494 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December-10, 1891'. 
salts have been used too freely depends a good deal upon the amount of 
rope or similar material employed. 
Sockets packed with iron filings and sal ammoniac often burst 
through carelessness in mixing the ingredients—ignorance in not know¬ 
ing the destructive properties of sal ammoniac or laziness. When used 
in excess the filings become pasty and are much easier to work, the 
joints requiring less hammering up than when the right portion only is 
used, thus being made easier and quicker. 
Split sockets may sometimes be kept together for years by placing an 
iron band round them. Long thimbles are the most satisfactory after 
cutting off the socket. Practically new rope or hemp that has been 
loosely twisted should be used, and this should be liberally coated with 
white or red lead, half filling the joint, then finishing with Portland 
cement. Joints made with rope and red lead only have stood for 
years.—0. M. 
Amateurs and Single-handed Gardeners. 
Dr. Walker’s letter in last week’s Journal is surely one of the most 
quaint productions that has ever appeared in its pages. Force of habit 
appears to be too much for him, and while attempting to defend himself 
in an illogical position, he wanders off into a sort of prescription by 
saying “ the whole question of competitors wants revision.” 
When an amateur is found winning prizes in an amateurs’section, 
and in one reserved for single-handed gardeners as well, it will be 
admitted by every reasonable person that the Doctor is right, and that 
revision is indeed sadly wanted ; the striking thing in this particular 
case, however, is that it is he himself who creates the special case for 
revision. He appears to be working on the good old principle, “ Do not 
do as I do, do as I tell you.” As a medical man “ the Wimbledon 
Amateur ” is accustomed to giving advice. Probably he could not help it 
if he tried, but in the present instance some persons may be inclined to 
think that he should be content with receiving instead of giving it. 
One might imagine from Dr. Walker’s eagerness to connect someone 
else with him that he felt by no means sure of his ground in this matter. 
He turns upon Mr. Shea with the threadbare old “you’re another” 
apology for an argument, and tries to link the latter with himself, but 
it signally fails to hold good. Mr. Shea is not “ another.” He stands 
on different ground altogether. Instead of copying the magnanimous 
example of showing in a small reserved class, in which there is no credit 
to be won beyond that of depriving hard-working gardeners in small 
places (earning 18s. or 20s. a week perhaps) of a little prize money, he 
enters in an “ open ” class against the most powerful competition in the 
country, and achieves a most brilliant and creditable victory. Does the 
“Wimbledon Amateur” really think that in the eyes of the Chrys¬ 
anthemum world he, winning a few shillings from those poor fellows in 
a class that was reserved for them at a local show, and Mr. Shea, bo’dly 
throwing down the gauntlet to the strongest exhibitors in an unreserved 
class at one of the largest shows in the kingdom, occupy the same 
position ? And while he is answering this question perhaps he will also 
tell us whether, since he uses the word “ afraid,” he exhibited in the 
leading classes at Wandsworth Show, as well as in the small ones 
reserved for single-handed gardeners. If so, well and good ; if not, was it 
because the opposition was too strong for him ? and if so, will he say who 
it was that was really “ afraid ? ” 
That he had the sanction of the Committee only proves that the 
latter, by making two distinct sections for different classes of exhibitors, 
and then allowing the one to mix with the other, stultify themselves. 
It is to be hoped that they will in future seasons give due weight to 
Dr. Walker’s opinion that the “question of competitors wants revision,” 
and act accordingly. Justice, like charity, should begin at home.— The 
Journal Reporter. 
Amateurs Exhibiting in Gardeners’ Classes. 
I have no wish to enter into this controversy, but I notice that in 
your last issue Dr. Walker imports my name into the matter by remark¬ 
ing that I, an amateur, showed and took a prize (first) in the “ open ” 
c'ass (forty-eight Japanese) at the November Show at the Royal Aqua¬ 
rium, and that no gardener’s name appeared upon the card. I may be 
allowed to point out that the fact alluded to scarcely appears to bear 
upon the question at issue, which, as I understand it, is whether 
amateurs may rightfully compete in classes nominally reserved for gar- 
denerp. I have never showed in these classes, but have considered, what 
I should have thought no one would be disposed to question, that the 
“open” classes, as the word suggests, are “open” to all the world— 
nurseryman, gardener, and amateur. How, therefore, the fact of my 
competition in the “open” class can affect one way or the other the 
question of the right of one clearly outside the nominal terms of a 
reserved class to compete therein I must confess that I am unable 
to see. 
A gardener’s name does not appear on my card for the simple reason 
that it is one of my many hobbies to grow and attend to my plants 
“ from cutting to show board ” myself. I observe that Dr. Walker 
assumes as a principle that “ anyone may show in a class above him.’* 
How this may be I do not know, nor am I aware that it has ever been 
laid down that any one class is “ above ” another. Suppose, for the 
sake of argument, that an unexpected accession of amateur skill, 
coupled with the greater time devoted to the one particular flower by 
the amateur, brought about the result that amateurs were stronger at 
the show tables than the single-handed gardeners, would the latter be 
then entitled to compete in the amateurs’ classes on the ground that 
they were “ above ” the single-handed gardeners’ classes in the only 
sense that I think it can be suggested that the latter are now “ above 
the former? ” If not, where stands Dr. Walker’s argument? 
