478 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
May 30, 1896. 
its chocolate coloured blooms barred with yellow, and the long 
drooping flowers of Coelogyne Dayana. All plants in what may 
be termed the reserve houses, and from which the foregoing are 
drawn, are in excellent condition of health and throwing number¬ 
less flowers, by which the exhibition may be kept up for a consider¬ 
able time.—G. H. H. 
EXPRESS GRAPE GROWING. 
Your correspondent, “ Market Grower,” in his letter on page 225 
(May 16th) appears rather sceptical about the result of these crops of 
Grapes which he has been reading of lately in the Journal. He points 
out what he considers a most significant omission—viz , “ the price these 
Grapes realised per pound.” He also states that it is not enough to say 
they carried so-and-so, and finished well, when opinions differ so much 
as to what is a good finish in a house of Grapes. This certainly is a 
most significant statement. I have long been undei the impression that 
among practical Grape growers, at least, the term “ finished ” was 
thoroughly understood, being a very comprehensive term, and required 
no further explanation or definition. When I hear one say the Grapes 
were good and well finished, I at once understand them to be at least 
medium sized, compact bunches (not necessarily large), berries good 
and well coloured, and of good flavour whatever the variety may be. 
If I were to give ” Market Grower ” the prices he asks for he may 
again say it is not enough to say they realised so and so, or that the 
crop was so and so. But as photography cannot be accused of 
exaggeration, and may be trusted to convey the truth so far as the 
weight of crop is concerned at any rate, I shall be pleased to forward 
a photograph of the Gros Colman house I referred to on the 9th inst. 
in the Journal if “ Market Grower ” will kindly communicate his 
name and address to me. The photograph represents the entire crop of 
1891, which was cut in February, 1892. The house as described by me 
is 100 feet in length by 24 feet in width, and 18 feet rafters planted 
with eighty-two Gros Colman Vines, 2 feet 4 inches apart. Each Vine 
carried twenty-two to twenty-three bunches of first-class, well-finished 
Grapes, and averaged Ss. 4d. per lb. We began selling at Ss. ; after 
a few days we made 3s. 6d. The house was cleared in a fortnight. 
During the eight years referred to in my letter on the 9th inst., page 
408, Journal of Horticulture, the average price from this house during 
that period was 3s. 6d. The first four years, from 1887 to 1890, the 
crop averaged 4s. 6d. per lb., and the last four years, from 1891 to 1894, 
28. 6d. per lb. The highest price realised during the first four years 
was 78. 6d. per lb.: but great changes have taken place since then in 
the price of Grapes. The prices given are, of course, wholesale market 
prices, but I do not think prices prove much, as “ Market Grower ” 
may possibly have discovered that prices are guided by supply and 
demand, and also the period of the year the Grapes are sold. I have 
frequently sold Grapes at Is. 9d. and 28. per lb. that would have 
made nearly double that amount three months later. 
“ Market Grower ” gives a sad account of a house of Gros Colman 
Grapes he saw last year. The house was 300 feet in length and carried 
2700 bunches, which, he states, was the heaviest crop he ever saw of any 
Grapes. “ Market Grower ” does not give the number of Vines in the 
house; but, assuming they were planted 2 feet 6 inches apart, there 
would be about 240 Vines in the house, which would give an average of 
a little over eleven bunches per Vine, averaging about I J lb. per bunch, 
on a rod 12 feet in length, which would be about 1 lb. 6 ozs, per foot run 
of rod. I do not think there are many who would consider such a crop 
a very extraordinary one. “ Market Grower ” also states that all the 
bunches were left on the Vines, many of the shoots carrying three and 
four bunches. It would not require many such shoots to carry eleven 
or twelve bunches. There surely must have been a great many barren 
ones. “ Market Grower’s ” statement, in my opinion, points to thorough 
mismanagement throughout. 
I am deeply gratified by the fact that Mr. Thomson in his letter on 
page 459, May 23rd, agrees with me on some points at least, but he 
appears rather cynical about the result of my “ poor little starved 
Vines ” as he is pleased to term them. My little Vines were by no 
means so good as they might have been, but not starved, as stated by 
Mr. Thomson. They were healthy, sturdy little canes, and were pos¬ 
sessed of that which is of the highest importance in a young Vine for 
planting—viz., abundance of fine, healthy, fibrous roots. It is true they 
were not grown or prepared on the orthodox principle, nor planted at 
the appointed season. Mr. Thomson states that their Vines were pre¬ 
pared in the best possible way. I think this proves how wonderfully 
accommodating the Grape Vine is. My little Vines had no coddling 
before planting. The eyes were plunged in the propagating pit until 
rooted, when they were removed and placed on a cool border in a Tomato 
house, and received regular supplies of water when necessary until they 
were planted on the 11th or 12th of August, and by the middle of 
September these poor little Vines were travelling at the rate of 3 or 
4 inches a day. 
