1§2 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
March  9,  1809. 
Henry  Bailey. 
Who  has  not  heard  of  and  tasted  Bailey’s  fMelons  ?  Few  may 
remember  his  short  pifhy  articles  as  “  H.  B,”  on  the  “Orchards  of 
Kent”  in  The  Cottage  Gardener^  but  some  will  never  forget  his  lucid 
contributions  to  the  Journal  of  Horticulture  on  “Fruit  Tree 
Pruning”  when  gardener  at  Nuneham  Park.  We  say  lucid  with 
emphasis,  for  the  illustrations  clearly  conveyed  the  directions  a 
multitude  of  words  never  do.  Fewer  and  more  to  the  purpose  were 
never  employed  by  any  horticultural  writer  than  by  Mr.  Bailey. 
True,  his  contributions  were  not  numerous,  but  so  far  as  they  went 
they  excelled  in  pithiness  and  clearness. 
Thomas  Weaver. 
As  gardener  to  the  Warden  of  Winchester  College,  Mr.  Weaver 
may  not  have  been,  as  measured  by  extent  of  charge,  a  great  man,  hut 
he  certainly  was  2.  good  practitioner,  otherwise  he  could  not  have  given 
satisfaction  to  his  employer  or  employers  for  a  lifetime,  or  contributed 
articles  during  many  years.  He  had  the  rare  faculty  of  brevity,  using 
short  pregnant  sentences,  ever  to  the  point,  and  indicating  hard- 
headed  principles  guided  by  horny-handed  practice.  His  instructions 
for  the  kitchen  garden  bore  the  stamp  of  the  “man  of  mark,” 
working  hard  on  well  defined  lines.  They  still  abide  as  landmarks  of 
what  must  be  done  in  the  vegetable  garden  day  by  day,  week  by  week, 
and  month  by  month,  in  order  to  maintain  a  constant  supply  of 
vegetables  and  salads  throughout  the  year. 
.John  Robson. 
\^'hat  ?  A  kitchen  gardener  !  Yes,  verily,  Mr.  Robson  began  his 
gardening  career  as  kitchen  server.  Hence  he  entered  upon  his 
writing  life  fortified  with  the  hand  and  head  work  essential  to  keeping 
all  things  smooth  in  the  kitchen,  while  making  everything  pleasant 
and  saiisfactory  in  the  dining  room.  In  the  kitchen  garden  the 
kid-gloved  hands  do  not  shine  in  work,  except  on  necessarily  tender¬ 
handed  amateurs,  and  they,  as  a  rule,  write  best  that  have  done 
most  by  hand  and  head.  Mark,  “  most  ”  means  greatest  or  highest 
degree — the  gardener  using  every  available  means  to  render  his  charge 
attractive  and  satisfactory.  The  cottager’s  garden,  an  allotment,  or 
any  small  space  of  ground,  has  as  much  claim  to  mo  t  as  the  garden 
or  field  measuring  acres,  for  the  union  of  labour  with  intelligence  can 
be  shown  as  well  upon  a  small  as  upon  a  large  scale. 
But  John  Robson  excelled  in  fruit  gardening  as  well.  Great  as  he 
was  in  the  kitchen  or  fruit  garden,  he  was  greater  in  the  pleasure  grounds, 
and  amongst  broad  and  narrow  leaved  trees,  flowering  and  leafy  shrubs, 
plants  of  many  kinds,  and  every  species  or  variety  in  its  proper  place. 
An  arboriculturist  of  the  first  order,  pleasure  ground  director  of  the 
front  rank,  and  flower  gardener  cf  the  foremost,  Robson’s  “  hobby 
horse  ”  was  plans  of  flower  gardens,  how  to  prepare  the  beds,  what  to 
plant,  the  way  to  manage,  and  make  a  place  beautiful  at  all  seasons. 
John  Wills. 
Decorative  art  was  natural  to  Mr.  W’llls.  Fh'wer  gardening  in 
private  establishments  couM  not  contain  him,  or  hybridisation  or 
increasing  and  improving  plants  and  flowers  by  cross-fertilisation 
satisfy  his  ambition  ;  hence  he  strove  for  and  secured  “  fresh  fields 
And  pastures  new.”  The  great  metropolis  of  the  world  alone  did  not 
afford  scope  for  his  operations,  hut  he  must  needs  fiiftiate  and  control 
one  of  the  greatest  businesses  the  world  has  yet  seen  dh  decorative  art. 
The  flower  girl,  the  plantsman  and  florist,  the  wreath  maker  and 
bomiuetiere,  the  horticultural  builder  and  light  goods  transporter — every 
lover  of  flowers,  all  those  who  delighted  in  adorning  their  houses  with 
plants  and  flowers,  everyone  seeking  to  solace  the  sick  and  pay  tributes 
to  the  departed,  have  reason  to  respect  the  master  of  the  art  of  floral 
decoration — John  Wills.  He  wrote  fluently,  and  ennobled  the  craft 
by  his  efforts  to  adorn  mankind  and  homes  in  garniture  superior  tO' 
that  of  “  Solomon  in  all  his  glory.” 
The  Rev.  W.  F.  Radclyffe. 
