366 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
May  3.  UOO 
authorities,  includiug  reports  of  experts  on  the  nature  of  the  soil, 
and  this  being  so  most  people  would  think  it  would  he  placed  in 
concise  and  precise  form  before  a  meeting  summoned  for  the  purpose 
of  ratification.  That  the  assembled  Fellows  expected  something  of 
that  kind  was  generally  understood,  and  the  absence  of  it  afforded 
a  tempting  opportunity  for  expressions  of  opposition  to  the  whole 
scheme.  The  discussion,  such  as  it  was,  was  based  on  generalities 
and  possibilities,  and  it  was  not  easy  to  see  how  it  could  have  been 
otherwise  under  the  circumstance?. 
It  is  not  suggested  that  if  anything  like  full  particulars  of  the 
nature  indicated  had  been  disclosed  there  would  have  been  no  time- 
consuming  arguments.  The  probability  is  there  would  have  been. 
The  argumentation,  indeed,  w  as  undoubtedly  increased  because  of  the 
greater  number  of  points  open  to  discussion.  It  would  have  been 
better  to  debate  a  specific  question  than  declamations  based  upon 
assumptions.  Every  substantial  fact  in  connection  with  a  public  pro¬ 
posal  may  be  legitimately  and  advisably  opposed,  always  provided  the 
opponents  put  aside  ulterior  objects.  It  was  however  quite  clear  that 
the  criticism  indulged  in  sought  to  secure  the  Society’s  interests. 
This  was  definitely  stated,  and  fully  accepted  by  the  Cnairman, 
though  if  one  speaker  had  not  specifically  announced  that  there 
was  no  concerted  or  organised  opposition  to  the  project  of  a 
new  garden  anywhere,  some  persons  present  might  have  thought 
the  contrary.  The  apparent  unanimity  of  the  opposition  had  far 
less  of  design  than  the  instinct  of  self-preservation. 
As  to  the  discussion  of  any  particular  site,  there  was  none  worthy 
of  the  name.  Limpsfield  was  the  only  place  officially  brought  before 
the  Meeting.  This  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  opposition  unsparingly 
condemned,  although  he  had  not  seen  it.  He  moreover  announced  a 
much  better  site  at  Reading,  which  he  also  had  not  seen,  but  some¬ 
thing  like  a  momentary  sensation  was  caused  when  it  was  found  he 
had  derived  his  information  from  a  confidential  letter.  This  elicited 
from  the  Chairman  a  statement  not  previously  mentioned,  that  the 
Limpsfield  soil  had  been  professionally  examined  and  favourably 
reported  upon  by  Mr.  George  Bunyard  and  Mr.  George  Paul,  who 
it  will  be  conceded  ought  to  know  something  of  the  requirements 
of  fruit  as  to  site  and  soil.  In  addition,  Mr.  W.  Poupart,  one  of  the 
greatest  and  best  market  gardeners  in  the  world,  and  Mr.  Edwin 
Beckett,  whose  competency  as  a  vegetable  grower  and  general  all¬ 
round  gardener  is  indisputable,  had  made  careful  examination  and 
furnished  reports. 
It  is  right  to  say,  however,  that  these  reports  were  not  re^d  ; 
nor  in  any  other  form,  beyond  the  bare  announcement,  were  they 
placed  before  the  meeting.  Possibly  they  may  have  been  withheld 
with  other  matter  not  deemed  essential  for  purposes  of  discussion 
with  the  object  of  saving  time ;  but  it  is  very  easy  to  lose  much 
more  time  than  to  save  a  little  by  any  such  methods  of  economy,  as  is 
not  unlikely  to  be  demonstrated  before  the  new  Chiswick  becomes  an 
accomplished  fact.  But  while  those  authorities  agree  on  the  suitability 
of  the  soil,  it  must  be  admitted  that  Mr.  Arthur  W.  Sutton  in 
differing  from  them  did  not  do  so  without  great  knowledge  on  the 
subject. 
It  may  be  well  for  the  Council  to  recognise  the  extremely  probable 
contingency  that  the  Fellows  of  the  Society  will  not  be  hurried  over 
the  important  matter  at  issue.  It  is  not  implied  that  there  has  been 
any  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Council  to  rush  it  through,  but  there 
does  seem  to  have  been  a  misconception  of  the  feelings  of  the  Fellows 
on  the  subject.  It  is  altogether  preferable  that  the  interest  in 
the  Society’s  affairs  at  this  juncture  should  be  keen  rather  than 
lethargic.  There  is  not  likely  to  be  any  curtailment  of  this  interest, 
and  especially  since  a  gentleman  who  lately  sent  in  his  resignation 
from  the  governing  body  has  stated  in  the  letter  on  page  379 
that  “  there  has  been  very  little  time  at  recent  Council  meetings 
for  the  discussion  of  the  new  gardens.”  Moreover  this  announcement 
came  as  a  surprise  to  the  Fellows  assembled  last  week,  that  the  lease  of 
“Old  Chiswick”  has  yet  twenty  years  to  run.  Still  no  greater 
mistake  could  be  made  than  that  the  twenty  years  should  bo  held 
to  justify  a  dilatory  policy.  The  passmg  of  every  year,  and  almost 
every  month,  will  render  more  difficult  the  acquisition  of  land  suitablo 
as  to  position  and  price  for  the  object  in  view. 
