September 21, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
271 
eight; in the summer following care must be taken not to cut away 
shoots that will be wanted for the formation of the tree. I will next 
refer to winter pruning,—A Working Gardener. 
(To be continued.) 
Early Flowering Chrysanthemums. 
The communication from your able correspondent “ P.” (page 249) 
has a tone of sadness about it quite out of keeping with the weather. 
It appears he would fain see better things than Chrysanthemums, but 
does not make it at all clear as to how that end is to be accomplished. 
I journeyed to Westminster on the occasion mentioned by “ P.” under 
the impression we should see a very fine display of early flowering 
Chrysanthemums, for there has been no rain to spoil even the outdoor 
flowers. On arriving at the Aquarium I was disappointed to see the 
whole exhibits of the National Chrysanthemum Society staged on one 
table, or perhaps a series of tables at the end of the building. When I 
reflected on the numerical strength of the Society, I felt surely there 
must be something wrong. Where were the collections of groups of 
plants so much admired in former years? I was eventually told there 
was no class in the schedule for groups this season at the early Show. 
The competition in the cut flower classes was very meagre. Why? 
I was informed because the prizes offered were not enough to pay the 
carriage of exhibits any distance. Surely these are not the lines upon 
which to conduct a National Society. I was glad to see such a 
beautiful collection of Dahlias, otherwise I should have had my journey 
for nothing. At the same time, I heartily agree with your correspondent, 
when Chrysanthemums are staged in such company they are not very 
brilliant. Again, where were the numerous new varieties we have 
imported during the last few years ? Some, I know, are acquisitions, 
having tried them, but why they failed to put in an appearance on such 
an auspicious occasion is a mystery to me.—J. B. R. 
SOFT versus hard COLD WATER FOR PLANTS. 
The above heading does not accurately indicate the point which 
arose in conversation between Mr. Dunn and myself, and which 1 
thought readers of the Journal might like to discuss. The question was 
not the relative values of soft and hard water, but whether hard cold 
water was positively injurious to plants or not. The comparison referred 
to broadens the discussion somewhat, and others may like to give their 
opinion upon it, but I will content myself with meeting Mr. Dunn’s 
wishes, and endeavouring to prove that hard cold water is neither an 
“ obnoxious drug ” nor “ slow poison to vegetation in general.” 
First, I should like to correct any mistaken impression which may 
have arisen through your correspondent referring to my having “ thought 
right to divulge” his “secret ideas.” These words would imply that 
I have been guilty of a breach of confidence in having made public 
what was looked upon as private; but so far from this being the case it 
was an agreement between us, clearly understood on both sides, that 
readers of the Journal should have the question placed before them for 
their experience and opinion to decide the point at issue. I feel sure 
that the Oakleigh gardener would be the last to wish so unjust an 
impression to be formed of his words on page 214 as that I had 
betrayed his confidence. 
There is such a mass of material and such a flood of instances at the 
command of anyone who looks about him to prove that hard cold water 
is the very reverse of harmful to plants when judiciously used that only 
a fraction of them can be quoted. The first I will refer to is one 
bringing in the twin points of health and freedom from insects. One 
of the largest establishments for market plants and flowers (not fruit 
and vegetables) is in the South of London, and one of the features of it 
is a very large house filled with one of the finest Stephanotises in the 
country. The growths cover hundreds of feet, and they are a picture 
of health, the foliage shining with the rich deep hue of perfect con¬ 
dition. No trace of mealy bug can ever be found in this house, which 
yields thousands of sprays, but no special preparation is employed for 
cleansing it. The only insecticide used is water, syringed on constantly 
and forcibly, water from tanks fed by pipes connected with the water 
company’s mains. It is impossible for the insects to gain a footing under 
the drenchings that are applied. They do not stop to ascertain whether 
the water is hard or soft, they have no time for arguing that point, 
although according to Mr. Dunn’s theory they would simply indulge in 
a disdainful sniff at tap water, and then treat it with silent contempt. 
Do they do this? No, they ignominiously depart. Evidently they are 
craven-hearted creatures not possessing half the determination of those 
in the East Grinstead district. “ J. B. R.” (page 239)has spared me the 
trouble of more market references. 
Then there are the parks. I was admiring Battersea Park a few 
days ago. The bedding is beautiful, the Chrysanthemums sturdy and 
healthy. But they do not get soft water. They have been “ poisoned ” 
with hard all through this rainless season. They ought to be dead, but 
they are alive—very much alive. A more vigorous collection of plant- 
corpses I never saw. I might even say that, magnificent as are the 
flowers and Chrysanthemums at Oakleigh, those at Battersea Park are 
equally creditable to the grower. If this does not draw’ an admission of 
error from Mr. Dunn I do not know what will. I feel that it is the 
most subtle shaft which I can hurl, but still I will make a short reference 
to the nurseries in order to “ pile conviction on conviction’s head.” In 
the trade establishments this year I have seen hundreds of thousands of 
plants in perfect health and cleanliness. How does your correspondent 
imagine that in a season like this, when millions of gallons have been 
wanted daily, nurserymen have been able to avoid using tap water ? 
