332 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ October 18, 1883 
Waverley Market presents, yellow or blue (but not the bronze of St* 
Martin’s Blue Lobelia), would look well enough, though gieen might be 
best. Often the walks are of white gravel, in which case white would be 
a bad thing, while yellow would be very good, and blue the very best 
edging possible. In arranging colours the surroundings have to be taken 
into consideration, so that the subject is much more complex than may 
seem at first sight. “ Bed or white cannot in every case be the first line. 
What, then, should occupy that place ?” In the Scotch fashion that may 
be answered by asking, ‘'What colour is outside and what mside the 
edging or front line ? ” Till that is known no answer can be forthcoming. 
Green, grey, brown, white, or even black may be outside, and a score of 
shades inside. What the edging should be depends on the varying cir¬ 
cumstances.—A Scotsman. 
TWO INSECT FOES OF THE PEA. 
In reply to Mr. Abbey, I may say that the caterpillar of the Y moth 
(Plusia Gamma), which is a tolerably general feeder, does not often attack 
the Pea, for this reason, I think, that before the chief emergence of the 
moth the leaves of the plant are beginning to decline somewhat, and its 
instinct leads it to deposit eggs where the caterpillars will get a better 
supply of food than from the Pea, or even from the Bean. July, or later, 
is the time when these moths mostly appear in plenty, but some are out 
in June, and they would be likely to visit the Pea, but this has only now 
and then occurred in England. So far back as 1735 it was noticed that 
the caterpillar of the species was very destructive to both Peas and Beans 
growing in the market gardens near Paris. The application of any com¬ 
pound of unpleasant odour, containing tobacco or petroleum for instance, 
would check the moths in their work of egg-laying, but such applications 
cannot always be used in the case of this plant. It is not difficult to 
detect the pearly-looking round eggs, which are placed in patches. When 
young caterpillars have appeared they may be removed by syringing or 
washing with weak soapsuds or quassia water. 
The fly referred to is Phytomiza nigricornis, described by Curtis ; the 
eggs are laid in June, and the maggots or larvae appear in a few days 
principally infesting the tendrilled leaves. I am afraid there is no effec¬ 
tual mode of warding off the attacks of this insect. All infected leaves 
when discovered should_be picked off and destroyed.— Entomologist. 
THE GARDENERS’ ROYAL BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION. 
I have read with interest the notes that have lately appeared in 
your columns concerning the above Institution, and I still hope that 
something good may come of the discussion, but I do not think 
Mr. Cutler’s letter quite satisfactory. Some time ago I wrote on this 
subject. I have the rules of the above Society to band, and I fully 
intended becoming a subscriber, but I have read and re-read the rules, 
but still I cannot see my way clearly. It seems to me not quite what 
two-thirds of the gardeners want. I have nothing whatever to say 
against the Institution ; doubtless it is a very good one, but in my 
opinion a sick and benefit society would better meet the wants of the 
majority of gardeners at large if properly constructed. Do I hear 
someone say, “ There are plenty of such societies already ? ” Perhaps so, but 
I would have this one specially organised to suit its purpose, and I would 
have no one a member of it who was not connected with horticulture. 
I think that by so doing we should be helping one another, and in a 
manner protecting the profession from being imposed upon quite so 
much. There is not the least doubt that at the present there are more 
gardeners (or would-be gardeners) than there are places for them, with 
the result that a good man cannot get good wages (nor fair wages, if we 
take into consideration what a gardener has to contend against). I trust 
this matter will be taken up by abler men than myself, and I feel sure 
that our Editor will, as usual, lend his aid where gardening and gardeners 
are concerned, and I would invite every gardener to send in his private 
opinions and suggestions, then we may be able to form a committee to 
consider the subject.—J. Smith, Hampstead. 
I AM sorry to find that on a question so strongly affecting the 
gardening fraternity, and of such vital importance to the best interests 
of the Society he represents, the Secretary of the Gardeners’ Benevolent 
Institution should shelter himself from inquirers who are only anxious 
for the truth, behind the “ anonymous writers ” flimsy barriers. It gives 
people who look at facts only, and care nothing for persons, the idea that 
the cause is a weak one or an unsafe one when the person who is able, 
and is the only one to defend, because the only one thoroughly conversant 
with full knowledge, creeps out of the way of inquiry, and that behind 
that now-exploded protection, the anonymity of the inquirers. Anonymity 
is good when questions are fairly and reasonably discussed on their merits 
alone, and not influenced by the social position or personality of the 
writers. It is then only that the real truth can be arrived at; and, to 
my thinking, public questions affecting public interests ought to be dis¬ 
cussed in a public way ; and that they are better so discussed anonymously, 
from the fact that we are so hemmed around with our personalities, tbat 
if these are imported into the discussion only by names, these very names 
will give a bias to the arguments which otherwise they would not have. 
The editor of the paper in which the questions are considered may be left 
to take care that nothing offensive to any man’s personality shall be 
allowed to appear. I am quite sure Mr. Cutler might have safely left 
himself in the hands of the Editor of the Journal of Horticulture. Such 
a question as refusing to reply to anonymous writers gives an undeserved 
rebuke to such writers as “D., Deal," “Wiltshire Rector,” and others, 
who write anonymously, regularly, and who are about the most honoured 
of the paper’s contributors. 
