January  21,  1904.  JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND'  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
Rival,  the  Chrysanthemum  Analysis  compiled  by  Mr.  Molyneux, 
which  I  have  read  to-day  with  much  interest,  shows  what  the 
forty  electors  think  of  this  variety.  I  note  it  is  not  even  men¬ 
tioned.  Surely,  then,  I  was  not  so  far  wrong  after  all? 
Mr.  Jefferies  quotes  Mr.  Kenyou  as  having  a  fine  lot  of 
Madame  Herrewege.  I  note  he  was  second  in  the  great  vase 
class  at  the  Crystal  Palace,  and  also  second  to  Mr.  Mease  for 
48  Japanese;  yet,  strange  to  say,  your  reporter  altogether  failed 
to  note  these  “  magnificent  re-sults,”  and  I  have  always  thought 
him  a  bit  smart  in  reporting.  Seldom  does  he  miss  “  magnificent 
objects  ”(!)  I,  too,  Mr.  Jefferies,  judged  this  variety  by  results 
which  were  not  ‘‘  magnificent.”  I  am  pleased  to  see  Mr.  Jefferies 
does  admit  that  Mons.  L.  Remy  has  not  been  shown  much  this 
year.  It  is  of  the  present-day  actions  I  take  exception  to,  for 
many  things  happened  last  year  that  never  will  again. 
Oh!  Mr.  Jefferies!  Lily  Mountford  really  is  “washy,”  then? 
Is  a  fortnight  a  long  time  for  a  bloom  to  last  in  good  condition  ? 
Fancy  cultivators  spending  eleven  months  for  a  fortnight’s  dis¬ 
play!  I  congratulate  you,  Mr.  Jefferies,  upon  producing  J.  R. 
Ilpton  at  the  N.C.S.  show  so  fine.  Without  wishing  to  depre¬ 
ciate  the  quality  of  those  shown  in  the  first  prize  vase  class.  I 
note  the  “  Journal  ”  report  says,  “  The  latter  two  were  good,” 
alluding  to  Geo.  Penford  and  Madame  P.  Radaelli ;  further 
comment  is  needless.  I  agree  with  Mr.  Jefferies  that  Lady 
Cranston  is  a  lovely  flower. 
Mr.  Wells  advances  nothing  of  a  tangible  nature  to  enable  me 
to  reply  to  him  in  sound  argument.  I  always  come  to  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  a  man  who  cannot  advance  matter  of  a  tangible 
character  may  have  got  a  bit  mixed  in  his  notes,  and  when  he 
reads  correctly  the  “  proof  ”  he  may  find  that  others  are  wrong, 
and  not — Sadoc. 
[This  letter,  unfortunately,  has  been  held  over. — Ed.] 
Hydrocyanic  Acid  Gas  for  Tomatoes. 
Would  you  kindly  inform  me  through  the  meditim  of  the 
Journal  if  an  application  of  slaked  lime  would  be  of  beiietic  to 
the  ground  inside  market  Tomato  houses?  [See  Answers  to 
Correspondents. — Ed.]  The  coming  season  will  be  our  second, 
and  the  ground  was  old  pasture  last  spring.  A  heavy  mulch¬ 
ing  of  decayed  manure  was  given  after  the  first  truss  of 
Tomatoes  was  set,  during  the  summer.  If  you  think  it  would 
not  do  harm  to  the  crop  this  summer  will  you  inform  me  what 
quantity  to  apply?  I  may  add  that  we  had  a  crop  of  eleven 
tons  out  of  five  houses.  Each  house  is  150ft  long  by  15ft  wide, 
and  there  are  eight  rows  of  plants  in  each  house,  four  rows  on 
each  side  of  the  central  path.  Can  you  inform  me  if  this  is  a 
record,  or  if  they  grow’  heavier  crops  in  the  south  of  England? 
I  may  say  also  that  I  think  we  are  the  first  in  Scotland  to  nse 
the  “  Hydrocyanic  Acid  Gas  ”  as  a  fumigator.  We  were  suffer¬ 
ing  from  an  attack  of  white  fly,  and  the  result  of  using  the  gas 
was  disastrous  to  the  flies,  as  they  wmre  killed  in  thousands,  and 
the  ground  was  wdiite  in  some  places  with  the  dead.  The  low’ 
cost  of  fumigating  is  an  advantage,  as  it  amounts  to  about  two 
shillings  per  house  of  150ft  by  15ft.  It  is  very  dangerous  to 
use,  and  this  may  keep  it  from  coming  into  general  use  among 
gardeners  and  ow'ners  of  glass  houses.— R.  Ij.,  Ayrshire,  N.B. 
