444 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ June 8, 1887. 
medium sized bunches, the most prevalent custom being to preserve the 
largest, but there is no disputing the soundness of Mr. Harrison’s teach¬ 
ing all the same. 
Bunches, whether large or small, to keep well must be freely thinned, 
even at the risk of apparently overdoing it. I have a great dislike to 
overthinning loose bunches that settle down on a dish like a pancake, 
and delight in having them full and compact with a tendency to roll 
about on the dish. Those intended for exhibition ought not to be 
overthinned, these travelling badly and cutting a very poor appearance 
on the boards ; but so much do I dislike loose bunches that I very fre¬ 
quently err in the opposite direction, and do not take out enough berries, 
this preventing many of the berries swelling to their full size. Compact 
bunches, the berries being in a solid mass, are late in the season liable 
to decay wholesale, one bad inside berry being the forerunner of this 
vexatious loss, hence the necessity of the early removal of nearly, or 
quite, all the berries with an inward tendency, as well as those that 
cross or overlap each other. The berries very frequently run in triplets, 
the central one being the largest, and if retained and the other two 
snipped off will eventually develope into the full size, which the side 
berries would not do. It is a difficult matter to plainly instruct novices 
in the art of thinning out the berries through the medium of a paper, 
and I can only further suggest that about two-thirds of the berries be 
taken out of the bunches of Black Hamburgh, Buckland Sweetwater, 
Foster’s Seedling, Gros Maroc, Madresfield Court, Muscat of Alexandria, 
Golden Queen, and Mrs. Pince, and fully three-fourths out of the 
Alicante, well set Alnwick Seedling, Lady Downe’s, Gros Colman, and 
Mrs. Pearson. The shy setters, such as Mrs. Pince, Muscat of Alexandria, 
and Muscat Hamburgh, ought not to be thinned very freely at first, as 
many of the apparently well set berries may refuse to stone and swell 
any larger than Peas. As soon as it can be seen which promise to stone 
partially or properly, the final thinning may be completed, and in this 
manner good even bunches be secured. Buckland Sweetwater also re¬ 
quires to be thinned gradually, or otherwise there is every possibility of 
very uneven bunches resulting. Gros Guillaume, producing a large framed 
bunch, requires to be only lightly thinned out; indeed, in most cases all 
that is necessary is to remove the misshapen or badly stoned berries. 
Opinions vary as to the advisability of shouldering up the bunches, 
but if large bunches are preserved I hold that they ought to have the 
shoulders supported. All long uneven shoulders I would either shorten 
in or cut clean away. If their retention improves the shape of the 
bunch all well and good, if not they should be cut away, a pretty bunch, 
-or one of good pyramid form, usually pleasing good judges better than 
much large scrambling examples. Such sorts as Gros Colman, Alnwick 
Seedling, and Lady Downe’s usually develope one large shoulder, some¬ 
times of nearly the same length as the bunch proper. They increase the 
size, but detract from the appearance of the bunch, and if the latter is 
of a good average size we invariably cut away the shoulder. Bemoving 
this early appears to strenthen and enlarge the bunch, and it is very 
■certain the shoulderless bunches keep best. All the lowest of the 
lateral’s shoulders, if I may so term them, should be suspended to the 
wires overhead with neat strips of raffia, and being brought up into a 
horizontal position considerably enlarge the bunch, as many more berries 
can be retained than if no shouldering-up was attempted. — W. 
Iggulden. 
FRITILLARIAS. 
On page 397 of the Journal of Horticulture there is an article on 
the Fritillary. In our old garden we have three varieties growing at 
will in odd places—the crimson spotted flower, now over ; a white one, 
also over ; and a dark one, a flower of which I enclose, which blooms 
later than the two first-named. May I ask which is the “ Snakeshead ” 
mentioned as growing in the meadows round Oxford ? I presume it to 
be the spotted blossom. I have not yet found the other two growing 
wild, or is it yet another variety ?— Alice Bueges. 
LONDON’S LESSER OPEN SPACES—THEIR TREES AND 
PLANTS. 
NEW SERIES.—No. 3. 
Never will fhe antiquaries be able to decide, I believe, whence 
London got its name; recently the theory has been upset that it 
■originally was the “ city of the lake.” However, the city and its 
vicinity, early a place of springs and streamlets, but with sagacity 
exceeding what is shown by some moderns, its ancient residents declined 
to drink water polluted by sewage. Old pipes and conduits have been 
-discovered, proving that centuries ago water was brought into London 
ifrom springs or wells situate at Bayswater and Paddington. Beside the 
historic streamlet of the district, which gave a name to Tyburn and 
Marylebone (St. Mary on the bourne), there were other winding brooks, 
the convenience of which, and also the attractions of little hills with a 
■south aspect, well screened by the woods northward, led many gardeners 
to resort to Paddington when English horticulture was in its infancy. 
It was here, too, that Sir John Hill, in the reign of George III., had his 
medicinal gardens, and produced his vaunted Waterdock essence and 
his balsam of honey. The late J. C. Loudon also made his residence 
here for some years, and it was the scene of various experiments on his 
part, the benefits of which are now reaped by others. And on, or close to, 
Craven Hill, which was a pest field in the time of the plague, formerly 
were the nurseries of Messrs. Hopgood. 
