Jiiiv  5.  1000. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENElu 
5 
Tlie  Royal  Horticultural  Society. 
T!ie  New  Chiswick— The  Bye-laws. 
Since  your  oorreapondeni^^,  “  A  Fellow,”  wrote  the  letter  which 
appears  in  your  issue  of  the  21st  ult.,  the  Council  have  issued  the 
proposed  new  bye-laws,  which  are  doubtless  by  this  time  in  the  hands 
of  all  the  Fellows.  The  Council  have  thus  shown  their  readiness  to 
meet  a  wish  very  strongly  expressed  at  the  last  general  meeting — 
namely,  that  those  who  are  asked  to  vote  on  such  an  important 
matter  should  first  have  an  opportunity  of  studying  the  various  points 
submitted  to  them.  May  we  not  hope  that  the  Council  will  also,  before 
any  general  meeting  is  called  to  decide  for  or  against  a  New  Chiswick, 
take  the  Fellows  into  their  confidence  in  a  like  manner,  and  explain 
in  detail  any  scheme  which  they  may  be  asked  to  vote  for  ?  Since  the 
last  general  meeting  we  have  looked  in  vain  for  any  ofiicial  utterance 
from  the  Council. 
It  is  true  that  one  or  two  writers  have  assured  us  that  the  Council 
from  the  first  intended  to  follow  a  certain  course  of  action,  or  never 
at  any  time  thought  of  taking  some  other  course;  but  whether  these 
writers  were  correct  or  incorrect,  we  cannot  suppose  it  is  by  such 
means  the  Council  would  make  its  policy  known. 
After  all  that  has  been  said  in  favour  of  retaining  Chiswick  we  may 
not  unreasonably  ask  the  Council  whether  they  still  consider  it 
impossible  to  carry  out  there  such  garden  work  as  may  be  actually 
indispensable.  If  this  in  their  opinion  is  impossible,  then  we  may 
hope  the  Council  will  state  very  definitely  the  nature  of  the  work  they 
propose  to  undertake  in  the  New  Chiswick,  and  also  the  manner  in 
which'this  work  is  to  be  conducted,  as  well  as  the  cost  to  the  Society 
of  carrying  through  any  scheme  they  may  recommend.  On  the  first 
point  almost  all  who  have  written  in  the  horticultural  papers  are 
unanimous  in  thinking  that  Chiswick  can  very  well  be  made  to  fulfil 
the  necessary  requirements  of  the  Society. 
As  regards  tho  nature  of  the  work  to  be  undertaken  in  a  New 
Chiswick,  we  are  absolutely  without  any  detailed  information.  We 
can  only,  therefore,  conclude  that  whatever  might  be  attempted 
would  be  on  similar  lines  to  those  followed  at  Chiswick,  and  conse¬ 
quently  might  be  attended  with  results  equally  disappointing;  in  fact, 
it  would  be  Chiswick  on  a  larger  scale,  though  very  possibly  the  plants 
grown  might  be  more  healthy.  We  are  equally  in  the  dark  as  to  the 
means  by  which  it  is  proposed  to  convert  a  “  neglected  ”  50-acre  farm 
into  a  garden  worthy  of  the  Koyal  Horticultural  Society ;  nor  have  we 
any  official  detailed  estimate  of  the  outlay  which  such  a  gigantic  under¬ 
taking  would  involve.  As  “A  Fellow”  justly  observes,  it  is  definite 
information  upon  these  and  kindred  matters  that  the  Fellows  need,  and 
without  which  they  very  naturally  refuse  to  vote  in  favour  of  a  scheme 
which  must  in  any  case  absorb  the  energies  of  the  Council  and  officers 
of  the  Society  for  some  years  to  come. 
In  common  with  all  who  have  yet  commented  upon  the  new  bye¬ 
laws  I  regret  exceedingly  that  the  Council  have  not  withdrawn  the 
proposal  to  revert  to  the  discredited  system  of  voting  by  proxy.  It  has 
been  suggested  that  this  retrogressive  step  is  to  be  taken  to  meet  the 
wish  of  country  Fellow’s,  but  if  so,  why  is  it  that  none  of  those  for 
whose  benefit  the  proposal  is  made  have  expressed  their  wish  publicly  ? 