Trade  v.  Private  Exhibitors. 
This  vexed  question  appears  likely  to  go  on  indefinitely 
without  finding  unanimity  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  exhilntors. 
For  those  who  are  objectors  there  is  some  consolation  in  the 
knowdedge  that  few’  of  the  trade  growers  compete  against 
private  grow’ers.  That  the  latter  can,  and  do,  hold  their  ow;<i 
in  cases  where  no  expense  is  spared  to  provide  the  equipment 
necessary,  may  be  taken  for  granted.  Mr.  Vallis  has  had  a 
i-emarkably  successful  career,  yet  even  this  envied  grower  htis 
suffered  defeat,  and  will  no  doubt  again  if  he  continues  as  an 
exliibitor.  The  unfairness  comes  in  in  such  case  w’here  the 
small  grower  has  to  compete  with  his  trade  rival  in  open  com¬ 
petition.  The  ambition  of  the  small  grow’er  may  be  as  keen 
as  his  opponent’s,  but  his  duties  and  equipment  would  not 
compare,  nor  would  he  have  the  advantage  of  novelty,  w’hich 
counts  for  so  much  in  Chrysanthemum  exhibits.  Where  in¬ 
justice  steps  in  is  in  those  cases  w’here  no  provision  is  made  for 
the  small  grower  independeiW  of  the  fl’rade.  The  private 
growers  who  can  produce  from  500  to  1,000  plants  for  specimen 
blooms  do  not  complain  of  having  to  meet  trade  exhibitors. 
“Fairness”  may  a.ssure  him.self  that  there  is  no  absolute  ' 
necessity  for  tradesmen  to  compete,  and  so  long  as  the  finances 
of  many  autumn  exhibitions  remain  in  their  present  state  there 
is  no  hope  of  getting  competitive  classes  set  apart  foi-  trade 
growers  to  compete,  as  he  suggests,  one  against  the  other. 
Without  making  a  careful  perusal  of  the  many  reports  of 
November  shows,  it  coidd  not  be  estimated  to  what  extent 
the  tradesmen  are  succe.ssfnl  in  competitions;  but  my  ow;.i 
observation  and  feeling  is  that  the  trade  competitor  is  in  a 
v’ery  minor  position.  I  well  remember  more  than  twenty-fivc' 
years  since  a  case  where  a  iiurserynian  employed  an  expert 
almost  expressly  for  Chrysanthemuin  exhibitions.  One  of  bis 
strongest  opponents  was  a  quarryman  possessing  but  one  small 
greenhouse,  yet  on  show  day  one  was  as  good  as  tlie  other, 
and  shared  prizes  without  prepbnderance  in  the  trade  grow’er’s 
successes.  The  same  quarryman  competed  for  many  years  with 
success  again.st  numbers  of  gardeners  haviirg  far  greater  accom¬ 
modation.-  W\ 
Ordering  Fruit  Trees. 
Every  garden  in  wdiich  fruit  trees  are  grown  will  need,  if 
not  an  annual  addition,  at  any  rate,  a  purchase  of  a  few  to 
replace  old,  wqrn-qut,  or  worthless  trees,  and  with  so  many 
sterling  novelties  in  the  market  there  is  a  desire  in  some 
instances  to  inve.st,  with  the  view  of  being  just  a  little  up-to- 
date.  A  curious  and  an  undesirable  experience  in  my  case 
marked  the  planting  time,  in  that  no  less  than  three  large 
nurserynien’.s  catalogues  were  consulted  and  selections  made, 
yet  from  neither  could  be  had  the  varieties  I  had  ordered,  or 
which  were  enumerated.  In  one  instance  out  of  eighteen  sorts 
selected  from  a  catalogue,  only  one  could  be  supplied.  Instead 
of  agreeing  to  substituted  trees  I  preferred  to  try  elsewhere 
for  the  varieties  I  wanted. 
Accordingly  a  selection  was  made  from  another  list,  modified 
to  suit  the  catalogue  in  hand.  Strange  as  it  .seems  I  got  but 
very  little  more  success,  and  the  same  course  was  repeated  and 
carried,  even  to  the  fourth  nur.sery,  before  I  could  get  my  .small 
order  complete,  and  then  even  I  had  to  abandon  several  hoped- 
for  varieties,  though  they  had  places  in  the  several  catalogues. 
