July  4,  1901. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
13 
Grape  Gros  W[aroc. 
Permit  me-to  thank  your  many  correspondents  for  their  kindness  in 
replying  to  my  inquiry  re  the  above  Grape.  I  notice  at  page  459  that 
another  writer  (R.  Morse)  complains  of  this  variety.  It  is  for  us  to 
give  it  another  trial,  and  if  in  similar  positions  next  year  we  may  be 
able  to  chronicle  better  results.  In  my  opinion,  and  no  doubt  in  that 
of  your  many  readers,  there  is  nothing  so  unpleasant  to  look  at  as  an 
unfruitful  Yine.  “Nothing  but  leaves.”  “  W.  H.  R.”  in  a  more  recent 
issue  is  loud  in  praise  of  this  variety  ;  as  to  being  of  an  unfruitful 
nature,  not  at  all  according  to  his  experience.  He  cites  an  instance  of 
a  “  Vine  carrying  twenty-five  bunches  annually.  This  is  under  the 
average.”  Will  “  W.  H.  R.”  inform  your  readers  where  this  Vine  is  to 
be  seen,  also  length  of  cane  ?  It  may  be  that  some  who  think  but 
lightly  of  this  variety  might  be  able  to  go  and  see  it  if  it  still 
exists. — R.  M. 
Apts. 
I  have  been  applied  to  this  day  by  a  lady  residing  in  a  pretty 
cottage  near  the  Thames,  whose  garden  is  afflicted  with  a  sudden 
invasion  of  ants.  They  have  walked  up  and  over  a  magnificent  standard 
if  Homere  until  it  turned  black  and  died,  accompanied  by  another 
standard,  and  now  they  are  turning  their  attention  to  a  fruit  tree. 
Their  nest  is  not  to  be  found  ;  they  apparently  come  up  through  a  long 
passage  in  the  parched  soil.  She  has  tried  nearly  everything, 
methylated  spirits,  on  which  they  seemed  rather  to  fatten,  white 
precipitate,  a  sponge  sweetened  and  squeezed  out  when  sufficiently 
populated,  and  is  now  drenching  the  ground  with  paraffin,  but  the 
plagne  is  but  little  abated.  I  suggested  that  which  the  old  lady  told  the 
clergyman  she  had  tried  with  an  aggravating  husband  ;  he  had  bidden 
her  so  act  as  to  pour  “coals  of  fire  on  his  head.”  She  replied,  “  I  have 
tried  hot  water,  sir  !  ”  Could  not  my  friend  try  boiling  water  ?  I  had 
overlooked  the  obvious  answer  that  boiling  water  which  killed  the  ants 
would  probably  kill  the  standard  Rose  also.  Would  any  of  your 
experts  come  to  the  help  of  the  lady,  and  advise  in  your  columns  how 
to  meet  such  emergency  P — A.  C. 
- <•«•> - 
Equisetum  arvense. 
In  answer  to  “  J.  T.  A.,”  page  549  of  last  week’s  Journal,  I  can  say 
that  one  very  good  method  of  getting  rid  of  this  rather  troublesome 
weed  is  good  cultivation.  When  I  took  charge  of  this  garden  several 
years  ago  one  division  was  much  infested  with  what  are  termed  by  the 
workmen  in  this  neighbourhood  Horsepipes.  When  digging  the  ground 
over,  the  soil  had  quite  a  dark  appearance,  owing  to  the  great  quantity 
of  the  black  rhizomes  it  contained.  No  special  means  were  U9ed  to 
destroy  it  further  than  to  pick  out  the  thickest  of  the  roots  or,  rather, 
rhizomes,  the  first  time  it  was  dug.  It  came  up  rather  thickly  for  a 
season  or  two,  but  by  thorough  cultivation,  deep  digging,  manuring, 
and  keeping  the  hoe  at  work  between  growing  crops,  it  has  disappeared. 
