402 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
May  10.  1900. 
Notes  on  tlie  Chiswick  Trials. 
Mr.  Arthur  Sutton  writes  as  follows  :  It  may  not  be  inopportune, 
when  the  question  of  a  new  Chiswick  is  occupying  the  attention  of  the 
'Fellows  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society,  to  ask  you  to  fiud  a  space 
in  this  week’s  issue  of  the  Journal  of  Horticulture  for  the  accompanying 
notes  on  the  Chiswick  trials.  These  notes  I  communicated,  with  the 
consent  of  the  president,  to  each  member  of  the  council  in  March  last, 
and  Sir  Trevor  Lawrence  then  suggested  that  there  would  be  no 
objection  to  my  publishing  them  if  I  cared  to  do  so. 
For  the  last  twenty  years  I  have  taken  a  personal  interest  in  these 
trials,  and  have  had  ample  opportunity  of  watching  them  both  as  a 
member  of  the  Fruit  Committee  and  as  an  ordinary  Fellow  of  the 
society.  My  connection  with  horticulture  alone  would  be  sufficient 
inducement  to  keep  myself  in  touch  with  the  ^various  trials  conducted 
at  Chiswick  from  year  to  year. 
I  have  therefore  been  able  to  appreciate  the  conscientious  work  done 
both  by  the  officials  at  Chiswick,  and  those  members  of  the  Fruit 
Committee  who  have  attended  the  meetings  at  Chiswick,  and  in  any 
remarks  I  may  make  I  wish  very  clearly  to  say  that  I  am  sure  they 
have,  one  and  all,  carried  out  the  tasks  allotted  them  as  ably  as  the 
•circumstances  of  the  case  permitted. 
I  am  confident,  however,  that  all  those  members  of  the  seed  trade 
who  have  themselves  devoted  much  time  to  raising  novelties  or  testing 
novelties  on  a  large  scale,  would  agree  with  me  that  in  recent  years  no 
series  of  trials  at  Chiswick  of  vegetables  has  been  so  complete  as  to 
warrant  the  committee  in  awarding  a  certificate  to  any  so-called  new 
variety  on  the  ground  that  it  is  distinct  from  or  superior  to  existing 
varieties.  I  know  this  will  seem  a  very  sweeping  assertion,  but  at  the 
present  moment,  when  it  is  suggested  that  new  gardens  should  be 
acquired  for  the  purpose  of  continuing  these  trials,  I  think  it  essential 
this  fact — if  it  be  a  fact — should  be  brought  to  the  notice  of  those  who 
have  the  framing  of  the  society’s  policy,  even  at  the  risk  of  appearing 
to  press  unduly  the  opinion  of  one  who  has  only  just  joined  the  council. 
The  reasons  for  this  opinion  are  : — 
(i)  In  no  case  do  the  trials  at  Chiswick  contain  anything 
approaching  the  number  of  standard  sorts  which  an  ex¬ 
perienced  seedsman  knows  to  be  essential  if  the  superiority 
of  a  so-called  seedling  or  novelty  is  to  be  accurately  guaged. 
In  the  case  of  Peas,  I  should  myself  consider  a  standard  collection 
of  200  or  250  varieties  none  too  many  with  which  to  com¬ 
pare  a  reputed  novelty  before  taking  the  responsibility  of 
offering  it  as  new,  distinct,  or  superior. 
Again,  in  the  case  of  Potatoes,  the  standard  or  reference  collection 
should  contain  from  250  to  300  varieties  to  enable  even  an 
expert  to  adjudicate  upon  a  so-called  new  seedling  submitted 
for  award. 
By  way  of  illustration  I  may  take  the  following  figures  from  my 
trial  book  for  1899. 
Peas. — Total  number  of  trial  rows  . 
Including  seedlings  for  examination  ... 
Including  other  distinct  varieties 
Potatoes. — Total  number  of  trials 
Including  seedlings  for  examination  ... 
Including  other  distinct  varieties 
At  Chiswick  last  year  the  numbers  were — 
Peas. — Old  sorts  for  comparison  . 
New  varieties  for  award . 
