February 9, 1803.] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
117 
princip’e of small stands, because, as he states, where the blooms are 
packed together such defects are hidden ? Surely this would not be 
justice to another competitor who had perhaps his whole collection 
without a fault, even though they were so closely packed on the stand as 
not to allow an opportunity of looking for defects. Neither would it 
be right to permit these opportunities to hide defects to pass by without 
any attempt to alter the method of staging. 
If one exhibitor can properly fill a larger stand, is it fair to compel 
him to stage his blooms on a stand much too small for them ? Surely 
not. Again, if another exhibitor cannot well fill an ordinary stand, why 
should he be compelled to employ a large one, simply because some few 
think an “ absolute rule ” is necessary? This dictum of Mr. Brown is 
not in accord with the convenience that committees are able to allow 
in their staging arrangements. But if my plan were adopted, there 
need be no complaints from persons who wished—and could well 
fill larger stands, both to the credit of themselves, advantage to the 
judges, and a greater attraction to visitors. Those who are content to 
cultivate medium-sized blooms, perhaps of small varieties, would not be 
compelled to employ stands much too large for their productions. 
I was not aware that judges had any antipathy to the green boards 
showing between the flowers. I was a listener to a reprimand which 
the judges received during the late season at a show, because they had 
awarded the first prize to blooms which were upon a stand of increased 
size (where the green board was visible in many places), in preference 
to the blooms on an ordinary sized stand which was quite covered, and 
indeed many of the flowers overlapped each other, thus hiding defects. 
Surely this is not in support of Mr. Brown’s argument. The first prize 
stand in the exhibition alluded to was looked upon as a splendid 
“ object lesson,” one certainly that was more creditable to the exhi¬ 
bitor than any other, and acknowledged as such by exhibitors present. 
If I mistake not, the person in question would require much persuasion 
to go back to the orthodox stand, even in spite of the antipathy of 
judges to green paint.— Sadoc. 
We outside members of the National Chrysanthemum Society must 
expect little, I think, from past experience. Starting with a conference 
upon the increased size of show boards, and after a majority decides in 
favour of such, the proposition is deliberately cast aside without further 
appealing to its members. I never heard of any other than the N.C.S. 
ignoring the decision of a majority of its members before. Perhaps 
Mr. Jameson, who claims to be the chief mover in the matter, will again 
revive the subject. Had the N.C.S. adopted the plan I advised— i.e., 
send to each member and each affiliated society, they would have 
obtained the opinion of all those the subject most concerns, then they 
would have had no fear whether they were going to lose support or 
not.—J. D. 
Profitable Chrysanthemum Growing. 
The list of profitable varieties might of course be greatly extended, 
but I should say few trade growers will find much difficulty in adding 
most of those mentioned by Mr. Pithers (page 51). Of the number I 
had intended to include President Hyde, but by some oversight I had 
omitted it. It is one of the best yellows for the purpose named. 
Massalia, which is also named by your correspondent, is evidently a 
gem of the first water, and his description of its charm is sufficient to 
make the average market grower’s eyes sparkle. About Gloire de Rocher 
I am not so sanguine. Mr. Pithers would seem to imply that its resem¬ 
blance to Val d’Andorre is a recommendation, but from the market 
grower’s point of view I do not think it is. Val d’Andorre has been 
tried by every market man I know, and the result was invariably the 
same, that is, it had to be discarde J after the first season. I am disposed 
to think that Chrysanthemums of this type have been carefully weighed 
in the balance and decidedly found wanting in the qualities that go to 
make saleable cut blooms for market. 
I am inclined to agree with your correspondent’s statement about 
the superiority of Madame Louise Leroy over Elaine, and I have little 
doubt that most market growers favour this view. The former variety 
can be kept longer than Elaine without getting faded, besides several 
other good points, bnt the grower is not exactly a free agent in the 
matter. Elaine has held so long the position of leading market white 
that it is difficult to supersede it. Our returns for this season show that 
Elaine still secures better prices than the other, and I do not think our 
experience is other than general. That being the case, the market 
grower has no alternative than to grow it in quantity. Madame Louise 
Leroy may eventually supersede Elaine, but the process will take time ; 
meanwhile I incline to the idea that there is ample inducement to 
grow both Chrysanthemums for saleable purposes. — Enfieldian. 
WHAT CONSTITUTES AN AMATEUR. 
The true definition of an amateur has long been a debateable point 
in horticultural matters. If we put any faith in a good English 
dictionary something is to be learnt there about the much - vexed 
question of what is an amateur. In my copy an amateur is described as 
a person “ who cultivates any study or art from taste or attachment, 
without pursuing it professionally.” Now, I take it that the latter 
term means anything gained monetarily by professionalism. My idea 
of an amateur is a person who cultivates any kind of horticultural pro¬ 
duce merely for the love of the object, whatever he takes in hand, and 
not for gain in any way, and one who does not receive assistance from 
a professional in its cultivation. 
