Jane 11, 1885. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
477 
that . Bat as he has done this even inadvertently, and passed a not very 
flattering; judgment oa me, I am bound to examine his credentials to 
ascertain how far he is compe’ent to give a public verdict that shall have 
any m iterial weight. 
I have to remark first that your correspondent has wasted some time 
by basing the greater part of what he calls his argument on so-callei 
“ facts ’ which have no existence, and I must spend some more time in 
putting him right. Hese^ms great in “facts,” and prides himself on his 
practice ; but I will endeavour to show that his main “ facts ” are mere 
fancies, and that his “ practice ” is not immeasurably greater than mine. 
1, I have never stated that the transmission of moisture from the 
atmosphere through the skins of fruit is the “sole’’cause of cracking 
and bursting; but, on the contrary, have said plainly that Grapes and 
Gooseberries are occasionally ruptured by an excess of moisture imbibed 
by the roots I have sa'd the former is the “main” cause, 5 ! which is a 
very different matter; and I do not hesitate to say, judging by the material 
he has placed before us, that it will take a better man “practically and 
scientifi 'ally ’ than even Mr. Iggulden is to prove the contrary. 
2, I have never said a word against the operation of passing a gimlet 
through a Vine lateral for arresting the sap, but have admitted in the 
e’earest terms the value of Mr. Thomson’s experience; indeed, to ignore 
the experience of an older cultivat >r than myself, and with such a 
splendid record as he has, would be to say the lea-t, perver e. 
8, I have not only never uttered a sentence against the method of 
ventilation outlined on the psge above quoted, but, on the contrary, have 
practi-ed it, I think, much longer than your correspondent has; and I 
have na recollection of the crop of any Vine in my charge (except for 
purposes of experiment) ever having been spoiled by the splitting of the 
fruit. If that is not “ praciical ” enough I should like to know what is. 
Having shown that your correspondent has reared his elaborate 
critique on a false f mndation (and, this removed, the fabric falls), let me 
ask him, and others who may be disposed to support him, to make sure of 
their ground b:fore uttering their condemnation, or they will instead of 
weakening me weaken themselves by spending their intellectual strength 
vainly ; and to combat me on the above lines will he to engage in the not 
particularly “ practical and scientific,’’ but rather Quixotic occupation of 
fighting windmills. 
Now briefly to the scientific aspect of the question. I am sorry my 
knowledge of chemistry is so limited ; that I know to be a misfortune, for 
which no really competent man reproaches. He corrects; it is only those 
whose shortcomings are manifest that have sufficient confidence to 
denounce, which is so much easier to do than to c nnprehend. Having 
regard, then, to all the elements in this case I do not dissent from Mr. 
Iggulden’s verdict on myself ; but when he twits professors in science 
with proving their views to “ demonstration,” he passes a curious verdict 
on himself, because the very fact of the demonstration proves the truth. 
If scientific illy “demonstrated” a matter is settled beyond argument, so 
that my critic evidently does not understand the subject he denounces, 
but does not appear to adequately comprehend the meaning of his own 
woris. In return for his modest estimate of my competency, and that of 
really scientific men, I respectfully ask him to consult a dictionary. 
After showing that your correspondent has “ no case” (for he cannot 
place his finger on one sentence I have written to disprove my three 
statements on which he has founded his remarks), I might not improperly 
leave the matter, but will not do so, being rathir disposed to allow his 
arguments the greatest possible force that can legitimately attach to them. 
I will examine a few of the “points ” in the great impeachment, and see 
what is in them. 
_ First, I am wrong for being “ too readily convinced ” of, I suppose, the 
existence of the principle of osmosis. H>w does my critic know how long 
the subject has been under my consideration ? In another part of his 
communication he thinks perhaps I know something about the neigh¬ 
bourhood of Manchester being moist. Perhaps I do, seeing that I had 
charge of ranges of vineries for three years within three miles of that 
city before he was out of his long clothes, and I never before nor since 
saw so many split Melons a3 there in pits heated by fermenting manure 
and the roots of the plants in dry soil under gla-s ; but in the hot-water- 
heated vineries, where an excess of moisture could be prevented, we had 
no split Grapes, though the roots of the Vines were outside, and no means 
were a lopted to keep the rain off the borders. The head gardener there 
I used to think, in my ignorance, was too scientific, and he it was who 
first taught me, what subsequent experience has confirmed, that moisture 
does pass from the atmosphere through the skins of fruit and causes 
splitting. Therefore as I have had this subject in my m ; nd for as many 
years as it has troubled Mr. Iggulden’s for an equal number of weeks, it 
seems peculiarly fitting that he should decide I have been “ too readily 
convinced.” 
Next he starts his “ matt or of fact ” asserlion that the “ primary cause 
of Grapes splitting is faulty ventilation,” and in the strangest of strange 
ways a kluces an example of Lady Downe’s alone splitting, while at least 
“ four other Vines w re growing in the same house and border,” but only 
that one got too dry at the roots, was then too heavily watered, and 
hence the fruit split. Confessedly the “primary cause” of the evil in 
this case was not “ faulty ventilation,” and I have seen similar examples. 
I will, however, look a little more closely into what Mr. Iggulden 
describes as “ his ” theory of Grapes splitting. The “faulty ventilation ” 
evil has been p anted out in the Journal over and over again for years past, 
and the very fact of the existence of a fault, either in the character of a 
structure or ihe action of a man, shows conclu-ively that it is contributory 
and altogether subsidiary to the active c ause of the unfortunate result in 
question. Ventilation is an important lever guid ng the action of that 
which is the true cause of the evil—excessive moisture in the fruit. The 
question is, How does it get there ? 
