M»y 2», 1891. ] 
JOURXAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
435 
T here are many points in your article of the 1st inst. on the 
work of the Roy.il Horticultural Society to which exception 
might be taken, but I shall confine myself at present to one or two 
upon which I may fairly claim to have special knowledge. These 
appertain to questions of finance. 
If words have any meaning at all you cast doubt on the good 
faith and integrity of the officers of the Society, and question the 
accuracy of the revenue account and balance-sheet presented at 
the annual meeting in February last. You state that no allusion 
is made in the accounts to labour employed at the Drill Hall 
meetings, and suggest that in all probability the cost of such 
labour is included under Chiswick Garden expenses. In fact, you 
■clearly imply that the accounts are “ cooked ” to make Chiswick 
appear as costly as possible, and that expenses fairly chargeable to 
the Drill Hall meetings are made to appear in the accounts as 
Clhiswick Garden expenses. 
These are plain matters of fact, and can easily be proved or 
■disproved. There can only be one answer to such charges as these, 
and that is a formal demand, which I now make, that you will 
•either substantiate them or withdraw them. In order to afford 
you the fullest opportunity for doing one or the other I have the 
authority of the Council to arrange to meet you, or anyone deputed 
by you, to examine the books of the Society and invite the closest 
and fullest scrutiny. The books and vouchers, as left by the 
auditor, will be entirely at your disposal, and I am prepared to 
•enter fully into every item entered in the accounts.—D. Morris, 
Treasurer, R.H.S. 
[Jlr. Morris appears to have misapprehended the purport of the 
remarks to which he takes exception, and has attached a meaning 
to them that they do not legitimately bear. Neither he nor any 
individual was in mind when they were written. They are a free 
and fair comment on a public financial statement that is not in¬ 
telligible to all Fellows of the Royal Horticultural Society. It is 
not a question of “faith and integrity,” but of methods. Mr. 
Morris’s reference to “cooked” accounts is gratuitous. Their 
•general accuracy has never been disputed, but the manner of their 
presentation is not explicit. AVe have been many times asked what 
the “ &c.” means which is appended to “ Implements ” as costing 
£122 19s. 7d. in one year. We cannot answer the question. AVe 
have been asked also to point out the definite cost of the Drill 
Hall and of Chiswick, separating the labour accounts. We are 
unable to do so. “ Floral meetings and conferences ” are debited 
■with £55 15s. Id. for labour, but the floral meetings are held with 
few exceptions in the Drill Hall, and the conferences are held at 
Chiswick. 
The notice of Fellows has been drawn to these matters by 
attention having been called to the cost of Chiswick in the official 
report, and the unsatisfactory attendances at the conferences there, 
while no corresponding allusions are made to the Drill Hall. 
These are matters of fact. 
If the Council of the Society really desire us to make the 
closest and fullest scrutiny ” of the books and vouchers, in pre¬ 
ference to furnishing the information which it is represented is so 
easy to supply, we have not the slightest objection, reserving full 
liberty to publish what we find there, whether it justifies our 
allusions or not. AA’’e shall expect to find no “cooked” accounts. 
No. 518 .—A’’ol. XX., Third Series. 
but to find a different method of presenting them, so that the 
actual cost of and revenue to the Drill Hall will bo made clearer 
than appears in the official statement. 
AVe are also convinced that our references to the Society’s 
Journal were fully justified. It has cost nearly £500, and is 
not only needlessly bulky, but imperfectly edited as a scientific 
work. AVe have given the Royal Horticultural Society ungrudging 
support, and shall not be deterred from doing so again ; but wo 
must maintain our right to free action, and wo do not believe that 
a policy of praise under all circumstances is the best for the 
permanent well-being of any public institution.] 
TODDINGTON. 
Toddixgton is a familiar name to many readers of the Journal 
of Horticulture, and the great work that is being conducted on 
Lord Sudeley’s estate, both in the production of fruit and its 
manufacture into jam, is destined to make it a chief centre cf 
interest in the fruit world. AVhen contemplating a caterpilLr 
pilgrimage into Herefordshire a few weeks ago I was told I migl t 
possibly see Toddington on my return journey. By the kindne: s 
of Captain Corbett, who is in command of the forces there, I wcs 
enabled to carry out my wish. At once I may say that the fru't 
plantations exceeded my expectations, not in extent so much as in 
the admirable manner in which everything is conducted. AVe heir 
much about the large fruit farms in America, and no doubt they 
are extensive and well managed ; but I shall have to see them 
before believing they excel in order, completeness, and systematic 
management the plantations and appurtenances on this Gloucester¬ 
shire estate. 
The extent of land devoted to fruit growing is 500 acres ; one 
plantation occupies 300 acres,and there are two other plots of 100 acres 
each. The whole of the land is as clean as a garden, and every tree and 
bush has the attention it needs. The time was too short and the march 
through the long avenues too quick for note-taking, and all that can 
be recorded are general impressions, that may, perhaps, give some 
idea of the work in hand. This, beyond doubt, is as good as it is 
great, not good for Lord Sudeley alone and his enterprising and 
able associates, but for hundreds, if not thousands, of busy workers; 
■who find employment during the season. If his lordship and 
co-operators do not make great fortunes in the enterprise—and 
I do not for a moment think they have yet heaped up riches from 
it—they must be fairly regarded as benefactors to the district. 
The capital invested must be enormous, and no one would be 
justified in investing his all in fruit growing, or in other words 
who could not afford to wait a few years for the trees to grow and 
profits to come. I do not know of anything much easier than 
growing fruit by arithmetic and showing tempting profits in 
a year or two on paper, but in practice something often 
happens that upsets sanguine calculations and throws the 
figures out of gear. In estimating profits a large margin must be 
allowed for contingencies. A bad year may come when a good one 
was expected. Frost and wet at the wrong time, caterpillars and 
insects, all have to be reckoned with. Yet, after all, with sound 
work in land preparation, and adapting varieties to soil, also deter, 
mining the extent of the undertaking by the capital at command, 
these with knowledge gained by experience in routine operations 
and skilful and prudent supervision, the reward eventually comes, 
and it is proportionate to the correctness and judgment that has 
been exercised in planning and conducting the whole work. Tod¬ 
dington, I believe, possesses those essentials, aad I quite agree with 
Lord Sudeley when he says in a letter before me, “ AVe have all 
worked very hard for several years, and I have reason to be satisfied 
with our prospects in the future.” The “ work ” is apparent and 
almost overwhelming in its magnitude. The promise is in the 
countless thousands of well pruned, healthy, fruitful trees and 
bushes, which I have not the least hesitation in saying are a credit 
No. 2174. — A^ol. LXXXII., Old Series. 
