512 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ June 25, 1891. 
were second ivith a smaller group; and Messrs. Laing & Sons third. 
Pyre thrums ^vere shown by Messrs. Collins Bros. & Gabriel, Waterloo 
Hoad, and Messrs. Paul & Son. Cheshunt, who were first and second 
respectively. With a collection of Irises Messrs. Barr & Son, Covent 
Garden, were first. Mr. Ware took first honours for a grand collection 
of Pmonies, admirably arranged ; and Messrs. Barr &: Son were second. 
Messrs. Kelway & Son, Langport, had a similar collection of flowers to 
that at the Drill Hall on the previous day, and were awarded a silver 
medal. 
In the Pv,ose classes Messrs. Burrell & Co. Cambridge were first for 
thirty-six single trusses. Mr. G. Prince, Oxford, was second, chiefly with 
Tea Poses, and Mr. B. K. Cant, Colchester, third. Mr. Prince was 
first with eighteen Teas, and second with twelve blooms of Pose 
Marbchal Niel. Mr. A. H. Gray, Beaulieu, Bath, w’as very successful 
in several classes, carrying off premier honours with fresh bright blooms. 
Mr. Knight of Sittingbourne, and Dr. Budd of Bath also exhibited well. 
Mr. S. Mortimer, Farnham, had a group of Coleuses in many fine 
varieties, and a certificate w^as granted for Cucumber Matchless from 
Express crossed with Lockie’s Perfection. 
Messrs. Sutton & Sons’ prizes for their Prizewinner Cucumbers were 
adjudged to Mr. S. Cook, gardener to J. B. Yule, Esq., Holmewood, 
Hendon; Mr. Lockie, Oakley Court Gardens, Windsor; and Mr. G. Collins, 
gardener to Mrs. Anderson Rose, Wandsw'orth Common, in the order 
named. 
THE BRIGHTON AND SUSSEX NEW HORTICULTURAL 
AND GARDENERS’IMPROVEMENT SOCIETY. 
At the meeting of this new Society previously referred to there was a 
good attendance. , Mr. W. Balchin occupied the chair, and was supported 
by Mr. Joseph Cheal and Mr. Miller. Mr. J. Wright’s lecture on “The 
Objects and Usefulness of Gardeners’ Improvement Societies,” was 
attentively listened to, and at its close several gardeners were added to 
the roll of membership. A strong desire was expressed for the publica¬ 
tion of the lecture, but only a very brief digest can be given here. 
After a few preliminary remarks, Mr. Wright said horticultural 
societies had long been existent, but until recent years their chief 
object appeared to have been the providing of exhibitions at wdiich 
gardeners could win jcrizes and grumble at judges. As a judge at many 
shows he had not the slightest objection to being grumbled at, because 
he knew that grumblers always learned something, and all shows 
should be educational. Competitive displays of plants, flowers, and 
garden produce had done great good, both in stimulating to higher 
culture and creating a wider interest in gardening in various parts of the 
kingdom, but they had not proved altogether satisfying in all districts, 
and out of them had sprung a desire for more knowledge on the part 
of both gardeners and amateurs, hence the establishment of mutual 
improvement societies, or the holding of periodical meetings for purposes 
of instruction in the art of gardening. 
He was glad to believe that the new Society would embrace all 
sections and classes of gardeners—amateurs, professionals, and pro- 
bitioners. The combination was most dtsirable, and the more repre¬ 
sentative the Society the stronger it would become, and the more useful. 
He thought there was nothing more gladdening than to see the frank 
and friendly association of all who love gardening. No matter whether 
they w'ero rich or poor, old or young, skilled or unskilled, they should be 
encouraged to join together for a common object, and this object worthy 
of the combined efforts of all—beautif3dng the earth and developing its 
resources. 
He was aw’are that difliculties had been experienced in defining the 
relative positions of gardeners and amateurs, but after all the question 
was a very simple one. Any person who engaged in gardening for love 
and not for gain was an amateur, but those who engaged in the pursuit 
as a means of livelihood, or with the object of material gain, were pro¬ 
fessionals ; no matter whether skilled or not, if their object was gain they 
were professional gardeners, and not amateurs. No doubt there were 
some persons, perhaps several, who would like to combine the two 
attractions—love and gain. Both were tempting. It was certain there 
were tnany gardeners whose love for the pursuit was much greater than 
the gain they derived from it, and there were amateurs who did not love 
gardening the less because they made a little out of it, but possibly 
loved it more. The lecturer thought it was not wise for gardeners to 
be too^ sentimental over the amateur question. “ Ought not we,” he 
said, ‘‘ who are gardeners be pleased to see others who are not, take 
interest in their gardens, and make a little out of them if they like 
and can? If the great body of toilers and moilers could do that 
would it not be better for themselves, their families, and the country ? 
It must be so, and when it comes to exhibiting surely terms can be 
provided that shall be fair to all. I should like for all gardeners’ 
mutual improvement societies open their doors to all members of the 
garden-loving community.” 
