166 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ March 1, 188*. 
moderate indeed, and I have computed that the whole of our ex¬ 
pense of planting will average 6s. Gd. per acre. The plants become 
effective as soon as put in, and in the second or third j'ear after 
planting they meet everywhere in a close mat. This forms an ex¬ 
cellent cover for game, particularly hares, and I may remark that 
the Ammophilahas a peculiar habit of succeeding best where the sand 
is deepest, driest, and most exposed. It does not grow so well in 
a damp place, and the drier and hotter the summer the more 
luxuriant does it become. It rather objects to impure sand, and 
where our ridges of brushwood have decayed the Ammophi'a is not 
so healthy as on other parts. Finally I would say no one need 
have any hesitation in spending their money in planting sands in 
the manner above indicated. They may rest assured it will not be 
thrown away.—J. Muir, Margam Park, Port Talbot, South 
Wales. 
IS CHISWICK TO GO? 
Under this heading there appears in your last issue an article 
which to my mind fails to attain the object the writer had in view 
—viz., the welfare of the Royal Horticultural Society. The gist 
of the statement appears to be that the Committee has committed 
the Council to an “ adventurous policy ” as opposed to a “ recupera¬ 
tive ” one, and that the Fellows at the general meeting endorsed 
this policy without knowing what they were about. Now, there is 
an old adage that “ one story is good until another is told,” and I 
should feel obliged if jmu would allow me to submit a different 
version, and in doing soJI shall endeavour to confine myself solely 
to the work done by the Committee. The Committee had only 
been a few weeks in existence when the annual meeting occurred, 
necessitating a report to be made dealing actually only with matters 
of pressing urgency, but prospectively to other subjects which must 
of necessity occupy the attention of the Committee almost imme¬ 
diately. As to the statement regarding Chiswick, wherein you 
gather from the annual report of the Council that the yearly expen¬ 
diture is £1300, and that the sale of “ garden produce ” is in round 
figures £500, thus leaviug a deficit of £800 a year. Doubtless this 
is so, but the Committee has not up to this time had any opportunity 
of dealing with Chiswick even in the least degree. This is one of 
those things to consider for which they are called into existence to 
help the Council. In a word, the work of the Committee is to co¬ 
operate with the Council and to realise as far as possible the idea 
sketched by your correspondent “ F. W. B.,” page 144. Although 
it cannot be expected that they will ever render Chiswick entirely 
self-supporting, much less a profitable undertaking. Indeed, the 
profit of such a garden is to be looked for in the results of its 
experiments and in the advantages it offers to the Fellows in return 
for their subscriptions rather than in a formal balance-sheet. So 
much for Chiswick and the Committee. 
Now a word as to the expenditure of £700, which it is stated 
that the Committee has recommended. In reply to this I can only 
say that the only expenditure which the Committee has recom¬ 
mended on account of new offices is £120 a year for three'years, 
and the hire of the Drill Hall for Shows for one year £100—total, 
£220. Now, seeing that the Society is driven from Kensington, 
where its annual expenditure, without supply of plants, &c., was 
over £600 a year ; and, further, that a new home was immediately 
imperative, and that the same has been obtained for £220 a year. 
I submit that a saving of £380 is effected, because it must always 
be borne in mind that until further reductions and economies are 
effected all other outgoings upon the present scale of expenditure 
remain. 
Whether the Council should have migrated in the direction of 
Chiswick or the City can, I think, admit of but one reply. If they 
had gone to Chiswick doubtless the £220 a year would have been 
saved, but only, I believe, at the expense of losing a still larger 
number of subscribers, coupled with the absence of the general 
public at their fortnightly Shows ; whereas by putting themselves 
more in touch with the public on these occasions the public will 
mark their appreciation of the facilities offered by better patronising 
the Shows brought closer to their doors. As a matter of fact an 
echo has already been heard from the City which bears out the 
hopes of the Committee in respect to this. 
As this is the extent to which the definite operations of the 
Committee have as yet extended, I do not feel it incumbent on me 
just now to say more except that until the lower rates of subscrip¬ 
tion are established and the country districts are mapped out, local 
Secretaries appointed, and the generally comprehensive machinery 
which the Committee has in view be set going, the new Council 
and the Committee must, to do good work, heartily co-operate in 
the future, as they have done in the past, looking forward with 
confidence to the cordial support of all classes of horticulturists, afc 
least in all matters of principle.— Geo. De.8.e, Hon. Sec. to the: 
Fellows' Committee. 