I do not think that the suggestion of one class being “ afraid ” of 
another should be used as an argument, if for no other reason that it 
goes dangerously near inviting the retort that if the ambitious amateur 
is also so very fearless, he has it always in his power to avoid the ques¬ 
tion raised in the case of Dr. Walker by showing in the “ open ” classes. 
If he will do this I think that I may promise the Doctor the same 
immunity from criticism which has attended the practice which I have 
hitherto made of confining my exhibits exclusively to that class. 
Of course anyone who knows Dr. Walker must also know that he 
acted with the most perfect conviction that he was right in the view he 
took, and he has certainly achieved one result, and that is that he has 
made out a case for legislation upon the point—say by the Committee 
of the Nation il Chrysanthemum Society.— Charles E. Shea, Hie Elms, 
Foot's Cray. 
New Chrysanthemums. 
Cultivators for exhibition know well the advantage of being in 
possession of the new varieties as soon as they are obtainable,, as im? 
provements in any section always score a point or two more than inferior 
sorts. Apart from their value as exhibition varieties, it is the constant 
change in form and colour that maintains so great an interest in the 
Chrysanthemum. Even to these who do not make exhibiting a feature, 
the introduction of a new variety is of interest. As all growers have not 
an opportunity to inspect the novelties ofithe season, and as the c’escrip- 
tions in catalogues are at times a little puzzling, I have transcribed my 
notes of those which I consider worthy of a place in the revised lists of 
1892. The descriptions of some may differ from catalogues for the- 
reason that I fail to find the colours in the flowers as represented in 
some instances. 
Incurved varieties are introduced so sparingly that any which are- 
really meritorious are sure of a hearty welcome, and are perhaps more 
eagerly sought after than any other section, therefore deserve a first 
notice. The present season has been somewhat remarkable for the- 
introduction of several French varieties which possess merit, but as a 
rule the best are the result of English sports, therefore do not add to 
the list in variety of form, as they retain the form of the parent in 
every respect. The colour is the only point in which to expect a change 
taking p ace, hence so many complaints are heard about the lack of : 
variety in this section. With very few exceptions French raised seed¬ 
lings cannot compare with those from sports, there is such a want of the 
true incurved form in the former as judged from the English standard p 
the florets have such a tendency to stand erect instead of incurve 
correctly. 
Mrs. Robinson King. —This is a sport from Golden Queen of England, 
raised by Mr. Hotham, gardener to W. Robinson King, Esq., North 
Ferriby, Hull. It appears to me to have a greater likeness to Golden 
Empress than to its parent, having exactly the slightly serrated floret 
which is at times found in Golden Empress. In any case it is a decided 
acquisition in point of colour, which is one shade lighter than Jardin des 
Plantes, and as the latter is not often seen in good condition the new 
“ Queen ” sport is sure to become popular amongst exhibition growers, 
as it will give them another “ back row” flower. I have seen blooms 
measuring 5J inches in diameter and of proportionate depth, which size* 
at once places it in the front rank as a distinct exhibition variety. 
Madame Farrier is one of the few varieties in this section of French 
origin of sufficient merit to receive a foremost position in the section ter 
which it belongs. Although not destined to be a back row flow r er it 
will do well for a middle or front row, and for th ; s reason is a valuable- 
introduction, being really wanted more than those for the back rows. 
Well-grown blooms are nearly upright at the sides, which shows what a> 
solidity of petal and “ build ” k it has ; add to this its great depth, and we- 
have qualities desirable in the section to which it belongs. The colour 
is nankeen yellow with a bronze suffusion ; some say it is striped purple, 
but this colour I fail to find until it shows in the florets with age. This- 
variety produces flowers of two distinct colours, that previously described 
when developed from crown buds, while the terminals give blooms much 
flatter, with a distinct purple shade of chestnut. The florets are narrow 
and pointed, which in the case of crown bud flowers are desirable to 
make a perfect incurved bloom. 
Ami Iloste is another of French origin, and worthy of a place. The- 
florets are narrow and pointed ; in well-grown blooms they incurve 
neatly. The colour reminds one very much of Cherub, with perhaps a 
shade of carmine and gold tipped points of the florets. As a front row 
flower it should be useful. 
M. R. Baliuant has been much praised and described. At present it. 
is much too early to be of use to exhibitors at the ordinary November 
shows. About the middle and end of October it was very fine, but if it 
is not amenable to trea*ment to retard its development it will quickly 
drop out of the lists. Throughout the whole season I did not see it 
shown in its true character. The blooms lacked depth, which was proof 
of its earliness, the lower florets having decayed. It has the broadest’ 
