May  29,  1902. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
475 
at  Chiswick.  But  when  the  support  and  influence,  the  judgment 
and  guidance,  of  His  Royal  Highness,  together  with  the  interest 
and  pleasure  he  took  in  the  work,  were  lost,  difficulties  soon  began 
to  accumulate.  It  would  be  an  unprofitalale  task  to  refer  more 
than  cursorily  to  these  matters.  As  it  turned  out,  while  the 
Royal  Commissioners  rarely  received  any  rent  for  their  very  valu¬ 
able  land,  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  could  make  no  profit 
out  of  it,  either  in  money  or  repute.  In  the  years  1862  and  1871 
only — the  years  of  international  exhibitions — was  the  Society  able 
to  meet  its  engagements.  A  veil  must  be  di-awn  over  the  later 
years  of  the  South  Kensington  connection ;  years  marked  by  dis¬ 
putes  between  the  Royal  Commissioners  and  the  Council, 
attempts  to  convert  the  gardens  at  South  Kensington  into  a 
recreation  ground  for  the  neighbourhood,  dissensions  in  the 
Council  and  growing  discredit.  The  Society  dragged  on  at  South 
Ivensington  an  existence  of  little  use  and  less  dignity  or  credit  up 
to  the  end  of  the  year  1887,  when  a  move  was  made  which  will 
ultimately,  there  is  good  reason  to  hope,  have  the  effect  of 
entirely  rehabilitating  it  in  public  opinion.  It  should  be  men¬ 
tioned  that  the  Duke  of  Buccleuch  succeeded  H.R.H.  the  Prince 
“  The  first  series  of  the  ‘  Journal  of  the  Horticultural  Society  ’ 
comprises  nine  volumes,  extending  from  1846  to  1855.  The 
paper  is  an  account  of  an  ‘  Orchideous  House  ’  at  Penllergare  by 
J.  D.  Llewellyn,  whose  .son.  Sir  J.  T.  D.  Llewellyn,  Bt.,  was  lately 
a  member  of  Council.  This  series  contains  numerous  papers  of 
much  interest.  Among  the' contributors  may  be  noticed  Dean 
Herbert  (a  contributor  to  the  ‘  Transactions  ’  also)  the  Rev. 
M.  J.  Berkeley,  the  cryptogamic  botanist,  Sir  J.  B.  Lawes,  Dr. 
Thompson,  subsequently  curator  of  the  Calcutta  Garden,  Dr. 
Wallich,  Sir  Robert  Sc'homburgh,  whose  Venezuelan  ‘lino’  has 
been  so  much  discussed  ;  and  last,  but  not  least,  our  gz-eat  botanist. 
Sir  Joseph  Hooker.  To  this  series  also  Lindley  communicated 
many  papers. 
“  After  this  series  had  come  to  an  end  in  1855  there  was  a  gap 
of  ten  years.  The  current  series,  of  which  the  twenty-fifth 
volume  has  been  published  this  year,  commenced  in  1866.  It  is 
so  recent  that  little  need  be  said  about  it.  It  contains  many 
valuable  pi'aetical  papers,  and  is  indeed  a  mine  of  horticultural 
information..  Among  its  morei  important  co'ntents  are  the 
reports,  pi’oceedings,  and  discussions  of  the  numerous  “  Con- 
The  Great  Vinery  from  the  West,  with  Rockery  and  Lily  Pool. 
Consort  as  president,  and  that  Dr.  Royle,  the  distinguished 
author  of  ‘  Plantse  Asiaticae  Rai'iores,”  was  secretary  from  1852 
till  his  death  in  1858,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  John  Lindley, 
whose  long  connection  with  the  Society,  commencing  in  1822,  is  in 
itself  enough  to  make  it  illustrious. 
Publications  of  the  Society. 
“  Before  making  a  few  concluding  remarks  as  to  the  present 
position  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society,  a  brief  reference 
must  be  made  to  the  publications  for  which  it  has  been  responsible 
from  time  to  time.  The  ‘  Transactions  ’  of  the  Society  are  con¬ 
tained  in  ten  quarto  volumes,  three  of  which  belong  to  the  second 
sei'ies.  They  contain  many  papers  of  great  interest  and  value  by 
the  most  eminent  British  ,/otanists  and  horticulturists  of  the 
time.  Sir  William  Hooker’s  name  first  appears  in  vol.  i.,  in 
1808;  John  Lindley’s,  in  1820,  in  vol.  iv.  The  ‘  Transaction.s  ’ 
were  illustrated  by  numerous  hand-coloured  plates,  superior  in 
evei-y  way  to  the  coarse  lithographic  'illustrations  of  modern 
botanical  works.  These  plates  still  retain  their  freshness  and 
brilliancy  absolutely  unimpaired.  The  ‘Transactions’  were  dis¬ 
continued  after  the* publication  of  the  tenth  volume  in  1848. 
ferences  ’  which  have  been  held  under  the  Society’s  auspices,  and 
the  papers  read  at  them,  'riie.sc  comprise  among  other’s  the 
following:  viz.,  1884,  ‘  Confei’enco  on  British  Apples’;  1885, 
‘Orchid  Conference’;  1886,  ‘Primula  Conference  ;  1887, 
‘  National  Pear  Conference  ’ ;  1889,  ‘  National  Rose  Conference  ’ ; 
1890,  ‘  Vegetable  Conference,’  ‘  Clii-ysanthemum  Conference,’ 
‘Daffodil  Conference,’  ‘Carnation  Conference,’  ‘Fern  Confer¬ 
ence’;  1891,  ‘Conference  on  Hardy  Summer  Perennials  and 
Small  Hardy  Fruits  ’ ;  1892,  ‘  C'onifer  Conference  ’ ;  1893,  ‘  Begonia 
Conference  ’  ;  1895,  ‘  Conference  on  British-grown  Fruit,’  ‘  Primula 
Conference  ’ ;  1899,  ‘  Conference  on  Hybridisation.’  The  Socict.y 
has  also  published  an  admirable  monograph  on  ‘Bulbous  Irises,’ 
by  Profe.ssor  Sir  Michael  Foster,  M.P.,  F.R.S.,  and  a  li.'^t  of  the 
idants  certificated  by  the  Society  from  1859  to  1896.  Few 
words  are  necessary  in  dealing  with  the  pre.sent  position  of  tlu' 
Royal  Horticultural  Society.  If  it  has  done  anyihing  to  retrieve 
the  errors  of  the  past,  and  to  inspire  confidence  in  the  future,  it 
has  been  by  sticking  resolutely  to  its  last ;  by  bearing  constantly 
in  mind  that  the  function  of  a  horticultural  society  is  to  irromoti' 
horticulture  ;  by  a  successful  attempt  to  clear  off  all  outstanding 
liabilities,  and  a  fixed  determination  to  avoid  debt. 
‘‘In  reducing  the  minimum  subscript'on  to  £T  Is.  in  1888,  the 
