February 18, 1886. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
133 
1 A Thinker ’—are not most of us thinkers ?—yet I do not depart from 
my usual custom, as we do not travel on the same lines or discuss the 
same subjects. My task is much more commonplace, and in truth I have 
to deal more with a narration of facts than the discussion of questions 
•which do not fall within my ken. I am but an 1 individual’ who, in a 
humble way, tries to bring forward some facts which, ere the year grows 
much older, may as well be gathered up, and not forgotten. I have 
written ‘ individual,’ to which Mr. Harrison Weir objects rightly. 
One is reminded of the story of O’Connell, whose vocabulary of abuse 
was very extensive, and who undertook that he would silence one of the 
Dublin ‘ fish fags,’ who were as celebrated in this way as the Billingsgate 
fish wives. After they had been firing away at each other for some time, and 
the 1 Liberator ’ began to be in despair, he turned to his opponent and in 
thundering tones cried out, ‘You’re nothing but an individual.’ This 
finished the battle. She succumbed, and left O’Connell victor.” When I 
read that paragraph on page 72 I naturally thought the repeated mention 
of a simple English word and the extraction of it from O’Connell’s 
“ vocabulary of abuse ” was a rebuke directed to myself, and so did other 
persons, as I have ample evidence. They thought, as I did, that it was 
going rather beyond a joke. Still, as I was reluctant to retort hastily I 
sent a short paragraph, which appeared on page 85, with the sole object 
of affording opportunity for any explanation that “ D,, Deal,” might care 
to make. This is given on page 105, and frankly accepted, as no one can 
know so well as the writer of the paragraph that the words did not in 
“any way” apply to me. I thank your correspondent, and would assure 
him that I can endure, even enjoy, good-humoured criticism,*and I 
believe I have my share. 
But this O’Connell episode is so good in its way that it ought not to 
be passtd, and there appears to be so many versions of it that I have 
endeavoured to trace its origin. I really do not take the late Mr. Daniel 
O’Connell as my model in conduct, and I am bound to enter a gentle protest 
against any even seeming attempt to include the familiar and good old 
English word “ individual ” into the " vocabulary of abuse.” The Dic¬ 
tionary gives the meaning of the offending word, and of “abuse ” also, to 
which anyone can turn who chooses to do so. O’Connell never used the 
word at all in his celebrated contest with Mrs. Moriarty when she tried 
to sell him a walking-stick from her Btall of “ notions,” the price of which 
he disputed. Then followed the war of words first recorded by Mr. D. 
O. Maddyn. As those on the “ Liberator’s ” side were avowedly humorous, 
they can be quoted without any impropriety, and will be amusing at least 
to several gardeners as a relief from hard digging and dry reading. “ One 
and sixpence for a stick that cost you twopence 1” shouted the “ Liberator 
“ why, you’re no better than an impostor.” TheD, in reply to the dame’s 
hot retort, exclaimed, “ Keep a civil tongue in your head, you old diagonal ; 
don’t be in a passion, you ancient radius ; don’t choke yourself, you paral¬ 
lelogram. You will deny you have an hypotheneuse in your house next; 
but you can’t deny the charge, you miserable sub-multiple of a duplicate 
ratio ; you inimitable periphery ; you convicted perpendicular, trembling 
with guilt to the extremity of your corollaries. You are found out, you 
rectilineal antecedent and abandoned similitude of the bisection of a 
vortex .” 
There is the celebrated “vocabulary.” I do not object to be asso¬ 
ciated with the “ Liberator,” especially in such good company as “ D., 
Deal.” O’Connell may have been misguided by an exuberant imagina¬ 
tion, but he was, I think, an honest man, and for every honest man I 
have respect, however widely we may differ in our views and opinions. 
I have taken good advice on the subject of my philological assumption, 
and remain content. If I am aware that any individual objects to be 
referred to in any particular manner, I shall respect his objection, and I 
fail to see what more can be fairly required. “ D., Deal,” and myself 
are both engaged in the same work and with the same object. ¥e dilfer 
in our views no doubt on some things, which is, perhaps, well, for if all 
thought alike and wrote alike the Journal would soon be very tame 
reading. We will now start afresh. There is plenty of room for all to 
proceed without any serious jostling in the “ republic of letters.” 
It is very evident I have “ caught a tartar ” in “Utilitarian.” It is 
pretty clear, too, he is more “ advanced ” than I am, and would express 
himself more strongly against inequalities in taxation as between 
trading gentlemen, who profit by their luxuries, and men who labour for 
the means to live, if he were not “ in the bus ness.” I see he does not 
understand the routine of determining assessments. I wonder if he 
knows that according to law the ground in nurseries and market gardens 
is exempt from taxation ? the “ houses ” only can be valued, not the land ; 
but is not much of it assessed even more highly than the ground from 
which wealthy individuals sell produce ? That is the question, and I 
believe that ininstances innumerable nurserymen and market gardeners are 
flagrantly overrated. Your correspondent fails to distinguish between 
luxuries and necessities, hence there is no common ground for discussion. 
