September  28,  1899. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
267 
with  these  gardens  prominence  may  le  given  to  Curtis,  Lindley, 
Miller,  Moore,  and  Petiver. 
What  once  were  the  charms  of  the  locality  in  which  the 
Apothecaries’  Garden  is  situate,  we  can  imagine  from  the  old  name 
of  Paradise  Row,  given  to  the  road  beside  its  walls;  Chelsea  folks  now 
cull  it  Queen’s  Road.  Here  it  was  that  John  Fraser,  an  enterprising 
young  Scotchman,  started  a  hosier’s  shop,  but  his  frequent  visits  to 
the  gardens  clo'c  by,  and  his  friendship  with  Forsyth,  led  him  to  a 
new  pursuit.  He  became  a  nuiseryman  and  tourist,  his  place  near 
Sloane  Square  standing  high  on  the  list  of  London  nurseries  early  in 
xhis  centuiy.  The  greater  part  of  his  garden  is  said  to  be  absorbed 
in  the  grounds  of  the  Royal  Military  Asylum.  A  reminiscence  of 
what  Paradise  Row  was  is  found  in  halt  a  dozen  cottages  still  left, 
having  fruit  gardens  and  Vines  climbing  above.  Chelsea,  indeed,  has 
been  famous  for  its  Vines  as  well  as  its  Wistarias.  Thus  the  little 
cottage  attached  to  the  Moravian  Burying  Ground  used  to  be 
enveloped  in  Vines,  and  Ch  Isea  outdoor  Grapes  are  still  attainable. 
01  Mulberries,  too,  Chelsea  has  ancient  examples,  though  I  doubt 
if  any  can  be  dated  back  to  the  time  of  the  Tudors,  but  of  more  than 
one  it  is  said  that  Queen  Bess  sat  beneath,  and  regaled  herself  on  the 
fruit.  An  old  inhabitant  tells  me  that  he  remembers  as  a  lad  helping 
to  watch  the  Apples  in  an  orchard  between  Paradise  Row  and  the 
King’s  Road,  at  the  back,  I  suppose,  of  Little’s  nursery  ground, 
formerly  extensive.  Nor  was  the  air  of  Chelsea  wanting  in  fragrant 
odours;  till  recently  there  was  iu  Shawfield  Street  the  premises  of 
Gosnell  &  Co.,  successors  to  Messrs.  Taylor,  who  had  distilleries  there 
a  century  since,  growing  Roses,  Lavender,  Anise,  and  other  herbs  on 
the  land  extending  towards  the  Thames,  and  I  am  told  the  culture  of 
these  plants  continued  till  1855. 
Then,  again,  the  old  Clockhouse  had  its  tale  to  tell,  for  attached  to 
it  was  a  herb  garden  of  the  sort  once  common.  It  received  the  name 
from  a  cuiious  wooden  clock  in  the  front.  This  quaint  building  was 
removed  about  1862;  it  stood  where  formerly! was  the  stable- yard 
gate  of  Beaufort.  House.  The  ground  attached  had  been  part  of  the 
original  garden,  and  is  said  to  have  Veen  edged  round  with  Figs  and 
Vines,  some  of  the  latter  on  trellises ;  also  several  large  Pomegranates, 
which  flowered  yearly,  were  conspicuous.  A  large  Gleditschia  and  a 
Calycanthus  were  amongst  the  curiosities,  but  the  greater  portion  of 
the  space  was  devoted  to  Mints  and  various  herbs,  for  the  distilled 
waters  of  which  there  was  a  ready  sale. 
The  formation  of  Chelsea  Embankment  in  1862-3,  with  its  walks, 
borders,  and  shrubberies,  was  a  great  improvement,  though  it  had  to 
spoil  the  picturesqueness  of  the  river  side.  Then  another  change 
was  the  cutting  a  new  lino  of  road  to  Chelsea  Bridge,  across  a  remnant 
of  the  gardens  of  Ram-lagh.  After  the  famed  Rotunda  and  the  mansion 
were  pulled  dowm  a  good  deal  of  the  land  remained  many  years  in  a 
neglected  state.  Often  have  I  wandered  over  the  ground  between  Wilder¬ 
ness  Row,  a  reminder  of  the  old  “wilderness”  of  Ranelagh,  and  the 
Commercial  Road — anything  but  “  commercial  ” — wondering  what 
would  become  of  it.  They  might  have  let  the  poor  folks  of  Pimlico 
near  grow  some  Beans,  Cabbages,  or  Potatoes  upon  it,  but  they  did 
not.  Chelsea  Barracks  occupy  a  part  of  it,  and  ne.v  roads  or  streets  ;  a 
part,  however,  has  been  kept  open  and  added  to  the  Hospital  gardens. 
