386 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDEEER. 
[ October J9, 1885. 
Davies, Grove Park Gardens, Warwick, 20; Mr. W. Froggatt, Chesterfield, 12 ; 
Mr. W. Gaiger, gardener to S. T. Whitehead, Esq., Derby, 13 ; Mr. W. H. 
Pownall, Lenton Hall, Notts, 24; Mr. J. N. Gleeson, Clumber Gardens, 
Worksop, 40; Miss Johnson, The Beeches, Carlisle, and Mr. Mclnnes, Car¬ 
lisle, 1 dish each ; Mr. J. Lends, Newport, Salop, 25; Mr. W. H. Divers, 
Ketton Hall Gardens, Stamford, 20; Mr. Grey, Normanton Gardens, Stam¬ 
ford, 30. 
Mr. E. Cole, Althorpe Park Gardens, Northampton, 64 very good 
samples ; Colonel R. T. Clarke, Welton Place, Daventry, 6 ; Mr. Coomber, 
gardener to J. A. Rolls, Esq., Hendre, Monmouth, 30: Mr. H. Ritchie, 
Eardiston Gardens, Worcester, 50; Miss Cheere, Popworth Hall, St. Ives, 
Hunts, 12; J. Plowright, Esq., Swaffham, Norfolk, 12; Colvill Brown, Esq., 
The Paddocks, SwaSham, 50; R. H. Mason, Esq., Necton Hall, Norfolk, 19 ; 
Mr. G. Palmer, gardener to F. H. Palmer Esq., Drinkstone, Bury St. 
Edmunds, 25; Mr. J. Sheppard, gardener to J. Berners, Esq., Wolverston 
Park, Ipswich, 19; Mr. J. McKelvie, Leadenham, Grantham, 30; Mr. 
F. C. Barker, Heatherdale, Woodford Green, 80; Simeon Jacobs, Co vent 
Garden, 24 dishes of very handsome Pears from Havre; Messrs. Harrison 
and Sons, Leicester, 54; Mr. R. H. Poynton, Taunton, 31 ; Mr. H. J. 
Clayton, Grimston Hall, Tadcaster, 30 ; Mr. E. C. Hall, Bolton Hall Gardens, 
Bedale, Yorkshire, 45 ; Mr. J. Hathaway, Lathom House, Ormskirk, 35 ; and 
Mr. T. Winkworth, Childwall Hall, Liverpool, 36. 
Wales. —There is not a large display from the Welsh counties, and few 
of the fruits are above medium size. Mr. Middleton, gardener to Sir Watkin 
AVynn, Bart., Wynnstay, Ruabon, has sixty dishes of average fruits, 
Beurre d’Amanlis being the most notable for quality. Mr. G. Griffin, 
Slebeck Hall Gardens, Haverfordwest, has twenty dishes. Mr. J. Muir, 
gardener to C. R. M. Talbot, Esq., M.P., Margam Park, Taibach, shows 
twenty-four varieties, the best being Beurrb Clairgeau, Bishop’s Thumb, 
Black Pear of Worcester, and Bellissime d’Hiver. Mr. Powell of Taibach also 
has several varieties, but not of remarkable merit. 
Scotland. —Some good fruits are included in some of the collections 
from Scotland, but they are mostly from wall trees, or in a few cases from 
orchard house trees, but in the majority of cases the varieties are not up to 
the condition they are obtained in the south. Still, several good representa¬ 
tive collections are shown, prominent amongst them being forty varieties 
from Mr. Melville, gardener to the Hon. G. G. Dalrymple, Elliston House, 
St. Boswells, all of which resembled orchard-house fruit. The following 
varieties were very good :—Nouvelle Fulvie, Bergamotte d’Esperen, Glou 
Morqeau, Passe Colmar, Uvedale’s St. Germains, Winter Nelis, Beurrb 
Clairgeau, Pitmaston Duchess, Durondeau, Marie Louise, and General 
Todtleben. Mr. M. Dunn, gardener to the Dukb of Buccleuch, Dalkeith, has 
sixty-two varieties. Mr. J. W. Machattie, Newbattle Abbey Gardens, 
Dalkeith, has fifteen. Dr. Robertson, Errol, shows fifty varieties, a very 
interesting collection. Ormiston & Renwick, Melrose, have fifty varieties, 
some of the best fruits from trees on a south wall and others from an 
orchard house. Mr. Lacaille, Errol, shows sixteen varieties ; and Mr. J. 
