May  30,  1901. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
459 
In  answer  to  your  correspondent  “  R.  M.,”  page  395,  re  the  above 
named  Grape,  I  may  say  that  my  experience  entirely  coincides  with 
his  respecting  Gros  Maroo.  I  have  a  young  Vine  of  it,  planted  in 
an  inside  border,  which  is  very  healthy  and  strong,  and  ought  to  be 
carrying  eight  or  ten  bunches,  but  it  has  only  produced  three  this  time, 
and  the  same  may  be  said  of  its  behaviour  last  year.  There  is 
certainly  one  strong  point  in  its  favour,  and  that  is  its  very  handsome 
appearance,  being  almost  blue-black  with  a  heavy  bloom  on  the  berries. 
It  comes  in  very  useful  to  an  exhibitor  when  he  is  staging  a  large 
collection  of  Grapes,  being  very  pleasing  to  the  eye,  but  to  the  palate 
it  is  very  different,  the  flesh  being  coarse  and  flavourless,  with  very 
little  sugar  in  it ;  therefore  I  should  say  that  for  the  majority  of  Grape 
growers  it  is  not  worth  growing. — R.  Morse. 
A  Problem  in  Heating  Solved. 
The  adoption  of  the  plan  described  by  “  H.  D.,”  on  page  378,  is 
certainly  an  improvement  on  many  such  troublesome  schemes  for 
overcoming  the  difficulty  of  passing  below  the  floor  from  one  side  of 
a  house  to  the  other.  Too  many  gardeners  know  from  experience 
gained  somewhere  during  their  probationary  days  what  such  “  dips  ”  in 
the  hot-water  pipes  mean,  especially  when  the  boiler  power  is 
inadequate.  Some  two  years  since,  however,  I  saw  this  course  adopted 
in  heating  a  church,  and  though  I  doubted  the  wisdom  of  the  engineer 
at  the  time,  I  have  since  found  that  no  difficulty  has  ever  been 
experienced  in  getting  the  heat  to  pass  from  one  side  to  the  other. 
Air  taps  were  fixed  at  the  two  points  where  the  pipes  dip  and  rise 
from  below  the  path  on  either  side  of  the  door.  Although  I  have 
waiched  the  progress  of  the  case  under  notice,  and  see  that,  in  this 
instance  at  any  rate,  it  works  perfectly,  I  should  still  hesitate  to  adopt 
it  unless  circumstances  rendered  it  imperatively  neoessary.  A  self¬ 
acting  air  pipe  would  be  preferable  to  taps  where  these  can  be  applied, 
as  with  these  no  air  accumulates  to  obstruct  the  passage  of  the  water. 
Those  who  have  pipes  so  constructed,  and  have  found  the  circulation 
defective,  would  no  doubt  find  an  air  outlet,  fixed  at  the  positions 
indicated  above,  remove  the  uncertainty,  no  matter  how  long  standing 
it  may  be,  and  the  cost  of  doing  this  certainly  would  be  little  compared 
to  the  trouble  and  risk  involved  in  bad  weather. — W.  S. 
- <♦#♦> - 
.  Royal  Horticultural  Society  of  Ireland. 
I  have  read  the  interesting  comments  of  your  correspondent 
Edw.  Harland,  on  page  351,  re  the  cause  of  my  dispute  with  the  above 
Society.  If  this  discussion  is  to  be  impartial,  I  fail  to  see  how  it  can 
be  so  without  a  knowledge  of  the  rules  which  I  quoted,  and  I  here¬ 
with  enclose,  for  the  Editor’s  acceptance,  the  copy  of  the  Society’s 
annual  report,  containing  the  twenty-one  rules  and  eighteen  bye-laws 
under  which  I  made  the  entries.  The  fact  that  the  entries  were 
accepted  through  my  agency  is  an  indisputable  proof  that  they 
recognised  that  agency,  therefore  the  executive  were  as  directly 
responsible  to  me  as  I  was  to  my  employer,  and  my  acknowledgement 
to  them  that  I  received  the  awards  should  have  been  sufficient  to  free 
them  from  any  further  responsibility  they  had  to  him.  There  was  no 
other  form  under  which  I  could  compete  without  putting  my  employer’s 
name  on  the  entry  form.  As  a  practical  member  I  maintain  that  I  was 
perfectly  justified  in  making  the  entries  in  the  manner  I  did. 
