5i 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 19, 1893. 
Croydon Chrysanthemum Show, 
We are informed that the Croydon Chrysanthemum Show, being 
unavoidably postponed, will take place on November 14th and 15th, 
instead of November 8th and 9th, as already noted. 
Golden Wedding Chrysanthemums. 
We are glad of the opportunity to say to the readers of the Journal 
of Horticultiire iha-t Messrs. H. Cannell & Sons, of Swanley, are sole 
agents for the sale of our grand new Chrysanthemum Golden Wedding 
in England and on the Continent. We have not sold any stock to any¬ 
one else, and will not sell any for the ensuing year.— Peter Hender¬ 
son kQo., New York. 
Mrs. Louis Child Madeira Chrysanthemum. 
This variety promises to be one of the very best late incurved 
Japanese yet in commerce. I have now, January 12th, a beautiful 
bloom on a youag plant struck last July. Its colour is that of Mrs. 
Robinson King, and the flower forms a beautiful golden sphere. In the 
Journal, December 29th, 1892, there is a notice of this variety, and it 
states that a Mr. R. Craig is the raiser. Such is not the case. This and 
many other good ones of American origin, such as Marvel, R. C. Kingston, 
E. W. Clark, Master Bates Spaulding, were raised by my old friend and 
comrade, Henry B. Surman of Germantown, Philadelphia, U.S.A.— 
Chas. Lawton, Welt on Gardens, East Yorkshire. 
Lygus campestris as an Enemy to the Chrysanthemum. 
A CORRESPONDENT of “ Nature Notes,” resident at Acton, reports 
that he has found the above bug frequently on garden flowers, and says 
that it seems especially partial to the Chrysanthemum. It is a pretty 
green insect, and might have passed as harmless had it not been 
detected in the act of piercing the unexpanded flower buds with its 
beak or rostrum, thereby causing them to die off. It has apparently, 
like some other bugs, a taste for what is bitter or aromatic ; but it does 
not attack the buds to deposit eggs upon them. We have no informa¬ 
tion as yet concerning the early stage of this bug, nor of many more ; 
but some suppose the larvm may occasionally prey upon other insects, 
which would be a set-off to the damage done by the mature insect. 
There appears to be no way of checking it, except the removal of any 
individuals that may be seen.—J. R. S. C. 
Chrysanthemums for Profit. 
I READ “ Enfieldian’s ” useful article, at page 13, with much 
interest. He speaks of Madame Louise Leroy as somewhat displacing 
Blaine. I think the former variety decidedly the better of the two, and 
it is equally as free as Elaine. Each flower, moreover, is perfect, never 
showing the black centre. Speaking of black centres reminds me that 
Chevalier Domage has that tendency. I consider President Hyde better 
in every respect. I also strongly recommend Massalia as a bright 
crimson; it is much freer than Cullingfordi, though that variety 
should not be despised, as it is grand in colour and some days earlier 
than Massalia, which makes the latter of more value really. We have 
Massalia good now; it produces more blooms on a spray, while it 
carries its flowers well, the stems being stout. We have grown the two 
side by side, and Massalia certainly produced double the supply of its 
neighbour, which is saying much in its favour. Another variety I would 
like “ Enfieldian ” to try is Frank Wilcox, for late work ; it is a reflexed 
variety, bright golden yellow, and overlaid with bronze ; a most showy 
and attractive flower, very free, strong grower, and dwarf in habit; 
requires but little staking. For earlier work Gloire du Rocher will 
prove good, as it is very free and showy, being much the colour of 
Val d’Andorre, without the stiffness attending the latter kind. Florence 
Percy (white) is well worth growing, and should be in all collections 
where cut flowers are a speciality ; it is very free, and the individual 
blooms have a whorled appearance, making it quite distinct. 
—J. PiTHEBS. 
John Lambert Chrysanthemum. 
Having carefully watched this wordy duel, I am greatly surprised at 
Mr. Molyneux’s answer to Mr. Lambert’s straightforward question. To 
my mind Mr. Molyneux evades the real point at issue, which, I think, is 
this. Did Mr. M. or did he not erase the name “John Lambert” and 
substitute that of “Golden Queen of England” to the champion 
incurved bloom in Mr. Coombes’s stand at the last Hull Show? If so, 
what justification had he for so doing?— A Yorkshire Bite, 
Mr. Molyneux accuses me in his last note (page 37) of being wide 
of the truth ; let him first prove this. I have proved this case at Hull 
against him. He mentions Liverpool where we judged, and left 
John Lambert as we found it, and had he acted in this way at Hull these 
lines would never have been written. Let Mr. Molyneux act fairly, and 
treat this like it is treated by all other Judges and at the National 
shows, and 1 am content ; but if he still persists in going on one side 
to insult this variety he will find me on the war track as often to defend 
my progeny. At Birmingham in 1890 Mr. Molyneux judged, and 
for John Lambert, as shown by me in my first prize stand in the open 
class. Golden Queen is reported to be shown, and not John Lambert. 
This report is corrected in your Journal, page 496, December 4th, 1890. 
Notwithstanding the opposition of Mr. Molyneux to this sport, it has 
gained public favour, and when such men as Messrs. Parker, Blair, 
Doughty, Shoesmith, Goodacre, Coombes, and many others, show it in 
preference to Golden Queen of England it is a proof of its superiority, 
and your other correspondents unknown to me think it is not treating 
it fairly.— John Lambert, Powis Castle. 