Allusion was made to the different classes of amateurs—the expert 
specialists who made the world richer by the distribution of their 
knowledge at meetings and through the press ; the affluent who were 
the best supporters of gardening and gardeners ; and the inexperienced, 
who were thirsting for information such as professionals could supply, 
and ought to feel it a privilege to do so. The object of mutual improve¬ 
ment societies was to gain knowledge and distribute it. It was feared 
there were many gardeners who could impart information that would 
be of great service to others, but hesitated to do so either because it 
was neither new nor novel, or could not be presented in the mcst 
attractive literary guise. That was a mistake. Plain facts stated in 
plain words were what was needed, avoiding slangy terms on the one 
hand, and inflated language on the other, as both weakened a good case. 
Also it was certain that not a few persons hesitated to ask for informa¬ 
tion wAich they urgently required through either the morbid fear of 
betraying their own ignorance, or being laughed at by some self-superior 
person, of which there is a remnant in the gardening world. That also 
was a great mistake. The men who have acquired the most knowledge 
have never been afraid to ask questions, and they do not hesitate to 
seek information from the humblest of toilers if he can impart what 
they need ; and if a gardener boasts of his knowledge, and is at the same 
time fearful that a little should escape him, it may be taken for granted 
that he has really little or none to spare. The really competent 
gardeners are not only willing, but anxious to help the jmung and 
inexperienced, and many of those gardeners are justly proud of the 
positions their pupils have attained in the craft they adorn. 
Mr. Wright went on to describe the methods by which mutual 
improvement societies are made useful—namely, the bringing of plants 
with which diflSculties are experienced, or examples of whatever kind on 
which information is needed, to the meetings ; also by exhibiting 
superior examples of culture on an equitable basis, for which marks of 
merit may be recorded, and at the end of the term grants of standard 
books, awarded in accordance wdth results as at Ealing, or of medals of 
the Royal Horticultural Society as at East Grinstead, these being 
supplied by the “ Royal ” at a cheap rate to societies in alliance with it. 
The reading of short essays at the meetings, and inciting discussion 
thereon, was described as distinctly educationab and to none more than 
those who prepared them. The offering of prizes for such essays, as at 
Chiswick through the generosity of a kind lady (Mrs. Lee), w'as said to 
have been productive of excellent results in stimulating men to worthy 
endeavour. In commenting on this practice the lecturer exptessed the 
opinion that really good essays were at least as w’ell worthy of prizes as 
a few dishes of vegetables and fruit were, or plants either, for somebody 
else usually provided the means for growing these, but the writers of 
good essays had to find their own means in their own brairs. 
Instances were given for the encouragement of hardeners wdio were 
perhaps working hard for a little money, of men %vho were once 
similarly circumstanced attaining positions of trust and independence 
by their diligence and perseverance, making the best of the limited 
means at their disposal instead of refraining from exertion on the plea 
that “the place was not good enough.” Some persons were hard to 
serve, but even then it was a duty to give the bsst possible service, and 
if it failed to satisfj^ retire. An example was cited of a gentleman 
having had many gardeners, and therefore gained a “ bad name at last 
finding one who had either more ability, tact, or perseverance than the 
rest, making his master one of the best in the kingdom, and this 
gardener, though still in his prime, being amp’y provided for to the end 
of his days ; also of another striking case where long and laborious 
service was crowned with a rich reward. Those men, and there were 
many others like them, read attentively, studied closely, and worked 
diligently—men of knowledge, of prudence, and sustained effort, wRo did 
their best in everything they undertook, surmounting earlj" difficulties, 
and had patience to wait for the results. 
The object of gardeners’ improvement societies, the lecturer went on 
to say, was “ to provide means of instruction for members by scattering 
seeds of knowledge in the hope that they will fall on good ground— 
receptive minds ; and just as they do so, and are nurtured by prudence, 
they will grow and bear fruit, thus demonstrating the usefulness of 
such societies in due time. No intelligent, industrious, prudent, and 
competent gardener, with years of work before him, and who enjoys the 
blessing of health, need fear for the future. He may not gain wealth— 
that is scarcely to be expected—but if he love his work and let sound 
judgment govern his ac ions, he will, sooner or later, gain a position of 
tr ist, his labours will be appreciated and himself respected by the best 
of the community in which he dwells.” 
UPPER HOLLOWAY. 
Upper Holloway, as understood in the world of gardenin?, naturally 
means the world-famed nurseries of Messrs. B. S. Williams & Son. There 
is nothing else to many of the readers of these lines to which the term 
can apply, and they are interested in little else except the way to get 
there. They may be informed, at least those of them who do not know, 
that just opposite the entrance appears to be the tram and ’bus terminus 
from—well, from everywhere, as there is certainly no part of the United 
Kingdom that is not connected with those services, for the simple 
reason that the vehicles run from every chief railway station in London, 
with or without a change on the wav. If there should happen to be a 
slight obstacle to reaching Holloway by road, such as when ’bus drivers 
refuse to drive, and conductors have nothing to conduct, as has lately 
happened, or whether there is or not, the nurseries can be quickly 
reached from the King’s Cross Underground station of the Metropolitan 
Railway. On turning to the left from Upper Holloway station there 
is soon seen a Lombardy Poplar in the distance. That is the nursery 
signal, the point to aim for, and the place to stop at, reached after a 
few minutes of gentle up-hill walk. 
The district has changed somewhat since the late respected and 
much-lamented Mr. B. S. Williams pitched his tent there nearly thirty 
years ago. At that time the land was bought for about £1000 an 
acre, but now property in the neighbourhood is readily sold for £4000 
an acre; so that if land has gone “ down ” in many, if not most parts of 
