10 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ July 5,1816. 
vantage, and a first-class certificate was at once granted for it. The 
leaves are pinnate with small even bright green pinnne, and the bright 
yellow flowers, not unlike some of the Cassias, are borne in graceful 
erect racemes, the individual flowers being on long slender stalks. It is 
of good habit and free both in growth and flowering. 
EARLY RHUBARB. 
I CAN but regret that, having sent you a sample of Rhubarb, which 
during a series of years I have proved to possess certain new character¬ 
istics in that vegetable, you should remark that my “ experience is in¬ 
adequate for determining whether the kind, with such characteristics, is 
or is not new.” Having for some years made the plant a study, all I can 
say is that had there been known a Rhubarb which—wholly unforced 
by oak leaves, pots, tubs, or other contrivances — begins to bear 
usually by St. Valentine’s Day, if not earlier, I think 1 should 
have heard of it. I am sure you would not consider me capable 
of designedly misleading other persons. Must I then con¬ 
clude that you would advise me to reflect whether 1 am not 
myself misled in supposing that plant to be mine which I myself for 
years have ventured to cultivate carefully — one whose charac¬ 
teristic qualities have been advertised in no nurseryman’s list—simply 
because nurserymen grow no plant with such properties, and, like honest 
persons, have never professed to have such on sale ? I do profess to have 
Rhubarb such as is described in my prospectus, and such possibly as 
some relative of mine (though I cannot be sure of it) raised from seed, 
which has certainly been grown in my family for forty years, and which 
as certainly I have specially cultivated from ten to fifteen years in my 
garden. I consider it my own by inheritance as well as by a long 
course of culture given it. And, therefore, as in a free country like 
England, a man may do what he will with his own, I, without preju¬ 
dicing my neighbours’ plants, have called my plant the “Yaxley 
Vicar’s Rhubarb.” And I hope I have not unpardonably offended the 
usages of horticulturists, whom I very highly esteem, by standing 
sponsor to my own Rhubarb. 
Allow me to observe that it is not correct to say that I am “ selling 
roots of the variety.” No copy of my prospectus has at present been 
issued without the “ prices ” having first been cancelled by the words 
written oyer them “ Advanced proof,” a term well understood among 
journalists. In that paper I was careful to say that I referred to the 
St. Martin’s Rhubarb only, because it is admitted by gardeners to be 
“ amongst ” the earlier kinds. I cannot help being fully aware that 
there is a difference between St. Martin’s Rhubarb and mine, when I 
have grown the two kinds for comparison side by side and seen the 
difference yearly for ten years. 
I accept your thanks for the half-dozen stalks with leaves I sent 
you ; only, however, after a special request made in your columns. They 
are from the fag-end of the crop, and have been, and must indeed 
remain, the very last I pull this year. I cannot, therefore, accept your 
advice to send a sample at this time of the year to anv committee, how¬ 
ever well qualified, of any Society however distinguished. What 
grower of sound judgment would think of exhibiting a vegetable of the 
earliest spring now after Midsummer Day? Only one thing — the 
peculiar form of the growing plant—can be seen now (and not much 
later) better than at any other time of the year. There are about one 
dozen well-established stocks to be seen. As, therefore, I have no secrets 
to conceal, I repeat my offer that, by appointment, without giving any 
away, I shall be happy to show it to you, or to any person you please 
to commission to come and inspect it, describe it, sketch it, or photo¬ 
graph it. * 
From none of the statements made in my prospectus do I withdraw 
one letter; willingly undertaking to justify every word, if, please God, 
I live till next spring. I hope you will print what I have here written. 
—W. H. Sewell. 
[We readily print this letter. It is precisely because we felt our cor¬ 
respondent incapable of designedly misleading that we presumed he 
would regret doing so inadvertently, and we suggested a course that 
would prevent the possibility. The Vicar declines to submit a sample 
of his Rhubarb now that its character is developed and its “ peculiar 
form seen ” to “ any committee, however well qualified, or any society, 
however distinguished,” for ascertaining whether it is really distinct 
from existing varieties or not; and asks, “ What grower of sound 
judgment would think of exhibiting a vegetable of the earliest spring 
now after midsummer ?” We do not know any grower who would 
hesitate to do so in the case of Rhubarb, and samples similar to the 
variety in question have been exhibited this year, at the time when 
their “ peculiar form could be seen and we are bound to observe that 
although the time is considered unseasonable for submitting the 
Rhubarb in question for examination by competent authority, we are 
still invited “ to inspect it, describe it, sketch it, or photograph it.” If 
it is the wrong time for showing it we do not clearly see that it is the 
right time for figuring it ; but perhaps the Vicar can reconcile his 
declinature on the one hand and his readiness on the other. 
