392 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
May 17, 1894. 
readily seen, while butting from the side what appears to be a pro¬ 
montory, but which is in reality a miniature island, also occupied by 
plants, though their right of possession is already disputed by two stately 
swans, which glide over the smooth surface of the water, or rest on the 
island above named. Let us hope that both the swans and the plants 
will thrive as well as they at present promise to do. 
A pleasant nook has been formed in a small clump of trees by 
forming a water bed at the bottom, in which Water Lilies already 
appear to be quite at home. On the little banks old tree stumps, up 
which Ivy and Honeysuckle are climbing, lend an uncommon charm to 
the scene. Another corner somewhat after the same style has grass- 
grown banks leading down to the water, by the sides of which the common 
Forget-me-not is growing, and will, no doubt, be a fine sight in the 
course of a few years. From this wanders a charmingly cool-looking 
brook overhung by trees and leading to the lake. 
A good deal of planting has been done at Peckham, mainly in a 
necessary outer belt of trees of various kinds, also flowering and ever¬ 
green shrubs, and it is gratifying to note how trifling is the few which 
have failed out of the thousands that have been put in (some very late), 
and certainly more might have been expected to collapse. Careful 
planting, with subsequent watering in the time of need, and pruning— 
an important item—has brought about the satisfactory result. 
Altogether the par t is a fine one, and of its style has not an equal 
in London. It will, no doubt, be visited by many thousands of people 
during the coming summer, and if the numbers which congregated on 
Monday last to be present at the opening ceremony may be taken as a 
criterion, it bids fair to become, what it thoroughly deserves to be, one 
of the most popular “ lungs ” of the metropolis. 
There are two serious diseases among Eoses, and probably the least 
under our control of the numerous enemies to which our favourite flower 
is subjected—mildew—may be killed ; but unless we can secure more 
equable temperature—a desideratum entirely beyond our control with 
open air culture—we are not likely to do much permanent good by the 
adoption of such rigorous measures as are necessary to kill the disease 
which already exists. We may, of course, afford considerable protection 
from keen winds by the judicious use of plants and walls, but this does 
not entirely exempt us from those sudden declines in the atmospheric 
temperature we are so often visited with. Still, if we employ remedies 
early and are fortunate enough to escape a further spell of the same 
weather which induced the primary attack there is a chance of curing 
the disease. But once allow the germs to become established and the 
season’s beauty is practically ruined. 
Not only have the atmospheric variations much to do with mildew, 
but a check of any kind, such as from drought, will also be a 
fruitful source of this insidious disease. All but the atmosphere is more 
or less in our own hands out of doors, while under glass there is little 
excuse for the presence of mildew where a structure can be devoted to 
Roses alone. It is not so much a cure that is wanted as a little more 
thought and trouble towards prevention. With the large number of 
reliable insecticides upon the market we have no difficulty in keeping 
our plants clean provided due care is given to watering and ventilation. 
Whether the check arises from drought or the reverse, from the 
application of too strong a dose of any stimulant, or from sudden 
atmospheric changes, mildew is sure to be a close follower. 
I find no solution more effectual and cheaper than a little flowers of 
sulphur mixed with a very weak solution of any favourite insecticide, 
and adding to this a tablespoonful of petroleum. It is important to 
bear in mind that the former of these additional ingredients quickly 
goes to the bottom, while the latter as rapidly comes to the surface. 
This renders frequent stirring during application a necessity, and one 
must not think the manner of syringing is of little moment when once 
the solution has been prepared. Use it weak, freely, early, and keep the 
whole well stirred whilst applying. 
Canker. 
I do not believe there is any cure for this disease. Even when we 
fancy we have done so, the plant often takes the complaint as bad as 
ever. Another reason for my belief I found upon the fact that several 
plants may be attacked to the same extent, yet one or two out of the 
lot will often struggle on without any apparent harm for some seasons 
longer than the remainder. Until we are certain of its cause, I do not 
think we shall be any nearer a reliable cure than at present. If it is 
soil alone, why do other plants under exactly similar conditions fail? 
and when we find them showing it upon all stocks, the persons who 
quote a certain stock or stocks as its cause are bold. Nor do I see how 
a combination of stock and soil can safely be laid down as the cause of 
canker, for we often find a plant upon one stock badly attacked, and 
yet another plant by its side, and upon the same stock, is quite exempt 
from the disease. Others say it proceeds from what they are pleased to 
call the interference with balance of growth. Then why is it that 
whether we make a practice of hard pruning a climber immediately it 
has flowered and while the roots are in full activity, or whether we let 
the plant grow unmolested, canker is equally likely to put in an 
appearance ? 
Canker attacks Marechal Niel more than any other Rose, but I think 
W. A. Richardson is almost as great a victim. We find it upon a large 
number of Roses. Turning to the Hybrid Perpetuals we find canker 
upon Marie Verdier and others. These often refuse to grow upon the 
Manetti. Both stock and Rose seem to be the cause cf this disease 
under varying conditions. In one case the stock swells and develops 
the disease first; in another instance, we find the Rose growth is the 
first to exhibit canker. For example, if we work Marie Verdier, Captain 
Christy, or any other ordinary growing variety subject to this complaint, 
upon a strong-growing stock we find the Rose producing a canker-like 
excrescence. In other cases the stock swells over the Rose growth and 
constricts it ; then we find canker several feet above the junction of 
stock and Rose, so that this would certainly seem to be no more the real 
cause than soil. 
