392 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ October SO, 1884. 
fjo to someone else who will be good enough to support your “ advanced ” 
correspondent in his views. 
Just as I have got ray thoughts in the way of running smoothly, and 
with a dozen other subjects in mind that I could with pleasure review, 
up starts the “ lion in my path.” I had almost forgotten him, but he is 
there and must be face*!. Hsppily he is not formidable. My leonine 
obdructionist is “ Non-Believer.” 
A FEW weeks ago I was taken to task because I ventured to advise all 
whom the subject might concern “ never to give liquid manure when 
the soil is dry.” I was pinned to my words, which I was reminded 
admitted of “ no qualification.” Fortunately they were not jotted down 
at random, and from their natural meaning 1 have had no desire to 
recede. I have not the slightest objection to be rivetted by my own 
chains if they can be made to fit; but I cannot fail to observe—no one 
can—that he who would bind me so closely himself flies off into 
generalities, his answer being that my views are contradicted by 
*■ common practice.” I had hoped for something much more cogent than 
that, which is really no re^ily at all, for no man living can condense into 
one common practice the variable methods of applying manures. As 
there is nothing definite or tangible there I will pass on. 
Your correspondent next objects to the number of my paragraphs. 
For those I am quite willing to apologise, while I do not at all mind 
being considered grotesque in my illustrations so long as they “ tell.” 
When “ Non-Believer ” can demnnstate by scientific evidence or 
analogy that either he or the plants and crops he grows can drink or 
absorb water and reject what it holds in solution, then, and not till then, 
can he prove the unsoundness of what he calls my theory. But it is not 
my theory at all. I can claim no such credit. I accept it and believe in 
its truth. He challenged it by implying it is not true ; let him then 
jirove its falsity. At present he has simply “ declined to accept,” which 
anybody could do, and it is neither more nor less than a surrender. 
WHEN I use the words “ dry soil ” I mean what 1 say. It is suggested 
that when it is so dry that the “ leaves wither ” of plants that are grow¬ 
ing or languishing in it, that the sense is “exaggerated ;” bat “ A Non- 
Believer’s ” own words were that he gave liquid manure to Peas that were 
drooping with the drought,” and washed it in. Are not “ drooping ” and 
withering ” synonymous ? So much for that objection. 
I AM afraid I must trouble you with another paragraph or two. 
We are told that “ dry soil absorbing less liquid than moist soils amounts 
to saying that a bottle already half full of water will hold more than one 
that is quite empty.” I have heard of the “ bottle trick ” before. As an 
argument in this case I will show that it is utterly fallacious and has 
absolutely no legitimate application. 
For testing the absorbent quality of dry and moist soil the conditions 
must be equal, or the so-called test is not a test at all, because not fair. 
The earth is not in a bottle, in its very nature water can pass through it ; 
we imitate that as far as possible in growing plants in pots by making 
provision for the escape of water. Before the bottle can be fairly 
brought into comparison it mu«t obviously be made like the flower 
pot—have a hole in it. The conditions are then equal, not other¬ 
wise. Now fill one bottle with soil and let it shrink and get so dry 
that plants if in it would “ droop by drought,” and another with soil so 
moist that it would keep them quite fresh. Pour exactly the same 
quantity of water into the soil in each bottle and catch what passes 
through. I have tried this with soil in flower pots ; the result is very 
striking, and shows conelusively that moist, not of course saturated, soil 
holds by far the most water ; in fact, every gardener knows that when 
the soil in pots gets too dry the water “ rushes through it like through a 
sieve.” So it would through a b ittle if it could ; so it does through the 
earth when dry in fields and gardens. The bottle argument, then, as used 
by my critic is entirely fallacious. 
And still he cannot see the difference between giving artificial or 
liquid manures to dry soil and wa'-hing them in, and applying them to 
soil after rain or when made moist by watering. It is strange. I 
imagine nine-tenths of competent gardeners can seethe difference plainly 
enough. It is really important and fundamental. This latter, too, is the 
right way, the other the wrong one—right because economical, safe, and 
effectual; wrong because wasteful, unsafe, and often injurious, for the 
reasons previously stated and which remain uncontroverted ; and, further, 
I have seen in agricultural experiments liquid manure do actual injury to 
pasture when given in hot weather and the soil quite dry, while liquid 
exactly of the same kind and strength given after rain or watering has 
been decidedly beneficial. I have seen both Turnips and Wheat positively 
damaged by nitrate of soda given under the first-named conditions, 
while under the latter the dressing was markedly beneficial. These are 
facts, and I for one cannot ignore their teaching. 
I CANNOT help the increase of paragraphs. They seem to grow 
naturally, and I think necessarily, for if “ Non-Believer ” cannot under¬ 
stand the matter there must be many less experienced cultivators who 
need a few short homilies on the use and abuse of liquid manure. On 
one point the reply of your correspondent is conclusive—he could not 
prevent the crops drooping if he had no water to give them ; on all other 
points he is in error, at least that is the opinion of—A Thinker. 
