THE COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[August 14. 
300 
principal feature in the above is its compactness, its 
utility in allowing a lady to dispense with a multiplicity 
of implements, and being able to extract weeds from be- 
| tween closely-planted flowers, and preventing the neces¬ 
sity of treading on the beds, or stooping to pull up weeds 
with the hand. It is a small rake, on one end of which is 
a spud turned outwards ; the other end is turned inwards, 
. and forms a draw-hoe. It is a neat little implement for 
I ladies who are fond of using such-like things among 
! their flowers, and will be found very useful by them. 
89. —Read’s New Watering Garden Engine. 
This engine will hold about twenty-eight gallons of 
I water, and will discharge the water to the distance of 
J fifty feet. It is made of zinc, set on two wheels, the 
action being the same as any common engine, with the 
addition of an air vessel surrounding the pump—this 
being the most important feature in the engine—by 
: which means a constant stream is kept up, nearly equal 
! in effect to a double-actioned engine. The tube above 
the body of the engine is made of vulcanised Indian- 
rubber, with a brass end. The engine is worked by a 
handle fixed to the front end of the engine. As garden 
engines cannot be dispensed with where there is any 
extent of wall-trees, this is very desirable, combining 
cheapness with utility, and not being liable to get out 
of repair. 
The notice of the great Tulip Show at Derby, written 
by our reporter, E. Y., and published by us at page 158 
of the present volume, has made some stir among the 
Northern Tulip growers. Our reporter did not criticise 
the particular judgment he condemned, but rested upon 
the broad principle, that the Southerns do not, and will 
not, pass a foul flower, whilst the Northerns, as at 
Derby, do, and will. It is quite true that the Northerns 
had a Southern judge willing to act with three Northerns, 
and who, instead of carrying out the Southern taste in 
full, and, failing in that, retiring altogether, remained 
acting with them, and thereby fell in with then’ taste, or 
want of taste, or at least sanctioned it by his presence, 
but we care not under what regulations the flowers were 
to be judged, because there is only one point to which 
our reporter’s censure applies; and it was either just or 
unjust accordingly as the answer may be to one ques¬ 
tion: “ Was a foul flower allowed to win in a stand or 
in class?” If a foul flower alone, or with others in a 
stand, took a prize, all the abuse and all the sophistry 
that can be written or talked falls to the ground. We 
have often regretted that florists are the most irritable 
of all men; a Chancellor of the Exchequer may be 
censured by every trumpery scribbler in the country—a 
whole government may be condemned by the j)osse com- 
mitatus of politicians—and they receive the castigation 
with becoming patience; but a florist cannot be blamed 
or admonished without showing a waspish disposition to 
sting. 
One of our contemporaries has shown this disposition, 
and lias descended to personalities, which our reporter 
will not retort, nor for which will we waste spnce by 
allowing him to reply. Indeed, the subject admits of 
no further dispute, for Mr. Turner, of Slough, and Mr. 
Edwards, of Holloway, both say that, at Derby they 
were “ beaten by dirty flowers.” Mr. Robert Lawrence, 
of Hampton, says the same; and, in addition, we have 
received the following from Mr. Slater, florist, of Cheet 
ham Hill, near Manchester. He says, after blaming 
our reporter for being too indiscriminate in his con¬ 
demnation, 
“ 1 E. Y. ’ cannot have read the 4th condition of the Derby 
Show, which states ‘ that no flower with black stamens, or 
impure at the base, shall win; ’ and again, in the 6th condi¬ 
tion, ‘ the judges will be recommended to place each variety 
once only in the classes ; but in the event of there being an 
insufficiency of variety complying with the 4th condition, 
then they may place a duplicate.’ 
“ Upon looking over the list of flowers which obtained 
prizes, there are only Sir Thomas (Beighton’s), flamed 
Bizarre; Lady Crewe, alias Lady Middleton; Vesta; and 
Lancashire Hero, which is sometimes very pure, that have 
either impure stamens or bad base. Now the judges cannot 
have been acquainted either with the regulations or the 
flowers, as they allowed these flowers to take a prize; and 
in order to show this more plainly, one of the judges, the 
editor himself, at page 234 of the work which condemns E.Y., 
says that Beighton’s Sir Thomas is a very attractive flamed 
Bizarre, hut unfortunately stained. Where is the judgment 
here to make such an assertion, when he well knows some 
Jlowers, and fine ones too, which had a slight tinge upon the 
stamens, were discarded, as was, I believe, two Lancashire 
Heros, labelled Louis XVL. in mistake. Now I must say 
that the Lancashire Heros, so called, were Louis XVL., true 
and fine. They were from a root I introduced ten years ago, 
and allowed to be the finest strain of Louis XVL. in the 
kingdom. It always comes fine, and the editor’s friend, 
Mr. Dixon, of Manchester, can so far correct the judges in 
this matter, as he purchased the root from whence these 
blooms have been produced, having sold the offsets to the 
exhibitor of these flowers. 
“Then the editor again, at page 233, says, there was Vesta 
clean, or nearly so. Here, then, is ample scope for E. Y. 
He could have truthfully asserted that the regulations were 
not adhered to, although all ought strictly to be kept. Were 
there no duplicates in flamed Bizarres ? Was there not 
another Captain White to be found, provided there were not 
more than twelve varieties staged, or a Polyphemus, Ac. ? 
Again, why was Lady Crewe, alias Lady Middleton, allowed 
to win, which has not a pure white base ? These are ques¬ 
tions that cannot be satisfactorily answered, because there 
was a strong bias in favour of it as it was raised at Derby. 
The fourth pan ought to have been disqualified on account 
of Lady Middleton (or rather Lady Crewe). 
“It is generally expected that those who write on horticul¬ 
tural subjects ought to be able to discriminate the aliases. 
Now it is well known that Ulysses is only Polyphemus, and 
the grower who buys it for any tiling else will be disappointed. 
Queen Charlotte is what is well known in the south as Surperb 
en Noir. This variety was first named Queen Charlotte by 
a Bolton florist, who bought it as Superb en Noir, and sold 
it to the neighbouring florists under the new name, and it 
is now called Bolton Queen Charlotte, in contradistinction to 
one sold under the same name at Stockport. La bien Aime 
is only Alexander Magnus. Maid of Orleans only Princess 
Royal, feathered. Princess Sophia only Madam Vestris. Now 
these are worthy of being noticed to guard the young ama¬ 
teur ; but with some, these things are not liked. I remem¬ 
ber an instance of Garrick being catalogued and sold as 
Shakspeare, Edmund Kean, and Leonidas, and with a differ¬ 
ence of price of only seven guineas, yet all one variety ! If 
horticultural editors would do their duty, floriculture would 
not lack supporters, because good things would be promi¬ 
nently brought before the public, no matter by whom raised, 
whether by a friend or foe, and the bad ones discarded. 
“ For my own part I feel much pleasure in affording in¬ 
formation, and I trust it is done without reference to 
parties, and with a Christian spirit, as well as with a hearty 
desire to promote fioricultural pursuits.” 
