56 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER, 
January  18,  1900. 
Declaration  or  the  Poll. 
Shortly  before  five  o’clock  the  scrutineers,  Messrs.  Thos.  Manning 
and  A.  G.  Monro,  returned  to  declare  the  result  of  the  poll,  which  was 
as  follows  : — Isaac  Page,  4519  Lucy  Mitchell,  4282  ;  Jane  R.  Edwards, 
3986 ;  Thomas  Evans,  3383 ;  William  Thomas,  3228 ;  Isabella  Watt, 
2845.  WTlliam  B.  Glasscock  received  3346  votes  and  would  therefore 
have  become  a  recipient  of  the  pension  but  for  the  fact  that  since  the 
list  was  published  his  circumstances  had  so  changed  as  to  render 
pecuniary  aid  from  the  Institution  unnecessary.  It  was  mentioned  as 
remarkable  that  since  the  list  had  been  ready  four  candidates  had 
passed  to  their  eternal  rest.  The  scrutineers  announced  as  a  matter  for 
congratulation  that  only  thirty-seven  votes  were  wasted  this  year 
through  papers  not  being  signed,  as  against  nearly  600  last  year. 
Votes  of  thanks  to  the  Chairman  and  Messrs.  Manning  and  Monro 
brought  the  proceedings  to  a  close. 
The  Annual  Friendly  Supper. 
There  is  probably  no  gathering  of  horticulturists,  at  any  rate 
within  the  metropolitan  area,  that  better  deserves  the  title  of 
“  Friendly  ”  than  this  meeting  of  the  supporters  and  friends  of  the 
Gardeners’  Royal  Benevolent  Institution.  It  would,  we  are  perfectly 
convinced,  be  a  difficult,  even  if  bot  an  impossible,  task  to  find  another 
charitable  institution  that  runs  its  course  on  a  sounder  basis.  In 
investigating  its  affairs  by  the  aid  of  reports  and  balance-sheets  and 
from  information  gathered  in  conversation  with  the  best  of  secretaries, 
Mr.  G.  J.  Ingram,  it  is  promptly  found  that  the  subscriptions 
and  donations  are  not  sought  for  the  maintenance  of  ornate 
buildings  and  ornamental  officials,  but  for  the  gardeners  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland.  The  money  comes  and  the  money  goes,  not 
perhaps  with  the  regularity  of  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tides,  but 
steadily  and  persistently,  and  with  the  exception  of  an  infinitesimal 
percentage  for  office  expenses,  every  halfpenny  goes  to  the  gardeners 
and  their  widows  in  their  hour  of  need. 
Having  in  view  this  incontrovertible  fact  that  a  committee  of 
earnest  business  men  manage  the  affairs  of  the  Society  for  the  benefit 
of  gardeners,  it  might  naturally  be  asked,  “  Do  the  gardeners  give  the 
Institution  the  pecuniary  support  it  deserves  F  ”  Many  times  has  a 
negative  answer  been  recorded  ;  but  it  requires  qualification.  There 
are  gardeners  and  gardeners,  and,  as  Mr.  Moss  observed,  they  are  not 
all  millionaires.  Many  there  are  who  could  subscribe  and  do  not. 
This  is  not  from  feelings  averse  to  the  work  of  the  Society,  but  rather 
from  an  unfortunate  apathy  which  we  anticipate  the  ever  increasing 
auxiliaries  will  eventually  remove.  Look,  however,  for  a  moment  on 
the  other  side  of  the  slate,  and  there  will  be  found  a  large  majority 
whose  remuneration  for  intelligent  labour  is  decidedly  limited,  and  who 
have  many  pressing  home  calls.  Should  these  people  be  excluded  from 
the  benefits  of  the  charity  ?  Mr.  Veitch,  in  founding  the  Good  Samari¬ 
tan  Fund,  replies  with  an  emphatic  No.  And  he  is  right — it  is  the 
man’s  misfortune,  and  not  his  fault  in  this  case. 
But  we  are  digressing  and  must  return  to  the  leadership  of  Mr. 
Arnold  Moss,  who  occupied  the  cl  air  on  this  occasion  in  place  of  Mr. 
Bilney  of  Weybridge,  whose  presence  at  home  was  enforced  by  the 
influenza  fiend.  Mr.  Moss,  in  dryly  humourous  terms,  referred  to  the 
report  and  the  balance  sheet,  and  kept  the  half  hundred  participators 
in  the  supper  in  a  constant  roar  of  happy  laughter  ere  settling  down  to 
serious  business.  When  this  stage  was  reached  he  referred  to  the 
regrettable  absence  of  Mr.  Bilney,  and  also  to  the  death  of  the  President 
of  the  Institution — his  Grace  the  Duke  of  Westminster.  He  spoke  of 
the  flourishing  condition  of  the  Society,  and  hoped  the  prosperity  would 
be  maintained  in  the  future.  He  alluded  in  most  complimentary  terms 
to  the  good  work  of  gardeners,  whose  labours  were  not  always  of  the 
easiest  or  of  the  pleasantest,  and  the  tone  of  his  remarks  proved  his 
familiarity  with  them  and  their  work,  and  the  high  esteem  in  which 
he  held  them.  He  asked  all  present  to  drink  to  the  increased  prosperity 
of  the  Gardeners’  Royal  Benevolent  Institution,  and  there  was  no 
traitor  in  the  camp. 
