238 



JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



[ April 21, 1870. 



lay as much claim to the title as the Pansy, Auricula, or 

 Pink. 



Bet in the observations I now make I would rather narrow 

 than widen the circle, and would exclude from it altogether 

 those plants whioh require a greenhouse for their successful 



• culture. Let me, then, take only those old-fashioned flowers 

 vrhich first aroused in myself, and I believe in many others, a 

 ovo for horticulture, and to which amidst all the revolutions 



ci taste I am conservative enough to cling. Let us examine 

 as to the decline in the taste for the Auricula, Pansy, Pink, 

 I Picotee, Carnation, Dahlia, Hollyhock, and Tulip, and see 

 whether the statements recently made in the Journal are as 

 devoid of fact as they are of common sense. 



Now, as in the old story of Charles II. and the pail of water 

 and the fish, the first matter to decide is, Has the taste declined 

 generally ? From a careful consideration of the matter, and 

 from information afforded to me by many of whom I have 

 made inquiries, I am not at all sure that this decline is so 

 general ; that it has been so about the metropolis is patent 

 to everybody. There are many of us who can look back to 

 enjoyable days spent at exhibitions whose sole object was the 



• encouragement of the growth of our favourites, but that is all 

 passed. However, I understand that one florist at least cannot 

 supply the demand made on him for Carnations and Picotees ; 



• another florist says the same of Auriculas; a third firm can 

 epeak of a very great demand for Pansies, and it seems to me 

 tiat the flowers which have most suffered are the Tulip and 

 the Dahlia. In the north, Tulip shows are still in vogue, but 

 around London they are amongst the things of the past. 



To say that this decline has been caused by the simi- 

 lcrity of the flowers sent out is simply nonsense. That has 

 had certainly nothing to do with the Auricula, for the new 

 varieties of that flower are very, very few indeed ; and although 

 to the unpractised eye there is nothing but a very slight im- 

 provement to be seen, yet the growers of florists' flowers know 

 perfectly well that the flowers of a few years back will stand no 

 ootnparison with those of recent introduction. Take, for ex- 

 ample, Picotees. We have had some fine heavy-edged purples 

 fci' many years, but there is not one of them that will bear 

 comparison with Admiration sent out by Mr. Turner last 

 autumn. Besides, let us take the most generally grown flower 

 of the present day, the Zonul Pelargonium. Is there no simi- 

 larity there ? Do we not see dozens of new varieties sent out 

 each year, most of them the counterpart of those we already 

 have, and jet people buy them? so that I am sure this has no 

 influence. 



As to the decline being caused by the dishonest flicks of 

 exhibitors, Mr. Turner has so effectually and effectively dis- 

 |>osed of that matter that there is no need of saying another 

 vrord in refutation of it. Twenty or thirty years ago there 

 used to be many trick3 in the exhibiting of all kinds of produc- 

 tions. Florists' flowers were manipulated, fruit was borrowed, 

 and plants bought just before the show, &a. ; but a higher tone 

 of feeling has prevailed, and those who resort to evil practices 

 in the matter of exhibition are the exception to the rule. 



To what, then, are we to attribute the decline, so far as it 

 lias taken place ? I believe it may be summed up under the 

 following reasons. 



1. The extensive, nay, almost universal practice of what is 

 called the beddiDg-out style of gardening, the fashion for which 

 his spread through all classes of the community who are inter- 

 ested in flowers, makes such demands on the time, space, and 

 attention of the gardener, and is, moreover, so easy in its 

 practical working, that it has gradually shoved on one side 

 the florists' flowers. It is easier to grow 10,000 bedding 

 Pelargoniums than one framef ul of Auriculas. The garden looks 

 ao brilliant with its mass of colouring, and people who take no 

 trouble about their garden can yet profess to know so much 

 about what is the " uewe;>t thing in bedding out," that I own 

 I am not surprised that the one has elbowed out the other — 

 the frame which sheltered the Pansy or the Auricula is used 

 for the Calceolaria or Pelargonium. Then the gardener or 

 o-sner must have his garden as gay as Mr. Tomkins's, and so 

 the matter progresses. 



2. Florists' flowers do not pay so well as the more easily 

 grown plants that are now so much the fashion. What, for 

 instance, does a nurseryman make by his collection of Auri- 

 culas ? Not one-tenth part of what ho might make if he gave 

 ap the space they occupy to the more easily grown plants. 



