110 
February  3,  1898 
■JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
NOTES  ON  CAMELLIAS. 
So  much  has  been  said  about  this  noble  flower  at  one  period  or  other 
that  it  requires  what  is  termed  “  pluck  ”  to  approach  the  subject.  Still 
we  must  consider  the  propriety  of  addressing  new  readers,  as  well  as  ol 
reminding,  occasionally,  old  readers. 
Our  Camellias  are  at  this  time  exceedingly  fine.  We  have  some 
18  inches  in  circumference  ;  and  even  Donckelaeri,  which  is  not  usually  a 
large  flower,  15  inches.  The  plants  are  covered  with  buds  of  enormous 
size,  perhaps  scarcely  a  shoot  but  is  studded,  and  in  another  week  or  so 
we  shall  have  hundreds  out,  to  all  appearance  ;  the  foliage,  too,  of  the 
deepest  glossy  green.  And  to  what  is  this  attributable  ?  Not  to  what  is 
termed  pot-room,  certainly,  for  we  are  no  great  advocates  of  big  pots  for 
Camellias.  It  is  to  the  use  of  turfy  soil,  to  the  judicious  application  of 
liquid  manure,  and  to  the  preservation  of,  perhaps,  an  unusual  amount  of 
air-moisture.  We  also  use  a  very  considerable  amount  of  water  to  the 
roots,  perhaps  more  than  most  cultivators  ;  but  as  the  quantity  to  be  used 
depends  so  much  on  the  roots,  the  constitution  of  the  soil,  and  the 
drainage,  we  must  again  refer  to  that  part  of  the  affair. 
It  must  not  be  inferred  from  these  remarks  that  w'e  continue  to  use, 
unguardedly,  so  great  an  amount  of  air-moisture  when  they  are  in 
blossom  and  in  the  dead  of  winter.  We  do  use  a  little  constantly,  even 
then,  but  it  is  ever  accompanied  by  some  degree  of  ventilation. 
The  quantity  and  frequent  application  of  liquid  manure  which 
Camellias  in  a  healthy  state,  rather  “  pot-bound,”  and  full  of  bud,  will 
enjoy  is  amazing  ;  they  are  a  match  for  Koses,  or,  indeed,  any  other 
plant,  in  this  respect.  But  we  always  use  it  perfectly  clear  and  weak. 
I  really  cannot  say  with  precision  what  the  rate  of  guano  per  gallon  js, 
but  should  imagine  it  is  about  half  an  ounce  ;  this  will  appear  a  small 
quantity  to  some,  but  then,  it  must  be  observed,  we  seldom  use  water 
alone  from  the  time  the  blossom  buds  are  as  large  as  Peas  until  they 
have  done  making  wood.  I  have  never  found  anything  better  in  this 
way  than  good  Peruvian.  I  have  tried  soot,  manure-heap  liquor,  and 
soapsuds,  but  they  are  rather  more  difficult  of  application,  and  not  so 
certain  in  the  result  required.  Soot,  however,  may  be  used,  and  with 
benefit,  if  necessary  ;  and  in  that  case  I  should  say  that  two  parts  soot  to 
one  of  guano  would  be  good.  Soapsuds  I  have  a  decided  objection  to  : 
they  not  only  produce  an  unsightly  appearance,  but  they  are  quite  at 
variance  with  our  fundamental  principle  of  high  culture  by  partially 
closing  the  pores  of  the  soil,  for  they  always  leave  a  scum  or  skin  behind  ; 
otherwise  there  is  no  doubt  about  their  possessing  manorial  qualities. 
Soapsuds  appear  to  me  as  fitter  for  manure  heaps,  or  to  apply  to  growing 
crops  just  before  a  hoeing  or  other  cultural  appliance. 
