March  1,  1900. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
179 
PINCHING  FHUIT  TREES. 
Aftek  reading  carefully  “A  Lincolnshire  Gardener’s”  article  on 
page  154,  in  which  he  advocates  pinching  in  arguments  extending  over 
nearly  two  columns,  I  was  somewhat  staggered  at  coming  to  this 
sentence — “  With  unlimited  space,  and  for  utilitarian  purposes,  I  should 
adopt  a  different  method.”  Does  this  mean  that  if  ”  A  Lincolnshire 
Gardener”  were  a  market  grower,  cultivating  20  acres  or  more  ef 
fruit  trees,  he  would  not  pinch  ?  And  what  is  his  “  different  method  ?  ” 
If  it  pays  to  pinch  a  quarter  of  an  acre,  it  would  pay  to  pinch  twent)  , 
or  even  a  thousand  acres,  the  only  question  being  whether  sufficient 
skilled  labour  was  available  or  not.  But  I  have  yet  to  find  the  extensive 
market  grower  who  pinches,  or  even  summer  prunes,  and  I  have  visited 
many  very  successful  growers.  On  the  Woburn  Experimental  Fruit 
Farm  a  trial  of  summer  versus  autumn  pruning  had  not  brought  out  any 
difference  up  to  the  autumn  of  1898. — Learner. 
SEEDSMEN’S  GUARANTEES. 
Why  should  Mr.  C.  E.  Pearson  (page  137)  assume  that  a  seedsman  who 
guarantees  that  his  seeds  were  true  to  description  and  as  ordered  would 
have  an  unhappy  existence  ?  Is  not  such  a  statement  calculated  to 
create  distrust  of  the  seed  trade,  both  in  relation  to  its  honesty  and  its 
capacity  to  supply  to  purchasers  what  is  ordered  from  the  seedsmen’s 
lists  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  99  per  cent,  of  all  seeds  supplied  to 
customers  by  good  firms  now,  irrespective  of  guarantee,  are  found  to 
be  absolutely  as  anticipated  when  growth  takes  place  ?  That  being  so, 
why  make  such  a  wry  face  over  the  guarantee  clause,  which  is  at  the 
best  anything  but  an  honourable  one  if  it  covers  such  an  act  as  was 
that  which  originated  this  discussion  ?  All  these  quibbles  about  varia¬ 
tions  are  beside  the  mark.  They  exist  very  much  in  the  imagination, 
or  are  non-existent.  Why  should  any  seedsman  who  tests  his  seeds  be 
afraid  to  guarantee  their  exactness  to  description  ?  To  me  such  excuses 
are  incomprehensible. — ^A.  D. 
JUDGES  AND  JUDGING. 
During  the  past  quarter  of  a  century  the  pages  of  the  Journal  of 
Horticulture  have  seen  many  discussions,  all  more  or  less  valuable  to 
the  gardening  community.  Some  of  these  have  been  participated  in 
by  large  numbers  of  readers ;  while  others  have  been  confined  to  a 
limited,  and  perhaps  I  might  venture  to  say  select  circle.  Taken  as  a 
whole  these  controversies  have  covered  a  very  wide  area,  and  have 
embraced  almost  all  side  lights  of  the  craft.  Nevertheless,  I  venture 
to  bring  forth  still  another  matter  which,  so  far  as  my  memory 
serves  me,  has  never  been  thrashed  out  in  the  Journal,  and  in  doing  so, 
while  I  recognise  that  I  shall  incur  the  wrath  of  many  of  its  readers,  I 
believe  the  subject  will  be  one  of  as  broad  an  interest  as  any  of  its 
predecessors,  and  will  be  provocative  of  numerous  letters  from  men  of 
vast  experience,  whose  just  claims  for  an  audience  will  probably  be 
much  greater  than  my  own.  I  bring  the  matter  forward  for  discussion 
in  the  honest  belief  that  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  both  gardeners  and 
gardening. 
Without  further  preamble  let  the  question  be  propounded — namely, 
”  Should  the  same  Judges  be  employed  year  after  year  in  the  same 
classes  at  the  same  show  ?  ”  As  one  who  has  officiated  in  this  capacity 
at  many  exhibitions  I  am  constrained  to  answer  in  the  negative. 