If  this  is  a  common  experience  with  other  planters  it  is  high 
time  nur.serynien,  in.stead  of  making  up  catalogues  of  names 
representing  imaginary  stock,  they  would  save  themselves  and 
their  clients  much  trouble  and  annoyance  by  carefully  revising 
catalogues  and  excluding  those  names  which  do  not  represent 
trees  available  or  in  stock. — Planter. 
The  Weather  of  1879  and  1903. 
I  have  seen  a  good  many  comparisons  of  the  weather  of  the 
pa.st  year  with  that  of  1879,  and  statements  made  that  for  rain, 
cold,  and  general  disaster  1903  was  the  worst  year  of  the  two. 
As  I  very  well  remember  the  terrible  year  of  ’79,  and  have 
made  daily  notes  of  wind  and  weather  since  1867,  tho\igh  1 
have  never  kept  a  rain-gauge,  it  may  interest  the  readers  of 
the  Journal  to  learn  why  I  consider  ’79  to  have  been  the  worst 
year  of  the  two. 
My  notes,  as  I  did  not  and  do  not  measure  the  fain,  have, 
of  cour.se,  no  scientific  value;  they  only  convey  the  genera! 
impression  on  one  who  has  been  interested  in  weather  matter:; 
all  his  life,  and  generally  would  only  refer  to  rain  in  the  day¬ 
time.  Premising  that  I  live  in  the  driest  part  of  England, 
where  the  average  rainfall  is,  I  believe,  Avell  under  20in,  I  find 
I  recorded  rain  or  snow  on  148  days  iii  1879,  and  on  104  onlv 
in  1903. 
In  1879  there  were  only  16  days  on  which  snow  or  rain  fell 
during  the  last  three  months  of  the  year,  and  then  only  in 
small  quantities — it  is  this  fact,  no  doubt,  that  has  enabled  1903 
to  beat  it  in  actual  rainfall.  It  was  the  entire  alrsence  of 
summer  heat  that  made  1879  such  a  disastrous  year,  when  corn 
and  the  other  fruits  of  the  earth  never  had  a  chance.  I  find  in 
my  notes  only  three  fine  days  in  June,  -July,  and  August,  and 
two  of  these  were  the  29th  and  30th  of  August.  Well  I  re¬ 
member  going  to  church  on  Ea.ster  Hay,  April  13,  in  6in  of  snow, 
and  seeing  men  mowing  Barley  in  September  in  jmuring  rain, 
and  carting  it  as  it  was  cut,  for  it  never  was  and  never  could 
have  been  worth  anything  owing  to  the  absence  of  sun.  I  have 
a  note  against  July  28  of  “  No  hay  cut  yet.” 
Now  in  1903  we  had,  considerinti  the  rainfall,  a  good  amount 
of  sun— there  was  sun  almost  every  day  when  it  was  not  rain¬ 
ing—  and  especially  we  had  magnificent  weather,  without  a  drop 
of  rain,  from  June  20  to  July  12,  the  critical  time  for  the  corn, 
which  accounts  for  the  fact  that  such  corn  as  was  got  in  here 
in  good  time  was  of  very  good  quality.  No  such  thing  was 
known  in  1879  ;  the  grain  never  had  a  chance  of  being  properly 
formed.  I  find  only  two  days  in  1879  marked  as  “Fine,  hot” 
(not  being  70deg  or  over  in  shade),  and  no  le.ss  than  twenty- 
three  in  1903.  i  began  Rose  showing  in  1879,  and  cannot  say 
how  manv  times  the  season  (t.c.,  last  week  in  .June  and  two 
first  in  .inly)  has  pas.sed  over  without  any  rain  to  cause  i)rotec- 
tion  to  be  needed  for  the  blooms,  but  I  am  quite  sure  1903  was 
the  first  for  a  good  many  years.  In  short,  though  there  may 
have  been  more  rainfall  in  1903  (most  sorely  needed,  for  our 
springs  are  at  last  restored  to  the  level  of  ten  yeai's  ago)  I 
am  sure  that  1879  was  very  much  colder  and  more  uncongenial 
to  vegetation  and  life  of  all  sorts.— W.  R.  R.villem. 
