62 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTIGULTDRE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER,  January  16,  1902. 
Jocular  Horticulture. 
I  am  glad  to  see  “  B.’s  ”  reference  to  “  a  tendency  to  levity," 
in  horticultural  publications  in  your  issue  of  December  2().  I 
could  name  one  paper  in  particular  which  is  spoilt,  to  my  taste, 
by  laboured,  but  qi^ite  unsuccessful,  efforts  to  be  funny.  Most 
readers  of  technical  papers,  I  presume,  read  them  in  the  hope  of 
gaining  information,  and  the  less  it  is  wrapped  up  in  attempted 
smart  or  jocular  verbiage,  the  better  busy  men  appreciate  it. 
Nothing,  I  think,  is  to  be  said  against  a  page  or  more  of  a 
horticultural  paper  being  devoted  to  items  of  light  reading,  in¬ 
cluding  humorous  extracts.  All  that  I  object  to  rs  the  mixture 
of  jokes  and  technical  information. — Another  “  B.” 
Things  I  Should  Like  to  Know. 
Fnder  this  somewhat  remarkable  heading  your  versatile 
corre.spondent,  “  Ignoramus,”  puts  a  few  pertinent  questions 
before  the  readers  of  our  Journal  which  I  have  no  doubt  will 
be  read  with  interest  by  all  concerned  in  the  subject  of  fruit 
growing.  I  feel  equally  sure  that  the  replies  to  his  queries  will 
be  varied ;  at  the  same  time,  I  do  not  think  many  of  your 
readers  will  differ  upon  the  question  of  flavour  in  the  Apples 
named,  for  there  can  be  no  two  opinions  on  the  subject,  f'n- 
doubtedly  Cox’s  Orange  Pippin  holds  the  premier  position  for 
flavour  in  this  country,  while  Blenlieims  make  a  capital  sub¬ 
stitute.  At  the  same  time,  I  do  not  think  “Ignoramus”  should 
pit  Newtown  Pippin  in  comparison  with  either,  and  really,  they 
do  not  seriously  compete  with  each  other — ^at  all  events,  not 
nearly  to  the  extent  that  many  people  suppose.  This  Apple 
must  be  regarded  as  the  best  variety  we  import  for  flavour,  but 
as  the  growers  in  other  lands  are  handicapped  by  having  to  send 
us  Apples  with  thick  skins,  so  that  tliej^  will  stand  the  packing, 
and  this  is  the  chief  complaint  we  can  make  against  the  variety, 
no  matter  where  it  comes  from. 
Now,  Mr.  Editor,  I  approach  “  one  of  those  things  I  should 
like  to  know ;  ”  that  is,  where  your  correspondent  saw  Cox’s 
Orange  Pippin  selling  at  3d.  per  ib  during  the  present  season  ; 
or  Newtown  Pippin  making  6d.  per  Ib.*^  If  the  former  variety 
were  retailed  at  such  an  absurd  figure  they  must  have  been  a 
very  poor  sample.  To  my  knowledge  in  December  they  were 
making  10s.  the  half  sieve,  or  £1  the  bushel,  and  this  for  average 
Kentish  samples,  while  I  saw  good  samples  in  punnets  offered  at 
five  fruits  for  Is.  Mind  you,  then,  much  larger  samples  of  New¬ 
town  Pippins  were  being  sold  at  the  same  shops  at  4d.  per  lb, 
so  you  see,  Mr.  “Ignoramus,”  the  Yankees  were  not  getting 
things  quite  so  much  their  own  way,  and  when  the  packing, 
freightage,  brokerage,  &c.,  was  all  settled  up,  the  figure 
returned  to  the  actual  grower  would  perhaps  startle  your 
correspondent. 
It  sounds  sentimentally  p.atriotic  just  now  to  recommend 
planting  up  100  acres  of  this  variety  ;  in  fact,  there  is  just, 
perhaps,  a  little  suspicion  of  “  New  Year  ”  or  “  Boston  ”  about  it. 