No  doubt  a  strong  feeling  exists  in  favour  of  a  suitable  building 
being  erected  in  London  for  the  Society’s  meetings,  which  have  now 
grown  into  shows,  in  recognition  of  the  centenary.  But  the  cost 
announced  of  £40,000  was  held  to  be  insuperable,  and  the  idea  was  put 
out  of  court  without  seri(-u3  discussion,  by  the  passing  with  practical 
unanimity  of  Mr.  H.  J.  Pearson’s  resolution,  “that  the  gardens  be 
removed  from  Chiswick,  subject  to  the  Council  finding  a  site  which  will 
meet  with  the  approval  of  the  majority  of  the  Fellows.”  This  is,  in 
substance  and  effect,  exactly  what  was  before  the  meeting  at  the  onset, 
and  confirms  the  recommendation  of  the  special  general  meeting  of 
April  25th.  Thereupon  an  appeal  was  made  by  the  President  to  the 
Fellows  to  look  out  for  sites  wherever  they  may  be,  and  furnish 
particulars  of  any  that  they  may  deem  suitable.  As  matters  now 
stand,  therefore,  the  new  garden  question  must  be  settled  before  the 
desired  hall  can  be  considered  as  a  memorial  celebration  in  1904. 
Reverting  to  the  Limpsfield  site,  there  was  not  lacking  evidence  of 
disquietude  on  the  assumed  co-operation  of  County  Councils.  It  was 
not  unnaturally  felt  that  financial  support  rendered  by  public  bodies 
would  involve  corresponding  representation  on  the  governing  body  of 
the  R.H.S.  The  Chairman  was  able  to  assure  the  meeting  that  there 
w'as  no  question  of  the  Society  being  financed  in  any  such  way  as  was 
imagined.  Much  more  likely  is  it  that  if  on  an  adjacent  site  a 
hai.ding  were  purchased  by  an  educational  body  for  the  teaching, 
among  other  things,  of  scientific  and  practical  horticulture,  that  an 
arrangement  might  be  made  of  a  mutually  advantageous  nature,  yet 
on  an  independent  basis,  by  which  the  college  might  be  a  source  of 
annual  income  to  the  Society.  This  might  be  expected  to  be  so  if  the 
new  garden  should  be  at  Reading,  where  there  is  an  excellent  college 
with  “horticulture  ”  in  its  curriculum. 
A  rather  curious  idea  seemed  to  be  lurking  in  the  minds  of  some 
of  the  Fellows,  that  a  garden,  to  be  “  national  ”  must  not  be  in  the 
south  at  all,  but  equally  handy  for  northerners,  westerners,  and 
easterners  to  reach.  With  equal  reason  they  might  urge  that  Kew  is 
not  a  “  national  ”  garden  because  situated  in  Surrey.  That  the 
“  New  Chiswick  ”  must  be  not  far  distant  from  the  seat  of  govern¬ 
ment  is  a  matter  of  the  most  obvious  necessity ;  it  is  the  representation 
on  its  Council  and  Committees  of  provincial  horticulturists  who  can 
attend  that  renders  the  society  “  national.”  If  it  can  be  made  more 
acceptably  so,  by  all  means  let  propositions  be  advanced  with  tha^ 
object. 
Whatever  may  be  the  future  procedure  recommended,  it  would 
appear  desirable  that  it  be  placed  as  clearly,  if  consisely,  as  possible 
before  the  Fellows,  say  two  or  three  weeks  prior  to  the  meeting  for 
discussion  and  ratification.  On  another  important  question — the  new 
bye-laws — these  are  to  be  published  as  “suggestive”  in  a  forth¬ 
coming  issue  of  the  Society’s  Journal.  Cannot  the  proposals  for  a 
new  garden  and  the  salient  facts  on  which  they  are  based  be  similarly 
published  ?  The  statement  and  the  decisions  to  follow  would  be  of 
interest  to  the  numerous  Fellows  who  could  not  attend  the  meeting* 
Perhaps  the  Council  will  on  reflection  consider  that  the  two  subjects — 
the  bye-laws  and  the  garden — are  too  large  for  discussion  and  settle¬ 
ment  at  the  same  meeting  ? 
Singular  expressions  were  heard  at  last  week’s  Meeting  respecting 
Chiswick.  One  gentleman  who  said  he  “knew  much  about  land,’* 
advised  the  retention  of  the  old  garden  on  the  ground  that  the  longer 
it  was  held  the  more  valuable  it  would  be  to  the  Society.  He 
evidently  thought  it  was  the  Society’s  freehold  and  not  the  Duke  of 
Devonshire’s.  Because  he  could  grow  Apjles  on  the  breezy  heights 
of  Streatham  Hill,  Chiswick— the  fog  and  sulphuric  acid  trap — in  the 
Thames  Valley  ought  to  be  equally  productive.  With  buildings  on. 
three  sides  and  the  fourth  designed  for  another  colony;  with  deep 
drainage  all  round  its  gravel  bed,  and  thousands  of  chimneys  pouring 
out  noxious  fumes  for  precipitation  by  fogs,  the  garden  is  dried  out 
below  and  poisoned  from  above,  and  all  the  skill  and  money  in  the 
world  could  not  make  it  like  its  once  fine  old  thrifty  self.  Ah,  ’tis  pity» 
but  pity  ’tis  ’tis  true. 
