attempted a scientific botanical collection; but, destitute as the neighbourhood of London is of one that is usefully open to the public, I should not regret their doing it.

The observation in your correspondent's letter respecting the admission of strangers, induces me to believe he is unacquainted with the facility afforded. A Fellow may introduce one when he visits the garden himself, or he may obtain a ticket for a friend by application to the office in Regent Street. Indeed, a stranger, personally applying, will have one granted; and it is only to those who have subscribed ten pounds and upwards towards the formation of the garden, the privilege is allowed of filling up tickets; and which, although I do not possess it myself, I think very reasonable and proper. Upon the whole, I am greatly pleased with this Society with all its faults, (and what is perfect?) and most earnestly wish it success. Still I always thought its expenditure enormous, even when there was only the small garden at Hammersmith: but experience, I doubt not, will lead to the adoption of more economical and mature arrangements; the useless will be laid aside, and the important ones only followed. I am, Sir, &c.

A FRIEND TO FACTS

August 24. 1826.

ART. XI. Observations on the Article of " A Fellow of the Society," relative to the Conduct and Administration of the London Horticultural Society. By a Friend to Discussion. Sir,

BEING partial to gardening, and a friend to free discussion on every subject, I have thrown together a few observations on an article in your second Number on the Horticultural Society; and though I differ from the author of that paper ast well as from you in some particulars, I trust to your candour and impartiality to insert them.

The cause of all the evil, in your correspondent's eyes, is the unpaid secretary; and certainly the first thing that must strike every one on this subject is, that it is very hard to do 66 so much for the Society," as both your correspondent and you allow that he has done, and yet get neither money nor thanks. But if your correspondent has ever belonged to any other society, he must know that the business of no society could go on without a secretary who had a deal of power,

and who took a very active part in promoting its objects. No man will take this active part without being paid in some way; either in money, influence, or celebrity. Influence is comparatively unbounded in extent, and consequently will carry some minds farther than money; money, if it does not do so much, is more convenient, because it is more manageable. The best society which I have ever known is the Society of Arts. I have belonged to it nearly thirty years, and I believe it has done more good than any other society of the kind. The late secretary, Mr. Taylor, and the present one, Dr. Aikin, both paid in money, are examples of what the secretary of a society that has the public good for its object ought to be; and I have no hesitation in saying that I should prefer such a secretary for the Horticultural Society. It is not likely that with such a secretary the councils or committees would render themselves liable to such remarks as those of your correspondent, because the "passive mood" would not be required as the payment of the secretary, and an "active mood" would be required for their own credit.

The Horticultural Society certainly attempts too much, and in several things have always appeared to me to mistake the means for the end, and to be more anxious for display at their meetings, and in the garden, than for benefiting the country by the spread of useful knowledge or the introduction of new fruits or plants. The style in which their printed Transactions are got up is, I think, unsuitable for those who ought to be the principal readers of such a work; and I know they have given rise to an opinion, which I have frequently heard expressed, that the Society confined their views to improving the gardens of the rich. I like the Transactions of the Caledonian Horticultural Society much better, and I am told they have done more good to the great mass of society in the North than ours have done in the South. The London Horticultural Society, in many things, appear to prefer the most extravagant means of attaining their objects; we see this not only in their immense garden and expensive volumes, but in their proposal, noticed in your first Number, to publish the new plants which flower in the garden in an expensive work of their own. That they have a right to do so no one will deny; but would it not be more in the spirit of a society having the public prosperity in view, to publish their new plants in the botanical works already existing? I do not make the same objection to their proposed publication on fruits, though I should still prefer the fruits coming out as a part of the regular Transactions of the Society, instead of

multiplying extravagant publications, not of use adequate to the expense.

I differ from your correspondent on the subject of the Society's sending out botanical collectors; in my opinion such can only be sent out by a joint purse, and as far as I am able to judge, this part of the business of the Horticultural Society has been better managed than any thing they have done. Had they confined themselves to this, and an experimental garden about twice the size of that at Hammersmith, I feel convinced they would have done much more good than ever they are likely to do with a garden of thirty acres to keep up; and to keep up for what? Certainly, as your correspondent observes, not as an example of a good plan. What thento prove fruits? That could have been done, as you observe, in very little space.