[We readily insert this excellent letter, hut notwithstanding the- 
admitted ability and great business capacity of Mr. Deal we are 
bound to observe that he leaves the real position of the Society as 
represented in our article on page 143 untouched. Nothing con¬ 
fessedly can be added to its estimated income, and nothing is really- 
subtracted from its estimated liabilities. It is true Mr. Deal only 
admits an expenditure of £220 as recommended by Dr. Masters’ 
Committee, but the further estimated expenditure of £234 is 
directly involved for exhibitions, the only purpose for which tba 
hall was taken ; and, further, it is clearly stated in the report that the 
Committee strongly recommended the appointment of a paid 
Secretary, and one is advertised for at a salary of £200. Add thi-s- 
and the estimated cost of Shows (£234) to the £220 admitted, and! 
we have £654. This is our justification for saying that speculation 
to the extent of “ between £600 and £700” was indulged in. 
It is necessary to say a word relative to the lapsed expenditure 
of £600 at South Kensington, because we find an imprpsion 
obtains in some quarters that this sum was included in the £850 for 
establishment expenses on page 143. Not one penny of it was in¬ 
cluded, nor can the lapsed amount be taken into consideration in any 
way in respect to the future of the Royal Horticultural Society, 
and it is with the future we have to deal. We fear the alleged 
“ saving ” of the lapsed £600 has had an influence that it cannot 
legitimately bear ; it is a mere shadow of the past, not a substance 
affecting the present position. We expected, too, when writing 
last week that a misapprehension existed as to the applicability of 
the special fund promised of £1210 ; we have since learned from 
more than one source that such was the fact, and that the true 
position of the Society was not present to the minds of the Fellows 
when the report of the Committee recommending the speculative 
policy was adopted. •, i-i. 
But, it may be asked, and with a great semblance of plausibility,, 
Why did the Council accept the report ? When it is remembered 
that the Committee is composed in part of the members of the 
Council, and that the majority must rule, opposition under the 
circumstances would have amounted to mere obstructiveness. The 
truth is, the decision was arrived at under the impulse of the 
meeting ; and the Council was not, nor can it be, an independent 
and responsible body when some of its members belong to an 
outside Committee, and thus act in a dual capacity. 
Dr. Masters’ Committee, on which so much depends, was. 
excellent in inception but erroneous in principle, inasmuch as by 
its mixed nature its responsibility is incommensurate with its 
power for doing good on the one hand or making mistakes on the 
other. Its members are unreservedly credited with the best of 
intentions towards the Society which they practically govern, but 
not one of them can be more earnestly desirous than we are for its 
prosperity, and we are convinced the best policy is to preserve 
Chiswick, and that this can only be done by frankly making its 
actual position known to the horticultural world. This has been 
the line pursued by this Journal on critical occasions in past times, 
and it cannot consistently be abandoned now. 
And now having discharged wliat we believe to be our duty, 
we shall with not less cordiality than hitherto do all in our power 
to advance the true interests of the Society, and we trust that 
the policy to be pursued may be such as will enable us to 
give it our best support with the object of securing for it a marked 
success. 
We have now to add that the Society will be relieved of one 
item in the estimated expenditure, inasmuch as the Assistant 
Secretary’s salary v ill for the present be [provided from private 
sources.] __ 
CROPS THAT PAY. 
Raising Tomatoes for planting outside did not prove such a 
difficult or costly task as I first ima^ned. A hotbed was made in 
February, a quantity of manure being carted into a heap, and a 
rough frame made by nailing boards together with four lights, as 
rough as the frame for covering them. On the surface of the 
manure ordinary garden soil was spread, and leaf soil to the depth 
of 3 inches. When the soil was tlioroughly warm the seed was 
sow-non the surface, and covered by scattering a little fine soil over it. 
The seed soon germinated, and the plants were thinned where they 
had come up too thickly. The result was sturdy plants, ready for 
placing out at the end of May. Lifting did not check them much. 
After being shaded and syringed for a few days they commenced 
growing rapidly, and set a wonderful crop of fruit from near the 
base to the top of the boards, as the season was a fine one. The 
plants were 15 inches apart, all side laterals were removed, the 
foliage well cut-in once a week, for it is a mistake to allow them to 
