98 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
•lanuary  30,  1902. 
plaut.s  on  an  extensive  scale  as  practised  in  other  countries  is 
carefully  described  by  the  author.  The  concluding  pages  (of 
which  there  are  220)  are  devoted  to  describing  the  characters  of 
species,  and  to  classification.  An  admirable  index,  which  also 
enlists  synonyms,  is  furnished,  together  with  thirty-four  full- 
page  plates,  a  number  of  which  are  finely  coloured,  and  with  the 
explanations  that  face  them,  are  easy  to  understand.  Mr.  New- 
stead  has  done  his  work  most  thoroughl.y,  and  through  the 
generosity  of  the  Ray  Society  lias  produced  an  invaluah'e  and 
most  interesting  work — one  which  we  most  highly  commend. 
The  Formal  Garden  in  England.* 
The  third  edition  of  this  comparatively  well-known  work  has 
been  l.ying  on  onr  desk  here  for  a  longer  period  than,  ought  t-o 
have  elapsed  before  this  notice  was  penned.  We  are  pleased  to 
observe  that  the  disagreeable  preface  to  the  second  edition  has 
been  entirely  omitted,  so  that  we  can  now  come  to  the  book, 
read  it,  mark  and  learn  from  it.  without  having  in  mind  tlm  whole 
while  that  its  object  apparenth-  is  solely  to  extend  archit.clure 
away  into  what  ought  to  be  the  garden,  and  not  an  area  of 
magnified  courts  or  modified  piazzas.  Land.' cape  g-ardening  in 
tlie.se  days  is  practised  larg  dy  b-'^  men  who  appear  to  us  not  to  be 
of  that  calibre  that  gave  renown  to  the  small  army  of  rt formers, 
as  Wheatlev.  Rradley,  Price,  Ivnight,  and  others,  towards  the 
middle  and  end  of  the  eighteenth  century.  I'hus  the  men  of 
education,  of  thought  and  purpose,  like  Air.  Rlomfield  and  his 
confreres,  seem  to  us  to  be  gaining  considerable  influence  by  their 
literaiy  productions  on  formal  gardening.  And  Air.  Blomfield’s 
“  Formal  Gardens  in  England  ”  is  by  no  means  a  compromise  that 
endeavours  to  blend  the  better  parts  of  what  we  must  yet  call 
landscane  design  with  a  larger  amount  of  purely  geometric  formal 
plans  of  gardens.  His  book  descidbes  formal  gardens,  and  these 
only.  The  illustrations  are  sufficient  by  themselves  to  show  e^mn 
a  cursory  reviewer  what  his  ideas  of  garden  design  are.  It  makes 
ns  .sad  (not  angrj^ !)  to  think  of  being  pent  up  within  one’s  “  own 
four  walls,”  especially  those  of  us  who  are  so  seldo.m  privileged 
to  breathe  outside  the  four  walls  of  our  offices  or  .studies.  That 
would  appear  to  be  part  of  the  design  of  the  formal  garden  artist, 
i.e.,  to  introduce  as  often  as  he  conveniently  can  the  four-walls 
scheme.  The  sum  and  substance  of  formal  de.sign  appears  to  be, 
from  the  arguments  adduced,  (1)  that  it  vields  quietness  and 
induces  feelings  of  repo.se:  (2),  it  represents  art,  as  against  the 
concealment  of  it,  in  the  landscape  gardening  code:  (3),  it  har¬ 
monises  with  the  architectural  features,  which,  of  course,  are  pre¬ 
sented  wherever  there  is  a  house  or  mansion  ;  and  (4).  while 
uniting  the.se  advantages  it  does  not  abolish  the  charm  of  florvers, 
shrubs,  or  trees. 
A  persi.stent  aro-ument  of  those  of  the  “  formal  school  ”  is  that 
landscane  gardening  displays  no  fixed  laws  of  de.sign,  and  this 
apparently  because  the  best  landscape  gardening  methods  ob.scure 
the  appearance  of  tlm  garden  as  “  an  artificial  thing.”  Those 
who  have  studied  Price’s  “Essays  on  the  Pioturesciue  ”  and 
Loudon’s  works  on  the  anti-formal  plan  of  laying-out  gardens, 
know  full  well  that  there  are  very  many  .strict  laws  to  be  applied. 
