JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
532 
[ June 29, 1882. 
Stewart (seedling), dark seifs ; Mrs. Galloway (seedling) ; Silverlight, 
white seifs; Geo. Rudd, Dr. Campbell, yellow seifs ; Miss Barr, Miss 
Baird, Gertrude, Mrs. James Millar (seedling), Miss Meikle, Mrs. D. 
Wallace, Mrs. Mackenzie, white grounds ; R. Pollock, W. Robin, Dr. 
Livingstone, J. Buchanan, A. Cameron, A. Henderson, Bailie Cochran, 
yellow grounds. Second prize—Mr. Wm. Dickson, Paisley, who 
showed fair blooms of H. A. Hawkins, Mauve Queen, Rev. J. Morri¬ 
son, Robert Black, dark seifs ; D. Dalglish, Sir W. Collins, Thomas 
Ritchie, D. R. Barr, J. B. Robertson, yellow grounds ; Tickler, Jeannie 
Grieve, Captain Speirs, Mrs. Mackenzie, white grounds. Third prize 
—Mr. J. Ormiston, Ancrum, Jedburgh. Twenty-four fancy Pansies 
dissimilar : First (the Society’s silver medal)—Messrs. Downie and 
Laird, who had blooms of immense size, brilliant colouring, and per¬ 
fect quality. The varieties were Countess of Home, James Gardner, 
May Tate (seedling), Mrs. W. Brown, John Murray, Mrs. Forsyth, 
Miss Tofts, W. Cuthbertson, Miss Bliss, Maggie Bell, Mrs. J. Cocker, 
General Grant, Mrs. J. Watt, Mrs. Barrie, Ruby (seedling), Peter 
Nicol, Mrs. Wolff Murray, Robert Laird, Mrs. Taylor, Catherine 
Agnes, Mrs. General Grant, and three seedlings. Second prize—Mrs. 
Taylor, Woodbine Nursery, Corstorphine, with neat smooth blooms 
of Mrs. Mitchell, J. Grieve, Mrs. E. H. Wood, R. Dunlop, G. Ross, 
Mars, A. Cuthbertson, Mrs. Jamieson, Maggie Taylor, W. Lawrie, 
Mrs. Taylor, Jupiter, Nancy Lee, and seedlings. Third prize—Mr. 
John Ormiston, who had clean blooms of Miss Reeve, Mrs. Ogilvie, 
Prizetaker, Catherine Agnes, Mrs. Taylor, Robt. Cowan, J. H. Borrow- 
man, Mrs. J. Watt, and James Grieve. Six seedling Show and six 
seedling Fancy Pansies : First (silver medal) awarded to Messrs. 
Wm. Paul & Son for blooms of great excellence. Twenty-four 
bunches of bedding Violas : First—Messrs. Downie & Laird, whose 
exhibits were one of the features of the Show. 
The following are the principal prizetakers in the gardeners’, 
amateurs’, and open to all classes :— 
Messrs. R. Millar, Paisley ; R. Cuthbertson, Corstorphine ; D. Find- 
Jay. Lennox Castle ; J. Stewart, Campsie ; A. Borrowman, Beeslack ; 
R. Ritchie, Cres3well; D. Malcolm, Kirkintilloch ; J. Ritchie, Denny ; 
W. Storrie, Lenzie ; J. Black, East Calder ; J. Barr, Paisley ; W. Paul 
and Son, Paisley; and Geo. Ross, Laurencekirk, who received the 
President's medal as the winner of most prizes. 
First-class certificates were awarded to Messrs. Downie & Laird for 
“ May Tate ” (Fancy) ; Capt. Thompson, for “ Ralph Sanders ” (Show); 
Dicksons <fc Co., for “Jessie Dunlop” (Fancy); and T. McCombe, 
Montrose, for “ Mrs. McCombe ” (Fancy). 
TOMATOES BLIND AND DEFORMED. 
