846 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
April  26,  1900 
Royal  I(orticultnral  Society. 
Special  General  Meeting,  April  25tli. 
This  meeting  was  called  with  a  view  to  the  consideration  and 
sanction,  if  approved,  of  new  bye-laws,  which  were  rendered  necessary 
under  the  new  charter  of  the  society  ;  to  consider  the  desirability  (>1 
removing  the  gardens  of  the  scciety  from  Chiswick  to  stme  more 
suitable  site  as  a  means  of  celebrating  the  centenary  of  the  rociety, 
which  is  now  rapidly  approaching;  and  to  consider  the  desirability  oi 
the  society  collaborating  with  certain  other  bodies  to  establish  on  the 
new  garden  a  school  of  horticulture.  As  is  customary,  the  president. 
Sir  Trevor  Lawrence,  Bart,  occupied  the  chair,  and  he  was  supported 
at  the  table  by  Sir  John  T.  D.  Llewelyn,  Bart.,  M.P.,  and  Messrs. 
J.  T,  Bennett  Poe,  T.  B.  Haywood,  C.  E.  Shea,  Frank  Lloyd, 
W.  Marshall,  P.  Crowley,  Jas.  Hudson,  and  the  Rev.  W.  Wilks. 
Amongst  the  4'eliows  present  were  Sir  Wm,  Thiselton  Dyer,  Sir 
Michael  Foster,  Dr.  Maxwell  T.  Masters,  and  Messrs  G.  Paul, 
G.  Bunyard,  G.  Nicholson,  H.  J.  Pearson,  R.  Wilson  Ker,  W.  Watson, 
C.  T,  Druery,  H.  Balderson,  J.  Douglas,  G.  Gordon,  G.  Wythes, 
J.  Wright,  W.  H.  Divers,  E.  IBeckett,  H.  Pinches,  L.  Castle,  A.  Dean, 
J.  Weathers,  C.  J.  Salter,  J.  Cheal,  A.  Mortimer,  C.  E.  Pearson, 
H.  S.  River.',  W.  Roupe  1,  with  many  others.  " 
It  was  originally  intended  that  the  meeting  be  held  in  the  Lindley 
Library,  but  as  the  accommodation  there  is  limited,  it  was  resolved  to 
go  to  the  canteen  of  the  London  Scottish  Drill  Hall,  and  though  this 
room  was  not  packed  there  was  a  goodly  attendance.  The  removal, 
of  which  no  notice  had  previously  been  given,  caused  some  delay,  ami 
several  Fellows  were  late  from  this  cause  alone.  There  was  apparent 
an  air  of  suppressed  expectation,  and  the  participators  in  the  meetinc 
waited  developments.  It  was  generally  surmised  that  the  policy  of  the 
council  would  be  severely  criticised,  and  this  proved  to  be  the  case, 
though  practically  nothing  uefinite  was  decided  at  the  m.eeting. 
A'ter  the  notice  convening  the  merting  had  been  read  by  the 
secretary,  the  president  brought  forward  the  fir.-t  recommendation  oi 
the  couniil  respecting  the  adoption  of  the  bye-laws.  These  were,  be 
said,  rendered  nece.-sary  by  the  now  cl  arter,  and  considerable  time 
and  care  had  been  expended  upon  their  formation  by  the  society’s 
legal  advisers  in  endeavouring  to  bring  them  up  to  date,  to  make  them 
thoroughly  applicable  to  the  society  at  the  resent  day,  and  to  reduce 
so  lar  as  possible  the  somewhat  unwieldy  length  that  had  hithert 
characterised  them.  Sir  Trevor  suggested  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
they  had  been  available  for  consideration  by  the  Fellows  for  several 
days  that  they  should  be  taken  as  read,  but  this  was  met  by  almost 
general  dissent  on  the  part  of  those  present.  ISir  Wm.  Thiselton 
Dyer  and  Sir  Michael  Fos  er  evidently  voiced  the  views  of  the  majority 
of  the  Fellows  when  they  protested  against  the  non-distribution 
of  these  byt  -laws  to  the  Fellows  in  order  that  they  might  be  thoroughly 
considered  and  digested  prior  to  the  meeting.  It  was  thought  that  a 
document  of  such  moment  was  worthy  to  have  been  posted  in  a 
formal  and  official  manner.  Sir  William  concluded  by  moving  that 
the  consideration  of  the  bye-laws  be  deferred  to  a  subsequent  meeting, 
so  that  Fellows  might  study  them,  and  if  necessary  brii  g  forward 
various  alterations  or  amendment!-.  Dr.  Masters  seconded  this.  Sir 
William  also  protested  against  the  manner  in  which  the  notice 
convening  the  meeting  had  been  distributed,  and  received  the  support 
of  Surgeon-Major  Hince,  who  however,  considered  the  bye-laws 
excellent.  Before  putting  Sir  William  Dyer’s  motion.  Sir  Trevor 
Lawrence  pointed  out  that  the  council  had  no  objection  to  an  adjourn¬ 
ment,  but  that  the  society’s  lawyers  had  pointed  out  that  the  new 
charter  abrogated  the  old  bye-laws,  and  that  they  were  now  a  society 
without  laws.  ]\Ir.  A.  Dean  said  he  had  sent  a  stamp  for  the  bye¬ 
laws,  and  had  recr  ived  them,  and  su[>]osed  that  other  Fellows  could 
have  done  the  same,  and  that  personal  application  had  not  been 
necessary.  The  proposal  lor  adjournment  was,  however,  carried  by  a 
krge  niajority.  The  suggested  bye-laws  will  be  distributed  to  all  the 
Fellows  prior  to  next  meeting. 