Day, Galloway House, Garlieston, has thirty-five, Pitmaston Duchess being 
beautifully represented by fruits from a tree trained to a south wall. 
Ireland is not strongly represented, the collection of twenty varieties 
from G. F. Unthank, Limerick, being the only one exhibited. These 
are fairly good, but not extraordinary, Pitmaston Duchess, Beurr6 Bose, 
Marie Benoist, Durondeau and Marie Louise, however, being notable fruits. 
Mr. F. W. Burbidge, Trinity College Botanic Gardens, Dublin, sent samples 
of Bishop’s Thumb, of which he stated that two thirds of the crop every 
year come as seedless, long, cylindrical fruits, the others being more dis¬ 
tinctly pear-shaped. 
Channel Islands. —Jersey has long been famed for its Pears, and it is 
not, therefore, surprising that the collection of eighty varieties from Messrs. 
J. Le Cornu <fe Son, St. Heliers, should contain the largest and most handsome 
Pears in the whole Exhibition. Single fruits of Uvedale’s St. Germains 
(shown as Belle de Jersey and B lie Angevine) weigh 1 lb. 10 ozs. Catillac 
is the same, and Beurre Clairgeau 1J lb., these being 6 to 8 inches long and 
12 to 15 inches in circumference. Grand fruits of the following varieties are 
also shown :—Easter Beurre, Dnchesse d’Angouleme, Doyenne du Comice, 
Chaumontel, General Todtleben, Van Mons Leon Leclerc, Louise Bonne of 
Jersey, Durondeau (shown as DeTongres), Beurre Superfin, Catillac, Mare- 
chal de Cour, Beurre Diel, Beurre Clairgeau, Nouveau Poiteau, Doyenne 
Boussoch, Glou Moreau, Columbia, Beurre Bachelier, Triomphe de Jodoigne, 
Napoleon, Marie Louise, and Bergamotte d’Esperen. From Guernsey, Mr. 
J, Thurston, Mount Row, contributed twenty dishes of fine specimens, of 
which the best were Catillac, Doyenne du Comice, Madame Treyve, General 
Todtleben, Glou Mor^eau, Beurre de Jonghe, Souvenir du Congres, Marechal 
de Cour, and Pitmaston Duchess. 
France. —The celebrated pomologist M. Andre Leroy, Angers, has a very 
interesting collection, numbering 196 varieties, many of which are little 
known in England. The fruits are not large, except one giant sample of 
Uvedale’s St. Germains, weighing over 2 lbs. M. F. Jamin, Bourg-la-Reine, 
; „ 1S ’c 8 ^ OW8 fifty dishes of handsome fruits, the following being wonder¬ 
fully fine, and more like Jersey Pears. General Todtleben, Beurre Bachelier, 
Fondante de Noel, Beurre Sterckmans, Beurre Bretonneau, Beurre Six, Beurrb 
Clairgeau, Beurre Luizet, Nouv- an Poiteau,Beurred’Hardenpont, Lieutenant 
Poidevin, and Triomphe de Jodoigne. 
It may be noted that the Exhibition continues open until next Wednes¬ 
day, November 4th, so that intending visitors who have not hitherto had an 
opportunity of seeing it may do so thiB week. 
GREENHOUSES AND THE BUILDING ACTS. 
