420 JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. c November 10 , mm. 
them later on. This may often be seen by growths which have 
been sheltered so much as to make them fall over, and then their 
produce is never so fine ; but the rows may be sheltered by one 
another, and with this object in view the whole of the autumn- 
sown Peas should be kept together. 
When dwarf varieties are grown they may not be far apart in 
the rows, but taller kinds want more room, and such as William I. 
which grows about 6 feet high, 8 feet is not too much between 
the rows. When they are about this distance, and if they are 
staked just as they are coming through the soil, they shelter one 
another and grow up sturdily and healthy. 
In the ordinary way of growing Peas the seed may be sown 
some inches apart in wide rows, but with autumn-sown Peas it is 
different, as they succeed best when close together. For this 
reason we now sow our Peas at this time in narrow drills about 
4 inches wide and a3 much in depth. The soil is made rich 
with manure, and over the seed some rather light soil is placed, 
only a day when the soil is dry and in good working order is 
selected for sowing, and the whole are sown at once, as sowing in 
succession is not a good practice in autumn. As to the advan¬ 
tages of sowing Peas now there can be no doubt providing they 
can only have a favourable start, but much depends on this.— 
M. M. 
THEORIES TN GRAPE CULTURE. 
No sensible correspondent of the Journal will consider that 
Mr. Iggulden is bigoted in communicating his thoughts on 
restricted versus uorestricted growth in Vines on page 383. It 
is, perhaps, wise your correspondent thinks differently from some 
others on this subject. The great difference of opinion displayed 
on gardening subjects has undoubtedly sharpened our judgment 
and intellect, and but for the freedom of discussion gardening 
might not have been brought to the same standard of ex¬ 
cellence as it is to-day. At the outset I may say my views on this 
subject are widely different from those of Mr. Iggulden, and in 
consequence I am tempted to defend a system I am practising. 
However, I am almost outside the range of those who grow Vines 
entirely on unrestricted principles. I have never yet seen a 
vinery without some form of restriction being employed. While 
I give the Vines under my care a large amount of freedom, 
allowing the shoots to extend liberally, they are restricted in a 
sense, but not to the extent that Mr. Iggulden says he would 
restrict young Vines if plauting a house ; therefore I must be 
classed with those who grow Vines on what may be called the 
unrestricted system. 
I do not think the subject fairly approached if the remarks 
have to be confined to Vines two or three years old. Perhaps 
Mr. Iggulden intends to deal with older Vines in another paper ; 
if so, I am content to confine my remarks for the present to 
young Vines. Mr. Iggulden tries to advance the unsoundness of 
an unrestricted system when he says -'‘much may be said against 
itbut, unfortunately, he has established nothing either against 
the system or in favour of the one he advocates. He seems to 
infer that those who allow liberty of growth have in view only 
the filling of the border with roots ; but the primary object of my 
practice is to obtain, if possible, good well-finished Grapes. The 
roots I delight to see protruding through the border, which keeps 
the cultivator well informed that all is going right. While the 
roots are working vigorously and actively there is little fear of 
the crop of Grapes not finishing well on young Vines, provided 
ventilation and other conditions are favourable. If your corre¬ 
spondent will take a number of Vines in pots and restrict the 
growth by stopping the laterals a joint or two beyond the bunch, 
and keep other growths rubbed off as they appear, the fruit—if 
a moderate crop—will soon bring the Vines to a standstill, and 
the berries in the end will be small. Take other Vines, and if the 
laterals are stopped the same as the others, but unrestricted 
growths are allowed at the bottom and t jp, the roots will be more 
numerous and active, and better able to bring to perfection a 
greater weight of fruit. I am not referring to heavy cropping. 
This year I took from eleven Vines in pots sixty-six bunches of 
Grapes which averaged 1 lb. or more in weight each. They 
finished well and the berries were a good size. The top growth 
was allowed to extend 6 feet and was then stopped, and the 
laterals were removed as usual. The growth at the top was not 
interfered with again until after the Grapes were ripe. The wood 
is strong, and from all appearance the Vines will produce good 
fruit again next year. If they had been closely pinched the one 
crop would have exhausted them. 
