February 4, 1893. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
355 
GARDENERS’ ROYAL BENEVOLENT 
INSTITUTION. 
Having been elected a member of the committee 
of the above institution at the recent general 
meeting, I hope I may be excused for approaching 
my fellow gardeners (in the interest of the institu¬ 
tion) in the hope that I may be the means of 
influencing their minds in favour of a more general 
and generous support of its funds. It cannot be said 
that I am asking others to do what I have not 
attempted to do myself, as I have contributed in 
one way or another between £70 and £80 to its 
funds. 
It is difficult to understand why every gardener 
does not rally round this splendid property of 
£29,000, especially when it is said that every shilling 
of it is their own. One would think that even from 
motives of selfishness, if from no higher, every 
gardener would rally round it and strive to do all in 
his power to promote its usefulness and prosperity. 
There cannot be less than 30,000 gardeners, nursery¬ 
men and others engaged in horticultural pursuits, 
who are interested in its welfare, and if as many of 
these as can afford it subscribed their guinea a year, 
and if the remainder, who are unable to do this, 
were to collect small sums amongst themselves' 
annually for the benefit of its funds, the question of 
old age pensions as far as it relates to gardeners 
would be solved. 
Objections have been advanced by many against 
the institution because it is not founded on the lines 
and principles of a benefit society, where a member 
can claim help at any time in case of need. On the 
surface this may appear to be a reasonable objection, 
and I am afraid has been the cause of many not 
subscribing to its funds. But I think on a little 
consideration that this objection may be proved to 
be an erroneous one, and especially as in the case 
of gardeners whose wages are scarcely now stopped 
in time of sickness, and who therefore do not feel the 
pinch of poverty at this time like mechanics and 
others who are paid by the hour, and whose pay is 
stopped when work ceases. As bearing on this 
point I may say that I have been a member of a 
benefit society for upwards of twenty years, paying 
about 22s. a year, and if I am to remain a benefit 
member I shall have to go on paying that sum as 
long as Hive, and the benefits are : — in case of sick¬ 
ness and permanent disability from work I am 
entitled to 10s. a week for the first year, about 7s. the 
second year, and after that I believe the pay is 
reduced to 3s. per week for life. Let me ask my 
fellow gardeners who are still sceptical on this point 
to compare this with the advantages offered by the 
G.R.B.I., even from a benefit point of view, where 
after subscribing a guinea for 15 years, or £10 10s. 
down, a member is almost certain to be placed on the 
pension list if he is of good character and incapa¬ 
citated from work, and in want; receiving, without 
any further cost or trouble to himself, £20 a year for 
life, whether his life be short or long. Another 
objection has occasionally been levelled at the 
institution, viz.—that some gardeners who had 
subscribed but little and others who had not sub¬ 
scribed at all were occasionally elected pensioners. 
On this point, I may say, that we must not lose 
sight of the fact that by far the largest proportion of 
the funds of the institution have been subscribed by 
gentlemen out of pure benevolence for the relief of 
aged and destitute gardeners, and I for my part 
would be very sorry to sett this principle of bene¬ 
volence infringed upon or curtailed in any way, and 
I hope and believe it will not be allowed to impose a 
barrio to prevent subscriptions flowing in. 
The committee, as is well known, have introduced 
a clause into their rules giving almost absolute 
certainty of election to those who may have sub¬ 
scribed for 15 years, and the new rule passed at the 
general meeting a few days ago will give subscribers 
substantial advantages over non-subscribers in so far 
that a subscriber for four years will have fifty votes 
credited to him, and fifty more added for every year 
subscribed afterwards up to fourteen years. 
My appeal in favour of the institution, even from 
a benefit and an investment point of view, will, I 
hope, commend itself to the judgment of your 
readers. But I beg very respectfully to appeal to my 
brother gardeners from a higher level than a benefit 
one. That man’s life is a poor and a barren life who 
lives entirely to himself, and nothing noble or good 
has ever yet been accomplished without a sacrifice 
of some sort. 
