222 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ March 16, 1893. 
most unqualified denial. As the name of “ G. Matthew ” does not appear 
in the attendance book as present at the annual general meeting, and 
as there is no member of the Society of that name as representative of 
an affiliated society it would be interesting to know upon what this 
second-hand statement is founded.— Richard Dean, Secretary. 
[Our correspondent, Mr. Matthew, sent his address in due form. 
There is more “ second-hand,” also some “ first-hand,” information in 
other communications that the Secretary will peruse, and he will be in 
a position to admit or deny its accuracy.] 
How THE N.C.S. Conduct theik Business. 
I HAD promised to attend the General Committee meeting of the 
N.C.S. on the 6th inst., and so that I should not miss any of the business 
I determined to be in time. I arrived at Anderton’s Hotel, Fleet Streep 
a few minutes before 7.30, and after inquiring of the porter for the 
N.C.S. Committee-room, I found myself in quite a little crowd going in 
the same direction. We entered the room and discovered the cabinet 
ministry of the Society in solemn conclave at the head of the table. 
Wonderful men for punctuality these committee men are ; it was scarcely 
7.30, and the large room was nearly full. 
It was evident from the genial expressions of welcome extended to 
us by the Chairman, that something more than the ordinary business had 
secured such a good attendance of both members and representatives of 
affiliated societies, and I soon learned that the excitement was to be 
centred on the first attempt of the Society to carry out their elections 
by ballot. 
The ordinary business was quickly disposed of, and with the excep¬ 
tion of one little surprise was a trifle tame. The incident referred to 
was this : While the Secretary was on his feet addressing the meeting 
the glass swing doors at the end of the room were suddenly thrown 
open, aud a tall, pleasant-looking man, with a happy smile on his face, 
entered. I looked in astonishment when I heard someone near me 
whisper, “ It’s His Worship, the Mayor,” and was somewhat disappointed 
to find he had come without his chain and robes of office, A thrill of 
excitement ran round the room, the Secretary put aside his books and 
papers, and, having selected and smoothed a chair, with solemn deference 
called upon His Worship to advance to within the sacred precincts of the 
cabinet there assembled, nods of recognition were passed to one or two 
favoured members, and the business proceeded. 
First came the election of members of the Floral Committee in the 
place of retiring members, but someone tried to rob us of the very experi¬ 
ment we had come there to enjoy, by moving a resolution that the 
election be by show of hands as heretofore. But no sooner was this done 
than a young man in glasses rose to his feet and moved an amendment 
that the vote be taken by ballot. His few remarks very soon secured for 
his amendment a large majority, and the business proceeded. 
The all-important election of the Floral Committee by ballot was 
voted by all a success. Now came the election of a Chairman from 
among that body. Two gentlemen were nominated, and several present 
took it in turns to testify to the good qualities and capabilities of these 
two gentlemen until the compliments were exhausted. The N.C.S. 
seems to be great in compliments, but they cannot go on for ever ; and 
“business ” was called by the Chairman. 
The ballot system was again brought into requisition, with the result 
that Mr. C. E. Shea was declared elected. The Chairman announced 
that the scrutineers had received forty-two voting papers, one was 
spoiled, twenty-one votes were given to Mr. Shea and twenty to his 
opponent; the business closed, hats and coats were donned, and general 
chatter became the order of the day ; little knots of members were to be 
seen gathered in different parts of the room, and, getting hemmed in by 
the family gathering, I was witness to some very indignant remarks 
about the election of the Chairman. “ Did you get a letter from Mr. 
Dean 1 ” seemed to be the general question all round, followed by a reply 
in the affirmative and the production of several letters marked 
“ private,” written on paper with the National Chrysanthemum Society’s 
heading, and signed by the Secretary, asking the recipient to come to 
the meeting and 1, vote for Mr. C. E. Shea as a member of the Floral 
Committee; 2, Vote for Mr, C. E. Shea as Chairman of the Floral 
Committee. 
Nothing more was to be done, the meeting had broken up, and I am 
told, according to the general practice, no meeting of the General Com¬ 
mittee would be held until late in the autumn. Some of the recipients of 
these “private” letters from the Secretary had been flattering themselves 
they were favoured by being in the private confidence of that official, 
but when it was discovered that this letter had been sent round to 
several members indignation ran high. Many declared that Mr, Shea had 
been elected by a trick, and others alleged that a paid Secretary had no 
right to send round a circular letter to bias a meeting, 
I am not well acquainted with the method of conducting business 
by this Society, but I venture to think (to put it in a mild form) it was 
extra officious if not unmanly on the part of the Secretary to send these 
letters against an old and respected member unknown to him, and I 
noticed particularly the Secretary took care to record his own vote. He 
may argue, that as a paid officer he has no right to a voice in the pro¬ 
ceedings of the Society, but as a member he has a perfect right to 
influence members. This may or may not be so, but I am inclined to 
think, with those whose voices I heard at the meeting, that it showed 
exceeding bad taste, more especially as the circular letters, although 
they appeared to be marked private, were headed National Chrysanthe¬ 
mum Society, and in some cases the request to record their vote for 
Mr. Shea was added by way of a note to the usual printed postcard gent 
out convening the meeting.—A Countryman, 
The N.C.S.— “Yet There is no Cliquish?” 
