete investigation, 
and this we thought would be welcome to all persons concerned. 
We were bound to intimate our possession of this letter, in which 
the action of two persons was objected to, because both the Secretary 
and the Treasurer of the N.C.S. had written (the former on October 
3rd, and the latter on October 8th) declining an investigation as 
requested by Mr. Wells into the conduct of a member of the Floral 
Committee—conduct which when it was known to the General Com¬ 
mittee was denounced. 
No public journalists worthy of the name could permit themselves 
to share the responsibility of preventing an inquiry into an alleged 
grievance of a serious nature stated in specific terms; and as we were 
aware of a strong undercurrent of disquietude we thought the time 
and opportunity had arrived for an examination into the allegations on 
their merits without anything approaching the publicity the case has 
assumed, and which might have been so easily prevented. 
Whether Mr. Golfrey was right or wrong in his allegations was and 
is a matter of indifference to us ; but we are of opinion that if he was 
wrong, the Committee should have found that out by examination. As 
the discussion has proceeded no one can have failed to observe the 
strong desire of Mr. Godfrey for searching inquiry, and he has frankly 
offered to waive all legal rights he may have, as suggested by Mr. 
Fowler, conditionally that every person implicated would do the same. 
Why was not this strictly fair and reasonable proposition accepted ? 
Tbe whole disturbing question might have been settled long ago on that 
basis. 
It is to be presumed that no members will object to Mr. Addison’s 
new rule who do not fear expulsion for irregularity, and it may, there¬ 
fore, be expected to be unanimously adopted.] 
Mr. Godfrey’s Challenge. 
After reading Mr. Godfrey’s manly and straightforward letter in 
your issue of the 19ch inst. (page 54), I quite expected this week to find 
that the challenge had been accepted ; but instead a long letter from 