But  in  the  use  of  very  fibrous  soil,  as  being  so  durable  in  texture,  and 
less  likely  to  derange  the  drainage,  I  place  very  much  stress.  I  have 
been  so  particular  as  to  this  with  mine,  that  after  being  chopped  roughly 
I  have  sifted  it,  rejecting  all  the  fine  soil  which  came  through  the  sieve, 
and  after  drying  the  lumps  have  shaken  them  once  more  in  the  sieve, 
thus  leaving  a  great  amount  of  organic  matter  in  a  very  porous  condition. 
In  the  act  of  repotting  these  lumps  are  crammed  in  tightly  as  the  potting 
proceeds;  but,  be  it  observed,  they  are  in  a  dryish  state,  or  the  tight 
cramming  could  not  be  recommended. 
I  may  here  observe  that  this  porous  character  of  material,  together 
with  the  most  secure  drainage,  have  been  found  particularly  requisite,  as 
connected  with  the  liquid  manure,  the  object  of  which  is  to  sustain 
annually  the  greatest  amount  of  the  finest  blossoms,  with  the  noblest 
character  of  foliage.  The  pots  or  tubs  should  be  so  drained  that  no 
sediment  can  possibly  insinuate  itsel|f  amongst  the  drainage  ;  and  must  be 
also  durable  in  character,  according  to  the  size  of  the  shift,  inasmuch  as 
the  larger  the  shift  the  greater  is  the  probability  of  the  tree  remaining  in 
the  pot  or  tub. 
I  have  known  several  cases  of  such  a  derangement  of  drainage  as  would 
cause  the  water,  when  applied,  to  stand  on  the  surface  of  the  soil  for  half 
an  hour  after  being  applied,  and  unless  speedy  relief  were  given,  the  sure 
consequences  always  were,  the  whole  plant  becoming  pale  in  the  foliage, 
and  accompanied  by  a  kind  of  vegetable  emaciation. 
It  is  amusing  to  see  the  speedy  and  equal  passing  of  moisture  through 
the  soil  of  plants  potted  on  the  principles  here  recommended,  as  compared 
with  those  in  which  the  soil  has  become  soured.  The  water,  applied  ever 
so  copiously,  disappears  in  a  few  seconds,  and  its  mode  of  vanishing,  like 
the  famous  dissolving  views,  is  so  stealthy,  that  you  seem  surprised  at 
beholding  naked  soil,  which  was  a  moment  before  a  sheet  of  water.  To 
some  this  may  seem  making  a  great  deal  out  of  a  small  matter,  and  if  the 
principle  began  and  ended  with  the  Camellia,  I  would  confess  to  it ;  but  I 
stay  for  a  moment  to  observe,  that  so  small  an  affair  may  point  to  great 
matters,  as  concerns  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  of  our  broad  and  fertile 
acres.  Does  it  not  point  to  the  immense  importance  of  organic  matter  in 
the  soil ;  as  also  to  the  benefits  derivable  from  high  cultural  processes  as 
to  the  free  and  equal  transmission  of  moisture  ? 
But  to  return  ;  let  me  remind  your  readers  who  desire  to  shine  in 
winter  Camellias  of  the  great  importance  of  early  growth.  Hurrying  them 
into  growth  causes  such  an  off-hand  development  of  the  parts,  such  a 
speedy  expenditure  cf  the  forces  of  the  tree  already  stored  up,  that  no  after 
tendency  exists  for  a  second  growth,  to  anomalous  formations,  or  to 
barrenness.  The  growth  completed  by  about  the  end  of  May,  a  long 
period  remains  for  the  proper  formation  of  the  flower  bud,  ana  I  have 
always  found  that  the  steadier  this  process  proceeds,  the  bolder  and 
better  coloured  will  be  the  flower,  and  the  more  certain  and  easy  the 
development  of  its  parts. 
