302 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER, 
April  13,  1899. 
PROGRESS  IN  FRUIT  PRODUCTION. 
Under  this  heading  another  of  ihe  series  of  papers  by  Mr.  W.  E. 
Bear  on  “Flower  and  Fruit  Farming  in  England”  appears  in  the 
last  issue  of  the  Journal  of  the  Royal  Agricultural  SocietyP  The 
siuthor  is  evidently  endowed  with  great  mental  and  physical  activity, 
for  he  appears  to  have  been  .almost  everywhere  and  seen  almost  every¬ 
thing  in  most  of  the  chief  fruit  growing  districts  in  this  cotrntry. 
Added  to  undoubtedly  keen  powers  of  observation  he  has,  without 
■doubt,  another  faculty  highly  developed— namely,  that  of  extracting 
information  bearing  on  the  subject  of  his  quest.  Coupled  with  these 
•qu.alifications  is  that  of  a  facile  pen,  and  consequently  the  narrative  of 
■what  he  has  seen  and  heard  during  h's  wanderings  is  both  interesting 
and  suggestive,  while  it  can  scarcely  fail  to  be  instructive  and  helpful 
to  possessors  of  land  who  desire  to  devote  a  jrortion  of  it  to  the  cultiva¬ 
tion  of  fruit,  but  who  have  little  acquaintance  with  the  subject. 
Thoughfan  expert  agriculturist,  he  is  a  deep  lover  of  and  anxious 
learner  in  the  domain  of  gardening,  and  that  is,  t  o  doubt,  why  he 
■asked  so  many  quest'ons,  some  ofbvhich  might  not  have  occurred  to 
•an  experienced  practitioner,  and  his  volurainous  ref  ort  (from  which  we 
ttake  a  few  extracts)  will  be  of  the  greater  service  to  the  community  to 
which  it  appeals. 
‘u  Inaccuracies  ra  Fruit  Acreage.  ^ 
On  this  subject  we  find  stated  :  “  The  area  under  oreharfls  in  Great 
Britain  was  first  given  in  the  Agricultural  Returns  in  1871,  when  it 
was  far  from  being  accurate,  as  mentioned  in  the  returns  of  the  follow¬ 
ing  year.  As  one  proof  of  inaccuracy,  it  may  be  >em.arked  that 
■23,033  acres  were  returned  as  the  area  of  orchards  in  Wales  in  1871. 
This  area  was  reduced  to  10,680  .acres  in  1872,  and  still  it  w.is  far  too 
large,  as  it  was  brought  down  to  3052  acres  in  the  following  5'ear. 
fhough  without  a  word  of  e.xplanation.  Probably  the  extent  of 
•orchards  in  Wales  w.as  still  over-rated  in  1873,  as  in  1878  it  was 
‘returned  as  only  2646  acres.” 
Then  passing  over  several  years  to  the  period  of  reviv.al,  j\Ir.  Bear 
•continues  ; — “  Tabulated  statements  show  that  the  totals  for  England 
and  Wales  have  nearly  doubled  in  the  ten  years  that  have  elapsed 
since  1888,-  and  probably,  in  reality,  they  have  more  than  doubled, 
for  corrections  made  in  1897  considerably  reduced  the  sm.all  fiuit  area, 
while  a  slight  further  reduction  was  made  in  1898,  and  it  may  be 
assumed  that  the  errors  in  measurements  then  detected  prevailed  when 
the  earliest  return  was  made.  In  1896  the  totals  were  put  at  69.610 
acres  for  England,  1275  for  Wales,  and’ 5360  h'r  Scotland,  making 
76,245  acres  for  Great  Britain  ;  while  those  for  1897  were  63,535  acres 
for  England,  1043  for  Wales,  5214  for  Scotland,  and  69,792  lor  Great 
Britain.  Thus  the  reductions  were  6075  acres  for  England,  232  for 
Wales,  146  for  Scotland,  and  6453  for  Great  Britain.  The  figures  for 
1898,  as  given  in  the  table,  show  an  apparent  contraction.  The  number 
■of  new  plantations  seen  in  all  the  districts  I  have  visited  has  given  me' 
a  confident  opinion  to  the  effect  that  there  has  been  a  coni^iderable 
expansion  of  small  fruit  since  1896,  instead  of  a  contraction ;  ”  and  so 
say  all  of  us. 
Around  London. 
