November 17, 1687. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
423 
Pansies might then have claim to be classed as Violas, and numerous 
Violas would find their way into the list of Pansies. Neither is there 
necessity to pursue a course calculated to deprive us of some of the best 
Violas viz., calyx with unequal sepals. Our aim should be to bring 
the whole family of Violas to resemble in shape Countess of Hopetoun, 
whose faultless flowers place it far ahead of most existing kinds. 
P>7 adopting my suggestion that the blotch be the characteristic of 
the Pansy, and the absence of the blotch or rayed centres to distinguish 
■the family of \ iolas, we would lose only such as Holyrood Sovereign, 
Blue King, which are all received as Pansies, whilst we should retain 
all that are entirely without markings, such as Bullion, Countess of 
Hopetoun, Golden Queen of Sprin r , &c., and all rayed varieties, such as 
Pilrig Park, Ardwell Gem, &c., and nearly all fancy kinds in the way of 
■Countess of Kintore, Mrs. Baxter, York, and Lancaster, &c. In my con¬ 
versations with Mr. Dean or Mr. Baxter I have always forgotten to 
mention this perplexing subject, but now that it is under discussion it 
is to be hoped that it will be satisfactorily and finally disposed of.— 
John Habkness, Bedale. 
CHRYSANTHEMUM NOTES. 
THE HULL CHALLENGE CUP. 
Being much surprised at the tone of Mr. Jameson’s remarks on 
rpages 401 and 402, I have carefully read my note on page 387 in order 
to see if I could find anything that would account for such an expression 
■of feeling. I do not find a word that can fairlv be interpreted as even 
guessing “ the reasons actuating the Committee of the Hull and East 
Hiding Chrysanthemum Society in this matter,” far less do my remarks 
attribute “ unworthy motives to the Committee.’’ I repudiate the 
suggestion of such thoughts or intentions. I have no reason to suppose 
the members of the Committee of the Hull and East Riding Chrysan¬ 
themum Society—collectively or individually—to be other than men of 
honour and integrity, and I do not think any of them would knowingly 
and wilfully commit an act of moral injustice to anyone ; and I think 
that Mr. Jameson will, in calmer moments, regret that he has hastily 
attributed to me suggestions and insinuations that had no existence 
either in my thoughts or my words. I did not suggest that the Hull 
Committee were acting under Rule 15 in this matter—my remarks, so 
kindly quoted by Mr. Jameson on page 402, being sufficient proof that 
Si had in my mind other possible reasons for their action—consequently, 
your correspondent, in his haste to show how I had “ entirely failed to 
grasp the facts of the cas 1 ,” plainly exhibits his own failure to compre¬ 
hend accurately the meaning and intentions of plain language. Mr. 
Jameson credits me with considering myself “qualified to sit in judg¬ 
ment on the case, and in doing so hi credits me with far more vanity 
than I possess, although 1 admit not being alone in the possession of a 
fair share of it; but I may say 1 have known solicitors to err in their 
judgment; and it is generally admitted that the soundest advice they 
give, their clients is when they advise them to have “ nothing to do with 
law.” In the present case the Hull Committee had no other alternative 
ito their action ; but on reflection I am of opinion that Rule 15 would 
not shelter them, even if they were disposed to place themselves behind 
it, and their solicitor had advised that course. 
V hen I see a case of public interest that involves a positive hardship 
to an individual, and the hardship arises through what I conscientiously 
■believe to be a pernicious principle attending such case, I hope my 
“ °' vn good sense ” will always be backed by sufficient moral courage to 
enable me to draw public attention to the matter. 
As regards the principle of challenge cups for individual competitors, 
there has not been a reason given why such a system should be applied 
.to Chrysanthemums any more than to any other product of the garden. 
If such a cup or cups is offered annually for any other garden product 
I shall be pleased to be informed of it; what it is for, and where it is 
offered. 
I am very glad to find that I have drawn from Mr. Jameson a clear 
statement of the facts in re Mr. Meas; and the Hull Committee, conse¬ 
quently I think my original remarks were not written quite in vain. 
I feel sure that neither Mr. Mease nor any other right-thinking person 
would impute wrong motives to the Hull Committee.—J. Udale, 
Elf or d. 
—I suggest that in the future a clause be inserted in schedules 
issued by societies offering a challenge cup, distinctly stating that the 
death of an employer will invalidate the claim to a cup that has not 
been finally won ; exhibitors will then know what they are doing, and 
no hardship will be inflicted upon them. The case of Mr. Mease has 
forcibly illustrated one of the serious flaws incidental to the system of 
competition for challenge cups. 
[It is fair to Mr. Udale to state that in a note accompanying his 
former communication he said he “did not in the least wish to injure 
fhe Hull Society or Show.”] 
MR. MEASE AND THE HULL CHALLENGE YASE. 
I have to state that in consequence of Mr. Lindsay’s letter in the 
Journal of 10th inst., announcing the withdrawal of Sir Thomas 
Edwardes-Moss from the competition for the challenge vase, the Com¬ 
mittee are enabled to allow the executors of the late Mr. C. W. 
Neumann to count last year’s win, and Mr. Mease has been informed 
■of this. 
M ith regard to the reason Mr. Lindsay gives for the course adopted, 
l wish to say for the information of those who are unaware of the fact, 
that the Judges last year were Mr. George Gordon and Mr. John Wright, 
and they have been reappointed this year in conjunction with Mr. Wm. 