It is a curious comment on Mr. Cutler’s refusal to reply to anonymous 
writers, that in the very paper that he refuses ns, an anonymous writer, 
“ J., Sussex ,” supplies us with the information from Mr. Cutler himself 
that he declines to give. The letter given last week by “ J., Sussex," 
contains nearly everything tbat I inquired for, but the chief thing that I 
desired to know is left about where it has always been, and where it is 
so unsatisfactory to men who desire to have something safe to rely upon. 
That the getting put upon the pension list depends upon an accident, 
the accident of having influence enough to make our case prominent. 
We know that every gardener is not favoured with patrons sufficiently 
influential to command attention to his case, and, if he had, there 
appears to be no clearly defined manner of representing cases. These 
are blots on the system, and had better be faced, and faced publicly too. 
I should be sorry beyond anything to think that I had said a single 
word to annoy or embarrass the officers of a Society with such a nobility 
of purpose in it as the Gardeners’ Benevolent has ; but I wanted light, 
and I want light still—more light to see my way clearly in a matter that 
not only affects myself but tbat affects, or may affect, those I love when 
I am not there to stand by them. Let this matter of appointment be 
made plain, and there will not be that old cry that gardeners do not 
support the Gardeners’ Benevolent Society as they ought any longer.—P. 
When I wrote on the subject before (page 227), I did so in the hope 
of eliciting authoritative information that I felt might be of service to 
myself and other gardeners. As no reply was forthcoming to a letter 
that appeared a fortnight previously, a most proper and important letter, 
as I conceived, I concluded the Secretary of this Institution was temporarily 
absent from his duties, enjoying, as I was charitable enough to imagine, 
a period of well-earned rest. But what are the facts ? 
Four letters have appeared publicly asking for information on a public 
Institution, and yet the Secretary of this public Institution has somewhat 
tardily and just a little curtly stated that he can only attend to letters 
that are addressed to him and reply to them in a private manner. Fortu¬ 
nately there is someone willing to do what he can to make the position of 
the Institution and the advantages it offers widely known. I join cordi¬ 
ally in thanking “ J., Sussex,” for his letter, and seeing that he enclosed 
Mr. Cutler’s reply to himself, I cannot now see that it would be of any 
use for anyone writing to the Secretary for further particulars. I was 
fully prepared to become a life subscriber, and others of my friends were 
contemplating joining also, provided after the information that we were 
confident the Secretary would gladly afford we felt justified in doing so. 
How could I or anyone else write to the Secretary when we did not 
know his address, which was most certainly the case with myself and 
associates ? I was requested to write the letter on hehalf of others as 
well as myself, and I felt in doing so that it would be of advantage to the 
Institution too to have the opportunity of having its claims for support 
placed fully and prominently before those it is intended to benefit. Here 
is a Society with the high-sounding name of the “Gardeners’ Royal 
Benevolent Institution,” and yet hundreds of gardeners know practically 
nothing about it, and are absolutely ignorant of the address of its Secre¬ 
tary. They read about its annual feast once a year, perhaps, and of the 
pensions granted, but as to the working of the affair, the principle of 
determining the pensions, and the advantages offered to subscribers, they 
know nothing, and because they wish to know each must write separately 
to the Secretary whose address until now was not even vouchsafed. 
What matters it to Mr. Cutler if I do not choose to let everybody know 
I have £10 to spare? If he had been a gardener struggling on 22.y. a 
week for years as I have done, and hoping for an extra shilling or two, he 
would not wonder that I did not let the world know that I could get on 
without the coveted increase. 
But that is a small matter. The main fact to be borne in mind is 
this. Information of a purely routine character has been sought for 
repeatedly on a matter of great public importance, and yet the Secretary 
of a public institution refuses to supply it in a public manner. Is he 
afraid of the great world of gardeners knowing too much about the Insti¬ 
tution which he represents ? His simple announcement conveys that 
idea undoubtedly, and that is scarcely the way to gain public confidence. 
It is not conceivable that there is a charitable institution in the land 
whose Secretary would not have availed himself with alacrity of the open¬ 
ing that was afforded him for placing its advantages before the public, 
nor a business manager who would have refused such a chance of making 
his trade known. But then I am told, and the opinion widely prevails, 
that Mr. Cutler is an Honorary Secretary, and discharges his duties 
gratuitously. That of course we must appreciate, but such an arrange- 
is not always the best. It is sufficient to account, however, for his con¬ 
duct in this case, and which has prevented the Institution from adding 
at least one more life subscriber to its lists.—-A Countby Gabdeneb, 
Yorkshire. 
[Our correspondent is not well informed as to Mr. Cutler’s position in 
the Society, as he has always been a paid official of the Institution.] 
SINGLE DAHLIAS. 
In addition to the two groups mentioned last week—namely, the star¬ 
shaped blooms and those with flat florets, Mr. Ware has formed two 
others, including respectively varieties with florets partly reflexed at their 
points, and those with florets strongly reflexed. Upon careful examina- 
