422 
JUVENAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[November 12, 1885. 
mums. Gardens and conservatories would be gloomy now without them ; 
numbers of persons with even small gardens and conveniences can grow 
them ; they flourish in town and country, and no flowers answer to the 
whip better than these do—that is, show more strikingly the effects of 
good culture. Left to themselves, or imperfectly grown, they are bright 
yet small, flat and rough, but with attentive care and under skilful 
management the incurved varieties become marvels of symmetry, Japanese 
great mop-like masses of brilliancy, and the Anemones trim pincuahion- 
like rosettes that artificial flower makers vainly try to imitate. The 
wonderful development of the Chrysanthemum and its great and rapidly 
spreading popularity is directly traceable to the competition that has been 
incited by the offering of good prizes at various and increasingly numerous 
shows. Not that one-hundredth part of the persons who grow plants 
better than before do so with the view of exhibiting them or their flowers 
in. public ; but they have seen what successful exhibitors have accom¬ 
plished, and become animated with a desire to approach or equal them in 
the excellence of their work as cultivators. To succeed with many is a 
sufficient reward, and the determination to excel is in every way admirable. 
The autumn shows have incontestably resulted in marvellous improvement 
in this department of horticulture, and they are with few exceptions 
almost entirely supported by gate money. The promoters of these shows 
and the managers who make them so imposing as to bring in thousands 
of visitors with their shillings and sixpences, are scarcely engaged in an 
ignoble work. I, for one, applaud them for their endeavours, and regret 
I cannot more effectually aid them in the arrangements of such great 
floral feasts as will compel the multitude to come in, 
In reading the accounts of shows, public and private, with descrip¬ 
tions of new varieties one matter puzzles me—namely, the principle 
on which certificates are granted. It seems to me no light matter to grant 
such a high mark of honour to new varieties, because these are thereby 
enhanced in price on account of the great demand that follows for those 
that receive this official stamp of merit. Certificated flowers should, it 
seems to me, be undeniably distinct and possess decided superiority in 
some way, otherwise disappointment will ensue, mistrust he engendered, 
and a revulsion of feeliDg against new plants sooner or later created, 
Over and over again it is stated that a variety that was certificated last 
year—-La Purdtd—is the same as one previously in cultivation— Mdlle. 
Lacroix. A mistake appears to have been made, and many growers seem 
to know it, yet, strange to say, La Pur6td is recorded as again certificated 
this season at Ealing. That circumstance appears to require explanation. 
Is the Ealing-honoured variety the same as Mdlle. Lacroix ? and, if so, 
why was the error of last year officially confirmed last week ? Perhaps 
some experts can answer this question. Enthusiasm is all very well, hut 
unless governed by prudence and tempered by caution it may defeat the 
object its possessors desire to promote. That is my thought on this 
subject. 
Mr. Hiam asks me to give my opinion on canker in fruit trees, and 
then he will publish his reply that he has prepared to “ Entomologist” 
which he at present withholds. I have no objection whatever to discuss 
this important matter, but I think the case will be more complete when 
Mr. Hiam has favoured with the publication of the reply alluded to. I 
am somewhat inclined to think there may be something in the theory he 
advances, of insects causing what is known as canker, but how much it is 
impossible to say so long as he withholds evidence in support of his case. 
Therefore, on considering the whole matter, 1 think I will wait a little 
longer. 
‘■A Country Gardener” suggests that I do not examine the 
articles to which I refer with sufficient care, and read between the lines 
attentively for clearly understanding the meaning that the writers intend 
to convey. I am quite ready to plead guilty in that respect, and in this 
cas ® so the more readily, since I have elicited a note that in all 
probability will be of service to many growers ot Potatoes for use rather 
than ornament, and who are bewildered with the overwhelming numbers 
of sorts that are nowadays exalted as possessing such transcendent pro¬ 
perties. Has “ A Country Gardener” tried the two famous Beds that 
figure so prominently at shows—the Reading Russet and Yicar of Lale- 
ham, and if so will he obligingly state their cropping qualities, table merit, 
ana period of use ? I have heard conflicting opinions on them, and so, 
too, in all probability, have other gardeners who are not above growing 
Potatoes. 6 
lT 1 9 °ft en a. more sound, seasonable, and instructive article appears 
than that by Mr. Bardney last week on pruning and lifting fruit trees. 
Cutting back the long, strong growths of trees in winter without checking 
the roots with the object of restricting growth is as vain as attempting to 
stop the production of steam in a boiler by twisting the valves about and 
at the same time keeping up a strong fire in the furnace. All luxuriant- 
growing trees that are exceeding their bounds and bear little or no 
fruit should be root-pruned now and have their growths suppressed in 
summer to prevent their encouraging such vigorous root-action as finds 
expression in exuberant wood that is essentially unfruitful in its nature ; 
but how your correspondent catches “ every moth ” that lays the eggs 
that bring the caterpillars that eat the leaves, I know no more than the 
famous priest who contributed so much to the felicity of the house that 
Jack built. Perhaps Mr. Bardney will place us under another obligation 
to him by stating how he plays “old Gooseberry ” with all these moths. 