Potatoes. — Old  sorts  for  comparison  ... 
New  varieties  for  award . 
...  684 
...  288 
...  l5o 
...  1227 
...  4(16 
...  403 
9 
...  40 
...  25 
...  46 
Trials  of  other  vegetables  require  to  be  tested  in  the  same  complete 
and  exhaustive  manner  if  any  definite  results  are  to  be  obtained.  I  do 
not  care  to  refer  again  to  my  own  trial  book,  but  the  following  figures 
give  some  idea  of  the  amount  of  labour  which  would  be  required  at 
Chiswick  if  trials  of  vegetables  and  flowers  were  carried  out  with  a 
view  of  determining  whether  so-called  novelties  or  seedlings  were 
supeiior  to  those  already  existing  ; — 
Tomatoes. — Total  number  of  trial  rows  (including  87  separate  varieties)...  243 
Lettuces. — Total  number  of  trial  rows  (composed  of  198  rows  spring- 
sown  for  summer  cutting  in  94  varieties,  and  78  rows  autumn- 
sown  for  spring  cutting  in  70  varieties)  . 276 
Cauliflowers. — Total  number  of  trial  rows  (composed  of  164  rows  spring- 
sown  for  autumn  cutting  in  67  varieties,  and  71  rows  autumn- 
sown  for  spring  cutting  in  50  varieties)  . 235 
Onions. — Total  number  of  trial  rows  (composed  of  237  rows  spring-sown 
for  autumn  use  in  62  varieties,  and  99  rows  autumn-sown  for 
spring  use  in  50  varieties)  . 336 
Cabbages. — Total  number  of  trial  rows  (composed  of  255  rows  spring- 
sown  for  autumn  cutting  in  75  varieties,  and  180  autumn-sown 
for  soring  cutting  in  70  varieties)  . 435 
Broccoli. — Total  number  of  trial  rows  (including  46  separate  varieties)...  157 
Dwarf  and  Runner  Beans. — Total  number  of  trial  rows  (including  136 
varieties,  of  which  40  are  not  yet  in  commerce)  . 255 
Broad  Beans. — Total  number  of  trial  rows  (including  35  varieties)  ...  85 
Asters. — T  ital  number  of  trial  rows  (including  270  varieties)  ...  ...  367 
Stocks. — Total  number  of  trial  rows  (including  161  varieties)  ...  ...  187 
Sweet  Peas.— Total  number  of  trial  rows  (including  220  varieties)  ...  263 
(ii.)  Secondly  (and  I  wish  to  say  it  with  all  courtesy  to  those  who 
form  or  have  formed  the  Fruit  Committee)  it  is  practically 
impossible  for  the  committee,  as  a  body,  to  be  possessed  of 
the  requisite  technical  or  expert  knowledge  to  enable  them 
to  judge  accurately. 
Even  those  who  are  practical  gardeners  have  never  grown 
or  seen  growing  in  private  gardens  anything  like  all  the 
varieties  in  commerce,  and  cannot  therefore  know  personally 
the  comparative  merits  of  so-called  novelties.  I  think  I  am 
within  the  mark  in  saying  that  a  gardener  in  even  a  large 
establishment  seldom  grows  more  than  fifteen  to  twenty -five 
varieties  of  Peas.  Besides  this,  a  gardener  generally  (not 
universally)  contents  himself  with  the  varieties  offered  by 
one  seedsman,  and  knows  but  little  of  those  offered  by  the 
many  others  in  the  trade. 
Unless  the  members  of  the  committee  were  almost  daily 
inspecting  the  trials  of  the  larger  seed  houses,  where  for 
the  necessities  of  the  trade  it  is  essential  that  all  existing 
sorts  should  from  time  to  time  be  tested,  and  where  the  Pea 
trials  number  from  500  to  1000  rows,  they  could  not  obtain 
the  technical  knowledge  required. 
