May  3,  1900. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
373 
Tlje  Barr  Daffodil  Cup. 
Whilst  generally  agreeing  with  “Daff’s”  criticism,  on  page  333,  I 
can  only  conclude  that  its  tone  may  lead  some  to  infer  that  a  reflection 
is  cast  upon  the  single  exhibit  to  which  the  cup  was  awarded.  Probably 
this  was  unintentional  on  his  part,  but  the  fact  remains  that  a  jarring 
note  has  been  struck,  and  one  cannot  but  sympathise  with  the  winner 
when  he  says,  “  There  is  certainly  no  honour  in  winning  a  prize  when 
there  is  no  other  exhibitor,  ,  .  Under  most  circumstances  I 
could  agree  with  your  correspondent  on  this  point,  but  in  this  case  it 
looks  a  little  ungracious  to  detract  from  an  exhibit  of  high  merit,  which 
obviously  could  not  have  been  conveyed  from  Lismore,  in  the  south  of 
Ireland,  to  London  without  much  trouble  and  some  expense.  Whilst 
the  lateness  of  the  season  accounted  for  the  absence  of  competitors,  I 
do  not  think  that  it  provided  much  excuse  for  the  non-employment 
by  them  of  legitimate  methods  to  hasten  their  blooms  in  order  to 
compete  at  a  given  date  with  the  more  naturally  favoured  ones  from 
the  Green  Isle.  As  an  old  exhibitor  of  the  Daffodil  I  can  say  that  it  is 
much  easier  to  push  fomard  sufiBoient  blooms  to  make  up  a  repre¬ 
sentative  stand  than  it  is  to  retard  them  in  an  early  season  ;  and  that 
none  appeared  to  think  it  worth  the  “  struggle,”  may  have  been  Miss 
Curry’s  misfortune,  but  was  certainly  not  her  fault.  Under  the 
conditions  in  which  the  Barrian  cup  was  won  this  year  there  seems  no 
sound  reason  for  the  attempt  to  deprive  the  lady  of  her  honours,  and 
evidently  the  judges  were  of  this  opinion. —  S.  H.  B, 
- - 
Garrya  elliptica. 
In  a  recent  number  of  the  Journal  you  gave  a  capital  illustration  of 
the  above  plant,  and  in  the  subjoined  text,  in  speaking  of  its  worth  and 
beauty,  you  referred  to  it  as  being  not  reliably  hardy  in  the  south 
unless  grown  as  a  wall  plant.  This,  I  regret  to  say,  is  the  generally 
accepted  theory  with  regard  to  its  requirements.  As  a  fact  its  value  in 
the  bush  form  seems  quite  unknown,  though  it  is  not  only  quite  hardy 
in  many  localities,  but  also  quite  amenable  to  cultivation  as  a  bush 
plant. 
Only  a  few  yards  from  where  I  write,  until  quite  recently,  a  pair  of 
very  fine  plants  grew  and  flourished  amazingly.  During  the  past 
winter  the  weight  of  snow,  coupled  with  the  increased  weight  on  the 
branches  by  the  great  load  of  catkins,  brought  the  plants  down  some¬ 
what,  and  though  still  profusely  laden,  as  in  all  probability  they  had 
never  been  laden  before,  with  catkins,  this  became  an  offence  in  the 
eyes  of  the  gardener  who  tends  the  place  some  two  or  three  days 
weekly.  The  plants  were  some  10  feet  high  and  through,  and  were 
fully  thirty  years  old,  as  the  gardener  had  known  them  upwards  of 
twenty-five  years,  and  he  found  them  good  plants. 
During  all  these  years  no  knife  had  been  allowed  to  touch  them,  the 
plants  being  justly  treasured  by  two  ladies,  one  of  whom  has  passed 
away,  the  other  an  invalid.  But  not\yithstanding  that  the  plants  were 
so  greatly  prized  by  the  owner,  the  gardener  in  some  way  obtained 
permission  to  prune  them  “according  to  his  judgment.”  Unfortunately 
this  latter  was  of  a  far  reaching  character,  and  as  time  was  money,  a 
large  sized  hand  saw  was  requisitioned  for  the  work,  and  in  a  few 
minutes  the  heanty  and  growth  of  thirty  years  was  strewn  at  his  feet, 
the  plants  cut  down  to  within  2  feet  or  so  of  the  ground.  Each  of  the 
plants  had  several  principal  lateral  branches  proceeding  from  a  main 
trunk  about  9  inches  in  diameter,  several  of  the  leading  shoots  being 
about  3  inches  diameter. 