This  has  increased  the  extent  of  these  to  9.  acres,  the  s  mthern  half 
only  being  open  to  the  public.  Till  1855  the  Hospital  gardens  showed 
a  remnant  of  the  Dutch  style,  the  formal  walks  and  stiffly  arranged 
trees  or  shrubs,  with  little  canals,  up  which  the  Thames  water  flowed 
sluggishly. 
The  nursery  long  occupied  by  Mr.  Tuck,  in  Sloane  Street,  is 
happily  secured  from  the  builder,  and  now  called  Cadogan  Place 
Gardens.  Its  six  acres  have  their  history,  some  old  books  give  us 
Sloane  Square  as  its  name,  which  has  led  to  a  few  funny  mistakes, 
Laid  out  at  first  by  Salisbury  and  Curtis,  in  the  manner  of  a  botanic 
garden,  planned  according  to  the  Linnean  divisions,  of  plants,  they 
sunk  it.  below  the  level  of  the  surrounding  land,  because  Ropton  had 
proposed  to  represent  a  winding  valley,  ending  in  a  central  pond,  bat 
this  was  not  done.  When  Tate  took  it  in  1820  he  re-arranged  the 
ground,  and  his  successor  followed  his  plans,  allowing  the  public  access 
to  the  larger  half  of  the  nursery,  which  was  given, up  about  1885; 
since,  the  place  has  still  been  linked  with  horticulture  as  the  scene  of 
Messrs.  Waterers’  Rhododendron  show.  East  of  Sloane  Street, 
occupying  a  large  space  between  the  King’s  Road  and  Bromptcn,  now 
a  network  of  streets,  were  the  gardens  of  Mr.  Cattleugh,  who  had  a 
great  repute  for  greenhouse  and  stove  plants,  also  for  hardy  perennials. 
He  grew  Pines  successfully  and  early  Strawberries:  for .  the  market, 
but  after  being  much  diminished,  his  ground  was  finally  cleared  in 
1877. 
When  this  Journal  came  into'existence,  the  Pavilion  of  Hans  Place, 
Chelsea,  remained  a  private  residence,  its  gardens  were  one  of  the 
memorials  of  “  Capability  ’’  Biown,  who  planned  the  avenue,  shrub¬ 
beries,  and  formed  a  small  lake  for  the  owner,  Mr.  Holland,  in  1780.  In 
one  part  of  the  grounds  was  a  curious  ruin,  representing  an  ancient 
priory,  formedf  rom  therelics  of  Cardinal  Wolsey’s  palace  at  Esher. 
About  1865  it  became  the  Princes*  Club,  and  was  pulled  down  in  1879 
to  make  way  for  squares  and  terraces. 
The  King’s  Road  as  it  is  now  does  not  recall  the  days  when 
florists  were  scattered  from  Sloane  Square  to  the  modern  Vestry  Hall. 
Before  my  time  the  renowned  nurseries  of  Davey  and  Colville  had 
vanished;  the  green  “Butterfly  Alley,”  that  once  separated  them, 
had  become  a  street.  Fraser’s  and  Moore’s  had  also  gone.  I  can  just 
remember  Rolle’s,  next  to  Argyll  House,  said  to  have  been  a  “  shooting 
box  ’’  of  that  family,  though  what  they  found  in  Chelsea  to  shoot  1  do 
not  know.  The  nursery  of  Little  existed  till  recently,  but  ended  as  a 
private  garden  ;  it  has  since  been  built  over.  Much  did  the  lovers  of 
fine  trees  and  shrubs  regret  the  purchase  also  of  a  portion  of  Rossetti  s 
great  garden  for  a  Board  School ;  this,  and  other  back  gardens  of 
Cheyne  Walk  with  ancient  trees,  had  been  in  the  circuit  of  the  grounds 
of  the  old  palace.  At,  the  back  of  Cheyne  House  was  the  nursery  of 
Shailer,  famous  for  his  Moss  Roses;  and  the  garden  of  that  house  has 
some  fine  trees  of  good  age,  well  preserved  by  Mr.  Phene,  the  owner, 
who  has  a  large  collection  of  Chelsea  curiosities.  The  famous  gardens 
of  west  Chelsea  will  be  dealt  with  in  a  subsequent  issue. — J.  R.  S.  C. 
GRAPES  AT  SHREWSBURY. 
Mr.  Molyneux,  page  224,  has  presented  us  with  a  highly  interesting 
and  instructive  audit  of  the  varieties  of  Grapes  shown  at  the  above 
Show,  and  he  has  the  warmest  thanks  of  those  intereste.l  for  the  great 
trouble  he  has  taken.  Incidentally,  he  mentions  what  must  be  con¬ 
sidered  an  error,  which  he  and  so  many  others  hive  fallen  into. 
