290 JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. r [ October 2, i»o. 
It is fully evident that the Hollyhock is rapidly becoming again 
a popular flower, especially in the midlands and north, and culti¬ 
vators will confer a great boon if they will freely convey through 
the columns of the gardening papers their experience of the 
disease and remedies for cure or prevention. Mr. Steel sent me 
blooms of a dozen varieties, and remarked that “ blooms are c f 
course small now, and as they do not seem to travel well I have 
sent you buds so that you can see their colours, and perhaps travel 
better.” The following are the varieties :— 
Pride of Layton (Finlay).—A flower of the finest quality, rich 
salmon colour, large, and very full high centre, and good guard 
petal. 
Grace Darling (Thompson).—Shaded pale salmon, a very fine 
flower, very close high centre, large, and with excellent guard 
petal. 
Walter Scott (Steel) —A seedling of 1890, pale salmon buff, a 
very fine flower of a bright shade of colour, large, and very full 
high centre, and capital guard petal. 
Mrs. Joseph Oliver (Steel).—Seedling, 1890 ; shaded pale flesh 
and rosy lilac, very close high centre, and medium guard petal, and 
distinct. 
Favourite. —Yery light pink, shading to a lighter colour, a 
beautiful blending of colours, large, close, high centre, and good 
guard petal; a very fine flower. 
Mrs. George Steel (Steel).—Seedling, 1880 ; bright shaded 
salmon tinted pink, a very refined flower, close well-formed centre, 
and perfect guard petal ; a grand flower. 
Vesta (Chater).—A deeper shade of colour than Mrs. G. Steel, 
having a more decided salmon shade in it, but rather rough in out¬ 
line. and pockety, still a telling flower in a stand. 
Nohilis (Chater).—Yery pale buff tinted with primrose, a dis¬ 
tinct and very fine flower, grand in high close centre and guard 
petal. 
Agnes Royle (Oliver).—Pale yellow, a grand flower in every 
respect ; extra fine. 
Octoroon. —Deep maroon, tinted crimson, a very fine flower, 
and telling in a stand. 
Leviathan (Chater).—Light scarlet, a beautiful flower in every 
way, with plenty of centre. 
Robert Royle (Oliver).—Lighter in colour than Leviathan, and 
very close high centre ; a very fine flower. 
Perfection (Chater).—Mottled or shaded pink and lilac, tinted 
white ; a distinct flower of first-rate qualities. 
W. Dean (Downie).—Bright salmon rose ; a flower of refined 
quality, with excellent guard petal, and close high centre ; very 
fine. 
Maggie Bain (Thompson).—Bright deep rose ; a grand flower 
in every respect.—W. Dean, Sparkhill. 
NOTES ON EARLY ENGLISH HORTICULTURE. 
{Continued from page 155.) 
I have long had in contemplation an essay or article upon the 
benefits England has received from Scotland, which could be proved 
to be neither few nor unimportant. The annals of British garden¬ 
ing duiing last century, for instance, would show' that South 
Britain was greatly indebted for its horticultural progress to a 
number of natives of the northern part of the isle who migrated 
to the nurseiies and establishments in or about London, and some 
other towns. Dr. Johnson would probably have growled disappro¬ 
bation, and complained that they took the bread out of the mouths 
of honest Englishmen, but the laddies set a good example, display¬ 
ing Scottish prudence, patience, and perseverance, which might 
well be copied by their fellow workers. Possibly they were a trifle 
too conservative, over-cautious in adopting improvements or changes, 
but when the utility of these was seen the Scotch gardeners never 
failed to turn them to the best account. A writer upon the sub¬ 
ject of horticulture in the reign of George III., when cataloguing 
the sins of gardeners, seems to consider slovenliness the greatest, 
and this, I think, is seldom the fault of a Scotchman. 
