392 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ October 28, 1888. 
It was not necessary. The addition of soil to the ridges is not denied, 
nor can it be denied that it is rich surface soil added to rich surface soil, 
making the depth of good soil greater than on the level, and if that is 
not an advantage I do not know what is. Again, if the Celery trenches 
are not thrown out till May, as is often the case, or even April, the surface 
quite warm before being covered with the layer of soil taken from 
them, and the ridges are thus several degrees warmer 3 or 4 inches or 
more below the surface than the soil is at that depth on the level. This 
increased depth of good soil, however slight it may be, coupled with the 
distinct gain in earth heat, is of enormous advantage in land that is 
naturally heavy and wet in inciting the growth of whatever may be sown 
or planted. I wonder if your correspondent is still “ surprised” that a 
double dose of good soil or warmed rich surface soil should make his 
Lettuces grow? If he is he had better not attach the slightest import¬ 
ance to “ gentle bottom heat ” in starting his Cucumbers or other plants, 
which ordinary gardeners consider are benefited by such assistance. 
The truth of the matter is, that the soil with which Mr. Iggulden has 
to deal is too cold for the free growth of crops early in the season, and 
the sun is long in warming it ; indeed, it never can warm it to any great 
depth. The soil is adhesive and wet, and the sun’s rays are employed in 
evaporating the water. Not one degree can the earth’s temperature be 
raised till the water is extracted. Instead of that the surface is being 
made colder, for there can be no evaporation without a fall in tempera¬ 
ture. If a pint of water is evaporated from 100 lbs. of soil the land is 
left 10° colder than it would be if the water passed away by filtration. 
Grasp that fact and think it over. The importance of drained and 
warmed land will then be evident, and if draining cannot be done in the 
orthodox way it may to a great extent be accomplished by ridging and 
cropping on the ridges. 
By far the most important of all elements in making crops grow is 
warm moist air. Air cannot enter waterlogged ground ; but let the water 
pass away by filtration and the air will follow, because 15 lbs. in weight 
of it presses on every square inch of surface. Exclude air from the earth, 
and decaying animal and vegetable matter therein is plant poison ; admit 
air and it is converted into plant food. I believe the more these state¬ 
ments are thought about the more clearly they will be recognised as facts, 
and as such incontrovertible. It is easy enough to contradict and express 
disbelief. That can be done without any mental effort. In fact, mere 
contradictions usually betray want of thought and a lack of knowledge 
of the true scientific principles on which all sound practice is founded. 
The great fact to remember, and in my opinion it is the greatest of 
all facts in connection with culture, yet one which we seldom see stated 
is this—namely, that at the least 80 per cent, of plant food is supplied by 
the air in the form of rain and gases that act aB solvents of the matter 
locked up in the soil. The deeper the air can penetrate freely with its 
warmth, hence life-giving power, the more food is conveyed, and that in 
immeasurably the cheapest of all forms, and it only needs tin pr sence of 
moisture for its absorption. If soil, no matter whether it is at Marston or 
elsewhere, is not improved by being dug more than a spade deep, it is 
fundamentally out of condition, and this the quicker and better growth 
of crops on ridges between Celery trenches conclusively proves, and 
proves another thing too—that it is amenable to improvement by 
deepening and aeration. To say it is only a “ trifle ” deeper is no 
answer ; it is really a corroboration of what it is intended to confute, 
because obviously if a mere trifle tells so markedly a still greater addition 
or depth cf equally good soil, say another “ trifle,” must of necessity be 
still more efficacious. 
Now, let me venture to give Mr. Iggulden and all persons similarly 
situated a little what he may term “ practical ” advice. It is this. If 
they cannot convey the water out of the land by filtration and increase 
its porosity for the admission of warmth and air by a well conducted 
system of dra> aglet them throw it into a series of ridges when the 
surface is dry am warm in spring, and crop on those ridges, and they will 
get a better return with half the manure than can be obtained by 
cropping on the level with a double dose, no matter whether they grow 
Lettuces, or Potatoes, or Onions, or Roses, or Gooseberries, or Peas ; in 
fact, I expect nothing in strong, cold, adhesive, waterlogged soil. That is 
the condition, and this fully comprehended, I may venture to say that if 
the change does not result in improvement it will be time I gave up think¬ 
ing altogether ; and I do not know that I should quarrel much with those 
of my readers who may mutter in response, “ And a good job, too.” 
But I do not [intend ceasing to “ think ” if I can help it, or to re¬ 
frain from expressing my thoughts just at present, and I am going to 
direct my attention for a few moments to the subject of one of Mr. Muir’s 
paragraphs (page 322)—Onions. There is nothing like beginning with a 
bold statement for arresting attention, therefore I make bold to assert 
that the “improvers” of Onions are spoiling them. They are on the 
wrong track altogether, and Mr. Muir appears inclined to help them along 
the road to ruin. An entirely false standard of excellence is being set up 
by exhibitors and judges at shows, and cultivators are induced to grow 
just what is not wanted by the multitude in the markets, consumers turn¬ 
ing for what they do want to the produce of Spain, Portugal, Holland, 
and other countries. A few more “ improvements,” and a few more prizes 
for them, and English Onions will be as flat as pancakes. It is time a 
protest was entered against this spoiling of a valuable crop. Foreign 
competition is denounced in words, but invited in practice, and there is 
no wonder at the increasing importations of Onions. Greengrocers know 
very well what the public like—bright, firm, round bulbs, not the flat 
cake-like “specimens” which “judges” delight to honour. 