This  toast  has  for  years  past  been  supported  by  Mr.  Harry  Veitch, 
but  on  this  occasion  a  change  was  necessary,  as  this  gentleman  was 
precluded  from  being  present  on  account  of  his  almost  immediate 
departure  (with  Mrs.  Veitch)  on  a  tour  to  the  Holy  Land.  The  task 
was  therefore  delegated  to  Mr.  George  Monro,  and  he  handled  his  duties 
most  capably.  He  spoke  of  the  amounts  subscribed  and  of  the  number 
of  people  now  enjoying  the  benefits  of  the  Society,  and  paid  a  thoroughly 
deserved  tribute  to  Mr.  Veitch  when  adverting  to  the  Victorian  Era  and 
Good  Samaritan  Funds.  Reference  was  also  made  to  the  possibility  of 
the  war  now  unhappily  in  progress  in  South  Africa  affecting  the  returns 
during  the  present  year,  and  exhorted  all  and  sundry  absent  as  well  as 
present  to  do  their  utmost  to  keep  the  Institution  in  the  foreground, 
and  by  annual  subscriptions  help  materially  towards  its  permanent 
prosperity.  Mr.  Monro’s  remarks  were  terse  and  well  chosen,  and  it  is 
sincerely  to  be  hoped  that  they  will  bear  abundant  fruit. 
Mr.  Owen  Thomas,  whose  interest  in  the  Institution  is  second  to 
none,  proposed  the  toast  of  “  Our  Country  Friends  and  Supporters,” 
and,  as  is  ever  his  motto,  urged  gardeners  to  increase  their  support  to 
a  Society  that  was  so  entirely  beneficial  to  the  craft.  He  referred  to 
the  admirable  work  of  the  auxiliaries,  and  looked  for  their  extension. 
Mr.  George  Bunyard  responded.  Other  toasts  were  proposed  and 
received  in  the  most  excellent  spirit,  ere  a  most  enjoyable  meeting 
was  brought  to  a  close. 
THE  ATMOSPHERE,  AND  THE  ATMOSPHERIC 
FOOD  OF  PLANTS. 
(  Concluded  from  page  31. ) 
It  is  from  this  small  proportion  of  carbonic  acid  gas  (4  gallons  to 
10,000  gallons)  in  the  air  that  plants  get  the  carbon  (charcoal)  that 
forms  so  large  a  part  of  their  solid  substance.  The  way  in  which 
they  take  it  in  is  something  like  this  : — 
The  green  colour  of  green  leaves  is  due  to  very  small  and  very 
numerous  green  granules  contained  in  cells  in  the  interior  of  the  leaf. 
This  green  substance  is  called  chlorophyll.  These  same  cells  contain 
also  the  ever-moving  living  liquid  jelly-like  protoplasm,  which  has  been 
described  as  the  life-substance  of  the  plant.  Through  the  outermost 
thin  transparent  skin,  or  pellicle,  covering  the  leaf  there  are  numerous 
microscopic  pores,  or  openings  or  mouths,  called  stomata  or  stomates, 
communicating  with  these  green  cells.  Now,  through  these  stomata  the 
carbonic  acid  gas  of  the  air  reaches  tbe  chlorophyll  in  these  cells ;  and, 
under  the  action  of  the  sunlight,  the  chlorophyll  (in  the  prc'sence  of 
moisture  and  protoplasm)  breaks  up  the  carbonic  acid,  causing  it  to 
give  up  the  whole  or  part  of  its  oxygen,  which  then  returns  to  the 
atmosphere,  and  building  up  the  carbon  and  the  remainder  of  the 
oxygen  into  starch,  dextrine,  all  the  sugars,  the  gums,  and  cellulose  or 
woody  fibry,  and  other  plant  tissues.  Water,  drawn  from  the  soil  by 
the  roots  and  passed  up  into  the  stem  and  leaves,  is  necessary  for 
these  tissue-building  vital  processes.  Indeed,  all  the  substances  just 
named — starch,  sugars,  <fec.— contain  nothing  but  carbon  combined 
with  the  elements  of  water  (hydrogen  and  oxygen).  The  transforma¬ 
tions  can  be  expressed  by  the  following  chemical  equations,  in  which 
CO2  always  means  carbonic  acid  gas,  H^O  water,  CgHjoOg  starch, 
dextrine,  gum,  and  woody  fibre  or  cellulose,  CgHijOe  fruit  sugar, 
honey,  &o.,  and  CijHjjjOn  cane  sugar.  The  equations  would  then 
be — 
(1)  6C02-f6H20  =  CeHio05  +  Oi2 
— meaning  that  264  lbs.  of  carbonic  acid  and  90  lbs.  of  water  would 
make  162  lbs.  of  starch  or  woody  fibre,  and  192  lbs.  of  oxygen  gas. 