(iii.)  Thirdly,  because  it  is  not  sufficient  to  visit  trials  two  or  three 
times  during  the  season.  To  ascertain  the  comparative 
merits  of  new  and  old  varieties,  Pea  trials  need  to  be  closely 
watched  day  by  day,  from  the  day  they  bloom  until  after 
they  are  matured,  a  period  of  six  to  eight  weeks  elapsing 
between  the  earliest  and  latest  sorts,  according  to  the 
character  of  the  season.  And  what  is  true  of  Peas  is  true 
more  or  less  of  other  vegetables. 
(iv.)  Because  only  comparatively  a  small  number  of  the  committee 
can  find  time  to  go  to  Chiswick  even  two  or  three  times 
during  the  season. 
It  may  then  fairly  be  asked  why,  if  such  is  the  case,  have  none  of 
those  most  intimately  concerned  ever  called  the  attention  of  the  council 
to  the  doubtful  utility  of  these  trials  ? 
I  can  only  suppose  that  it  was  felt  that  the  council  might  not  readily 
give  up  what  was  generally  supposed  to  be  a  valuable  part  of  the 
society’s  work;  also  that  Chiswick  existed,  and  it  was  supposed  to 
exist  for  these  trials  (and  other  purposes),  and  having  their  own  trials 
conducted  at  very  great  outlay  of  money,  time,  and  energy,  it  would 
appear  ungenerous  to  call  in  question  the  self-denying  work  of  very 
able  men. 
For  myself,  I  may  say  that  it  is  only  the  proposal  to  move  to 
another  spot  where  similar  trials  would  be  conducted,  and  where  the 
committees  could  only  attend  with  still  greater  inconvenience,  that  has 
led  me  to  express  my  views. 
I  have  gone  thus  fully  into  the  details  of  various  trials  in  order  to 
explain  my  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  Chiswick  trials  do  not  and 
could  not,  as  at  present  carried  out,  confer  any  real  benefit  on  horti¬ 
culture,  or  at  any  rate  no  benefit  commensurate  with  the  annual  cost — 
about  £1400.  If  the  present  garden  is  retained,  or  a  “  new  Chiswick  ” 
acquired,  I  would  suggest  that,  instead  of  comparative  trials,  standard 
collections  of  the  leading  vegetables  and  flowers  should  be  grown,  so  far 
as  space  and  funds  permit,  for  the  interest  and  information  of  the 
Fellows.  I  do  not,  however,  forget  that  the  gardens  exist  for  other 
purposes  besides  trials  of  vegetables  and  flowers,  but  I  am  not  at  all 
sure  that  the  collection  of  fruit  trees.  Vines,  &o.,  is  so  complete  and 
up  to  date  as  to  be  a  reliable  guide  to  Fellows  wishing  to  learn  the  best 
sorts  for  planting. 
Iris  finibriata. 
All  the  Irises  possess  special  attraction  for  plant  admirers,  and 
though  many  are  more  showy  than  fimbriata,  yet  this  has  a  graceful 
habit,  and  is  so  floriferous  that  it  can  be  employed  with  good  effect 
in  several  ways.  Like  numerous  other  members  of  the  family  its 
flowers  are,  however,  somewhat  fugacious,  and  are  not  adapted  for 
cutting.  The  plant  is  compact  in  habit,  and  is  consequently  well 
suited  for  culture  in  pots,  and  being  rather  tender  is  safer  in  a  green¬ 
house  than  outside — in  fact  comparatively  few  positions  suit  it  except 
in  the  warm  southern  and  western  counties,  where  I  have  occasionally 
seen  it  tried,  but  not  with  very  encouraging  results. 
For  some  years  I  have  grown  it  entirely  for  greenhouse  decoration, 
and  as  I  have  a  good  stock  by  forwarding  some  and  retarding  ^others, 
I  manage  to  maintain  a  fairly  long  succession  of  flowers.  These 
(fig.  109)  are  of  such  a  soft  pale  bluish  mauve,  relieved  by  orange 
markings,  that  they  appear  very  distinct  arranged  with  other  ] plants 
having  more  brightly  coloured  flowers.  A  moderately  light  loam,  ample 
root  space,  and  plentiful  supplies  of  water  during  growth  and  flowering 
are  the  chief  points  in  its  culture,  and  require  special  attention. — A. 