AMONGST THE CHRYSANTHEMUMS. 
A GLANCE at the long list of exhibitions given in another column of 
this Journal is amply sufficient to indicate that the Chrysanthemum is 
very far from declining in popularity, indeed there is strong evidence 
that the admirers of the Autumn Queen are rapidly increasing in numbers. 
Enthusiasm in the culture of this useful and welcome plant is more 
vigorous than ever, and owing to the freedom with which the best culti¬ 
vators have published their practice there is a great general improvement 
observable. As far as can be determined at present, this is likely to be 
very marked at the leading exhibitions during the approaching season, 
and unless the weather proves unusually disastrous judges will in most 
cases, particularly around the metropolis, have no little difficulty in 
making their awards. There will, of course, as usual be some exception¬ 
ally fine blooms, but the uniformity of good quality exhibits will be 
notable, and indifferent blooms will have a poor chance at any metropo¬ 
litan show. An idea has seemed to be prevalent lately that the majority 
of Cbrysanthemums would be earlier than usual, and that on this account 
some of the exhibitions would fall short of their customary high position. 
This, however, appears to be unfounded, and in several cases collections 
are later than last year. The prospects altogether are most favourable to 
a busy and successful exhibition season. New competitors are expected 
at several of the leading shows, and some of the older exhibitors will have 
occasion to look to their laurels. 
LARGE PRIZES. 
In the neighbourhood of London the two principal sources of interest 
are the £25 challenge cup at Kingston and the £15 prize at the Royal 
Aquarium, and on the whole the latter is probably exciting the greatest 
attention and is likely to bring the largest number of competitors. The 
challenge cup is a great temptation ; it is a magnificent prize, and an 
honour to any grower who can succeed in winning it, but it has to be won 
twice, and may necessitate three years’ hard work before it is gained. 
The National Society’s prize, on the other hand, has to be won but once, 
and though forty-eight blooms are required a less number of varieties are 
needed, and that is a matter which can be fully appreciated by competi¬ 
tors in such classes. Then, too, the prize is the largest that has ever 
been offered in money atone show, and is amply sufficient to compensate 
for the most careful preparation and the strongest efforts. Some, indeed, 
have gone so far as to say the prize is too large, but that is a mistake, for, 
as with the Kingston challenge cup, an indirect stimulus is afforded to 
Chrysanthemum-growing in general, attention is aroused and some 
degree of enthusiasm excited which is beneficial in many ways. We 
cannot progress without this enthusiasm, and all branches of horticulture 
owe much to specialists in every science and art. 
THE NATIONAL SOCIETY’S CATALOGUE, 
The National Society has done good work in offering substantial 
prizes, in instituting a committee of experts to examine .and certificate 
new varieties during the season ; they are also endeavouring in many 
other ways to increase the love and improve the culture of the Chrysan¬ 
themum. But there is another good woik which they have commenced 
and which they will be expected by growers to carry out as usefully and 
thoroughly as their other work. The “ first ” edition of their catalogue 
is issued and is now in the hands of hundreds ; it has been freely 
criticised, its weak points discovered, and many improvements suggested, 
and it is desirable that the Society will do their utmost to render the next 
edition more worthy of their name. As the first attempt to issue an 
authoritative list of the varieties in cultivation the effort deserves much 
praise, but some emendation and amplification are needed to render it 
what it ought to be—a standard work of reference. 
CHRYSANTHEMUMS AROUND LONDON. 
To give some idea of the condition of the Chrysanthemums around 
the metropolis the following notes will probably possess some interest, as 
growers are always eager to learn the state of affairs in other districts. 
The season, too, is one which affords the gardener a little leisure to visit 
his neighbours, and perhaps at no other time of year is there so fitting an 
opportunity for a comparison of notes and a discussion of successes or 
failures. Visits are paid and returned, and many a valuable hint is so 
gained that can be advantageously utilised during the coming season. 
Just before the exhibitions commence, however, is a somewhat anxious 
time; blooms are carefully watched, and efforts made to retard the too 
precocious or hasten the later ones, and speculations are indulged in 
respecting the number of collections that can be entered with any 
probability of success, classes selected, and all preparations completed. 
Then comes a little patient waiting, the show arrives, and success rewards 
the skill of the exhibitor or failure teaches that there is something which 
he had not mastered. The present is, however, the period of expectation, 
and each one is anticipating a satisfactory result for his labours. Taking 
the collections of Chrysanthemums in the order they were visited the 
first to be noted is 
THE LILFORD NURSERY, CAMBERWELL. 
This season Mr. N. Davis has provided a magnificent display of plants 
and blooms, and to accommodate them he has erected a spacious and hand¬ 
some show-house, which is admirably adapted for the purpose. It is 65 feet 
long, 30 feet wide, and 14J feet high, and contains 1700 plants, the 
majority arranged in a bed in the centre, and the others on the side stages 