(2)  6C02  +  6H20  =  CeH,20,  +  0i4 
— meaning  that  264  lbs.  of  carbonic  acid  and  108  lbs.  of  water  would 
make  180  lbs.  of  fruit  sugar  and  192  lbs.  of  oxygen  gas. 
(3)  12C02-}-llH20  =  Ci2H420,i-f024 
— meaning  that  528  lbs.  of  carbonic  acid  and  198  lbs.  of  water  would 
make  342  lbs.  of  cane  sugar  and  384  lbs.  of  oxygen  gas. 
(In  all  chemical  equations  C  counts  for  12  parts  of  carbon,  0  for 
16  parts  of  oxygen,  and  H  for  1  part  of  hydrogen.) 
In  ihe  dark  the  green  chlorophyll  has  not  the  power  of  thus 
breaking  up  carbonic  acid  and  water  and  constructing  the  plant- 
substances  named  above  from  the  mat^erials.  There  are  therefore  four 
conditions  absolutely  necessary  for  this  plant-building  business  : — 
1,  Carbonic  acid  gas  in  the  air ; 
2,  Green  chlorophyll  grannies  in  the  living  plant ; 
3,  Moisture  from  the  soil ; 
4,  Exposure  to  the  sunlight. 
The  part  that  light  plays  in  assimilation  of  carbon  and  the  growth 
of  plants  is  apt  to  be  overlooked.  It  is  just  as  necessary  as  the 
carbonic  acid  of  the  air  or  the  chlorophyll  of  the  green  cells.  The 
disastrous  effects  of  insufficient  exposure  to  light  are  readily  observed. 
We  have  an  instance  of  it  in  the  straggling,  stunted,  starved  condition 
of  the  trees  in  the  middle  of  an  overcrowded  forest  or  patch  of  bush. 
The  weaklings  there,  shadowed  by  their  taller  and  more  umbrageous 
neighbours,  begin  to  lag  from  the  insufficiency  of  the  light  that  reaches 
them.  One  often  sees  an  unlucky  plant  of  this  kind  spending  all  its 
available  nourishment  in  stretching  up  a  tall,  slim,  scraggy  stem, 
carrying  its  leaves  as  high  as  possible  to  reach  the  open  air  and  get 
a  glimpse  of  the  sun,  turning  now  this  way,  now  that,  in  search  of  a 
patch  of  light. 
The  abundance  of  light  and  their  free  and  full  exposure  to  it  are 
partly  the  reason  why  the  individual  plants  of  a  thinly  sown  crop 
(other  things  being  equal)  are  more  vigorous  than  those  of  a  dense 
crop,  because  they  have  fewer  neighbours  to  shadow  them.  Everyone 
has  observed  the  meagre  growth  of  the  grass  grown  in  the  shadow  of 
a  lofty  belt  of  leafy  trees.  This  is  mainly  due  to  the  lack  of  plant 
food,  but  partly  also  to  the  want  of  light.  Also  note  the  vigorous 
rush-up,  brightening  green  colour,  and  rapid  growth  of  the  young  grass 
that  has  just  been  relieved  of  the  overshadowing  crop  of  Barley  or 
Oals,  among  which  it  was  previously  struggling  to  maintain  a  precarious 
existence. 
The  rapid  growth  of  Barley  and  Rye,  and  even  Wheat,  in  the 
Orkneys,  Norway,  Sweden,  and  in  cold  Siberia  as  far  north  as  66°  and 
70°  of  latitude  in  the  long,  almost  continuous  summer  days  has  been 
attributed  partly  to  the  same  cause — namely,  the  continuous  exposure 
to  sunlight  which  the  plants  enjoy  in  the  short  summer  of  these 
northern  latitudes. 
We  have  another  instance  of  the  influence  of  light  in  the  well- 
known  superior  fertility  of  the  sunny  slope  on  which  the  plants  are 
exposed  to  the  direct  perpendicular  rays  of  the  sun;  while  on  the 
adverse  slope  (quite  irrespective  of  the  cold)  they  struggle  on  in  a 
meagre,  hopeless  way,  feeling  the  solar  influences  for  shorter  periods, 
and  with  less  directness  in  his  beams. 
