118 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
L February 8, 1890. 
Pear trees were so weakened last year by the caterpillars that our crop 
this year will be nil. —S. T. Wright, Glewston Court Gardens. 
[We shall be glad to hear of the results of the contemplated ex¬ 
periments with such specimens as our correspondent thinks may be 
usefully sent. The best efforts of the best men in growing fruit 
may be completely nullified where the destructive winter moth abounds, 
and every effort should be made to conquer this the most ruinous of 
the fruit growers’ enemies. The idea of sealing the ends of branches 
after pruning occurred to us, but we felt certain it would also occur to 
our correspondent, and we preferred that he should have the credit 
of the suggestion.] 
GARDENERS OUT OF SITUATIONS. 
T OHR correspondent, “ B.,” page 60, has made some remarks on the 
above subject, and throws out some hints as to the formation of a self- 
help society, and which is possibly a direction in which some good might 
lie done, but “ so many out of place ” has been the cry in my experience 
for nearly forty years, and of course a pleasant healthy trade or calling 
like gardening will always attract more than can possibly find good 
places in Great Britain, and the consequence must be that numbers on 
reaching man’s estate must change their occupation or emigrate with 
a knowledge of the cultivation of the soil. It has been said that 
London itself is under the care of a certain number of under gardeners 
in uniform ; meaning that the London police are largely recruited from 
our ranks, and of which I, for one, do not feel at all ashamed. Your 
correspondent says. What does a gardener gain by working for a 
nurseryman when out of a regular situation ? I say a great deal, pro¬ 
vided he keeps his eyes open, and employment mentally and physically 
is good. It is well known that in such cases their pay is small, but a 
man would not show his wisdom by refusing half a loaf if he had no 
bread. “ B.” further says he gains nothing for himself, and does a 
great injury to the permanent staff of a nursery ; to my mind a 
ridiculous assertion. The gardener is quite the equal of the best kind 
of men employed in nurseries, and if the gardener is woithy of his salt, 
although receiving small pay in a nursery, he will do a fair day’s work 
in an upright manner. No doubt there are black sheep in all walks of 
life, but these must not be classed with the general body. I maintain 
that the connection between nurserymen and gardeners, both in and 
■out of situations, is a perfectly just and honourable one to all, the best 
way of getting the right man in the right place. What would be the 
use of nurserymen keeping qu.alified men to produce good nursery stock 
if they knew their clients had not qualified gardeners to make the best 
of it ? In such cases the reputation of the nurserymen is often in the 
gardener’s keeping, and both can work together in an honourable w.ay 
without loss of dignity on either side.—K. M. 
In answer to “ B.’s” views in page 60 in this paper of January 2.1rd 
respecting a society being formed in aid of gardeners out of situations, 
I quite agree with the suggestion. For years past my views have 
been the same as “ B.’s ” on that subject, and I have often discussed 
the matter with many of my brother gardeners, who have also agreed 
on the above. I for one would be glad to become a subscriber, and 
would endeavour to do my best among my brother gardeners, 
friends, &c., in this district to subscribe to the above should such a 
society be formed, which I beli ve would be a success. 
I think if most of our kindhearted brother gardeners were to unite 
together throughout the country, and subscribe so much annually to 
form a society in aid of gardeners out of employ, this would be a 
great boon and relief, long looked for.— Gardener, Surrey. 
The letters of “ B.” and “ H. B. W.,” page 9.3, are worthy, I think, 
of serious thought and attention by our leading men. I am of the same 
opinion as your correspondents, that it is time gardeners combined 
together more for their own interests. Surely many would be willing to 
join such a society for helping those who areout, very frequently not their 
own fault. I shall certainly, for one, whenever I am in a .settled place, 
be willing to do my part towards the object. Could not something be 
<djne by the Committee of the United Horticultural Provident Society ? 
I throw out the hint for what it is worth, and hope the members will be 
able to take up the matter. Let me urge upon all young gardeners to 
join this Society, they will find it answer better than any other pro¬ 
vident society I know.—A. B. 
THE PARSLEY-LEAVED BRAMBLE. 
Your correspondent '• Eubus,” on page 61, appears to have been at 
some pains to discover the native home of this, which is, I believe, the 
best and most useful amongst the large-fruiting Brambles. Mr. F. 
Boyes, on page 48, is quite correct, I believe, in his assumption that it 
originated in the nurseries of Messrs. Fisher, Son, & Sibray—then 
Fisher, Holmes & Co. The principals of that firm have repeatedly 
unformed me verbally, and they have also published the same on a 
leaflet which they distributed to their customers many years ago, that 
it originated as a chance seedling—probably from the American'variety 
■“ Kittatinny ”—in their nurserv grounds some thirty or more years 
since. 