I  have  never  disputed  the  question,  but  I  consider  that  employers 
are  as  justly  entitled  to  all  prizes  won  with  their  property  as  they  are 
to  money  derived  from  the  sale  of  the  produoe  of  their  gardens, 
providing  of  course  that  they  pay  all  expenses  incurred  by  exhibiting, 
and  that  no  agreement  or  understanding  exists  to  the  oontrary. 
Personally  I  do  not  consider  it  is  a  debatable  question.  The  very 
courteous  letters  of  the  secretary  go  to  show  that  the  Society  has  no 
rule  whereby  they  could  defend  the  action  of  the  Finance  Committee. 
The  only  defence  is  that  I  put  my  employer’s  name  on  the  entry  form, 
and  a  reference  to  the  faot  “  that  the  executive  have  been  repeatedly 
brought  to  task  over  paying  prize  money  direct  to  gardeners,  and 
ignoring  the  exhibitors  in  whose  names  the  entries  were  made.”  Such 
untrustworthy  men  as  the  above  statement  indicates  must  surely 
belong  to  that  class  of  gardeners  which  I  have  read  about  in  a 
contemporary  (“  The  Irish  Gardener”),  and  whose  servioes  can  be  had 
in  oo.  Dublin  for  15s.  per  week,  with  a  barrowful  of  coal  as  a  perquisite. 
Doubtless  such  gardeners  have  never  known  what  it  is  to  have  the 
privilege  of  free-will  action,  or  power  of  agency  to  buy  even  an  ounce 
of  Cabbage  seed. 
Referring  to  the  very  able  criticisms  of  “  W.  R.  Raillem,”  on 
page  373,  I  must  say  that  in  the  face  of  the  standing  rules  and  bye-laws 
of  the  Society  his  argument  falls  to  the  ground.  There  is  no  stipulation 
in  the  sohedule  that  the  exhibitor  must  be  the  bond  fide  owner ;  the 
nearest  approach  to  it  is  that  the  subjects  of  the  exhibits  must  be  in  his 
possession  at  least  two  months  previous  to  being  exhibited.  There 
may  be  something  humorously  Irish  to  record  in  the  presenting  of  the 
medal.  I  have  not  yet  learned  whether  it  is  from  lack  of  metal  that  it 
has  not  yet  been  sent. — Peter  Brock,  The  Gardens,  Glenmor,  Drogheda. 
■  <•»•> - 
Rove  Beetles. 
I  feel  I  must  write  a  word  in  defence  of  an  old  friend,  uninten¬ 
tionally  (no  doubt)  libelled  in  the  Journal  (page  441).  The  statement 
is  that  the  “Devil’s  Coach-horse”  arohes  up  his  hindquarters  when 
disturbed  or  annoyed,  and  that  this  is  “  due  to  fear.”  My  recollections 
of  the  creature,  nearly  fifty  years  ago,  when  I  was  more  familiar 
with  it,  are  that  he  was  utterly  innocent  of  fear  of  anything, 
animate  or  inanimate.  At  that  time  I  was  at  school,  and  among  my 
schoolfellows  was  a  boy  who,  though  he  certainly  had  the  oruel  instincts 
of  primitive  man,  ought  to  have  turned  out  a  distinguished  naturalist. 
He  would  bring  home  alive  and  unhurt  in  his  hands  any  insect,  however 
noxious  or  venomous — wasps,  bees,  spiders,  anything — and  I  am  sorry 
to  say  they  were  captured  for  the  same  reason  that  the  wild  beasts 
were  brought  to  Rome — to  make  them  fight  with  each  other.  I 
can  remember  seeing  several  of  these  displays  of  gladiatorial  combat 
under  a  glass  shade ;  and  of  all  “  beggars  to  fight,”  the  “  Devil,”  as 
we  affectionately  called  him,  was  facile  princeps.  We  had  no  hornets, 
as  they  were  rare  in  that  neighbourhood ;  and  the  largest  speoies  of 
humble  bee  was  the  only  creature  we  could  find  who  could  make  any 
show  against  the  “  Devil.”  His  weight  and  wings  helped  him,  and  if 
he  oould  get  his  sting  between  the  joints  of  the  “  Devil’s  ”  armour  the 
thrust  would  be  mortal ;  but  by  that  time  the  two  terrible  sickles  of  the 
“  Devil’s  ”  jaws  would  have  met  somewhere,  and  if  that  spot  happened 
to  be  the  bees’  thorax,  he  would  die  too.  Spiders  of  the  largest  size, 
and  queen  wasps,  were  but  as  mincemeat  for  those  dreadful  jaws  ;  and 
the  point  I  am  writing  about  is  that  some  of  the  creatures  “  didn’t  want 
to  fight,”  but  had  to  if  a  “  Devil  ”  was  the  opponent ;  he  would  cock  his 
tail  at  once,  and  anything  that  came  within  reach  was  immediately 
seized.  As  a  remembrance  of  the  time  when  our  oruel  little  schoolboy 
souls  were  pleased  with  these  deadly  duels,  I  must  protest  against  the 
statement  that  the  rove  beetle  turns  up  its  tail  through  fear,  or  that  he 
means  it  the  least  to  signify  “  turn  tail.” — W.  R.  Raillem. 