A Kitchen Gardener ” contributes a useful note on early Apples 
on page 484. It is referred to because I observe he places three other sor's 
before Mr. Gladstone in point of earliness. I thought from what I had 
read that one of the chief points of merit of the “new” G.O.M. con¬ 
sisted in being at least fully abreast of all others, if not in advance; but 
it appears it is not. It may, however, for all that, be an excellent variety, 
and it is well to know the proper place of “W. E. G.,” a question that 
does not yet appear to be unanimously determined. Your correspondent 
speaks highly, but not too highly, of the good old Keswick Codlin, and if 
I were to venture an opinion it would be that the old favourite will be 
hale and fruitful for a hundred years after the large and light Lord 
Suflield has been “ eaten” up with canker. Has “A Kitchen Gardener” 
grown the Drmino that was advertised last year by Mr. Merry weather ? 
I have seen trees of it this year wreathed with fruit heavier than that of 
Lord Suflield, and greener and larger than Keswick Codlin, also equal to 
either in quality and ready at the same time. I suspect this will prove a 
valuable Apple that will eventually find its way into most gardens. 
But I must not forget “Non-Believer.” When I referred to his re¬ 
appearance after a long absence I used the word obscurity precisely as it 
has been applied under similar circumstances to myself. I should as soon 
think of describing the ex-Premier as an obscure individual as “Non- 
Believer,” though both may desire to remain in obscurity for a few 
months, but not I think for long. I can enjoy a good retort, and even a 
“ palpable hit,” if a fair one, like that in the first paragraph of “Non- 
Believer’s” r.-joinder on page 404. But I do not think a long answer 
“ always ” indicates a weak case, as if it did my pugnacious opponent 
would have demolished me in fewer words. According to his own test, 
my position is rather strong, which is exactly what I feel it to be. “ Non- 
Believer ” has, I perceive, assumed a new character, but let me assure him 
of the uselessness of his thinking that by putting on spurs, donning a red 
coat, and brandishing a hunting whip, he can drive me away. 1 am to a 
old to be frightened by a bogey of that kind. By the way, I wish Mr. 
Burbidge, or someone, would sketch that scene and send a couple of 
copies to the Editor for him to forward to us for framing. I think they 
would be appreciated, at least I can answer for one of them. 
Seriously, I do not think that “ Non-Believer ” has as yet had any¬ 
thing to get excited about. What is the case ? I honestly recorded a 
thought in half a dozen lines on page 313 on a matter of public interest, 
in which he was not even remotely alluded lo. Thereupon he was 
tempted to transform my thought into a creed, and that “creed” a 
‘ careles‘ness as to whether the real objects of cultivating flowers or 
fruits is served or not.” He was thus the assailant, and absolu'ely 
without any justification for an attempt, however clumsy, at my personal 
or professional disparagement. If he had considered for a moment he 
must have known that “ topics ” exist before they are commented on, and 
a s flitary “thought” cannot be legitimately magnified into a creed, 
whether it be good or bad. 
As to the strained nonsense, for I cannot call it anything e’se, about 
the degradation of horticulture being embodied in the efforts to make 
exhibitions financially successful by attracting the public to them, and 
thus increasing the amount taken in admissions or gate money, it need 
only be said that if there were no money there would be no shows ; and 
just as horticultural societies are supported with funds, just in the same 
proportion do they “encourage horticulture as a useful and humanising 
industry.” The Manchester and Shrewsbury Societies may be cited, 
among others, as conclusive examples of this ; while other societies that 
could be named dwindle away by lack of support, and cannot—to quote 
“Non-Believer’s” words, which he quoted from somebody else—even 
“ promote a taste for flowers and habits of neatness amongst the humbler 
classes.” Sentiment is all very well, but we have to deal with facts. 
Money, which “ Non-Believer ” cannot afford to despise, is the foundation 
of success in all good objects, and I heartily wish that every horticultural 
society had a good guarantee fund before making a show. That is what 
is wanted, and when it is non-existent “gate money” must perforce be 
relied on by the managers. 
The success of all industrial exhibitions, including those great ones 
at South Kensington, is absolutely dependent on gate money ; it is the 
same with exhibitions of horticultural products, and if the directors of 
these did not study to make them so diversified and excellent as to attract 
the greatest possible number of visitors, and thus obtain the greatest 
amount in admission fees, they would of necessity fail, and the desirable 
spread of horticulture would not be advanced but retarded. The last 
provincial show of the Royal Horticultural Society was a case in point; 
gate money failed, and the Society was temporarily crippled. It will 
depend mainly on “gate money” as to whether the Great International 
Exhibition now projected will, if it be held, prove a success or failure, 
and it is certain those who are responsible will so make their arrange¬ 
ments as to induce a great influx of visitors as contributors to the neces¬ 
sary funds. The last great International Horticultural Exhibition in 
1866 could not possibly have ended as it did had it not been continued for 
five days beyond the prescribed time. The money taken on the first three 
days was so inadequate for meeting the liabilities incurred, that the 
directors, the greatest horticulturists and botanists of the day, paid the 
exhibitors upwards of £200 for allowing their products to remain longer 
for the direct “ purpose ” of bringing more visitors and more money. 
The visitors came, some 80,000 of them, and were delighted, and left 
between £4000 and £5000 behind them. This insured the payment in 
full of every demand, and enabled a grant of £1000 being made to the 