Before I write on my text will you allow me to answer Mr. .Tas. 
Hamilton, whose letter appears in the last issue of the Journal ? Mr. 
Hamilton informs us that he desires no personalities, and yet he is 
willing to journey to London and vote me the “ very best ” medal if I 
will only publish the letter containing the name of the member I com¬ 
plain of. What is this but a request for a personality ? The first article 
contains a complete charge minus the name. It is the princi'ple I 
attack, not the man, and it is also on behalf of horticulture that Messrs. 
Pearson, Goodacre, myself, and others take our stand. Very likely the 
controversy has advertised Beauty of Exmouth, for at present I have 
more orders than I can execute. But if such be the case, I cannot help 
it; in fact, have no desire to do so. Now to my text. 
Mr. Dean, in the issue for December Ist last, in answer to Mr. Pear¬ 
son’s remarks on “ cliquism,” says, “But I know of no special Society 
against which the charge of ‘London cliquism’ can be more unjustly 
brought than the N.C.S, Further, I have now been a member of the 
Cummittee for some eight years, and I witne^8 plenty of independence 
in speech and act, but nothing which can be designated ‘ cliquism.’ 
Let Mr. Pearson get himself appointed as its representative (Notts 
Horticultural Society) on our Committee and come among us, and be¬ 
come acquainted more fully with our procedure, and I am quite certain 
that with wider knowledge there will inevitably follow a more 
enlightened and juster conception of the methods of the National 
Society.” 
These are words and very grand ones too, but will the methods and 
procedure which Mr. Dean seems so proud of correspond? The Wells 
case is well known and it is settled, but Mr, Dean and the principal 
officers cannot boast of their part in the settlement. There is, however, 
one point in this case that no one seems to have specially noticed—viz., 
not alone did the nameless member base his threat on the fact that his 
fellow tradesman owed him a small account, but also because some of 
his varieties were priced lower than those of the member alluded to. 
But to return to my text, “ yet there is no cliquism.” 
When Mr. Goodacre proposed Mr. Pearson as a member of the Com¬ 
mittee, what was Mr, Dean’s action ? Did it correspond with his letter, a 
portion of which I have quoted ? In my letter of last week I asked 
why a certain member’s name was given such prominence. No one can 
say why, but a member of the Floral Committee writes me that others 
did as much as the member Mr. Dean attempts to glorify. When Mr. 
Addison proposed a rule for the purpose of putting the Society on a 
sounder basis, Mr. Dean and others objected to it; and I am informed 
he threatened to resign if the rule was passed. Yet Mr. Harman 
Payne in a recent letter informs us that, “ Even supposing a member of 
the Society were guilty of the grossest irregularity and proved to be so, 
there is no rule by which his expulsion could be effected.” Then why, 
may 1 ask, did not Mr. H. I'ayne support Mr. Addison in establishing 
such rule ? It was only intended for dishonest members. Those who 
did their duty in a straightforward and manly way had nothing to 
fear from it. 
The Society has recently adopted a rule by which the Chairman of 
the Floral Committee must be selected from that body. Two gentlemen 
were nominated to the position, but the Secretary, I have reason to believe, 
issued notices prior to the election requesting members to vote for the 
gentleman who obtained the honoured position by one vote only ; and 
“yet there is no cliquism;” “but if Mr. Pearson will get himself 
appointed,” &c., “ and come among us and become acquainted more 
fully with our procedure, I am certain that with wider knowledge 
there will inevitably follow a more enlightened and juster conception of 
the methods of the N.C.S.” Really ! and does the issuing of these notices 
account for “ plenty of independence of speech and act,” which are dis¬ 
played at the meetings ? That all your readers may judge for themselves 
I attach a copy of the notice hereto. 
Private . National Chrysanthemum Society, 
Ealing, London, W., Feb. 28th, 1893. 
Dear Sir,—I shall be much obliged if you can attend the meet¬ 
ing of the General Committee on Monday next, March 6th. 1, Vote for 
C. E. Shea, Esq., as a member of the Floral Commit’.e. 2, Vete for C. E. Shea 
as Chairman of the Floral Committee.— R. Dean. 
Here we have a case of the paid Secretary of a “ National ” Society 
doing all he can to influence votes against one of its oldest and most 
respected members, who, I am informed, never sought the position to 
which he was nominated, and did not canvas for votes as against Mr. 
Shea. Would Mr. Dean consider it straightforward and honourable on 
the part of myself, for instance, to, in a “private” way, attempt to 
influence members of the Society against himself? I trow not, 
n r can I believe that Mr. Shea was cognisant of the extraordinary action 
of the Secretary in his behalf. I am not informed whether the private 
touting of the Secretary was on the official paper of the N.C.S. ; if it 
was it was an official act and I suspect, wholly unparalleled, whether 
it is condoned or not. “ The servant shall not be above his master,” says 
a grand old book. We shall see if the members of the N.C.S. are 
content with the action of their servant against one of his masters— 
a member of the Committee — who, we may fairly presume, would 
have been elected to the position to which he was nominated had they 
not been influenced by the Secretary, not in a frank, open, independent 
