June  13,  1901. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
503 
Young  Gardeners’  Pay. 
A  “  Modern  Thinking  Gardener,”  on  page  481,  leaves,  I  think, 
but  one  question  for  me  to  answer — viz.,  “  Is  the  garden  labourer  a 
more  skilled  man  than  his  brother,  the  farm  labourer  ?  ”  I  venture  to 
reply — yes,  decidedly  so.  As  regards  the  personal  matter  he  introduces, 
I  am  happy  to  say  that  those  who  know  me  best  would  be  least  disposed 
to  agree  with  him. — An  Old  Boy. 
- - 
A  Schedule  Blunder. 
Will  you  allow  me  a  short  space  in  reply  to  the  suggestion  of 
Mr.  Crump,  that  the  original  framers  of  the  schedule  should  give  their 
opinion  of  the  regulation  in  a  class  for  twelve  bunches  of  Grapes,  and 
to  state  that  their  opinions  could  not  be  more  clearly  defined  than  in 
Mr.  Crump’s  letter,  whioh  really  covers  all  that  can  be  said  ? 
It  was  the  wish  of  the  committee  to  frame  a  class  as  free  as  possible 
from  restriction,  so  that  Grape  growers  could  meet  on  equal  grounds  as 
competitors ;  and  after  the  experience  of  the  society  in  1899,  when,  in 
addition  to  the  judge’s  award,  legal  opinion  had  to  be  taken  as  to  the 
wording  of  this  very  regulation  before  a  final  deoision  could  be  arrived 
at,  the  committee  decided  that  this  year  the  four  varieties  named 
could  only  be  shown  as  Muscat  of  Alexandria.  Consequently  any 
exhibitor  would  be  free  to  stage,  say,  one  Muscat  of  Alexandria,  one 
Canon  Hall,  one  Bowood  Muscat,  and  one  Charlesworth  Muscat  as  one 
variety ;  or,  say,  two  Muscat  of  Alexandria  and  two  Canon  Hall  as  one 
variety,  or  any  other  combination,  provided  that  no  more  than  four 
white  Muscats  are  staged  in  the  twelve  bunches. 
The  regulations  had  most  careful  consideration,  and  it  is  scarcely  a 
compliment  to  the  committee  that  Mr.  Iggulden  should  publioly  announce 
a  schedule  “blunder,”  which  by  the  best  dictionaries  means,  “To 
make  a  gross  mistake  through  mental  oonfusion.”  The  committee 
have  simply  decided  that  for  the  purpose  of  this  competition  alone  the 
regulation  applies,  whioh  they  have  a  perfect  right  to  do,  especially  as 
they  make  no  such  stipulation  in  the  collection  of  fruit  and  the  other 
Grape  classes. — H.  W.  Adnitt,  Hon.  Sec.,  Shrewsbury. 
I  have  neither  the  time  nor  the  inclination,  at  this  busy  season,  to 
wade  through  the  mass  of  irrelevant  matter  brought  into  this  subject, 
but  must  state  that  Canon  Hall  and  Muscat  of  Alexandria  are  as  distinct 
as  Duke  of  Buccleuch  and  Buckland  Sweetwater,  and  that  a  consistent 
schedule  which  brackets  these  two  Muscats  as  too-much-alike  should 
pay  the  same  compliment  to  the  two  Sweetwaters.  Soon  after  the 
great  Grape  show  at  Shrewsbury,  two  or  three  years  ago,  I  wrote  in 
this  Journal  to  the  effect  that,  had  it  not  been  for  the  wording  of  the 
schedule  in  the  matter  of  Canon  Hall,  I  oould  have  entered  for  the 
great  Grape  class,  and  was  given  to  understand  that  there  was  a 
mistake  in  the  wording,  which  would  be  rectified  another  season.  One 
correspondent,  who,  I  hope,  for  the  credit  of  the  United  Kingdom,  is 
neither  British  nor  Irish,  would  not  encourage  Canon  Hall,  because  it  is 
difficult  to  grow.  You  and  I,  Mr.  Editor,  can  remember  the  time  when 
Muscat  of  Alexandria  was  thought  difficult  to  grow,  but  to-day  it  is 
grown  better  than  Black  Hamburgh,  and  I  hope  we  may  live  to  see 
Canon  Hall  shown  in  compact  bunches  half  a  yard  long,  with  berries 
averaging  4  inches  in  circumference.  Would  the  great  Shropshire 
Society,  which  has  done  so  much,  defer  this  desirable  consummation  ? 
