August 3, 1833. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
97 
If there is one thing in the gardens likely to interest gardening 
visitors more than another it is a splendid fruit cage constructed against 
the northern wall of the kitchen garden. About the wall itself there 
hangs a story. Though substantially put together it is much exposed, 
and a considerable portion of it was blown down by a terrific hurricane 
two or three years ago, carrying with it, of course, the promising line of 
cordon trees which Mr. F. Dunn, estate manager and gardener, was 
beginning to look upon so proudly. Pride goes, we know, before a fall ; 
in this case it was the wall and not the grower of the trees who came to 
grief, but no doubt he sorrowed extremely for all that. All good 
gardeners grieve to see evil come upon the property of an esteemed 
and respected employer as much as they do upon the wreck of their 
own handiwork. The wall fell, like the society before referred to, but 
Oakleigh knows no failure. In a short space it rose again, better and 
stronger than before, fresh trees were planted, and once more the chest 
measurement of the gardener increases as he gazes upon it. 
I return to the cage, which is really something out of the common 
and worthy of special attention, for such a fixture would be of the 
utmost value in any garden. It is 216 feet long and 12 feet wide. The 
wall is 12 feet high, and from it projects a glass coping 2 feet 6 inches 
wide; the cage arching gracefully from the coping to the ground. 
These figures will show that it is spacious, and “cage ” is perhaps hardly 
the word to apply to it, especially as the birds have no chance of 
becoming acquainted with anything more than the outside of it. 
Two-inch galvanised iron piping, painted black and fixed beneath the 
front of the coping, constitutes the supports, and angle iron arches 
perforated for the strand wires sustain the covering, which is of |-inch 
mesh wire netting, the strand wires being about a foot apart. There is 
a netted door at each end, and completeness is added by the spouting 
connected with the coping, by which rain is conveyed to a pipe emptying 
itself into a tank in one corner. 
The advantages of such a structure as this are pretty obvious. The 
smallest bird which British fruit growers have to contend with has no 
chance of scraping its hungry body through the netting, nor can the 
most wily member of the feathered tribe imitate the small boy outside 
the circus and gain admission by crawling under. It is clearly a case of 
“no admittance” to thrush and blackbird, sparrow and finch. Wasps 
are not debarred of course, nor moths and other egg-laying pests, but all 
such have a watchful enemy. Moreover, the coping acts as a protection 
to the wall trees. One improvement, and one only, suggests itself, and 
that is to have this moveable, so that it might be raised to admit genial 
showers to the border. A batten path is provided, which can be readily 
removed to permit of cultural operations and does away with the 
disadvantage of a hard, trodden walk. 
A large amount of choice dessert fruit may be grown in a cage 
such as this. On the back wall at Oakleigh is a collection of cordon 
Pears and Plums, flanked by an Apricot cropping heavily at each end. 
The cordons were planted in October, 1891, after the rebuilding of the 
fallen wall, and have made remarkable progress. But they have been 
well treated. The soil was removed to a depth of about 21 feet, and 
fresh loam resting on a foundation of lime rubbish was substituted. 
The trees were planted firmly 18 inches apart, and well mulched. No 
manure was put in the soil. The result is that they have made free 
but fruitful growth, and are now bearing good crops. The Plums— 
Jefferson’s, Cox’s Emperor, Peach, Washington, and Prince Englebert— 
are full of fruit. The Pears comprise Thompson’s, Duchesse d'Angou- 
leme, Zephirin Gr^goire, Doyenne Boussoch, Beurr^ Bachelier, Doyenn6 
du Comice, Bergamotte Esperen, Calixte Mignot, Beurr^ d’Anjou, 
Clapp’s Favourite, Beurr^ Diel, Beurr6 Superfin, Prineess, Glou Morgeau, 
Pitmaston Duchess, Louise Bonne of Jersey, General Toddleben, Jersey 
Gratioli, Vicar of Winkfield, Beurrd Alexandre Lucas, Mar^chal de 
Cour, and Durondeau—by no means a bad selection. 
The front portion of the cage is devoted to choice Cherries, Goose¬ 
berries, and Currants. Cherries of such varieties as May Duke, Late 
Black Bigarreau, Black Tartarian, Elton, Early Rivers, Royal 
Duke, and Bigarreau Napoleon are trained to the angle iron supports ; 
and Gooseberries are being trained toasting-fork fashion up the netting. 
A row of Gooseberries is planted behind them, and further in the 
interior is another row, planted alternately with Black, Red, and White 
Currants. At present these are young bushes bearing light crops, but 
when they have filled their allotted space they will give a very accept¬ 
able supply of fruit. So much satisfaction has the fruit cage given that 
there is talk of erecting another one against a wall with a west aspect. 
If this sort of thing goes on it will be bad for the neighbours, as the 
birds will flock to them in disgust. 
The Oakleigh gardens are in excellent order throughout, and Mr. 
Dunn need not be afraid of his work being seen. The Peaches and 
Vines are particularly well done, being a wonderful contrast to the con¬ 
dition they were in when I saw them on his taking charge five years ago. 