Indeed  we  rarely  ever  see  a  plant  of  it  now,  and  only  when  we  are 
longer  than  usual  in  getting  the  hoe  at  work.  This  is  a  much  more 
economical  method  than  trenching.  I  might  give  further  proof  of 
this  method.  In  a  village  near  here  there  are  several  cottage  gardens, 
forming  a  narrow  strip  along  the  side  of  the  public  road.  At  one  end 
is  a  garden  that  is  completely  overrun  by  this  weed,  almost  covering 
the  different  crops,  which  is,  I  feel  sure,  through  bad  cultivation, 
from  the  following  fact.  This  garden,  or  rather  half  a  garden, 
belonged  years  ago  to  another  man,  who  is  a  good  cultivator, 
consequently  he  had  no  Horsepipes  to  bother  him.  Some  time  ago  it 
was  divided  into  two — I  might  say  it  is  on  the  side  of  a  hill,  and  it  was 
divided  lengthwise,  so  the  soil  is  about  the  same  in  both  cases.  While 
the  old  tenant  had  a  clean  garden,  the  newer  one  is  greatly  troubled  by 
this  weed.  Many  of  the  cottagers  do  nothing  to  their  gardens  from  the 
time  the  crops  are  harvested  until  it  is  time  to  sow  and  plant  again, 
then  they  manure,  dig,  plant,  and  sow  almost  altogether.  Such  things 
as  Potatoes,  Peas,  Broad  Beans,  &c.,  are  put  in  as  the  digging  is 
proceeded  with,  consequently  the  land  cannot  be  cleaned  until  the  crops 
appear,  as  they  cannot  see  where  they  are.  I  advised  the  owner  of  the 
garden  to  try  a  different  method  ;  he  has  done  so  this  season.  He  can 
now  keep  the  Horsepipes  in  check  before  they  have  time  to  grow 
strongly.  So  far  his  garden  is  much  cleaner  than  it  has  been  for  some 
time.  I  am  convinced,  if  he  will  follow  up  this  method,  he  will  soon 
get  rid  of  the  weed. — J.  S.  Upex. 
Monster  Strawberries. 
I  have  pleasure  in  sending,  Mr.  Editor,  four  Strawberry  fruits  from 
my  crop,  which  is  probably  the  most  remarkable  in  the  kingdom. 
They  are  the  product  of  Leader,  from  yearling  plants.  You  will  find 
that  one  fruit  measures  8  inches  around  its  largest  part.  I  have 
gathered  several  basketsful  that  would  cover  the  top  of  an  ordinary 
tumbler  glass.  There  are  as  many  as  six  and  eight  of  these  large 
fruit,  and  numerous  small  ones,  not  yet  matured,  on  individual 
small  plants.  The  crop  is  quite  phenomenal.  The  first  to  ripen  was 
on  June  9th  ;  2s.  per  pound,  and  2d.  each  fruit,  has  been  realised  for 
them  in  Oswestry  Market.  Have  any  of  your  readers  had  similar 
experience?  Space  for  this  letter  in  your  valuable  journal  will  be 
esteemed. — Alfred  Davies,  Ardleen,  Llanymynech. 
[The  fruits  sent  were  monsters  in  siz9,  just  as  Mr.  Davies  describes. 
They  travelled  very  well,  and  came  from  the  box  clean  and  fresh.  The 
flavour  was  pleasant,  and  much  finer  than  we  had  expected  from  such 
large  Strawberries.  The  advocates  of  “  yearling  plants  ”  will  rej  oioe.] 
Royal  Horticultural  Society  of  Ireland. 
The  discussion  which  has  been  going  on  of  late  is  not  likely  to  prove 
of  much  good,  either  to  Mr.  Brock  or  the  above  society.  Bearing  on 
the  question  as  to  who  was  to  blame,  permit  me  to  inform  your  readers 
that  if  Mr.  Brock  had  explained  to  the  secretary  of  the  society  how  he 
wished  the  cheque  to  be  filled  in,  his  wishes  would  have  been  carried 
out.  It  is  an  open  secret  that  more  than  one  gardener  receives  the 
cheque  direct  from  the  society  without  it  passing  through  the  employer’s 
hands.  No,  Mr.  Brock,  it  would  have  been  better  had  you  bided  your 
time  till  next  December  and  brought  the  question  before  the  members 
of  the  then  society  and  have  it  settled,  as  it  must  be  sooner  or 
later.  What  the  Ulster  Society  can  do,  a  society  like  the  above  should 
be  better  able  to  do. — Ulsteria. 
