50 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ Jmuary 21, 18S6. 
is rendered of the relative cost of the aboriginal Maorian with the old 
English method of culture, the results of the experiments under notice 
may be put down as nil. 
So may those as regards the trial of whole and cut sets. Anyone who 
has had considerable experience in Potato culture can make the produce 
of the entire or divided sets preponderate according as they may be 
selected. It is the weight of the sets and strength of the issuing growths 
that govern, not the mere cutting or non-cutting of the “ seed ” tubers. 
No mention whatever is made of the weight of the sets in the experiments 
under notice, and that omision quite invalidates the authority of the 
summarised report. If the Council of the Royal Horticultural Society 
are really desirous of acquiring information that shall be of service to the 
nation, let a few varieties of Potatoes of established or prospective value 
for market purposes be planted in sets of different and ascertained weights 
of say, 2, 3, 4, and 6 ozs., their respective values being also recorded ; 
also let them be planted at varying distances, and the results will show 
what weight, character, and value of sets can be the most profitably 
planted per acre. If a sub-committee determine that point, British 
farmers and gardeners may safely be left to choose methods of culture. 
Experiments conducted on some such lines as these would be vastly more 
useful than the practice of the past two years, as revealed in the “ Sum¬ 
mary of Results,” read by Dr. Masters, and published on the page quoted. 
It is questionable if one cultivator out of a hundred could answer the 
important practical question indicated ; indeed it is not unlikely if it 
were put to the accomplished Doctor himself, that he would have either 
to pause or search for a reply ; is there not need, then, for authoritative 
information ? 
Having dwelt so long on Potatoes, in which everybody is interested I 
must skip a good deal; but not two contributions of Mr. T. Challis. His 
first on page 16 is, I think, one of the most able essays on the subject of 
the future of gardening and gardeners that has ever appeared. Wise 
counsel is therein conveyed to both masters an 1 men, with a manifest 
■desire that both maybe benefited. This is the time of all others when 
master and servant should work together and have confidence in each 
other. The welfare of both is interbound, and neither can possibly gain 
if mistrust exists between them. Fighting for supposed “rights” may 
appear heroic, but there is this great danger of a false estimate being 
formed, and what are regarded as “ rights ” might possibly be sometimes 
more accurately described by another name. At any rate, it is well not to 
forget Abraham Lincoln’s trite remark during a period of difficulty : 
“ Never swop horses in crossing a stream.” 
Me. Challis in doubting the forecasts of prophets becomes prophetic in 
turn in the foUowing sentence :—When by the passing of judicious land 
laws ihe owner and the occupier shall each feel himself safe to invest his 
capital with ample security, and with every confidence that it will be safe 
from th,) intrigues of misguided agitators—theD, and not till then, will 
gardening and gardeners flourish with increased vigour.” Numbers of 
landowners are arriving at the same conclusion, and that is the most 
hopeful sign of a better future. 
I wish we could feel the “ National Gardeners’ Relief Fund ” scheme 
practicable ; but there is reason to fear it is not. The number who would 
support it would be so limited that their contributions must consequently 
be greater than could be borne. The gardeners’ benefit societies already 
established in Leeds and London, safe, sound, and excellent as they are, 
do not attract members in anything like such numbers that would justify 
the establishment of a “ National Relief Fund.” The capital would have 
to be very great to meet the strain of such times as the present. Only 
the larger trades, and hundreds of thousands of members, can support 
such an organisation. On that account vast numbers of workmen in towns, 
outside those trades, have formed loan societies, duly enrolled, and though 
these no doubt occasionally lead to indulgences, such as a seaside sojourn, 
they have been of enormous benefit in periods of adversity. And the rules 
are so framed that a Society oE fifty members works as well as one having 
ten times that number, the payments in and out being in each case the 
same. I believe I could get some particulars of one of these societies if 
it were thought they could be of service to gardener?. I am not at all 
sanguine on the subject, but then when I bad my “ bumps examined ” 
once I was told my “caution” was “very strongly developed,” so had 
better leave the matter for the consideration of more enterprising 
persons. 
But closely as I agree wPh Mr. Challis in the major part of the 
communication referred, I am compelled to differ very widely from him in 
his remarks on judging on page 28. His reasoning is excellent, but 
it is founded on error. There can be few, if any, “ palpable and 
undoubted errors of judgment” unredressed if the two simple rules that 
are found in the schedules of many societies are adhered to, and corn- 
potent judges are appointed. Tue rules are these:—“Complaints of 
exhibitors cannot be entertained unless made in writing to the Secretary 
before 3 P.M. of the day of the Show.” Or any other convenient time 
may be stated, and the julges understand they have not completed their 
duties till after that time, but must be present to rectify with the Com¬ 
mittee any possible oversights. The other rule is “ the decision of the 
judges shall be final.” Mr. Challis’s experience of exhibitions and 
exhibitors may be greater than my own, but I think I know enough to 
assure me that if once committees arrogate to themselves the duty of 
altering the awards of their appointed adju iicators they open a door for 
mischief that they will find a difficulty in closing again. They can grant 
“ extra or consolation ” prizes as they deem fit, but if they tamper with 
the judges’awards they will undoubtedly engender mistrust, and almost 
certainly make more mistakes than they will rectify. I could tell a few 
curious stories of committeemen and judges that would perhaps surprise Mr. 
