36 THE GARDENER. [Jan. 



other, and all bulbs will have a carpet of dwarf plants through which they are 

 to spring. It would take nothing short of "J. S., W.'s" 13,000, taking the 

 above mode of planting, and allowing from three to twelve bulbs for a clump, 

 to fill the ground the first year as completely as the same number of bedding- 

 plants would do. These gentlemen will perhaps be able to say something on 

 the cost of furnishing a border under the two systems, allowing 13,000 plants 

 in each case, the one at a nurseryman's price of 4s. 6d. per 100, and the other 

 at 66s. 8d. per 100. Before closing this question of cost, I would just say that 

 I know the cost of bedding-plants in one of the largest establishments in the 

 three kingdoms, and where some 200,000 plants are used, is reckoned at one 

 farthing per plant, or 2s. Id. per 100. I have taken up too much of your space 

 already, but allow me just to say further, that I consider the cost of produc- 

 tion, as raised by " J. S., W.," has very little to do with the matter from a gar- 

 dener's point of view. To us the question is whether we should rid ourselves 

 entirely of ordinary bedders, and only find room for hardy flowers, or whether 

 we should adopt the common-sense plan of finding a place for each, no matter 

 whether the cost of production or the cost of keep should in either case be 

 more than we like. Strawberries in March or new Grapes in April, French 

 Beans and Cucumbers in February, are not worth the cost of production. In 

 the same sense it does not pay to mow grass once in ten days, or hoe walks 

 once a fortnight, or sweep up autumn leaves every morning. The whole of 

 "J. S,, W.'s" argument is a question of the same kind. 



E. P. Brotherstox. 



[We do not think it advisable to devote more space to this discussion, for, 

 after all, cost is no argument against a system of flower-gardening, or any other 

 phase or branch of horticulture owners of gardens may choose to spend their 

 money on, as being to their taste, and most suitable for their places — just as 

 one may derive most pleasure from, and spend money on Orchids, and his 

 neighbour's fancy may lead him to spend on Alpines or Auriculas, &c. It is 

 the fact that so much has been said of the expensiveness of the one, and the 

 wonderful cheapness of the other, that led to our remarks in November. It 

 entirely depends on how either system is gone about. If hardy herbaceous 

 flower-gardening is to be done as well as tender bedding has generally been done, 

 and a constant succession of bloom to be kept up over a given area, in con- 

 junction with the absence of untidiness for five or six mouths of the year, then 

 we maintain it cannot be any cheaper than tender bedding, while its first cost, 

 if the same area be planted, is many times more costly. To stick a few hun- 

 dreds of hardy herbaceous plants widely apart into a border, and make up 

 the spaces between them with tender hardy and half-hardy annuals, biennials, 

 and other plants, and call it hardy herbaceous gardening, is not correct, and 

 very different from a border kept goAj by means of a mixture of hardy herbaceous 

 plants alone, and should not be called a herbaceous border. To call it the 

 mixed border of hardy herbaceous and tender plants would be its proper de- 

 nomination. Some writers would appear to wish for nothing so much as the 

 total extinction of the bedding system, and have it replaced with an ideal sys- 

 tem not yet to be found. Now what we advocate is a curtailment of the one, 

 and a slight extension of the other — the extent in either direction depending 

 on the time the owner resides at his country-seat ; and we think nine-tenths 

 of our readers will agree with our idea of the matter. Let us have both systems, 

 in proportions depending on circumstances, and away with the furious tirade 

 against flowers in masses. — Ed.] 



