132 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
October 29, 1887. 
It is not so many years since, that the 
appearance of the phylloxera insect created 
considerable alarm amongst Yine growers. The 
pest, curiously enough, seemed to have pre¬ 
sented itself chiefly in Yine-borders which were 
inside vineries. There was very soon a scare 
created, followed by some general regulations 
of a protective hind ; but native energy soon 
stamped out the evil. Yery probably much 
more was made of the injurious nature of the 
insect than facts justified, for a little mole-hill, 
with us, under certain dubious scientific in¬ 
fluences, is soon enlarged into a mountain. 
In any case, the phylloxera has disappeared 
almost as rapidly as it first became apparent, 
and we have come to regard it as almost an 
entomological myth. 
Yery much more fuss is made about 
American blight—the woolly aphis—than is 
needful, for it is not terribly injurious in its 
operations, and is soon destroyed ; so tell-tale 
is its appearance, that with a little care and 
activity it can be stamped out quickly. Eeally 
our worst insect pests are found in aphis, grubs, 
wire worms and slugs, and if these particular 
creatures could be utterly -destroyed the gar¬ 
dener’s lot would be a much happier one than 
it now is. Still, we have such a complete 
knowledge of the nature and capacity of these 
pests that we have come to regard them with 
considerable indifference. Sometimes club 
troubles the Brassica family, but even that 
wears out presently, and seems to betake itself 
elsewhere. A white fungus jneys upon our 
Onion crop for a year or two, but by sowing 
in fresh soil and with better atmospheric con¬ 
ditions that presently disappears. The Celery 
fly may be fought with perseverance, if not 
fully exterminated, but we do not find it 
an exceptionally troublesome pest now; and 
the once-dreaded Hollyhock fungus has had its 
teeth drawn. On the whole we feel that 
fungoid or insect pests are not such terrible 
evils after all. 
-- 
The Liverpool Chrysanthemum Show has been 
postponed from November 22nd and 23rd to the 29th 
and 30th. The Spring Show is announced to he held 
on March 21st, 1888. 
A Warner’s Kino Apple weighing 18% ozs., and 
measuring 14% ins. in girth, has been grown this season 
in the gardens belonging to Mr. David Brown, at East 
Newport, Fife. 
The Wimbledon Chrysanthemum Show will he 
held on November 17th. 
The Bolton and District Chrysanthemum 
Show will he held on November 17th and 18th. 
The annual Chrysanthemum exhibition, promoted 
by the Ancient Society of York Florists, will be held 
on November 16th, and two following days. 
Mr. George Abbey, Junr., late foreman to Mr. 
Gilbert, at Burghley Park, Stamford, has been engaged 
to succeed the late Mr. Harding as gardener to J. D. 
Galpin, Esq., Bristol House, Putney Heath, S.W. 
On Saturday next an autumn exhibition of fine- 
foliaged and flowering plants, under the patronage of 
the Lord Provost of Glasgow, will be opened by the 
Messrs. Thynne, in their Great Western Nurseries, at 
Kelvinside. The Band of the Royal Scots will be in 
attendance, and as the Botanic Gardens are closed, a 
large and fashionable gathering is expected. 
Ampelopsis Veitchii.— This is one of our most 
beautiful hardy climbers, and just now it is the most 
charming colour we have outdoors ; but nowhere, per¬ 
haps, is it more lovely than in the end of the large 
conservatory at The Cedars, Harrow Weald, the 
residence cf J. T. Blackwell, Esq. It covers the whole 
of the masonry, and follows out the stonework between 
the glass, throwing occasionally a beautiful tracery of 
foliage over the glass itself, its foliage varying from the 
size of one’s hand at the lower part to that of a finger¬ 
nail on the thin clinging shoots at the top. The tints 
also vary from a rich metallic-purple to red, scarlet, 
yellow, and orange. Mr. Dinsmore has its longest 
shoots shortened every year, so that it never exceeds 
the limits allowed for it, or too much hides the archi¬ 
tectural design of the conservatory, which was planned 
with the house. 
GREENHOUSES AND THE 
BUILDING ACTS. 