But  I  do  not  think  we  need  treat  the  matter  seriously,  for 
nobody  is  likely  to  do  it.  No,  sir,  we  have  already  learned  not 
to  put  all  our  eggs  in  one  basket,  for  the  climate  of  this  tight 
little  island  has  taught  us  better  than  this.  Again,  it  w'ould 
not  bo  an  easy  matter  to  find  a  neat  little  “  break  ”  of  100  acres 
suited  for  this  variety,  and  we  can,  I  think,  safely  add  that 
we  should  not  find  the  trees  at  short  notice,  for  such  has  been 
the  demand,  and  still  is,  that  the  variety  in  question  is  alw'ays 
more  or  less  scarce.  So  we  may  rest  contented  that 
“  Cox’s  ”  have  been  planted  in  thousands  during  the  past  decade, 
and  will  soon  be  felt  in  our  markets  if  they  have  not  already 
done  so. 
“  Ignoramus,”  in  asking  whether  the  importations  of  Apples 
are  likely  to  become  less  in  the  future: — I  say  decidedly  not. 
They  will  fluctuate,  as  they  do  at  present,  according  to  our  home 
supply ;  last  season  there  was  a  serious  shortage  in  our  Apple 
crop,  and  the  imports  will  rise  accordingly.  When  we  have 
plenty  of  our  own  and  prices  rule  low,  the  foreigner  finds  it 
only  pays  him  then  to  send  his  tip-top  samples.  I  think  w'e 
should  be  quite  safe  in  saying  that  our  importations  will  increase, 
as  will  our  home  supply  ;  but  whether  this  w  ill  be  to  the  advan¬ 
tage  of  the  grow'er  in  this  country  remains  to  be  seen.  But 
one  thing  is  certain — half  the  produce  from  old,  wmrn-out  trees 
and  inferior  sorts  will  not  pay  the  grower  of  the  future, 
the  sooner  we  realise  this  the  better  it  will  be  for  all  concerned. 
The  question  as  to  forming  fruit  growung  companies  on  a 
large  scale  opens  up  not  exactly  a  new  field,  but  one  that  has 
been  tried  partially,  and  I  regret  to  say  has  not  proved  a  success, 
though  that  is  no  reason  why  others  should  fail,  for  new’  concerns 
would  be  able  to  avoid  the  pitfalls  that  the  older  companies 
found  so  fatal.  I  am  quite  ouen  to  conviction,  but  I  cannot 
see  any  very  big  dividends  that  would  accrue  from  such  con¬ 
cerns  ;  at  all  events,  until  we  get  better  prices  for  our  produce 
and  are  able  to  cut  down  expenses  considerably.  I  meet  a  good 
many  of  our  large  fruit  farmers  in  the  course  of  a  year,  but  I 
have  not  yet  found  tlie  man  who  was  making  a  fortune  by  fruit 
growing  alone.  The  whole  question  is  of  such  importance  that 
it  cannot  be  dealt  with  by  a  few’  persons  each  expressing  their 
particular  views.  At  the  same  tiine,  the  more  light  there  is 
thrown  on  the  matter  the  more  clearly  shall  we  see  through 
it. — Essex. 
The  Uncut  “Jonraa]/’ 
A  bulky  number  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society’s  Journal 
has  reached  each  Fellow  of  the  Society,  containing  443  pages  of 
reading  matter,  all  uncut !  I  estimate  that  to  cut  all  these  pages 
would  occupy  half  an  hour,  in  which  time,  I  suppose,  the  whole 
edition  could  have  been  cut  by  machinery,  at  a  trifling  cost  to 
the  Society.  As  most  of  the  Fellow’s  are  busy  men,  w’Ould  they 
not  like  the  cutting  to  be  done  on  the  co-operRtive  principle, 
instead  of  each  w  a-sting  half  an  hour  on  the  w’ork? 
