188 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ March 8, ’.SS". 
from B. elegans, which received the name of Priory Beauty, has 
rosy mauve flowers, and it was certificated at Wimbledon in 1881 
when exhibited by Mr. Law. It has since become a favourite in 
numerous collections. One other variety of the Hogarth family 
has yet to be noted—namely. Queen of Roses, that resulted from a 
cross between B. Hogarth and B. longiflora, which came into public 
notice in 1869, and has been greatly appreciated ever since for its 
pleasing rose tint and fragrance. 
Crosses between other species or varieties have not been very 
numerous, but some have been made that have added materially to 
our collections. The principal was a cross between B. jasminiflora 
and B. Humboldti, which yielded in 1871 B. Humboldti corymbiflora 
with large white trusses of flowers, and B jasminiflora longipetala, 
besides several others that were not named. From B. jasminiflora 
crossed with B. flava in 1875 the yellowish but not beautiful B. jas- 
miniflorum flavescens was raised by M. V. Lemoine, but a really 
good yellow variety has yet to be secured. 
It is rather remarkable that only four Bouvardias have been 
certificated by the Royal Horticultural Society—namely, B. longi¬ 
flora flammea and Alfred Neuner, already noted, with Dazzler, shown 
by Mr. Balchin of Brighton, November 16th, 1880, and President 
Cleveland exhibited by Messrs. Veitch & Sons, December 13th, 1887. 
The last named is of American origin, and one of the brightest 
scarlet-coloured Bouvardias in cultivation ; it is probably one of 
the B. elegans or Hogarth family, but whether a seedling or a sport 
does not appear. In the last year or two several double scarlet 
varieties have been introduced, mostly from France, where M. 
Lemoine has given them some attention. Sang Lorraine, Triomphe 
de Nancy, and V. Lemoine are the best of these, and they have been 
well grown by Messrs. Cannell & Sons at Swanley.—L. C. 
IS CHISWICK TO GO? 
Under this heading we published articles that have received a 
large share of attention not only from persons identified with the 
reorganisation of the Royal Horticultural Society, but from others 
who are interested in its welfare. Taking our stand on the broad 
ground that as the strength of nations and the solvency of indi¬ 
viduals depend on sound finance, corporate bodies cannot, of necessity, 
form an exception to the rule ; therefore we were anxious that the 
actual financial position of the Society should be clearly understood 
by all its supporters, and especially by the members of the Council- 
moving Committee who have taken its destiny into their keeping. 
We have had the most conclusive proof of the necessity for 
presenting the resources of the Society in their true light ; and in 
only one particular has it been possible to question the accuracy of 
the estimate that was presented in these columns a fortnight ago. 
A friendly contemporary, while it has described the finances as 
“ deplorable,” very properly suggests the unadvisability of repre¬ 
senting them as worse than they are. We have yet to learn that 
the estimated income for the year is too low, and the liabilities too 
high. Accepting the correction that has been tendeted in respect 
to the Assistant Secretary’s salary, and reducing the total by £175, 
there is a further liability that was not indicated—namely, the cost 
of transfer and furnishing and fitting up the new rooms. This is 
a necessary outlay and cannot under the circumstances be insignifi¬ 
cant. Doubtless the salary was included in the financial statement, 
but at the same time it is well known the amount was not paid out 
of the Society’s exchequer, but by good and generous friends. 
We wish it were otherwise, but cannot arrive at any other conclu¬ 
sion than that the disbursements for the year will exceed the income by 
£2000. It is most importantthat that contingency be recognised, and 
also that no expenses be incurred except what are clearly foreseen will 
be remunerative. We know that an estimate was arrived at show¬ 
ing an income of £3800, instead of £2000, by simply regarding the 
lapsed £600 of South Kensington expenses as an asset, and in¬ 
cluding the £1200 promised for the special fund ; but that position 
is not sustainable, and therein was the danger, obscured, but not the 
less existent, of Chiswick having first to be neglected, then aban¬ 
doned, in which case we are not alone in the belief that the Royal 
Horticultural Society would melt away. 