Mr. Udale, I think, strikes a right chord in his remarks as to its 
requiring a good warm sunny position to ripen the long and strong 
oanes made annually in order to obtain the most fruitful results. The 
row which has been several times alluded to as being under my culti¬ 
vation for some years at 0,ikbrook, occupied a similar position on a 
south border to what that did at Elford Gardens, which I have several 
times had an opportunity of seeing, and of observing that they were 
equally as fine in growth, and as fruitful, as were those at Oakbrook. 
I think the mistake is too often made in its attempted culture that 
being only a mere Bramble any out-of-the-way corner was sufficiently 
good for it. Such is not the case, as Mr. Udale points out, and given 
such results in fruit production as achieved in the several cases he cites, 
it will well repay the cultivator for giving it one of the best positions at 
his disposal.—W. K. W. 
[We shall be glad to know the year in which the seedling appeared 
at Handsvvorth.] 
EUCHARIS AND THE MITE. 
Mr. Taylor’s experience in destroying the Eucharis mite on the 
affected plants in his charge is interesting as affording another instance 
in which the dreaded enemy has been “ bearded in his den,” and the 
rapidity with which the plants have grown since is conclusive proof that 
the conditions for their growth could not have been very unfavourable. 
Three partially decayed bulbs filling a 10-inch pot within a year is no 
bad record ; but Mr. Taylor has only followed the lead of the correspon¬ 
dents to whom he refers by detailing his experiences, for surely there is 
no better way to help another through a difficulty than by relating the 
manner in which that difficulty has been overcome by oneself, although 
I fail to see why he should give precedence to the experiences of an 
amateur or beginner. Mr. Taylor says he has proved three things, and 
the third affords room for an epithet to be applied to any gardener who 
may have unhealthy plants in his charge, which could not have been 
applied with the same force after the remarks of any writer who 
assigned the cause of their unhealthy state to mismanagement, besides 
being rather contradictory to the sentence in which he says something 
about calling our brother gardeners unskilful. No gardener worthy of 
the name would intentionally say or write anything which might get a 
fellow craftsman into trouble, and if in any instance this has been done 
we may be sure that the shaft found mark “ the archer little meant.” 
It would have been better had Mr. Taylor proved fourthly how the mite 
originated before he slighted the claims already advanced. Does he 
believe in spontaneous generation ?—M. D. 
TOO SUCCESSFUL PRIZEWINNERS. 
While I do not approve of *'Head Gardener’s ” proposal of with¬ 
holding all first prizes above three guineas by one competitor, I have 
been long of the opinion that instead of dividing, say £ 10, into three 
prizes, £7 for the first, £3 for the second, and £1 for the third, it 
would give more satisfaction to the general public if first, second, and 
third prizes were named only in the prize schedule, leaving the amount 
to be divided by the judges to the exhibits according to merit. Fre¬ 
quently the competition is very keen or close, the judges having a 
difficulty to decide the honours ; then sometimes the second and the 
third best are very deficient and below the standard as prizetakers, 
having little or no merit whatever to entitle them to a prize. Some 
managers of local shows encourage competitors by paying prizes, 
although the exhibits do not deserve it; but I consider at country or 
open competitions the judges should have, in addition to awarding the 
prizes, the power of fixing or dividing the amount according to merit. 
I have always thought it disheartening to a competitor to be content 
with almost nothing more than the name as a second place prizetaker, 
while the first one had little in the exhibits to recommend it over that 
placed in an inferior position, while both had the same labour and 
expense in bringing their exhibits before the public. 
Say for Roses, A takes first prize, B second, and C third. The exhi¬ 
bits were so near each other in competition that the judges awarded 
the £10 offered in the following order A, £3 lOs. ; B and C, £3 5s. 
each. I am of the opinion some system such as that would be fairer 
than the present one, while it would be encouraging, and more compe¬ 
tition would result.—W m. Thomson. 
As you invite suggestions to meet the letter of “ Head Gardener 
on this subject, printed in your answers to correspondents on page 79, 
I should like to say that I think most persons will heartily agree with 
your editorial recommendations. It depends a good deal upon whether 
“ a too successful prizewinner ” competes on precisely equal terms 
with the other cottagers. If he does, there is no remedy for them but 
to pluck up a little spirit, and try to beat him. Let them learn from 
him, and if necessary try to win in detail by becoming specialists, one 
going in particularly for Onions, another for Potatoes, and so on. But 
although there certainly is a terrible want of pluck in cottagers as 
exhibitors of garden produce, the Committee must remember to “ be 
just before it is generous,” and should not rob a man of a first prize to 
which he is fairly entitled. 
But if the “too successful prizewinner” is or has been employed in 
any garden it will be suspected, even if it is not true, that he does not 
compete on perfectly level terms, and in my own cottage flower shows 
I have been obliged to make a separate division for persons of that class. 
Such a one often shows his superiority, not so much by his being able 
to get better seeds. See., as by his better knowledge of what is a good 
vegetable and what is a bad one. Here, again, the other exhibitors 
