328 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ April 29, 1886. 
Princess Royal of Prussia would become a life member, and 
further stated that the Prince Consort would take up deben¬ 
tures to the extent of £1000. Such exalted patronage was 
regarded as a sufficient guarantee for everything, and the 
requisite sum of £50,000 of debenture stock was speedily 
forthcoming, on security which, adjudged on commercial 
principles, could not be regarded as satisfactory. 
With the surplus proceeds of the Exhibition of 1851, the 
Royal Commissioners purchased about twenty-two acres of 
land for the purpose of erecting thereon a building for a 
similar exhibition in 1861; but in consequence of the disrup¬ 
tion of European relations, and a great continental war un¬ 
settling the political balance of many friendly states, the idea 
of holding the Great International World’s Fair was aban¬ 
doned. The land was idle, and some fertile brain suggested 
the application of it to a grand summer and winter garden in 
the centre of the town residences of the nobility and gentry, 
yet within easy reach of the public generally, and the alliance 
of the Horticultural Society was sought for and obtained to 
the project on decidedly favourable terms to the landlords and 
apparently so to the Society. The former agreed to incur 
the expense of the architectural part and earthworks, esti¬ 
mated at £50,000; the Horticultural Society that of the 
horticultural portion of the works, raising for that purpose an 
equal sum. In return for this the Society to have a lease of 
the gardens for thirty-one years, subject to the payment of an 
annual rental on the following basis :—The rent to be ascer¬ 
tained with reference to the receipts of the Society in each 
year—that is to say, there should be first deducted from 
the sum of the gross receipts—(1) such a sum as shall 
be allowed by a commttee in respect of expenses; and 
(2) the amount which may be payable by the Society 
for interest of any money not exceeding the sum of 
£50,000 borrowed by them for the works on the land. For 
regulating the amount to be deducted by the Society in each 
year for its expenses a committee was appointed of six per¬ 
sons, three nominated by the Commissioners and three by 
the Society, the chairman selected by the former, and he 
having “ two votes in case of an equality in voting.” It will 
thus be seen that the first charge on the receipts from the 
gardens was to be the current expenses of the Society, 
regulated and governed by the “Expenses Committee,” 
second the interest to debenture holders, and lastly the 
payment of rent to the Commissioners. In the event 
of the Society being unable for any period of five consecutive 
years to pay the interest on the debenture account, the right 
of re-entry was claimed by the Commissioners without pay¬ 
ment of compensation to the Society. That is an outline of 
the great scheme by which the Royal Commissioners succeeded 
in adding to the value of their and the surrounding property 
with the moneys of confiding debenture holders, who, under 
the glamour of the circumstances of the time made advances 
not on the gardens or freehold, but on the profits of the 
concern, and these, through extravagance during the early 
years of the union, and dissensions afterwards, failing, 
resulted in loss to individuals and discredit to the Society. 
In 1860 everything was regarded as satisfactory. Twelve 
members of the Royal Family joined, and the following year 
the Queen granted permission for the Society to be styled the 
Royal Horticultural Society. As might be expected rank and 
fashion followed Royalty, upwards of 600 Fellows joining 
within six months. The Fruit and Floral Committees 
were transferred from St. Martin’s Place, and sat for 
the first time at South Kensington on Shrove Tuesday, 
1861. In December of the same year the Society 
sustained a great and irreparable loss by the death 
of the Prince Consort; and though the Queen expressed her 
wish “ that the gardens should be considered as under her 
special patronage and protection,” turbulence soon followed 
through extravagance, the interests of horticulture were 
practically ignored, and Chiswick almost entirely neglected. 
“ Music and masquerading ” perhaps fairly describes the 
doings of the time, as in one year £3000 were expended in 
bands for the fashionable promenade. Shortly afterwards, 
and simultaneous with the illegal appointment of Mr. H. Cole 
on the Council, the horticultural representatives (EarlDucie, 
Dr. Linaley, Mr. James Veitcli, Mr. Robert Cooper, and Mr. 
John Fleming) resigned, and within about five years of the 
connection with South Kensington the Society had expended 
£73,000 in completing the garden, and was involved in a 
debt of £53,000, the whole of its liabilities previous to the 
undertaking being £4000. And even then the gardens were not 
finished, yet the Society was enchained to the scene of its ruin. 
This Journal had no share in hastening on and cementing 
the alliance that is now ended. Commenting on the arrange¬ 
ments in 1859, it is recorded in its pages :—“ We need not 
enter into the particulars of the scheme further than to say that 
it is one which the Fellows of the Society who are interested 
in the advancement of horticulture, and in preserving the 
legitimate objects for which the Society was instituted, should 
regard with great caution, and not allow themselves to be 
hurried into it without having some security and some assur¬ 
ance that these objects will be maintained. The decline of 
the Horticultural Society has been brought about by a lavish 
and unremunerative expenditure and mismanagement. To 
raise it from inanition ample funds must be provided. 
Believing the new movement will be productive of a con¬ 
siderable income, we are of opinion that if this be faithfully 
applied to the development of the objects originally contem¬ 
plated by its founders, the Society will again take a respect¬ 
able position among the great institutions of the country. 
But this end is not to be effected in the ornamental garden 
and fashionable promenade at Kensington Gore. The real 
working and telling effect of the Society must be carried out 
elsewhere; and before we give our entire and cordial support 
to the scheme now proposed we must have an assurance that 
the garden at Chiswick will be maintained in its integrity. 
If the Council give no such assurance the whole of the 
present proceedings must be regarded as nothing more than 
a great commercial speculation got up under the wing of the 
London Horticultural Society, but too little regarding the 
objects for which the Society was formed.” 
There is this difference now in the relative positions. 
Instead of the speculation being “ under the wing ” of the 
Society, the Royal Horticultural Society is “ under the wing 
of the commercial speculation.” Is it either dignified or 
advantageous for it to remain so ? The Royal Horticultural 
Society retains its position at South Kensington by suffer¬ 
ance of a body, most respectable and influential, but which 
has no sympathy with its work or objects. It occupies the 
position of caretaker and nothing else, and, like all other 
caretakers, is liable to dismissal at a moment’s notice. So 
long as the gardens were maintained in an attractive state, 
and there was in consequence a steady accession of local 
Fellows, there was some reason for remaining, but the 
gardens can never again be what they were before the 
inauguration of the present series of industrial exhibitions. 
They are practically demolished, and vast sums expended in 
forming and furnishing them squandered. And even the 
shows held on their site cannot be sustained for any length 
of time. That of the present season, the “ Colonies,” which 
promises to eclipse all its predecessors, may or may not be 
the last; but whether it is or not, it is sufficiently evident 
that the Royal Horticultural Society can no longer be 
strengthened by accessions of local Fellowp. Such “ sup¬ 
porters ” who have no sympathy with the Society’s objects, 
but have joined for the sake of local advantages, have been a 
source of weakness rather than strength in the past, in 
diverting the resources of the Society from its legitimate 
objects and alienating persons who are actually interested in 
horticultural pursuits. It is this great class to which the 
Society should more directly appeal, and it is a question if 
it would not be better to have the seat of government of the 
Society nearer to the commercial centre than at present. 
The great and rich mercantile community, as is well known 
i to nurserymen and horticultural builders, are more than ever 
