May 1, 1890. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
853 
7 
1 
7 
i 
THE WORK OF THE ROYAL i 
1 
IIORTICGLTURAL SOCIETY, j 
W HATEVER the ultimate results may be no one can venture 
to question the endeavours of the Directors of the Society 
to make its influence felt in the horticultural world. Its policy is 
■distinctly progressive, and the most active workers on the Council 
do not spare themselves in seeking to provide the Fellows with the 
best that can be given in return for their support. Whether it is 
actually the “ best ” that could be produced is perhaps a debateable 
•question, but the intention is not the less apparent. Not only has 
there been a considerable increase of Fellows of late, but not a few 
•of the horticulturists now enrolled are evidently ready and willing 
to render service to the Society in any way they can. The Com¬ 
mittees are earnest in the discharge of their duties, although now 
and then incidents are said to arise that are not the most conducive 
to harmonious co-operation. It may be that humble workers who 
do their best to aid are over-sensitive, and there is always the 
possibility of activity being misinterpreted for mere interference. 
Be that as it may, it is to be hoped that pushing and peddling in 
high positions or low will never interfere with the smooth working 
of the component parts of which this, in common with all societies, 
are constituted. 
The increased support that has been given to the Royal Horti¬ 
cultural Society by the press and the public has been based on the 
assumption that, in the discharge of its functions, action would be 
taken on broad lines, and that something more than an ever 
recurring series of small shows, attended by a miserably small 
number of visitors, would be provided. Periodical meetings, as 
■such, and held for distinctly technical purposes, are desirable, 
useful, and even essential, but to magnify these meetings into 
“shows” in the hope of attracting the Hile of London society 
cannot be regarded as other than delusive. Nothing is more quickly 
determined by the educated portion of the community than the 
difference between the general competitive gatherings of the best 
men and best produce in furtherance of good objects and mere trade 
bazaar s. It is no fault of business men that they avail themselves 
of such facilities as they find for presenting their wares to each 
other, and where their character will reach the ears of the 
outer world. They would be very remiss if they did not, 
but the fact remains that neither bunting nor board men can 
compel the public to rush to the Westminster Drill Hall to 
•admire “ shows ” of that character. The “ genial faddists ” to 
slightly alter a Blackmorean phrase, convinced themselves that 
such would be the result of a spirited Hall policy, but the hope, 
as some of the quiet observers anticipated, has proved futile. 
The difference between a legitimate exhibition and ordinary 
fortnightly “ shows,” as estimated by the public, was apparent last 
week on the occasion of the National Auricula Show, when for 
the first time during the season the attendance was satisfactory. 
It was a pleasure to see such a gathering ; also encouraging, for 
if the public will flock to see a real show of flowers in a back 
street, what may we not expect if a hall for horticulture becomes 
established in a commanding position ? But mere “ banks ” of 
flowers and collections of fruit of a non-competitive character, 
and distinguished by the name of “ shows,” are not what the 
public expect in these days, and it is well known that visitors 
to these “shows” have gone away disappointed, and have not 
induced their friends to give their patronage to such gatherings. 
No. 514.—VOL. XX., Third Series. 
Yielding to none in the intensity of our desire for the pro¬ 
sperity and usefulness of the Royal Horticultural Society, we have 
not been able to acquiesce in what may be termed the Drill Hall 
policy ; and though some of our references to the building at one 
time did not meet with the unanimous applause of all our friends, 
we stopped very far short of Baron Schroder’s comparison of the 
building to a “ dust-bin.” We thought from the first acquisitio n of 
the volunteers’ rendezvous that it would cost more than it was worth, 
and we suspect such is the fact, and we shall be heartily glad if the 
requisite support is given to Baron Schroder to enable him to carry 
out his project. 
We have not seen any statement of accounts in which the costs 
and revenue of the Drill Hall are clearly set forth. In the revenue 
account “cleaning” is connected with rent, but no allusion is 
made to labour, though this must be a considerable item. Is it 
included in the Chiswick Garden expenses, and if so, why ? This 
question has been suggested by a gentleman of a somewhat high 
position in the horticultural world, and he is of opinion that Chis¬ 
wick has been made to appear as costly as possible, and he thinks 
the “ &c.” attached to the extraordinary amount charged for 
implements, considerably more than £100 during the year, is not 
so clear as it should be. He asks, “ What are those implements ? ” 
and the question appears to be a perfectly legitimate one. 
Rightly or wrongly, the feeling is not obliterated that the 
Council of the Society are not in deep sympathy with Chiswick. 
In the report it is specially singled out for its cost, though nothing 
whatever is said about the cost of the Drill Hall, yet it is not 
beyond the bounds of probability that Chiswick has helped the 
Hall materially, and is accorded no credit for it. Again, attention 
is markedly called in the Report to the unsatisfactory attendances 
at the Chiswick conferences, though no correlative allusion is made 
to the greater paucity of the visitors to the fortnightly “ shows ” at 
AVestminster ; and it would be interesting to know what the pay¬ 
ments have been to these meetings by the visiting public. With all 
its cost it is a question if the “ return ” to Chiswick is not greater 
in proportion than that to the DriU Hall in relation to the outlay, 
including the medals so generously “ recommended ” there, though 
perhaps they are not all granted ; and beyond all doubt a large 
number of the Fellows, and especially those who have become so 
during the past two years, consider Chiswick the backbone of the 
Royal Horticultural Society. 
They would like to see the London expenses reduced rather 
than the gardens should suffer, and they will not think that the 
great cost of the new Journal of the Society will be justified if the 
maintenance of the gardens is likely to be imperilled. The 
production of the series is a well-meant effort, but there is room 
for a compression in bulk and improvement in quality ; and a 
change in both those respects would reduce the cost and enhance 
the acceptability of the issues. The last issue contains a great deal 
of worthless matter on Chrysanthemums, while several of the 
“ papers,” though good, are no better than nor different from articles 
which appear in the weekly gardening press ; only two or three, 
of which Mr. Burbidge’s may be taken as a type, are distinct from 
ordinary garden literature. It is the same in the vegetable 
department, and with the exception of Mr. Veitch’s address, and 
perhaps Mr. Laxton’s contribution on Peas, the remainder might 
have been either dispensed with or materially condensed—not 
because, as we have said, the matter is not good, but because the 
Society is not rich enough to indulge in the luxury of circulating 
matter of a kind which ninety out of a hundred of its supporters 
can and do find when they want it in weekly periodicals. 
The Journal of the Society as now issued is not sufficiently 
distinct in character, nor by any means such a well finished pro¬ 
duction from a scientific, literary, and editorial point of view as it 
ought to be, and unless it improves in all those respects it cannot 
be long considered as worth the money it costs. A copy has been 
sent to us in which several errors are pointed out, including the 
No. 2170.—VOL. LXXXIL, Old Series. 
