ffane K, 1890. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
499 
+ 
A n article which appeared under the above heading in our issue 
of May 1st, while meeting with almost general approval, we 
believe caused some temporary excitement in a limited circle. 
That article was an embodiment of the views of old and new 
supporters of the Society with our own, and we endeavoured to 
present them in a form that might secure attention. In this we 
have not been disappointed. Mr. Morris, the Treasurer of the 
"Society, considered himself placed on his defence in respect to the 
accounts, and thereby provided the best possible opportunity for 
•our securing information which many Fellows of the Society 
desire, and to which all of them are entitled. 
While we wish to make every allowance for the feelings under 
which the Treasurer wrote when he charged us with casting doubt 
on the “ faith and integrity of the officers of the Society,” we 
must demonstrate the falsity of the allegation. It was in full 
faith of the accuracy of the accounts and of the known in¬ 
tegrity of the officials that Dr. Hogg seconded the adoption of 
the report presented at the annual meeting. If that is not suffi¬ 
cient evidence of trust it would be difficult to know what is. 
It is true his object was to support Baron Schroder in his 
•endeavour to provide the means for a suitable building for 
the Societj’, but the fact remains that no person could second 
the report of a body of officials, in the absence of the fullest 
confidence of its accuracy and in the integrity of those officials. 
The allegation referred to is thus completely disposed of. 
The suggestion of “ cooking ” or falsification is too painful to 
■dwell on. 
Before making further reference to the few points alluded to 
by Mr. Morris on page 435 of our issue of May 29 th, it is intended 
to show that the Journal of Horticulture has been consistent in its 
attitude in respect to the Royal Horticultural Society over a some¬ 
what long period down to the present time. Three well marked 
periods will suffice for this purpose. 
Thirty years ago a then projected change, that proved almost 
ruinous, was referred to as follows :— 
“ Fellows of the Society who are interested in preserving the 
legitimate objects for which it was instituted should not allow 
themselves to be hurried into any scheme without some security and 
some assurance that those objects will be maintained. The decline 
of the Society has been brought about by lavish and unremunera- 
tive expenditure. The real working and telling effect must be 
carried out at Chiswick, and before we give our support to the 
scheme we must have an assurance that the. garden at Chiswick 
will be maintained in its integrity.” 
That is the key note of the policy of this Journal, and it is 
in accordance with the principles embodied in the charter of 
the Society ; and it was only by strenuous exertions that Chis¬ 
wick was saved years ago and the Bindley Library made secure 
against the exigencies of speculative enterprises. Such was the 
attitude at the beginning of the South Kensington epoch, and 
now let us observe it at its close. This is what we said in 
1887 
“ The time has arrived for making a complete departure in the 
administration of the Society. Let the object as defined in its charter 
be kept in view, and accomplished in the best manner the finances 
allow ; and in our opinion this can be best effected by developing 
No. 621.—VoL. XX., Third Series. 
the resources of Chiswick. That is the only safe anchorage of the 
Society. Avoid costly City buildings at present, and thus the 
husbanding of resources will enable provision to be made for 
sterling work such as the Society ought to do and the public 
expect.” 
Now we pass to the Drill Hall policy. In 1888 we wroie :— 
“ Now that a new course is determined, it would be most unwise 
to ignore the lessons of the past. The great mistake that stands 
out clear has been that of discounting the future. Enthusiasm is 
an admirable quality, and no great successes have been won without 
it; and the same may be said of enterprise, but the former must 
be tempered by sound judgment, and the latter based on sound 
principles, or the ultimate issue may be the reverse of that antici¬ 
pated. Before securing a drill hall at a cost of £5 a time, let the 
amount of the receipts to the fortnightly Shows at South Kensington 
last year be ascertained, and place it against the cost of the Shows, 
and on this determine the Drill Hall question, for there is no cer¬ 
tainty that the attendance will be greater in Westminster than at 
South Kensington. The fortnightly “Shows” either weaken the 
Society or strengthen it. Let the facts on that point be ascertained 
before experimenting in the same direction. The meetings of the 
Committees with the plants and produce submitted to them are 
distinct from those Shows and of vital importance, and a room less 
than half a hundred feet long would suffice for them. If facts are 
faced boldly, it is a question whether the most prudent course to 
adopt would not be to make Chiswick the headquarters of the 
Society this year for husbanding the resources and formulating 
plans of reorganisation. There would be no loss of status in thar, 
while the meetings, as such, need not entirely lapse, and the partial 
rest gained would be followed by more certain and complete re- 
invigoration.” 
Different counsels prevailed, and obligations were incurred 
under the impulse of enthusiasm, and a Volunteers’ Drill Hall 
was secured in a back street for inducing the public to patronise 
the Shows. This was the ground on w’hich action was based, for 
the Honorary Secretary of the Committee chosen to advise the 
Council, stated in reply to our remarks quoted above, that “ the 
Council 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.” Nothing can be more precise ; and what we 
suggested, and are now in a position to prove, is that the realisa¬ 
tion has fallen very far short of the anticipation. 
We have no desire to make too much of this by publishing all 
the details, and the information desired can be given in a sum¬ 
marised form. 
Drill Hall Keceipts. £ d. 
1888, By Payment of Visitors ... . 
.. 
... 
17 
11 
0 
18S9, J) 
•• 
... 
9 
2 
0 
Total . 
... . 
... 
£26 
13 
0 
Drill Hall Expenses. 
Labour ... 1888. 
£42 
7 
10 
„ ... 1889. 
46 
18 
9 
89 
G 
7 
Rent ... 1888. 
86 
11 
0 
„ ... 1889 . 
94 
9 
0 
181 
0 
0 
Advertising, 1888 . 
24 
10 
6 
„ 1889 . 
57 
11 
9 
82 
0 
3 
Medals ... 1888 . 
37 
12 
1 
„ ... 1889 . 
18 
1 
4 
13 
5 
Total Expenses 
• •• 
£403 
2 
3 
Total Receipts 
... 
... 
26 
13 
0 
Loss.. 
• • • 
• •• 
£381 
9 
3 
— 
- w 
No. 2177.—Vol. LXXXII., Old Series, 
