286 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
April  4,  1901. 
Cucumbers. 
The  advice  given  by  Mr.  W.  Iggnlden,  page  223,  on  the  cultivation 
of  Cucumbers,  has  a  sound  and  practical  ring  with  it,  and  doubtless 
many  failures  may  be  traced  to  the  causes  he  describes.  The  notes  in 
question  set  me  thinking,  and  comparing  the  interest  once  taken  in  the 
culture  of  Cucumbers  in  private  gardens  with  that  displayed  at  the 
present  time.  The  decision  I  arrived  at  is,  that  the  homely  Cucumber 
has  had  its  day.  Mr.  Iggulden  connects  it  with  the  salmon  season,  and 
for  the  sake  of  that  dainty  it  must  still  be  grown,  but  the  man  in  the 
street  no  longer  prizes  the  Cucumber  as  he  once  did.  Perhaps  it  is 
because  the  market  grower  has  reduced  it  from  the  level  of  a  luxury  to 
a  cheap  commodity  ;  or  it  may  be  that  digestive  organs  are  not  what 
they  used  to  be.  I  think,  rather,  that  the  wonderful  popularity  of  the 
Tomato  is  accountable  for  the  decline  of  the  Cucumber,  for  there  is  no 
doubt  which  has  the  greatest  hold  on  public  taste. — H. 
The  Briton  and  his  Commercial  Rivals, 
The-  bogey  of  “  made  in  Germany,”  and  the  reiterated  cry  that 
British  commerce  is  being  worsted  in  every  market  of  the  world,  lead 
me  to  ask  for  a  little  space  in  your  columns  to  place  before  your  readers 
one  or  two  reasons  why  they  need  not  give  way  to  feelings  of  despair, 
or  even  despondency,  over  the  situation.  By  the  articles  which  are 
published  from  day  to  day  in  newspapers  and  magazines,  our  foreign 
trade  is  made  to  appear  decadent,  while  that  of  Germany  and  America 
is  shown  to  be  as  rapidly  growing.  “  Give  a  dog  a  bad  name  and  hang 
him.”  Tell  the  whole  world  day  by  day  that  the  Briton  is  a  degenerate, 
and  that  his  German  and  American  rivals  are  cutting  him  out,  and  the 
prophets  will  bring  about  the  fulfilment  of  their  own  forebodings ; 
merchants  and  manufacturers  will  become  discouraged,  and  capitalists 
will  look  abroad  for  more  promising  fields  in  which  to  invest,  and  then 
we  may  write  “Ichabod”  over  the  gateways  of  our  custom  houses.  A 
great  number  of  writers  take  it  for  granted  that  Germans  and 
Americans  have  made  relatively  far  greater  progress  than  Britons 
during  the  past  twenty  years ;  indeed,  the  opinion  of  some  of  the 
authorities  in  the  symposium  on  this  subjeot,  held  in  a  monthly  review 
this  month,  clearly  is,  that  Britain  has  lost  its  supremacy  in  the  field 
of  foreign  commerce,  and  that  it  has  fallen  into  a  second  or  third  plaoe, 
behind  Germany  or  America.  I  have  seen  enough  of  German  and 
American  factories  and  institutions  to  fill  me  with  respect  for  them,  yet 
I  have  felt  no  uneasiness  concerning  our  own  prospects.  It  may  be  all 
very  well  to  attempt  to  spur  on  the  British  manufacturer  to  greater 
endeavour  by  warning  him  of  what  his  rivals  are  doing,  but  exaggeration, 
and  in  many  cases  false  statements,  are  not  justifiable.  With  your 
permission,  I  would  like  to  lay  the  following  broad  statement  of  facts 
before  your  readers,  so  that  they  may  draw  their  own  conclusions,  from 
official  data  : — 
The  annual  gross  exports  of  merchandise  from  the  U.K.,  Germany, 
and  the  U.S.A.,  as  given  in  the  statistical  abstract  of  the  Board  of 
Trade,  divided  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  respective  countries,  during 
the  period  from  1879  to  1899,  split  up  into  three  equal  terms  of  seven 
years. 
United 
Germany  and 
Kingdom. 
Germany. 
U.S.A. 
U.S.A.  combine 
Total  exports  Total  exports  Total  exports 
Total  exports 
per  capita. 
per  capita. 
per  capita. 
per  capita. 
Periods. 
£  s.  d. 
£  S.  d. 
£  b.  d. 
