February 3,1881.] r JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 93 
a prize of £5, which has been placed at their disposal for the 
purpose by Mr. G. F. Wilson, F.R.S., for the best label foe 
plants. The object of the offer is to obtain a label which may 
be cheap and durable, and may show legibly whatever is written 
or printed thereon ; the label must be suitable for plants in open 
border. These considerations will principally govern the award. 
The award will be made on the recommendation of a Committee, 
which will be appointed for the purpose by the Council. Specimen 
labels, bearing a number or motto, and accompanied by a sealed 
envelope containing the name of the sender, must be sent in to 
the Secretary of the Society not later than the 1st May, 1881. 
The Council reserve to themselves the right of withholding the 
medal and prize offered if, in the opinion of the Judges, none 
of the specimens sent in are deserving. Communications on the 
subject should be addressed to Mr. H. Trueman Wood, Secretary, 
John Street, Adelphi, London. 
- The Richmond Horticultural Society.— Last year 
was an especially trying one to not a few horticultural associa¬ 
tions, both metropolitan and provincial, on account of the incle¬ 
mency of the weather, and the rain falling on so many “ show 
days.” This necessarily affected, in some instances seriously, the 
finances of the societies, as the majority of them are to a very 
great extent dependant on “ gate money ” for their success. The 
Society under notice, we perceive, continues its prosperous course. 
Its income last year was larger than ever—£734 4.?. 4 d. ; as also was 
the amount disbursed in prize money at the summer and autumn 
exhibitions—£315 3 s. G<7., leaving a balance of £G5 8.?., the clear 
balance at the commencement of the year having been £10 4s. 4 d. 
The two Shows held in 1880 were of remarkable excellence, certainly 
amongst the finest in the neighbourhood of the metropolis ; they 
were, in fact, worthy of the Royal and distinguished patronage 
they received, and of the sound generalship and admirable 
management that have in seven years placed the Society in such 
a satisfactory position. A gratifying feature to be noticed is 
the great number of donors of special prizes, a circumstance 
that indicates the personal interest that is manifested in the 
Society, and which contributes materially to the vitality of all 
organisations of this nature. With the increasing support that 
may be expected to be accorded still greater results may be 
anticipated, the horticulture of a beautiful district will be im¬ 
proved, and much more than local fame achieved by this Society, 
to the success of which the untiring efforts of the Secretary, Mr. 
Chancellor, have so largely contributed. 
SCIENCE IN HORTICULTURE. 
I have no intention of answering “ Single-handed,” who 
has much misunderstood me, but wish to correct a statement. I 
did not say that the Sarracenias were dead, but that the pitchers 
which contained the flies were. Anyone who knows Mr. Bull’s 
success as a grower would smile at the idea of his losing hi3 
plants through ignorance. I do not scoff at science, but at much 
which goes under its name. I have the pleasure of recollecting 
that I founded a Society for purely scientific purposes, which has 
done a good work; but in these days the true principles of induc¬ 
tive philosophy are pushed out of the way by “ probabilities,” 
“ likelihood,” and such-like uncertain things.—D., Deal. 
I AM glad that “ Single-handed ” did not include all clergy¬ 
men among those from whom he expects to hear the same opinions 
with regard to science as he attributes to “ D., Deal." Those who 
know anything of the sub]ect are familiar with the names of 
Buckland, Sedgwick, and Conybeare, who in the early days of 
geology did so much to advance that science. All of these were 
clergymen ; so was John Ray, the founder of modern botanical 
science, which can claim so many clergymen as its votaries. Then 
there was Bishop Stanley of Norwich ; and we have still among 
us the Rev. M. J. Berkeley, who is an embodiment of all the 
sciences. From a pretty extensive knowledge of the clergy, my 
experience is that among those of them who are well educated 
there is a strong sympathy with science ; but no doubt there are 
among them some who have no taste for scientific pursuits, and 
others who have a hazy idea about what is science and what is 
not—in this respect ranking with not a few gardeners. 