I  can  recall  no  single  case  where  any  Fellow  living  at  a  distance  from 
London  has  asked  for  the  right  to  vote  by  proxy.  And,  as  has  been 
very  wisely  pointed  out,  the  Council  must  in  the  nature  of  things 
vary  from  time  to  time  in  its  composition,  it  is  conceivable  that 
a  Council  might  exist  at  some  future  time  which  desired  some  change 
inimical  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Society.  As  the  proposed  bye-laws 
now  stand  the  Council  in  such  a  case  would  only  have  to  agree  that  the 
matter  was  sufficiently  important,  then  post  to  the  Fellows  at  the 
Society’s  expense  a  statement  embodying  their  own  views,  and  a  great 
majority  of  votes  might  thus  be  secured  by  proxy  from  those  who  had 
never  judged  the  question  for  themselves  and  knew  nothing  of  what 
might  be  said  against  the  scheme.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  without 
proxy  voting  no  vote  can  be  taken  until  those  voting  have  heard  the 
case  carefully  debated  and  had  the  arguments  on  both  sides  duly  laid 
before  them. 
It  has  been  mentioned  by  one  or  more  writers  that  the  present 
success  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  is  due  to  its  having  adopted 
and  followed  out  a  truly  “  horticultural  ”  policy  for  several  years  past, 
instead  of  one  consisting  chiefly  of  holding  shows  and  exhibitions,  and 
that  to  insure  a  continuance  of  this  success  we  ought  to  accept  the 
Limpsfield  scheme,  thereby  not  only  maintaining  a  “  horticultural  ” 
policy,  but  a  national  policy,  rather  than  one  which  might  be  called 
metropolitan.  But  in  what  way  has  the  Society’s  policy  during  recent 
years  been  “  horticultural  ”  in  any  such  sense  as  this  P  Has  not  the 
success  been  due  to  the  fact — in  a  great  measure  at  least — that  the 
Council  has  wisely  refrained  from  any  cultural  operations  on  a  large 
scale  thereby  enabling  the  various  Committees  which  meet  at  the 
Drill  Hall  to  attract  to  the  fortnightly  shows  the  large  number  of 
exhibits,  which,  arranged  under  the  able  direction  of  Mr.  Wright,  have 
made  these  shows  so  increasingly  popular  ?  And  is  it  not  the  popularity 
of  these  exhibitions,  as  well  as  of  the  Temple  Shows,  which  has  raised 
the  number  of  Fellows  to  a  point  never  previously  reached  in  the  history 
of  the  Society  ?  Have  these  new  Fellows  joined  because  of  any  so- 
called  “horticultural”  policy  carried  out  at  Chiswick  or  elsewhere? 
To  embark  on  such  a  “  horticultural  ”  or  “  cultural  ”  policy  now 
would  be  an  entire  departure  from  the  policy  which  has  conduced  to 
the  present  success.  It  would,  moreover,  necessarily  follow  that  the 
energies  of  those  who  have  contributed  to  this  success  must  be  diverted 
into  entirely  new  channels,  for  the  existing  officers  of.  the  Society  could 
not  undertake  the  conversion  of  the  Limpsfield  site  into  a  garden,  and 
still  carry  on  their  present  arduous  but  successful  work. 
In  what  sense  a  garden  at  Limpsfield  can  be  more  “  national  ”  than 
an  extension  of  the  present  policy  of  shows  I  fail  entirely  to  see.  In 
Fig.  2. — Liliom  parvom. 
one  case  we  should  have  a  more  or  less  inaccessible  garden  in  the  south 
of  England,  in  few  if  in  any  respects  equal  to  the  best  private  gardens 
in  the  country.  In  the  other  the  Society  would  encourage  horticulture 
throughout  the  kingdom  by  bringing  together  in  some  suitable  building 
the  finest  products  which  the  ablest  gardeners  of  the  day,  professional 
or  amateur,  can  grow. — Arthur  W.  Sutton. 
Scientific  Committee,  Jane  19th. 
Rose  leaves  diseased.— Some  leaves  sent  by  Rev.  H.  C.  Brewster 
of  South  Kelsey  Rectory,  were  attacked  by  an  aecidium.  Mr.  Plowrigh-; 
reports  that  it  is  “  The  seoidiospore  of  Phragmidium  suboorbicatum, 
formerly  called  Uredo  effusa,  pinque  or  miniatum  of  older  writers. 
These  seoidiospores  are  often  preyed  upon  by  some  mites,  as  in  the 
