86 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 12, 1893. 
it is better elsewhere, for I believe it is very largely grown about London. 
And now, Mr. Editor, as “ Apple notes” have been so much appreciated, 
why not Pear notes ?— H. S. Easty. 
Apples oh the Paradise Stock. 
From the note by Mr, Turton (page 14) regarding the variety 
Northern Spy, I learn that the tree in question is growing on the 
Paradise stock, and in a stiff cold clay. Is it not generally understood 
that soil of this character is unsuitable to the growth of this stock ? 
At least this has been my impression. Many persons assert that no other 
stock will give the same early results of fruit bearing as the Paradise, 
but that is a mistake, as I can prove. Nothing could be better than 
the crops of fruit obtained here the second and even the first year 
of planting bushes growing on seedling Apple stocks. With such 
results 1 for one do not think Paradise stocks are a gain at all, but the 
reverse ; the trees on the Apple stock cover much more space in a 
shorter time than those worked on the much-lauded Paradise. Perhaps 
this experience does not coincide with that of many others, but it is an 
undoubted fact.—A Yorkshiremah. 
Apple History. 
The Apple as a fruit and the Potato as a vegetable give precedence 
with me over ail other their food congeners whatsoever, provided they 
are of a medium size. The papers on the Apple that have followed 
each other in these pages have been very interesting reading, and I hope 
what I am now about to throw off may prove interesting also. 
It must be over seventy years ago that the Ladies Mary and Eliza¬ 
beth Broadhead resided in the Deputy Eanger’s Lodge, Holly Grove, 
Windsor Great Park. My wife’s father, Thomas Temple, worked in the 
garden, and he remained there as gardener under successive Deputy 
Rangers till General Seymour became Marquis of Hertford. It is neces¬ 
sary that I should mention this, as it becomes dovetailed for my story. 
It so happened that the above-mentioned ladies were returning from 
a journey and had to pass through Woodstock, where they stayed a 
night at the Bear Inn. One Kempster, a shoemaker, lived at Old 
Woodstock, He was the raiser of the famous Apple since named the 
Blenheim Orange Pippin, and he must have been then in about the 
beginning of his fame as the raiser of so famous an Apple. Let us 
surmise so, judging as I do by the appearance of the tree when I first 
saw it in 1847, The last time I did so—^long, long after that—I was 
accompanied by the Rev. William Clarke, the then Curate of Wootton, 
a brother of our R.H.S, Col. Clarke. Old Woodstock was then a 
hamlet of Wootton, The Rev. W. Clarke was, like his brother, very 
fond of horticulture. 1 remember he took a drawing of the old tree, and 
I think he sent it to the Illustrated London News, A basket maker, 
Grimmet by name, succeeded to Kempster the shoemaker, Grimmet 
cared nothing about trees, so not long after the above I made another 
visit to him for the purpose of purchasing the old tree stock if I could, 
and to work or get it made into some suitable memento. Alas 1 he had 
cut it down and burnt it as being “ no good on,” and it was in the way 
of younger Apple trees. I had, fortunately, previously secured some 
decrepit scions from the old tree and grafted them on to the only 
stocks that offered, miserable cripples, which grew in a garden handy. 
Cottages and gasometers now occupy the garden site of the original 
Kempster Apple, Thus fame passeth away 1 I have been thus minute 
in describing the site of the old tree, &c., because there may be 
someone living in the neighbourhood or at the Woodstocks who can 
remember between forty or fifty years ago, and to whom this anecdote 
may hark them back to the Kempster Apple tree. 
I will return to the sisters Broadhead, who were so charmed by the 
appearance of the fruit placed by “ mine host” on the table for dessert, 
that they took an Apple home with them for the purpose of raising 
some young trees in memoriam. The pips were sown by the sisters in 
two flower pots. Two germinated, and when grown sufficiently large 
my wife’s father was requested to plant them, one on each side of 
the broad kitchen garden walk at Holly Grove, where they are now 
in all probability. At any rate, my father-in-law brought me some 
scions from each of the trees to Woodstock Rectory ; I grafted them, 
and brought the resulting trees bodily away with me to Sulhamstead, 
Berks, only two hours’ journey from where their relatives were raised. 
You have seen them here, but then time would not have allowed me 
to go into particulars as above. I will further beg to submit an 
opinion that in all probability the Broadhead seedlings from the Blen¬ 
heim Orange were the first of the ilk ever raised. At any rate, the 
first raised that can be directly traced, and where in living arboriculture 
can be traced trees other than mine directly handed down by grafts 
from the old original ? 
Now, having given you the details so far, I cannot but feel, as you 
are the leading fruitists of the day, that you will be interested in the 
Apples I send, both ocularly and epicureally. 