3. They are not sufficiently encouraged at onr metropolitan 

 ■ exhibitions. The small prizes offered by our two great Societies 



are not sufficient to encourage amateurs, and it is only those 



who live near London and have grown tbem for years that care 

 to compete. The prizes induce no fresh hands to come for- 

 ward, and, as I have always maintained, exhibitions foster a 

 flower. Do away with Rose shows — the Rose would still be 

 grown, but not with one-tenth of the ardour and zeal it ie now. 

 One can hardly look for an improvement in this respect — yea, 

 matters get worse. The abandonment of the Crystal Palace 

 autumn show on purely financial grounds has given a severe 

 blow to the growth of the Dahlia and Hollyhock ; and unless 

 the florists find themselves strong enough to establish a flori- 

 cultural society, which I look forward to some day seeing, I 

 fear we shall still have to mourn over the decay of florists' 

 flowers. 



Such seem to me some of the reasons for the decline of the 

 culture of florists' flowers. They are not very philosophical, 

 but they are plain common-sense ones I believe. We are 

 counted by those who aim at great things as poor grovellers. 

 Well, so it must be, and we are content to bear it ; withal that, 

 we have left our mark in the floriculture of England.— D., Deal. 



THE CHEMISTRY OF MANURES. 



Since the papers on this subject by Mr. Peach appeared in 

 " our Journal " (see pages 206 and 225), my thoughts have 

 been constantly recurring to them. I hoped to see some one 

 capable of handling the subject in a masterly manner either 

 refute or confirm Mr. Peach's theories. What opinions are 

 safe from Mr. Peach's attacks ? First, he proves that both 

 theorists and practical men had incorrect views with regard to 

 heating by water, and now he wiches to prove that the data on 

 which the value of manures is estimated are erroneous ; at any 

 rate, that if practically correct they are based on false assump- 

 tions. It appears that he does not wish to prove that a ma- 

 nure is not valuable in proportion to the nitrogen it contains, 

 but that it is not to the nitrogen it owes its value. His pro- 

 positions are so novel and so plausibly stated, the subject is 

 so interesting and difficult, and yet so important, that even if 

 he be wrong those who are forced to reconsider the matter 

 will be benefited. 



In approaching this subject I would carefully guard against, 

 even in appearance, claiming any right to speak as a professor 

 of chemistry, to which I have no manner of pretension, also 

 against appearing as an opponent of Mr. Peach. It seems to 

 me quite clear he is not anxious to prove he is right and all 

 our best authorities are in the wrong, but being one of those 

 who think independently, he has been led to doubt the gene- 

 rally received opinions as to the sources of nitrogen in plants, 

 and wishes to elicit the truth by disenssion. 



Let me first state what I gather to be his views. 1st, That 

 relatively to other elements nitrogen is found in small propor- 

 tion in plants. 2nd, That as the atmosphere by which plants 

 are surrounded is nearly four-fifths nitrogen.it is hardly pos- 

 sible they should not be able to procure from this source what 

 they require. 3rd, That as carbon is the principal constituent 

 of plants, it must be more Decessary than nitrogen. -4th, 

 That whether nitrogen be combined with hydrogen to form 

 ammonia, or presented in the forms of nitrate of soda or of 

 potash, it has in each case so weak an affinity for the elements 

 with which it is combined, that it readily yields its base to any 

 other acid in combination with carbon, thus acting as a solvent 

 for substances more valuable than nitrogen. 5th, That as 

 water is a very stable compound of oxygen and hydrogen, and 

 only resolved artificially into its elements with difficulty, it is 

 more probable that plants obtain their hydrogen from ammonia 

 than from water. 6th, That as the air contains traces of am- 

 monia and nitric acid, and rain water owes its softness chiefly 

 to the presence of ammonia, there is reason to think a fictitious 

 value has been placed on these substances in estimating the 

 value of a manure. 



Whether I be correct or not, these are what I gather to be the 

 reasons why Mr. Peach doubts the received opinions on the sub- 

 ject. My first objection would be that the proportion in which 

 an element is found in a plant is no proof of the value of that 

 element in a manure, because it may not be necessary to fur- 

 nish it artificially at all — " We do not carry coals to Newcastle." 

 Scarce and valuable as phosphorus is as a manure, I have 

 land which is not benefited by the application of phosphates, 

 and I think plants growing on cultivated land seldom suffer 

 from a deficiency of carbon, having the power of abstracting 

 it both from the air and the soil. Though a small amount of 

 nitrogen is found in plants, yet, if necessary to their existence 