[This  discussion,  which  is  now  closed,  may,  we  hope,  not  be  withou; 
beneficial  results.  There  is  need  of  fuller  understanding  between 
officials  and  exhibitors,  and  perhaps  of  leniency  and  less  precipitancy  on 
both  sides.  Directly  or  indirectly,  the  discussion  on  Mr.  Brock’s  case 
has  had  a  good  effect,  and  that  has  been  our  desire  in  publishing  the 
numerous  letters  on  the  subject.  Not  a  year  passes  by  without 
bringing  to  notice  oases  of  confliction  arising  from  misunderstandings 
of  the  rules  and  bye-laws  of  the  hundreds  of  horticultural  societies 
disposed  over  these  isles.  And  all  goes  to  prove  what  great  care  is 
required  in  drawing  up  the  rules  and  bye-laws  in  the  first  instanoe,  and 
ia  adhering  to  and  applying  them  afterwards.] 
TI\e  Shrewsbury  Schedule. 
After  the  clear  and  corroborated  testimony  furnished  by  Messrs. 
Adnitt  (page  503),  Wilson  (page  525),  and  myself  (page  481),  anent 
this  dispute,  I  regret  to  find  Mr.  Iggulden  still  sceptical  and  obdurate. 
Worse  still,  his  remarks  all  through  the  controversy  have  savoured 
strongly  of  vindictiveness,  reminding  one  of  that  notorious  junior 
counsel  who  was  told,  upon  consultation  with  his  learned  superior,  “No 
case,  abuse  plaintiff’s  attorney.”  I  had  fondly  hoped  that  a  certain 
V.  M.  H.  on  the  Fruit  Committee,  and  who,  I  guess,  had  a  finger  in  the 
pie  originally,  would  have  put  the  matter  in  the  right  light,  but  as  he  has 
not  done  so  let  us  onoe  more  review  the  facts  of  the  case,  leaving  out  all 
the  irrelevant  matter  introduced  by  Mr.  Iggulden,  confining  ourselves 
strictly  to  class  73,  and  the  simple  points  in  dispute.  First  Mr.  I. 
says  that  a  schedule  blunder  has  been  committed  in  the  Shrewsbury 
schedule  of  1901  by  excluding  Canon  Hall  from  class  73  competition, 
and  he  further  assumes  the  reason  to  be  because  it  is  “  not  ”  considered 
distinot  from  Muscat  of  Alexandria.  Now  I  denied  this,  and  do  still 
deny,  that  any  blunder  has  been  made  in  olass  73  on  those  grounds, 
and  also  that  Canon  Hall  is  not  exoluded  from  that  competition  (the 
details  were  given  in  my  last,  page  481).  I  further  say  that  the 
restrictions  imposed  were  carefully  and  deliberately  arrived  at,  and 
largely  from  past  experience. 
Having  thus  reviewed  the  facts,  it  will  be  patent  to  everyone  to 
see  how  ridiculous  it  is  for  Mr.  I.  to  further  obscure  the  facts,  by  his 
continued  shuffling,  in  asking  me  what  he  chooses  to  call  “  a  plain 
question” — viz.,  “If  Mr.  C.  or  the  authorities  maintain  that  Canon 
Hall  is  not  perfectly  distinot  from  Muscat  of  Alexandria  ?  ”  The  words, 
“to  maintain,”  if  I  understand  them  rightly,  mean  to  continue;  to 
support  a  position  ;  but  as  neither  the  schedule,  other  correspondents, 
nor  myself  have  ever  stated  or  inferred  that  the  above  varieties  were 
not  distinct,  one  sees  the  absurdity  of  the  plain  question,  to  maintain 
or  deny  something  that  has  not  been  said.  To  say  the  least,  it  is  a 
process  of  shuffling.  All  I  wish  to  “  maintain  ”  is,  that  a  schedule 
blunder  has  not  been  made  by  the  Shrewsbury  Committee  or  their 
advisers,  and  that  Canon  Hall  is  not  debarred  from  class  73  competition. 
On  the  other  hand,  those  readers  who  have  followed  the  controversy 
will  see  clearly  enough  that  it  ii3  Mr.  I.’s  reading  of  the  schedule  that 
has  “blundered,”  hence  he,  too,  is  not  the  infallible  being;  whilst 
those  writers  who  have  not  the  “  time  ”  nor  the  “  inclination  ”  to  wade 
through,  or  grasp  the  whole  correspondence,  have  no  right  to  reply. 
— W.  Crump,  Madresfield  Court. 
