116 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ February 11 18t6. 
To Special Expenses in Relation to Horticulture :— 
Plant and Seed Distribution .. 207 0 0 
Fruit and Floral Committees .. 112 5 6 
Grants in Aid .no 0 0 
National Apple Congress Report 30 0 0 
Frost Reports .45 0 0 
Orchid Conference.36 19 8 
Primula Conference .. .. 2 19 0 
Pear Conference.24 18 6 
«» Chiswick Garden Expenses :— 
Rents, Rates, Taxes, and In-) oao _ _ 
surance. ( 5 1 
Labour .. .. 942 9 -6 
Implements, Manure, &c. 146 17 10 
Coal and Coke .155 15 6 
Repairs .. ,, tt i# ^5 1 
Trees, Plants, Seeds, &c. .. . 96 15 0 
Superintendent's Salary .. .. 150 0 0 
Water. 8 0 8 
Miscellaneous .. \\ \\ 129 16 8 
** Kensington Garden Expenses :— 
Superintendent’s Salary.. .. 100 0 0 
Labour. 542 l 5 
Repairs.3L 1 6 
Coal and Coke . 34 2 0 
Implements and Manure .. 16 10 0 
Miscellaneous . 3 0 0 
«, Exhibitions 
Advertising.87 1 0 
Prizes and Medals.33 13 0 
Ditto do. Inventions Exhibition 829 15 6 
Bands. 25 16 0 
Superintendent of Flower’Shows 25 0 0 
Labour. 113 4 11 
Judges’Fees.. 34 13 0 
Miscellaneous .. * 7 Z 11 
Police .. 29 12 o 
Schedules .. . . " 3 $ 9 
£5195 4 6 
3 12 
9 9 0 
25 10 0 
£9 2 4 
23 3 0 
27 4 0 
34 15 7 
11 15 0 
2 18 9 
207 0 0 
115 17 6 
110 0 0 
30 0 0 
45 0 0 
45 8 8 
2 19 0 
50 8 6 
267 7 5 
607 13 8 
942 
170 
182 19 
116 10 
96 15 
150 0 
19 15 
132 15 
9 6 
0 10 
6 
8 
0 
0 
8 
5 
3 9 3 
18 12 0 
100 0 
542 1 
34 10 
52 14 0 
16 10 
3 0 
8 18 0 
13 1 9 
74 12 9 
10 17 6 
390 0 9 
95 19 
46 14 
904 8 
25 16 
25 0 
2078 14 0 
748 16 2 
34 13 
18 4 
29 12 
35 16 
1329 9 1 
5385 5 3 
INCOME. 
Cash received. Debts receivable. Totals. 
By Annual Subscriptions 
*. Promenade Shows. \ ** 
» Inventions Exhibition Maintenance 
»» »• m Prizes .. 
« National Apple Congress Report 
Garden Produce .. .. .. 
m Packing Charges .. ., ** 
„ Miscellaneous Receipts !. ** ** 
” i Co ?? reQ 9 e » Catalogues and Advt’s 
st Schedule Advertisements 
»» Dividends, Davis Bequest and Parry Legacy 
£ 
3200 
26 2 
0 
8 
12 
410 9 
52 10 
30 10 
13 7 
600 
904 
s. d. 
8 0 
6 
0 
3 
6 
5 
0 
9 
0 
£ 
75 12 
11 17 
19 12 
61 13 8 
£5300 2 1 
17 18 
39 11 
£164 11 
,, Balance to General Revenue Account 
same correct ve ACC0Unr Wltn t&e Books and Vouchers, a 
JOHN LEE, 
27tll January, 188 >. ^VchTIds’, 
General revenue account, 3ist December i885. 
Dr. 
To Annual Revenue Account, Balance for the year 188.5 
„ Balance carried forward .. .. 
OR. 
By Caoitaf pin R enm?nrA CC0Unt . br S u * ht for "- ard 1st January, 1886 . 
,, capital Expenditure Account—Balance of that Account transferred. 
£ s. 
d. 
3276 0 
0 
26 2 
6 
600 0 
0 
904 8 
3 
12 10 
1 
430 1 
11 
52 10 
0 
30 10 
9 
31 5 
6 
39 11 
0 
61 13 
8 
£5464 IS 
8 
120 11 
7 
£5585 5 
3 
we find tlie 
iuditors. 