After all, however, “D., Deal" has done good service by 
contributing his letter on page 24, for it has called forth two 
interesting replies. Facts prove in a very conclusive manner 
that science has done very little towards averting the Potato 
disease ; but we must all respect the efforts of those who by their 
researches and experiments have endeavoured to mitigate the 
effects of it. My object, however, is not to discuss the general 
question that has been so ably handled, but to advert to the sub¬ 
sidiary one of glazed flower pots, and to observe that your corre¬ 
spondent, “ Single-handed,” who defends science so stoutly, 
gives it small credit in this matter. “ Science,” says your corre¬ 
spondent, “ has proved for us that the only difference between 
ordinary pots and glazed ones is that ordinary pots get very dirty 
in a short time, while the glazed pots remain clean.” If that is 
all that science teaches on this subject it is not much, although I 
agree it is important; but when “ Single-handed ” asserts it is 
the “only difference,” I must join issue with him. If I mistake 
not, science teaches something else on this question. But I must 
pause, for I am reminded that science is a two-edged sword, and 
cuts both ways, for I am informed that porous pots are scien¬ 
tifically sound in principle ; and if I make the counter-assertion 
that glazed pots are also scientifically correct, and prove my 
assertion, and if “ D., Deal" has proved they are correct also, 
what wonder is it that he alluded to them in the manner he did ? 
I have not a doubt that he had good reason for his statement 
in respect of those pots, and I fail to see that he has written 
anything extraordinary regarding them, and certainly nothing 
so strange as the statement of “Single-handed’s” “only” 
difference theory. 
Science teaches me that glazed pots are essentially conservators 
of the virtues of the soil. If “ Single-handed ” will analyse 
the water that passes through the rich soil of his flower pots daily 
I think he will find that it has not left all its manurial properties 
behind it. But he may naturally ask, “ Is the water that passes 
through the soil in glazed pots different from that which passes 
through the soil of porous pots?” My answer is “No;” but 
there is another element in the case, and an important one. In 
brewing the oftener water passes through the malt the weaker 
the ale, and after three or four “ mashes ” it becomes very “ small 
beer ” indeed. So in water passing through the soil ; it may be 
so frequent in light potting, and so necessary to be often applied 
with porous pots, that a great part of the soil’s virtues are washed 
away quite out of reach of the roots of the plants. The oftener 
the soil is “ mashed ” the weaker it becomes in nutritive elements ; 
and if “ Single-handed ” will pot say a dozen Auriculas, which 
were the plants that “ D., Deal," referred to, in glazed pots, and 
a similar number of the same vigour in porous pots, employing 
the same kind of soil in both instances, and will grow all the 
plants in the same house or frame, and count the number of times 
he waters each dozen for six months, commencing with March, I 
think he will find a striking difference. The plants in the glazed 
pots will not, if properly managed, require watering half so many 
times as those in porous pots, and the soil in the former will con¬ 
sequently be found, if analysed at the end of the summer, much 
more fertile than the much-watered soil in the porous pots. I 
know a large collection of plants that are grown in glazed pots 
for the reason stated, and I should not hesitate placing these in 
competition as examples of healthfulness against any collection 
of plants of the same kind in the kingdom. I think, therefore, 
for the reason stated, that “Single-handed’s” “only” dif¬ 
ference theory is not a great compliment to science that he 
defends so bravely. 
There is a certain florist in the south of England named Henry 
Cannell. Now this florist is not professedly a scientific man, but 
he acts on scientific principles nevertheless when he catches the 
water that drains through his flower pots into tanks below them and 
uses it over again. When in London three years ago I called at 
Swanley, and had the pleasure of half an hour’s conversation with 
Mr. Cannell. He showed me his system of roof-heating—that is, of 
conveying small hot-water pipes along the roofs of his houses to 
“dissipate damp” from his Pelargoniums ; he told me, too, of his 
tanks. “ Depend upon it,” said he, “ there is no water like this ” 
(the water that had drained from his plants), there isn’t indeed ; 
it’s just the right strength, and the plants like it. Look at 
them ! ” I did look at them, and fine they were. They were not 
in glazed pots, but their condition was confirmatory in a very 
striking and practical manner of what 1 have advanced, and I 
feel I am justified in disputing the theory of your excellent 
correspondent that the clean and dirty pot question is not the 
“only” thing that science teaches on glazed pots. 
