28 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ July 13, 1882. 
Luizet, and Marie Cointet. Duke of Edinburgh was shown exceed¬ 
ingly fine in colour in the amateurs’ stands, being bright scarlet; Mar6- 
chal Niel small but very good in colour, and Gbnbral Jacqueminot. 
Mr. Cranston’s Roses were inferior to those he showed at Kensington 
and Sydenham, bad weather having again been the cause of this 
falling-off. His best blooms were Baronne de Rothschild, A. K. Wil¬ 
liams, Auguste Neumann, Louis Van Houtte, John Stuart Mill, and 
Charles Lefebvre. Messrs. Paul & Son’s most noteworthy blooms 
were Duchesse de Moray, a most lovely treble ; Duke of Edinburgh, 
A. K. Williams, Comte de Raimbaud, Marie Baumann, Prince Arthur, 
and Prince Camille de Rohan. Mr. Charles Turner also showed some 
fine trebles, including Senateur Vaisse, Lord Macaulay, Abel Carriere, 
Alfred Colomb, Madame Lacharme, and that superb Rose A. K. 
Williams. 
In the amateurs’ class for thirty-six Roses Mr. Whitwell was the 
premier exhibitor, his fine blooms showing to advantage on black 
velvet stands. Mr. Davis was second, and Mr. Hollingworth third 
in this class. Mr. Whitwell was also in the premier position with 
twenty-four trebles. Mr. Pemberton was first in the classes for 
twenty-four single blooms and for twelve Teas, followed in the former 
class by Messrs. Mitchell and Wakeley, and in the latter by Mr. Har¬ 
rington. Mr. Pemberton had a superb bloom of Belle de Bordeaux, 
which I suppose is hardly a Tea, also Perle de Lyon, Madame Lam- 
bard, and Madame Bravy. Mr. John Wakeley had a grand stand of 
twelve Roses ; his Marquise de Castellane, Duke of Edinburgh, and 
La France did a great deal towards winning for him the first prize. 
Mr. Pemberton’s excellent second-prize box included fine examples 
of Marquise de Castellane, Baronne de Rothschild, Alfred Colomb, 
Horace Vernet. and Fisher Holmes. 
One of the features of the Show, and a very pretty one too, was 
the competition for bouquets. Prizes were given for white, dark red, 
yellow, mixed, and crimson Roses. Mr. George Paul had the best 
bouquets. His mixed one was so very lovely that the remembrance 
of it will linger with me for a long time. Messrs. Kinmont & Kidd 
were also prizewinners. 
The classes for boxes of one colour were very fairly filled. Mr. 
Cant had a glorious box of dark Roses. The nurserymen’s Teas were 
scarcely up to the mark. Mr. Prince and Mr. Mitchell did not ex¬ 
hibit, but Messrs. Paul, Cant, and Turner did. Mr. George Paul’s 
Teas were small but very lovely; Mr. Cant’s very good, but not equal 
to those previously shown by him this season. His Niphetos, how¬ 
ever, was very fine, and his blooms of Marshal Niel, Caroline Kuster, 
Madame Lambard, and Catherine Mermet good. Mr. Charles Turner 
showed a superb bud of Madame Lambard, which was quite different 
in colour to Mr. Cant’s, being more like Comtesse de Nadaillac or 
Catherine Mermet. This Rose is evidently very uncertain as to 
colour, but is a most welcome addition to our Tea Rose lists. For 
thirty trusses of white Roses the prizes went to Messrs. Cant, Turner, 
and Paul. 
There was only one entry for the modest class of one thousand 
Roses. Mr. George Paul did his best to fulfil a most absurd demand. 
Some stands and baskets were staged by Messrs. W. Paul it Sons 
and other exhibitors. 
The weather was very bad, but perhaps it was a good thing that 
the rain descended and the sun kept in the background, as there was 
not the least shelter for the Roses except the glass roof. Confusion 
was everywhere. The clerk who had to write out the list of the 
prizetakers was new to the business, and made many mistakes. It 
was high noon before the Judges commenced their work. One or at 
most two policemen in vain tried to prevent the general public break¬ 
ing in during the judging, and at one o’clock there was scarcely a 
prize card placed upon a winning box. I have endeavoured to give 
your readers as fair a description of the Show as I could under the 
most difficult circumstances ; but at the time of my visit I was under 
the impression that a reporter from the Journal office was present, so 
that writing from memory I am unable to give a complete list of all 
the prizetakers.— Wylo Savage. 
STRAWBERRIES—MODES OF CULTURE—MISTAKES. 
When my notes, published on page 1 last week, were penned, 
the articles on page 500, June 22nd, had not appeared, or I should 
not perhaps have felt it necessary to write on the subject of 
Strawberry culture. Your correspondents, “ Single-handed ” 
and Mr. Bardney have, however, saved me some trouble. I in¬ 
tended in effect saying much of what they said, and I have now 
only to comment on their remarks, and emphasise, under certain 
conditions, the value of the practices they have recommended for 
raising plants, referring also to some methods of culture that are 
adapted to special soils and districts. 
