January 26, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
77 
command. If secretaries could see their way to overcome this difficulty 
the rest should be easy. 
I must join with *• Sadoc ” in thinking little of conferences after the 
result of the Chrysanthemum Conference. That such a meeting should 
have been rendered useless is to be regretted.—H. Brown, Beaurepaire. 
N.C.S. Examinations. 
Mr. Godfrey (page 54) asks me why the Committee could not 
investigate the Beauty of Exmouth case without fear of a libel suit the 
same as the Wells’ case was gone into 1 To this I can only say that I 
am not the lawyer who was consulted, and can, therefore, only assume 
the reason from the facts at hand. As Mr. Godfrey and one or two 
others have taken up their line of argument upon a somewhat similar 
foundation to that contained in his inquiry, it may be useful to point 
out that what appears to be an apparently contradictory decision in his 
case is in reality not such. When a notification first appeared in the 
Journal of Horticulture of an alleged irregularity on the part of a 
member of the Floral Committee, the General Committee at their 
following meeting nominated the Society’s officials as a sub-Committee 
to go into the matter and report the result. This was done and the 
report in due time adopted. 
The Wells’ case, on the contrary, was brought forward some weeks 
later by a member of the General Committee at one of its meetings, and 
thereupon fully discussed. It was not deemed necessary to refer that 
case to a sub-Committee, and it was dealt with then and there upon the 
motion of the introducer. What seems to be inconsistent is, therefore, 
Mr. Godfrey will perhaps agree, easy to understand. Two distinctly 
different questions were gone into by two different bodies, and the sub- 
Committee that inquired into Mr. Godfrey’s complaint cannot in any 
way be held accountable for what the General Committee subsequently 
did in the other. 
It is to be feared that many of those interested in the controversy, 
if not some of his actual sympathisers, will consider Mr. Godfrey 
displays a regrettable weakness in his argument when he says he would 
scorn to shelter himself behind the law, &c., and more especially as only 
a few weeks have elapsed since he announced his intention of leaving 
no stone unturned to clear himself from what I consider a fancied 
imputation. When a man’s honour, integrity, or veracity is really 
impugned, he is morally bound to avail himself of any legitimate means 
to protect it, and the law is certainly in the eyes of the world the most 
efficacious. But Mr. Godfrey is over-sensitive in thinking our decision 
stigmatises him as a person who has brought an unfounded charge 
against another. It does nothing of the kind. Mr. Godfrey’s opponent 
would have just as much right to assert that the same decision in face 
of his sworn statement branded him with a charge of perjury. 
Mr. Godfrey being a principal in the matter, and therefore having it 
very much at heart, cannot see that the two cases are not identical. 
There is a vast difference between Mr. Wells’ charge and his. Mr. 
Wells had documentary evidence to rely upon, while Mr. Godfrey’s 
allegation, which may be quite as truthful, is entirely based upon mere 
oral statements. Moreover, Mr. Wells had the courage openly to name 
the person he complained of, thereby accepting any legal responsibility 
that attached. It is impossible not to think that had Mr. Godfrey 
adopted this course in the first instance, he might, even with a weaker 
case, have had no cause to complain that the Committee were precluded 
from proceeding with as full an investigation of the Beauty of Exmouth 
case as he could have wished. 
In conclusion, I cannot help thinking that these facts must, in a 
great measure, have influenced the legal gentlemen who advised the 
sub-Committee as to the liability they would incur.— C. Harman 
Payne. 
[The examination into the truth of the two allegations by two 
separate Committees has not hitherto been made clear to the Chiys- 
anthemum public. 
We pass from that to note that as we were the agents, with Mr. 
Godfrey’s consent, in bringing his letter in the “ first instance ” to the 
notice of the N.C.S. officials, we are bound to say it did very clearly contain 
the name of the person he complained of. The Treasurer was very glad 
to have a copy of the letter, and it was taken in our office by one of his 
clerks. Mr. Wells’ exposure was the result of his inability to get his 
case considered by the officials, as is evident by the correspondence in 
our possession. 
We have said nothing against the decision of the Sub-Committee, 
which we published. It does not affect us in the least, but it does 
others, and our columns have been open with equal freedom to accusers 
and accused. 
We are a little interested in one element of the dual case—namely, 
the apparently anxious desire of the officials that we should publish the 
name of a person whom they have not censured in one case, while they 
refrain from publishing the name of one whom they have censured in 
another. We have not the remotest wish to reveal the identity of the 
censured individual, but we are a little curious to know on what 
principle the officials reconcile their request to us with their own act 
of negation. Perhaps Mr. Harman Payne, with his great logical acumen, 
can explain the matter. * 
We are at liberty to add that we think Mr. Fowler’s proposition is 
the best that has been made, and Mr. Godfrey has frankly accepted it. 
Why should anyone else hesitate to do the same ?] 
Can you tell us where Mr, R. Dean is, and why he is so silent ? He is 
generally ready enough with his pen when he sees a chance to score a 
point or give a rap to an opponent.—A Member. 
