6 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 5, 1893> 
return?, and there is practically no comnetition on account of the 
perishable nature of the fruit.— Walter Kruse. 
Living as I do in a purely agricultural district some distance from 
a town, and having some experience of growing and selling Apples, 
the few remarks I am going to make on this subject may be worth 
noting. I have abundant opportunities of judging the difference 
between good and bad varieties, also good and bad fruit. In my 
neighbourhood there are an abundance of local sorts, but very few 
of the modern good varieties. While the locals were selling at 2s. 
and 3s. per bushel, I was selling to the same dealers Lord Grosvenor 
and Warner’s King at 6s. per bushel. Worcester Pearmain and 
Lady Sudeley fetched 7s. per bushel, and I could not get nearly 
enough for the demand. Later on Cox’s Orange Pippin realised IQs. 
without any trouble. Altogether I have sold between 70 and 80 bushels 
of surplus fruit, including a goodly number of windfalls; the average 
for the whole being 5s. 5d. per bushel. Surely, now, this is a remunerative 
price, obtained purely by reason of two things—good varieties and 
superior fruit. One tree of Bcklinville, thirteen years planted, yielded 
6 bushels, sold to a higgler for 30s. on the tree ; he expected to make Is. 
profit per bushel when taken to the neighbouring town. Why was such 
a price obtained 1 Simply on account of the sort being a superior one— 
good fruit will sell; bad will not.—A Yorkshireman. 
Eelative to what has been said on this subject, the fact remains 
that well-grown and well-marketed home-grown fruit will and does 
realise more than your Kentish correspondent obtains for his (pages 478 
and 532, last volume). There may possibly be something wrong in 
the staple of his soil, as he appears to cultivate well. Many soils are 
too light for the production of first quality Apples. I have sold no 
Apples for less than 6s. a bushel from the trees. Ecklinvilles, New 
Hawthorndens, Stirling Castle, and Blenheims sold readily at those 
prices. Earlier gatherings, including Lord Grosvenor, were sold from 
6s. Gd. to 7s. 6d,; Worcester Pearmain, 8s. ; Cox’s Orange Pippin, 93. 
and 10s. a bushel. The soil is a clayey mail. The trees are from six 
to twelve years old, the branches very thinly disposed, and the crop 
was quite as heavy as it should be ; if much heavier the fruit would 
have been smaller, and its market value perhaps 3s. or 4s. a bushel.— 
A Sussex Grower. 
Mr. J. MclNDOE AND THE ROYAL CALEDONIAN 
HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
Mr. McIndoe seems dissatisfied with the so-called high-handed 
rejection of his entries from the autumn Show of the Society at Edin¬ 
burgh. Had the complaints been lodged in a proper manner with the 
managers of the Show, instead of his rushing to the Press, any reason¬ 
able complaint would have been entertained and the alleged grievance 
searched out and reported upon.—A. M., Bristol. 
[Our correspondent sends his name and address, but as he has not 
consented to their publication a great deal of his matter, which contains 
a grave allegation, has been necessarily expunged.] 
As Mr. McIndoe has initiated a discussion on this very important 
subject of refusing entries at Edinburgh himself, he cannot complain if 
sealers of the Journal of Horticulture should ask whether there were 
other reasons for the refusal of the Committee of the R.C.H. Society 
than those Mr. McIndoe gives. I put this view of the case forward, not 
for one moment in the belief that Mr. McIndoe has not told all, but 
because the Committee, in refusing so disfinguished a gardener and 
exhibitor a reply, rather implies in its action that there is another reason, 
but declines to state for fear of a libel action, or something of that 
sort. If the Committee have no other reason for declining Mr. Mclndoe’s 
entries than those which he has given they lead the world to assume that 
they have reasons which signify criminality. It is a case that demands the 
interposition of a court of law or some other court, and Mr. McIndoe 
ought to have legal right to force the Edinburgh Committee to state 
their reasons publicly. Mr. Mclndoe’s charges against the Committee, 
practically of neglect to check stealing of fruit at their shows, is one which 
that body must in all honesty openly and fairly meet. It is not only a 
severe reflection on the Committee, but also on the Edinburgh public. 
Happily, this sort of thing is rare in London, and I believe there is no 
executive but would be only too ready to co-operate with exhibitors in 
repressing it. It is high time the Edinburgh Committee made a public 
lep'y to Mr. Mclndoe’s charges.—D. 
The habit of pilfering at shows leads to much annoyance, and ought 
wherever it exists to be ruthlessly put down. In many instances, when 
a gardener procures prizes for his exhibits, the owner of the produce 
very naturally often requires to see it on his own table, otherwise to 
send away to friends. Then what is to be done when it has been stolen 
during the Exhibition ? Anyone showing does not wish to be com¬ 
pelled to stay by the side of his exhibits all the time the show is open.— 
G. F., Trafalgar, 
MANURING FRUIT TREES. 