£  s.  d. 
1879  to  1885 
8  4  1 
4  17  5 
3  2  2 
7  19  7 
1886  to  1892 
8  0  11 
4  8  4 
2  14  1 
7  2  5 
1893  to  1899 
7  9  0 
3  12  2 
2  18  9 
6  10  11 
The  above  decreases  are  due  to  the  fall  in  value  of  late  years ;  the 
actual  volume  of  trade  has,  of  course,  greatly  increased. 
Besides  showing  that  the  Briton  is  doing  more,  man  for  man,  than 
his  two  great  rivals  combined,  the  above  statement  proves  that  he  is 
increasing  his  lead.  In  the  foregoing  the  export  business  only  has  been 
taken  into  account,  and,  moreover,  no  credit  has  been  claimed  for  the 
great  preponderance  of  the  British  shipping  and  financial  interests,  in 
which  this  kingdom  is  facile  princeps. — Geo.  J.  S.  Beoomhall, 
9,  Adelphi  Terrace,  Strand,  W.C.,  25 th  March,  1901. 
[We  are  pleased  to  publish  our  correspondent’s  communication, 
because  we  are  entirely  at  one  with  him  in  his  views  regarding  the 
ultimate  resuits  that  will  almost  certainly  afecrue  from  the  repeated 
whines  regarding  the  decadence  of  British  commercial  enterprises. — Ed.] 
Late  Keeping  Culinary  Apples. 
I  notice  in  the  last  number  of  the  Journal  an  article  upon  this 
subject  by  “  G.”  Everybody  has  his  own  opinion  about  which  are  the 
best  late  Apples,  and  I  will  give  my  selection  before  concluding  this 
note ;  but  what  I  wish  to  point  out  is,  that  I  think  “  G.”  cannot  have  the 
true  Northern  Greening,  or  he  would  not  say  that  it  is  a  vigorous 
grower.  The  old  Northern  Greening  is  a  capital  keeping  Apple  and  a 
good  cropper,  but  makes  one  of  the  smallest  orchard  standards  of  the 
cooking  varieties,  and  the  fruit  is  so  small  that  no  one  thinks  of 
planting  it  to-day.  The  improved  variety,  New  Northern  Greening,  is 
much  superior,  and  in  the  Midlands  is  a  very  fine  Apfde,  although  it 
does  not  succeed  so  well  in  the  South.  Your  correspondent  says  that 
Northern  Greening  and  John  Apple  are  synonymous,  and  I  see  that 
Dr.  Hogg  gives  John  Apple  as  a  synonym  for  Northern  Greening,  and 
also  for  Winter  Greening.  Under  the  latter  heading  is  given  the 
name  of  French  Crab,  a  name  which  is  more  familiar  to  most  of 
us  than  Winter  Greening.  Now  French  Crab  is  entirely  distinct  from 
John  Apple,  as  much  so  as  is  Northern  Greening.  The  old  John 
Apple  does  not  resemble  these  in  the  least,  but  has  a  flattened  outline 
and  an  open  eye,  whereas  Northern  Greening  is  more  or  less  conical 
with  a  closed  eye,  and  French  Crab  has  also  a  closed  eye.  However, 
one  need  not  pursue  this  further,  as  most  of  these  varieties  belong 
to  the  past,  and  are  not  likely  to  come  to  the  front  again  whilst  we 
have  such  Apples  in  cultivation  as  those  which  are  largely  planted 
to-day.  If  I  were  to  make  a  selection  of  the  three  best  winter  Apples 
for  profit  and  quality  combined,  I  should  say  Lane’s  Prince  Albert, 
Newton  Wonder,  and  Bramley’s  Seedling  are  far  away  the  best. 
Dumelow’s  Seedling  (which  our  correspondent  calls  Wellington,  although 
we  have  a  Wellington  Apple  which  is  entirely  distinct)  is  doubtless  the 
finest  of  all  cooking  Apples  ;  very  few  people  would  disagree  about  this, 
but  it  is  not  a  heavy  cropper,  and  does  not  succeed  in  all  situations. 
For  quality  I  think  Beauty  of  Kent,  Alfriston,  and  Bramley’s  Seedling, 
in  the  order  named,  would  take  a  good  deal  of  beating  as  late  cooking 
Apples.  For  many  years  I  have  advocated  the  keeping  of  late  cooking 
Apples  for  sale  at  this  time  of  the  year.  Many  people  say  it  is  a  mistake, 
but  my  neighbours  are  now  making  12s.  a  bushel  of  Newton  Wonder 
and  Bramley’s  Seedling,  which  is  quite  double  the  prioe  they  were  worth 
before  Christmas,  so  that  they  are  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  result  of 
storing  their  fruit. — A.  H.  Pearson,  Lowdham,  Notts. 