Surely Mr. Thomson (even if he has never tried the experiment) is 
not BO prejudiced as to think it impossible for Vines planted in a good 
border in a lean-to house, and under moderately good treatment, to make 
as good growth as Vines would planted earlier in the season. We 
frequently have some of the brightest weather in the year during the 
autumn months, although the days are shorter. With respect to the 
ripening of the wood that is merely a question of time and management. 
I heartily agree with Mr. Thomson that we want quality as well as 
quantity, and I have been exerting myself in this direction for a long 
time in trying to produce the best Grapes possible, both in quantity and 
quality ; but whether I have succeeded in doing so perhaps it is not for 
me to say.—W. Innes, Derby. 
TOWN VERSUS COUNTRY GARDENING. 
My experience for a very long time had been wholly in the country, 
and when three or four years ago we took up house and garden in a 
good-sized, much-frequented country town, within easy distance of 
London, one knew that the conditions of gardening must be very 
different from those to which one had been accustomed to formerly. 
A good-sized raised bed facing south, protected by the back of the house 
from the north, a piece of rough turf or grass about 30 feet long running 
down to a walk about 10 feet long and 4 feet wide dividing the main 
garden from a little belt of Victoria Plum trees rather wider than the 
bed I have spoken of as being immediately beneath the windows, a walk 
on one side, right of the turf, a border filled only by old and decrepit 
evergreens on one side of the walk dividing it from a neighbour’s garden, 
and on the other side, filled in the same fashion, but backed by a 
decaying wooden fence, completed the unpromising picture. And if 
the outside aspect was unattractive, the nature and character of the soil 
was discouraging in the extreme. The bulk of the ground was all but 
pure clay—cold, tenacious—nothing could grow; no roots could expand. 
Let us make an exception in favour of the bed beneath the windows, 
where luxuriated two great Laurel bushes, beneath whose sombre shade, 
with hardly a pretence of concealment, reposed every variety of disused 
and discarded rubbish, whole and broken, while rubble and rough stones, 
and broken brickbats, made up about the most disheartening field 
for a lover of flowers to work and cultivate that it would be possible 
to find. 
I must not make this communication too long for your columns in 
case you should admit it, but as an old subscriber and sometime 
contributor to the Journal I should much like to send you some further 
notes on town gardening under difficulties, and these are greater than 
at first appear. Many of them might, I am convinced, be obviated, 
and the general advantages of having cultivated disinterested labour 
to assist the amateur would go far to develop a more intelligent and 
discriminating race of jobbing gardeners, to the great satisfaction of 
the employer and the unspeakable health and adornment of the garden. 
—A. M. B. 
THE PANSY, 
Its Culture, and Difficulties Met With by Amateurs. 
{Prize Hssay.) 
In connection with the Tamworth Pansy and Viola Show, held on 
Saturday last, a silver medal was offered for the best essay on the 
“ DiflSculties of Pansy Amateurs, and How to Deal with Them.” After 
carefully reading six essays the judges awarded the medal to Mr. 
Robert Hannah, Atherstone, whose prize contribution is herewith 
published :— 
There are few flowers in which the effects of cultivation are more 
marked than in the Pansy. In an early description of this flower, 
given by Loche, I find he describes it as a kind of Violet, no doubt at 
the time a fair and proper description, but what a description if applied 
to the Pansy of the present day. 
Early Culture. —I have looked through several old works, and so 
far as I can ascertain, the first record of its actual cultivation in this 
country was in the year 1812, at Walton-on-Thames, by a Mr. Richard¬ 
son, gardener to Lady Mary Elliott, daughter of Lord Tankerville.’' Mr. 
Richardson appears to have brought out some of the fine qualities of the 
flowers, for shortly after it was noticed, and took a place amongst 
florists’ flowers. Since then wonders in its development have been 
accomplished, and the Pansy of the present day has become as perfect 
a flower as can well be imagined. 
Attractions in Growing It. —It is both attractive and artistic, 
and there is no flower grown that opens out so wide a field of interest 
and amusement to the amateur in horticulture. The question may be 
asked, Why ? Simply because it possesses so many general advantages 
over most other flowers. It is most hardy. Inexpensive. Little trouble 
to raise from seeds or cuttings, and with fair management you may have 
it in bloom for fully eight months out of the twelve, and it may be grown 
by anyone and under almost any reasonable conditions. 
Then, again, in the culture of this flower the amateur need not be 
very far behind the professional. It may be argued that the professional 
has the advantage over the amateur by his greater knowledge of its 
culture, and his skill in hybridising. Here I may say that the art of 
hybridising may be acquired in a single lesson. True, but it does not 
follow that plants raised from the professional’s hand-crossed seed show 
in the long run very much better results than those raised from self- 
crossed seed providing that the seed is taken from a bed where only 
first-rate varieties are grown. There is at all times the chance of raising 
a specimen superior to the parent plant. That fact is really one of the 
things that adds so much amusement and interest in the culture of this 
flower. There is another thing—whatever plants you raise from seed 
you can depend on the blooms being at least pretty, and, as I have 
already said, there are at all times the chances of finding something 
really good amongst your seedlings. 
Hints as to its Culture —In the successful culture of this flower 
it is only necessary to carry out a few simple rules, such as I have 