For years past the leading seedsmen have been devoting their atten¬ 
tion to the improvement of the root crops of the farm, and flat Swedes and 
Turnips are obsolete, while one of the chief merits of Mangold Wurtzels 
is that of attaining to a great size out of the ground. Weight above the 
soil is the test of excellence. There is no question as to that being a 
sound estimate of value from whatever point of view the subject is re¬ 
garded. But a directly opposite course appears to be taken in the “im¬ 
provement ” of Onions, and the standard of excellence seems to be cover¬ 
ing the greatest extent of ground with the bulbs, and getting as little 
produce as possible above it, as though there were no room upwards for 
Onions to swell. Look at them on the exhibition table, with their backs 
turned to visitors like so many white plates, as if the upper or face side 
was not fit to be seen, and yet these flattened monstrosities, with a 
minimum of kernel and a maximum of husk, are held up as models. 
Truly the Onion growers on the Continent who flourish at our expense 
must thirk the English a peculiar people. I write with a full conscious¬ 
ness of the risk incurred in thus striking at the flats—I mean the flat 
Onions—in provoking a mighty onslaught from their defenders, and am 
prepared to take the consequences. 
Turning to my doughty opponent “ Utilitarian,” I am sorry to have 
overlooked what he appears to have intended—namely, his admission of 
a mistake in respect to the Windsor Pear as a market variety, and I 
should regret very sincerely if I should even seem to reproach anyone 
under such circumstances. I have the utmost respect for “Utilitarian” 
and all such able defenders of their views who make me press down my 
“ thinking cap ” more firmly in maintaining a position, and I feel certain 
that similar feelings are entertained towards myself by most, if not all, 
who feel it their duty or pleasure to combat my notions, for I am proud 
to feel there are as true gentlemen among gardeners as in any other class 
of society, notwithstanding a sprinkling of the other sort, the existence 
of which I sorrowfully admit. I felt “ Utilitarian's ” rebuke on page 336 
rather keenly, because I regard him as one of the right sort, and apologise 
for my oversight. We now start fair again, and I am going to say what 
I think about his pet Beurrd Capiaumont Pear. I have nothing to say 
against the richness of the Seckle, as invited, and wonder who has ; nor 
of the hardy and useful Swan’s Egg and Aston Town as orchard standards; 
but I repeat that, as a rule, and taking the samples as generally produced 
over a wide area, Beund Capiaumont is “ poor and poor looking.” I agree 
fully that “ estimates should be founded on experience,” and that being 
so, let not my opponent take refuge again in quoting authorities against 
me. I am suspected of taking my “ promptings from the sunny south,’* 
as if this or any other Pear coloured better in the north. Mind you are 
not caught tripping, Mr. Utilitarian. I take my stand on gathering 
bushels of fruit from standards and giving most of it to the pigs, as it 
would not be eaten by their matters. This was north of the 53rd parallel 
of latitude, therefore not in the “ sunny south ; ’’ fine healthy trees, too, 
in good soil, not scraggy overcrowded examples in barren land. I 
consider Beurrd Capiaumont a greatly overrated Pear, and if I had land 
intended for growing fruit for market, and “Utilitarian” should be 
moved to offer me fifty or a hundred trees of it, and plant them for 
nothing in the middle of the ground, I should respectfully decline the 
proffered kindness on the score of utility. 
It is only in the sunny south that well-coloured samples of this 
Pear can be seen. I have seen a few attractive specimens; but look 
through the prize list of any good show, or turn to the records of the 
Pear Congress, and it will be seen how comparatively scarce they are. 
It is very different with “ good and good-looking ” Pears. It is beside 
the question to refer to fruit from “ trees on a wall ” as evidence of 
quality. The theme of your correspondent was “ Pears for market,” 
and the bulk of these are not grown against walls. Moreover, where 
walls exist they can be better occupied—namely, with first-rate Pears, 
and no one that I know who has had much “expeiience” would place 
Beurre Capiaumont in that category. 
There is one purpose, and only one, for which I would plant trees of 
the variety under notice—namely, shelter. The tree is hardy, and a close 
upright grower. Orchards in exposed positions require protection from 
high winds. Forest trees are sometimes planted for this. A row of 
standard Beurrd Capiaumont Pears 12 feet apart, and another row of 
dwarfs 6 feet asunder, about 8 feet in front of the others, would form a 
magnificent hedge furnished from the ground to a height of 40 feet 
upwards, and tie sheltered side would give much fruit of its kind, that 
might happen to find a sale in some big but poor town, where the multi¬ 
tude pay more regard to bulk for money than to quality, and in that case 
the Pears as a screen would be better than Poplars. I am not able to go 
beyond that in recommending Beurre Capiaumont for market or anything 
else. The Pear hedge is “ prompted by experience,” and 1 have a little more 
on an extensive plantation of this Pear ; hut 1 had, perhaps, better keep 
it in reserve, for I presume “ Utilitarian ” will have another cut in. 
I HAVE to thank your correspondent and others for the information 
they have been so good as to supply in respect to the Yorkshire Beauty 
Apple. I know Greenup’s Pippin very well, and good and attractive it 
is, but I had also sent to me another Apple as the Yorkshire Beauty, 
which I identified as the Cobham, and I was anxious to know whe her 