During  the  blossoming  period,  no  vapour  should  be  permitted  to  con¬ 
dense  on  the  blossoms  ;  their  purity  and  endurance  would  be  much 
injured  thereby.  I  have  a  fine  Camellia  bush,  which  last  year  continued 
in  blossom  from  the  beginning  of  November  until  the  end  of  February,  or 
even  longer.  This  shows  how  long  the  flowers  may  be  continued  on  one 
tree  only.  The  same  tree  is  now  in  full  beauty,  bearing  a  score  or  two 
of  flowers.  I  have  a  small  fire  night  and  day,  the  houses  freely 
ventilated  constantly,  day  and  night,  and  water  used  liberally,  morning 
and  evening,  about  the  floors  ;  but  still,  through  the  ventilation,  not 
a  drop  rests  on  the  blossoms.  Let  me  again  recommend  those  who  do 
not  well  understand  this  invaluable  winter  flower,  this  bouquet  favourite, 
to  shape  their  practice  in  this  manner. — E.  R. 
LONDON’S  OPEN  SPACES. 
A  General  Survey. 
It  is  related  that  Pitt,  afterwards  Earl  of  Chatham,  was  once  asked 
by  Queen  Caroline,  tbe  Consort  of  George  II.,  how  much  it  would  cost 
to  shut  the  London  parks  away  from  the  public,  and  to  convert  them  into 
absolutely  private  property.  He  replied,  “  Three  crowns,  your  Majesty.” 
The  bint  conveyed  in  these  words  was  understood,  and  the  design  was 
never  afterwards  entertained,  for  says  another  writer  of  the  time,  “  The 
people  are  greatly  jealous  for  the  preserving  of  open  places.”  Yet  they 
knew  not  London  as  we  know  it  now,  and  many  of  the  busiest  and  most 
crowded  portions  of  the  great  metropolis  to-day  were  then  open  country. 
In  the  time  of  the  Second  George,  for  instance,  St.  J ohn  Street  Road, 
with  Goswell  Road,  formed  the  only  outlets  practicable  for  carriages  from 
London  to  Islington  and  the  Great  North  Road.  The  district  was  full  of 
fields  and  muddy  lanes,  and  the  roads  so  dangerous  that  it  was  customary 
for  travellers  approaching  London  this  way  to  remain  all  night  at  the 
Angel  Inn,  rather  than  venture  to  prosecute  their  journey  after  dark  at 
the  imminent  risk  of  being  robbed  by  footpads,  or  falling  into  some  of 
the  filthy  quagmires  and  stagnant  ditches  that  lay  in  every  direction  to 
trap  the  unwary  traveller. 
Looking  from  Holborn  Bars  the  spectator  gazed  upon  a  long  stretch 
of  country,  full  of  green  fields  and  marshes,  and  dotted  here  and  there  with 
farmhouses.  Yet  even  then  the  necessity  of  breathing-room  for  London 
was  recognised,  and  a  writer  of  the  day  says,  “  It  grows  apace,  this 
monster  of  stone  and  brick.  Every  day  some  fresh  encroachment  blots 
out  with  burnt  clay  a  greater  space  of  country — green  has  become  black, 
the  air  is  foul  with  smoke,  and  if  we  do  not  preserve  our  breathing  places 
from  the  builder  we  shall  die  choked.”  The  necessity  of  keeping  open 
spaces  in  the  midst  of  the  metropolis  was  thus  early  recognised,  though 
dimly,  as  a  sanitary  precaution,  but  the  glory  of  giving  London  pleasant 
open  places  for  health  and  recreation’s  sake  belongs  practically  to  the 
latter  years  of  the  present  reign. 
