August 12, 1886. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
131 
Table 4. 
FUEL TABLE IN CONTEST FOB 2000 FEET. 
Com¬ 
petitor. 
Bushels of 
coke at 
12 30 P.M., 
starting 
time 
Tune 20 th. 
Bushels of 
coke 
unburned 
at 8 A.M., 
June 30th. 
Bushels 
of 
ashes. 
Bushels 
of 
clinkers. 
Bushels of 
coke 
partially 
consumed 
having 
passed 
through 
the fire. 
Partially 
burned 
fuel 
estimated 
at half 
its original 
quality. 
Bushels of 
coke 
actually 
consumed. 
F.& J.Mee 
S3 
rj 
1 
1 
H 
26| 
Wood .... 
33 
6 
1 shovelful 
8 
28-1 
Foster &) 
Pearson J 
36 
20 
f 
— 
1 
16$ 
Wither- ) 
spoon ) 
Deard.... 
F.& J.Mee 
Foster &) 
Pearson J 
FOR 1000 FEET CONTEST.—CLASS 2. 
20 
H 
l 
_ 
u 
3 
4 
20 
m 
l 
l shovelful 
I 
* 
20 
8 i 
i 
2shovelfuls 
3 i 
l! 
Retired. No particulars taken of fuel. 
FOR 500 FEET CONTEST.—CLASS S. 
Wood .... 
hi 
_ 
H 
k shovelfal 
2 
I 
10$ 
Deards .. 
n 
61 
1 
| shovelfal 
1 
4 
4 
Wagstaff.. 
H 
si 
1 
4 shovelful 
1 
4 
7i 
Table 5. 
Price op Boiler and Level op the Pipes. 
2000feet Contest. —Messrs. F. & C. Mee, price of boiler, £35. Level of 
tbe pipes, 11 a inches (overall). 
Mr. Wood, price of boiler, £21 2s. Level of pipes, 4f inches (overall). 
Messrs. Foster & Pearson, price of boiler, £21. Level of pipes, 7J inches 
(overall). 
1000 feet Contest. —F. & J. Mee, price of boiler, £35. Level of pipes same 
as prev ous contest. 
Mr. Sam Deards, price of boiler, £22. Level of pipes, 6 inches (overall). 
Mr. Witherspoon, price of boiler, £26. Level of pipes, 6 inches (overall). 
500 feet Contest. —Mr. Deards, price of boiler, £10. Level of pipes as 
1 efore. 
Mr. Wagstaff, price of boiler, £14. Level of pipes, 4$ inches (overall). 
Mr. Wood, price of boiler, £9 18s. Level of pipes as before. 
Table 6. 
Chief Points Considered in the Contest. 
Temperature. Level of the pipes. Consumption of fuel. Price of boiler 
Durability. Banking up, or condition of the fire in the morning. Clinkers 
Ashes. Heating surface of the boiler. Heat per bushel of fuel consumed. 
SMALL ROSE GROWERS. 
I AM glad to see that this subject is being so warmly taken up, and 
that there are others beside myself and “ Sasoring ” who recognise the 
fact that there are amateurs and amateurs, and that it is not fair to ask 
the man who is dependant entirely upon the atlention that he can per¬ 
sonally give to his Roses to compete with the man who can afford to 
have all or nearly all the work done for him. The latter is not the actual 
grower or producer of the blooms he exhibits to anything like the extent 
that the former is. 
I have ofen wanted to ask in the case of an exhibit from “Jones, 
gardener to Smith, Esq.,” who is in strict fairness entitled to the prize f 
The gardener is not, for he never bought the plants, he does not bear the 
expense of the land on which they are grown, and he is paid for all the 
labour he has expended upon them. Neither, in another sense, is his 
employer entitled to it, for in most cases the work of production has been 
performed by another; probably all he has done has been to cut the 
blooms and stage them, and all the work of getting the boxes to the 
show, &c., has been done without him. Therefore I ask, Who is to have 
the prize ? 
I am glad of the sympathy of “ Duckwing ” and “ F. H. Gf.,” and shall 
be much obliged if the latter gentleman will give me the addre-'ses of the 
small county shows to which he alludes, though there I expect I should 
have to fight the amateur plus his gardener. But if the National Society 
can be induced to take up the line of “ bar the gardener” it will be the 
dawn of a more encouraging day for many.—A Small Rose-grower. 
I AM heartily glad to see that the difficulties of small rosarians are 
being ventilated, and especially that “ The National ” is being appealed 
to to take the matter up on new lines. As a member of that Society I 
know that small clisses have been provided purposely to meet such cases 
ai that of “ A Small Rose Grower,” and again and again have looked over 
the exhibits in tho?e classes to see how the plan was working, but in 
nearly every ca°e I have found the prize tickets on the boxes of “ Rev. 
Mr. So and So,” “ Mr. Blank, gardener to, &c.” Now, sir, such men are 
small Rose-growers only from choice ; they have the means, if they so 
desire, to enlarge their beds almost ad infinitum, and are in a position to 
engage all the help necessary for the production of either a “six” 
or a “ thiity-six.” 