— Wm.  Taylor. 
Of  course  Mr.  Crump  is  not  in  a  “  tight  corner,”  but  if  he  has  made 
everything  so  beautifully  clear,  why  invoke  the  “  opinions  of  the 
original  framers  of  the  schedule  and  others”  upon  the  subject?  Why 
I  failed  to  quote  the  whole  of  a  long  passage  in  his  first  note  was 
because  of  its  great  length,  not  on  account  of  any  wish  to  steal  an 
unfair  advantage.  My  case  is  strong  enough  without  any  unnecessarily 
long  paragraphs  on  the  subject,  and  whioh  are  apt  to  leave  matters  in  a 
worse  muddle  than  ever.  Let  me  once  more  quote  from  the  conditions 
governing  the  exhibits  of  twelve  bunches  of  Grapes  at  Shrewsbury. 
“  For  the  purpose  of  this  competition  Bowood  Muscat,  Charlesworth 
Tokay,  Tyninghame  Muscat,  and  Canon  Hall  cannot  be  shown  as 
distinct  varieties  with  Muscat  of  Alexandria.  Gros  Maroc  and  Cooper’s 
Black  are  also  considered  synonymous.” 
Now  the  question  is,  Does  Mr.  Crump,  or  any  of  the  authorities  he 
invokes,  maintain  that  Canon  Hall  is  not  perfectly  distinct  from  Musoat 
of  Alexandria  ?  I  ask  for  a  plain  reply  to  a  plain  question.  Yet 
another  question.  If  only  one  variety  of  white  Muscat  is  admitted, 
why  not  be  equally  severe  on  the  black  Muscats  ?  The  framers  of  the 
sohedule  departed  from  the  R.H.S.  wording  of  the  similarity  of  so-called 
varieties,  in  including  Canon  Hall  in  the  same  category,  say,  as 
Bowood  Muscat ;  and  if  they  make  unto  themselves  a  law  of  their  own 
in  this  direction,  why  not  go  further,  and  give  as  many  points  for  black 
Muscats  as  they  do  to  the  whites  ?  Perfect  examples  of  Muscat 
Hamburgh  and  Madresfield  Court  should  reoeive  as  many  points  as  the 
best  bunches  of  Muscat  of  Alexandria. 
I  readily  admit  that  the  Shrewsbury  Show  is  an  exceptionally  good 
display,  more  especially  in  the  fruit  department;  but  I  have  yet  to 
learn  that  the  arrangements  and  proceedings  are  so  perfect  that  it 
would  appear  rank  heresy  to  criticise  them  in  any  way.  This  for  the 
benefit  of  “  W.”  and  others  who  may  have  imbibed  the  erroneous 
notion  that  infallibility  reigns  at  the  Shrewsbury  Show. — W.  Iggulden. 
Coping  for  Walls. 
Having  occasion  to  arrange  coping  for  a  fruit  wall  some  two  years 
ago,  I  consulted  several  gardeners,  who,  without  doubt,  are  at  the  very 
top  of  their  profession,  and  they  told  me  with  one  voice  not  on  any 
account  to  have  a  fixed  coping.  Some  went  so  far  as  to  say  that 
a  fixed  coping  was  worse  than  no  protection  at  all ;  yet  I  read  in  the 
Journal  (page  441)  that  by  Mr.  Challis,  at  Wilton,  “  glass  coping  is 
extensively  adopted,”  and  that  “the  coping  is  a  fixture,  and  remains 
so  always.”  Now,  is  Mr.  Challis  right,  or  are  the  experts?  It  is  a 
question  of  great  importance  to  thousands,  and  I  hope  that  this  note 
may  lead  to  a  settlement  of  the  question.  Will  Mr.  Challis  kindly 
tell  us  how  long  his  glass  copings  have  been  fixed,  and  the  age  of  the 
trees  they  are  intended  to  protect  ?  I  have  seen  many  fixed  glass 
copings  near  London,  but  I  never  remember  seeing  a  good  healthy  tree 
under  them. —  C.  C.  Ellison. 