Everyone  of  us  can  point  to  exhibition  committees  throughout  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  land  who  invariably  select  the  same  men, 
either  because  they  have  been  before,  and  “  we  know  him,”  or  because 
they  bear  names  prominent  in  contemporary  horticulture.  The  latter 
clause  may,  broadly  speaking,  be  a  safe  one  to  work  under,  but 
unfortunately  sufficient  discrimination  is  not  always  exercised  in 
allocating  to  the  adjudicators  the  section  for  which  they  are  peculiarly 
adapted.  For  example,  a  man  who  as  a  judge  of  Grapes  may  be 
unsurpassable  might  in  dealing  with  Chrysanthemums  or  Roses  be  very 
much  at  sea.  Of  course  it  may  be  argued  that  if  a  man  can  adjudicate 
on  one  product  he  will  be  equally  capable  at  another,  but  with  this 
doctrine  I  most  emphatically  disagree.  The  present  is  largely  an  age 
of  specialism,  and  the  man  who  loses  his  metier,  so  to  speak,  is  liable  to 
find  many  pitfalls. 
But  it  may  be  said  that  the  remarks  in  the  above  paragraph  apply 
only  to  the  greater  shows,  such  as  Edinburgh,  Shrewsbury,  York, 
Hanley,  and  others,  and  that  smaller  societies  are  compelled  to  engage 
men  of  all-round  capacity  for  their  annual  events.  The  truth  of  this  must 
be  readily  admitted,  as  it  would  be  obviously  impossible  for  small  associa¬ 
tions  to  employ  specialists  for  their  limited  shows.  It  is,  however, 
mainly  to  societies  of  this  nature  that  these  remarks  must  apply,  for 
no  one  can  gainsay  the  fact  that  they  are  inveterate  sinners  in  the 
direction  indicated.  As  regularly  as  summer  succeeds  spring  they 
employ  precisely  the  same  men,  and  in  doing  so  I  hold  that  they  do 
not  do  the  best  they  can  for  those  who  support  them — i.e.,  the 
exhibitors.  Do  not  let  it  be  inferred  that  in  saying  this  I  would 
impugn  the  integrity  of  the  Judges;  nothing  is  farther  from  my 
thoughts.  These  men  may  and  generally  do  carry  out  the  duties  sought 
from  them  in  the  most  painstaking  and  couicieatioao  manner  from  their 
own  point  of  view,  but  whether  in  doing  so  they  always  do  justice  to 
exhibitors  is  quite  another  matter. 
It  must  be  unnecessary  to  state  that  I  have  my  reasons  for  the 
views  set  forth,  and  as  the  controversy  proceeds  I  shall  be  ready  to 
place  them  before  my  antagonists  and  supporters  (for  I  hope  to  get  the 
latter  a  well  as  the  former).  For  the  moment,  however,  I  shall  say 
no  more,  but  content  myself  with  calling  upon  readers  of  the  Journal 
of  Horticulture  to  reply  to  the  question  here  repeated,  “  Should  the 
same  Judge  be  employed  year  after  year  in  the  same  classes  at  the 
same  show  ?  ”  and  will  subscribe  myself  as — -An  Inquisitor. 
A  CAPE  FRUIT  GROWERS’  ASSOCIATION, 
There  has  been  a  considerable  amount  of  discussion  in  our  Journal 
of  late  about  the  production  of  fruit  at  home  ;  but  does  it  not  strike 
many  readers,  and  more  especially  young  men  like  myself,  that  there 
will  be  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  terrible  though  it  is,  a  grand 
opportunity  for  opening  up  a  trade  in  fruit  production  in  South  Africa 
for  local  and  home  markets  P  There  are  too  many  gardeners  here  at 
home.  Can  we  not  organise  a  band  of  men,  young,  intelligent,  and 
strong,  to  go  and  take  up  our  abode  at  the  Cape  and  show  men  at  home 
what  Englishmen  can  do  ? 
I  am  willing  to  go,  and  have  enough  to  keep  me  for  six  months  after 
my  passage  is  paid.  Who  else  has  anything  to  say  on  this  subject  ? 
Now  is  the  time  for  action. — Gold  Penman. 
AN  ANCIENT  PEAR. 
