600 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[Jane 10, 1^# 
Chiswick Conferences Keceipts. 
1888 (Apple and Pear). 
£21 
1 0 
1889 (Rose) . 
£5 5 
G 
„ (Vegetable) . 
12 2 
4 
„ (Chrysanthemum). 
IG 12 
0 
33 
19 10 
Total. 
. 
£55 
0 10 
Chiswick Conferences Expenses. 
1888 (Apple and Pear). 
> • • • • 
£57 
3 0 
1889 (Rose];^ .. 
£30 13 
10 
!> (Vegetable) . 
27 5 
3 
„ Chrysanthemum) . 
9 3 
7 
— 67 
2 8 
Total expenses... 
... 
... £124 
6 8 
Total receipts 
. 
... 55 
0 10 
Loss . 
. 
... £69 
4 10 
Ifc will be seen that there was a falling off in the Drill Hall 
receipts last year in comparison with the year preceding of 
£8 Os., or nearly half, yet £33 more was spent in advertising. We 
regret most sincerely that there has not been a better return for 
the efforts that have been made to secure it. We believe every¬ 
thing has been done that could be done to induce the public to 
“ patronise the shows,” but the response at the best was meagre, 
and has dwindled to practically nothing. We hope it may be 
much better this year, and we were glad to observe a very good 
attendance at the Auricula Show. 
In reference to the Conferences at Chiswick, which the report says 
were “ successful in all else but the number of visitors,” we find 
that the receipts at the three Conferences in 1889 were mors than 
seven times greater than at all the Drill Hall meetings and shows 
put together during the same year. The Eose Conference cost the 
most, and brought in the least ; the Chrysanthemum Conference 
cost the least, and brought in the most. The cost of the Drill 
Hall meetings last year was nearly twenty-four times greater than 
thereceipts—namely cost, £217 Os. lOd., receipts £9 23. The cost 
of the Chiswick Conferences was only a little more than twice the 
receipts—namely, cost £07 2s. 8d. ; receipts, £33 19s. lOd. The 
largest amount taken on any one occasion at the Drill Hall did not 
equal the smallest amount taken at a Conference at Chiswick. We 
were not quite prepared for these facts, but, finding them, they 
cannot be ignored. Nothing approaching this information, which 
the courtesy of Mr. Morris has enabled us to present, could be ex¬ 
tracted from the published revenue accounts of the Society, and we 
presume the Council desired the facts to be made known, or they 
would not have offered facilities for our ascertaining them for this 
purpose. 
We do not expect, nor can any reasonable person do so, that a 
profit must be shown on each meeting, conference, or exhibition; 
but, on the contrary, there may be a reasonable loss on every one of 
them provided there is a corresponding accession of Fellows for 
providing the requisite income for the legitimate work of the Society 
in accordance with its charter ; but gold can be bought too dearly. 
The accession which we are glad to recognise, and have tried to 
promote, is the result mainly of a lowering of the subscription and 
not of the Drill Hall meetings, though they have done something ; 
and we suspect that Chiswick has been an attractive force in adding 
to the roll, and with the growing population of the district the 
gardens must increase in value materially. 
Mr. Morris takes exception to a suggestion of Chiswick “ being 
made to appear as costly as possible” by the officials. De¬ 
ducting the receipts by sale of produce and other items Chiswick 
cost just over £1100 last year. In an official circular of the 
Society before us it is stated that “ Chiswick is maintained at a 
cost of nearly £2000. ’ Is not that making it appear as costly as 
possible ? We are not finding fault. The motive is apparent and 
good, a ad we must ask the Treasurer, who is a young Fellow of 
the Society, to believe that in what we have said over a period of 
more than thirty years, that our motives have been and remain 
equally good. We wish to see the Society strengthened. The 
Drill Hall is a source of weakness. It is a costly incongruity, and 
now this is apparent we hope that those who regard a city hall as 
essential, and desire to see the Royal Horticultural Society occupy 
a position worthy of its name and of the nation, will redouble their 
efforts in furtherance of Baron Schroder’s great object—providing a 
suitable hall in a suitable position ; and when the time comes-we 
are strongly of opinion that plans will be devised for making it 
practically self-supporting. 
Reverting to the accounts, we find that the disturbing entry 
“implements, &c., £122 19s. 7d.” is not sufficiently expressive. 
Very little was expended on implements. Soil, manure, and 
various requisities are included but not indicated, and the omission 
was accidental. We wish to be perfectly fair. When we said no- 
allusion was made to the labour of the Drill Hall in the revenue- 
account we obviously meant as separated from the Chiswick con¬ 
ferences, and that is true. 
Neither Mr. Morris nor Mr. Wilks has yet taken exception to 
our reference to the Society’s Journal. Mr. Wilks is a laborious- 
secretary, and may have been overworked, but he had an active- 
co-editor, and the work ought to have been much more free from 
blemishes than it is. It should be improved in quality and reduced 
in bulk ; for last year the cost was equal to 25 per cent, of the 
subscription income of the Society, or to half the net cost off 
Chiswick. Is that justifiable ? 
The best friends of the Royal Horticultural Society are not 
those who either applaud all that is done or remain silent when they 
cannot openly approve. During the past two years there has been 
such an unexampled immunity from free criticism, that public 
officials and their prompters appear to have forgotten the relative 
positions of themselves and the Press. Years ago Mr. Sabine in a 
short time so improved the position of the Royal Horticultural 
Society that a gold medal was presented to him, but being 
unchecked he, “ with a rashness as fatal to a society's as to 
an individual’s prosperity, indulged in lavish expenditure that 
nearly ended disastrously. Yet there was not the shadow of 
suspicion against his honesty and integrity.” When public officials- 
cannot meet public criticism on its merits, but either fall down 
before it or seek refuge in “ personality,” they do not exhibit their 
own strength as administrators so much as that of the medium in 
which their policy and methods are discussed. 
MELONS UNFRUITFUL. 
Complaints are often heard of the plants under house culture¬ 
failing to set a good crop, reasons for this being hard to discover. 
Plenty of fertile flowers are produced, but unless they are 
fertilised almost simultaneously, or say within twenty-four hours- 
of each other, only two or three will set properly, the rest turning 
yellow and shrivelling up. To make matters worse, while this 
small crop of fruit are attaining far too great dimensions, no other 
fruit can be persuaded to swell, and altogether disappointment pre¬ 
vails. When I make the assertion that Melons can be induced to 
crop in much the same manner as Cucumbers—that is to say, a 
long succession of fruit can be obtained from each plant, it does not 
always meet with acceptance, yet such is really the case with us,, 
and has been for several years past. At the present time I could 
point to plants carrying fruit nearly fit to cut, more about a week 
later in ripening, and others in various stages of growth. In one 
house there are nine plants covering a roof area of 24 feet by 
8 feet, on which there are now hanging seventy fruits in various- 
stages of growth, some being 4 lbs. in weight, others somewhat 
smaller, or ranging say from good average Melons to those near 
the size of hen’s eggs. So many have set at different times that 
nearly as many were cut off as are now hanging, or otherwise the 
fruits would perhaps have been too small to be serviceable. The 
varieties grown are Hero of Lockinge, Golden Gem, Sutton’s. 
Imperial, and Blenheim Orange, all well known good forms, but 
not particularly free setters. 
It may be that the somewhat airy construction of our houses 