£ s 
. d 
7 
3 
£2783 6 
10 
£ 9 
. d 
. 2,596 17 
6 
,. 186 9 
4 
£2783 6 
10 
thesIme a co e rrect miaeiltlieabOVe Aocouuts «' ith the Books and Vouchers, and we fln 
JOHN LEE, 1 
27th Januarv tass JA9. F. WEST, 1- Auditors. 
•lanuary, 1883 . W. RICHARDS, f 
THE DINNER. 
In the evening the Council and several members of the Society am 
t ?r the " U ^ er °[ abo, R 8at down to an elegant dinner, pro 
videdby Messrs Spiers * Pond, at the Criterion, Piccadilly, Sir Trevor Law 
rence, Bart M.P President of the Society, ably presiding. The number o 
guests would probably have been greater but for the somewhat hurried manne 
the arrangements were made, and there ean be little doubt, when thi 
tnrf^ b «v.r a th re ° f -n th u 8e annual 80cial gatherings becomes more wide! 
Arnrtrwrat d, th ® y WlU be correspondingly popular and largely attended 
Amongs^t the company we observed Mr. Mitford, C.B., of the Board of Works 
ad Th Mn, Dy ?l Professor Poster, Mr. Bateman, F.R.S., Dr 
Allman, Mr. Baker (Kew), Mr. Harvey (Liverpool), Dr. Duke (Lewisham) 
Ml Z. ^ H ° gg ’ Veitcb ’ Mr ' Ba « 
" Sl ! al , loyal t ?t 8t8 ,, were Proposed in graceful terms by th 
dU y ] honoured by the assembly, Mr. Dyer, in an adnurabl 
^peech, which was listened to with the most attentive appreciation,propose! 
int«rp p t h H d * he t , Ro ^ a }. Horticultural Society.” He adverted to thedee] 
fe t , la t ! 16 w o tare^ of the Society as the representative head o 
horticulture in the kingdom, to the great and increasing public taste in th 
tLia c Vatl0 t n ° f P aDtS that , 18 a P.P ar ent, to the unique position occupied b- 
““?, try as a mercantile nation, in the introduction of plants from distan 
lTf a te r H th f world > to thehigh and finished examples of culture to b 
^ *^ e lm P°rtance of maintaining this excellence 
!e„rl!,Pu ot d ° U } that CounciI of the Royal Horticultural Society wa 
6a w c ° m Prehensiv.., that the “ new departure” in the annua 
fee W n^J d DOt f fai i 4° hav e a most wholesome influence in promoting kind! 
feeling and mutual trust between Fellows and officials, then by unity o 
effort the Society would exert a great influence in the future, as it had 
within its grasp all that was great, dignified, and beautiful, and with the new 
impulse given that day it would be more firmly established as the custodian 
of the great industry it was established to promote, and he cordially wished 
it prosperity. Mr. Dyer’s truly excellent address was received with much 
applause. 
Mr. Mitford, in proposing success to horticulture, referred to the recent 
appointment of Mr. Dyer, who, he had not a doubt, was from every point of 
view the proper man to succeed Sir Joseph Hooker ; he referred to the two 
generations of Hookers who had conducted the affairs of Kew so ably, and 
the Board of Trade wished there had been a third; but the next best 
successor they were certain was found in Mr. Dyer, an appointment that had 
given the greatest satisfaction. As he (Mr. Mitford) was not a cultivator, 
he thought it would be wisest to say but little on that subject, but to confine 
himself to the expression of his pleasure in being present, and his earnest 
hope that horticulture might flourish. 
Mr. Harvey, in responding, observed that if the Royal Horticultural 
Society intended to be truly national it must go to the provinces—to the 
north. He ask d the company to look at Scotchmen to see what they had 
done, and to Lancashire with its ungenial climate, and note the progress 
there. The worse the climate, he thought, the greater the love of gardens, 
because of the pride that appeared to be taken in overcoming difficulties. 
Liverpool had done, and was doing, something for horticulture, and would 
do more. Many Orchids had been imported there, and Cattleya Mossise 
was named after a Liverpool lady. Speaking for the north, he said they 
could do very well without any Orchid Society, and hoped he should not see 
one, but would rather see special committees appointed by the Roya.1 Horti¬ 
cultural Society to devote attention to separate branches of horticulture. 
Mr. Harvey’s remarks appeared to meet with warm and very general 
support. 