Mr.  Bear  then  deals  with  fruit  growing  in  various  districts.  As 
«n  example  of  open  air  culture  within  fifteen  miles  of  Charing  Cross, 
be  says : — 
“  Where  there  is  scope  new  plantations  of  top  and  bottom  fruit,  or 
trees  with  flowers  as  bottom  crops,  are  to  be  seen.  One  of  'the 
best  of  these — and  no  better  one  was  inspected  by  me  anywhere — is 
that  belonging  to  Mr.  Walker  of  Ham  Common,  near  Richmond, 
the  first  in  the  Thames  Valley  to  be  visited.  In  addition  to  a  con¬ 
siderable  acreage  of  flowers  and  vegetables,  Mr.  Walker  has  35  acres 
■of  fruit,  about  half  Apples,  one-fourth  Plums,  and  the  remaining 
fourth  Pears.  Gooseberries  and  Currants  are  grown  to  some  extent  as 
bottom  crops,  but  chiefly  in  the  rows  of  trees.  Narcissi  and  Paeonies 
■occu})ying  most  of  the  spaces  between  the  rows.  No  Damsons, 
Raspberries,  or  Strawberries  are  grown.  The  soil  is  sandy  ;  but,  with 
the  liberal  treatment  practised  by  the  occupier,  most  varieties  of  fruit 
flourish  in  it  admirably. 
Mr.  Walker’s  Varieties. 
“  The  principal  varieties  of  cooking  Apples,  early  sorts  being 
placed  first,  are  Lord  Grosvenor,  Grenadier,  New  Hawthornden, 
Stirling  Castle,  Bismarck,  Duchess  of  Oldenburg  (also  valuable 
as  a  dessert  Apple),  Lane’s  Prince  Albert  and  Wellington.  One 
■ef  the  most  popular  Apples  among  market  growers  in  some  districts, 
and  especially  upon  heavy  soils,  Brarnley’s  Seedling,  does  not  flouiirh 
well  in  the  sandy  soil  of  Ham  Common ;  while  Peasgood's  Nonesuch, 
■one  of  the  finest  and  the  most  handsome  of  all  cooking  Apples,  is 
not  to  be  compared  as  a  cropper,  in  Mr.  Walker’s  opinion,  with  such 
•varieties  as  Lord  Grosvenor,  Lane’s  Prince  Albert,  and  Bismarck. 
T'uchess  of  Oldenburg  and  Stirling  Castle  are  also  great  croppers  at 
'Ham  Common.  The  principal  dessert  Apples,  in  addition  to  the 
Duchess  of  Oldenburg,  are  Quarrenden,  Peter  the  Great  (otherwise 
Cardinal),  AVorcester  Pearmain,  Benoni,  King  of  the  Pippins,  Cox’s 
Orange  Pippin,  and  Yellow  Ingestrie.  The  chief  Pears  are  Clapp’s 
Favourite,  Williams’  Bon  Chretien,  Fertility,  Louise  Bonne  of  Jersey, 
Marie  Louise  d’Uccle,  and  Emile  d’lleyst.  Fertility  is  the  variety 
most  extensively  produced,  as  it  is  a  great  cropper,  and  it  comes  in 
just  after  the  common  Hessle,  which  is  the  variety  grown  on  the 
largest  scale  in  nearly  all  metropolitan  market  orchards.  Fertility  is 
superior  to  Hessle,  and  makes  a  better  price.  Very  few  late  Pears  are 
grown,  as  Mr.  Walker  does  not  store  fruit,  but  sends  all  to  market  as 
soon  as  it  is  picked.  The  Plums  most  extensively  grown  are  Rivers’ 
Early  Prolific,  Czar,  Victoria,  Pond’s  Seedling,  and  Alonarch.  The 
variety  named  first,  a  wonderful  cropper  in  most  parts  of  the  country, 
does  not  yield  as  well  as  some  other  kinds  at  Ham  Common,  and  this 
is  also  the  case  with  Prince  of  Wales. 
Planting  Distances  and  Stocks. 
“In  one  great  lot  of  Apples  in  the  bush  form  on  Paradise  stock, 
planted  eleven  years  previous  to  last  autumn,  10  feet  by  9  feet  apnrq 
it  has  become  liecessary  to  take  out  every  other  tree — a  lamentable 
but  necessary  sacrifice  of  tree.^»  now  in  full  profit.  Similarly,  in  the 
case  of  a  weil-grown  and  perfectly  healthy  lot  of  400  Cox’s  Orange 
Pippins  (there  are  200  in  another  place),  jdanted  six  years  previous  to 
last  autumn,  -uhen  three  years  from  the  budding,  13  feet  by  10  feet 
apaiC, -every  other  tree  is  now  being  reduced  in  size  by  trimming,  and 
in  a  few  years  will  have  to  be  dug  up.  Again,  a  magnificent  lot  of 
400  Duebess  of  Oldenburg  Apples  on  the  Paradise  stock,  ))lanted  five 
y^ears  ago,  when  thrte  years  from  the  budding.  13  feet  by  10  feet  apart, 
are  already  too  thick,  and  would  have  been  better  planted  13  feet  by 
13  feet.  As  to  the  distances  of  Plums,  a  lot  of  400  of  the  Czar  variety, 
16  feet  by  10  feet  apart,  and  now  about  ten  years  old.  from  the  time 
of  planting,  are  quite  thick  enough.  It  is  a  question  of  somewhat 
difficult  calculation  to  decide  whether  fruit  trees  should  be  planted 
closely  or  comparatively  widely.  In  the  former  case  there  will  be 
some  years  of  extra  production  before  half  the  trees  have  to  be  thrown 
away.  But  where  bottom  fruit  is  grown,  the  balance  of  advantage 
appears  to  lie  in  planting  standard  Apples  on  the  Crab  or  Pears  on  the 
Pear  stock,  24  feet  to  30  feet  apart,  with  dwarf  Aiiples  or  Pears  or 
Plums  at  half  distances,  so  that  no  uprooting  will  be  necessary  for 
about  twenty  years,  after  which  the  standards  will  cover  the  ground.” 
