148 
THE GARDENING WORLD 
November 5, 1887. 
Mr. James Davis, late foreman at Eshton Hall, 
Gargrave, has been engaged as gardener to G. Sheard, 
Esq., The Woodlands, Upper Batley, Yorks. 
At the quarterly general meeting of the Lewisham 
and District Floral Society, held on October 2Gth, Mr. 
Norman Davis, of the firm of Messrs. Davis & Jones, of 
Camberwell, contributed a paper entitled, “Chrysan¬ 
themums: our Successes and Failures.” The 
members present appeared to much appreciate the 
kindly hints and useful advice given by so experienced 
a grower, and who, among other points, spoke strongly 
upon the absurdity of over-feeding the plants. 
Messrs. Alfred Peel & Sons, horticultural 
builders, of Wood Green, were on the 29th ult. awarded 
a First Class Medal for their Paxton Span-roofed Green¬ 
houses, at the Royal Yorkshire Exhibition, held at 
Saltaire. 
The Southend Chrysanthemum Show has been 
postponed to the 15th inst. 
At the monthly meeting of the members of the 
Preston and Fulwood Horticultural Society to be held 
this (Saturday) evening, Mr. Timothy Moss will read 
an interesting paper on The Honey Bee : Its History 
and Management. The chair will be taken at 7.30 
p.m. by the president, Alderman Galloway, Esq., J.P. 
The gardens at Devonhurst, Chiswick, the residence 
of E. H. Watts, Esq., will be thrown open to the public 
for the inspection of the Chrysanthemums on Thursday, 
Friday, and Saturday next. An entrance fee of one 
shilling will be charged, and the proceeds given in aid 
of the Shaftesbury Ragged School, for the purpose of 
forming a Creche, that is, a place where infants may be 
left during the day while the mothers go out to work. 
The example set by Mr. Watts is an admirable one, 
that might be followed by others with great propriety. 
-- 
VEGETABLES AT SOUTH 
KENSINGTON. 
The truly wonderful exhibition of vegetables seen at 
South Kensington last week was remarkable for two 
things ; first, the presence of a numerous body of 
gardener exhibitors from man} r parts of the kingdom, 
and secondly, from the complete and, as it were, 
ostentatious absence of all who claim to be the leaders 
of the Royal Horticultural Society and the elite of 
fashionable or scientific horticulture. We must make 
an exception to the marked absenteeism, however, in 
the case of that excellent member of the Council and 
supporter of the society, Mr. G. F. Wilson, and also in 
that of another member of the Council, whose name 
need not be mentioned, as it is not much known among 
practical men. 
We hope that there was no insult intended in this 
instance to the gardeners of the kingdom, or to those 
enterprising traders, who, and not the Council of the 
Royal Horticultural Society, were the actual promoters 
of the exhibition. Remarking upon this particular 
abstention, and also upon that of the general public, 
gardeners could not avoid asking whether the exhibition 
then held was not the last at South Kensington, and 
also whether the society was not in the throes of death. 
Here was an exhibition of unusual extent and excellence, 
which cost the society not a single shilling for prize 
money, and yet the Council took no steps to make any¬ 
thing out of it by letting the public know that such an 
exhibition would be held. What wonder then that with 
such gross mismanagement the society is rapidly drifting 
to the dogs. 
Professedly anxious to learn the views of prominent 
horticulturists, but in reality, we fear, to veil its in¬ 
competence, the Council have issued circulars inviting 
opinions on the crisis. We believe that in the majority 
of cases the opinions given will be in harmony with those 
we have previously so strongly expressed in these 
columns—viz., that the only hope of resuscitating the 
society, and securing for it the confidence and support 
of the general horticultural community, is by estab¬ 
lishing it on a more popular basis, trusting to the 
guineas and half-guineas of the mass rather than to the 
higher sums of the select few. 
The late exhibition, unhappily, evidenced the width 
of the gulf there is between the upper five of horti¬ 
culture and the lower ten. With a display of vegetables 
so extensive and so fine as to evoke the highest 
admiration of all who saw it, yet what had the cultured 
egotist and the scientific prig in common with it ? 