A slight injury may heal satisfactorily or develop into canker, 
which has every appearance of being the same as that found at the 
base ; while to confirm this we have similar results in the growth 
beyond the affected part. I would cut away all cankerous growth as 
soon as possible, and where it attacks the base of any plant would put 
in another young one by its side, so that the older specimens could be 
removed in the course of the following season.— Practice. 
ROYAL GARDENERS’ ORPHAN FUND. 
Annual Dinner. 
The supporters of the Royal Gardeners’ Orphan Fund held their 
sixth annual dinner at the Hotel Metropole on Thursday, May 10th, the 
Right Hon. George Robert Tyler, Lord Mayor of London, presiding. 
There was a good attendance, about 130 gentlemen sitting down to the 
tables, and it would appear that an interest is taken in this excellent 
charitable institution by a large number of representative horticul¬ 
turists. Amongst those present were—Sir Edwin Saunders, Professor 
Michael Foster, Messrs. N. N. Sherw'ood, H. J. Veitch,P. Crowley, A. Moss, 
G. Paul, T. F. Rivers, H. Turner, D. T. Fish, W. Robinson. W. L. Corry, G. 
Bunyard, R. P. Glendenning, H. J. Cutbush, A. W. G. Weeks, J. Laing, 
W. G. Head, W. H. Cutbush, W. J. Nutting, T. Harrison (Leicester), 
J. A. Laing, J. H. Laing, C. E. Osman, B. Wynne, F. C. Bause, H. B. 
May, W. Y. Baker, G. J. Ingram, S. M. Segar, W. Icefon, J. H. Wimsett, 
J. Willard, G. Norman, J. Smith, G. Gordon, H. Herbst, J. Douglas, 
W. Marshall, P. Barr, J. Assbee, J. Hudson, J. Rochford, G. Monro, 
J. Sweet, R. Dean, P. B. Kay, J. Walker, T. W. Sanders, J. Kinnell, 
W. Poupart, J. Webber, T. Rochford, P. Garcia, R. Cannell, J. W. Moor¬ 
man, W. Lowe, A. Outram, R. Barr, W. G. Cummins, and other gentle¬ 
men connected with gardening. As usual, the arrangements were 
carried out in an efficient manner by Mr. A. F. Barron, the Honorary 
Secretary. 
The Lord Mayor, after the customary loyal toasts had been honoured, 
proposed “ Prosperity to the Royal Gardeners’ Orphan Fund.” In doing 
so he detailed the history of the Fund, remarking that it was founded 
in 1887 by the gardeners of the United Kingdom in commemoration of 
the jubilee of the Queen. Its establishment was the happy conception 
of Mr. Charles Penny, erstwhile gardener to the Prince of Wales, and 
from the first the charity met with the cordial support of the hortieul- 
tural community. The headquarters of the Fund were now located in 
the Royal Horticultural Society’s Gardens at Chiswick, many of the 
Council and Fellows of the Society being numbered among its most 
generous and constant supporters. The success achieved was due in a 
great measure to Mr. Barron, the able Secretary, whose connection with 
the Horticultural Society inspired confidence amongst gardeners in all 
parts of the country. The objects were to make allowances of money to 
aid in the maintenance of orphans of gardeners of all classes. At the 
present time the Fund was the means of distributing assistance at the 
rate of 5s. per week to sixty-one fatherless children who lived at home 
with their mothers or other duly appointed guardians. (Hear, hear.) 
Thus the child received all the moral and material advantages of a 
useful home training, which was a very solid advantage indeed as com- 
1 pared with the less satisfactory and more costly orphanage system. The 
j charity was supported entirely by voluntary contributions, the income 
1 being derived partly from annual subscriptions, which were put as low 
j as 5s., so that every gardener might be able to support the cause, 
and partly from donations from employers and others interested 
in gardening pursuits ; the amount thus received and invested being 
£7070. yielding an income of about £200 per annum. Local secretaries 
were also at work in various parts of the country collecting funds, a 
fact that showed the warm interest the gardeners themselves took in the 
charity. Last year a sum of £2G1 was obtained from collecting boxes 
and entertainments organised by gardeners themselves. The amount of 
money which the gardeners were able to raise among themselves, how¬ 
ever, was totally inadequate to supply the needs of the large number of 
orphans left in a state of poverty ; for gardeners, however thrifty they 
might have been, were rarely able to leave more than a small pittance 
for their widows and children, and that was soon exhausted. No 
charity, he contended, could be more economically conducted. It 
possessed no office, and there was no expensive orphanage with high-paid 
officials to maintain. The only expenditure incurred was about £50 a 
year for clerical work. (Hear, hear.) Everything else was done 
