July  26,  1900. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
75 
imany  things,  but  never  ^before  a  foreigner.  But  he  was  bound  to 
:admit  that  he^had  been  accorded  a  most  hearty  welcome  from  everyone 
in  England.  He  spoke  in  enthusiastic  terms  of  the  merits  of  the 
exhibition,  and  [regretted  that  the  American  trade  was  not  repre¬ 
sented.  He  thought  everyone  who  had  a  garden  must  have  Sweet 
'Peas,  and  referred  to  the  .immense  pleasure  he  had  found  in  their 
icultivation  during'^ the  summers  of  the  past  thirteen  years.  He  paid 
n  graceful  ^tribute  to  Mr.  Eckford.  Herr  Denary  and  Mr.  Gillman  both 
responded,  the  latter  asserting  that  the  Crystal  Palace  was  the  best 
place  in  London  for  exhibitions  of  this  or  a  similar  character. 
Mr.  N.  N.  Sherwood  proposed  the  toast  of  “  The  Officers  and 
Committees  of  the  Celebration,”  and  testified  t  )  the  pleasure  it  had 
given  him  both  to  be  able  to  assist  the  movement  by  placing 
his  triflls  at  disposal,  and  by  being  present  on  such  a  pleasant 
occasion.  Mr.  Richard  Dean  responded  in  his  well  known  style. 
Mr.  R.  Gofton  Salmond  proposed 
•*‘The  President  and  Vice-Presi¬ 
dents,”  a  toast  that  was  received 
with  enthusiasm,  Sir  William’s  being 
■musically  rendered.  The  president 
and  Mr.  J.  W.  Moss  responded,  and 
the  gathering  was  concluded. 
It  bad  been  extremely  pleasant, 
•but  was  far  too  long  for  a  day  with 
the  thermometer  at  nearly  90°  in 
the  shade,  especially  when  the  con¬ 
ference  fixed  to  immediately  succeed 
ithe  luncheon  was  considered. 
He  Conference, 
'The  opening  of  this  meeting  was 
Advertised  for  four  o’clock  on  the 
ffirst  day,  when  it  was  announced 
•that  three  papers  would  be  read  ; 
•the  concluding  proceedings  were  to 
■<;ommence  on  Saturday  at  2  p.m. 
The  length  of  the  luncheon  and 
the  heat  threw  these  arrangements 
slig-  tly  out  of  gear,  which  resulted 
•in  only  two  subjects  being  dealt  with 
•  on  the  first  day,  leaving  the  others 
for  the  second.  The  audience  that 
was  eventually  gathered  together 
-some  three-quarters  of  an  hour  late 
was  a  comparatively  small  one, 
but  made  up  in  knowledge  and 
enthusiasm  what  it  lacked  in 
mere  numbers.  Practically  everyone 
present  had  a  keen  interest  in 
’the  flower,  and  the  essayists  were 
therefore  listened  to  with  the  closest 
attention.  The  chair  was  taken 
by  Mr.  R.  Wilson  Ker  of  Liverpool,  who,  with  hardly  a  preliminary 
■word,  called  upon  Mr.  S.  B,  Dicks  to  read  his  paper  on  the 
History  of  the  Sweet  Pea, 
The  interest  that  Mr.  Dicks  has  taken  in  the  early  history  of  the 
'Sweet  Pea  was  made  more  and  more  apparent  the  deeper  the 
-exhaustive  paper  was  entered  upon.  He  has  had  opportunities  of 
gleaning  knowledge  in  almost  all  quarters  of  the  globe,  and  he  has 
apparently  let  no  single  chance  slip  away.  The  greater  proportion 
of  the  information  read  in  the  form  of  a  paper  on  the  present  occasion 
had  previously  been  distributed  through  the  medium  of  the  American 
Press,  but  it  was  nevertheless  fresh  to  many  of  the  listeners.  Mr. 
Dicks  clearly  set  forth  at  the  outset  that  it  was  only  with  the  early 
his'ory  of  the  Sweet  Pea  that  he  would'  deal,  as  the  more  recent 
improvement  bad  been  placed  in  other  hands.  The  early  records  of 
the  flower  are  apparently  somewhat  obscure  and  conflicting,  but 
so  far  as  possible  Mr.  Dicks  made  everything  plain  and  straight- 
iforward. 
Fig.  19. — The  Gebm 
Mr.  \V.  Cuthbertton. 
