42} 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ November 10, 1881. 
and Amaryllis. A Tea Rose exhibited by Mr. Bennett, profusely 
co'. e d v\ ilh fruit, showed the beneficial effects of artificial fertili¬ 
sation, the crop being the second of this season. 
A branch of Hippopbae rhamnoides covered with fruits gave occa¬ 
sion to describe the different organs utilised in forming succulent 
f.uits, it being a fleshy calyx in this plant, as in Mulberry, while in 
Roars and Apples it was the flowerstalk. A curious illustration was 
seen in a specimen from Dublin Botanic Gardens, in which the stalk 
had alone swollen, but contained no fruit whatever within it. On 
the other hand, in Cycas revolnta, fruiting specimens of which were 
forwarded by Mr. Hudson of Gunnersbury, it was the fleshy coat of 
the seeds, which are borne on the edges of reduced leaves, and net 
within pods. 
In alluding to Cycas, Mr. Henslow remarked on the former abun¬ 
dance of Cycadaceous plants in England, as testified by the fossil 
remains found at Gristhorpe near Scarborough, and at Portland, 
Dorset. Trunks of these trees form part of the rockwork in the 
conservatory of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Regent’s Park. 
MULCHING ROSES. 
We have long been maintaining against all comers that tLe 
mulching of Roses in cold late localities does nothing but mischief, 
and is only good for warm districts when the coddling given 
would not so readily result in weakening the constitutions of the 
plants, but since Air. Taylor condemns it we are now convinced 
that it is a mistake everywhere. We will answer for it that it is 
ruinous in the north. So long as vve continued to mulch, the results 
of the arctic winters experienced here for the last decade have 
been disastrous. Two or three years ago we lifted all our Roses, 
planted them deeply in well-prepared soil, left them without a 
mulch, have given no manure since, and the results aTe such as 
were never heard of before, while the death rate has become very 
low. We intend saying more on this subject soon, as justice 
cannot be done to it in a brief note. It is worth adding, how¬ 
ever, that we now invariably plant our Roses so deep that, though 
cut to the ground line, they are not destroyed but speedily become 
owu-rooted plants, and perhaps this is the best way of obtaining 
Roses on their own roots when this is thought desirable.—A 
Scotchman. 
PEARS FOR WALLS. 
“ A. H. H.” is evidently a man of valour, if not a man of might. 
His prescience is of a very unusual kind, and enables him to 
know that I am “no gardener,” on the mere evidence of a short 
article—not of my work, which he knows not. In caution he is 
a little wanting, but that is only according to nature, for it is 
observable that if a man is very strong in one faculty he is 
usually weak in another. I am, says this authority, “no gar¬ 
dener,” but a “sentimentalist and a dreamer.” As to my non- 
gardening capacity I certainly regret that I have not better use of 
my time ; but there are at least a few friends who have a slight 
idea of gardening, who, too generously perhaps, estimate me more 
favourably, and one of them happens to be Air. David Thomson, 
who was once good enough to write his estimate of my com¬ 
petency, which I now possess. The question now stands thus : 
There is the mere word of one man against the experience of 
a lother; if the fanner will not yield his point he has only 
one alternative, and that is to regard my friend Air. David 
Thomson “no gardener” also. This is rather awkward for 
“ A. H. H.,” but I cannot help it, and a little more caution and a 
little less dogmatism would have avoided the dilemma. I am 
writing in the best possible humour, and under the impression 
that 1 am rendering myself quite agreeable to my critic, whose 
article, according to my reading of it, invited remarks of this 
nature. 
Before proceeding further I must remind your correspondent 
that the subject of my letter was Pears for walls, and not walls 
verm* glass structures. I am not likely to say anything against a 
well-appointed otchard house. I know by much experience how 
valuable such houses are, and I wish all gardeners had cne of 
them, therefore I am not to be hooked by that bait so adroitly 
thrown out; in fact, I am inclined to go further than “ A. H. H.” 
and say that I suspect glass shelters for fruit trees and boundaries 
for gardens can be erected even cheaper than walls. But that is 
not the question, and they are at least not likely to cause many 
garden walls to be removed. I like walls and orchard houses too, 
and I have nearly always observed that gardeners in unenclosed 
or hedge-enclosed gardens have generally a strong desire for 
walls, as I have to see them profitably coveied with well-managed 
trees. 