This  matter  having  been  disposed  of.  Sir  Trevor  rose  to  refer 
to  the  Second  portion  ot  the  business  of  the  meeting.  This  had 
reference  to  the  most  suitable  means  for  celebrating  the  centenary  of 
the  swiety.  He  referre  i  to  the  fact  th.at  at  the  annual  meeting  held 
in  February  he  had  spoken  at  some  length  of  the  scheme  that  should 
be  adopted,  and  that  he  had  then  affirmed  that  the  most  popular 
means  of  celebration  would  be  the  provision  of  a  central  hall  ot 
horticulture.  To  this  op  nion  he  still  adhered,  but  the  difficulty  of 
finaiices  had  to  be  faced.  The  Fellows  were,  no  doubt,  aware, 
continued  the  speaker,  of  the  strenuous  endeavours  that  were  made 
some  years  I  ack  by  Baron  Schroder  to  establish  such  a  hall,  when  the 
whole  matter  was  seriously  discussed,  and  it  was  estimated  that  a  sum 
of  at  lea.st  £40,000  was  absolutely  essential,  of  which  only  £27,000 
were  forthcoming.  Thus  the  scheme  collapsed,  and,  so  far  as  he 
could  see,  the  prospects  ot  to-day  were  no  brighter.  This  not  com¬ 
mending  itself  to  the  council  as  feasible,  it  was  recommended  that  the 
garden  be  removed  from  Chiswick.  In  dealing  with  this  the  council 
had  considered  the  fact  that  the  society  had  still  twenty  years  as  the 
residue  of  the  lease,  and  that  this  must  be  regarded  as  a  valuable 
asset.  Personally,  continued  Sir  Trevor,  he  had  never  considered 
Chiswick  good  enough  for  the  society ;  it  was  too  small,  and  lacked 
that  variety  of  soil  and  aspect  in  which  lies,  to  a  large  degree,  the 
value,  of  such  a  garden.  Moreover,  the  garden  was  becoming  more 
and  more  enclosed  by  vil'a  residences  and  some  factories,  and  the  soil 
was  yearly  becoming  poorer  and  poorer.  The  council  had,  bearing  these 
and  many  other  facts  in  mind,  decided  that  the  most  suitable  means  of 
celebration  was  the  establishment  of  a  new  garden,  and  in  this  view 
the  members  at  the  general  meeting  in  February  had  acquiisced,  and 
Sir  Trevor  did  not  think  they  would  now  t  o  back  on  the  assent  then 
given.  No  ground  was  then  specifically  mentioned,  as  many  sites 
were  under  inspection  and  discussion,  and  in  conclusion  the  speaker 
moved  that  the  meeting  should  confirm  the  recommendation  of  the 
council  to  remove  the  garden  Irom  Chiswick. 
Mr.  H.  J.  Elwes  was  the  next  speaker,  and  occupied  the  meeting 
at  some  considerable  length.  At  the  outset  he  stated  that  it  was 
obviously  impossible  for  the  meeting  to  decide  upon  the  abandon¬ 
ment  of  the  old  garden  until  a  new  one  had  been  found.  He  was,  he 
affirmed,  reluctant  to  come  into  opposition  to  the  council,  but  he  con¬ 
sidered  it  ueiessary  in  the  best  interests  of  the  socitty.  He  laid  great 
stress  upon  the  importance  of  unanimity  of  the  council  in  such  an 
important  matter,  and  pointed  to  the  resignation  of  Mr.  Arthur 
Sutton,  as  the  latter  gentleman  could  not  agree  to  the  council’s  recom¬ 
mendations.  He  stated  that  he  had  not  received  a  notice  of  the 
meeting,  but  this  must  have  been  owing  to  an  oversight,  as  each  copy 
of  the  lecently  issued  Journalh^d  contained  to  the  notice  on  red  )  aper. 