Professor Foster, in proposing “ Our Guests,” appropriately quoted the 
line “ Words flow apace if you wish to oomplain.” This was in reference 
to complaints in the press, an amusing instance of which he had seen in the 
proposition for an Orchid Society, one writer advocating it on the ground 
that the Royal Horticultural Society does not adequately attend to these 
plants ; another because the Society is favourably disposed to promoting 
their culture. But referring to the guests, with Mr. Ewbank on his left and 
Mr. Baker on his right, words did not flow apace when he desired to express 
the pleasure the Council had in their company. Mr. Ewbank he described 
as a horticultural phenomenon, because he made everything grow in his 
garden in which he took such great delight, and he could think of no more 
appropriate description of him than a “ happy gardener.” Mr. Baker was 
also a phenomenon in his capacity for naming plants. Ten thousand names, 
he had been told, was as many as could be stored in one brain ; still, with 
his wonderful aptitude, Mr. B iker was striving to reduce names. Such men 
as their guests were wanted as Fellows. The Royal Horticultural Society 
had for some years adopted a wrong system. They had gone in for numbers, 
regardless as to what proportion were horticulturists. He hoped they would 
start fresh from to-day and soon get from South Kensington, live no longer 
a parasitic life, but strike root for themselves and not live on the juice of 
others. They wanted a room for their meetings with ready access to the in¬ 
comparable Lindley library, and surely that could be found. To return to 
the “ guests.” As he had named two, and could only ask one to respond, he 
decided by a toss, and must call on his right hand friend. 
M 1 -. Baker, who met with a warm reception, observed that on-lookers 
could often see the most of the gam°. He could see how important it was 
for botanists and horticulturists to go hand in hand. Dried plants were not 
always satisfactory for purposes of nomenclature, as new introductions were 
constantly arriving they required to be grown. He observed that it would 
be a shame for England if the Royal Horticultural Society should fall into 
an inferior position now that the interest in gardening was greater than ever 
it was before. Regarding plant names, he observed that while botanists 
were trying to reduce them, horticulturists, and particularly specialists rushed 
along in their own way, manufacturing names without any systematic classi¬ 
fication. If there were twenty Daffodils, for instance, there appeared to be 
a disposition to magnify them into 500, and the same with Primulas. He 
would like to see the Royal Horticultural Society in the position of inter¬ 
preter, standing between gardeners and botanists, yet embracing both, and 
he trusted the Society would have a great and useful future career. 
Mr. Bateman, in rising to propose the health of the President, referred to 
him not only as the chief of the Society, but chief over a great family 
of plants—Orchids, which Rumphius had described as a “ Royal Race.” He 
graphically described the discovery of Cattleya Lawrenciana; and adverting 
to plant names, observed that twenty-two years ago a charming Princess 
came to this country and a charming Odontoglossum flowered at the same 
time, which he, as a loyal subject, named Alexandrae. He was found fault 
with; but if he erred so did Reichenbach, who called it Blunti. It may be 
a variety of O. crispum; but why, since the variety is so distinct, not adhere 
to the distinctive name and call a beautiful plant after a beautiful lady ? 
The name Wellingtonia is wrong. It should be Sequoia; but the country 
would go to war rather than lose the familiar name, and he would go to war 
for Alexandrae—crispum appearing as if it had reference to an old woman 
in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. There were stated to be 6000 distinct 
Orchids in cultivation, and if theyincreased to 10,000 he wished the President 
to see all his subj* ets and be able to call them all by their names. 
Sir Trevor Lawrence, in responding, alluded to the freshness and healthy 
flavour of the speeches and the Society, remarking that he was supported 
in his position by gentlemen who would add lustre to any institution. He 
hoped the parasitic existence that had been alluded to would terminate, 
believing there are plenty of real horticulturists in the country to support 
the Society. He agreed with Mr. Harvey that an Orchid Society is not 
needed ; indeed, he did not believe in frittering in a number of special 
societies. He was convinced the Royal Horticultural Society has a good 
future in store, and expected a genuine response in holding a provincial 
Show at Liverpool. He trusted there would be no real difficulty in finding 
a new home for the Society ; the difficulty was in finding a place for 
periodical meetings and shows. Yet with a hearty and single-minded purpose 
to represent the interests of horticulture in this country, difficulties will 
vanish and a home will be found. 
Mr. Veitch proposed the toast of the •‘Amateurs,” and in doing so re- 