- - 
Royal  Horticultural  Society  of  Ireland, 
Would  you  kindly  allow  me  space  in  your  columns  to  vent  my 
opinion  anent  the  R  H.S.  of  Ireland  and  Mr.  Brock’s  case  ?  I  fail  to 
see  how  any  true  gardener  could  have  the  courage  to  lift  a  pen  in 
defence  of  the  above  Royal  Horticultural  Society’s  action  as  exposed 
by  Mr.  Brock.  Why  was  there  a  joint  cheque  issued  if  they  considered 
Mr.  Brock’s  employer  the  bond  fide  exhibitor  (which  they  seemingly 
did)  when  they  forwarded  prizes  to  him  ?  The  cheque  in  that  case  was 
a  pure  insult  to  the  employer.  If  Mr.  Brock  was  the  accepted  exhibitor 
(and  no  doubt  he  was),  then  the  joint  cheque  and  the  forwarding  of  the 
other  prizes  to  his  employer  was,  in  my  opinion,  a  direot  snub  and 
insult  to  him.  On  that  point  alone  the  “Royal”  of  Ireland  deserves 
condemnation.  If  the  gardeners  of  Ireland  withdraw  their  support  and 
interest  in  the  society,  what  will  become  of  it,  especially  those  who 
exhibit  at  its  shows  ?  It  is  small  wonder  that  the  exhibitions  held  by 
the  “  Royal  ”  are  only  second-rate  when  compared  with  the  Ulster  one 
and  others.  I  also  note  in  your  last  issue  that  Mr.  Brock  has  never 
seen  the  medal  he  honestly  won  last  November. — W.  D.,  Co.  Down. 
A  Problem  iij  Heating  Solved. 
In  his  endeavour  to  put  “  H.  D.”  right,  “  Aqua,”  on  page  417,  has 
gone  a  little  out  of  his  depth.  He  was  quite  right  in  saying  there  is 
nothing  new  in  the  plan  described  by  “  H.  D.,”  but  he  was  quite  wrong 
in  saying  it  has  “always  signally  failed.”  It  cannot  fail  under  certain 
circumstances,  and  there  is  no  need  to  get  the  water  to  boil  to  force  it 
past  this  kind  of  obstruction.  I  will  own  at  once  that  it  is  inadvisable, 
and  “  H.  D.”  is  doubtless  as  well  aware  of  this  as  “  Aqua,”  but  if  the 
water  beyond  the  obstruction  is  at  a  higher  level  than  that  behind  it, 
and  no  air-pocket  is  formed,  it  will  circulate  with  comparative  smooth¬ 
ness.  A  much  better  plan  than  the  taps  referred  to  is  to  take  a  small 
pipe — a  J-inch  lead  pipe  will  do — to  a  point  slightly  higher  than  the 
feed  cistern,  as  air  may  gather  on  either  side  the  door  and  cause  trouble, 
unless  the  small  cocks  were  constantly  attended  to.  So  much  for 
“  H.  D.’s  ”  side  of  the  question.  As  to  “  Aqua’s  ”  argument,  this  holds 
good  if  any  part  of  the  apparatus  worked  from  the  same  boiler  is  at  a 
higher  level  than  the  highest  point  in  the  circuit  referred  to  by  “  H.  D.M 
If,  for  instance,  a  branch  leaves  the  main  flow  higher  up  and  no  oheck 
valve  is  provided,  then  of  oourse  the  water  flows  where  there  is  least 
resistance,  and  the  apparatus  will  be  troublesome.  To  anyone  proposing 
to  carry  out  this  class  of  work  I  would  say,  By  all  means  avoid  dips  if 
possible  ;  yet  given  immunity  from  the  quicker  oirouits  referred  to 
above,  or  proper  manipulation  of  the  oheck  valves,  there  need  be  no  fear 
to  dip  under  an  awkward  doorway.  Only  be  sure  and  provide  for  the 
release  of  the  air  that,  without  a  vent,  must  gather  at  suoh  points,  both 
on  the  flow  and  return  pipes,  and  remember  that  a  sharp  rise  immediately 
beyond  is  a  great  assistance  in  drawing  the  water  past  the  obstruction. 
— H.  R.  Richards,  Bristol. 