I trust, however, that the evils of this Society are not yet past remedy. Only let a system of retrenchment and economy immediately take place, and let the outgoings not exceed three-fourths of the present income. Unless this is done, I predict that, in a few years, the consequences will be ruinous to the Society. Only conceive the tide of its popularity, now at the full, to be turned! Look at the expenses, as compared with the receipts, and say how long such a system can go on. As to finishing the garden on the plan contemplated, with all the hot-houses, dwelling-houses, lodges, &c., that I think entirely out of the question. Would 10,000l., in addition to the sum already expended, finish it? No! Would an additional 20,000l. finish it? You hesitate! Suppose it were finished for that sum, will the advantages to the public be adequate to the expense? If the garden could be finished by subscriptions of the surplus incomes of the rich, certainly in that case I have nothing to say; but if the money is to be borrowed and repaid, or bestowed by the government, I as a Fellow of the Society, and the public as taxed for the gift, have a right to speak. I cannot help indeed regretting with your correspondent, that with the large income and very handsome subscriptions it should have been thought necessary either to borrow or to beg; and having both borrowed and begged, I do deplore the circumstance that with such means so little has been done; or rather so much done to so little purpose.

But your correspondent only hints at the assistance of government. If he means a loan from government to be repaid by the Society, why not borrow from individuals? If he means a gift, I for my part have a better opinion of minisVOL. I. No. 4.

E E

ters than to believe them capable of such a thing, at any time, and more especially in times like the present. How many societies would not be entitled to the bounty of government, before that bounty was conferred on one which has the refinement of luxury for its chief object?

These remarks, Mr. Conductor, are made in the hope that they will reach some of those members of the Society, who, like myself, wish to have it established on such a footing as that it may remain a permanent and useful institution; but who, unlike me, have influence and leisure to devote to the subject.

I am a sincere well-wisher to the Society, and
A FRIEND TO DISCUSSION.

August, 1826.

ART. XII. Hints on the Superiority of the Rheum palmatum over the other Species of Rheum cultivated for Culinary Purposes. By ANTHONY TODD THOMSON, Esq. M.D. F.L.S. H.S. &c.

Dear Sir,

It is a fact well known to you, that although the use of the footstalk of several species of rhubarb for the purposes of confectionery be of recent date, yet it has become so general, that many waggon loads of the plant are annually sent to Covent Garden market, not only by the individual who introduced the use of it, but by many other market gardeners. On making enquiry respecting the species of Rheum commonly cultivated for this purpose, I find that it is the undulatum, and that the reason why the other species are not equally in request, is owing to the greater productiveness of the undulatum. Now although, in the present state of the case, this may be an excellent reason with the market gardeners for cultivating the undulatum only, yet, if the public be made aware that the leaf-stalks of other species of rhubarb are better fitted for the purposes to which the plant, in this state, is applied, than those of the undulatum, I am satisfied that it would be for the interest of the cultivators to regard the quality of the article rather than the bulk of the produce. I have tried the footstalks of almost every species of rhubarb now cultivated in Great Britain, and find that those of the palmatum, or officinal rhubarb, are superior to those of all the others for making tarts. They are more succulent, less fibrous, and contain a

much larger supply of the rheumic acid than those of the other species; and, if it be less early in the season before they can be used, the roots continue to shoot forth leaves until a much later period of the year: indeed, if the flowering stem be cut down soon after it shows itself, the leaves are put forth so abundantly, and for so long a period, that the footstalks may be obtained until autumn. It is true that the supply of fruits fit for baking during summer and in autumn render the cultivation of rhubarb for this purpose less necessary; but I am one of those who think a good rhubarb tart a luxury at

any season.

From the observations which I have been enabled to make respecting the cultivation of the Rheum palmatum in market gardens, and even in the garden of the Horticultural Society, I am satisfied that the general stunted appearance of the plants, which is the chief objection made to this species, depends, in a great measure, on the stiffness of the soil and the too free exposure of the plant to light. We are informed by Dr. Rehman, who had the opportunity of seeing this species of rhubarb growing in its native soil and climate, the declivities of the chain of mountains near the lake Kokouor in Tartary, that the soil is light and sandy; and the Bucharians, assert that the best grows in the shade, on the southern sides of the mountains. I planted two roots of the R. palmatum five years since in the open part of my small garden, and found that whilst they continued fully exposed to the influence of the light of the sun, the leaves were moderately expanded only, and the footstalks not more succulent than those of the other species; but on removing them to a part shaded by rose bushes, the leaves which have been put forth in each succeeding season have been very luxuriant. When in the best state for making tarts, the footstalks are green, slightly coloured with purple streaks, have a short fracture, and admit of the ready separation of the cuticle and cortex. It may be necessary to add, that although the root of this species of rhubarb be that which is employed medicinally, yet the footstalks have less of the flavour of the medicine than those of any of the other species.

If the attention of market gardeners be directed to the cultivation of this species of rhubarb, and the public thereby abundantly supplied with it at a moderate price, I have no hesitation in predicting that it will supersede every other; and

* Vide Mém. de la Société Impériale des Nat. de Moscow, 1809, tom. ii. p. 126.