Mr,  M.  says,  “In  the  great  champion  class  for  twelve  bunches  the 
six  exhibitors  staged  eighteen  varieties,  if  Bowood  Muscat  and  Muscat 
of  Alexandria  can  be  considered  as  being  distinct.  In  my  opinion  they 
are  not,  and  thould  not  be  admitted  as  such,  nor  were  they  admissible 
according  to  the  schedule.”  Now,  as  regards  the  last  sentence,  nor 
were  they  admissible  according  to  the  schedule,”  I,  as  one  of  the 
Judges,  beg  to  differ  with  him. 
The  wording  of  the  schedule  says,  “  F.  r  the  purpose  of  this 
exhibition  Bowood  Muscat,  Charlesworth  Muscat,  T  \  ninghame  Muscat, 
and  Canon  Hall  Muscat  cannot  be  shown  as  distinct  varieties;  in  the 
same  way  Gros  Maroc  and  Cooper’s  Black  are  considered  synonymous 
for  this  competition.”  The  only  possible  meaning  of  that  statement  is 
that  the  four  white  varieties  named  above  could  not  be  shown  together 
as  distinct  varieties,  neither  could  the  two  black  varieties  named.  If 
we  admit  any  other  not  named  variety  to  be  added  to  the  above,  where 
do  we  stop  ?  Why  not  admit  twenty  varieties  ?  It  is  very  clear  the  re 
is  something  left  out-t  e.,  if  you  wish  to  identify  either  of  the  above 
or  ali  of  the  above  named  Grapes  with  some  other  variety  not  mentioned 
amongst  the  synonymous  varieties. 
Fortunately  the  R.H.S.  code  of  rules  for  schedule  makers  and 
J  ado-os  page  13,  clause  52,  furnishes  us  with  the  correct  explanation 
in  clear  words,  as  follows  :  “  For  exhibition  purposes  Bowo  d  Muscat, 
Charlesworth  Muscat,  and  Tynningham  Muscat  are  to  be  regarded  as 
synonymous  with  Muscat  of  Alexandria,  and  cannot  be  shown  as 
distinct  varieties,  &c.”  Now  here  we  have  the  distinction  and  the  de¬ 
ference  caused  by  the  (probably  accidental)  omission  of'  those  four 
words  but  which  omission  destroyed  to  all  intents  and  purposes  the 
very  gist  of  the  matter  the  schedule  compilers  wished  to  convey  and 
would  have  conveyed  had  the  words  “  with  Muscat  of  Alexam  na 
been  insert  id.  The  Judges  in  this  class  had  a  very  keen  appreciation 
of  the  intention  of  the  clause  iu  the  schedule,  and  also  were  aware  of 
the  omission  named,  but  as  matters  stood  they  felt  they  could  not 
exercise  their  own  discretion  to  the  extent  of  disqualifying  two  exln  bitoi  s 
who  staged  either  one  of  the  four  named  tvhite  varieties  in  conjunction 
with  Muscat  of  Alexandria. 
Doubtless  these  two  exhibitors  bad  read  the  clause  to  mean  that 
they  could  stage  either  one  (but  not  more)  of  the  four  varieties  named  ; 
in  fact  they  had  so  staged  and  labelled  correctly,  which  it  is  con¬ 
jectured  they  would  not  have  done  upon  any  other  interpretation. 
With  this  one  exception  the  Shrewsbury  schedule  is  clear  and  explicit, 
so  much  so  that  friction  with  exhibitors  is  almost  unknown  (not  a 
single  protest  this  year,  I  hear).  . 
It  is  hoped  that  the  compiler  of  this  clause  will  “  own  up,  in 
order  to  settle  this  dispute,  and  give  his  candid  opinion  upon  the 
wording  and  the  meaning,  also  whether  it  accords  with  the  solicitors 
opinion  who  had  to  be  consulted,  but  who,  nevertheless,  was  a  person 
well  versed  in  horticultural  matters,  and  whose  decision  was  acted 
upon.  Doubtless  we  shall  all  agree  that  this  bracketing  together  as 
synonymous,  or  “too  much  alike,”  varieties  of  Grapes  is  absolutely 
necessary  for  exhibition  purposes,  but  all  synonymous  varieties  should 
be  dIls^C(|[iyitgI>sure  Mr>  Molyneux  is  too  fair  an  antagonist  to  maintain 
that  under  the  circumstances  here  set  forth  anything  other  than 
justice  was  done,  or  that  a  vexatious  disqualification  should  Jjve  era 
exercised.  The  question  is,  would  Mr.  Molyneux,  under  the  above 