I  AM  enclosing  photographs  of  a  Pear  tree  that  was  planted  at  least 
sixty  years  ago  against  my  old  house.  In  1854  alterations  in  the 
building  were  made,  and  a  glazed  roofed  passage  was  arranged  from 
the  kitchen  to  a  new  scullery  and  back  premises.  My  father  did  not 
wish  to  destroy  the  tree  altogether,  so  it  was  “  beheaded,”  the  skylight 
built  round  it,  and  the  top  left  just  outside  the  top  of  the  lean-to  glazed 
roof,  to  grow  as  it  liked. 
The  passage,  of  course,  was  paved,  and  outside  is  a  paved  yard, 
enclosed  by  a  wall  20  feet  from  the  house,  against  which  the  tree 
grows.  No  sunlight,  therefore,  can  get  to  the  roots,  and  no  water  is 
given  ;  yet  we  always  gather  a  good  crop,  whatever  the  season.  Three 
years  ago  I  thinned  a  good  many  of  the  old  branches,  leaving  younger 
wood,  and  that  is  the  only  pruning  it  has  had.  In  1898  we  had  a  very 
light  crop  in  consequence,  but  this  year  (1899)  we  have  gathered  700 
Pears,  and  one  branch  broke  down  from  the  weight  of  fruits.  I  am 
told  the  variety  is  Hacou’s  Incomparable. — -M.  L.  Gatton. 
[The  photographs  were  most  interesting,  but  unfortunately  they 
were  not  suitable  for  reproduction.] 
DECADENCE  OF  WALL  TREES. 
My  generous  opponent,  by  the  tone  of  his  rejoinder  on  page  117, 
engenders  the  feeling  that  one  would  rather  join  hands  with  him  than 
bring  any  more  maxims  to  bear  upon  his  position.  Moreover,  any 
amount  of  cross  firing  will  probably  leave  the  matter  pretty  much  the 
same.  One  word  more,  however,  in  order  to  clear  up  a  statement  of 
mine  which  is  somewhat  hazy.  With  reference  to  his  fourth  paragraph 
anent  “  the  wall  trees  of  the  Queen,”  the  maxim  I  employed  which 
drew  the  fire  of  his  piquant  pen  was  really  intended  to  cover  the  whole 
ground,  but,  somehow,  between  the  penning  and  the  printing  part  was 
lost,  causing  the  remainder  to  fall  short  and  to  fall  flat.  If  “  A.  N.  0.” 
is  a  student  of  Dickens  he  will  recollect  in  “  Martin  Chuzzlewit  ”  a 
certain  newspaper  being  addressed  “  Queen  Victoria,  Tower  of  London,” 
and  the  effect  it  was  contemplated  to  produce.  His  original  article 
impressed  me  as  being  quite  as  likely  to  reach  its  intended  destination. 
There  are  gardeners  and  gardeners,  but  one  feels  it  to  be  somewhat 
derogatory  to  the  vocation  to  class  as  such  meu  who  from  sheer  igno¬ 
rance  or  wilful  neglect  bring  about  such  a  muddle  as  my  courteous 
counter-critic  depicted. 
The  examples  given  by  “  A.  N.  0.”  on  the  same  page  are  very 
pertinent,  but  come  clearly  under  those  heads — viz.,  ignorance  or 
neglect — and  for  either  it  is  hard  to  find  an  excuse.  In  one  case  the 
man  has  accepted  the  responsibility  of  a  position  for  which  he  has 
neither  qualified  himself  nor  been  qualified  to  fill.  He  may  be  a 
splendid  plantsman,  a  grand  vegetable  grower,  all  of  which  is  magnifi- 
cent ;  but  it  is  not  gardening  as  I  understand  it  in  its  application  to 
the  upkeep  and  the  output  of  a  gentleman’s  garden.  Should  such 
deplorable  results  arise  from  neglect  then  comment  is  needless.  In 
either  case  the  man  responsible  for  it  is  not  a  gardener  in  the  com¬ 
prehensive  sense  of  the  term ;  that  he  may  be  called  so  is  another 
matter  and  another  tale.  There  is,  however,  a  grand  moral  in 
“  A.  N.  O.’s  ”  communication  which  will,  probably,  be  utilised  for  th© 
benefit  of  the  rising  generation  by — A.  N.  Oldhead. 