The  late  Mr.  H.  M.  Jenkins,  Secretary  of  the  Royal  Agri¬ 
cultural  Society,  was  spending  a  day,  some  years  ago,  with  one 
of  the  members,  a  farmer  of  some  pretence  to  cultivation.  On  a 
bookcase  Mr.  Jenkins  w-^as  pleased  to  see  a  goodly  row’  of  numbers 
of  the  Journal  of  the  Society,  which  he  edited.  But,  on  taking 
one  down,  he  found  it  uncut,  and  further  investigation  showed 
that  all  the  volumes  were  in  that  condition.  This  taught  him  a 
lesson,  and  he  said  to  his  friend :  “  Never  in  future  shall  a 
member  of  the  Society  have  the  excuse  of  an  uncut  Journal  as  a 
reason  for  not  reading  it.”  After  that  time  the  Journal  w’as 
always  machine-cut. 
In  my  opinion  it  is  decidedly  behind  the  times  to  send  out 
any  book  or  magazine  w’ith  pages  uncut. 
No  doubt  if  the  Secretary  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society 
w’ere  to  visit  a  few  of  the  Fellow's,  he  w'ould  repeat  Mr.  Jenkins’s 
experience.  For  one,  I  never  cut  any  other  parts  of  the  Journal 
than  those  containing  articles  which,  from  their  titles,  appear 
likely  to  interest  me.  Probably  I  miss  a  great  deal  that  is  worth 
reading.  Will  not  some  other  Fellow’s  join  me  in  appealing  to 
the  Council  to  order  the  machine-cutting  of  all  future  numbers  of 
the  Journal  ?— I  am,  &c.,  “  A  Fellow.” 
Gardening  Charities. 
I  W’as  much  interested  in  reading  your  letter  on  the 
Gardeners’  Royal  Benevolent  Institution  in  last  week’s  Journal. 
I  have  been  a  gardener  for  nearly  twenty  years,  and  I  am  of 
the  opinion  that  the  reason  why  these  charities  do  not  receive 
the  support  they  ought  to  from  gardeners  and  others  engaged 
in  horticulture  is  because  their  claims  are  not  brought  promi¬ 
nently  enough  before  the  gardening  community.  This  question 
of  gardening  charities  crops  up  every  year  about  the  time  of 
the  annual  meeting.  We  read  the  report  of  the  meet¬ 
ings;  the  good  that  has  been  done,  and  also  the  regrets  that 
more  might  have  been  done  that  is  not,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  all  enthusiasm  w’anes  until  next  annual  meeting.  I 
venture  to  say,  except  the  members  of  these  charitiies,  there 
are  few’  gardeners  conversant  with  the  rules  and  privileges  per¬ 
taining  to  them.  This  is  not  as  it  should  be.  I  think  the 
affairs  of  the  different  societies  are  confined  too  much  to  one 
centre.  I  agree  with  you  that  horticultural  societies  should 
take  this  matter  up,  and  I  w'ould  propose  that  the  secretaries  of 
the  different  charitable  societies  should  furnish  a  statement  of 
all  rules  and  regulations  pertaining  to  his  own  institution  to 
every  horticultural  society  in  the  British  Isles,  and  ask  the  chair¬ 
men  of  the  different  societies  to  bring  this  question  up  at  the 
beginning  of  meetings,  and  members  be  asked  to  give  a  small 
amount.  This  is  a  question  that  requires  to  be  brought  to  our 
very  doors.  I  think  your  estimate  of  gardeners  is  very  modest, 
especially  if  you  also  include  under  gardeners.  I  think  head 
gardeners  w’ould  have  no  difficulty  in  getting  Is.  from  each 
assistant  under  their  charge.  This  question  of  garden  charities 
is,  in  my  opinion,  ripe  for  discussion  in  the  horticultural  publi¬ 
cations,  so  as  to  bring  it  home  to  each  and  all  the  axiom,  “  It  is 
more  blessed  to  give  than  receive.”- — W.  Keay,  Fife. 