A  Schedule  Blander. 
Mr.  Crump  gives  a  very  clear  and  tangible  reason  for  the  exclusion 
of  this  most  fiokle  Grape  from  the  Shrewsbury  sohedule ;  at  any  rate,  in 
the  class  to  whioh  Mr.  Iggulden’s  letter  referred.  There  is  no  injustice  to 
any  would-be  exhibitor  in  the  exclusion  of  a  Grape  so  rarely  seen  in 
a  perfect  state,  and  as  Mr.  Crump  remarks,  there  is  plenty  of  variety 
from  whioh  to  choose  without  permitting  two  white  Muscat  varieties. 
When  one  read  so  much,  in  praise  of  the  Shrewsbury  Shows,  it  came 
somewhat  as  a  surprise  when,  on  page  366,  Mr.  Iggulden  found  a 
cause  for  complaint.  I  think,  however,  that  Mr.  Crump’s  version  of 
the  matter  sets  the  case  at  rest,  and  the  supposed  blunder  resolves 
itself  into  no  blunder  at  all. — W. 
Compared  with  the  vivaoious  up-to-date  Mr.  Crump,  I  must  admit 
being  somewhat  lethargic  and  old-fashioned  in  my  ideas,  and  that, 
too,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  last  few  years  has  been  the  busiest 
period  (horticnlturally  speaking)  in  my  career.  That  a  blunder  was 
made  by  the  framers  of  the  Shrewsbury  schedule  I,  in  my  supidity, 
still  maintain  ;  and  further,  that  in  Mr.  Crump  they  have  a  ohampion 
who  has  not  mended  matters,  but,  on  the  oontrary,  has  made  a  worse 
muddle.  He  has  quite  overlooked  the  faot  that  there  are  black  as  well 
as  white  Muscats,  or  else  what  does  he  mean  when  he  expresses  the 
opinion  “  it  was  deliberately  and  accurately  considered  that  any  one  of 
the  Muscat  tribe  was  ample  ”  for  admission  in  this  particular  class  ? 
For  the  purposes  of  schedules  Madresfield  Court  is  classed  as  a  Muscat- 
flavoured  Grape,  and  is  shown  as  such  admirably  in  this  district.  Is 
there  any  clause  I,  in  my  density,  have  overlooked,  whioh  hinders,  say, 
Mr.  Goodaore  from  showing  both  Muscat  Hamburgh  and  Madresfield 
Court  in  the  great  Grape  class  at  Shrewsbury  ?  or  would  another 
grower  I  oould  mention,  who  has  had  Mrs.  Pince  Black  Muscat 
beautifully  ooloured  by  the  middle  of  August,  be  disqualified  if  he 
exhibited  this  and  the  other  two  blaok  Muscats  in  the  Shrewsbury 
class  ?  I  think  not  ;  yet  Canon  Hall  is  one  of  the  most  distinct 
varieties  in  cultivation,  and  at  its  best  second  to  none,  is  shut  out  to 
let  in,  according  to  the  apologist  for  the  blunder,  I  presume,  Buokland 
Sweetwater,  Foster’s  Seedling,  Gros  Maroo,  Alnwiok  Seedling,  and 
such  like  favourites  with  the  modern  gardener.  Why  not  admit  a 
blunder  was  made  P  or,  if  this  goes  against  the  grain,  give  some 
better  reasons  for  excluding  Canon  Hall  Muscat  when  Muscat  of 
Alexandria  is  also  shown  ?  The  class  for  twelve  bunches  of  Grapes  is 
regarded  by  the  majority  of  gardeners  as  the  most  important  in  the 
Shrewsbury  schedule,  and  winning  numerous  prizes  in  other  classes 
would  not  compensate  for  being  beaten  in  the  “  ohampion  ”  class 
— W.  Iggulden. 