Their plants have not succumbed to the “ obnoxious drug.” Perhaps 
they are tougher than his. 
Lastly, so far as the present communication is concerned, there are 
the thousands of amateurs before referred to. In towns they use tap, in 
the country well water. Where it is practicable I agree that they would 
be wise to expose their water to the sun and air, but my present task is 
to show that without that they achieve success. The best cultivators 
among them have clean and healthy plants all the year round, and when 
they fail it is not because the water is hard, but generally because too 
much or too little is given. The fact of others succeeding with the same 
kind of water is proof of this. 
I have said all I have time for, and perhaps sufficient to meet the 
case. If not I will try again. There are degrees of hardness in water 
just as there are in temperature. Water drawn from town cisterns is 
neither so hard nor cold as that pumped up from the bowels of the 
earth, but both are beneficial if properly used. In my view hard cold 
water is a “ slow poison ” of about the same virulence as tobacco to the 
old smoker who had puffed at his pipe for sixty years. “ Slow,” said he. 
“ Yes—very ! ”—W. P. W. 
After reading “ J. B. R.’s” article upon this subject on page 239 
in your last issue, I feel almost tempted to covet a few gallons of the 
“hard cold water” that has produced such marvellous results. I am 
not in the least surprised to learn that “J. B. R.” has waited 
“ anxiously ” for the opportunity of thoroughly demolishing my “ out 
of date” ideas by such “stubborn facts.” What interpretation are we 
to put upon this word stubborn? The true meaning of stubborn 1 take 
is unreasonably obstinate ; therefore it strikes me as rather singular 
in glancing at the commencement and conclusion of his article to find 
that by “ unreasonably obstinate facts he has proved that I am 
whimsical.” 
Allow me for a moment to look into these “stubborn facts” The 
very first one shakes faith and leaves doubts—namely, “J. B. R.’s” 
assurance that in entering a market garden “ where nothing else but 
cold water was used he found the crops far superior to anything seen 
in private gardens.” His opportunities for seeing the work of some of 
the best practical men has evidently been limited, and he undoubtedly 
weakens his case by his statement, which is really a reflection on many 
of the best cultivators in the world ; but it seems evident that he was 
not trained under them, hence, perhaps, his sweeping dogmatism. 
It is acknowledged by practical and scientific authorities that water 
has a considerable effect in cooling soil, and also that cold wet soil is far 
from being so fertile as soil that is properly drained. Why ? Because 
the drainage of wet soil results in a greater warmth, and consequently 
an earlier and more vigorous growth of vegetation. Does not this alone 
prove how essential it is to keep the soil of growing plants reasonably 
warm according to the seasons? Will “ J. B. R.” kindly explain why 
crops and plants in general grow so much more freely after a warm 
shower than they do after a eold shower ? We shall then be a trifle nearer 
the actual point. My experience is quite the reverse of “ J. B. R.’s’' 
“ as to the fertilising properties of hard water.” Here is a fact which 
can be substantiated by one who occupies a high position in the garden¬ 
ing ranks. A Rose house was erected about twelve miles from Loudon, 
and water laid on direct from the main. The Roses were planted in good 
substantial soil, and kept constantly watered and syringed with the 
“ hard cold water ; ” result, a miserable failure. The plants refused tO' 
grow, and mildew was constantly appearing. After repeated trial* to 
improve them, a tank was fixed inside the house exposed to light and 
sunshine. The plants when watered and syringed with this “ warm soft 
water” changed in a few weeks, and in twelve months the Roses were 
growing vigorously and producing splendid blooms—the Marfichal N els 
quickly paying for the tank, and leaving a weighty purse over. Otaer 
equally convincing facts can be supplied if space permits. 
I have no wish to dispute the point of colour and appearance 
raised respecting Palms grown for market, but “ hard cold water ” is 
not the only stimulant used to produce luxuriant growth, or why do so 
many turn a pale, sickly colour in a few weeks after being bought ? Do 
they miss the “ hard cold water ” or the stimulants used to bring them 
to perfection quickly ? I pass over the Grape question, having no wish 
to bring down the overladen houses upon my head, although I must 
confess to a lurking disposition to inspect the poorly built structure 
and cast a critical eye over the “finish ” of those heavily cropped Vines 
which my “ slow poison ” has stimulated to such an alarming exrent. 
Just a word of advice to “ J. B. R.” Carefully preserve ail articles 
upon shanking that may appear for presentation to the proprietor of that 
large Grape-growing establishment. 
Lastly, we turn to Chrysanthemums watered with“ hard cold water’' 
by hose, and picture for a moment the effects of this stimulant so 
lavishly used in contrast to those carefully watered with “ warm soft 