On page 467 Mr. Muir alludes to the frequent failures to secure 
large bunches of Tomatoes on plants grown under glass. He 
apparently quite realises that this failure to set large clusters is 
owing to the maintenance of a too damp atmosphere, but does 
not convey the idea he is aware it is quite possible to secure a 
good set in a moist atmosphere by artificially impregnating the 
blooms. We grow Tomatoes in pots in Cucumber, Melon, and 
Fig houses, and in each instance they are considered of secondary 
importance, a moist atmosphere being maintained for the primary 
crops throughout the growing season. Had we depended upon 
chance fertilisation a partial crop would have resulted : this, too, 
in spite of having given the preference to well-known free setters. 
By carefully impregnating the blooms either with a camel’s-hair 
brush, by softly rubbing together the fertilising points of the 
blooms, or on sunny days by tapping the bunches and thereby 
distributing the pollen, as we should in the case of Muscat Grapes, 
we were rewarded with large clusters of fruit in some instances 
weighing 2 lbs. 
The large central blooms are nearly always fasciated, and are 
followed by extremely ugly fruit. These should be removed as 
early as possible, thereby much benefiting the remaining blooms 
and subsequently the fruit. With most varieties, if any of the 
smaller blooms produce mis-shapen fruit it is owing to imper¬ 
fect setting ; Tomatoes, in common with Grapes and other fruits, 
requiring a full complement of seeds to be perfect in shape, and 
I may say in quality also. If smooth attractive-fruiting varieties, 
such as receive the preference at exhibitions, are grown, these, 
nobably in the case of Trophy and its synonym Stamfordian, are 
bad setters and also of comparatively poor quality. There is too 
much core in them, and an insufficiency of seeds and the pulpy 
matter that encloses them to please the palate of the lovers of the 
Tomato, or at all events the connoisseur. When I grew Tomatoes 
for exhibition and did not relish them Trophy was my model; 
now the case is reversed, and not a plant of this showy but infe¬ 
rior-flavoured variety is grown. The best variety I have yet 
tasted is the old Orangefield as grown at Longleat, and not far 
behind this are seedlings I have obtained by crossing Vilmorin’s 
Early Dwarf with Early Gem in one instance and Keye’s Prolific 
in another. Keye’s Prolific if obtained true, Dwarf Orangefield, 
Earley’s Defiance (an improved Large Red), and Conqueror are 
well adapted for either house or open air culture, and if either of 
these are grown there ought to be no great difficulty in securing 
large clusters. The Greengage is much liked by some, but is 
rather too tall-growing for pot culture. The most handsome ex¬ 
hibition variety I have yet seen or grown is a seedliDg named 
Perfection, which was raised by Mr. Phillips, Deodars Gardens, 
Meopham, near Gravesend. The cluster I forward to the Editor 
was the third and smallest on a plant of the Vilmorin’s Dwarf, 
grown in a 10-inch pot.—W. IGGULDEN. 
[It is very fine we should have liked to have seen the largest.] 
THE FIRST SHOT. 
In my last paper I spoke of the coming campaign, and ventured to 
express the opinion that we were, if appearances might be credited, 
on the eve of a fine Rose season. Since then the campaign has com¬ 
menced, the first shot has been fired, and, if I may judge of the future 
by what took place then, my ideas are likely to be realised. The 
struggle will be a great one, and the quality as well as the quantity 
of the projectiles will be all that could be desired. 
The campaign was commenced at Bibbing. Now someone will say, 
Where is Bibbing? Well, it is a small and usually quiet country 
village not far from Sittingbourne in Kent, which on Friday was 
a scene of unwonted animation. The camp of the East Kent Volun¬ 
teers was pitched there, a goodly gathering of some seven hundred 
men, and, as usual on such occasions, a goodly camp following— 
“ cousins and sisters and aunts ; ” and as Captain Knight, on whose land 
the camp was pitched, is an enthusiastic Rose-grower, the idea was 
started of holding a Rose show on one of the days of the review. The 
Rose tent was pitched in his garden, and in it was collected a goodly 
number of most excellent blooms ; for when I say that such goodly 
Kentish Rose-growers as Mr. Wakley, Capt. Knight, the Rev. H. B. 