Is a greenhouse a building wi'hin the meaning of the Metropolitan 
Building Acts ? This is a questi n that is repeatedly being asked in the 
horticultural world, and it will continue a vexed question until an Act is 
passed exempting greenhouses from the operations of the respective 
Building Acts. As the law at present stands there is no doubt that a 
greenhouse is a building withing the meaning of the Acts, and a person 
erecting one is liable to be called upon by a district surveyor to pay his 
fee, or, more strictly speaking, he lenders himself liable to a penalty of 
£20 for not giving the district surveyor notice. 
c My impression is that it never was intended district surveyors should 
have the privilege of compelling anyone who erects a small greenhouse to 
pay a fee for surveying it. The Acts are intended for the protection of 
the public, such as preventing “jerry builders” erecting dangerous 
structures, &c. There have been a number of decisions in the Police 
Courts upon this question as affect'ng greenhouses, but not a single case is 
reported where the question has been taken to the Superior Courts. The 
mode of appeal from the Police Court is by special case to the High Court 
of Justice, the cost of which would be about £20, and this is probably 
the reason why builders of small greenhouses prefer to pay the 15g. 
surveyor’s fee to having tne trouble and expense of an appeal. 
In 1880 a case against a Mr. Norris came before the magistrate at the 
Clerkenwell Police Court. The defendant was summoned for erecting a 
greenhouse at the rear of his premises without giving the district surveyor 
notice, and here the magistrate decided that the greenhouse was not a 
building witbin the meaning of the Acts. 
Again, in 1884, before Mr. Hosack, at the Worship Street Police Court, 
the district surveyor for East Hackney (North), summoned a gentleman 
for a fee in respect of a detached greenhouse, 16 feet long and 9 feet wide, 
which had been erected in a back garden, and in this case the magistrate 
said he would allow that a greenhouse attached to a building was not 
exempt, but thought one that was detached, as in this case, was exempt, 
and therefore dismissed the summons. In addition to these there have 
been many decisions both in favour of and against the district surveyor, 
the majority being in favour of the latter. 
Magistrates and judges, as we all know, are on the bench only to 
administer the law as it stands, and it is of little use going to the Superior 
Court on an appeal in the present unsatisfactory state of the Acts, and I 
would suggest that the only way to alter it will be, when a new Building 
Act is introduced, for the lovers of horticulture to combine together to 
get a clause inserted, either exempting greenhouses altogether, or making 
the Acts so that they apply only t > large conservatories or greenhouses, 
surveyor. 
The Metropolitan Building Act, 18 and 19 Vic., cap. 122, is the 
principal Act uuder which district surveyors claim to interfere with the 
enthusiastic amateur or nurseryman who erects a greenhouse. Sec. 6 of 
that Act refers to greenhouses as follows :—“The following buildings and 
works shall be exempt from the operation of the first part of this Act. 
All party fence walls and greenhouses, so far as regards the necessary 
woodwork of the sashes, doors, and frames.” Sec. 31 says, “ With the 
exemptions hereinbefore mentioned, every building, and every work done 
to, in, or upon any building, shall be subject to the supervision of the 
district surveyor appointed to the district in which the building is situate.” 
And sec. 38 deals with the notice to be given to the district surveyor two 
days before commencing building. 
Many persons are under the impression that by placing a greenhouse 
on wheels they do not come within the Acts. Prior to 1882 it may have 
been possible to avoid the operation of the Acts in this way, and probably 
it was in consequence of this being done that the 13th section of the 1882 
Act was inserted, which is as follows :—The Metropolitan Management 
and Building (Amendment) Act, 45 and 46 Vic,, cap. 14, sec. 13. “It 
shall not be lawful for any person to set up in any place any wooden 
structure or erection of a moveable or temporary character, unless the 
same be exempt from the operation of the first part of the Metropolitan 
Building Act, 1855.” 
It is possible, under exceptional circumstances, to erect a greenhouse 
which is exempt from the operation of the Acts, as I know from expe¬ 
rience, having bad considerable difficulty with a district surveyor in the 
erection of my third greenhouse (the first two were erected without his 
aid). He wauted to insist upon my bricking up the front of the house to 
the sills with 9-inch brickwork and the necessary footings under schedule 
I. of the Act of 1855, which is as follows :—“Every building shall be 
enclosed with walls constructed with brick, stone, or other hard and 
incombustible substance ; and the foundations shall rest on the solid 
ground, or upon concrete or upon other solid substructure.” To this 
I protested, and positively declined either to put a single brick in the 
building or pay a surveyor’s fee. 
“VWAfv 