Your correspondent not cnly in his wisdom accuses me of being 
“ no gardener,” but he charges me also wdth inconsistency, inas¬ 
much as he says 1 “ admit that cordons may be so trained as to be 
as 1 andsome as ever trees trained in the old system could be.” I 
row ask “A. H. H.” to reproduce a sentence from my article 
which carries that as its natural meaning. If he can do this he 
will be justified in declaring me inconsistent; if he cannot, the 
inconsistency will rest somewhere else. 
I have said “A. H. II.” is a bold man, not so much because of 
his strong expressions towards me, but because he could have 
penned his article after reading Air. Warner’s evidence of the 
advantages of Pear stocks on page 355, and the report of Air. 
Taylor’s trees and practice on page 330. Although the writer 
of that article qualified his remarks with references and a 
caution, be could not ignore what he saw, and Air. Taylor can 
scarcely be described as “no gardener.” But I suspect I un¬ 
wittingly misled “A. II. II.” in my last paragraph when I asked 
if there were no readers who desired with me to see the old 
English culture and training of Pears on walls, and who could 
at the same time say “how the work should be done.” It was 
not because I did not know how to grow and train such trees 
that 1 penned that sentence, for in truth I can do the w r ork 
better than describe it; but I thought there might be others 
who could describe the practice as well as cairy it out. Yet 
the fact that I have grown and trained and gathered fruit by 
bushels from such trees as I referred to and advocated, does 
not constitute me a gardener, still I submit my experience does 
excuse me for writing the article that your correspondent honoured 
me by dissecting. 
I will now re’urn the compliment and endeavour to dissect his 
article on page 396. As I have disposed of the question of orchard 
houses versus walls at the end of the communication 1 may as 
well continue from that point and read the letter backwards. I 
first pause at the extraordinary question as to whether 1 have 
“ never heard of Pears failing on walls because of bad weather ? ” 
I have never been so foolish as to imply that bad weather does 
not affect Pears on walls. I will now a-k my friend a question 
quite as reasonable as the one he has submitted—namely, Did he 
ever hear of bad weather spoiling the Wheat and Potato crops ? 
Assuming he has heard of such a calamity', I will further ask him 
if he would discontinue the culture of such crops? If he dees 
not do this he cannot consistently object to such trees as I recom¬ 
mended being grown against walls, unless at the same time he can 
give an assurance that Pears on the Quince are not injured by 
bad weather. Such questions, however, as applied to the subject 
under consideration are vain and not worthy of discussion. 
I pass next to the celebrated transitional theory'. Pomology will 
soon be revolutionised. Let us adopt a mere hand-to-mouth policy 
in fruit culture ; “ Sufficient unto the day,” &c., never mind our 
grandchildren. These are the plain teachings of “A. H. H.” He 
is confessedly a disciple of Sir Boyle Roche, who refused to do 
anything for posterity because posterity had done nothing for him. 
This is the jeiry builder’s creed. I prefer something more solid, 
more really profitable, and more permanent. The new varieties 
of Pears were going to drive the old ones away thirty years ago, 
but the old sorts are with us yet as popular and as good as ever, 
and I am not sanguine of the speedy fulfilment of “A. II. H.’s ” 
prophecy, seeing how many thousands of Apples on Crab stocks 
and orchard Pear trees are now being planted. Experience is 
proving that the millions of toy trees that have been planted have 
not improved the market fruit supply, and a reaction is setting in 
in favour of the old English standard Dees for affording an abun¬ 
dant supply' of useful fruit at a minimum cost. 
And now to border-making for Pears for walls. Aly critic has 
weakened his case by exaggeration. That “concreted borders 
30 feet wide and made of turfy loam are necessary in ninety'- 
nine cases out of a hundred ” is a simple fallacy. Why should a 
Pear tree require such a waste of labour and material to grow 
against a wall when it will grow freely without in an open field 
or garden ? Aly friend himself must be the dreamer here ; and 
then w'hen he says that trees can be grown with a “hundredth 
part of the work ” by “lifting and root-pruning” that is necessary 
under the old system, he must be indulging in mere sentiment. 
When he has tried both systems fairly he will modify that state¬ 
ment. The fruit farmers who pay £5 an acre for their land do 
not indulge in “root-pruning and lifting,” and they would as¬ 
suredly do so if it was a “ hundred times” cheaper than the “ old 
system.” 
Let no one be deterred by this border bugbear from planting 
Tear trees on Pear stocks. It is a mere phantom. I am certain 
I have had more experience on the subject than “A. H. H.” has, 
or he never could have ventured on such a statement. But your 
coriespondent goes on to say what I agree is the main question— 
namely', “Which system produces the best fruit and the greatest 
quantity from a given space?” On this po'nt I can adduce 
evidence founded on a fair trial of buih systems—trees that I 
