418 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTIAGE GARDENER. 
[ November 6, 1884. 
said of Chantilly, which, except at race and fair time, is even less fre¬ 
quented by Parisians. The lungs of the human body are not at the 
extremities, but in the centre, and hence the lungs of cities are not such 
•far-off places, but those open spaces which are in the centre of the popu¬ 
lation, which give them places to get at without expense to reach readily 
from their homes, and which occupy spaces which would otherwise be 
filled by bricks and mortar. Now I shall run, I know, counter to many 
] eceived opinions when I say that I consider that London is considerably 
better off in this respect than Paris ; but as I have recently been there, 
and this was one of the things about which I was interested, I looked 
carefully at the matter, and am more confirmed in this opinion, which I 
have long held. Let me first, then, write of the places themselves and 
their extent, and then of the manner in which they have been utilised. 
That there are advantages which Paris possesses over London in 
respect of its capabilities for horticulture, anyone acquainted with the 
tivo capitals will, I think, at once admit. It is situated in a basin sur¬ 
rounded by more or less lofty eminences, and is itself about 200 feet above 
the level of the sea, and like as the spider spins its house out of itself, so 
has Paris been built from the stone which underlies the whole city. It 
is in this way that the Mushroom caves at Montrouge are formed, and 
that the perfectly unique garden of the Buttes Chaumont has of late years 
been so admirably arranged (the same has to some extent been a great 
advantage in the formation of the new gardens of the Observatoire), where 
you have a high wall of natural rock 160 feet high, and capabilities for 
introducing artificial water. It is manifest that with the taste which the 
French unquestionably have, the possession of such a site as this must be 
a great advantage. No artificial rocks, however well constructed, can 
hope to equal this, and those at Battersea Park, good in their way, can 
only excite a smile when one thinks of the Buttes Chaumont. We have 
elevations in and about London, such as Primrose Hill, but no ingenuity 
of man could ever make it into a Buttes Chaumont. 
Another great advantage that Paris possesses is its climate. This is 
of a very remarkable character. The climate of the north of France, 
Normandy and Picardy, differs but little from that of the south of 
England, as anyone who has gone through those departments can at once 
see by the condition of both farming and gardening products. But Paris 
is entirely difl^erent. There is a brightness and dryness in the air, and an 
amount of sunshine, which, while it entails a considerable amount of 
trouble in watering, is also very favourable for the outdoor culture of 
sub-tropical plants. Out-of-door Grapes are not of any very good 
quality, although they nearly always ripen, and it is only when we 
get to Thomery and Fontainbleau that the Chasselas or Buckland 
Sweetwater becomes really a dessert fruit. A good deal of the clearness 
of the atmosphere depends, I think, on the nature of the ground, while 
there can be little doubt that the less extensive use of coal and the amount 
of the population as compared with that of London conduce to the same 
result. London, situated as it is on the borders of the Essex and Kentish 
marshes, resting on a bed of that dreadful substance called London clay, 
using in its manufacture and private houses enormous quantities daily of 
coal, with its chimneys vomiting out clouds of dense smoke, which the 
heaviness of the atmosphere drives down upon the trees and shrubs within 
its reach, and filling up their pores with its abominations, places it at a 
sad disadvantage, and yet withal I am inclined to give expression to what 
may seem a very heterodox opinion, that we have a great superiority over 
the French capital. 
The Champs Elysees is unique ; we have nothing, and I venture to say 
can have nothing like it; can have, I say, because the cafes chantantes, 
the merry-go-rounds, cirques, and other amusements are totally foreign to 
our habits. We cannot sit in the open air as they can. I was there in 
September this year, and it was possible even then to sit out on the 
boulevards till ten o’clock at night, and as a garden the Champs Elysees 
have no great value, they are too much cut up by these buildings, but as 
an open space it is perhaps one of the most beautiful in Europe. Its long 
stretch from the Tuileries Gardens right up to the Arc de Triomphe is, 
especially in the early summer, very delightful. The Tuileries Gardens 
are mainly composed of large broad walks and open spaces, with some 
fine Chestnut tree”, while the gardens of the Luxembourg contain many 
excellent examples of bedding-out, various sub-tropical plants, such as 
Cannas, Caladiums, Musas, &c., being used. It is a large piece of ground, 
but has neither the exclusive character of a garden or a park. All the 
other open spaces in Paris, such as the Square Montholon, the garden of 
the Tour de St. Jacques, the Louvre, the Square de Montrouge, the Square 
de Batignolles, are very small, some of them pretty enough, and exhibit- 
^ good deal of taste. I have left to the last the Bois de Boulogne 
and the Bois de Vincennes, but we can hardly call either of them open 
spaces in Paris : the former is, at least, even the entrance of it, two miles 
from the centre of Paris, and a heavy walk, as the whole way to the Arc 
de Triomphe is a steep ascent, and you cannot get a drive there under 
five or six francs. It is very nice when you do get there. There are, it is 
true, no large trees, the various sieges to which Paris has been subject 
have time after time devastated the Bois, but it is tastefully laid out. 
Great pains have been taken to plant such things as may give variety all 
through the year, while in spring and early summer the many beautiful 
flowering shrubs and trees are delightful. The islands on the ornamental 
water are tastefully arranged, barring the kiosques, &c., and yet withal 
there is an air of artificialness about it that detracts somewhat from 
its beauty. Its grottoes overgrown with Ivy, its picturesque cascades please 
the eye, but at the same time you see at once that it is all made, unlike 
a lake close by me here, that of Eastwell Park, which many people have 
taken for a natural piece of water. Then the wood is itself disappointing. 
