42G JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
cause of the mischief. When not more than the quantities named 
in the Cork experiment is used there is no danger. It is said that 
the addition of 20 lbs. of air-slaked lime to the hundredweight 
makes the salt harmless. 
“ Inquirer ” refers to the beneficial results obtained by the 
use of an ammoniacal phosphate of magnesia, or rather a manure 
having that salt for its basis, but that is a very different thing, 
I suppose “Inquirer” to refer to “ fimus,” of which Dr. Hogg 
reported in the words your correspondent uses, and which pro¬ 
duced such exceptionally favourable results on Turnips in the 
experiments at Easter Ardross. Magnesia is one of the recognised 
wants of plants, and, while apt to do mischief when used exces¬ 
sively in the form of chloride, there is some probability that when 
used sparingly it may be of real benefit. “ Inquirer’s ” reasons 
are, as he says, at least very feasible, and probably right; but if 
so he furnishes one other reason for sprinkling manure heaps with 
kainit. When “Inquirer” quoted Yoelcker to show that crude 
potash salts were harmful under certain circumstances to a crop 
of Mangolds, the natural inference was that he attributed the 
mischief to the potash. I doubted this, still doubt it; suspected 
the saddle had been placed on the wrong horse, and still think so. 
Some of our foremost chemists doubt if soda be essential to 
plant-growth. I have no w r ish to dispute the point; but having 
experimented with common salt and seen distinctly beneficial 
results follow even on Potatoes, I was greatly inclined to believe 
that the favourable results obtained by the Cork Society were due, 
in part at least, to the presence of the sodic chloride in the kainit. 
This salt is often present to the extent of 45 (sometimes more) 
per cent., and even in the higher grades it often reaches 30. I 
have a large collection of analytical tables beside me, but I find 
that the magnesia in the ash of Potato tubers ranges from 2'5 per 
cent, to no higher than 6 G per cent., and that only exceptionally. 
The stems and leaves contain much more, however ; and it is 
quite conceivable that on land deficient in magnesia the tubers 
might sutler, because of the stems appropriating all available 
magnesia. In such a case a manure containing magnesia might 
produce otherwise unaccountably large crops ; hence, possibly, 
the very favourable action of kainit in the Cork experiments, 
and the “fimus” in the others referred to. The matter requires 
investigation, however. 
The burning of some clay soils is followed with beneficial effects ; 
yet this burning dissipates the nitrogen, lessens the amount of 
soluble phosphoric acid, but increases, often largely, the amount 
of soluble potash. The result of this is always increased crops. 
If anything proves the addition of potash to be wrnnted surely 
this does. The tendency among manufacturing chemists is to 
place perhaps too little value on everything except nitrogen and 
soluble phosphates. In a large number of instances such manure 
may be all-sufficient : in a still larger they are not, and the benefit 
arising from the use of what is even not regarded as necessary 
at all should not be disregarded. “ The proof o’ the puddin’ is 
the preein’ o’t,” as the Scotch say ; and while it is well to make 
investigation in the laboratory we want more in the field and in 
the garden. Much has been done in the former, little in the 
latter.— Single-handed. 
Your correspondent “ B.” remarks, in reference .to chloride 
and sulphate of potash, “We are greatly in the dark in all these 
matters ”—an assertion which I should be the last to dispute ; 
but there are certain points to which he alludes as being open to 
argument which I should have imagined not to admit of doubt, 
and it is as well to clear away everything which obscures the light. 
For instance, there can be no reasonable question that more has 
to be paid for potash sulphate than for potash chloride. A refer¬ 
ence to the monthly circulars published by manure dealers will 
prove this. The sulphate costs half as much again at least as the 
chloride, and does not contain as high a per-centage of potash. 
The nitrate is still more expensive on account of the nitrogen it 
contain^, and can scarcely be fairly brought into the comparison. 
Again, I do not think that the lesser “solubility” of the sul¬ 
phate has ever been urged as a material objection to the use of 
that salt. Although the chloride is soluble in about three parts of 
water and the sulphate requires ten parts for solution, the latter 
must be held to be sufficiently soluble for the requirements of 
plant life under all ordinary circumstances. There has been very 
great discrepancy of opinion, undoubtedly, on the question which 
of these two forms of potash is the better for plant cultivation ; 
but until recently I have seen no attempt to give any reason for 
the assumed superiority or inferiority of the chloride, and my 
mind refuses to accept that which has been mentioned in your 
columns. It has, I think, been reserved to Mr. Jameison to sug¬ 
gest a probable reason for the undoubted failures of the chloride, 
which have now and again occurred. His reasoning is most con¬ 
vincing, and I commend to all interested in this question the re¬ 
port just published by him on the “ Proceedings of the Sussex 
Association for the Improvement of Agriculture,” for the year 
1881. I must not ask you to give at length the experimental re¬ 
sults on which his arguments are based, but I will ask you to 
spare room for his conclusions, as many of your correspondents 
must have had experiences tending to prove or disprove his theory. 
