JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
368 
Stafford, but nearer to the railway station Colwick. The ground 
slopes away from it on the east and north sides, while it rises to 
the south. On the western side is a large Italian garden, and to 
the south are the pleasure grounds, which rise gently until they 
blend in a wood. The kitchen garden is to the north of the offices, 
and in the same direction is the church of Ingestre, which had 
its origin as far back as the time when most dwellings of impor¬ 
tance had their chapel. The mansion was in the Tudor style, a 
combination of brick and stone, the latter forming the window 
mullions and dressings, the other the body of the work. It was 
large and commodious throughout, and although ancient, both the 
stonework and brick had stood the test of time much better than 
many more recent buildings. 
The fire, which so suddenly reduced this noble pile to ashes, is 
supposed to have been caused by overheating, and the loss, in¬ 
cluding many fine pictures and works of art, is irreparable. The 
gardens and excellent Grapes that are grown at Ingestre were 
described in our twenty-second volume. 
FRUIT-JUDGING AT EDINBURGH. 
I would correct the false impression some of Mr. Maclndoe’s 
words (p. 344) are likely to create on this subject with your per¬ 
mission. Mr. Maclndoe gives the names of eleven gentlemen who 
acted as judges as a guarantee of the justice of the awards com¬ 
plained of ; and if the whole, or even the majority of those named, 
had been unanimous in their verdict in the cases under dispute 
nothing more could well be said on the matter, for it is hardly 
likely all could be mistaken. But was this the case ? or were more 
than two or three responsible for the decision which created such 
marked dissent among the public at Edinburgh ? Was it not the 
case that the work of judging was divided—two or three judges 
taking one class, and two or three another, and so on, and that 
hence the greater number of the eleven judges named had no 
more to do with the judging of the particular collections than any 
outsider ? If this were so, then it would be impossible to accept 
the list of names given by Mr. Maclndoe as any guarantee. A 
more pertinent question is, Who judged the collections in question ? 
How many judges were employed in the task ? and were even the 
few who acted all agreed in the verdict ? It may, perhaps, turn 
out the decision rested with an exceedingly narrow majority. At 
all events I do not suppose Mr. Maclndoe has any authority for 
assuming that all the judges he names were on his side.— Umpire. 
MILDEW ON PEAS. 
My experience is that Peas suffer from mildew from two causes 
—namely, drought and damp, but as yet I have been unable to 
decide satisfactorily to myself which is the most active. I find 
that Peas do well in showery or wet weather if there are intervals 
of sunshine or drying winds to dissipate the moisture ; but in 
weather such as we have had here this last fortnight (close, dull, 
and damp, with rain and slight fogs) I find that "my Peas suffer 
much from the mildew, which after a few days causes the under 
growth to decay, although the leading shoots yet appear clean 
and healthy. I am fearful, however, that the mildew attack 
will prove fatal to what were a fortnight ago very fine rows of 
Peas. I shall be thankful if any of your readers can suggest 
a remedy.—J. S., Ripley, Surrey. 
I CAN endorse all that “ J. S.” says on page 348 relative to 
mildew on Peas. My Peas did remarkably well in the early part 
of the season while the showery weather lasted, but when those 
few weeks of diy weather came in July the rows were very soon 
covered with mildew, and continued so till the rain set in again. 
I have not seen any since, as it entirely disappeared, and I have 
been able to gather good dishes of Peas up to the present time. 
This morning (October 16th) I gathered a fine dish of Ne Plus 
Ultra. If the present weather continues they will be in bearing 
a fortnight or so longer, as there is not the least sign of mildew 
on them, and are as green as possible. I have only had three 
varieties of Peas worth much this season, and they were Laxton’s 
Fillbasket, Hundredfold, and Ne Plus Ultra. If “ J. S.” would 
kindly give his opinion on the varieties he has grown during the 
past summer it would be of much interest.—S. W., Derby. 
This disease, as alluded to by “J. S., Darlington;' is not 
induced by wet. It is always more prevalent in dry seasons, 
especially in the autumn, when the weather is hot; it is therefore 
more destructive to late than early Peas. The name of the fungus 
belonging to this mildew is Erysiphe Martii, a close ally of the 
Hop mildew. No cure has been published for the Pea mildew, 
but as the fungus grows equally well on various wild Peas, on 
[ October 19, 1882. 
