544 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 13, 18 
now devotes himself to amateur gardening. Chrysanthemums especially. 
He potted 600 specimen plants this year, but, like many others, a 
goodly number of his plants were out in that fatal October frost and 
were terribly punished. Still he has a fine display, growing all his plants 
on the single-stem plan, many of the flowers being as fine as they well 
can be. In looking over the collection since I noticed as very good 
Carew Underwood, La Vierge ; a pretty sport from Mdlle. Lacroix; 
Fabian de Mediana, Madame J. Laing, very fine ; Maiden’s Blush, Madame 
Deville, M. Baco, M. Brunet, Marguerite Marrouch, Mdlle. Blanche 
Pigny, Mrs. J. Wright, President Garfield, Mabel Ward, Christmas Eve, 
Duchess of Albany, Val d’Andorre, E. Molyneux, Ralph Brockiebank; a 
sport from Meg Merrilies ; Comtesse de Beauregard, Boule d’Or, Mr. 
Garnar, Florence Percy, a very fine thread-like form of great beauty ; 
Criterion, M. Elliott, and other leading kinds. 
Amongst the incurved kinds the following are very fine:—Golden 
Empress of India, Mr. Bunn, Lord Alcester, Mrs. Dixon, White Venus, 
and Jeanne d’Arc, Mr. Hewitt has a lovely bright lilac sport from 
Princess of Wales. Chrysanthemums are grown remarkably well, 
though Mr. Hewitt does not exhibit ; but his collection is “ a draw ” for 
visitors. It will become a raised question, however, shortly whether very 
tall Chrysanthemums are desirable, and if this great height cannot be 
obviated and dwarfer plants with from three to more breaks with equally 
fine flowers cannot be grown and exhibited successfully. 
My friend Mr. Hughes, Secretary of the Birmingham Chrysanthemum 
Society, saw at Sutton Coldfield a few days since a group of dwarf plants 
which were stopped, I think, in May or very early in June, grand in the 
size and quality of the flowers, and averaging from 3 to 34 feet in height 
or so. He was so struck with their 6tyle and quality that he told me he 
should adopt this plan another season. A very large number of 
specimen single-stem Chrysanthemums are grown in this way. Mr. 
Comfort, gardener at Knowle Hall, near here, grows 500 plants—and he 
does grow them too ; but in many cases the plants have attained to a 
great height this year.—D., Solihull. 
EXHIBITORS AND THE LATE SHOW AT SHEFFIELD. 
Owing to the lamentable want of competition in many of the classes 
at Sheffield reflections have been cast upon northern and southern 
exhibitors, which, to say the least, are not very complimentary. In re¬ 
porting the Show the Horticultural Press commented strongly upon the 
presence of “ fear ” and the absence of “ pluck ” on the part of exhi¬ 
bitors. This has since been emphasised by Mr. W. Holmes at the recent 
meeting of the National Chrysanthemum Society. The Journal of 
Horticulture in particular pointed to the absence of all Liverpool 
growers as somewhat remarkable, an observation which will be readily 
endorsed by those unacquainted with the circumstances in which Liver¬ 
pool growers were placed. From a personal knowledge of the growers 
and exhibitors of this neighbourhood I am in a position to state that 
“ fear ” forms no part of their programme. 
During the last Government expedition to the Arctic regions a comic 
paper, remarking upon the energy of our Scotch brethren, observed, 
“ The first man Captain Nares might expect to find on reaching the 
North Pole would be Sandy McFarlane keeping a shanty.” And 
although Liverpool growers can hardly be expected to take their blooms 
to those regions, they certainly are to be found occupying prominent 
positions on the prize lists of most of the principal shows in the north of 
England. Of course this fact makes it appear all the more strange that 
Liverpool was not represented in competition at Sheffield. Had the 
principal and truly liberal prize been given for the usual twenty-four 
incurved and twenty-four Japanese instead of the representative collec¬ 
tion I have not the slightest doubt that Liverpool at least would have 
been represented. Anemone and reflexed varieties are but little appre¬ 
ciated in this district, and consequently comparatively little grown. In 
the collections of those well-known cultivators, Messrs. Mease, Tunning- 
ton, Lindsay, Jellico, Heany, Roberts, Edwards, Wilson, and others, I 
question if a single example of these two sections can be found. In 
some instances they are not cared for by employers, a point which it is 
obvious must not be overlooked. Personally, I consider Anemones 
amongst the most beautiful of all the Chrysanthemums, and might have 
competed myself for the cup at Sheffield had the requisite number of 
Japanese Anemones been sufficiently early. 
There certainly were other open classes at Sheffield, but 80s. for 
thirty-six blooms and 60s. for twenty-four is not sufficient inducement 
to keep pace with the times, therefore lack of competition in those 
classes is not to be wondered at. Even Chrysanthemum exhibitors are 
but human, and when one sees a good opportunity of -winning a £10 
prize he will not sacrifice that for the possibility of winning one of the 
value of £4. Considering the importance of the first provincial Show 
of the N.C.S., and the keen interest it was calculated to excite, I am 
sure the prize schedule of that undertaking was perused by many with 
feelings of disappointment.—A. R. Cox. 
CANKER IN FRUIT TREES. 
