October 29. 1885. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
387 
The greenhouse (tig. 60)Vas built principally forthepurpose of blooming 
Chrysanthemums in, and as all Chrysanthemum growers know, in order 
to keep the plants healthy, a plentiful supply of ventilation is necessary 
both above and below the stage. I had the good fortune to have walls at 
the end and on either side of my garden, which is 17 feet 3 inches wide, 
and I determined to avail myself of these walls by erecting a square span- 
roof house the whole width of the garden, and putting in a front as shown 
in the accompanying sketch. For ventilation it will be seen I have a 
lantern light at the top, a patent Moore’s ventilator over the door, and 
four doors opening outwards upon hinges fitted into the framework below 
the sills. These are the doors the district surveyor endeavoured to compel 
me to remove and replace with 9-inch brickwork, and thus destroy part 
of my ventilation. 
By erecting it in this way it will be seen I have a greenhouse which 
is composed entirely of sashes, doors, and frames, and as that portion of 
a greenhouse composed of sashes, doors, and frames is exempt from the 
operation of the Acts, I contended, and successfully, that this house did 
not come within the Building Acts. My contention was not the old 
question, Is a greenhouse a building within the Acts? but, Is my green¬ 
house a building ? &c. 
As before stated, I bad some difficulty with the district surveyor, who 
refused to accept my reading of the Acts, and a lengthy correspondence 
passed between us. He would insist upon visiting my premises a number 
of times while the building was in course of erection, and when com¬ 
pleted he sent me an account as follows :—“ For surveying one building, 
being a certain building under 400 square feet in area and one storey in 
height, and being situate, &c., &c., £1.” To this was affixed a receipt 
stamp, across which was written, “ Received the above,” and signed. A 
letter from the district surveyor accompanied the receipt, stating it was 
sent to show he was not “fighting for bis fee.” 
There are two things connected with this receipt which are somewhat 
amusing. In the first place I had never been requested to pay the £1, 
and in the second place the Act of 1855 sets out a schedule of charges 
the district surveyor is entitled to make as follows :— 
Fees Payable to District Surveyor. 
Fees for New Buildings. 
For every building not exceeding 400 square 
feet in area, and of one storey only in height, 
the fee shall be.£0 15 0 
It may bo well to mention that before the tenant erects a greenhouse 
similar to the one represented in the sketch he should take every pre¬ 
caution, as it is both expensive and annoying after erecting a greenhouse 
to find someone in a position to interfere and insist upon structural 
alterations being made or the removal of the house. For instance, the 
tenant should have either a clause inserted in the agreement or lease 
under which he h fids his premises, or obtain an undertaking from the 
landlord, to the effect that he may be at liberty to erect greenhouses and 
remove them at the expiration of the tenancy, otherwise the tenant may 
find he has erected a house which his landlord will in all probability 
endeavour to insist upon his leaving upon the premises. In addition to 
this the house should be built with gutters to catch the rain, so that the 
wet does not run off the roof upon the walls. If eaves or gutters are 
erected over a neighbour’s land he has the legal right to have them pulled 
down without waiting for an actual inconvenience to arise, therefore it is 
advisable that the neighbour’s permission should be first obtained. 
From the above facts it will be seen that an ordinary greenhouse, 
whether on wheels or planks, is without doubt a building within the 
meaning of the Building Acts, and that directly an occupier commences 
to erect even one of the smallest greenhouses we find advertised as 
tenant’s fixtures, the district surveyor appears upon the scene and claims 
to have the right, under the Act of 1855, to compel the unfortunate horti¬ 
culturist to put brickwork up to the sills, and then at one stroke, not only 
makes the greenhouse a landlord’s fixture, but brings the structure under 
the Budding Ac's, which enables him to claim his fee for surveying a 
greenhouse, which often is so simple that it scarcely deserves to be called 
a structure. 
I have several times used the term “ tenant’s fixture ” in the above 
article, this is a question which is far from clear and equally as 
interesting as the present one, and upon which a deal may be said ; but 
as space will not permit I must leave my remarks upon tenants’ fixtures 
for some future occasion.— Geo. S. Addison. 
CHRYSANTHEMUM NOTES. 
The Frosts. —There is no doubt but that the early frosts in September 
played sad havoc in the gardens, more especially in the low-lying districts. 
I can truly sympathise with your correspondent “ A. A.” (page 362). 
It must have been saddening to see all the flower buds cut up as described 
by him, and to find one’s labour for the whole year thrown away and the 
loss of a floral display. This is one of the many things that a gardener 
has to bear ; fickle seasons, diseases, birds, and insects wage warfare with 
him on every hand, and with truth, “Love’s Labour Lost” might be 
written across many a label after the loss of a crop through no fault of 
bis own. Happily we have many bright sides to the picture that bears 
us up through all the disappointments of the seasons. Although living 
but about four miles as the crow flies from “ A. A., Mitcham," the frosts 
did not hurt my plants of Chrysanthemums that I had out of doors on 
account of our place being at a much higher elevation. I expected we 
should have had a little frost, and consequently took the precaution to 
■house temporarily in a shed all that was then showing colour. Often the 
effect of frost on the buds is not seen until the blooms begin expanding, 
when the tips of the florets soon begin to decay, as if scalded. 