But  we  need  not  argue  further,  for  Cui  bono?  There  are  tv  o 
distinct  sets  of  ideas  represented  on  the  question  of  gardeii 
designing,  and  while  we  are  convinced  the  .so-called  land, scape 
gardeners  mo.stly  love  gardens  as  gai’dens,  we  are  not  certain  that 
the  aim  of  the  “formal”  designers  is  other  than  to  extend  the 
domain  of  their  art — ai’chitecture — into  a  region  which  in  cmi- 
tnries  past  they  had  the  privilege  to  practise  in.  Air.  Blomfield’s 
book  is  not  expensive,  and  the  argument.s  and  principles  of  the 
formal  garden  are  clearly  explained  in  it.  The  first  chapter  is 
devoted  to  a  di.scus.sion  of  the  two  methods  of  la.ving-out,  that  is, 
the  two  we  have  just  been  noticing,  and  other  chapters  follow  on 
the  histoiy  of  formal  designing  (lirieflv  given),  on  courts, 
terraces,  mounts,  parterres,  arbours,  galleries,  groves,  to’^iary 
art.  (tc.  The  whole  is  ably  illustrated  with  apt  figures  of  the 
subjects  under  consideration.  Two  hundred  and  fifty  pages  com¬ 
prise  the  book,  which  is  well  printed  in  bold  type  on  stout  paper, 
with  white  binding,  and  "ilt  impressions  for  ornament.  The 
white  binding  is  very  tasteful,  but  speedily  gets  soiled. 
Trees:  Their  Date  of  Introduction. 
From  Brown’s  “Fore.ster”  we  learn  that  the  following  dates 
are  accepted  for  the  introduction  to  Scottish  estates  of  the  trees 
named  hereunder:  Lime  tree  (Taymouth  Castle),  1664:  S'lver 
and  Spruce  Firs  (Inverary),  1682;  Black  Poplar  (Hamilton), 
1692:  Horsechestnut  (Posso),  1709:  AA^eymouth  Pine  (Dunkehh 
1725  :  Larch  (Hunkeld),  1741 :  Engli.sh  Elm  (Dahnahoy),  1763  ; 
Norway  Alaple  (Mountsteivart),  1738:  Cedar  of  Lebanon  (Hope- 
toun),  1743.  The  last-named  tree  had  been  planted  in  the  Edin¬ 
burgh  Botanic  Garden,  in  1683,  and  is  named  by  Sutherland,  the 
curator  at  that  date. 
*  The  Formal  Garden  in  England;  by  Reginald  Blomfield.  AI. 
F.8.A.,  with  illustrations  by  F.  Inigo  Thomas.  Afacmillan  &  Co,, 
Ltd.,  London,  1901;  price  7s.  6d  net. 
Jocular  Horiiculture. 
I  am  afraid  I  had  not  m  view  periodical  literature  of  the 
gardening  kind  when  I  mentioned  the  “  levity  ”  (perhaps  not  a 
very  good  expression)  apparent  in  so  much  that  is  written  now. 
It  was  rather  the  interweaving  into  book  form  a  lot  of  material 
that  dies  with  tlie  reading;  fine  writing,  maybe,  but  not  worth 
reading  twice,  and  devoid  of  legitimate  gardening,  though  that 
IS  presented  as  the  object  of  the  writer. — B. 
Things  I  Should  Like  to  Knew. 
I  have  heard  that  in  the  days  of  old  the  men  of  Essex  and  of 
Kent  were  noted  for  their  natural  shrewdness  ;  I  therefore  especi¬ 
ally  welcome  the  contribution  of  “  Essex  ”  on  page  62  as  coming 
from  a  reliable  source.  Let  me  also  thank  him  for  the  light  he  has 
thrown  across  the  path  of  “  Ignoramus,”  who  will  welcome  from 
“  Esses',”  or  anybody  else,  still  further  information  on  many 
otlier  things  he  would  still  like  to  know.  I  am  glad  I  was  not  lai 
wrong  in  asserting  that  Cox’s  Orange  Pippin  holds  the  joremier 
position  in  point  of  flavour.  At  this  early  stage,  however,  I  find 
I  have  (for  once)  to  turn  informant,  as  the  shrewd  Southern  man 
“  wants  to  know  where  I  saw  Cox’s  selling  at  3d.  per  Ib,  and  New¬ 
town  Pippins  making  6d.  per  lb.”  In  a  Alidland  town  of  forty 
thousand  inhabitants,  good  friend,  and  the  Newtowns  are  still 
selling  at  the  same  price.  “Essex”  is,  however,  wrong  in  think¬ 
ing  that  the  Cox’s  sold  at  3d.  per  lb  were  a  poor  sanqole;  they 
were  a  beautiful  lot  of  even,  crisp,  well-coloured  fruits,  such  as 
one  might  expect  to  get  from  the  private  gardens  which,  to  a. 