I MUST thank Mr. Tonks for his criticism of my remarks on the 
above subject; but his present statements are general, mine were parti¬ 
cular, and are not disproved by what he says. He remarks that he thinks 
I may be led astray if I rely on analysis of my soil as a guide in estimat¬ 
ing the ingredients of manure required to supply its deficiencies. I do 
not absolutely rely on it, and I would point out that I said that my soil 
was deficient in soda according to analysis, and that I had found much 
benefit resulting from an application of soda to Strawberries, the ash of 
which contains much soda, and I deduced from this that probably an 
application of it would be beneficial to Apples, which likewise contain a 
large proportion of soda, and so far I cannot see that I have erred. Mr. 
Tonks thinks that it is extremely improbable that the iron in my soil is a 
cause of canker, as the quantity shown in the analysis was not excessive. 
The analysis was of the top soil in which fruit trees as a rule do well, 
but underlying this at various depths is a thick layer of what is called 
here “red pin,” and under this again is ragstone rock. It is this “red 
pin” that is injurious, and by placing all dung on the surface, 1 
endeavour to keep the roots of my trees near the top. It is noticeable 
that trees planted in fields where the rock is nearer the surface, and the 
red layer is absent, do not canker although the ground is full of springs, 
and yet the same varieties canker where the red pin exists. 
It must not be imagined that the soil in this neighbourhood is a bad 
soil for fruit trees, for it is well known to be one of the best and most 
fertile, yet the trees do well in proportion as the red element is absent, but 
where it is abundant some sorts will not keep healthy. 
The more dung and such manures as furnish humus are applied in 
preference to others, the better for the trees, as 1 believe they dissolve 
the iron in the soil. Mr. Tonks thinks I need not have any fear of the 
acid in superphosphate producing injurious effects, but doubtless he is 
aware that I am not alone in this belief. I have had trial plots of super¬ 
phosphate in conjunction with nitrate of soda and other nitrogenous 
manures and plots manured with various other manures, and have come 
to the conclusion that those manures are best for fruit trees which make 
humus, encourage worms, and do not make the ground hard and un¬ 
kindly, but render the surface tender.— Walter Kruse. 
[An excess of iron in the soil undoubtedly causes canker in Apple 
trees, and we have seen a young orchard of several acres ruined in con¬ 
sequence.] 
GARDENERS’ EDUCATION AND THEIR SOCIAL 
POSITION. 
While giving your correspondent, Mr. A. Bighter, every credit for 
good intentions in writing as he has done on this subject (page 332), I, 
at the same time, consider his remarks illogical, and his standard of the 
gardener’s social position unjust and delusive. I never before heard or 
read of a gardener being called a menial servant, or as being only the 
equal of the scullerym lid and stable helper. In all gardening establish¬ 
ments presided over by duly qualified men the gardener ranks in position 
next to the steward of the estate, which position, in recognition of his 
fitness and integrity, the gardener is not unfrequently called upon to fill. 
Mr. A. Bighter asks, “ Why should the gardener socially be considered 
superior to the stable helper, or treated differently ?” Why, indeed 1 
The gardener is a man of responsibility, having the management of 
valuable collections of plants, fruit trees, &c., as well as the engaging 
and directing of a staff of men, the formation and planting of new 
gardens and ornamental grounds, erection of hothouses, and the works 
requiring forethought, skill, and good taste. I, however, agree with Mr. 
Bighter in saying that frequently the gardener’s position is pecuniarily 
inferior to the coachman’s, cook’s, and butler’s. In conclusion, I may 
say that there is not much chance of parents putting sons who have 
received a university education to learn gardening as a livelihood. As 
a proof of this, we find very few gardeners bringing up their sons to 
follow the same employment, they educate them for filling a better social 
position than that occupied by themselves. This is as it should be, a? 
long as the object of the parent’s ambition is within reasonable reach, 
and the son shows a liking and probable fitness for the position he is 
destined to fill. Still, the advice which, with the approach of the long 
winter evenings, is annually given in the Journal of Horticulture 
and other gardening papers to young gardeners to improve their 
education is sound and practical, because there is no disguising the fact 
that the well educated practitioner has an advantage over the imper¬ 
fectly educated one.—H. W. W. 
UNSEASONABLENESS OF THE SEASON. 
A RETROSPECT. 
I WAS going to send to the Journal of Horticulture a long list of 
flowers in full healthy blossom in Herefordshire, varying from well- 
developed blossoms of the Pear to the humble Daisy, which is spangling 
on lawns in such profusion as to tempt the school children to thread 
Daisy chains. And then, too, the Chrysanthemums turned out last 
spring in any odd quarter like old horses to take their chance. Who 
have not had their \ases filled with these charming flowers of a variety 
and distinctness one finds perhaps in no other flower but Queen Rosa, 
whose majesty, by-the-by, has been so long and grievouslj 7 outraged by 
months of cold and wet weather that she has not recovered to hold as 
usual her second court this autumn. 
My chief motive in writing is to ask if any of your readers, who like 
myself have passed the broadly defined epoch of middle age, happen to 
remember how nearly the weather of 1888 resembles that of 1860? I 
was leaving that year my first curacy, and so the period comes to be well 
fixed on my memorv. Yes, well do I remember how the hay and corn 
harvests were interrupted, and more even than this year blighted and 
spoiled through not passing through the bright interval of June weather 
we have been blessed with this autumn. Just the present mild weather, 
abnormally high both as regards night and day temperature, was kept 
up in December 1860 until Christmas eve, when the severest frost of 