The  plants  formed  so  striking  an  instance  of  successful  culture  that 
I  obtained  a  leading  lateral  and  showed  the  same  before  the  Floral 
Committee  at  the  Drill  Hall  at  the  last  meeting,  my  chief  desire  in  so 
doiijg  being  to  demonstrate  the  value  of  this  beautiful  shrub,  and  to 
extend  its  cultivation  in  the  bush  form.  In  all  those  thirty  years  these 
plants  had  not  been  injured  by  frost,  and  the  great  wealth  of  catkins 
as  the  two  plants  were  gradually  closing  together  made  one  continuous 
bank  of  grace  and  beam y.  The  plants  occupy  a  slightly  raised  and 
sloping  bank,  which  must  be  excessively  dry  in  summer.  The  soil  is 
exceedingly  poor,  and  in  all  probability  has  not  been  manured  since 
the  examples  were  planted.  On  the  opposite  side  of  the  road  a  belt  of 
trees,  principally  S3camore,  shield  .them  from  the  north,  while  they  are 
rather  exposed  to  the  east.  The  wood  of  the  Garrya  is  very  heavy  and 
hard,  quiie  equal  to  Box  or  Holly  for  weight.  I  believe  the  exhibited 
log  has  been  accepted  by  the  Kew  authorities  as  a  sample  of  British- 
grown  Garrya. — E.  H.  Jknkins,  Hampton  Hill. 
Tl|e  New  R.H.S.  Gardens. 
In  one  respect  the  otherwise  almost  abortive  meeting  of  the  Fellows 
on  the  25th  ult.  did  something  practical.  It  settled  unanimously  the 
question  as  to  leaving  Chiswick,  and  getting  a  new  garden.  That  is 
something,  and  at  future  meetings  the  president  can,  and  indeed 
must,  put  his  foot  down  firmly  on  any  further  attempt  to  cause  the 
Fellows  to  recur  to  it.  An  absolute  mandate  given  on  the  most  ample 
notice  to  all  the  Fellows  has  now  been  given  to  the  council  to  find  a  site 
for  a  new  garden,  but  it  must,  of  course,  be  one  satisfactory  to  “  a 
majority  of  the  Fellows,”  although  all  who  know  anything  of  the  conduct 
of  general  meetings  know  that  resolutions  are  carried  only  by  majorities, 
and  that  consequently  Mr.  Pearson’s  addendum  to  the  council’s  resolution 
was  largely  surplusage  ;  still  it  serves  to  show,  into  such  a  muddle  had 
the  business  fallen,  that  the  meeting  greedily  caught  at  anything  to 
extricate  it  from  its  mess,  and,  therefore,  adopted  this  surplusage  gladly. 
But  whilst  the  resolution  pledges  the  council  and  the  Fellows  to  find  a 
new  garden  other  than  the  old  one  at  Chiswick,  it  does  not  stipulate 
for  hurry.  But  every  year  Chiswick  becomes  a  less  satisfactory  garden, 
and  every  year  its  lease  becomes  of  less  value,  hence  the  sooner  the 
new  gardens  are  found  the  better. — A  Fellow. 
I  cannot  but  regard  it  to  be  a  great  misfortune  that  so  large  a 
number  of  Fellows  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  should  have 
assembled  at  the  Drill  Hall  on  Wednesday  last  to  so  little  purpose.  It 
was  a  splendid  opportunity  to  transact  business  absolutely  wasted,  and 
there  was  too  ample  evidence  that  English  gentlemen  can  be  as  capable 
of  obstruction  as  can  Irish  M.P.’s.  To  them  wasting  a  few  hours  is  of 
no  moment ;  to  business  men  it  is  a  matter  of  the  greatest  importance. 
Whenever  any  fresh  meeting  of  the  Fellows  is  held,  it  is  hoped  that  not 
the  interests  of  those  who  want  to  prevent  business,  but  that  the 
welfare  of  the  busy  men  will  hrve  first  consideration. 
