544 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 22,1887. 
for exhibition as the preceding. The three first are the best, and 
Lady Cave has been commended by the National Chrysanthemum 
Society. It has compact, medium-sized, white blooms, with fluted 
recurving florets, the other two being distinct shades of delicate 
pink, and have been included in several silver medal collections 
this season.— Lewis Castle. 
(To be continued.) 
ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
DONATIONS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS. 
The following donations and subscriptions have been promised or sent 
in answer to the circular appeal, dated December 9th, for funds to enable 
the Society to establish itself in another home on removal from South 
Kensington :— 
First List. 
Donations. 
Annual 
Subscription 
£ 
B. 
d. 
£ 
8. 
d. 
Smith, CharleB H. 
ff| 
1# . 
2 
2 
0 
Parker, Frank R. 
2 
2 
0 
Balderson, H. 
2 
2 
0 
Philimore, Charles B. ... 
10 
0 
0 
6 
5 
0 
Daniel, Miss E. 
... 
5 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Cheal & Sons, J. 
... 
5 
6 
0 
Cheal, J oseph . 
2 
2 
0 
Cheal, Alexander. 
2 
2 
0 
Ballard, Mrs. 
2 
2 
0 
Hodgson, T. T. 
... 
2 
2 
0 
Bunyard, George. 
5 
5 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Beale, Lionel . 
2 
2 
0 
EaBten, Arthur H. 
1 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Wells, H. C. 
2 
2 
0 
Gordon, John . 
2 
2 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Colebrook, J ohn. 
5 
5 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Wheeler, A. C. 
2 
2 
0 
Wilson, G. F., F.R.8., ... 
_ 
50 
0 
0 
Lewis, Arthur J . 
2 
2 
0 
Townshend, H. 
2 
2 
0 
Bartlett, John E. 
10 10 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Onley, O. Savile. 
1 
1 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Terry, Captain Courtnay F. 
2 
2 
0 
Terry, Mrs. Courtnay F. 
... 
2 
2 
0 
Harrison, Capt. J. N. ... 
2 
2 
0 
Ducie, Earl of 
50 
0 
0 
4 
4 
0 
Vaizey, J. R . 
... 
•V ... I 
2 
2 
0 
Haye3, John . 
1 
1 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Finn, Alex. . 
2 
2 
0 
Knighton, F . 
2 
2 
0 
Ebury, Lord . 
... 
... 
4 
4 
0 
Mawley, Edward 
1 
1 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Maxwell, Wellwood H.... 
2 
2 
0 
Schroder, Biron . 
200 
0 
0 
4 
4 
0 
Lawrence, Sir Trevor ... 
... 
200 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Loder, E. G . 
100 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Lee, vYm. (£100 in instalments) 
100 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Courtauld, S . 
• •• 
50 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Rothschild, Baron F. ... 
50 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Veitch, Harry J. (first donation) 
50 
0 
0 
Grimsliaw, J. Stanfield 
3 
3 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Lancaster, Arthur H. ... 
2 
2 
0 
Ord, Mrs. Blackett 
2 
2 
0 
Streatfield, Mrs. F. 
2 
2 
0 
Pollett, H. M . 
10 10 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Dawnay, Hon. Payan ... 
10 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Hanbury, Edmund S. ... 
2 
2 
0 
Adams, Chas. F.... 
2 
2 
0 
Lee, Mrs. S. A . 
50 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Pearson, Henry I. 
... 
20 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Ames-Lyde, Mrs. 
5 
0 
0 
4 
4 
0 
Leonard, H. S . 
2 
2 
0 
Cotton, Rt. Hon. Sir H. 
2 
2 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Cundy, Charles . 
2 
2 
0 
Swinburne, Miss . 
15 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Roupell, W . 
4 
4 
0 
Lile, John H . 
2 
2 
0 
Bradshaw, R . 
2 
2 
0 
Wood & Son, W . 
2 
2 
0 
Gledstanes, Francis G. ... 
1 
1 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Jupp, Mrs. Geo. H. 
2 
9 
0 
Jupp, Mr. Geo. H. 
2 
2 
0 
Pearse, Major-Gen , J. L. 
2 
2 
0 
Cousins, C. W. 
2 
2 
0 
Brick we 11, S. J. 
2 
2 
0 
2 
2 
0 
Ford, Sidney . 
2 
2 
0 
Warren, John . 
2 
2 
0 
Matthews, John. 
... 
... 
... 
2 
2 
0 
£1018 10 
0 
£148 
1 
0 
THE SOCIETY’S CHARTER. 