In  Middlesex. 
As  a  good  example  of  the  old  fruit  ]>lantations  of  the  Thames 
Valley,  that  held  by  Mr.  Poupart  of  Twickenham  was  visited.  'J'he 
nursery  is  about  160  acres  in  extent,  between  50  and  60  acres  being 
devoted  to  fruit,  and  the  rest  to  vegetables  and  flower.«.  The  rows  of 
fruit  trees  (mixed  Plums,  Apples,  and  Pears)  are  16  feet  to  18  feet 
apart,  and  the  trees  in  ihe  rows  about  12  feet  from  each  other.  A  few 
Cherries  and  a  fair  quantity  of  outdoor  wall  fruit  are  grown,  but  no 
Strawberries.  Mr.  Poupart  sella  his  own  nroduce  in  Covent  Garden, 
and  thus  is  able  to  make  the  most  of  it.  But  he  does  not  agree  with 
growers  who  think  that  the  salesmen’s  usual  charge  of  10  per  cent,  on 
the  returns  is  too  high.  On  the  contrary,  he  believes  that  it  hardly 
pays,  allowing  for  market  charges  and  the  cost  of  providing  packages. 
Old  orchards  in  the  Twickenham  district  let  at  £8  to  £8  10s.  an  acre, 
and  land  sells  up  to  £1000  an  acre,  or  even  more  in  some  places;  but 
it  was  surprising  to  learn  that  fruit  plantations  in  Cranford,  twelve 
miles  from  Cuvtnt  Garden,  let  in  some  cases  for  rents  as  high  as  £10 
to  £12  an  acre,  or  from  25  to  50  per  cent,  more  than  the  usual  rents  of 
orchards  in  parishes  very  much  more  populous  and  nearer  to  London. 
(To  be  continued.) 
THE  GARDENERS’  ORPHAN  FUND. 
Assuming  that  your  correspondents,  “  S.,  Yorks,"  and  “A  Country 
Gardener,”  page  257,  fairly  represent  the  views  of  non-subscriber 
gardeners  in  relation  to  their  objections  to  subscribe  to  the  Orphan 
Fund,  and  if  so,  I  hope  the  special  objection  put  forward  is  a  thoroughly 
honest  one,  then  does  it  merit  full  attention.  But  all  the  same  let  it  be 
remembered  that  the  Orphan  Fund  was  in  existence  several  years  before 
the  then  Secretary  was  granted  the  salary  stated,  and  it  is  fair  to  ask  how 
many  or  how  few  country  gardeners  then  did  subscribe;  certainly'  they 
had  not  then  this  peg  on  which  to  hang  an  objection. 
I  am  not  at  all  surprised  that  the  primary  objection  is  the  one  raised, 
because  I  have  heard  it  mentioned  privately  in  many  directions.  Still  it 
needs  a  good  deal  of  courage  to  avow  it  openly,  especially  if  the  objectors 
did  not  subscribe  to  the  Fund  prior  to  t’.ie  increase  in  the  salary.  But  I 
would  point  out  that,  after  all,  the  real  increase  was  not  100  guineas,  but  only 
about  50  guineas.  I  remember  that  at  the  time  the  then  Secretary  elected 
to  become  a  paid  official,  that  a  sum  of  some  £50  was  allowed  for  office 
expenses,  the  Committee  practically  recognising  the  right  of  the  Secretary 
to  have  some  compensation  for  the  use  of  his  house  as  the  Fund  offices. 
Now  that  the  salary  of  100  guineas  includes  the  50  guineas  formerly 
accorded  for  that  purpose  and  clerical  assistance,  the  present  Secretary 
has  to  use  a  portion  of  his  London  office  and  pay  for  clerical  help  out  of 
the  100  guineas  salary,  so  that  his  actual  pecuniary  recompense  cannot  be 
more  than  50  guineas  per  annum,  a  fact  which  should  be  clearly  under¬ 
stood. — A.  D. 
*  London;  John  Murray,  Albemarlei  Street. 