Naturally  his  information  was  crowded  with  botanical  names, 
dates,  and  the  authorities  for  nomenclature ;  and  from  a  few  of  those 
real  out,  it  was  very  evident  that  the  botanists  of  1650  and  onwards 
had  not  yet  recognised  the  advantages  of  reasonable  brevity. 
Both  Sicily  and  Ceylon  were  mentioned  as  being  native  places 
of  the  Sweet  Pea,  which  Father  Cupani  was  the  first  to 
chronicle  as  Lathyrus  distoplatyphyllus  hiruitus  m  llis  magno 
et  peramaeno  flore  odoro  ;  but  the  former  is  usually  accepted  as 
the  more  correct.  That  Mr.  Dicks  had  had  some  practice  with  such 
phras  s  was  proved  by  the  way  he  rolled  them  off  his  tongue,  whenc  ’ 
they  floved  with  all  the  ease  that  characterises  the  more  homely  and 
certainly  more  euphonistic  Lathyrus  odoratus  of  present  day  peoples. 
From  the  time  of  Cupani  to  that  of  Eckford  is  a  long  lane,  but 
Mr.  Dicks  followed  its  devious  ways  ia  a  masterly  manner,  and  kept 
his  audience  interested  over  a  space  of  quite  forty  minutes. 
Iq  the  subsequent  discussion  Mr. 
Ainsworth  of  Carter  &  Co.  gave  it 
as  his  opinion  that  Captain  Clarke, 
mmtioned  by  Mr.  Dicks,  was  a 
true  hybrid,  which  was  at  first  very 
beautiful,  but  which  in  the  course 
of  time  degenerated  until  it  was 
practically  useless.  Mr.  Hutchins 
quite  followed  Mr.  Ainsworth  in 
respect  of  Captain  Clarke,  as  he 
had  had  no  difficulty  in  producin'^ 
an  almost  identical  variety.  Messrs. 
H.  Eckford,  E.  Laxton,  J.  B’raser, 
G.  Stanton,  and  others  participated 
to  a  slight  degree  in  the  discussion. 
The  Classificatioii  of  the 
Sweet  Pea. 
The  question  of  adopting  some 
standard  for  governing  the  classifi¬ 
cation  of  the  Sweet  Pea  in  the 
future  is  one  of  the  greatest  import¬ 
ance,  and  Mr.  W.  P.  Wright  wa< 
requested  to  state  his  views  o  i  the 
matter.  This  he  did  in  a  brief  and 
pointed  manner,  after  warning  his 
hearers  that  the  question  was  an 
entirely  new  one,  and  that  his  state¬ 
ments  were  the  results  of  his  own 
personal  observations  and  convic¬ 
tions.  Until  the  present  moment 
we  have  had  what  may  be  describe  1 
as  two  sections,  but  these  were  by 
no  means  clearly  defined,  as  they 
had  relation  to  the  standards, 
whether  erect  or  hooded. 
Mr.  Wright  in  propounding  his  theory  called  for  the  abolition  of  the 
hooded  standard,  which  was,  he  asserted,  a  vice  that  was  seen  in  youth 
and  maturity.  He  pointed  out  how  both  hooded  and  erect  standards 
were  commonly  observable  on  the  same  spray,  thus  precluding  the 
possibility  of  any  definite  standard  on  such  an  unstable  foundation. 
The  standard  he  affirmed  should  be  erect,  at  least  Ij  inch  broad,  and 
of  great  substance,  while  the  wings  should  be  half  the  size  of  the 
standard,  and  closing  so  as  to  practically  obscure  the  keel,  which  is 
seldom  ornamental.  The  essayist  suggested  that  very  definite  rules 
be  laid  down  as  to  the  form  and  size  of  flowers  to  start  with,  and  then 
that  they  should  be  classified  according  to  their  colours.  This  would 
be  to  all  intents  and  purposes  following  the  lines  laid  down  for  the 
classification  of  the  Carnation,  and  it  is  so  simple  and  so  generally 
understood  that  much  could  be  said  in  favour  of  its  adoption. 
The  colour  headings  suggested  for  utilisation  were  seifs,  flakes, 
bicolors,  fancies,  and  Picotee  edged.  These,  it  will  be  admitted,  are 
sufficiently  comprehensive,  and  no  difficulty  need  be  anticipated  until 
the  division  between  the  seifs  and  bicolors  has  to  be  found.  There 
are  many  bi-coloured  Sweet  Peas,  but  very  few  true  seifs;  those  that 
OF  THE  Bicentenary. 
Mr.  R.  Dean. 
