February 18, 1888. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
121 
C ONSIDERABLY more than ordinary interest attaches to the 
meeting that was held on Tuesday, and which is reported on 
■another page. As the last annual meeting of the Fellows held at 
South Kensington it must be regarded as an important event in 
the history of the Society, as important, indeed, as that at which 
it was determined to establish the Society in the then great centre 
•of the fashionable world. Objections were urged against that step 
at the time in these columns, and it was strongly opposed as likely 
to end in failure sooner or later. It was not difficult to foresee 
that a conflict of interests must arise between what may be fairly 
■described as a policy of gaiety and that embodying the legitimate 
■claims of horticulture. That is precisely what occurred ; and -n hile 
South Kensington has not gained by the alliance that was effected 
with Her Majesty’s Commissioners as trustees of the estate, the 
Society was brought to the verge of ruin. Its independence was 
■sacrificed on the altar of fashion, to which it was bound ; but the 
cords are cut at last, and it escapes, weakened, but not abandoned. 
Now that a new course is determined, it would be most unwise 
■to ignore the lessons of the past; and it will not be disputed that 
the most momentous of all of them is that of incurring obligations 
disproportionate with the means provided for meeting them. The 
great mistake that stands out clear has been that of discounting 
the future. It has been felt that something must be done from 
■time to time, and something has been done, but with no certainty 
■that the action would bring the hoped-for results, and too often 
these were not realised, but, on the contrary, greater difficulties 
arose and had to be encountered. Enthusiasm is an admirable 
quality, and no great successes have been won without it; and the 
same may be said of enterprise, but the former must be tempered 
by sound judgment, and the latter based on sound principles, or the 
ultimate issue may be the reverse of that anticipated. A throw of 
the dice may bring fortune or may bring ruin, this last being 
immeasurably the greatest contingency. 
The Royal Horticultural Society has a long, if chequered, 
history, yet notwithstanding adverse circumstances that have im¬ 
paired its influence and crippled its action, it has been of great 
service to the world of horticulture. More than any other agency 
it has stimulated the taste in gardening that has been established 
during the period of its existence, and this in turn has created a 
home industry which, in its entire scope and nature, is unequalled 
in any country beyond the seas, though in all of them, where the 
art of gardening is practised in its highest forms, its influence has 
extended beneficially. Under its charter it must be managed 
wholly in the interests of horticulture, and no one on its governing 
body can derive any personal advantage from the position he 
occupies. It is, if any institution is, the representative head of 
practical gardening in these realms, and as such should be placed 
in a position worthy of its name and nation. This can only be 
accomplished by a wide extension of popular support, and to 
command this support its affairs must be very judiciously managed 
by representative men. Though at present in a transition state, 
the Society has many friends, well-wishers, and anxious helpers. 
This has been shown by the committee that was recently formed, 
and which was made representative solely with the view of devising 
means and making provision for its future working ; and the sug¬ 
gestions and recommendations of this committee will doubtless 
No. 399.— VoL. XVI., Third Series. 
receive, as they deserve, the most careful consideration of the 
Council. 
This important body, as will be observed, is also elected on a 
broader basis, inasmuch as it not only includes the trade, but the 
professional gardening element. This appears to be a reversion in 
principle to that on which the first Council of the Society was 
elected nearly eighty years ago, only that Council included three 
honafide gardeners—namely, Mr. W. Townsend Aiton, gardener to 
the King at Kew ; Mr. Thomas Hoy, gardener to the Duke of 
Northumberland at Sion ; and Mr. William Smith, gardener to 
Lord Liverpool at Coombe, Surrey. There was no representative 
nurseryman on the first Council, but a Covent Garden herbalist in 
the person of Mr. James Dickson : indeed there was little trade to 
represent then in comparison with the position now. Two nursery¬ 
men are added now, and one gardener, Mr. J. Woodbridge, will no 
doubt be elected. Possibly more may be added in future, and such 
addition, as will be seen, would be no innovation, but exactly in 
accordance with precedent ; and gardeners are not men, as a rule, 
to encourage expenditure without full justification, or to sanction 
outlay without clearly seeing it would be profitably applied. 
The safe policy to be pursued at the present juncture is a policy 
of economy. Spending money before it is earned, or while debts 
remain to be paid, is to say the least a risky procedure, and not 
likely to gain a large share of public approval. Let rooms and halls 
be secured so far as means allow ; but how stands the means ? 
Can more than £1500 bo expected from Fellows in 1888? It is 
doubtful. Can less than £1300 suffice for Chiswick ? No. Here 
then we have £200. The establishment expenses of last year ex¬ 
ceeded £800. Can they be reduced ? The fortnightly meetings 
cost £230. Can they on the same scale be done for less ? Then if 
the whole of the South Kensington Garden expenses, or say £600, 
be saved, where is the money to come from for West End rooms and 
an exhibition hall ? This question of means cannot be ignored ; and 
if the financial position is as stated, is it prudent to give £5 a time 
for a hall that will be unsuitable for tender plants over half the 
year, and which will depress by its emptiness ? Let the amount of 
gate money taken at South Kensington last year be ascertained and 
place it against the cost of the “ Shows,” and on this determine the 
“ hall ” question, for there is no certainty that the attendance would 
be greater in Westminster than at Kensington. The fortnightly 
“ Shows ” either weaken the Society or strengthen it. Let the 
facts on that point be ascertained before experimenting in the same 
direction. The meetings of the Committees with the plants and 
produce submitted to them are distinct from those Shows and of 
vital importance, and a room less than half a hundred feet long 
would suffice for them. It may be too late for alluding to the 
matter, but whether that be so or not, it is a question, if facts are 
faced boldly, whether the most prudent course to adopt would not 
be to make Chiswick the head quarters of the Society this year for 
husbanding the resources and formulating plans of reorganisation. 
There would be no loss of status in that, while the meetings as 
such need not entirely lapse, and the partial rest gained would be 
followed by more certain and complete reinvigoration. 
It is with the newly constituted Council that the decision rests 
on the line of action that shall be taken in what is perhaps the 
greatest crisis in the Society’s career. The responsibility is a 
serious one, and a false step may have momentous consequences. 
Very grave deliberation is called for, and anything of the nature of 
impulsive movement should be held in check. A strictly horticul¬ 
tural policy can alone bring sympathy and support. The severance 
from South Kensington will result in a loss of local Fellows, and 
new supporters are wanted in their stead. Nothing can concentrate 
the attention of horticulturists on the Society so well, or nearly so 
well, as the maintenance of the gardens at Chiswick, and to cut the 
gardens adrift, of which there is danger, will be to cut off its head. 
The elements of danger lurk in a question of sentiment. If the 
produce raised at Chiswick cannot be sold the expenses cannot be 
No. 2055 .— VoL. LXXVIIL, Odd Series. 