The  Royal  parks  in  the  metropolis,  St.  James’s,  Green,  Hyde  and 
Regent’s  parks,  the  latter  of  which,  by  the  way,  came  under  public 
control  in  1812,  are,  of  course,  amongst  the  finest  of  our  open  spaces, 
but  were  found  by  no  means  sufficient  for  tbe  public  wants,  so  public 
bodies  and  private  benefactors  began  to  inaugurate  the  magnificent  series 
of  parks  and  playgrounds  for  the  people  that  are  the  pride  of  Londoners 
to-day,  and  the  majority  of  which  are  so  admirably  kept  and  governed 
for  them  by  their  representatives  on  the  County  Council.  In  1887, 
marking  the  year  of  Jubilee,  the  London  Parks  and  Works  Act  placed 
the  great  spaces  of  Battersea  Park,  Kennington  Park,  Bethnal  Green 
Museum  Gardens,  Chelsea  Embankment,  and  Victoria  Park  under 
municipal  control,  tbe  immediate  authority  being  vested  in  the  Metro¬ 
politan  Board  of  Works,  which  in  turn  handed  them  to  its  successor,  the 
London  County  Council.  The  parishes  in  which  the  larger  spaces  lie  are 
twenty-two  in  number  ;  Bethnal  Green  has  Victoria  Park,  244  acres,  and 
Victoria  Park  Cemetery,  now  laid  out  as  a  public  garden  of  11:J  acres  ; 
Camberwell  has  Peckham  Rye,  112-  acres,  Dulwich  Park,  72  acres,  and 
Myatt’s  Fields,  14^  acres  ;  Hampstead  has  Hampstead  Heath  and  Parlia¬ 
ment  Fields,  some  550  acres ;  Islington  rejoices  in  Finsbury  Park, 
115  acres,  and  Highbury  Fields,  274  ;  Kensington  has,  of  course,  Ken¬ 
sington  Gardens,  275  acres  ;  Lambeth  has  Brockwell  Park,  73  acres, 
Kennington  Park,  19^  acres,  and  Vauxhall  Park,  8  acres  ;  Marylebone 
has  Regent’s  Park  and  Primrose  Hill,  473  acres  ;  St.  Pancras  has 
Waterlow  Park,  30  acres  ;  St.  George’s,  Hyde  Park  361  acres  ;  Hammer¬ 
smith,  Wormwood  Scrubbs,  193  acres.  Old  Oak  Common,  104  acres, 
Ravenscourt  Park,  32  acres,  and  Little  Scrubbs,  22  acres  ;  Greenwich, 
Greenwich  Park,  185  acres  ;  Hackney,  Hackney  Marshes,  328J  acres  ; 
Stoke  Newington,  Clissold  Park,  53  acres ;  Lewisham,  Blackheath, 
267  acres  ;  Rotherhithe,  Southwark  Park,  63  acres  ;  St.  Martin-in-the- 
Fields,  Green  Park,  54  acres,  and  St.  James’s  Park,  93  acres  ;  Clapham, 
Clapham  Common,  220  acres  ;  Tooting,  Tooting  Graveney  and  Tooting 
Bee  Commons,  63  and  144  acres  respectively  ;  Streatham,  Streatham 
Common,  66  acres  ;  Battersea,  Battersea  Park,  198  acres  ;  Wandsworth, 
Wandsworth  Common,  183  acres  ;  and  Plumstead  with  Bostall  Heath, 
Bostall  Woods,  and  Plumstead  Common,  55,  61,  and  100  acres  in  extent 
respectively. 
These  parishes  have,  in  addition  to  the  large  open  areas  quoted, 
numerous  smaller  ones,  varying  from  one-quarter  to  16  acres  in  extent, 
while  most  of  the  other  London  parishes  have  open  spaces  of  some  kind 
from  too  square  yards  to  2  acres  in  extent.  These  spaces  are  vested  in 
various  authorities,  of  which  the  London  County  Council  is  by  far  the 
most  important,  controlling,  as  it  does,  seventy  -  nine,  representing 
3685  acres  of  the  total  under  all  authorities  in  London  parishes  ;  which, 
leaving  out  Wimbledon  and  Putney,  whose  commons  of  1412  acres  are 
under  special  conservators,  amounts  to  5449J  acres.  In  March,  1892,  the 
Council’s  return  of  the  number  of  acres  it  held  as  open  spaces  was  2656, 
