492 



JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



[ June 9, 1870. 



judiciously pruning the side branches, and we avoid the evils 

 of unpruned timber — viz., knottiness, decayed tops, rottenness 

 or hollowness, shakes, and short stems with the greater part 

 of the timber iu the branches. 



The pruning, then, of trees in pleasure grounds and parks 

 is of two kinds : — First, That for single specimens, for trees 

 in single lines, or if in more than one line so far apart that the 

 heads do not touch, or only do so at a very advanced age ; for 

 Jrees in groups of three or any number, but not more than two 

 or at most three trees deep; or if in groups of large extent, the 

 Jrees not touching each other, and only appearing in groups 

 at a distance, or by being planted apart from other or larger 

 masses, or from single trees or lines of trees ; also trees marking 

 the outlines of large deep groups, masses, or belts. The essen- 

 tial objects of such trees or assemblages of trees are ornament 

 and shelter. Secondly, Pruning trees in the interior of large 

 groups and screens that ore required to have clean, straight 

 stems, free from the knottiness of ornamental trees, the growth 

 being concentrated iu the trunk, and not in the head, as in 

 ornamental trees, but the trees planted for ornament, shelter, 

 and for use as well. 



Under these two heads are comprised the whole of the objects 

 of pruning ; in the first we seek by pruning to secure fine, 

 evenly-balanced heads on short stems, and more quickly than 

 where the trees are left to nature ; we secure all the grace and 

 beauty nature affords in trees, and we get rid of deformities. 

 In the second we secure straight, sound timber free of knots, 

 or nearly so. Ry pruning we obtain, if commenced as it ought 

 to be, when the trees are young : — 



1. Improved form by removing ill-placed shoots, and those 

 likely to monopolise more of the sap than is requisite for the 

 branches we desire to have on a certain part of the tree ; we 

 take from the strong aud give to the weak, we stop superfluity in 

 one portion to give increased vigour and new parts in another. 



2. Ey pruning in proper time the danger of taking off large 

 branches is avoided, and the knife being the principal imple- 

 ment needed in the operation, the branches taken off must be 

 small, and the wounds heal very well and soon, the branches 

 being taken off do? e to the part whence they proceed. 



3. Ey taking off the shoots and branches not needed for 

 Jorm, we give increased vigour to the weak parts, and the stem 

 and top ofthe tree having the advantage of a greater supply of 

 sap than in the case of trees not pruned, the sap rises more 

 freely, and they are strong in proportion to their height. 



4. Pruned trees require less space than those left to nature, 

 lor by pruning we take away not only the strongest but also the 

 longest, hence we give more vigour to the upper part of the 

 tree; and by being thinner the parts left have more air and 

 light, and the subsequent growth is freer, with an upward 

 tendency. 



5. By pruning we obtain increased size. Every branch we 

 iake from a tree sets p.t liberty a quantity of sap for the benefit 

 of the remainder of the tree ; every branch taken off is an ob- 

 struction to growth removed, aud though some would have us 

 believe that every time we cut the head we curtail the growth 

 of the roots, we must consider that what causes vigour in the 

 tree must also cause an increase in the number of the roots, 

 and, consequently, an increase of nutriment. The channels 

 being enlarged by the freer growth, we have an amended cir- 

 culation of the sap, and the plant receives, as it were, an im- 

 proved constitution. I am here acting on the good old maxim, 

 " Cut and have." It is a case foreign to fruit-growing. What 

 we want in ornamental trees is quick, strong growth, vigour 

 ■with sturdiness. — G. Aebet. 



WHY SHOULD ROSES BE EXHIBITED ON 



MOSS'.' 

 F»"To make them look pretty, of course; the nice fresh green 

 of the moss throws up the tender or brilliant colours of the 

 Rose so beautifully." And you think that a satisfactory reply, 

 do you, friend Jones? but yet here is Smith, who thinks pre- 

 cisely the same, stamping about like a caged lion because the 

 judges have disqualified his box. " What did I do ? I only 

 added a few leaves to throw up the colours of the flowers ; and 

 will you tell me, gentlemen," he demands with a face as red 

 as any of his Alfred Colombs, " what difference there is be- 

 tween me and that fellow Jones, who has crammed his boxes 

 with moss?" Meekly one of the judges replies, "You see 

 leaves are against the rule, and moss is not." " Pretty sort of 

 mles those must be." 



