JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
May 17, 1883. ] 
401 
The Strawberries were particularly fine, Mr. J. Burridge taking the 
kad with Oscar, Mr. H. Jones following with Dr. Hogg, and Mr. 
Howe was third with Sir J. Paxton. Mr. Burridge also secured the 
first prize for Strawberries in pots, the variety again being Oscar. 
Mf-A. Shadwell followed with President, only slightly inferior, Mr. 
M. Cole taking third place with Sir C. Napier, and Mr. J. Weston 
had a fourth prize, all staging most creditably. 
VEGETABLES. 
Vegetables were, considering the season, very well shown. Mr. M. 
Barnfield took the lead with nine varieties, his collection including 
good Asparagus, Mona’s Pride Potatoes, Peas, and Tomatoes. The 
second prize was awarded to Mr. J. Weston for a good lot, of which 
the best were Early Munich Turnips, Minimum Peas, and Late Queen 
Broccoli. The third prize was awarded to Mr. H. Scott, and the 
fourth to Mr. E. Fisher. Mr. J. G. Kitching had the best six varieties, 
these consisting of fine Asparagus, Telegraph Cucumbers, Webb’s 
Royal Ashleaf Potatoes, Late White Broccoli, Canadian Wonder 
Beans, and Trophy Tomatoes. Mr. Arthur Beavis was a good second, 
and the third prize went to Mr. F. Mead, gardener to J. G. Holme, Esq. 
The best dish of Potatoes, fine examples of Mona’s Pride, was staged 
by Mr. W. Burridge, Messrs. J. G. Kitching and John Shellard taking 
the remaining prizes. Quantities of good Cucumbers were shown ; of 
these the best, a good brace of Carter’s Model, were shown by Mr. G. 
Pymrn, gardener to J. Gouldsmith, Esq., Mr. H. Beavis and Mr. A. 
Beavis taking the remaining prizes in the order named. Mushrooms 
were well shown by Messrs. G. Wiltshire and G. Pymm ; Beans by 
J. G. Kitching, H. Jones, and W. Haskell, who took the prizes as 
named in each instance. Mr. W. Burridge showed William I. Peas 
in excellent condition, and was awarded the first prize. Mr. J. H. P. 
Westcott, Star Cross, Devon, took the first prize for Asparagus with 
extra fine examples, and he also staged fine bundles not for 
competition. 
THE BARDFIELD OXLIP. 
I observe on page 386 a mention of this by Dr. Hogg. I have 
grown it for several years in two or three spots near a north wall 
in my garden in Cheshire, giving it several square yards to itself. 
I dig up most of the older plants after flowering every year, so as 
to give the seedlings which come up in thousands in June room 
to develope. These flower when a year old, but produce the 
finest flowers when two years old. The mass of flowers produced 
by the plants in April forms one of the prettiest objects in my 
garden. Most of the seedlings come perfectly true, but some 
assimilate themselves more or less to the different forms of English 
Oxlip. I noticed one which had the light colour of the Bard field 
and the one-sided habit, but round open flowers as lartre as a full- 
sized Primrose. These I gather to keep the Bardfields as far as 
I can true to variety. 
Some years ago i wrote some notes in the Journal of Horticul¬ 
ture, observing that the garden Polyanthus, if allowed to grow 
from self-sown seed, degenerates in two or three generations 
into a common Cowslip. I am still of the same opinion, and 
every year see additional reason for thinking that Linnmus was 
right in classing Primrose, Cowslip, and Oxlip together as one 
species. A few days ago I gathered on the Little Orme’s Head a 
bunch of Oxlips and Cowslips, from which I picked a series from 
the largest Oxlip to the smallest Cowslip, in which no line of 
separation could be drawn in size or colour. We are often told 
in books on English flowers that there are two distinct forms of 
English Oxlip, one the colour of the Cowslip, the other of the 
Primrose, but it is easy enough to find every intermediate shade. 
Polyanthus-formed Primroses and one-flowered stalks of Cowslip, 
though abnormal, are sufficiently common to justify their being 
used as an argument for identity of species.— C. Wolley Dod, 
Llandudno. 
NORTHWARDS—CLOVENFORDS. 
THE CORRECTOR-GENERAL OF GARDENERS. 