Now to Vines planted out. I stop the young Vines when about 
9 inches high until they make roots, and again when 3 or 4 feet 
long. They are then allowed to grow as much and as fast as 
they can, even if they resemble a thicket at the top of the house, 
the laterals only being pinched up to the place where the leader 
was stopped the second time. Vines grown under this condition 
produce twice the quantity of roots of any grown on the restricted 
principle. If the whole of this unlimited growth were cut off at 
a stroke I do not doubt that many of the roots would perish, but 
if gradually removed from time to time as the wood matures the 
roots will not perish during the winter. They have just the same 
chance of ripening to remain in good condition throughout the 
resting period as those grown on a more restricted system. Prac¬ 
tice and observation have convinced me they do not perish, and 
if Mr. Iggulden considers they do it is a matter upon which he 
must advance proof. 
Hitherto I have found Vines treated as I have described start 
vigorously in the spring and show abundance of fruit, as many 
as three bunches on nearly every lateral. I removed early last 
spring over one hundred bunches before the flowers opened from 
twelve Vines that had been planted three years last July, and 
raised from eyes the same season. 
The statement of Mr. Iggulden is the first I have seen where it 
was considered possible to have too many roots in a Vine border. 
My object has always been to have as many roots as possible and 
to keep them in good condition. It is an impossibility for Vines 
with limited root-action to carry a crop of fruit as heavy aud 
finish it as well as Vines with abundance of roots. Restricted 
growth in Vines is often carried too far, and the crop which may 
only be apparently light is really too heavy, as may be seen by 
the crop failing to finish satisfactorily. This is entirely the result 
of deficient root-action, and a sufficiency of roots can only be 
obtained by allowing the Vines greater freedom of growth. 
If Vines are grown on the restricted principle, aud if there are 
only sufficient roots to maintain the foliage, how will the Vines 
perfect a crop of fruit ? Mr. Iggulden argues further that the 
roots of unrestricted Vines are of the grossest kind ; they are 
exactly the same as those produced by restricted Vines, and if 
the border is made gradually by increasing its width not more 
than 2 to 2£ feet at a time, gross roots can be prevented and the 
border filled with feeding fibres. If the roots have free liberty 
when grown on either system they soon run through the border, 
and the greater portion of them are fibreless. 
Another point. Vines are not so liable to throw off their main 
leaves when the laterals are allowed to extend freely as when 
they are closely pinched and confined to a single cane. The sap 
in "the first case has abundance of sources in which to exhaust 
itself, but when the laterals are restricted and the channels for 
the supply of sap insufficient the stem increases rapidly, and the 
leaves are forced off. Vines with abundance of lateral develop¬ 
ment are never so pithy as when all the strength of the Vine is 
concentrated in one stem. 
If science teaches “the roots extend themselves in all directions 
beneath the soil in search of food, &c.,” it also teaches there is 
nothing lost in Nature, and the growth burned is not lost, but 
can be returned to the border for food again for the Vines. 
—W. Bardney. _ 
In all that Mr. Iggulden advances under the above heading, 
at page 384, he never once shows that he has the slightest 
glimmering of the reason why most growers encourage as niuch 
growth in youDg and old Vines as possible. Most intelligent 
growers understand that it is the leaves that manufacture the 
fruit and wood, and for this reason they encourage as many 
as can find room to do their work properly. Nor is this so 
much for the mere purpose of filling borders with roots, but 
rather that the Vines may bear large crops without exhaustion, 
and later lay up an abundant store in the Vines for a strong start 
and an abundant fruitfulness in after years. 
I think I am right in saying that gardeners look on their Vine 
stems as so many reservoirs in which to store in autumn as much 
organised material as will enable them to produce the best results 
possible the following year. Mr. Iggulden thinks, at least he says, 
that great masses of roots are useless in spring because they do 
not move when the buds move. No, they do not, and neither do 
they when the roots are few. And why should they ? What 
would it benefit a Vine before it has its leaves mature enough to 
elaborate sap, to be filled with watery crude sap fresh from the 
border? Until Vines have made leases working roots are not 
wanted ; they must both work together. In the case of young 
Vines which are cut hard back, whence are they to find material 
to furnish young stems and working leaves if there are no stores 
in the underground stems generally called roots ? 
In great numbers of instances—in Orchids, Potatoes, Lilies 
Nature makes special contrivances for thus storing material to be 
ready to hand just when wanted ; indeed, in Vines she makes just 
the same provision, and, whether we understand exactly the 