Acting in the capacity of Secretary to a rural horticultural Society, 
where the amateur element is rather strong, I have ample opportunities 
of ascertaining the methods adopted by this class of cultivators. I find 
that the wording of the definiiion of an amateur as employed in our 
Society seems to meet all cases here. It is thus : “ Persons who neither 
follow the business of a gardener, nor habitually employ a paid gardener 
in their service solely to attend to their garden, nor are dealers in 
horticultural produce.” Worded thus a clergyman, doctor, school¬ 
master, or an ordinary farm labourer for the matter of that, would all 
be eligible to compete for prizes, and would not be debarred from 
employing a casual labourer to dig the garden, for instance, at any 
time. 
In my opinion it is difficult to get a better solution of the term than 
somewhat on the lines here indicated. I have never been in harmony 
with those who consider that my lord, or duke somebody’s gardener 
is an amateur because he can compete as such at any exhibition of 
the Royal Horticultural Society. The proposition seems absurd.— 
E. Molyneux. 
GRAPES AT FLOORS CASTLE. 
I WAS very pleased to see in your issue of January 12th an 
illustration of the Grape room at Floors Castle Gardens. One point 
that struck me was the apparently fine berries—if one can judge by a 
photograph—and considering that the Vines must be now over thirty 
years old they sustain their vigour well, as I suppose they are those 
planted by Mr. Rose. It is near thirty years since the writer made the 
acquaintance of Floors as a young man, and the Vines were then at 
their best, being akout four years old. Three span-roofed houses—one 
devoted to Muscats, the others to Black Hamburghs, and the third made 
up of late kinds—were as fine as could be seen anywhere. But although 
these houses were so fine for general crops there was an early house at 
Floors at that time that was as unsuccessful. It was a lean-to beside 
the Pine stove, and the Vines always broke prematurely, and I did not 
see a decent crop on them. I have never had any difficulty with an 
early house, and never saw such a capricious case. Some special local 
influence must have been the cause of this irregularity. 
This just reminds me of a little incident regarding Muscat Grapes. 
One of the still-room maids at Floors once said to me respecting fruit 
in the Castle, “ I wonder how it is that the Muscat Grapes from Brox- 
mouth—the Duke’s other place in East Lothian—wo’n’t keep, when 
those grown at Floors would hang till they shrivelled ? ” But this will 
break the ice on another subject perhaps, as it may lead to a dispute 
that arose as to the Broxmouth fruit being Muscats at all, and a bunch 
was sent to your office to decide. It will be about thirty years ago, 
though I cannot recollect to a year. When cuttings of these “ Muscats ” 
were proved, the matter, I believe, was not disputed, but that the 
difference in the character of the fruit was from a local source. 
I was also pleased to see Mr. Barnes’ note in your issue of the 
26th ult., to know the exact place where the Grapes are kept, as he may 
well understand that a young man who was in the bothy nearly three 
years will know its whereabouts. The bottling system, of course, was 
comparatively unknown thirty years ago, and there is a very great change 
in the money value of Grapes then as compared with now. I have seen 
very good Muscat Grapes hanging on the Vines in March at Floors ; 
they were a little shrivelled certainly, but they were good in colour, and 
certainly fine fruit.—M. 
GARDENERS’ ORPHAN FUND. 
The fifth annual general meeting of the subscribers to the Gar¬ 
deners’ Orphan Fund was held at the Gannon Street Hotel on Friday, 
February 3rd. In the unavoidable absence of Sir Julian Goldsmid, 
Bart., M.P., the President of the Fund, Dr. M. T. Masters, F.R.S., 
presided. There was but a small attendance, doubtless owing to the 
thick black fog which prevailed at the time. After reading the 
minutes of the previous meeting, the Hon. Secretary produced the 
Executive Committee’s annual report and financial statement, which 
were unanimously adopted, as follows :— 
Annual Report and Financial Statement. 
The Executive Committee have great pleasure in presenting their 
fifth report, and in congratulating the subscribers to the Gar¬ 
deners’ Orphan Fund on the closing of another successful financial year, 
and the continued prosperity of the charity. 
The claims of the Fund having been brought under the notice of 
Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, the Committee have the 
honour to announce that Her Royal Highness has been graciously 
pleased to become patroness of the Fund, and has expressed the hope 
that “ the fact of her name appearing as patroness may assist the objects 
of the charity.” Such exalted patronage being extended to the Fund 
is most gratifying to the Committee, and will be of the greatest value 
and importance in the promotion and furtherance of the cause. 
The munificent donation of £500 from Mr. and Mrs. Harry J. Veitch, 
as a thank offering on the celebration of their silver wedding, was an 
act of generosity unexampled in the history of gardening charities, and 
the warmest thanks of all concerned in the welfare of the Fund are due 
to them. 
The Committee are under deep obligation to Sir James Whitehead, 
Bart., M.P., for his great kindness in presiding at the annual dinner at 
the Hotel M^tropole (which was a new departure in the management of 
the Fund), and whose eloquent appeal for support resulted in the sum 