While I am listening to this colloquy I am much struck with 

 the fact, that alone of all florists' flowers the Rose— the flower 

 par excellence, the queen of all heartB, the Eo6e whose diversity 

 of colours and brilliancy of foliage surely needs no aid — is yet 

 obliged to be decked out with feathers not her own, and I think 

 it is high time that an alteration were made. In the first place 

 it is unfair — yes, unfair. It is well known I am not an exhi- 

 bitor, and have not been ; but where I formerly was there was 

 no moss to be had within nine or ten miles. Now, had I been 

 an exhibitor I should clearly have stood at a disadvantage as 

 compared with many who have it at their own doors. Unfair 

 again, because some have it in their power to obtain very 

 beautiful moss, in itself a picture, while others can only pro- 

 cure very indifferent stuff. You will say, " The judges do not 

 judge the moss, but the Roses." Without doubt ; but just try 

 the effect. Get some chopped grass, put it on the top of your 

 box, and put the box alongside another with lovely green moss, 

 and even if your Roses are a trifle better, is it not a great 

 chance if you receive the first prize ? In the second place, it 

 is unnecessary. We cut the Roses and put tbem in vases in 

 our own drawing-rooms, but do not think it needful to surround 

 them with moss ; and if unnecessary, why continue a practice 

 which, in the infancy of Rose-showing might have been need- 

 ful, but which now is no more necessary than rouge to the 

 young maiden, or a go-cart to the boy who can mount his pony ? 

 I may be writing what now seems heresy, but what I feel by- 

 and-by will come to be acknowledged as truth. — D., Deal. 



AN AMATEUR'S ORCHARD HOUSE AND 

 MANAGEMENT.— No. 1. 



I have read with much interest the notes and remarks on 

 orchard houses and their management, which have appeared 

 from time to time in The Journal of Horticulture, and it 

 has often occurred to me that a few practical hints from an 

 amateur who has had some experience would be as useful as 

 the advice given by professional gardeners, not that I would in 

 any way undervalue their counsel, which is, of course, most 

 important, but because the amateur works in quite a different 

 way to the professed gardener ; he has not the appliances of 

 the latter, and he cannot be always in his garden, as it is the 

 other's duty to be, probably having his business to attend to, 

 as I have. I have now had about fifteen years' experience, 

 and have done nearly all the work in my orchard house during 

 that time. The perusal of Mr. Rivers's book on orchard houses 

 first induced me to set up one, and I am still his disciple in 

 most things, but differ in some, as you will see hereafter. 

 With the hope, then, that the result of my experience may be 

 useful to some, I will give you the history of my orchard house 

 and how I manage it. 



I commenced with a little " lean-to " house 10 feet by 5 feet, 

 ivnder the roof of which I grew some good Grapes. I made it 

 G feet longer and extended the Vine, and planted outside the 

 front a Peach and a Nectarine tree, intending to enclose them; 

 this 1 did, but the Nectarine died. I then extended the house 

 another 17 feet, making it 33 feet long. I had now a piece 

 16 feet by 5 feet hung with Grapes, in front of this a trellis 

 with a Peach on it, and a back wall 17 feet long by 9 feet high, 

 on which I had a Fig and a Peach, with a Vine between on a 

 long stem with its head above the other two. The Peach 

 turned out a bad one, so I removed it and put in a Nectarine. 

 This grew for a year or two without bearing, then died ; the 

 Fig wanted its way too much, so I rooted it up and put in 

 another Vine ; the Peach on the trellis in front, after taking a 

 long time before it fruited, died, so that I determined to give 

 up attempting to get fruit from trees planted out in the ground, 

 as I had no trouble with some Peaches, Plums, and Nectarines 

 in pots in the front border not occupied by the trellis, and take 

 to trees in pots only, except for Vines. 



It is, therefore, about fruit trees in pots that I wish to speak, 

 as I am persuaded they are more suitable for the amateur than 

 trees in the ground, unless he has large houses and his whole 

 time to devote to them ; but I am supposing that the amateur 

 is, like myself, with only his early mornings and evenings to 

 spare, and often from heme all day, and that he does not keep a 

 gardener or man servant of any kind, but has a jobbing gardener 

 occasionally to do the heavy or dirty work. 



I had now my house stocked with Peach, Nectarine, Apricot, 

 Fig, and Plum trees, mostly in 11-inch pots. One Nectarine 

 has been in the same pot for ten years, and has always ripened 

 four dozen fruit of exquisite colour and flavour. A Plum has 