The following is the text of the solicitors’ letter referred to in the 
report last week, sent in reply to the inquiry of Sir Trevor Lawrence 
respecting the power of the Society to surrender its charter or to 
obtain a new one. 
13, Suffolk Street, Pall Mall East, S.W., 
12th December, 1887. 
Dear Sir Trevor,— 
We have perused the copy of the Royal Horticultural Society's new 
charter left with us on Friday, and in reply to the questions submitted 
to us we beg to say :— 
1, That the Royal Horticultural Society could surrender their 
charter provided the Crown be prepared to accept a surrender, but this 
the Crown would not be likely to do unless upon the unanimous wish 
of all the members, and on being satisfied that all the Society’s liabilities 
had been discharged. 
Obviously the surrender of the present charter would put an end to 
the Society, but as a matter of fact there is no case of a surrender pure 
and simple otherwise than by the grant of a new or supplemental 
charter, and except for the latter purpose there could be no object in 
surrendering the present charter, as there is no individual liability under 
it, and it would be sufficient to allow it to lapse. A new or supple¬ 
mental charter would not necessarily extinguish the original charter. 
The present Society has already had a new charter in addition to its 
original charter. 
2, The present charter cannot be varied or amended otherwise than 
by a new or supplemental charter. The latter is obtainable by petition 
to the Privy Council, showing the grounds for variation or amendment, 
accompanied in practice by a draft of the new charter desired. This 
application is then advertised by the Privy Council and referred to a 
Committee, who will hear any objections against the proposed new 
charter on the part of any of the members of the Society or otherwise. 
3, It would take from four to six months at least to obtain a new 
charter, and the cost, as far as we can j udge, would be about (certainly 
not much less than) £200, and in case of opposition the expense might 
of course be increased. 
4, There is no power under the present charter to dissolve the 
Society, but under a new charter power of dissolution could, and should, 
no doubt, be obtained. The present charter gives no power to dispose 
of the Society’s property, and such power could and should be obtained 
by the new charter. 
A fresh Society or Association could be formed under the Companies’ 
Act, 1867, and under the license of the Board of Trade, but this Asso¬ 
ciation could not take over the property and undertaking of the present 
Society, the latter having no power under their present charter to make 
such a transfer. 
Upon the whole, therefore, it seems that a new charter is the only 
feasible mode of reconstituting the Society.—We are, dear Sir Trevor, 
yours faithfully, 
(Signed) Garrard, James, and Wolfe. 
Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., M.P., 
President of the Royal Horticultural Society. 
REMODELLING THE SOCIETY. 
Several persons with whom I have conversed are of opinion that 
the time has arrived for infusing into the Council a more practical and 
business element, pointing out as evidence of the necessity that the 
special meeting for which such elaborate preparations were made was 
not known by its promoters to be illegal when the summonses were 
issued and the appeal was printed for circulation. The President could 
not do otherwise than pass the matter off lightly, but he would have 
been in a much stronger position if he had not been under the necessity 
of making an explanation on the subject. 
Another circumstance appears to have been found out at the las* 1 
moment that ought to have been known before—namely, that a Roya 
charter cannot be cast aside so easily as was suggested in paragraph 5 of 
the appeal, which also informs us that a charter is not considered 
requisite. This is democracy with a vengeance, and, so far as can be 
gathered from the report, the suggestions were not in accordance with 
the views of the meeting. 
It would seem that about all that a new charter, or a supplementary 
charter, is wanted for is to grant power for increasing the number of 
the Council, and this is to be purchased at a cost of £200. As to old 
laws that are obsolete, what harm can they do ? The Council has power 
to make bye-laws to meet altered circumstances. Would it not be well 
to see what can be done by searching inquiry and close investigation 
under the present charter before indulging in the expenditure of the 
amount named, and perhaps more ? Sir Trevor Lawrence said the 
practice of the past has been to spend the “ savings ” as fast as they 
could when there were any, and when they had no money to get into 
debt. There appears some danger of a continuation of this, and incur¬ 
ring the penalty of £200 and six months. 
Is it not worth a little consideration as to the quality of the Council 
being open to improvement ? Surely fifteen competent, earnest, repre¬ 
sentative persons can be found to conduct the affairs of the Society. 
The number of members of the Cabinet is not greater than that for 
guiding the helm of the State. Until a mixed Council of amateurs of 
good social position and scientific attainments, with trade representa¬ 
tives, provincial and metropolitan, and a due proportion of selected 
gardeners, has been tried, where is the proof that an increase in numbers 
is so urgent as to warrant the expenditure of the large sum named, with 
six months of waiting, and possibly much more ? 
It is announced that a committee has been appointed to consider 
various matters, and to advise thereon. Cannot special committees be 