Literally nothing. It was a case, horticulturally, of 
St. James treating with emphasised scorn and con¬ 
tempt the poor but practical St. Giles. We need not 
say that this sort of thing cannot and will not be 
endured. If there is no community of interest, of 
thought, and of taste between the aristocracy of horti¬ 
culture and practical gardening, then it is useless, nay 
rvorse than useless—it would be folly to attempt to 
re-construct the Royal Horticultural Society upon its 
present lines, or to promote a new organisation which 
strove to ally those evidently non-fusible bodies. 
We think there are those in the horticultural world 
who, scorning the meaner elements of the art, and 
puffed up somewhat with scientific or pedantic pride, 
will not long hence find they have made a great mis¬ 
take, and that in grasping for a shadow they have lost 
the substance. For us, in any case, we stand by the 
gardener, and willingly leave the butterflies of the 
beautiful art to their fate. 
We began with a special reference to the vegetable 
show, but our indignation speedily provoked a diver¬ 
sion. Let us hasten, however, to do justice to those 
donors who liberally created such a splendid display of 
kitchen-garden produce, and which the miserable 
Council did absolutely nothing worthy of mention to 
make public. Also would we compliment the gardeners 
of the kingdom for sending and staging such splendid 
exhibits ; and we congratulate them and the country 
also, that, in spite of unwonted heat and drought, the 
season has proved so grandly productive. 
-»->££<—- 
TOBACCO. 
The importance which is being attached to the 
culture of Tobacco in this country, and the many 
attempts that are being made to grow it in various 
parts of the United Kingdom, is a sufficient justification 
for a few notes as to its history and introduction. 
The Tobacco plant belongs to the genus Nicotiana, 
and there are some thirty or more species known and 
described by botanists. Some of these are natives or 
naturalised in most parts of the world ; for though its 
use was unknown in Europe before the discovery of 
America, indulgence in its fumes is so common, nay, 
so universal among the Chinese, and the forms of 
their Bamboo pipes and their methods of exhaling so 
peculiar, that Pallas and many others have been led to 
believe that the custom is aboriginal with them, and 
that they and other natives of the East were acquainted 
with its use before the discovery of the western hemi¬ 
sphere. Two or more species—N. sinensis and N. 
fruticosa—are also believed to be natives of China, and 
N. Nepalensis of Hindostau. Chardin states that its 
use was common in Persia long before the discovery of 
America, and that it is a native of that country, or, at 
least, was naturalised there as early as 1260. Further¬ 
more, Liebault asserts that one species (his “Petite 
Tabac Sauvage”) is a native of Europe, and that it 
was found wild in the forest of Ardennes previous to 
the discovery of the New World. This assertion seems, 
however, to be deficient in proof, and its correctness is 
doubted by most naturalists. 
The history of Tobacco is one of peculiar interest. 
It was first introduced into Europe about 1560, seeds 
being sent by Jean Nicot, from whom it derives its 
generic name, to Catherine de Medicis ; but it was not 
until 1586 that the use of the herb became generally 
known, and the practice of smoking introduced into 
England by Sir Walter Raleigh, and the settlers who 
returned from Virginia. Hariott, who accompanied 
the expedition which was sent out to attempt to found 
a colony in Virginia, gives, along with a description of 
the Tobacco plant, an account of the manner in which 
it was used by the native Americans ; and adds, that 
the English, during the time of their stay abroad, and 
since their return home, were accustomed to smoke it 
after the fashion of the Indians, “and found many 
rare and wonderful experiments of the virtue thereof.” 
Like Coffee and Peruvian Bark, Tobacco encountered 
violent opposition, when its half-inebriating and 
soothing influence recommended it to popular use. 
Many governments attempted to restrain its consump¬ 
tion by penal edicts. The Sultan Amurath IV. forbade 
its importation into Turkey, and condemned to death 
those found guilty of smoking, from a fear that it 
produced barrenness. The Grand Duke of Moscow 
prohibited its entrance into his dominions. The Shah 
of Persia, and other soverigns, were equally severe in 
their enactments. The Pope Urban VIII. anathematised 
all those who smoked in churches. But not only 
legislators, but philosophers — or, at least, book¬ 
makers—entered into a crusade against Tobacco. 
Upwards of 100 volumes, the names of which have 
been preserved and the titles catalogued, were written 
to condemn its use. Amongst these not the least 
singular was the Counter Blasteol our pedantic James I. 
His interpretations are, indeed, most amusing and the 
language gross ; but the tenor of them may be judged 
of from the banquet which he proposed for the devil— 
viz., “A loin of pork, a poll of ling, and a pipe of 
Tobacco." 