Kipps of Walton Lea, Warrington. Comment on these names is unne¬ 
cessary, but I may say that they are published in the schedule which 
was issued and sent to all previous exhibitors last spring. I should also 
like to add that Mr. Wright and Mr. Kipps judged at the Liverpool Show 
last year, and have, I understand, been reappointed this year. 
I omitted to say in my letter of last week that instances having come 
within the cognizance of the Committee of employers bavin ; refused 
their gardeners permission to compete, the then Chairman, Mr. George 
Bohn, with a view of inducing them to do so, offered this challenge vase 
as an addition to the money prize of £10 previously given, and it is 
within my knowledge that it has had the desired effect. This, of course, 
benefits the gardener as well as the Show. 
I wish to draw particular attention to the fact that the challenge 
vase was an addition ; the Committee did not rob Peter to pay Paul, but 
continued the same money prize, and this y^ar have increased it to £15. 
—It. Falconee Jameson, Chairman Hull and Hast Biding Chrysan¬ 
themum Society. 
HORTICULTURAL CLUB. 
The usual monthly dinner and conversazione took place on Tuesday 
evening the 8th inst., when there was a large attendance of members. Mr. 
P. Crowley, in the absence of Mr. John Lee, presided ; there were also 
present the Rev. W. Willis, the Rev. F. H. Gall, Messrs. Girdlestone. 
H. J. Pearson, Chas. Pearson, T. W. Girdlestone, L. Upcott Gill, W. J. 
Jefferies, J. Walker, Francis Rivers, E. B. Lindsell, and the Secretary, 
Mr. James Walker of Whitton was elected a member. 
In the evening an interesting conversazione on the Chrysanthemum 
took place. Mr. J. Laing of Forest Hill kindly sent some dwarf plants 
to illustrate his method of culture, and Messrs. Davis A Jones of Lilford 
Nurseries a box of some of the newer varieties. The subject was intro¬ 
duced by the Hon. Secretary, who stated that while he had been for 
many years a cultivator of the flower, it had been for his own enjoy¬ 
ment, and not for the purpose of exhibition. He had been longer a 
cultivator of them than anyone in the room, and referred to the years 
gone by when Mr. James Salter of the Versailles Nursery, Hammer¬ 
smith was the great cultivator, and the introducer of all the new varieties. 
At that period and for many years afterwards there were no Japanese 
varieties, and when they were first introduced they were cried down by 
florists as “ragged jacks ; ” since thenopinion on them had greatly changed, 
and they were new the most popular classes, and it was a remarkable 
fact that while all the new, or nearly all, incurved varieties were sports, 
the number of Japanese seedlings seemed to be unlimited, for not only 
were they raised in Eurone, but new varieties were yearly being intro¬ 
duced from Japan and China. He mentioned that one firm alone— 
Diilaux—had this year advertised a hundred new varieties, or so-called 
new. It seemed to him that, as it was with the Rose, there were many 
who considered size to be the chief obj-ct to be looked for, and this he 
believed to be a mistake. The plants sent by Mr. Laing’s treatment, 
which he considered the best for general use as ensuring dwarf plants 
and good blooms, was described. The plants are struck in the usual 
way in January, they are allowed to grow without stopping, repotted 
as usual, and then about the middle of June arc cut down to within 
6 or 7 inches ; they then break, and three or four shoots are allowed to 
grow, and thus nice bushy and well-finished plants not higher than 4 feet 
are obtained. These, as soon as the flower buds show, are disbudd d, 
and with the result as shown in the plants exhibited—dwarf habit, with 
good and large blooms, quite large enough for any purpose. 
The Rev. W. Wilks cordially approved of Mr. Laing’s plan, and 
deprecated the growing of plants some 6, 7, and 8 feet high, which 
required a G foot step ladder to be used in order to see them. He also 
felt that the immense sizes obtained was no advantage, and that 
moderate sized blooms were far more elegant. He also thought that 
disbudding was carried too far, and that many varieties were much 
better withaut it. 
Mr. Charles Pearson, having first kindly read a paper by Mr. Laing which 
appeared in the “ Scottish Gardener,” said that he had devoted a good 
deal of time and thought to the question of disbudding, and that he felt 
persuaded there were several varieties which were much better for not being 
so treated ; that if they were they did not give satisfactory flowers, 
while if they were left in their natural state they were much more 
beautiful, and were covered with bloom ; and that, therefore, indis¬ 
criminate disbudding had to be avoided. He gave a list* of those what 
he had found were better if left in their natural condition. He also 
stated that he believed hard potting tended to the dwarfing of the 
plants, and that he had latterly rammed them quite hard when potting. 
He also considered that the plan of plunging the pots was a bad one, as 
the roots ousht to have the benefit of the sun’s action as much as 
possible, and it was most probably only used to save trouble in watering. 
The loss of foliage in the lower part of the stems was attributed to 
carelessness in this respect. 
[The list arrived too late for insertion, but most of the varieties are 
named on page 401 last week.] 
ADVICE TO JOURNEYMEN GARDENERS. 
With your kind permission I wish to give a few remarks for the 
above readers of the Journal. Several years ago I went as journeyman 
in the houses, under a well-known and much respected gardener in this 
county. The first advice he gave me was to keep a diary of operations 