Varieties. —One of the earliest to flower with me this season is 
Flamme de Punch. This variety is now at its best. 1 first grew it last 
year, so these flowered rather early ; a good type of a Japanese Chrysan¬ 
themum, with long drooping florets and a full centre, but the colour was 
not at all pleasing, it was of a dull rusty brown. This season it has come 
much better in colour, with a yellow stripe down the centre of 
each floret. It is very distinct, and I should think a good amateur’s 
flower. 
Margot. —This is, like the preceding, a variety of recent introduction— 
and a great acquisition both as a decorative and an exhibition flower. It 
is quite a new and fashionable colour, and sure to be a favourite with the 
ladies. It may be described as a beautiful soft rose, with a cinnamon 
buff tint diffused through the whole flower. 
Mons. Astorg. —This is another valuable addition to the white¬ 
flowering varieties, and I think it will fully bear out the opinion I formed 
of it last season as a grand show flower. The outer petals open out with 
a pink shade on the outside, but when they are more fully developed they 
spread out and fall over in a very graceful manner. The petals are broad 
and of good substance and of a pure ivory white. 
Mdlle. Lecroix. —Is another early-flowering white now pretty well 
known. It has long drooping petals, more or less twisted, of a creamy 
white. An early variety of good habit. It has a good constitution and is 
very constant, the flowers keeping well. 
Porcupine. —I refer to this here, as I have already seen the name 
mentioned in the daily papers as a new variety amongst others at the 
public exhibitions in London. I had a cutting sent me this spring, and I 
recognised it by the foliage as Gloire Rayonante, commonly called the 
Hedgehog, on account of the quilly nature of its florets. It is now in 
flower with me, and is no other than the old friend I have mentioned. 
Gloria Solis. —Tnis is in the way of Bronze Dragon, but of a deep 
guinea gold colour, splashed with bronze. If it will come full up in the 
centre it will be a great acquisition in colour.— C. Orchard, Coombe 
Warren. 
Watering Chrysanthemums. —In my experience, and it is some¬ 
what extensive, two cardinal mistakes are made by inexperienced growers 
in watering these plants. The first is not giving them sufficient liquid 
support at the right time in summer when the pots are filled with roots, 
the sun bright, and air dry. At that time they may be watered twice or 
even thrice a day, and yet not be satisfied if the soil is permitted to shrink 
from the pots before water is given. Good growers never allow such a 
mistake as that, and they keep the roots moist without saturating the soil 
with less water than is needed when the shrinkage alluded to is thought¬ 
lessly allowed. The next mistake consists in giving the plants too much 
water after they are housed in the autumn. I have heard gardeners say 
Chrysanthemums cannot have too much water then, and it is given, often 
strong liquid manure, every day ; in fact, in years gone by I had to carry 
out that practice, and I now know that I ruined many plants “ by 
order.” 
I have just been in two gardens. In one of them Chrysanthemums 
are so fine that the blooms are almost certain to win high honours at some 
of the great shows ; in the other there will be few if any flowers of it for 
exhibiting. In the former case not a drop of water was given to a plant 
until the pot was rapped and the soil tested. The soil in many pots passed 
by the waterer “ looked dry,” but he knew it contained sufficient moisture 
for the plant that day, and to have given it when not wanted would have 
done harm and not good. Though the huge plants, clothed to the ground 
with splendid foliage and showing great fat expanding buds, are only in 
8-inch pots, it is almost certain that they are not watered more than twice 
or thrice a week—that is, those watered to-day will not need a further 
supply for two or three days, according to the condition of the varieties 
and the weather; indeed, one plant that accidentally got too wet would 
not require, nor receive, a drop more water for a week. 
In the other garden no such care was exercised. The young man said 
he gave them “ good stuff ” every day. It was a “ single-handed ” place, 
and in many such gardens Chrysanthemums are remarkably well grown. 
In this I am bound to say they were simply being ruined. In some of 
the pots the soil was saturated and poisoned with liquid manure too strong 
by half. I am quite positive that some of the small plants in large pots 
would be better without a drop of water for a week, even if the weather 
were bright, while if dull the soil would remain wet for a fortnight. The 
plants had lost most of their foliage, and though the soil was quite wet, 
much too wet, the leaves remaining were flagging with the sun—a certain 
indication of the roots being injured by too much water and too strong 
doses of nitrate of soda. The plants had in all probability been drawn up 
and weakened when young, not potted soon enough, and the earnest young 
man was striving to make up for lost time ; but he was too late and too 
earnest, and I am sorry to say will not be able to cut six blooms from 300 
plants that can win a third prize at a good show. 
To grow Chrysanthemums in first-class style stout cuttings must be 
had, the plants kept sturdy, never checked in any way, and must be 
watered with as much care as if they were Heaths. These may be easily 
ruined by under-watering in summer and over-watering in the autumn, 
and so may Chrysanthemums.— An Old Exhibitor. 
YIELD OF POTATOES. 
Having seen several notes in the Journal of the yield of Potatoes, I 
send you an account of what has been grown here this season, the soil 