As I was pretty certain that someone would endeavour to make 
a little literary capital out of my remarks (page 313) on the Grapes 
in the establishment under notice, I waited for the anticipated 
impeachment. It has, I perceive, duly appeared in another 
medium, and in a manner to which I have not the slightest ob¬ 
jection. It is very gentle criticism, and the writer is so generous 
as to state that my “ accuracy is usually unimpeachable,” but a 
“ valuer ” would be less “ misleading.” This latter is a favourite 
word with the corrector-general, and I am bound to say, as used 
by him, does not appear to carry its normal weight; in fact, I 
suspect it is not intended to imply anything serious, but comes in 
conveniently for making a line or finishing a sentence. My critic 
suggests that awkward angular clusters with great shoulders jutting 
out—monstrosities, can be packed to travel as well as handsome, 
compact, well-shaped bunches ; but he knows better. Again, he 
would imply that such a crop of Grapes of the first size and quality 
as I imperfectly described is a very moderate and commonplace 
yield, but he knows better ; if he had grown it, it would have been 
grand. And yet once again, if I am not inaccurate, I have seen 
Grapes both on Vines in charge of the writer to whom I am al¬ 
luding, and off them in London ; in fact I may almost venture to 
say I have been present at their unpacking, and there were no 
such awkward clusters and great jutting shoulders as are too often 
seen now a-days, and which no one can pack to arrive at their 
destination in the best condition. We thus arrive at a point—a 
curious point rather—that a very ready writer and experienced 
gardener grows such Grapes as I endeavoured to commend, and 
to which he refers slightingly, and does not produce such as he to 
an ordinary reader would appear to extol, and which I denounced 
mildly. Thus we get in a maze—the usual result where criticism 
for the sake of criticism is indulged in, and the critic has placed 
himself, in this case, in the singular position (for the first time in 
his life probably) of disparaging his own Grapes ; in fact, he 
cannot honestly and consistently, on the lines he has himself laid 
down, condemn Mr, Thomson’s produce without condemning his 
own more effectually. I am sorry this is so—that there has been 
any attempt to detract—as the examples I have seen of both 
growers deserved a better fate. The truth is there is no real 
difference between us in our estimate of Grapes that we see (and 
I think we have judged them together) ; but in the question of 
the magnificent crops at Clovenfords, it so happened that I ex¬ 
amined them carefully and my critic did not see them at all, and 
therefore readers of gardening literature can conclude if they like 
that he must know their character and condition better than I do, 
and I leave the matter with them. 
To the best of my knowledge I understated the weights and 
character of the crops previously referred to, and I will not over¬ 
estimate those that have yet to be noticed ; but I must speak the 
truth, even at the risk of being accused of exaggeration. I repeat 
that never in all my travels have I seen such crops of Gros Colman 
and Lady Downe’s Seedling as those at Clovenfords in September, 
and I have not one word to withdraw nor one sentence to modify 
of what I have written respecting them ; and now I have to speak 
of that grandest of all white Grapes— 
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH. 
Like others I had read descriptions of this Grape “at home,” 
and they all agreed that the wonderful crops were produced under 
the same conditions as Black Hamburghs. I found this precisely 
so as regards soil and temperature, for both these varii ties are 
grown in the same house and border; but there is a most im¬ 
portant difference that has not been made sufficiently clear, and 
this is in the method of pruning. The Black Hamburgh is pruned 
on the ordinary close-spur system, but the Duke is not. Most of 
the crop had been cut on my visit, very few Black Hamburghs 
being left, and only a patch of the Duke quite in the centre of 
the roof ; but it was a wonderful residue, for it indicated that, at 
Clovenfords at least, instead of this variety being shy, it is as iree 
as any Grape in cultivation. When I state that it was impossible 
to place a closed hand between the bunches without touching 
some of the berries, I state a fact which cannot be explained 
away bv any curious examples of arithmetic, such as showing 
that 25 lbs. of Grapes in a space of 6 feet by 3 feet, gives “ some¬ 
thing under 1 lb. to every 2 square feet of space.” Passing from 
school exercise I have ascertained that, according to the evidence 
of the weighing machine, the entire crop of Gros Colman was of 
nearly twice the weight of that arrived at by the “ enchanting ” 
arrangement of figures. So far from exaggerating, I now find I 
both under-estimated the weight of the crop and over-estimated 
the length of the rafters. I dare not say the weight of the Duke 
in a similar space to that above noted, 6 feet by 3 feet, was much, 
if any, less than Gros Colman. The bunches ranged from 1 to 3 
or 4 lbs., being furnished in the most regular manner with berries 
such as no other white Grape can produce—clear, perfectly ripe, 
and of the finest quality. In flesh and flavour this is distinct from 
all other Grapes; “like a sweetmeat” has become the popular, 
as it is an accurate description, with a volume of sparkling 
champagne-like juice. 
METHODS OF TINE-PRUNING. 
The Vines that were bearing so heavily were practically 
managed on the long-rod system. This is different from the 
“ extension,” and both of them are older than I am. The latter 
means Vines that are spur-pruned, but which are allowed to 
extend, or produce many rods from the same stem until one Vine 
fills a house, or as much of it as is required ; but all the rods 
closely spur-pruned nevertheless. The former—the long-rod—■ 