The question as to the rating of allotments is not in dispute, because they 
are rented on the average at the least 10per cent, higher than agricultural 
land, rates included in the rent, and that is surely a sufficient answer to 
his question. The question of an allotment holder, or anyone else, con¬ 
suming or selling his produce is perfectly immaterial. It is the “ pos¬ 
session ” of the value, not its disbursement, on which taxes are levied, 
If “ Utilitarian’' earned £500 a year, spent every penny of it in charity, 
and got credit for his own support, he would have to pay income tax all 
the same. The real question is the relative amount of assessment of 
bond fide traders and private gentlemen who compete with them. So 
long as these enjoyed their luxuries no one begrudged them their pri¬ 
vileges, but when they enter the lists as competitors in trade under special 
and advantageous circumstances, regular traders, nurserymen, and market 
gardeners feel they have substantial grounds for objecting. It is a 
question of fact, easy to be ascertained, and not of mere “ logic.” There 
is no doubt as to the duty of a gardener to render his charge in the highest 
degree productive. That has nothing whatever to do with the matter at 
issue. As to your correspondent’s “ free ” trade professions, I doubt if he 
would feel himself “ free ” if he were “ fettered ” by taxes that more 
favoured amateur traders ought to bear. 
“A. E. H.” contributes a very sensible letter on the same page (107). 
If it be correct, and I am not in a position to dispute the statement, that 
grain can be conveyed at as little, if not less, cost from New York to 
London as from Cheshire to London, an alteration is urgently needed, 
and such an anomaly we will hope will not escape the attention of the 
Royal Commission on Trade. Still, with all our disadvantages, your 
correspondent says American and English producers are “ nearly equal,” 
the balance presumably being in favour of the latter. Why, then, the 
collapse of British agriculture ? I say, if it is anything but temporary, 
the fault lies in inferior culture. The importation of poultry and eggs is 
a puzzle, and the fact of £10,000 a day being sent from this country for 
the needed supply is no credit to British farmers. 
“ A Wisher for Fair Play” writes like a farmer, and, farmer like, 
appears to fancy a gardener is out of his element in alluding to the 
ancient craft of husbandry. Of course “ rents must fall and wages come 
down that is the farmers’ remedy. Well, they have come down, in not 
a few instances quite low enough in my opinion. Will “ A Wisher of 
Fair Play ” say why the rents of labourers’ cottages should not “ come 
down,” since wages have been reduced 20 per cent. ? If it is right for 
those rents to be rigid, why should the rents of farms glide away to 
nothing? Let us have “fair play” all round if possible. Perhaps as 
time goes on your correspondent will find I have been “ one year ” in a 
farmhouse. I am in a position to say there is no work on a farm that I 
have not done, and if my eye and hand have not got feeble, I think I 
oculd drive a plough the “ nearest way across a field” yet. As a farmer, 
your correspondent will know what that means. Then we are to give up 
growing Apples in this country because of the bad “ climate.” Was 
“ Wisher,” See., at the International Apple Show at the Crystal Palace a 
few years ago, where the best American samples were staged with the 
English ? Taking them bulk for bulk, the English would have realised 
more money than the American if both had been sold by auction “ on the 
premises.” It is selection and culture that win, not “ olimate ” alone. 
The orchards of England are, as a rule, in a deplorable state and produce 
tons of trash. And Covent Garden is not the market for fruit grown a 
hundred miles north of King’s Cross. There is too much sending to “ Covent 
Garden.” I do not believe in Covent Garden for northern produce, which 
should go further north still, even to St. Petersburg. There is as much 
reason in sending coals from Wales to Newcastle as sending Apples from 
Yorkshire to “Covent Garden.” I am asked if I have ever known 
Wheat below 28s. a quarter. I have never known good Wheat so low 
as that, but I can remember when the average prices of farm produce all 
round were lower than they are now, even at Boston. By the way, I was 
once at Boston. It is years ago, and I daresay if your correspondent 
were to guess for a week what I was doing there he would not guess 
correctly. Shall I tell him ? Yes, I will, just for the novelty of the 
thing. Don’t laugh. I was sent, for a good many miles to take the 
“ bass ” in a grand concert—basses are mostly rough—and if he has an 
old file of newspapers he will find my name in the report, but not in the 
form now appended.— A Thinker. 
THE TULIP TREE. 
LlRlODENDRON tulipifera is the name by which this is known in 
books and catalogues, but the Tulip Tree is the appellation by which 
it is best known to most people. We have three large specimens of it 
here and six smaller ones. The largest is 95 feet in height, bushy, and a 
noble tree. At present they are all leafless and unattractive, but in June 
and July, when richly clothed in their shining green artistically formed 
leaves, and thickly dotted with thousands of their curious Tulip-like 
blossoms, they outdistanced every tree in the garden in interest and 
beauty. When not in bloom the tree may well be classed amongst 
“ beautiful-leaved ” plants, but the flowers are very attractive. In form 
or outline they resemble huge Tulips, and the exterior is almost of the 
same shade as the foliage, but the interior is of a creamy colour and of 
curious formation, so much so, indeed, that they do Dot require the 
company of any other flower to increase the attractions of a hand or dish 
fall. 
The tree is hardy and will grow in any soil or situation. Some young 
ones planted seven years ago without any special preparation have now 
assumed large proportions, and I am sure if all who are interested in good 
trees would introduce one or mote of these before this planting season 
comes to an end they would soon have cause to feel thoroughly satisfied 
with their work. Being deciduous, they ought to be planted before coming 
into leaf, and of the two sorts of trees—viz., standard and dwaif, I think 
the standard is the most handsome. In planting it is an advantage to use 
good soil where it can be conveniently obtained, and each tree should be 
firmly staked as soon as planted. In dealing with such a tree as this it 