No. 1 is the produce, in a direct descent by graft, from the original 
tree ; No. 2 is Lady Mary Broadhead Seedling; No. 3 Lady Elizabeth 
Broadhead. Here we gain a departure from the first original feature, 
also a sharper flavour and a firmer and a longer keeping variety. No. 4 
is my Apple that I have named Pay-the-rent. I found an old tree 
of it here for which I could never find a recognised name. I am pro¬ 
pagating it largely for myself, as I consider it to be an excellent 
household Apple. Pray do not tell me it “lacks size and colour”— 
these bugbears are leading us like will-o’-the-wisps.— Eobt. Fenn. 
[We will not say that Pay-the-rent lacks size. It is large enough, 
very symmetrical, round, green, and somewhat russety, and the fruits 
being uniform in size form an excellent sample. This is, no doubt, a 
serviceable culinary Apple, and as the tree appears as free and healthy 
in growth as Golden Noble, and about as productive as Dumelow’s 
Seedling, we suspect our correspondent has acted wisely in planting it 
largely. Lady Mary is a very fine form of the Blenheim, the fruits 
larger than those from grafts of the original tree. Lady Elizabeth is 
more conical, smaller—dare we say rather too small—and brisker than 
either of the others. We will have Pay-the-rent cooked as requested 
by its discoverer. ] 
National Chrysanthemum Society. 
If Mr. Dean regards the Floral Committee of the National Chrys¬ 
anthemum Society as a kingdom of his own creation this may account 
for his taking any suggestion made as a personal attack, for he is a poor 
monarch who will not defend his own kingdom. 
Mr. Dean says country members receive all they are entitled to have. 
All they receive is an admission ticket to the Aquarium Show, while 
representatives of affiliated societies have the privilege of attending and 
voting at the principal meetings. As a rule these representatives are 
anything but horticulturists, whereas the members are mostly Chrys¬ 
anthemum growers. This makes it look a case of countrymen paying 
the piper, while the Londoners choose the tune ; but I do not blame the 
idol so much as the worshippers. 
Under the present construction of the Society, it is very doubtful if 
any country grower, however good, has the least chance of being elected 
on the Floral Committee, therefore under the circumstances it is quite 
useless offering any names for nomination. What is wanted, and must 
be had, is a Society and a Floral Committee of widely representative 
growers elected by ballot; for however honest and hond fide the 
transactions of the present Committee may be, it is evident they do not 
satisfy the general body of the Chrysanthemum world out of London, if 
in it. 
Mr. Dean further supports himself with the idea that the central 
body must be in a position to know more than outsiders. Next autumn 
I may be in a position to show the fallacy of this notion. The Beauty 
of Exmouth case is not settled to the satisfaction of hundreds of 
countrymen.—J. H. Good acre. 
The Secretary and Committee of the N.C.S, ought to be pleased that 
your correspondents are seeking to improve it by placing it on a wider 
basis, and thus making it more truly “ national” in character. We have 
been told that most of the principal Chrysanthemum growers are on 
the Committee. Where are such men as Messrs. Molyneux, Parker, 
Drover, and many others that might be named I The Floral Committee 
meet in private, the judges work among the public. I think it should 
be the other way about. I think Mr. Addison’s proposed rule a first- 
rate one, and if it is not adopted we shall want to know the reason.— 
A Country Member. _ 
I CANNOT agree with Mr. E. C. Jukes, page 12, that it is entirely 
the fault of the country members that a preponderance of metropolitan 
growers and exhibitors are on the Committee. The country delegates 
may not be so united in their choice as the “ metropolitans,” but why 
do not the N.C.S. adopt the same rule that provincial societies have in 
force—viz., that the Committee shall consist of a fair proportion of 
trade and private growers, both metropolitan and provincial ? This 
certainly would do away with the charge of “ cliqueism,” and the Society 
would be more fully entitled to be called “National.” Referring to 
the Beauty of Exmouth case, I trust Mr. Jukes does not expect me to 
believe that the Sub-Committee carried out the injunctions of the 
General Committee by investigating the matter in the manner they 
did. Had the Sub-Committee been appointed for the purpose of dis¬ 
cussing, “ How best to shelve the matter,” 1 do not think they could 
have acted much differently, and why could they not go into this case 
without fear of libel, the same as they did in the Wells’ case? Now, 
does Mr. Jukes really believe that most of the leading authorities upon 
Chrysanthemum culture are on the Committees of the N.C.S. ? Mr. 
Jukes is certainly entitled to his opinion, but many will differ from him, 
I admit that those most interested in the Chrysanthemum trade belong 
to it. How fond the officials of the N.C.S. are of pointing to the 
R.H.S. as a model of procedure. I am not questioning the methods of 
that Society.— Henry Havelock. 
I THANK you for allowing a free and fair discussion in the Journal, 
I am sure it will do real good to the N.C.S. in the long run. I adopted 
the only method I could to make the facts known, and I am heartily 
pleased to see the way the public appreciate your having opened your 
pages so impartially.— W. Wells. 
Mr. Godfrey’s complaint seems to have afforded an excellent opening 
to all those persons who have real or imaginary grievances against the 
N.C.S. to distinguish themselves in print, and the discussion that he 