But  if  any  evidence  were  needed  as  to  the  irreconcilable  views 
held  by  various  Fellows  as  to  the  most  desirable  place  for  the  new 
Chiswick  were  wanting,  such  evidence  was  amply  furnished  at  the 
meeting.  Everyone  wants  a  garden  in  his  own  locality  apparently, 
and  so  strong  was  that  feeling  in  one  quarter  that  it  was  actually 
suggested  that  a  site  could  be  obtained  some  150  miles  from  London, 
as  though  such  were  possible  or  practicable.  Any  more  absurd 
suggestion  can  hardly  be  conceived.  It  is  a  matter  of  absolute  neces¬ 
sity  that  because  London  is  the  home  of  the  society,  and  because  all 
its  ordinary  meetings  are  held  there,  that  the  new  gardens  must  be 
within  reasonable  distance  of  London — certainly  not  farther  than  thirty 
miles,  and  less  if  possible.  That  ready  access  can  be  had  to  such  garden 
is  of  course  important,  but  under  no  circumstances  is  it  possible  to 
expect  that  any  ground  suitable  for  such  garden  can  be  purchased 
immediately  contiguous  to  a  railway  station  anywhere  within  thirty 
miles  of  London,  as  in  ail  such  cases  land  close  by  is  bought  up  for 
building  purposes,  and  it  would  be  folly  even  were  ground  obtainable 
to  plump  down  a  garden  just  where  in  a  few  years  it  would  be  built  all 
round.  Under  no  circumstances,  therefore,  can  ground  close  to  any 
railway  station  be  had. 
It  was  a  matter  for  profound  regret  that  a  document,  without  doubt 
an  important  one,  because  emanating  from  an  authoritative  source, 
should  have  been  so  freely  referred  to  at  the  meeting,  because  that 
document  was  at  once  strictly  confidential,  and  had  not  been  published 
to  the  Fellows.  It  was  also  specially  bad  taste  to  mention  the  name  of 
an  absent  yet  most  able  and  influential  member  of  the  council,  who  is 
abroad,  as  though  that  absence  meant  disapproval  of  the  action  of  the 
council.  That  very  member  some  months  since  at  the  Drill  Hall  asked 
me,  as  they  must  get  a  new  garden  somewhere,  to  acquaint  the  council 
did  I  hear  of  any  suitable  land  in  Surrey  or  elsewhere.  To  assume  that 
Mr.  Harry  J.  Veitch  was  antagonistic  to  the  council’s  proposals  was 
most  unjustifiable.  It  was  deplorable  that  Fellows  should  still  persist 
in  trotting  out  the  proposals  for  the  providing  of  an  exhibition  hall 
in  London.  That  hall  at  least  it  seems  may  be  in  London,  and  not  in 
Gloucestershire. 
What  was  the  use  of  flogging  so  dead  a  horse  as  that  ?  It  would 
take  more  money  to  purchase  a  site  for  a  large  hall  in  a  central  part  of 
London  than  it  would  cost  to  purchase  the  Limpsfield  land  as  proposed. 
It  was  unfair  on  the  part  of  Sir  Michael  Foster,  M.P.,  to  decry  the 
present  hall  as  being  too  dark.  It  may  be  dark  six  out  of  the  twenty- 
four  times  occupied  in  the  year  with  meetings,  but  what  hall  in  London 
would  not  be  dark  on  some  of  these  black  smoky  days,  so  plentiful 
in  winter  ?  Where,  too,  could  be  found  a  hall  that  could  have  so 
admirably  housed  the  splendid  show  held  on  the  24th,  or  the  many 
hundreds  of  visitors,  as  did  the  Drill  Hall  ?  Why  do  not  people  think  of 
these  things  and  talk  common  sense,  rather  than  be  crying  afcer  the 
unattainable  P  ,  t  j  j. 
The  resolution  passed  at  the  recent  meeting  although  it  does  not 
shut  out  of  sight  the  getting  of  an  exhibition  hall  somewhere,  does 
emphatically  do  so,  as  the  method  of  celebrating  the  society  s 
centenary.  It  further  makes  it  to  be  even  more  imperative  than  before, 
on  the  council  to  find  a  site  for  the  new  Chiswick.  Whether  con¬ 
sidering  all  that  the  council  has  done  in  endeavouring  to  secure  sites 
alreadv,  it  can  find  more  that  shall  be  acceptable  to  a  majority  of  the 
Fellow's  is  very  doubtful,  and  remembering  the  rough  treatment  the 
suggested  Limpsfield  site  so  far  has  had,  certainly  the  council  has 