They are now well furnished with healthy growth, and bearing excellent 
crops. The early Peach house, in which are two large trees of Barring¬ 
ton and Violette Hative, have yielded magnificent fruit, which, if 
exhibited, would have taken a great deal of beating in the best company. 
The rejuvenation of the trees shows how plastic Peaches are in skilful 
hands. The outdoor fruit is also well managed. Apples, Pears, and 
Plums are all cropping admirably. One walk in the kitchen garden is 
lined with rows of cordons, a substantial erection being provided for 
their support. It is high enough to give them a good run, and they are 
doing all the better for it. The restriction principle is often carried to 
such an extent as to starve the trees into comparative barrenness. ^'More 
Grinstead gleanings another week.—W. P. W. 
As inquiries have reached us as to the character of the circular 
recently issued by Mr. C. J. Grahame, owing to the circular and envelope 
being headed “ National Rose Society,” we think it should be clearly 
understood by our members—1, That Mr. Grahame has resigned his 
position as a member of the Committee. 2, That the document in 
question has no official sanction whatever.— H. Honywood D’Ombeain, 
Edwaed Mawley, Hon, Secs. 
Me. Geahame’s QuestioisS to Rosaeians. 
Ix order to obtain the views of as many members of the National 
Rose Society as possible on certain subjects which have been under 
discussion for some time past in regard to the Society’s arrangements, 
Mr. Charles J. Grahame has posted the following questions to a number 
of gentlemen with a request to be favoured with early replies. 
1, Do you think the annual Tea Rose Show at the London Scottish 
Drill Hall, Westminster, advantageous or otherwise to the Society and 
its exhibitors, and would you maintain or abolish it ? 
2, (a) About what date do you consider best for our annual 
Metropolitan Show ? (&) Do you think Saturday the best day on 
which to hold that meeting, or do you think the exact day of the week 
immaterial ? 
3, About what date do you consider best for the Provincial Show, 
bearing in view that this meeting should be fixed chiefly to suit 
growers in late districts. 
4 (a) Do you think two Metropolitan Shows of equal importa,nce 
would be preferable to the present arrangement of a Metropolitan 
and Provincial Show ? (5) Or if the arrangements for the two shows 
be left as they now are, would you divide the prize money more 
equally ? 
5, Do you think it would be desirable that candidates for member 
ship in our Society should go through a form of election ? 
We suspect the replies will be “ varied and interesting.” 
Feageant Roses. 
Peehaps there may be, as Mr. Williamson asserts, page 73, “ un¬ 
questionably a strong and growing aversion to inodorous Roses,” but if 
so, I do not think it influences to any extent the exhibiting Rose-grower. 
For thirty-five years I have been a grower of Roses, but amongst the 
hundred that I may cut every few days, how rarely do I do more than 
hold my pets in different positions and fill my eyes with their beauty. 
When I do feast the prominent feature of the face with its perfume it is 
generally some Tea or bloom of La France that, watered by the dews 
and showers, has refused to further unfold its charms. To break off 
at the insertion of the petals the whole unexpanded bud, and 
tearing it in two from the base, is indeed a surfeit of fragrance, which, 
as far as my experience goes, no beautifully expanding bloom ever 
possesses. 
Many years ago one of the Rose elections I conducted was on the 
point of fragrance. I recollect that, in my innocence, I felt certain 
that the old Cabbage must head the poll, but very few of the voters 
appeared to be cognisant of its existence, or, if they were, disliked its 
perfume. There is something in antipathies even as regards scent, 
and the old Latin proverb, tot homines, surely applies ; and I recollect 
one reply stated that the perfume f?) of Duke of Edinburgh was to him 
perfectly disagreeable 1 As a rule, as far as my nasal organ guides me, 
and being decidedly prominent I follow its guidance, the dark H.P. s 
are the most fragrant, and amongst these Pierre Netting is to myself the 
most agreeable aroma. La France and Augustine Guinoisseau, both 
classed as H.P.’s, have undoubtedly a Tea taint. What a description 1 
as if there could be a taint of Tea ? But in some of the Teas the 
astringent tinting is too powerful for some persons to allow the fragrance 
to be altogether an agreeable perfume. 
At that perfume election I recollect that Mr. Curtis’s remarks, 
which were printed in full in the Journal, were most interesting, and 
showed an amount of discrimination in fragrance which would tax 
most of us to emulate. In conclusion I would ask. Why need our 
interchanges of thought on Rose matters be as thorny as some of our 
favourites ? and if some of us prefer to write under a noin aeplume 
where is the harm ? Many of these are as well known as though th^y 
signed their names in full. Who does not know “ D., Beal, “ E. M., 
“A. C.,” and in bygone days “ Wiltshire Rector ” and “Herefordshire 
Incumbent?” Are all these, including your humble correspondent, to 
be ruthlessly anathematised because we prefer to write and perhaps 
offer advice under a noin dc plume ? Why should our non-exhibiting 
friends sneer at the N.R.S. ? That Society has done much for Roses, 