The old question, “Is a greenhouse a building 
within the meaning of the Metropolitan Building 
Acts 1 ” is like the sea-serpent, it makes its appearance 
periodically, but for whose benefit it is impossible to 
say, unless it be for the advantage of the district 
surveyor. 
The last appearance of the suburban horticulturist’s 
bogey was at Hammersmith Police Court a few days 
since, when, contrary to the usual course, the surveyor 
appoared as defendant, the charge being preferred by 
Mr. John Hibbert against Charles Lailey (district 
surveyor to the Acton Local Board), for damaging a 
greenhouse, the property of Mr. Hibbert, who estimated 
the damage at £11. It appeared that Mr. Hibbert 
had erected a small greenhouse at the rear of his 
house, and the district surveyor, as is usually the case, 
interfered and insisted upon asserting his rights under 
the Building Acts, by having the greenhouse built in 
accordance with the Act. A summons was issued 
against Mr. Hibbert, in July, to appear before the Local 
Board, to show cause why this new building should not 
be pulled down, and on the 29th September, the 
district surveyor, with a number of men, entered Mr. 
Hibbert’s premises and demolished his greenhouse. 
The magistrate, in dismissing the summons, on the 
ground that no malice had been proved, expressed his 
opinion that the district surveyor had acted in a very 
high-handed manner, but whether he was justified by 
law or not, he would not venture to decide. He also 
reminded the complainant, that he had his remedy by 
an action for damages. 
From the reports of this ease as published in the 
daily papers, it appears that the district surveyor, not 
only acted in a very high-handed manner, but contrary 
to the Metropolitan Building Act, 18 & 19 Vie., cap. 122, 
which enacts that any builder neglecting to give notice 
to the district surveyor of his intention to build, 
renders himself liable to a penalty of £20, to be re¬ 
coverable before a justice of the peace. The Act also 
provides that the district surveyor shall give notice to 
the builder of any alteration in the building required 
to be made, in compliance with the Act, and in the 
event of his not complying with such notice, the district 
surveyor may summon the builder before a justice of 
the peace, and not the Local Board, for not complying 
with notice, and if, upon proof of the service of the 
summons, it appears to the Justice that the alterations 
demanded are authorised by the Act, he shall make an 
order upon the builder to comply with such notice 
within a certain time, and if the builder still neglects to 
comply with the notice and order, he renders himself 
liable to a penalty of £20 a day, which is to he re¬ 
covered before a justice of the peace. But in no case 
does the Act authorise a district surveyor to enter upon 
a builder’s premises and pull dowm a greenhouse or 
building, unless it is a dangerous structure. 
As the law at present stands there is no doubt that a 
greenhouse is a building within the meaning of the 
Acts, and a person erecting one is liable to be called 
upon by a district surveyor to pay his fee, or, more 
strictly speaking, he renders himself liable to a penalty 
of £20 for not giving the district surveyor notice. 
My impression is that it never was intended district 
surveyors should have the privilege of compelling any¬ 
one who erects a small greenhouse to pay a fee for 
surveying it. The Acts are intended for the protection 
of the public, such as preventing “jerry builders” 
erecting dangerous structures, &c., and not for the 
purpose of giving a license to a district surveyor to 
levy black mail upon a man who builds a greenhouse 
or even a fowl-house or dog kennel in his garden. 
There have been a number of decisions in the Police 
Courts upon this question as affecting greenhouses, but 
not a single case is reported where it has been taken to 
the Superior Courts. The mode of appeal from the 
Police Court is by special case to the High Court of 
Justice, the cost of which would he about £20, and 
this is probably the reason why builders of small green¬ 
houses prefer to pay the 15s. surveyor’s fee to having 
the trouble and expense of an appeal. 
In 1880 a case against a Mr. Norris came before the 
magistrate at the Clerkenwell Police Court. The 
defendant was summoned for erecting a greenhouse at 
the rear of his premises without giving the district 
surveyor notice, and here the magistrate decided that 
the greenhouse was not a building within the meaning 
of the Acts. 