There is the same monotonous style of laying it out which characterises 
Fontainbleau, St. Germains, Vincennes, and indeed every wood with which 
I am acquainted in France ; and the trees are so wooded together that 
there is no possibility of their attaining their proper dimensions, so that 
those who, not having seen the Bois, expect to see grand spreading Beech 
trees, such as Tityrus delighted, we are told, to stretch himself under, or 
fine Elms such as we have in London, will be grievously disappointed. 
The trees are planted so closely together that it is impossible they can do 
well. In various parts of the wood there are wild-looking spots where 
wild flowers flourish. 
It is a strange instance of the caprices of fashion that for one person 
who goes to the Bois de Vincennes there are a hundred who go to the 
Bois de Boulogne, and yet in some respects the former is better worth 
seeing. It has the defect of being the place where recruits are drilled, 
and the wood is, as usual, too crowded; but there is less of an artificial 
character, and the lakes and sti camlets are prettily arranged, but, as I 
have said, to the great mass of Parisians and visitors it is out of the 
way. 
I had intended to have (before entering on the subject of contrast) 
given a brief description of the Parc Monceau and the Buttes Chaumont, 
but as I have already run on to some length, defer them to a future paper, 
If I have succeeded in giving a clear idea of my views, it will be seen 
that I do not think the French have it all their own way ; and that while 
there is much to admire in the landscape gardening and the manner in 
which they have utilised their open spaces, there are still defects which 
we may avoid, although unquestionably many excellencies we have 
imitated, and would do well still more to do so when we can.— 
D., Deal. 
KELSEY’S JAPAN PLUM. 
At the meeting of the Eoyal Horticultural Society’s Fruit Committee 
on October 14th, Mr. W. Bull of Chelsea exhibited some fruits of a re¬ 
markable Plum bearing the above name and said to be from California. 
These were so distinct in form and general appearance that it was at first 
thought they were not true Plums ; but on examination of their structure 
and the small shoots which accompanied the specimens sent to Chiswick, 
it has been decided that the name is correct. The fruits are conical in 
form, about 3 inches in depth and 2| in diameter at the base, of a uniform 
dark red colour externally, the skin smooth and much like a Nectarine, 
the flesh being firm, of a pleasant flavour, and yellowish colour. That it 
is a good keeping variety, and one well fitted for sending long distances, 
is proved by the condition of the fruits shown at Kensington, which had 
been received by Mr. W. Bull from California, and appeared to have- 
suffered little by their journey, though the flavour was probably not so 
good as it would have been if they had ripened on the trees. 
A full description of the variety and its qualities was published in the 
Pacific Rural Press last year, together with an illustration, which we 
have reproduced in fig. 69. This faithfully depicts the form and charac¬ 
ter of the Plum, as it was taken from a photograph of a fruit-bearing 
branch. The account referred to is also very interesting, and the sub¬ 
stance of it is as follows : — 
“ This remarkable Plum was imported from Japan in 1871 by the late 
John Kelsey of Berkeley, California, whose name has been given to the 
fruit as a just tribute to his memory as one of California’s pioneer leaders 
in horticulture, and the first producer of a fruit that has any promise of 
being- one of the greatest acquisitions to our already long list of good 
Plums. 
“ We are told by Mrs. Ke’sey that there was but little attention paid 
to the trees at first, the merits of the fruit not being known. They were 
allowed to stand in the nursery rows until they fruited, after which they 
were transplanted to the orchard, where there are at present upwards of a 
hundred trees, which have been in bearing since 1876, and have never 
failed to produce all the fruit the trees could carry, thus fully establishing 
its successful culture even under unfavourable circumstances. The trte is 
a moderately vigorous grower, should be moulded to the fancy of the grower 
when young, and ever after pruned to the new wood. 
“ The fruit is now being largely propagated by W. P. Hammon & Co. of 
Oakland, who expect to introduce it largely in time for the next planting 
season. Mr. Hammon assures us that he believes the variety possesses 
more points of excellence combined than any other Plum now grown. Its 
claims for this prominence he enumerates as follows:—1, Its wonderful 
productiveness is unsurpassed by any other Plum, either native or foreign. 
2, It comes into bearing at the age of two to three years, and continues 
with great regularity, blossoms frequently appearing on yearling trees. 
3, The fruit is of very large size, being from 7 to 9 inches in circumference, 
and specimens weighing 6^ ozs. each, and it has a remarkably small pit. 
4, It is very attractive in appearance, being of a rich yellow nearly over¬ 
spread with a bright red, with a lovely bloom. It is heart-shaped. It 
ripens from first to last of September, at a most favourable time for har¬ 
vesting and marketing the crop, the larger part of the Plum crop being 
gone. 5, It is of superb quality, melting, rich, and juicy ; in fact, to some 
tastes, at least, has a more satisfying flavour than any other Plum. For 
cooking, jelly, or preserving in any manner it has no equal. Its large size 
renders the paring of the fruit as practicable as the Peach, which is quite 
a novelty in the line, and excels all other canning Plums. As a dried 
fruit it is destined to take the lead, equal to if not surpassing the best dried 
Prunes or Peaches for drying results. Mr. William H. Jessup of Hay¬ 
wards, California, who dried some of the fruit last October, 1882, reports as 
follows :—‘ There were just 9 lbs. of fruit; loss in pitting 7 ozs , loss in 
drying 6 lbs. 13|^ ozs.—total loss 7 lbs. 4^ ozs., giving a nett result of 1 lb 
llj ozs., or equal to about IQj lbs. dried to the 100 lbs. of fresh fruit. In 