[We think Mr, Dean is at Ealing, and we have heard that he gives 
“ raps with his pen ” on postcards to persons whose articles do not 
please him. This has not lessened the supply. We almost wish it had, 
as we have not been able to publish by any means all the letters which 
have poured in upon us.] 
APPLE DISCUSSION. 
Apple Lady Henniker. 
This is a magnificent variety for cooking. When baked, the fruit, 
after being cut into slices does not break into pieces like some sorts, but 
retains the shape previously held. Although this Apple has rather an 
acid taste when raw, it is one which can easily be eaten when cooked 
without the addition of sugar. As a eropper it is a capital sort ; in 
strong land it is somewhat liable to being specked in the skin, which 
detracts from its appearance. It appears to be more suited for sandy 
soil, although it bears freely enough in that which is heavy and 
naturally rather wet.—E. M. 
The Original Blenheim Pippin Apple Tree. 
To be correct for history I should like you to put a different render¬ 
ing of a passage appearing in page 36. Cottages now occupy the site of 
the old garden where the original Kempster Apple tree grew, in Old 
Woodstock. The gasometers are situated in New Woodstock. They 
occupy the garden site where I grafted the scions which I took from 
the old tree.—R. F. 
Apple Rambohr Franc. 
The discussion on Apples in the Journal has had the effect of bring¬ 
ing many of the best varieties into prominence, and the above is one 
of such first-rate excellence that I think it fully deserving of a trial by 
those not already acquainted with its merits. To me it seems a not very 
familiar or freely planted sort ; but for free bearing and good qualities 
as a culinary Apple it is certainly a very valuable one. It is one of 
those Apples that is sure to elicit the query, “ What sort is this you have 
here ? ” by those to whom the variety is unknown, it being most distinct 
in general appearance. In the “ Fruit Manual ” Dr. Hogg gives its 
season as September and October, but with us this year it is much later 
than this, our supply promising to last for a few weeks yet to come. 
Apples, however, appear to be very variable this season in their time of 
use, some reputedly good keeping ones having to be cleared out before 
their natural season arrives; others, on the other hand, like the one 
under notice, continuing some weeks later than they usually do. 
Although I am no advocate for planting simply for the sake of variety, 
I certainly would advise those who are extending their fruit plantations 
this season to add this one to their list if it can be procured. Dr, Hogg 
says it is a strong and vigorous grower, an abundant bearer, and a good 
culinary Apple—good all-round qualities such as no one can dispute, 
and such that are not met with in many popular Apples of the present 
day.—W. S. 
Apple Lemon Pippin. 
We hear very little of this variety, yet with us on a strong clayey 
soil it is one of the most serviceable culinary Apples we have. The trees 
are on the Crab stock and have low stems, the branches being stiff and 
erect, only a moderately large size of head being attained. Very rarely 
do they fail to bear well, and this year the crops were heavier than 
usual. The majority are near the size of Lemons and not unlike them 
in form. Where most exposed they are coloured somewhat, but the rest 
were grass green in colour when gathered, and only now changing to a 
pale yellow. It bakes or boils admirably, and it is not to be despised 
for dessert purposes. This season the variety promises to keep well, and 
we most probably shall have Lemon Pippin till March.—I. 
Waltham Abbey Seedling and Dr. Harvey. 
On page 500 (December 8th, 1892) “ A. D.” says that he has not 
grown Dr. Harvey Apple. “ J. A. W.” also writes on the same page, 
saying he cannot persuade the growers in North Suffolk that there is 
any Apple to beat Dr. Harvey. I do not think “ J. A. W.” would be 
able to persuade those of his Norfolk neighbours who possess a tree of 
Dr. Harvey that there is any Apple except the Norfolk Beaufin to beat 
it. Dr. Harvey appears to have been largely planted at one time in the 
eastern counties. I used to know where the best trees of Dr. Harvey 
Apple were when a boy at school in Norfolk. But to return to Waltham 
Abbey Seedling; my opinion is that there is no difference between 
Waltham Abbey Seedling, Dr. Harvey, and Wormsley Pippin. I have 
grown them all, and their manner of growth, flavour of the fruit, shape, 
and colour is identical. I am at the present time using fruits for the 
house, which have been grown on trees named Wormsley Pippin. 
Wormsley Grange is another name for this Apple, both named after 
Wormsley Grange, near Hereford, belonging to the family of the late 
T. A. Knight, Esq.— John Chinnery. 
Apple History—Origin of the Blenheim Pippin. 
The article on “ Apple History,” in reference to the origin of the 
Blenheim Orange Pippin, by Mr. Robt. Fenn (page 36), is very in¬ 
teresting. He seems to point out that his grafts taken from the parent 
stock “ long, long ” after 1847 formed the source of all Blenheim trees, 
as he asks, “ Where in living arboriculture can be traced trees other 
than mine directly handed down by grafts from the old original ? ” I 