Again, in 1884, before Mr. Hosack, at the "Worship 
Street Police Court, the district surveyor for East 
Hackney (North), summoned a gentleman for a fee in 
respect of a detached greenhouse, 16 ft. long and 9 ft. 
wide, which had been erected in a hack garden, and in 
this case the magistrate said he would allow that a 
greenhouse attached to a building was not exempt, but 
thought one that was detached, as in this case, was 
exempt, and therefore dismissed the summons. In 
addition to these there have been many decisions both 
in favour of and against the district surveyor, the 
majority being in favour of the lattes. 
Magistrates and judges, as we all know, are on the 
bench only to administer the law as it stands, and it is 
of little use going to the Superior Court on an appeal 
in the present unsatisfactory state of the Acts, and I 
would suggest that the only way to alter it will be, when 
a new Building Act is introduced, for the lovers of 
horticulture to combine together to get a clause inserted, 
either exempting greenhouses altogether, or making 
the Acts so that they apply only to large conservatories 
or greenhouses, say over 12 ft. or 15 ft. in height, and 
by this means the amateur and the small nurseryman 
will be relieved of the persecutions of the district 
surveyor. 
The Metropolitan Building Act, 18 and 19 Tic., 
cap. 122, is the principal Act under which district 
surveyors claim to interfere with the enthusiastic 
amateur or nurseryman who erects a greenhouse. Sec. 
6 of that Act refers to greenhouses as follows :—“The 
following buildings and works shall be exempt from 
the operation of the first part of this Act. All party 
fence, walls, and greenhouses, so far as regards the 
necessary woodwork of the sashes, doors, and frames.” 
Sec. 31 says, “With the exemptions hereinbefore 
mentioned, every building, and every work done to, 
in, or upon any building, shall be subject to the super¬ 
vision of the district surveyor appointed to the district 
in which the building is situated.” And Sec. 38 deals 
with the notice to he given to the district surveyor two 
days before commencing building. 
Many persons are under the impression that by 
placing a greenhouse on wheels they do not come 
within the Acts. Prior to 1882 it may have been 
possible to avoid the operation of the Acts in this way, 
and, probably, it was in consequence of this being done 
that the 13th Section of the 1S82 Act was inserted, 
which is as follows The Metropolitan Management 
and Building (Amendment) Act. 45 and 46 Vic., cap. 
14, sec. 13. “It shall not be lawful for any person to 
set up in any place any wooden structure or erection 
of a moveable or temporary character, unless the same 
be exempt from the operation of the first part of the 
Metropolitan Building Act, 1855. 
It is possible, under exceptional circumstances, to 
erect a greenhouse which is exempt from the operation 
of the Acts, as 1 know from experience, having had 
considerable difficulty with'a district surveyor in the 
erection of my third greenhouse (the first two were 
erected without his aid). He wanted to insist upon 
my bricking up the front of the house to the sills with 
9-in. brickwork and the necessary footings under 
schedule I. of the Act of 1855, which is as follows 
“Every building shall be enclosed with walls con¬ 
structed with brick, stone, or other hard and incom¬ 
bustible substance ; and the foundations shall rest on 
the solid ground, or upon concrete, or upon other solid 
substructure.” To this I protested, and positively 
declined either to put a single brick in the building or 
pay a surveyor’s fee. 
The greenhouse was built principally for the purpose 
of blooming Chrysanthemums in, and as all growers of 
these plants know, in order to keep them healthy, a 
plentiful supply of ventilation is necessary both above 
and below the stage. I had the good fortune to have 
walls at the end and on either side of my garden, 
which was 17 ft. 3 ins. wide, and I determined to avail 
myself of them by erecting a square span-roofed house 
the whole width of the garden, bringing the roof down 
to the walls, they being 4 ft. 6 ins. high, and thus 
leaving only the front end to he built. For ventilation 
I had a lantern light at the top, a patent Moore’s 
ventilator over the door, and four doors opening out¬ 
wards upon hinges fitted in the framework below the 
sills to the ground. These were the doors the district 
surveyor endeavoured to compel me to remove and 
replace with 9-in. brickwork, and thus destroy part of 
my ventilation. 
By erecting it in this way it will be seen I had a 
greenhouse which was composed entirely of sashes, doors 
and frames, and as that portion of a greenhouse 
composed solely of these is exempt from the operation 
of the Acts, I contended, and successfully, that this 
house did not come within the Building Acts. My 
contention was not the old question, Is a greenhouse a 