Biron, Mr. Burnside, and Mr. George Mount had contributed to the 
Exhibition, it might be at once seen that there was no likelihood of a 
poor exhibition being held. It was of necessity small, for it was con¬ 
fined to the amateurs of Kent. The prizes were not valuable, and the 
amateurs exhibited more for the honour of the thing—victory, more 
than for the spoils of the victors. 
Mr. W. Wakley of Rainham, whose Roses are well known at 
Kentish shows and occasionally elsewhere, exhibited a very good box 
of eighteen, which took the first prize. His stand contained good 
examples of Mdlle. Eugenie Verdier, Exposition de Brie, Miss Poole, 
Beauty of Waltham, Francois Michelon, Marie Baumann, Duke of 
Connaught, Capitaine Christy, Marie Rady, Princess Beatrice, Dr. 
Andr6, Etienne Levet, Souvenir de Dr. Jamin, a curious claret- 
coloured, small Rose rarely seen now ; Hippolyte Jamain, and Mar¬ 
quise de Castellane. In the class for twelve the Rev. H. B. Biron wa3 
first with good blooms of Xavier Olibo, Marie Baumann, E. Y. Teas, 
Eugene Verdier, Marquise de Castellane, Duke of Wellington, Duke 
of Edinburgh, Charles Lefebvre, Marie Finger, Le Havre, and Fran¬ 
cois Michelon. There were several fine boxes of Teas ; that which 
obtained the first prize (Capt. Knight) contained Rubens, Jean 
Ducher, Laurette, Andrienne Christophle, Madame Hippolyte Jamain, 
Innocente Pirola, Marie Kruppenheim, Souvenir de Paul Neyron, 
Devoniensis, and Souvenir d’un Ami. The Rev. H. B. Biron was a 
good second with smaller blooms. In Class D, Mr. G. Mount of 
Harbledon, Canterbury, was first with excellent blooms of Marie 
Baumann, A. K. Williams, Capitaine Christy, Duke of Edinburgh, 
E. Y. Teas, Alfred Colomb, La France, Lord Macaulay, Charles 
Lefebvre, Souvenir de la Malmaison, a capital bloom, Madame Gabriel 
Luizet, and Star of Waltham. But, good as they were, they were not 
equal to the very remarkable box of nine shown by the same exhibitor ; 
these were really perfect blooms, and not only did it obtain the first 
prize but also the prize for the best box in the Show, and one of the 
blooms, Marie Baumann, for the best bloom. It comprised Marie 
Baumann, A. K. Williams, La France, Baronne de Rothschild, Etienne 
Levet, Gabriel Luizet, Charles Lefebvre, E. Y. Teas, and Avocat 
Duvivier. The first prize for six of one sort was given equally to 
Marie Baumann and Mar6chal Niel. The first prize for table decora¬ 
tion of Roses was awarded to Mrs. Biron for a gracefully arranged 
stand ; the first prize for buttonhole bouquets for ladies and gentle¬ 
men to Miss Welby. Of course the awards in these classes did 
not give satisfaction, they never do ; but a principle was enunciated 
in the criticisms upon them which I think worth noticing, as it may 
lead to a ventilation of the subject. The first prize was given to a 
graceful and light arrangement both for ladies and gentlemen, a 
large and handsome one containing twice the number of Roses being 
rejected ; this judgment was considered wrong, on the ground that 
the decision ought to be given to the best arrangement in fashion at 
the time, and that as the present fashion is for ladies to wear a large 
wreath reaching right across the breast, that this rejected one was 
more in accordance with the fashion and ought to have received the 
prize. This critique I dissent from. Fashion may be outrageously 
wrong, and I think it is the business of those who have to judge in 
such matters not to consider fashion, but good taste. I saw ladies 
this spring with bunches of a dozen Daffodils arranged as a 
bouquet for the breast. Had one of them been put up for competition 
with a graceful arrangement of a few flowers and Maidenhair Ferns 
I should have had no hesitation in awarding the prize, notwithstand¬ 
ing that the other might have been the very highest “ chic,” as I can¬ 
not give way to the doctrine that “ when a thing’s the thing, why, of 
course, that makes the thing the thing.” However, these are simply 