Against layering runners in pots I have nothing to say, although 
I can grow Strawberries quite well by a simpler system. Layer¬ 
ing in turves, as “ Single-handed ” observes, has objections, 
but it also has advantages. When rightly managed turves do 
not dry to a serious extent. The pieces 3^ inches square placed 
nearly close together, with leaf soil placed over them and worked 
between them, form splendid receptacles for young plants, and 
do not need half the watering that runners pegged in small pots 
do. Your correspondent, however, suggests the turf plan has 
other faults. This is quite true, and one may be pointed out so 
that others may avoid a mistake that I once made in adopting 
this system. There were visible a few roots of couch grass, but 
it was thought all these had been drawn out of the square pieces • 
of turf. The next season proved that this was not so, and the 
mixture of couch and Strawberries was not a result to be proud 
of. But worse than this, the turf contained Dandelion seed, which 
was good of its kind, for it germinated freely, producing thou¬ 
sands of plants. Turves then certainly have “faults,” and it is 
easy to make a mistake in raising something else besides Straw¬ 
berries in the fertile squares in question ; but there is a remedy. 
Without a charred heap of rubbish, prepared annually, it is 
certain that my failures in fruit and plant culture would have 
been more numerous than they are. It is the practice to collect 
rubbish of all kinds in the autumn—the refuse of the kitchen 
garden and pleasure grounds—leaves, weeds, hedge-trimmings, 
ditch-scourings, and clay. A huge fire is made that lasts for 
weeks ; when in full glow it is cased every night with turves, 
which are thus completely scorched. These charred turves form 
the most valuable of all soil for general potting purposes. No¬ 
thing equals it, and nothing equals these now weedless turves for 
establishing Strawberries in, but to have them in the best pos¬ 
sible condition they must be doctored. This is a very simple 
process. They are of course as dry as dust, and there is only one 
way of moistening them quickly and thoroughly, and that is to 
place them in a tub of water. And why not mix a spadeful or 
two of guano in the water—soak turves, in fact, in liquid manure ? 
Let anyone try this method, and then say all they can against it. 
Let them insert Strawberry runners in such doctored turves, and 
they will have no weeds but splendid plants, sturdy in growth 
and of the deepest green. They will admit then that if the turf 
system has faults it also possesses advantages. 
This is the best of all modes I have tried for raising Straw¬ 
berries in a dry district. In a wet one the method of cutting off 
the runners as soon as they show rootlets and dibbing them in a 
rich bed of soil and manure, as if provided for pricking out Celery 
plants, is quicker, simpler, and good. If anyone asks why this 
latter plan is not equally good for dry localities, he will afford 
evidence that he has not experienced the anxiety of waiting for 
rain for weeks, even months together, watching plants of all 
kinds spoiling because they cannot be planted, while it would 
be almost certain death to them if disturbed. In districts 
w here the soil is thin and light and periods of drought occur, 
these square turves are of enormous advantage in preparing 
Strawberries, as the plants can be kept growing in the most 
satisfactory manner for weeks if needed until the weather is 
favourable for planting, the turves being arranged in a con¬ 
venient position, not packed closely together, but the spaces 
between tilled with rich soil, and liquid manure will do the rest. 
My advice, then, founded on experience, is that those living in 
cool districts where summer showers are prevalent may adopt the 
plan advocated by “ Single-handed ; ” but in dry localities 
there is risk of the plants being injured, either by remaining in 
the nursery bed too long, or being removed in unsuitable weather 
for planting. It may be urged the turf system “ takes time.” 
Yes, it does ; but is not the time of two days well spent when 
success follows? and is not the labour of less time wasted when 
failure ensues ? 
Mr. Bardney has advocated growing a few young, early, and 
healthy plants in a convenient position, specially for producing 
runners for propagation. Sounder advice than that was never 
penned. Obtaining runners in a haphazard manner from between 
the rows of bearing plants, which are more or less exhausted by 
the crop, is a bad beginning in Strawberry culture, and the 
initial cause of many failures. It is important that the plants 
for producing runners be obtained from a fruitful stock, as some 
plants are essentially unfruitful, and it is certain their nature is 
perpetuated by propagation. This I have proved by a careful 
experiment extending over a period of six years. 
Another point of practical importance is to grow those varieties 
that are found to succeed best in your own garden. Strawberries 
are capricious, and this is the sequel of the widely different esti¬ 
mates that are given by different mrltivators on the same varieties. 
A few years ago J had a remarkable crop of President. Runners 
w r ere requested by visitors, and in due time supplied—strong, fine, 
early runners, but in two instances to my knowledge these gave 
no results, and after a full and disappointing trial the plants were 
destroyed. The soil was too good for them. They grew enor¬ 
mously, but produced little fruit, and the majority of this mal¬ 
formed. Similarly I have obtained from an undoubtedly fruitful 
stock plants of La Constante, Rivers’ Eliza, Wonderful, Cockscomb, 
and Sir Charles Napier, but by no method of culture could good 