He  considered  the  several  reasons,  such  as  the  soil  and  situation  being 
unfavourable  invalid,  as  there  were  several  neighbouring  gardens  of 
great  excellence.  He  would  not,  however,  oppose  removal  if  some¬ 
thing  better  could  be  found.  He  made  some  references  to  financial 
matter.',  but  Sir  Trever  Lawrence  pointed  out  that  he  was  not 
apparently  so  well  qualified  to  speak  on  these  as  on  the  gardening 
aspect  of  the  case,  as  he  was  ii  accurate  in  several  essential  points. 
Mr.  J.  Weathers  supported  Mr.  Elwes’  motion  that  the  two  schemes 
relative  to  the  new  garden  and  the  acquisition  of  a  site  at  Limpsfield 
be  considered  as  me,  but  it  was  not  put  to  the  vote.  Mr.  G.  Paul 
was  emphatically  of  the  opinion  that  Chiswick  was  exhausted. 
Sir  Trevor  Lawrence  then  brought  forward  the  motion  that  the 
garden  should  be  removed  from  Chiswick,  and  this  was  seconded  by 
Sir  John  Liewelyn,  and  it  was  eventually  carried  unanimously  with 
an  important  addition  from  Mr  H.  J.  Pearson — “subject  to  the 
Council  finding  a  new  garden  that  was  acceptable  to  the  majority 
of  the  Fellows  of  the  society.”  Mr.  Roupell  thought  it  would  be 
better  to  retain  the  old  garden,  and  was  of  the  opinion  that  it  sounded 
pec  liar  for  such  a  society  to  lay  itself  out  to  leich  the  art  of  horti¬ 
culture,  at  the  same  time  as  it  acknowledged  its  inability  to  renovate 
its  own  ground.  Mr.  Roupell’s  assertion  that  the  fogs  of  London 
were  not  so  bad  as  they  were  in  the  past  was  received  with  some 
derision,  and  certainly  is  not  in  agreement  with  the  majority  of 
London  horticulturists,  who,  as  a  rule,  hold  the  view  that  they  are 
decidedly  worse. 
Sir  Michael  Foster  followed  with  some  pertinent  remarks  regarding 
the  immeasurably  more  popular  notion  that  a  hall  should  be  the 
means  of  celebrating  the  centenary,  and  said  he  had  yet  to  learn 
that  much  good  could  not  be  done  with  a  smaller  sum  than  £40,000 
bui  Sir  Trevor  Lawrence  dissented  strongly  from  this  view,  for  reasons 
that  he  had  already  set  forth. 
The  chairman  at  this  point  considered  it  desirab'e  to  assure  the 
meeting  that  the  council  had  not  gone  into  this  matter  with  their 
eyes  shut,  but  had  done  the  very  best  that  could  be  done.  He  referred 
to  the  fact  that  several  sites  had  been  carefully  inspected  by  experts, 
but  all  had  been  rejected  rxcept  Limpsfield,  upon  which  the  re(-ort 
was  favourable,  save  that  the  land  having  been  neglected  it  would 
require  much  labour  and  especially  perfect  drainage  to  bring  it 
into  proper  working  condition.  The  council,  he  sard,  welcomed  the 
criticisms  of  the  several  gentlemen  who  had  spoken,  as  there  could  be 
no  d' iibt  that  they  were  given  in  the  friendliest  spirit,  and  because 
the  speakers  had  the  very  best  interests  of  the  society  at  heart.  He- 
then  suggested  that  the  meeting  be  adjourned,  and  promised  that 
proper  notice  of  the  date  of  the  next  meeting  should  be  given. 
Sir  William  D)er  said  the  meeting  would  be  sorry  to  dissolve 
without  acknowLdging  the  conciliatory  manner  in  which  the  council 
had  received  the  various  remarks,  and  considered  the  tone  of  the 
meeting  augured  well  for  the  futu  o  of  the  society. 
It  was  then  asktd  if  the  council  would  receive  recommendations 
Tom  Fellows  as  to  other  sites,  and  an  answer  in  the  affirmative  was 
given.  Mr.  Gordon  wanted  to  know'  something  about  Limpsfield, 
but  this  question  was  relegated  to  the  subsequent  meeting.  Sir  Trevor 
Lawrence  remarking  that  the  society  was  not  committed  m  any  way. 
On  the  propo.'ition  of  Surgeon-Major  Hince,  stcondi-d  by  Mr» 
Balderson,  a  hearty  vote  of  thanks  was  accorded  to  Sir  Trevor 
Lawrence  for  his  services  in  the  chair. 