It is our duty to say, honest personal conviction on the part of an 
owner of something believed by him to be new, distinct, and superior 
from anything of the same nature in cultivation is not sufficient to entitle 
him to attach to it a new name and sell it as a new variety, unless his 
•conviction is founded on a much more enlarged experience than is re¬ 
vealed in this case. The variety in question appears to have been tested 
with the St. Martin’s alone, and because it differs from that, which we 
know by comparison, and because it is earlier, which we admit, the 
owner of it thinks that in this “ free country ” he is free to give a forty- 
year-old Rhubarb a new name, and send it out as a new variety. The 
fancy prices in the prospectus we are told are cancelled. Whether the 
variety was raised from seed or not, we repeat that the comparison with 
one variety alone, and that a second early, is obviously inadequate for 
determining whether the old favourite is new and earlier than all other 
varieties in cultivation or not. If after a full comparison it is certified 
as differing from them all, then its sale under a new name, and at any 
obtainable price, will be justifiable ; but if it should happen to be iden¬ 
tical with an existing variety largely grown, there can be no such justi¬ 
fication. The negative evidence cited about nurserymen’s lists is of no 
avail. Evidence of distinctness must be positive, and founded on trial 
with earlier varieties than the St. Martin’s for public satisfaction. 
As a sample of the Rhubarb under notice cannot be sent for 
examination by a well qualified committee at the present time 
because the merits of the variety can only be determined in spring, 
may we make another suggestion—namely, that a root be sent in the 
autumn to the Royal Horticultural Society’s experimental garden at 
Chiswick, on the understanding that roots of the same size and character 
from the collection there be taken up and planted with it ? If this 
is done, and the new comer is found to be distinctly in advance of 
them in hardiness, earliness, and sweetness, proving all that is claimed 
for it in the prospectus, its fame will be spread all over the country, 
and the value of the stock enormously enhaneed.] 
ARTIFICIAL MANURES. 
After perusing Mr. Dunkin’s recent contribution to the above sub¬ 
ject I felt considerably disappointed on finding a decided tendency on 
liis part to perform a rapid flank movement in regard to the scientific 
application of artificial food to plants as evinced by his sturdy opposi¬ 
tion to the use of “ properly proportioned combinations.” Why he 
should be so anxious to creep back under the safe shadow of his ex¬ 
perience is evident. I was at one stage of this controversy flattering 
myself that our respective views would eventually converge to the 
“ true system,” but he apparently intends to make a stand on the pre¬ 
sent position, and I will endeavour to briefly recapitulate a few of the 
various modes, practices, or systems that have been elicited during this 
debate. 
In the first instance we have a simple application of a specific arti¬ 
ficial manure, but its repeated application does not prove satisfactory, 
so recourse is had to what I termed the “ haphazard system,” that is, by 
some other kind of manure. This course being challenged, the second 
or “ semi-artificial system ” was advocated, this taking its name from 
the faulty artificial being supplemented by natural liquid and solid 
manures. Passing from this point and calling up the names of suc¬ 
cessful cultivators to endeavour to bolster up his cause, we arrive at 
the “ fad system, or anything for a change system,” and from this is 
evolved “ the experiential system,” that is, anything for a change 
provided results are satisfactory. But a spasmodic study of chemistry 
shows that a greater certainty of effect can be produced by a know¬ 
ledge of the nature of the elements administered and induced a move to 
the aim of all true scientists—viz., .“the true system.” To this system 
I had at one time great hopes of converting my adversary, but he has 
apparently found some of the chemical compounds “ altogether too 
mysterious.” 
Against this formidable array of “systems” consecutively cham¬ 
pioned by your correspondent, I have but one—viz., “ the properly 
proportioned combination of the elements needed system,” which I 
brought forward, in the first instance, against the initial article, 
and to'which I also alluded in conclusion in a recent article, yet 
your correspondent has failed, he says, to find a single instance in 
which I have taken into consideration the various stages of growth that 
plants pass through, and the condition they are in at the time of appli¬ 
cation, and also that he considers I have shifted my ground con¬ 
siderably. 
That the “ experience ” system is a tolerably safe resort to the un¬ 
scientific cultivator there is no disputing, as it cannot be maintained 
that a system known to give good results, even though it is a blind and 
clumsy one, is altogether objectional. Not that I intend this to add to 
Mr. Dunkin’s jubilant attitude when he says he is glad to notice that I 
am gradually abandoning the ideas of the “properly proportioned com¬ 
bination of elements needed system ” as unnecessary and impracticable, 
as it is my intention to stick to this text until he can prove more clearly 
than heretofore that we shall never reach that stage where we can take 
for our motto “ Scientia docet.” After pointing out a few of the posi¬ 
tions taken up by Mr. Dunkin at various times, I do not think he will 
place all the inconsistency to my credit. 
As your correspondent again alludes to the use of lime, I would remind 
him that he has not yet cleared up the point in reference to its action on 
soils in regard to the idea of its causing moisture to be retained in land 
that it has been applied to with the object of renovating its fertility. 
Possibly it may have been an oversight in the same way that I failed to. 
bring forward further arguments anent market plants. While agreeing 
with much advanced regarding the altered conditions under which they 
are placed being an important factor in their degeneracy, there are still 
other points that should not be overlooked in dealing with the subject. 
For instance, those plants retained by the market grower to grow on 
receive special treatment by not being called on to carry their crop of 
flowers so long as the others. Erica hyemalis and its companions would 