Again, I know that Mr. Mawley and Mr. F. G. Oliver provided 
classes for suburban-grown Roses (Why were they discontinued 1 Cannot 
they be revived ? ), to meet the case of many earnest men heavily handi¬ 
capped by the smokiness of gardens near town ; but it does seem to me 
that no effort has been made to enable the man to win a prize who, of 
necessity, not of choice, has to do everything to his Roses with his own 
hands, and I sincerely hope that “ The National ” will prove itself worthy 
of its name by establishing a class or classes exclusively for such. 
“ Duckwing,” in last week’s issue, speaks of classes “ within so many 
miles,” or “ for amateurs not employing a regular gardener.” This latter 
is very similar to the restriction mentioned by “ A Small Rise Grower,” 
and to my mind is what is wanted to meet such cases, although, as the 
term “ regular ” is a very elastic one, I think a stipulation for not more 
than two days, or three, a week should be made iu order to define more 
exactly what is meant by “ non-regular” aid. 
I again express the hope that “ our Society ” will energetically take up 
the matter (the Palace also ought to), and shall be glad to help in any 
way towards such a desirable object.— A Lady Rosarian. 
MADRESFIELD COURT GRAPE CRACKING. 
Under the above heading “ R. M.” is pretty near the truth when he 
states that the cause of this Grape cracking is due, in a measure, to 
atmospheric moisture. Last year about this time our samples of this 
Grape commenced cracking, and imagining that a saturated atmosphere 
had a ceriain influence in bringing about that unhappy result I determined 
to try what dryness could do. It must not be inferred that dryness at 
the root is meant, as that is not the case, having frequently had occasi n 
to give them a thorough soaking from that time, but I always selected 
what promised to be a bright sunny day for that purpose, and watered 
the border the first thing in the morning, kept a brisk heat in the pipe 0 , 
and with full ventilation on the surface of the border was well dried 
during the day, thereby preserving a dry atmosphere during the night. 
Siuce I adopted this method of culture I have always been able to finish 
Madresfield Court without the loss of a berry. The means employed by 
some to divert the superabundance of sap into other channels ihan the 
fruit is more imaginary than real. By extending the lateral growths they 
are encouraging root-action, and, consequently, adding to the vigour of 
the Vine. 
It ought to be borne in mind that a dry atmosphere has a tendency to 
draw the water from the fruit and prevent bursting, whereas a saturated 
atmosphere will not. My Madresfield Court Grapes are now colouring, 
and by following the method described I am confident of finishing them 
without having to cut away the half of the bunches or even half a dozen 
berries out of the lot. “ J. O.’s ” explanation of the cause and remedy 
reminds me of a little episode in connection with the “ wonderful 
tree ” at Chatsworth. One gentleman on being asked why tbe tree was 
not in leaf—then midsummer—commenced a scientific explanation of 
the freaks of Nature, when every bud replied to his remarks by sending 
down upon the unfortunate individual a shower of water, drenching the 
unhappy gentleman who made bold to elucidate the “ whyms ” of Nature, 
forgetful of art.— P. Riddell. 
It was on July 15th that I saw and advised my friend on this matter, 
and with me ud to this date, August 9th, one berry only has cracked ; so 
much for my practice. 
In reply to Mr. W. Mosely, let me say that had the free growing of 
laterals been a preventive with me, I should never have seen any crack¬ 
ing, and in those days I gave even more ventilation than I do now. The 
foliage does not allow the sun to shine on the berries, as I know what 
that means. My two Vines are in the corners of a span house, stand’.ng 
north to south, consequently the west corner Vine gets morning sun from 
about eleven o’clock than the east corner one does of the afternoon sun. 
To avoid burning the berries I allow the leaves to hang fairly low at the 
two sides, so they are safe. 
I should be sorry for “R. M. ” to apply water to the roots 
of my Madresfield Court Vines, as I know what would be 
the result. Two years ago I inarched Madresfield Court on Gros 
Colman to put the water to its test, with the result that cracking 
occurred, and this, too, with very liberal ventilati n. Could I be sure 
of only, say, one or two berries cracking I would soak this inarched 
Vine, but not having faith I am afraid. Since taking the pen in hand 
it occurs to me that the fact of “R. M. ” not employing fire heat for 
eleven days, and then putting fire on, may be a solution of the mystery. 
My fire is never out from the time of starting the Vines till ihe Grapes 
are cut. Soil to my mind has much to do with the evil, a stiff one being 
most conducive to the fruit cracking. My Madresfield Court commenced 
colouring on July 28th. I then bedded the border down (an inside onec 
with newspapers and dry grass, and no more water will be given while 
the Grapes hang ; this is the fourth year of so doing. My crop for thre 
years has been 160 lbs., being for each Vine ye trly 264 lbs.— Stephen 
Castle, West Lynn, 
CHRYSANTHEMUMS AND THEIR CULTURE. 
( Continued from page 107.) 
FLOWERS “DAMPING”—REMEDIES. 
One of the greatest evils which a cultivator of Chrysanthemums 
on the “ large bloom ” principle has to contend with is the subject 
of “ damping.” Many hours’ anxious thought would be avoided if 