His conclusions are as follows :—“In a soil with 10 per cent, or 
more organic matter potassic chloride may be safely employed 
(but it may be as well to employ it one or two weeks before sow¬ 
ing). If the proportion of organic matter is less it must be accom¬ 
panied by a salt capable of neutralising the chlorine which will 
be liberated. Failing security to do this another form of potash 
should be employed.” And I may add that Mr. Jamieson men¬ 
tions nitrate of soda as a salt which will give the necessary se¬ 
curity. If Mr. Jamieson’s views are well founded failures will 
manifestly have been less likely to have occurred in gardens than 
in the field.— Inquirer. 
ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY’S GREAT SHOW. 
May 23rd, 24th, and 25th. 
Favoured by most agreeable weather the annual Show of the 
Royal Horticultural Society commenced at South Kensington on 
Tuesday last with highly satisfactory prospects, and judging by the 
attendance on that day the Society’s friends and officials have good 
reason to expect financial results of an encouraging character. The 
marquee and the long approach were filled with plants, flowers, fruit, 
and vegetables, while an extensive portion of the lawn outside was 
occupied with the numerous and important contributions to the 
exhibition of horticultural implements, which appeared to attract an 
equal if not greater share of attention than the floricultural portion 
of the display. In the large tent, though there was a perceptible 
thinness in some parts, and rather less keen competition in several 
classes than on some former occasions, a charming effect was pro¬ 
duced by a judicious arrangement of the exhibits ; and in this effect 
the gigantic Roses from Messrs. Paul it Sons, Cheshunt, and the 
smaller but not less handsome specimens from Mr. C. Turner of 
Slough, constituted a most important feature, forming two grand 
groups at opposite ends of the tent. These, aided by Clematises, 
Azaleas, Rhododendrons, and stove and greenhouse plants, afforded 
abundance of colour, which was softened by the fine-foliage plants, 
though the latter were not quite so numerous as might have been 
desired, while a charming mixed group arranged by Messrs. Cutbush 
elicited, as it deserved, general admiration. 
The approach tent was gay with Pelargoniums, Orchids, and hardy 
flowers, the latter forming a very beautiful feature in the Exhibition, 
Messrs. Cannell, Osborn & Son, Ware, Barr & Sugden, and Hooper 
and Co. having large and diversified collections, the Pyrethrums, 
Pasonies, and Ixias being particularly bright and abundant. The 
Pelargoniums, too, were in excellent condition, Messrs. Little’s and 
C. Turner’s plants being profusely flowered and evenly trained. The 
Orchids also were well represented, Mr. Child’s winning collection in 
the open class attracting great admiration, his specimen of Aerides 
Fieldingi floribunda with six large panicles of flowers being one of 
the finest specimens of the kind ever shown. Fruit and vegetables 
were represented by exhibits of very satisfactory quality, the black 
Grapes, Strawberries, and Peaches amongst the former and the collec¬ 
tions in the latter deserving much praise. 
PLANTS. 
Stove and Greenhouse Plants .—Large specimen plants in these classes 
were numerously shown, several collections having already figured 
prominently at previous exhibitions this year. In the open class for 
twelve specimens Mr. Tudgey, gardener to J. F. G. Williams, Esq., 
Henwick Grange, Worcester, took the lead with some of his grand 
examples, which have been repeatedly noticed in recent reports. 
Messrs. Peed & Son, Lower Streatham, took the second position with 
similar plants to those staged at the Crystal Palace Show last week; 
they were remarkably fresh and bright, Statice profusa being very 
well flowered. Messrs. Jackson & Son, Kingston, were third. In the 
nurserymen’s class for eight specimens Messrs. Jackson & Son gained 
the premier award with plants of moderate size but neatly ti ained 
and well flowered, Pimelea mirabilis, Erica ventricosa coccinea minor, 
and Dracopbyllum gracile being especially good. Messrs. Peed and 
Son followed closely with neat specimens, and Mr. H. James, Lower 
Norwood, was third. In the corresponding amateurs’ class Mi-. Tudgey 
was again successful in securing the leading position, all his plants 
being in admirable condition, especially Erica Cavendishiana and 
E. ventricosa magnifica. Mr. Child, gardener to Mrs. Torr. Garbrand 
Hall, Ewell, was placed second, and Mr. Rann, gardener to J. Warren, 
Esq., Handcross Park, Crawley, was third with smaller but good 
plants. 
Azaleas .—In the amateurs’ class for nine plants Mr. Child took the 