Of the sincerity of the royal anti-Tobacconist there 
can be no doubt, if any reliance may be placed on 
energy of expression, and on his almost unequalled 
force of language ; but notwithstanding all opposition, 
smoking and snuffing prevail, not only through polished 
but savage countries, and instead of being scorned and 
contemned by strangers, and wondered at by all 
“ forreine civill nations,” the English now are coun¬ 
tenanced—-nay, not only equalled, but exceeded—in 
the custom by many other peoples, for it may be said 
to be an universal habit. Every nation on the Con¬ 
tinent of Europe and America, as well as over all the 
East, are addicted to the pipe or cigar. Young and 
old, grave and gay, rich or poor—all enjoy, or seem to 
enjoy, the amusement of smoking.— E. IF. 
-—>x<-- 
DINNER TABLE DECORATION. 
.A correspondent of The American Florist thus 
describes the floral arrangement of a dinner table :— 
“ The table was laid for thirty, and light was supplied 
by five candelabra arranged down the centre. The 
central one was raised on a block 1 ft. high, the next 
pair 9 ins., and those at each end on blocks 6 ins. high. 
Sheets of hrown paper were placed down the centre of 
the table. Mounds of fresh green moss were then 
formed around each of the blocks with a gradual slope 
to the top. The diameter of the central mound at the 
base was about 20 ins., the next pair 17 ins., and the 
outside ones 15 ins. ; the space between the mounds 
was then covered with moss, but instead of joining the 
outer edge of it in straight lines, from one mound to 
the other, it was hollowed out so as to form the arc of 
a large circle sweeping towards the centre of the table 
from either side, which gave the design an informal 
appearance. It is now easy to imagine the centre of 
this as being covered with moss, with mounds rising 
around the candlesticks, and the outline hollowed out 
between the mounds. When this is done the most 
troublesome part of the work is over. 
The outer edge of the moss was then bordered with 
brightly coloured pieces of Alternanthera amoena, 
which formed a beautiful contrast to the white table¬ 
cloth on one side and fresh green moss on the other. 
Two light graceful Palms were next placed between the 
central candelabrum and those on each side of it, and 
small mounds made at their base to cover the pots. In 
the centre of the space between the other candlesticks, 
two more mounds were formed around plants of 
l’andanus Veitehii, and at each end of the table a 
noble-looking Pine was placed ; the whole surface of 
moss was then dotted irregularly with flowers of bright 
and distinct colours, such as Poinsettias, Camellias, 
white Chrysanthemums, Eucharis, Primulas, Azaleas, 
Epiphyllums, Carnations, and Pelargoniums, with 
small sprays of Salvias and flowers of Cyclamen peeping 
up here and there among fronds of Maidenhair Fern, 
with fronds of Pteris serrulata standing up well above 
the flowers. Fronds of Polystichuin angulare pro- 
liferum, with Nephrolepis tuberosa and N. cyperus 
springing up around the base of the candlesticks, 
completed the arrangement ; the whole having the 
appearance of verdant undulating banks, with flowers 
and plants springing up from them in charming 
simplicity and profusion. 
Lonas inodora. —There is a certain amount of 
novelty even in an old thing when it crops up after the 
lapse of a number of years, and although this annual 
herb was introduced as long ago as 1686—that is, 
slightly over 200 years—it seems to have been lost to 
sight till recently. The stems are about 12 ins. or 
15 ins. in height, branch freely, and are well furnished 
with finely divided leaves. On the top of these umbels 
of golden yellow flower-heads are produced in greater or 
less profusion, according to the vigour of the plant. 
There are no rays to the flower-heads, and from this 
fact they may be compared to those of Aster linosyris 
(Goldielocks); but then the latter is a perennial, whereas 
the former is an annual, and much more accommodating 
to different methods of cultivation. At Kew it first 
appeared as a specimen in the herbaceous ground among 
the extensive collection of Composites; whilst last 
summer some round beds alongside of the broad avenue 
were planted with it, and appeared very gay. Towards 
autumn a considerable quantity of it was grown in 
pots and flowered in the greenhouse, where it certainly 
proved a novelty amongst the ordinary but varied 
collection of plants. Being a native of Barbary it is 
quite hardy, and very accommodating to different 
kinds of treatment. The flower heads last a long time 
in presentable condition, and keep their colour well. 
