AprU 18, 1872. ] 



JOURNAL OF HOKTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



323 



the dressiug-room. The beddiuK-out system, the arrangiug 

 flvjwers in patterned beds, is only a return to the " knots," of 

 which drawings are contained in Meager, Blake, and other 

 authors who wrote on gardening two centuries by-gone. 



Another fashion of that age is reviving, for we have had 

 inquiries how " a labyrinth should be constructed, and what 

 shrubs are suitable ? " In reply we might refer our questioners 

 to a volume published in 1250 — De Cerceau's "Architecture" 

 — for nearly every garden plan in that contains cither a round 

 or a square labyrinth, or one of each. A later authority, 

 Stephen Blake, we have ali-eady referred to, and from his 

 ■quaint and rare quarto we copy the following : — 



This and every garden labyrinth is formed of walks about 

 5 feet wide, enclosed on each side by a hedge. If Yew hedges 

 could be promptlj' created and attain rapidly to such a height 

 and breadth as those at BUckling Hall, in Norfolk, they would 

 be the most preferable. If we were about to construct a 

 labyrinth we should try to form the hedges of Laurustinus, for 

 we have on our memory the broad Laurustinus hedges at 

 Battle Abbey ; but Privet, that cheapest and live-anywhere 

 evergreen, is very suitable. 



The labyrinth in the Royal Horticultural Society's Garden 

 at South Kensington occupies about a quarter of au acre, 

 which is about the smallest size advisable. Its hedges are 



farmed, the outer one of Holly, the inner ones of Hornbeam. I Switzer, in his " Icnographia," published in 1788, published 

 That at Hampton Court is of similar extent, and the hedges a drawing of a very intricate labyrinth, and another of that at 

 al Elm, which, of course, are leafless during half the year. | Versailles, which he says was " the noblest iu the world." 



BED BEET FOR FLOWER GARDENS, &e. 



" Q. Q." (pag9 269) seems disposed to find fault with me for biuatiou of the beautiful and useful in the same place. What ! 



noi being an enthusiastic advocate of Beet. It is everything not have flowers, fruits, and vegetables iu one spot ! I say, 



I have stated it to be, as quoted by " Q. Q.," yet I do not like and ever shall say, Not if you can help it. We may dispose 



it in a flower garden, for my eye has been so accustomed to of a kitchen gai'deu both as a fruit and vegetable ground, and 



see it elsewhere, that it always appears to me a thing out of also for flowers, and by having them in separate compartments 



place. Those who can look upon it without being reminded of run no risk of failure ; but I see in this something which 



a vegetable garden may have no objection. The things I con- " Q. Q." evidently does not. I despise Beet and every other 



sider the greatest of all abominations in gardens are — 1st, 

 Fruit trees both in and out of doors associated with flowering 

 plants ; 2nd, Flowering and fine-foliaged plants in fruit-tree 

 borders ; 3rd, Fruit trees or vegetables in a flower garden. 

 The place for flowers and ornamental-foliaged plants is the 

 flower garden or plant houses ; for fruit trees, the fruit garden 

 or houses ; and for vegetables, the kitchen garden. It is 

 neither good cultural policy nor taste to strive to form a com- 



kind of vegetable in a flower garden ; but though I cannot 

 tell of Dracsnas with shoots tender and useful as Asparagus, I 

 can tell him that D. australis is a grand subject for the sum- 

 mer flower garden, one that will never remind him of the 

 kitchen garden and cook. 



I am surprised that " Q. Q." has not noticed the remark- 

 able elegance and grace of Asparagus. There is no plant that 

 can vie with it, not even Humea elegans. Then for nobleness 