The gardeners of the past half a century (and 
others interested in gardening and gardeners) have 
built up a noble standard of garden charity, which 
is now shedding gleams of joy and brightness round 
the declining life of many of our fellow workers who 
have fallen helpless by the way. Let me then 
appeal to all gardeners and others associated with 
them in the calling to rally round this noble institu¬ 
tion, and to strengthen it with their active support, 
that all the deserving in our craft may claim a 
shelter under its wings in the time of adversity and 
want .- — Owen Thomas, The Royal Gardens, Windsor, 
Jany. 23 rd. 1893. 
-- 
DRESSING CARNATIONS. 
Why does not your correspondent, Mr. Wm. 
Wardill, exhibit his Carnations under the Martin 
Smith schedules of prizes, where, from what he 
writes, he should be quite at home ? These answer 
all the requirements of those who wish to show the 
flowers as cut from the plants, and no one can com¬ 
plain here that he is debarred from exhibiting by 
the question of dressing. The Martin Smith prizes 
offer to him and others who feel themselves handi¬ 
capped in this respect every encouragement to bring 
forward their flowers. 
I only remember once to have had the advantage 
of seeing flowers exhibited by your correspondent, 
namely, at the Royal Aquarium Show some two or 
three seasons ago. They had a special note attached, 
to the effect, I think, that they were shown as cut 
from the border. Whether or not it was to be taken 
as implying that therein lay the secret of the difference 
between them and the highly cultivated and dressed 
flowers shown, many did so take it, and were not 
a little amused. I think your correspondent, and 
others like him, will find that whether as to dressed 
or undressed flowers the judges must still go for high 
cultivation and quality, and that no dressing can 
avail in any case if these are absent.— H. 
Is it possible that a man may be thought to be a 
mouse because he has once slept in a barn ? Or to put 
it plainer, that we who have the good or ill fortune to 
reside in the West of England, have never seen a 
dressed Carnation bloom after it has left the hands 
of the competent dresser, and upon this hypothesis 
be classed as the irresponsible frivolity, whose child¬ 
ish effusions are (but from the fact of their appear¬ 
ance in responsible papers) unworthy the notice of 
the specialist. Very neatly put, Mr. Rowan, but this 
is not the point which, however, might be placed 
in a nutshell. 
The question to me appears to be, is the dressing 
of blooms (be it Carnations or otherwise) to be con¬ 
sidered as the last and most important stage of the 
highest possible culture, and as such worthy of the 
florist, and of our highest commendation ? Or is it 
simply to be looked upon as the work of a clever 
artist, who uses it as a means to attain the florist's 
ideal of perfection, which, in some instances, Nature 
has failed to award to his persistent labours ? If so 
would it not be equally as justifiable to apply the 
same art to destroy some of the imperfections in 
other kinds of flowers, not amenable to dressing, by 
painting over such blotchings and runnings of one 
colour into the other as are not considered desirable 
in a perfect flower of its class ? 
My imperfect knowledge leads me to but one con¬ 
clusion, that, to deal honestly with the public at 
large, the florist should consider dressing as only 
a borrowed plume, and should conscientiously dis¬ 
card from his collection of ideal flowers all such as 
require the hands of the artificer to make them per¬ 
fect, and concentrate his mind and great abilities on 
trying to obtain perfection by those ample means 
Nature has unfolded and placed at his disposal. The 
art of dressing can be, at its best, but a short and 
somewhat royal road to this end, and, unfortunately 
both for the florist and the public who support him, 
but a fleeting pleasure. 
It is upon these grounds alone that I base my 
objections, not to the art of dressing, as an art, let it 
be understogd, but to its pernicious consequences 
and the imposition it is on the unwary. As regards 
the specialists in this particular art I care little. My 
ideas may amuse them, and so far will not be 
altogether explained in vain. Would it not, how¬ 
ever, be better did they not take their pleasure so 
sadly ? Reform in the way our exhibits are staged 
is yearly taking place, and will I hope continue to do 
so. One great drawback to its doing so more quickly 
is, I think, the great expense entailed by exhibitors, 
especially those from a distance, having to carry so 
many appliances about with them, and the more 
artistic they are arranged, the more and better appli¬ 
ances they require. — W. MacKay, Exeter. 