All the gardeners who supply Mr. Iggulden with what he calls “ his ” 
arguments without a doubt act correctly, and s o do others who succeed in 
growing and finishing Grapes as well as they do. They manage the lever 
that controls the moisture intelligently, and hence do not call into action 
the principle which is the cause of the ru n of so much fruit. Your 
correspondent may just as well say that an inebriate suffers from the 
pump-handle disease, because the said handle was the lever for drawing 
the water that made the beer that had the “ effect,” as to say that “ faulty 
ventilation ” is the “ primary ” cause of fruit splitting. The “ cause ” is 
an excess of moisture, mainly from the atmosphere, but occasionally from 
the earth. Think a little more deeply, my friend, before lecturing 
philosophers; lecture me to your heart’s content, but never forget that 
parrots can talk. 
“Are there any ‘ practical ’ men who believe it possible that Grapes 
or any kind of fruit can absorb sufficient moisture through their skins to 
cau-e them to burst ?” asks your wondering correspondent. If there are 
none there ouuht to be, and will be. Even Mr. Iggulden will have to be 
converted. It is no use his setting his back up and stubbornly refusing 
to harbour such (to him) absurd notions. Facts will force their way even 
through h s tough exterior, and a few years hence he will wonder why 
he was so blinl in the days of his youth. 
It is my turn to won ler now. I wonder hov much money has been 
lost by purchasers of Cherry orchards through the unfortunate, anl 
always dreaded, occurrence of a series of drizzling days keeping the 
ripening fruit constantly wet, without any rain to penetrate the pastures 
and reach the roots of the trees. The loss has often been ruinous by 
practically a’l the exposed fruit cracking, only a little remaining sound, 
and that little invariably sheltered from the wet by the overhanging 
branches. I want an explanation of that fact. If the splitting results 
from an excess of moisture from the roots, why does this sheltered fruit 
escape? The Manchester tent, says Mr. Iggulden, arrested evaporation, 
hence Mr. Mclndoe’s Grapes split ; but in the Cherry orchards, where the 
foliage overhangs the fruit, and necessarily has a vapour-arresting effect, 
the fruit is souod, that above with nothing over it but the sky alone 
cracking. Hov is that? 
Again, how is it that ripe Cherries, Plums, and Gooseberries which are 
often obliged to be “ hampered ” in a wet state have to be sold quickly at 
“any p ice” for the very simple, yet very “ practical” reason, if they are not 
s d i quickly half the fruit will be spoiled by spliiting. What is the cause 
of this? Surely it is not moisture conveyed through the “ordinary 
channels ”—the roots and branches, when these are in Kent, while the 
splitting may occur, and has occurred, in Lon Ion, Leeds, or E 1 inburgh. 
After Mr. Thomson suggested that the splitting of Mr. Mclndoe’s Grapes 
at Manchester three days after the bunches were cut from the Vines in 
Yorkshire, was caused by expansion of the fluids owing to the heat of the 
tent, Mr. Iggulden says, “ This ought not to be a mystery to anyone.” 
Since your correspondent is so expert at solving problems when another 
has prepared the way, I will ask him to explain how it is that so much 
s >ft fruit bursts in the night when packed wet in the day, even when 
taken out of hampers and spread on trays. The temperature is lower, 
not higher than in the daytime, and there cannot therefore be an expansion 
of fluids by increased heat. We must fall back on evaporation. The 
moisture cannot be readily dissipated under a roof. True. But if the 
moisture on the outside of fruit remains there, how can it cause distension 
from the inside and rupture the cuticle ? I want an answer to that 
question. I say the moisture that is not dissipated passes through the 
skin of the fruit, and I shall be very much surprised if there is a “ prac¬ 
tical or scientific” man on the face of the earth who cau prove the 
contrary, even not excepting Mr. Iggulden. 
I note that Mr. Thomson does not deny the exis'ence of the principle 
of osmosis. It is convenient for Mr. Iggulden to ignore that, but he seizes 
on the inability of that gentleman to account for its action on the Duke 
of Buccleuch Grape alone. Mr. Iggulden settles the “difficulty” by 
plainly stating that moisture in the Manchester Show was “ too much ” 
for the Duke, and hence the splitting. He thus recognises the differing 
nature of the skins of Grapes, which explains the whole matter ; and, as 
your correspondent is fond of seeking analogies in the animal world, I 
will ask him why the skins of fruit should not vary as well and as much 
as the skins of animals, including the “higher order,” for that his must 
be different from most others I will either prove from his own data, or 
show that his argument on that matter is fallacious. 
In conceding that Mr. Mclndoe’s Grapes split through an excess of 
moisture that could not escape from the fruit tent at Manchester, Mr. 
Iggulden proves all I have claime 1, but does not appear to know it. He 
is quite welcome to all the strength he can gather from the skin-softening 
notion; but in connection with it he is driven to rely on the expansion of 
the fluids of the fruit by heat, causing a disten-ion that the cuticle could 
not bear. Now to begin with, the heat of the tent was not by any means 
s) great on that day as is implied by his suggestion. I will not, however, 
dwell on that, but will ask him to cut a bunch of the Duke, let the skin 
“ soften ” as much Us he likes, then place the bunch in a temperature 20° 
higher than has ever been recorded at Manchester, the air being dry, and 
see if the expansion of the fluid ruptures the fruit. It will not do so; but 
place a similar bunch in a very moist atmosphere, 10° lower than the 
temperature was that day, or where there can be no expansion, and the 
skin will split. The reference to the Duke alone was because this was 
the only Grape in question at the Show mentioned, but the result is the 
same with other varieties, the injury being more or less rapid according 
to the nature of their skin'. 