Stable  Ifanure  versus  Artificial. 
I  beg  to  differ  from  Mr.  J.  J.  Willis,  as  I  fail  to  see  how  in  anv  way 
the  statement  I  made  on  page  135  “  makes  his  case  stronger.”  What  is 
his  case  ?  It  is  clearly  stated  in  a  sentence  on  page  258,  and  is  as 
follows  : — “  Artificial  fertilisers  are  more  readily  available  to  plant 
growth  than  the  best  made  farmyard  dung.”  I  think  all  the  teaching  of 
the  Journal,  whether  it  be  in  articles  or  discussions,  is  to  enable  practical 
men  to  understand  something  more  of  the  work  in  which  they  are 
engaged.  Let  us  in  dealing  with  this  question  keep  that  object  in  view, 
for  I  see  no  reason  why  the  teaching  of  anyone  should  be  despised,  as 
we  do  not  write  with  the  object  of  belittling  eaoh  other,  but  with  the 
idea  of  gaining  information.  A  statement  to  be  of  any  practical  value 
to  growers  should  not  be  based  on  theory,  but  on  facts.  Now,  where 
are  the  facts  on  which  Mr.  Willis  bases  his  assertion  that  “  artificial 
fertilisers  are  much  more  readily  available  to  plant  growth  than  the 
best  made  farmyard  dung  ?  ”  He  brings  forward  no  facts.  He  brings 
forward  a  theory  based  on  certain  Rothamstead  experiments,  and  I  say 
these  experiments  are  very  unsatisfactory  and  cannot  prove  anything  ; 
and  now  I  will  try  and  prove  my  statement.  A  field  at  Rothamstead  is 
divided  in  ten  plots,  and  each  of  these  plots — the  soil  being  very  similar 
in  character — are  dressed  with  various  kinds  of  manures,  one  receiving 
none.  Plot  2,  in  1876,  received  14  tons  of  dung,  and  yielded  854-  cwts. 
of  Potatoes.  Plot  9  received  no  dung,  only  3^  cwts.  of  superphosphate; 
but,  strange  to  say,  yielded  121  cwts.  of  Potatoes.  Why  all  this 
inorease  ?  Mr.  Willis  explains  it  by  saying  there  was  available  nitric 
acid  in  the  soil  of  No.  9  plot;  but  surely  if  your  correspondent  says 
there  was  available  nitric  acid  in  the  soil  of  one  plot  he  must  admit  its 
presence  in  other  plots,  in  fact  all  through  the  field ;  if  he  does  not, 
then  the  experiments  were  useless,  and  should  never  have  been  quoted 
in  support  of  his  case.  But  I  find  this  is  not  the  only  puzzle  concerning 
these  experiments.  Here  is  another.  No.  9  plot,  with  a  dressing  of 
3£  cwts.  of  superphosphate,  and  the  assumed  available  nitric  acid  in  the 
soil,  yielded  121  cwts.  of  Potatoes.  No.  3  plot  was  also  dressed  with 
3$  cwts.  of  superphosphates,  but  in  addition  it  received  14  tons  of  dung, 
and  then  there  was  the  available  nitric  acid,  and  what  was  the  yield  ? — 
106f  cwts.  of  Potatoes.  If  we  take  these  two  plots  as  teaching  any¬ 
thing  it  is  this — that  it  did  more  harm  than  good  to  apply  the  dung,  for 
the  yield  of  Potatoes  was  less.  This  is  the  only  natural  conclusion  we 
could  come  to  from  these  two  facts,  and  is  one  of  the  things  which  show 
how  unsatisfactory  the  result  of  these  experiments  were  ;  and  it  is  upon 
records  like  these  that  Mr.  Willis  tries  to  prove  the  slow  action  of  dung 
compared  with  artificials.  The  greatest  puzzle  of  all  is  why  your 
correspondent  only  brought  forward  experiments  on  Potatoes,  and 
omitted  others.  Was  it  because  they  prove  that  farmyard  dung  acts  or 
produces  as  much  as  artificials  P  Here  are  a  few  :  — Barley,  plot  7 