Hull and East Riding Chrysanthemum Society. 
The ninth annual meeting of the Hull and East Riding Chrysanthe¬ 
mum Society was held on January 11th, at the Royal Station Hotel, 
Mr. R. F. Jameson in the chair, when the report and balance-sheet for 
the past year was received and adopted, and the officers and Committee 
for the ensuing year were elected. The report was of a most satisfac¬ 
tory nature. Over 10,000 visitors of all classes were admitted to the 
Show in November last, and the exhibits generally were of a very high 
order of merit, whilst the balance-sheet showed that a profit of over £52 
had been made on the year’s working of the Society. Funds in hand 
now amount to £341, Votes of thanks were unanimously passed to the 
Mayor and Sheriff for their generous gifts of a silver cup each, value 
five guineas, for competition at the next Show, as also to Mr. James 
Reckitt, of Swanland Manor, who had promised to give a silver chal¬ 
lenge vase, value 20 guineas, in the class for a group of Chrysanthemums 
interspersed with foliage plants. It was also announced that Mr. 
Harold Reckitt had promised to give a prize, value five guineas. The 
officers and Committee were elected as follows;—Chairman, Mr. R. F. 
Jameson; Vice-Chairmen, Messrs. George Bohn, Captain Brodrick, 
Major Dibb, and James Reckitt ; Hon. Treasurers, Messrs. Charles 
Judge and Thos. G. Milner ; Hon. Secretaries, Messrs. Edw. Harland and 
James Dixon ; Committee, Messrs. A. S. Ayre, W. S. Brodrick, G. Cottam, 
jun., J. H. Fisher, E. Goddard, Alien H. Hall, F. W. Jameson, R. E. 
Johnson, R. W. Judge, G. A. Haldane, A. W. Stanley, and W. Wheatley. 
Messrs. George Duncan and W. H. Wood were re-elected Auditors. 
Messrs, G. Gordon, E. Molyneux, and J, Wright have been desired to 
officiate as Judges on November 15th and 16th. 
The Beauty op Exmouth Case, 
I AM surprised to find (page 37) Mr. H. Cannell asserting that I am 
“dissatisfied with the Chrysanthemum people generally.” Will Mr. 
Cannell be good enough to state upon what evidence he makes such an 
assertion ? and I deny most emphatically the insinuation that I am one 
of those persons who “ find fault with the world generally.” Like 
Mr. Cannell, I have no reason to do so. I agree with him to the 
extent that the “ Beauty of Exmouth ” case is bringing discredit on the 
N.C.S., but the blame rests, not on my shoulders, but rather on that of 
the Society in question through a glaring indiscretion of one of its 
Floral Committeemen and the way it has been met. 
Permit me to inform Mr. Cannell that I am just as anxious to 
“ denounce anything discreditable or unfair ” as himself, and it was this 
feeling which prompted me to act as I have. 
I stated in my first letter (page 418, November 10th, 1892) that it 
was Mr, Cannell who requested that a bloom of Florence Davis be 
brought to the table, and I am not aware that anyone has disputed that 
statement, and I believe Mr. Cannell had the best of motives in acting 
as he did. Again, no one has questioned the number of times that he or 
any other member has attended the meetings or the lack of interest they 
have shown in the Society. Surely Mr. Cannell has not read my first 
letter to the Journal. 
Will you grant me space to repeat shortly that prior to my blooms 
being placed before the F.C. for certificate a member ridiculed them in 
a most unbecoming manner, and this in the presence of several members 
of the F.C. Was this in his business capacity, Mr. Cannell? In Com¬ 
mittee be voted twice against the granting of a certificate. This he had 
a perfect right to do if he thought the variety did not merit the honour ; 
but he afterwards wished to purchase the whole stock of the variety at 
a big price, and getting a negative answer from me, inquired the price 
per 100, “ as such a variety as that was bound to sell,” adding his reason 
for voting against the granting of a certificate was because Beauty of 
Exmouth would cut out one of his introductions. 
These are the circumstances which Mr. Cannell says call for no 
inquiry. If this be his idea of what is strictly right and proper I fear it 
does not merit such an amount of self-laudation as is bestowed upon it, 
Mr. Harman Payne’s remarks re the Beauty of Exmouth call for a 
reply from myself. Will Mr. Harman Payne be good enough to state 
why the Committee could not investigate this case without fear of 
incurring a libel suit, the same as the “Wells” case was gone.into? 
First it was, “ We can do nothing until the alleged offender’s name is 
published;” now the cry is, “ We fear a libel suit.” I agree with Mr. 
Harman Payne when he says, “ There ought to be a preponderance of 
evidence on one side or the other, and not an equality.” It is for this 
reason I urge a thorough investigation, and let it be continued until 
I am proved right or wrong. 
I should scorn to shelter myself behind the law,” or to take 
advantage of any of its technicalities. 1 am perfectly willing, as Mr. 
Fowler suggested at the General Committee meeting (reported on 553 
December 23rd) to “ waive any legal right,” and I am also willing to sign 
an undertaking not to prosecute anyone for anything he may say in an 