great  extent,  supply  the  shops  in  this  district.  I  bought  a  few 
from  one  shop  last  night,  and  as  the  heap  was  getting  low,  asked 
the  salesman  'f  he  had  many  more;  he  said  No,  as  a  London  imin 
had  ju.'t  bought  up  the  rest  of  his  stock  at  17s.  per  bushel,  and  he 
could  now  see  he  has  been  selling  too  cheaply.  And,  indeed,  it 
seems  to  me  that  many  Midland  growers  do  not  know  the  market 
value  of  this  fine  Apple.  Still,  Air.  “Essex,”  I  cannot  agree  with 
you  that  Cox’s  do  not  come  into  competition  with  Newtowns  to 
any  great  extent,  as  in  the  Alidlands  the  former  variety  can  be 
kept  in  splendid  condition  till  the  end  of  January,  if  not 
gathered  too  early. 
The  suggestion  of  planting  100  acres  of  Cox’s  has,  says  “Essex,” 
a  little  suspicion  of  the  “New  Year”  or  “Boston”  about  it.  I 
should  like  to  know  if  a  little  New  Year’s  eagerness  and  Bos- 
tonianism  would  not  be  excellent  elements  to  incorporate  with 
British  characteristics?  Is  no  one  likely  to  do  it,  “Essex”? 
Surely  the  planting  of  100  acres  of  one  variety  of  Apples  is  not 
a  great  undertaking  for  a  rich  country  like  England.  You,  no 
doubt,  know  better  than  I  about  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  the 
trees;  but,  after  all,  I  daresay  they  could  be  found,  and  I  am 
quite  sure  the  land,  if  not  in  one  break,  the  several  breaks  need 
not  be  far  apart.  Yes  :  fruit  growers  tell  me  that  the  climate  of 
this  “  tight  little  island  ”  doe.s  play  pranks  with  fruit  trees  some¬ 
times,  but  it  is  not  likely  to  affect  Cox’s  more  than  any  otl-er 
variety.  And  if  the  latter  variety  is  profitable  to  grow  on'a  small 
scale,  surely  it  must  be  equally  profitable  on  a  large  one.  It  is 
as  well,  if  not  better,  to  have  a  basket  full  of  the  very  best  eggs 
(or  Apples)  once  in  two  years,  as  to  have  the  ba.sket  half  full  of  only 
moderately  good  ones  each  year. 
Now,  one  word  about  those  importations  of  Apples.  They 
have  not  varied  greatly  during  the  last  ten  years,  ev'en  when  our 
crops  are  heavy  the  foreign  supplies  do  not  show  much  falling  off. 
I  should  therefore  like  to  ask  “  Essex  ”  if  this  does  not  show  that 
during  the  best  of  seasons  England  might  profitably  grow  vastly 
larger  quantities  of  good  Apples,  and  why  not  grow  the  best 
variety,  whicli,  according  to  the  showing  of  a  “  Alan  AA^ho  Knows,” 
commands  a  splendid  price  in  the  markets?  I  have  been  told 
that  in  many  districts  in  the  South  Cox’s  does  not  thrive.  Here 
in  the  Alidlands  it  succeeds  snlendidly.  AA’ithin  a  few  hundred 
yards  of  where  I  write  are  three  gardens  in  whicli  Cox’s  have 
borne  fine  crops  during  the  last  two  years.  The  soil  is  a  medium 
loam,  neither  very  heavy  or  light,  and  not  more  than  18in  in 
depth,  with  gravel  and  sand  beneath,  and  there  is  plenty  of  soil 
of  similar  character  in  other  di.stricts.  The  hunch'ed  acres  of 
suitable  soil  would  not  be  difficult  to  find  in  the  Alidlands.  I  ani 
quite  ignorant  about  matters  pertaining  to  company  promoting, 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  a  matter  of  this  description  is  quite  a 
simple  one.  It  means  so  much  capital,  so  much  labour,  a  good 
guiding  head  for  the  practical  work,  and  no  big  directors  to  draw 
fat  salaries  for  doing  little  or  nothing.  Extravagance  in  the  latter 