It is pleasant to learn that Chiswick is not only to be preserved 
but to have its resources developed on the lines we have suggested 
as soon as attention can be directed to it, and when means are 
forthcoming ; or in other words the famous old garden has not to 
go, but only to wait. It is in our opinion the neglect of Chiswick 
that has more than anything else alienated the sympathies cf pro¬ 
vincial horticulturists and gardeners from the Society ; and we 
have a strong conviction that if sound and thorough work was done 
there and the results published that a greater accession of sup¬ 
porters would be forthcoming than could be obtained in any other 
way. We do not ignore the question of “ City rooms,” nor under¬ 
rate their importance ; but, on the contrary, should regard themi 
as a valuable adjunct to Chiswick and subservient to it, not 
Chiswick subservient to them, as for some time to come they" 
cannot be otherwise than of a temporary nature. They are 
obtained, and a hall too, that will answer well its purpose during 
the summer months for exhibitions. We very earnestly hope these* 
will answer the purpose too. 
The policy of the Committee appears to be a policy of showing. 
The programme will have to be framed with great care, as no doubt 
it will be, and carried out on different lines than heretofore, to 
command support. It must be conceded that the shows of the 
past have been a source of weakness rather than of strength to* 
the Society. Every so-called “ exhibition ” in connection with the. 
meetings during the past year has entailed loss, and not brought, 
gain, either in the form of an increase of Fellows or in receipts 
from visitors. Even when all the prize money was provided by 
seedsmen the Society has lost considerably by the venture. Take 
the display of vegetables in October, admittedly one of the finest 
shows of the kind ever seen, yet what was the result? Scarcely 
any visitors, and the Society in the cost of preparations, including 
labour, clerical and otherwise, was a loser to the amount of at least 
200 per cent., and probably as much more by the joint arrange¬ 
ment. Is not that the road to ruin ? 
The lessons of the past cannot be forgotten, nor can methods 
that have failed be safely followed. A departure from old courses 
seems to be imperative. No doubt a well-thought-out scheme will 
be promulgated, and everything done that can be done to make it 
successful. We will join in any prudent course that can be devised 
in the interests of the Society, and should regret exceedingly to- 
have to record the failure of the endeavours that are being strenu¬ 
ously made to strengthen it and enable it to do its legitimate work. 
To speak paradoxically, on the non-responsible Committee rests the- 
responsibility, and nothing but success can justify its existence. 
The difficulties to be encountered are great, but this only means that 
the greater will be the honour due to those who overcome them. 
FRUIT IN NEW ZEALAND. 
An error appears to have crept into the fifth edition of the 
“ Fruit Manual.” I feel sure the author will only need to be made 
acquainted with the fact to rectify the same at the first opportunity. 
On page 181 it is stated “Prince Bismarck Apple was raised 
in Canterbury Province, N. Z.” It was raised near Ballarat, 
Australia, and the first six plants were sent to a friend of mine, 
Mr. Bull, nurseryman, Gisborne, Poverty Bay, New Zealand, who 
told me the full history, but I have forgotten the raiser’s name. I 
am well acquainted with the two Mclndoe Brothers in Auckland, 
one of whom sent plants to their brother in England after it was 
disseminated locally from most of the New Zealand nurseries. There- 
is another, and many think a better, Apple, named Ballarat 
Seedling,” by the same raiser. We have a New Zealand raised 
variety named “ Lord Wolseley ” that is equal to Winter Majetin 
in its Aphis lanigera-resisting power. It is a most handsome variety 
and a long keeper. I shall have great pleasure in sending you some- 
dormant buds per post if you would care to have them. Carefully 
cut off shallow and budded without removing any of the eye under¬ 
neath the bud, they push at once if put on some good free stocks. 
I get scions from England, France, and America this way and we 
are very successful with them. We grow Apples to a very large 
size in this North Island of New Zealand. Warner’s King has been 
grown to 28^ ozs., 27 ozs., and 24 ozs. by different growers. Many 
of the varieties of Pears are very superior here in flavour compared 
to the midland counties of England, but sometimes we get a lecond 
crop of flowers and fruit. I have eaten Williams’ Bon Chrftien 
second crop equal in flavour to the first, though not in size. I have 
seen Passe Colmar with three crops of fruit at one time, though this is 
rare. Plums also crop well in this country. I forward our catalogue 
that you may see the varieties of fruit we grow.— Joseph Mayo, 
Drtiry, Auclcland, N.Z. 
GLADIOLUS NOTES. 
Last year I reverted to a very old method of starting the corms 
before planting them in the open. So well was I satisfied with the 
results that I have already placed a few hundreds in boxes to start 
slowly in a cool house. The reason for so starting the plants 