In or about 1764, the growth of St. George’s parish led to the 
acquirement of a new burial ground at Paddington, close to Hyde 
Park, and this space, six acres in extent, is open to the public, inter¬ 
ments having long ceased here. There is a tolerably active movement 
going on now, having for its object the conversion of old London grave¬ 
yards into gardens, but some cases are exceptional, and here is one. 
This ground could not advantageously be treated thus, owing to the host 
of tombstones, and the arrangement of these, yet it might be improved 
without such transformation. Apparently, owing to its position, visitors 
from adjacent streets resort to it in small numbers. Perhaps a few come 
also from a distance, drawn by the fact that here reposes an eccentric 
divine, Lawrence Sterne ; a great soldier, General Picton ; and a notable 
novelist, Mrs. Kadcliife. That this was once a piece of moist pasture 
ground is suggested by the Sedges that still flourish in some parts. 
There is, moreover, a growth of dank moss, for, like many London 
enclosed spaces, it is insufficiently drained. It had some Limes and 
Elms, planted probably about a century ago, and a few Poplars; there 
might be more, for the soil is suitable. Birches are here, though not of 
size, and exhibiting catkins, which only occasionally happens in the 
metropolitan district. This species, as I have remarked, is too seldom 
made use of about London suburbs. And the Beech, a tree somehow 
deemed appropriate to the mourner, is represented, but this is a species 
that does best in the open. The copper-coloured variety is suitable in 
its aspect, as contrasting with trees of lighter foliage, such as the Lilac 
and Laburnum. It seems, however, to have a rather hurtful effect on 
plants growing under its shade. One rarely finds near London a Beech 
of any proportions, yet I do not think the tree is meddled with by the 
caterpillars of the goat and leopard moths. In St. George’s ground 
there is the usual number of Lilacs and Laburnums to be found in 
similar spots, and some rather old Hawthorns, though the sombre trees 
that our grandfathers liked to set in graveyards are scarcely represented. 
In spite of the unfavourable spring, these shrubs have more than the 
average show of blossom about London and elsewhere. One large 
Laburnum here presents a curious sight, from its having bent down¬ 
wards while young at the base of the trunk, but continued to grow and 
increase, also throwing ofE numerous boughs standing at various angles 
on the head. Elders, singly and in small clumps, one expects and finds 
in such an enclosure. I now think they were introduced, not from 
superstitious reasons, but because people attributed to the plant a 
sanitary quality, like that we attribute to the Eucalyptus and sundry 
Pines. It was rather odd to see some old Blackthorns still able to leaf, 
if not to flower, and under foot in several spots, there was a thick 
growth of Yarrow, which appears to flourish now and then within 
London limits, conquering grasses, and rivalling Crowfoots and Plantains 
on neglected soil. 
We can hardly fancy that when Her Majesty’s grandsire came on the 
throne the streets and squares of the West End were nearly all non¬ 
existent, and the open land from which St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields had its 
name yielded farm and garden crops. Though Hay Hill, Piccadilly, was 
not named from that product, if the Haymarket was, but from the stream 
called the Aye, which flowed past to run into the Thames at Westminster. 
Farm Street, however, is a reminiscence of Mr. Alsop’s farm in this 
quarter. The comparative seclusion of the spot is curiously shown by an 
old advertisement, offering £2 reward for a man who had cut down 
and carried off an Elm tree ; there were many scattered hereabout 
though none of any age now survive. There are some old Limes in the 
gardens of Berkeley Square (and in the mansion grounds), and some fine 
Planes around the former, also a central group, but trees ha ye been 
planted too numerously, hence the grass suffers and the flowers placed 
in the very diminutive beds amongst the plots. Here are a few large 
Thujas and some other familiar evergreens, which seem to have had 
unpleasant experiences of a London spring, also a double Privet hedge. 
It is observable that occasionally the Privet is not truly evergreen, but 
loses nearly all its winter leaves before the new ones expand. The extent 
of Berkeley Square is about five acres, the adjacent square of St. James’s 
the same, both as yet unopened to the public. The latter calls for no 
remark, except that it is memorable for the fact that the great Samuel 
Johnson wandered round its area at night when he was unable to pay 
for a lodging (it appears to have been more shaded with trees than now), 
and also for this, that into the central pond the rabble flung the keys of 
Newgate, seized in the Gordon riots. As these were not discovered for 
many years afterwards, this pond must evidently have been allowed to 
abide in an offensive condition. 
Leicester Square, nearer to Charing Cross, was once Leicester Field, a 
broad space which gave effect to the only house near it, the mansion of 
the Leicesters and Sydneys, a favourite arena for military evolutions, 
and at other times the resort of washerwomen. From it there was a 
good view of the windmill, which gave name to a modern street. Then 
there came a change ; more houses were built, and the ground enclosed 
with railings about 1737. Views dating from the eighteenth century 
show the square prettily laid out with grass plots and cross walks, also a 
double row of trees. By degrees, however, the square got into a neglected 
state, and from 1860 to 1874 it was a dis jrace to the metropolis, and its 
owners too, who would neither reclaim it nor suffer others so to do. It 
was one of Mr. Albert Grant’s good deeds to purchase the land and 
spend several thousands upon it, planting it with trees and shrubs, and 
laying out flower beds. A number of the shrubs placed here in 1874 
have unfortunately died off, not being all of them suitable to the place, 
and the trees have not made much progress yet, and the spring bulbs 
here do not flourish like those on the adjacent embankment; poor, too, 
is the show of flower on the Lilacs and Ornamental Currants. It would 
be advantageous to add to the evergreens, some of those now growing 