Beans, on Melilof, on the St. John’s Worts, and on Umbelliferous 
plants, it is difficult to deal with, for if the garden Peas were freed 
from the pest there would be considerable chance of re-infection 
from numerous wild Peas and other diseased weeds.—W. G. Smith. 
LIFTING PEACH TREES. 
While cordially welcoming the criticism by “ A. B. C.” (page 
326) of my remarks upon this subject, I wish to point out to him 
that the old surface soil I disposed at the bottom of the holes, 
(see page 168) was not necessarily “spent” soil—quite the reverse. 
How can it be rightly termed “spent,” when during the previous 
nine months it had received one liberal top-dressing of short 
stable manure and three soakings with liquid farmyard manure, 
all of which was absorbed by the surface soil principally. If this 
had been full of roots it would have altered the case, but in reality 
there were few or no roots or fibres near the surface. Consequently, 
instead of being “ spent” soil it was most fertile, and I made a 
mistake in not using it more freely with the turf, which after all 
was poor and not so good for root-forming. We have ample 
drainage already for our borders, and the more we add the more 
rapidly will they become dry. A depth of 18 inches may be 
sufficient; but the border may be 3 feet in depth for aught that I 
care, as when once I have the roots near the surface I know how 
to keep them there. 
For my part I fail to see the utility of annually lifting Peach 
trees. It is unnecessary, is besides to a certain extent risky, and 
is laborious and expensive. If we have a border full of fibre, 
would not a surface dressing given annually and a trench cut 
round at a good distance from the tree, the roots partially lifted and 
replaced in fresh soil, say once in three years, be sufficient to 
maintain the border in a fertile state ? At any rate this is as 
much as the majority of Peach-growers are able to do for their 
trees, and who will say the results in most cases are less satis¬ 
factory than is the case where annual lifting is resorted to ? 
With regard to the employment of “brick ends” at the wrong 
place, according to “ A. B. C.” it may be they are of no service 
among the soil; but I am inclined to think they are, not because 
extra porosity is necessary in a Peach border, but because they 
are to a certain extent root or rather fibre-formers. Every rambling 
root that comes in contact with them is at once arrested, and 
naturally commences forming rootlets. It may be almost im¬ 
possible to make the borders too firm or too heavy, but I have 
yet to learn that brick ends materially affect either the lightness 
or heaviness of the borders. What does “A. B. C.” mean by 
“filling the borders with rubbish? ” It he means mortar rubbish, 
I ask, Is there no virtue in it, and are so many of us wrong in 
using it in moderation? Perhaps “A. B. C.” considers turf 
generally contains every soluble or insoluble substance requisite 
for the successful culture of Peaches. Clay added to some soils 
is doubtless of greater service than the different materials I have 
suggested might with advantage be employed, but here we have too 
much of it already, and prefer all additions to be baked—that is to 
say, in the shape of brick ends. After all, the art lies as much in 
knowing how to treat them according to their construction. If a 
border be retentive of moisture—for instance if it has received 
a good application of clay, and also otherwise enriched—then 
much less moisture will be required ; but if formed of lighter and 
poorer materials will the difference in the crops secured be very 
marked providing the requisite amount of moisture and fertility 
be constantly within reach of the roots ? I say not; in fact the 
best crop of Peaches and Nectarines I have seen this season was 
at Orsett Hall, and on trees that I planted, while there in charge, 
in a comparatively light border. What would “A. B. C.” say to 
a Yine border composed exclusively of brick ends, mortar rubbish, 
bones, and charcoal ? Yet I have recently seen such a border, 
in which the Vines look even better than where growing in an 
orthodox border in the next compartment.—W. Iggulden. 
CORN MILDEW. 
The following excellent article extracted from the autumn 
seed corn catalogue of Messrs. Edward Webb & Sons, Wordsley, 
Stourbridge, will not be less acceptable to gardeners than those 
who are identified with agricultural pursuits :— 
The destructive pest of cereals known under the name of 
Corn Mildew attacks not only Wheat (Triticum vulgare) but 
Barley (Hordeum distichum), Oats (Avena fatua), and numerous 
other Grasses, both wild and cultivated. The most serious attack 
of the malady is, however, always on the Wheat, and from the 
very earliest historic times we find written records of Wheat being 
destroyed by mildew. 
