years longer." This point, I think, requires the immediate consideration of the Society. Few institutions, perhaps, have increased their numbers so rapidly; notwithstanding which, the expenditure has exceeded the receipts; for it appears by the last report of the Garden Committee, that the Society has been obliged to raise a loan of 3000l. to complete works already in progress. Now, it never can be expected that subscribers will be added in such numbers as they have been. As a Fellow of the Society, I know that fashion alone has induced many to join it, which has brought funds very useful to it in its infancy; but this leader is too capricious to leave any solid grounds for hope that its votaries will continue to uphold the building they themselves have assisted to rear. It is selfevident too much has been aimed at to accomplish at once; and I fear, should any cause deprive us of our active and energetic Secretary, it will be difficult to find a successor who will even maintain what he has established. A more gradual formation, and greater economy in the expenditure, would have been wise, therefore, on this account, as well as others. It is probable that half the quantity of land now rented would be sufficient for the attainment of all the really beneficial objects of the Society. The members are not to apply for articles they can obtain of the nurserymen. Of what use, then, are the large quantities of such which are now grown by the Society? and what becomes of the fruit and vegetables produced in their garden, not a tithe. of which appears at their meetings? As the Society wants funds, why not find a market for this, or grow less, and so reduce the expenses? These remarks I have heard from strangers who have occasionally visited the garden with me. Upon the principle of not supplying such articles as are grown at the nurseries, I think the Society might also exclude every thing they introduce when they have established it in the country, and so make room for other new fruits, vegetables, and plants. Upon the subject of sending out collectors, I differ with your correspondent. A Society with such means in their power, and objects in view, are benefiting the community greatly by so doing, as they so freely distribute what they obtain. He must likewise know that the Linnean Society has no garden. As to the establishment at Kew, the system there is not to distribute, but to retain all that is valuable within itself. There new plants live and die unseen except by a few favoured individuals; for if a visit is paid to the gardens, it is ten to one if you have a person to attend you who knows which they are, or is willing to point them out. The Horticultural Society has never

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 as 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 "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 or. 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 minis

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