Challis, and I strongly suspect would lead him to modify his opinions in 
some respects ; but it is not necessary, for if those rules are provided and 
adhered to, and committees prove their competency in selecting able and 
experienced censors, “ palpable and undoubted errors,” however apparent 
to some persons, will, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, be reduced 
to mere imaginings. 
Has Mr. Challis read Dr. Johnson’s famous work, “Rasselas?” If 
he has, perhaps some other Journal readers have n )t, and a passage may 
therefore be cited that is not without bearing on this subject :—“ When in 
prospect of some good, whether natural or moral,” observes the wise man, 
“ we break the rules prescribed us, we withdraw from the direction of 
superior wisdom, and take all consequences upon ourselves. Man cannot 
so far know the consequences of causes and events as that he may 
venture to do wrong in order to do right. When we attempt to find a 
nearer way to good by overleaping the prescribed boundaries we cannot 
escape the consciousness of our fault; while if we miscarry the disap¬ 
pointment is irremediably embittered.” The weight of those words will 
be admitted. The moment we break through rules and laws we are on 
dangerous ground, and that is why I cannot agree with your able and 
excellent correspondent on this question. 
Interesting observations have been recorded on the handsome and 
useful Gros Colman Grape. Mr. Taylor is a thoughtful, observant, 
practical man, and everything he says on the subject is entitled to respect. 
The tendency of the foliage of this Vine to scorch he attributes mainiy to 
a deficiency of potash in the soil. He may be right, but I have a strong 
suspicion that at least one great evil, easy to be remedied, is an inadequate 
supply of water. If the absence of potash alone is the predisposing 
cause of the premature collapse of the foliage, how is it that shaded leaves 
continue fresh the longer ? They may be expected te be as well stored 
with mineral matter as the others, whether it be little or much. 
That potash is essential to the well-being of Vines is proved by 
analysis. There is much of this in the wood and fruit, but very little in the 
bark. For the leaves I cannot answer satisfactorily. I have collected 
from time to time from various sources analytical tables showing the con¬ 
stituents of different parts of the Vine—wood, bark, leaves, must, skins, 
stones, juice. Potash predominates in all except the bark and the leaves, 
and the latter contain more than four times the quantity of carbonate of 
lime than of potash. Why then cannot I answer for the leaves? Because I 
have no proof that those examined would not have contained more potash 
if it had been in the soii for them to appropriate. 
Pardon a little digression. After a good deal of thought on the sub¬ 
ject I have arrived at the conclusion that analytical tables giving the con¬ 
stituents of Vines, or anything else, are of little value, or, worse than 
that, may be misleading if uuaccompanied with an analysis of the soil in 
which the products examined were grown. In four tables showing the 
constituents of the wood of Vines the quantity of potash varies greatly. 
Nor is this to be expla ned by chemists differing from each other in their 
work, because there are no greater differences than those found by the 
same chemist as the result of his examination of Vines grown in separate 
localities ; there is the possibility, therefore, of being misled in this matter 
by strings of figures unless they refer to the soil as well to that which 
may be grown in it; still the fact remains that the leaves of Vines con¬ 
tain, so far as I know, a very small relative amount of potash. If any 
readers can show this is not so I shall be very much obliged to them. 
But there is no doubt they consist chiefly of water. This is con¬ 
stantly escaping by evaporation, and if to a greater extent than is absorbed 
by the roots, there can be no other result than a collapse of the foliage. 
If shade is afforded evaporation is arrested, and the leaves remain fresh. 
The supply from the roots is then equal to the demand of the atmosphere. 
That demand being so great, and the moisture so readily yielded by this 
particular Vine, does it not seem reasonable that the root supply should 
be increased in proportion? I am convinced this is the root of the 
evil. 
But why should Gros Colman possess what may be termed greater 
evaporating power than other Vines? There are two reasons. One of 
them anyone can see with the naked eye, the other possibly with the aid 
of a microscope. The obvious reason is this : The leaves of Gros Colman 
are not only large, but nearly entire ; those of most other Vines both 
smaller and more or less divided. Contrast the leaves of Gros Colman 
with those of Muscat of Alexandria or Mrs. Pince for instance. Measure 
with great accuracy the superficies, and it will be found that the evapo¬ 
rating area of the former is much the greater ; multiply the difference by 
the number of leaves on the Vines, and, if I mistake not, this will demon¬ 
strate that the variety under discussion needs distinctly more water than 
the others, and if it does not have it the foliage will fail by exhaustion. 
The other thought on this subject—the microscopical thought—is not 
my own ; I am simply the recorder of it. In discussing this matter with 
a close botanical observer, who will soon know “ who ‘Thinker ’ is ” (but 
that does not matter), he remarked that the cells are unusually separated 