The  Rector  of  Rushton  was  famous  for  the  cultivation  of  the  queen 
of  flowers — the  Rose — loved  it  in  the  garden,  against  the  walls  of 
English  home.®,  and  in  the  greenhouse.  Its  perfume  was  to  him  the 
nectar  of  the  gods ;  its  form  and  its  tints  of  colour  the  rainbow  of 
enduring  love.  He  wrote,  as  only  the  educated  can,  so  that  all 
willing  ears  understood  and  profited.  At  Okeford  Fitzpaine  he 
directed  his  attention  to  fruits,  especially  Peaches  and  Nectarines  on 
low  walls.  In  the  articles  on  these  and  kindred  subjects  the  gi^rdener 
appeared  very  conspicuously,  his  hobbies,  like  Mr.  Beaton’s,  being  to 
give  plain  directions  to  beginners,  useful  help  and  sound  advice. 
The  Rev.  A.  Headley. 
The  Rector  of  Hardenhuish  was  a  self-taught  rosarian,  who  had  no 
teacher  but  the  Journal,  and  the  God-given  love  of  Nature.  His 
writings,  ever  overflowing  in  humanity,  endeared  all  hearts  to  him,  and,, 
knowing  this,  longed  for  weekly  intercourse  with  kindred  spirits,  and 
found  no  difficulty,  through  “  Our  Journal,”  in  securing  it.  To  saj 
that  his  writings  adorned  these  pages  is  not  enough — he  wmrked  to 
increase  and  improve  the  produce  of  the  land  in  beauties  inculcated  by 
the  undying  love  of  Nature. 
Robert  Fish. 
At  Putteridge  Bury,  Mr.  Fish  was  famous  in  flower  gardening — 
nay,  in  every  department.  “Very  particular”  was  his  predominant 
characteristic — as  to  soil,  handling  and  smelling  to  ascertain  texture 
and  sweetness.  Yes,  he  was  “  very  particular.”  In  writing  more 
than  that,  for  was  he  not  always  exact  ?  “  Hobbies,”  he  had  none,  all 
requirements  of  the  cottage,  the  villa,  the  mansion,  for  plants,  flowers, 
fruits,  and  vegetables  were  one  to  him.  If  the  dwellers  w^anted  those 
things  they  must  have  them  from  their  gardens.  What  he  did  in  this 
direction  was  a  delight  to  him  to  impart  to  others.  To  help  anyone 
in  difficulties  was  a  duty — gardening  must  succeed.  What  he  per¬ 
formed  in  work  of  this  nature  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the 
Cottage  Gardener  and  Jounad  <f  .Horticulture.  No  one  laboured 
more,  few  so  well,  and  none  better  to  make  all  men  gardeners.  This 
great  Scottish  gardener  ranks  as  one  of  the  most  useful  writers  on 
British  gardening,  and  no  name  amongst  gardeners  in  the  United 
Kingdom  stands  before  his  as  an  all-iound  gardener. 
William  Keane. 
This  name  appeared  continuously  for  many  years,  and  Mr.- 
Iveane’s  style  differs  from  that  ot  all  other  writers,  but  somewhat 
rc.-embled  Mr.  Weaver’s  in  shortness  of  sentences,  and  in  placing 
a  great  deal  in  little  space.  Unlike  that  very  practical  gardener, 
however,  he  could  enlarge  on  almost  any  subject,  but  he  seldom  oid 
more  than  the  calendar.  “  Work  for  the  Week,”  so  far  as  it  was  written 
by  him,  evidences  sound  knowledge  on  the  several  departments  of 
gardening,  his  directions  being  explicit  and  calculated  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  all  classes  of  gardeners. 
Many  other  names  of  horticultural  writers  in  the  Cottage 
Gardener  and  Journal  of  Hortic.idture  occur  to  us,  and  also  those 
that  have  enriched  the  pages  on  allien  subjects,  such  as  Mr.  H,  W. 
Newman  on  natural  history.  Prof.  Westwood  on  insect  pests,  the 
Rev.  M.  J.  Berkeley  on  diseases  caused  by  fungi  and  other  micro¬ 
organisms,  and  Mr.  H.  Honeyman  on  chemistry,  with  the  Rev. 
W.  W.  Wingfield  on  poultry,  Mr.  J.  H.  Payne  on  apiculture,  and  Mr. 
J.  Blundell  in  the  “  Home  Farmer.”  The  line  of  exclusion  must  be 
drawn,  and  in  doing  that  we  refer  all  interested  to  our  files,  wherein 
will  be  found  men  of  marie  not  less  noteworthy  in  some  respects  than 
those  of  whom  we  have  endeavrured  to  give  some  account,  and  of 
whose  works  there  can  be  no  question  as  regards  utility.  This  is  the 
measure  by  which  all  men  abide  in  history,  and  thus  they  do  in  the 
annals  of  the  Journal  of  Horticulture. 
THE  VETERANS’  PORTRAIT  GALLERY'. 
From  th  ’  e  whose  voices  are  hushed  in  death  we  must  turn  to- 
wriiers  whn  are  a  host  in  ii.nnselves  at  the  present  day.  Portraits  of 
these  have  been  distributed  thioughout  the  succeeding  page.s,  each 
being  accompanied  by  an  article  on  some  congenial  subject.  It  is  to 
such  men  that  readers  of  the  Journal  of  Horticulture  have  looked  for 