In your issue of 8th ult. “ W. P. W.” wrote a long homily upon the 
roily of “ old world ” fruit growers and their antiquated methods of 
culture. I ventured on page 452 to ask your correspondent a definite 
question, and received a very indefinite answer. My inquiry related to 
the actual cost of manuring certain trees, as recommended by 
“ W. P. W.,” to which he replied by kindly giving directions respecting 
the quantity of stimulants required for trees. Verily a crooked answer 
to a simple and straightforward question. So loose a way of writing 
does much harm, for it checks progress. What on earth is the good of 
talking airily about “ timely top-dressings” just as if superphosphates, 
nitrates, and kainit dropped from the clouds like manna in the wilder¬ 
ness ? Not only are the fertilisers he mentions expensive to buy, but 
they are heavy, therefore still more expensive to transport from the 
dealer’s stores to any but a few favoura’oly situated orchards. Conse¬ 
quently “ W. P. W.’s ” fencing with my plain practical question of cost 
considesably discounts the value of the lesson he seeks to inculcate.— 
B. D. K. 
[The above letter has been placed in the hands of our correspondent 
for his reply, which is as follows:—‘‘B. D. K.” desired to know the 
“ cost per tree of a dressing of kair it and superphosphate spread from the 
stem outwards and a light sprinkling of nitrate of soda to follow.” I 
agree that “ loose methods of writing check progress,” and this is a case 
in point. I do not hesitate saying, and I speak before the world, that 
there is not a practical fruit grower in the kingdom who could give a 
categorical reply to a question so vague as the one quoted that would 
be worth printing. I therefore did the ’best I could, as premsely and 
concisely as possible, to give a reply that might be useful to “ B. D. K.” 
and others, by indicating the quantity of the manures named per square 
yard to trees that did not make suflicient growth. I had in view just 
what “ D. B. K.” points out as to variations in cost of transport of manures 
“ from dealers’ stores to orchards.” How was I to know whether your 
correspondent resides near any such stores or ten or twenty miles from 
them, or from a railway station ? Again, how was I to know whether 
his trees were large or small, whether the roots occupied an area as 
represented superficially by 3 or 4 square yards, as is the case with 
thousands, or of 20 to 40 square yards with thousands more ? 
I assumed that anyone knew, or could obtain from his nearest 
manure dealer, the exact cost, per cwt. of the different manures 
delivered at the place required ; then by noting the size of tree—the 
rooting area as indicated by the branch growth, he could easily arrive at 
the exact “ cost per tree ” to himself (not to others differently circum¬ 
stanced) on the basis of the quantities named for application. 
Then comes another important element in the case—indeed, a vital 
one in determining the “cost of manure per tree.” If “ B. D. K.’s ” 
orchards are extensive and he desires to purchase what he wants by the 
ton direct from manure works, the cost home will be infinitely less than 
if he wishes to buy locally by the cwt., or even in 2 lb. canisters. How 
was anyone to know by reading his “ simple question ” whether the 
querist is a ton man, a cwt. man, or a canister man ? If the latter, the 
“ cost per tree ” will be 50 ppr cent, more than under the ton rate. 
Your correspondent goes on to object that the measures named are 
“ expensive.” Very well; knowing so much, he may be expected to 
know the exact cost to himself. If he will be so good as to state what 
they cost him, and also state the height of one of his trees as well as its 
diameter through the head—the spread of the branches—I will then 
with very much pleasure tell him the cost of manuring such tree on the 
rates of application advised—first, for trees that make moderate but 
not sufficient growth ; second, for restoring old or nearly exhausted 
trees. 
Relative to the costliness of the manures named, the two of mineral 
character are, with one exception (basic slag), the least costly of all. 
Nitrate of soda, considering its action and the small quantity required, 
is as cheap as any nitrogenous fertiliser that can be obtained. The 
proper and intelligent application of manures is an investment, and a 
profitable one, as all the beat cultivators in fields, farms, gardens, and 
orchards know full well; but not one of these could answer what 
“ B. D. K.” calls first his “definite,” then his “simple,” and next his 
“ straightforward ” question. 
He is entitled to his own description and I am entitled to mine— 
namely, the question is one of the vaguest that ever was printed ; yet I 
made an honest attempt to show how your correspondent could acquire 
the information he appeared to desire. I am snubbed for my pains, but 
that does not matter in the least. I will conclude by asking “ B. D. K.” 
a question just as easy to answer categorically and correctly as was his 
question to me, and he will then perhaps appreciate the nature of his 
puzzle. My question is equally definite, simple, and straightforward as 
the one I had to deal with—How much will it cost to make John Smith 
a suit of clothes ? Whether John is a boy (like a small tree) or a man 
(like a large tree), or whether he wants lightly dressing (summer) or 
heavily dressing (winter) is for my chastiser to determine. It is an 
“ airy ” question I know, as it must be to run parallel with that of 
“ B. D. K.,” which may be fairly rendered, “ How much will it cost to 
manure a tree ? ”—W. P. W. 
MAINDIFF COURT. 
This, the residence of the late Crawshaw Bailey, Esq., is situated 
about one mile from the town of Abergavenny. The view from the 
terraces on two sides of the mansion is magnificent. Far away stretch 
the peaks of lofty mountains, rising one above another, while below lies 
the pretty town of Abergavenny. The sides of a serpentine drive 
approaching the mansion are planted with Cedrus Deodara, which grow 
well considering the exposed position. The grounds and gardens are 
21 acres in extent, and are laid out in a charming manner. Many beds 
are planted with hybrid and named Rhododendrons, all of which do well 