--j,- 
(Meanings fmnrt the UDinrltr 
Science 
The Death’s Head Moth and Bees. —A corres¬ 
pondent in Nature Notes for January looks upon the 
Death's Head Moth as a plunderer of bee hives 
when it can effect an entrance. The correspondent 
gives a reason for this undesirable habit of the moth 
by stating that it has a short tongue compared with 
its relatives of the Hawk Moth tribe and is therefore 
unable to collect nectar for itself from the long 
tubed flowers secreting it, and available to the long- 
tongued species. The shortness of its tongue must 
only be relative to its size, for it certainly has a 
remarkably long proboscis coiled up under its head. 
We believe Kent is the county where it is most 
commonly met with, and from whence we have had 
the full grown caterpillar collected in Potato fields. 
The perfect moth, and a fine animal too, we have had 
from Hertfordshire; but it is not particularly 
abundant anywhere in this country, so that bee¬ 
keepers need not be alarmed at its possible 
depredations in their hives. Besides, the construction 
of the entrance to hives built on modern principles 
is such as to prevent the entrance of smaller insects 
than the Death’s Head Moth, or, at all events can 
easily be defended by the legitimate and rightful 
occupants of the hives. The same writer says 
that some continental bee-keepers have discovered 
that bees are aware of this intruder and fortify 
the entrance of their hives accordingly against it. 
We are of opinion that bees fortify themselves, to 
the best of their abilities, against all hostile comers 
rather than any given foe. For instance, hives are 
liable to be entered by mice, wasps, snails and even 
the inhabitants of another hive occupied by a 
community of their own species. The members of 
some hives occasionally contract a predatory habit, 
becoming robbers not merely for the time being but 
for all time to come, that is, so long as they live, 
according to the opinions and testimony of many 
bee-keepers. Weak hives in spring are specially 
liable to attack, and in all such cases it is important 
that the entrance to the hive should be reduced to 
the smallest possible dimensions so as to permit the 
egress and ingress of the rightful owners and enable 
them at the same time to defend it easily against a 
large number of would-be robbers. 
Value of Nitrate of Soda to Tomatos. —The 
experiments with Tomatos in 1891 carried on at 
the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment 
Station, were repeated last year, and the results 
recorded in Bulletin 45. In 1891 the Tomatos were 
grown on very poor and untractable soil so that 
nitrate of soda alone gave very poor results, while a 
combination of nitrate of soda, bone black and 
muriate of potash gave a better return, though still 
a very poor crop. Last } ear the experiments were 
carried out upon good gravelly soil that had been 
enriched in previous years. The six plants to which 
nitrate of soda alone was given, produced an average 
of thirty fruits each, weighing 9 5 pounds, up to the 
time that frost cut them down. Adding to that the 
green and immature fruits, the average number of 
fruits to aplant was 50 6,weighing, likewise,on an aver¬ 
age, 14 5 pounds. The phosphatic manure supplied in 
the form of boneblack when used alone gave during the 
whole season on an average 25 4 fruits per plant, 
weighing 7 2 pounds, or just half of that produced 
by the dressing of nitrate of soda. When used by 
themselves, one pound of the latter was given to six 
plants, and two pounds of the bone black to an equal 
number. The second best result of this series of 
trials occurred where all the three kinds of manure 
were used in combination, that is, in mixture : 
Nitrate of soda, one pound ; bone black, two pounds; 
and muriate of potash, one pound, were applied as 
a dressing to six plants, and the net results for the 
whole season were 48 2 fruits to a plant, weighing 
14-4 pounds. The small results of the two latter 
either singly or in combination were remarkable, but 
more so when six plants entirely unmanured gave a 
return of 40 2 fruits weighing 12-6 pounds per plant. 
It is clear then that on fairly *feriile soils, nitrate of 
soda gives the best results as a manure for Tomatos. 