That the Scotch folks generally were slow in the introduction 
of new plants appears from the statements of travellers, who 
express surprise that when even in the gardens of English cottagers 
there was to be found a number of vegetables, those of the better 
class in Scotland often showed only varieties of the Cabbage, 
Onions, and Potatoes. Again, Cromwell’s soldiers are credited 
with having planted in Scotland some hedges of Hawthorn, and 
pointed out to the people there how great were the advantages 
derived from the protection hedges give to fields or gardens, but a 
hundred years after they were seldom to be seen, and indeed to 
this day there is a scarcity of hedges both in Scotland and the 
northern districts of England. If these may spoil a prospect some¬ 
times, they soften the grim outlines of an uninviting landscape, 
and many a garden would be improved by being thus screened from 
cutting winds. I may note in passing, that I find there are still 
persons who object to hedges on the ground that they afford shelter 
for insects — a mistaken notion. Indeed, in the case of fruit 
trees it is likely that some caterpillars, which would otherwise 
attack them, are left to settle upon the Hawthorn and Sloe when 
they are used for hedging. One thing that existed in Scotland 
during the infancy of horticulture, of which there is no trace in 
England, was a series of small lodges or societies of gardeners, who 
met from time to time for the exhibition of plants grown, and the 
interchange of ideas. Many of these were chiefly composed of 
mechanics or small tradesmen who devoted their spare hours to 
flower culture, the taste being traceable, not to English influence, 
but to that of French weavers, who settled at Paisley, Edinburgh, 
Glasgow, and other places. The Edinburgh Botanic Garden 
originated about 1680, made only small progress till 1767, when it 
was enlarged, and extensive ranges of conservatories or hothouses 
erected under the direction of Dr. Hope, and in the middle of that 
century a large botanic garden was formed by the Marquis of 
Bute, which attracted much notice. But special honour belongs to 
Mr. James Justice, as one who, by personal exertion, and through 
his travels on the Continent in the reign of George II., brought 
into view many new species and varieties. His father was a 
merchant, and having dealings with the Dutch, they offered him 
bulbs unknown in England, some of which he bought, and thi3, ’iis 
said, led his son to become such an enthusiastic amateur, that, 
though a lawyer, he was tempted to an outlay upon his garden at 
Crichton, by which he got into difficulties. He had the first Pine 
stove seen in Scotland, and he was presumed to have had one year the 
largest collection of Auriculas in Europe. A book containing the 
results of his many years’ experience was published in 1754, and, 
not to limit its sale to the Scotch, he called it the “ British Gar¬ 
dener’s Director.” It was apparently the first standard w r ork of 
the kind brought out north of the Tweed, and contained valuable 
information about the whole range of outdoor gardening as then 
practised, also on greenhouses and stoves. 
About the middle of the eighteenth century the man styled by 
Cowper the “ omnipotent magician Brown ” began to exercise a 
great influence upon horticulture, and his fame was for a time 
unrivallfd as a designer of flower gardens and pleasure grounds. 
People called him “ Capability ” Brown, from his frequent use of 
that word when he was describing the plan he meant to pursue in 
forming a new garden or remodelling an old one, but his name was 
Lancelot, and though not Scotch, he was a borderer, hailing from 
Northumberland. Brown made his start as a worker in the kitchen 
garden at a house near Woodstock, and afterwards he attained to 
the position of chief gardener at Stowe. Lord Cobham becoming 
his friend, by this peer’s recommendation he got the appointment 
of gardener to the royal Palaces of Hampton and Windsor, which 
brought him to the pinnacle of his popularity, but in fact there 
was nothing particular about his methods. His gardens were even 
more formal than those of the older style, and showed less 
variety, yet there was hardly a nobleman or gentleman who did 
not consult Brown at some time or another. From Scotland and 
Ireland also he received pressing invitations, and he sent pupils to 
those countries. He himself never left England, though he had 
tempting offers even from Russia. His ideal of a flower garden, 
if he had space sufficient, was to have it gently sloping to an 
artificial stream at the bottom, and beds on each side of the lawn 
which it divided corresponding formally with each other, in the 
middle of every one a tree or shrub. Around the whole garden 
ran an upper walk with a background of trees or tall shrubs, 
amongst which Roses were sometimes placed for effect. His 
favourite method of planting trees was in circular clumps, large or 
small, and in belts ; which led Sir W. Chambers to remark, that if 
Brown’s mania was generally followed there would ere long not be 
half a dozen trees in a row left standing in England. Some of his 
rivals greatly ridiculed what they called his “ kitchen garden ” 
manneiism, arising, they hinted, from his early career. But he was 
always ready with an answer, as when they criticised a place he 
had laid out at Latimers, Bucks, cramming there a number of beds 
and shrubs into a narrow valley ; this he defended, saying it was a 
“playful style,” though the expression seems incongruous. We 
must regard him as one who did little to advance horticulture, 
except indeed by showing what ought to be avoided. 
We have referred to Kent, one of Brown’s predecessors in the 
art of landscape gardening, and mention should be made of another 
of that name, Charles Kent, who was attached to the English 
Embassy at Brussels in the reign of George II. He had previous 
to his residence abroad taken no special interest in gardening, 
but while in the Netherlands he made a study of the matter during 
some tours, and was surprised at the diligence the Flemings exhi¬ 
bited . He drew up a report upon the Flemish methods, dealing 
specially with their skill in selecting and applying manures to the 
