November 24, 1881. ] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
469 
eo remote from civilisation as never to have heard of farmers 
abandoning the cultivation of Wheat and Potatoes, and substitut¬ 
ing something else that promised better returns, just as we would 
have “J. B.” not to be so particular about the exact length of 
his trees’ branches, but to ‘‘go in” for abundant and early 
fruitfulness. 
My advice “ to secure early and abundant fruitfulness and not 
to bother with the affairs of our grandchildren,” affords your corre¬ 
spondent a chance of saying that I hold the “ jerry builder’s 
creed.” Again, I fail to see the analogy. The jerry builder’s 
work not only does not promise shelter for future generations but 
threatens to destroy, and is a constant source of annoyance to the 
present. Pear trees trained on the “short-cut to fruit” principle 
cannot be called dangerous, while to the planter it is “ J. B.’s” 
trees that are likely to annoy. To liken either system to the 
jerry builder’s work is exceedingly far-fetched ; but if it is allowed 
at all, surely it applies not to the training we advocate, but to 
that advocated by “ John Bull.” 
I did not say that Pear trees would not grow without having 
borders made for them. But I said, and say still, that first-rate 
results need not be looked for from trees trained as advocated 
without good borders. That they will grow we are all aware, but 
we want something more than growth—we want fruit; and not 
only fruit but good fruit, and we have yet to learn that good 
Pears can be produced all over these islands from trees the roots 
of which are allowed to run into cold clay or cankering gravel. 
Here and there, especially in favoured spots, this may do, but few 
are so favoured. 
“John Bull” says that the question is not “walls versus 
orchard houses.” That is quite true, but he asked the possessors 
of new walls to “seriously consider” how to fill them. We asked 
such to “ seriously consider ” whether it would be wise to build 
at all, but rather to “ consider ” whether orchard houses would 
not be more profitable. Whether the erection of orchard houses 
would “ cause the removal ” of existing walls is beside the 
question, as it is not a question of removal but erection when new 
walls are concerned, and to new walls alone we referred. 
I put what I thought a pertinent question when I asked why 
the gentlemen and gardeners whose memories were long enough 
to remember the “splendid and splendidly ” trained trees were 
grubbed up. I am asked now, “ Who said they were grubbed 
up ?” I inferred that what was merely a memory must be gone ; 
and that if only gardeners and gentlemen of a certain age only 
could remember them, that they must have been grubbed out. 
I am sorry that some things your correspondent asks me do is 
not just now in my power. I am far from my home where the 
copies containing “ John Bull’s” article and my own are, and so 
cannot refer to them. There are many other things I would have 
liked to reply to, but illness makes me stop here. The doctor 
enjoins change and rest ; these I can only have for a very short 
period, and I feel neither willing Dor able to grapple the subject. 
My purpose will be served if attention shall be aroused on an 
interesting subject. 
One thing more and then I close. I am asked to furnish proofs 
that such training as 1 advocate is superior to his. If he wishes 
to have samples submitted of trees and their produce, I can only 
say that most of my experience has been gained under others'. 
Under masters I have worked both (or rather a variety of) 
systems, and to say that here this failed, and theie that succeeded, 
would be invidious. Still the results—it matters not who secures 
them—must be the test whereby to judge of systems, and my 
experience is as 1 have tried to indicate ; and I feel that for my 
part, had I a new plantation of Pear trees to plant against walls 
to-morrow, I could best secure satisfactory results by planting 
trees in good loam on Pear stocks and keeping the roots fibry 
near at home—near the surface, mulched when need be, fed when 
need be ; and this means restricted top growth, because of re¬ 
stricted root growth ; fine fruit because, the roots being near the 
surface, the sap would never be cold, and because of this feeding 
applied just where and just when required. This is just the 
threshold of the subject, but here necessity compels me to stop. 
—A. H. H. 
Brachycome iberidifolia. — This pretty annual is generally 
known as the Swan River Daisy. About the last week in June I 
sowed a few seeds of it in the open ground. In August, noticing 
that some of the plants which had plenty of room were dwarf and 
sturdy, I at once potted half a dozen of them, and they have not only 
pleased me for the last few weeks, but they have received favourable 
notice from several visitors. How long they will continue growing 
and flowering I cannot say. At present they show no indications of 
giving way ; and although they are not so full of bloom as the plant 
represented in the figure on page 413, they are not to be despised 
at this season, the small blue Cineraria-like flowers and Asparagus-like 
foliage both contributing to the attractiveness of the greenhouse.— 
W. W. 
ROSES. 
With every passing year there is to my mind a confirmation 
of the position that Roses succeed better on their own roots than 
on any stock. This is admitted of many Roses. I believe it to 
be true of all varieties. It is now commonly recommended that 
scions on the Manetti should be planted so deep that the bud will 
form roots. This, so far as concerns that stock, concedes the 
whole point. But it is true of the Briar and every other stock. 
The most delicate Roses are, with rare exceptions, more hardy than 
the Briar tribe. In nine-tenths of the deaths of standards the 
fatality is found in the stock and not in the scion. Plants budded 
on John Hopper, Edward Morren, and other robust-growing Roses 
do better than on the Briar, and even where a scion succumbs the 
stock will itself produce blooms. But for the difficulty of pro¬ 
ducing large quantities on their roots I think the budding mania 
would soon end. 
Cuttings of all Roses strike readily. Most of them can thus be 
propagated in the open air. A few delicate varieties may need 
some protection ; but that raises the question whether plants 
that cannot be propagated and do not thrive in the garden are 
worth cultivation. I think they are not. But rosarians have, 
like other people, wild fancies. To some Rose-growers there is 
pleasure in producing Roses under needless difficulties. These 
enthusiasts forget that the Rose is queen of the garden. A plant 
which will not thrive except under glass, or when wrapped in 
swaddling clothes, should be discarded in common with scentless 
varieties and those shy bloomers that reward a year’s labour with 
a single flower. I am by degrees discarding all plants except 
those grown on their own roots. This is, it is true, the whim of an 
amateur. But I have been so vexed with stocks throwing up 
suckers, thus depriving the Rose plant of its nurture, and with 
the death of the stock while the Rose itself was healthy and 
vigorous, that I have resolved to do without Roses budded on any 
stock which is not itself a good Rose. 
I have a great many of our best sorts growing with more 
vigour on their own roots than on any stock, and, so far as I have 
had the means of judging, Roses are more floriferous on their own 
roots than on Briar or Manetti stocks, and the blooms come of 
better form. My advice to everyone who grows a small number 
of Roses would be to have none except on their own roots. If 
they desire a standard, let it be on a good Rose tree. It is no 
deformity to have several varieties growing upon the same 
stem. Indeed in this way variety may be a great advantage. The 
stock may thus carry its crown of flowers from June to November 
by budding early and late varieties upon it. This is the only 
mode in which standards should be grown. 
I daresay that some lovers of the Rose may be disposed to 
impeach me for treason. But I hope to live until it will be 
treason to disfigure our gardens with mop-sticks and mop-heads. 
•—W. Simons, Gwaiwarren , Merthyr 'Tydfil. 
VAPOURISERS. 
I should like very much to see the question of vapourisers or 
spray-distributors discussed in your paper. Nothing would be 
more useful to a horticulturist than a really efficient instrument 
for such a purpose, but as yet I have found none. I have used 
for several years Maw’s spray-distributor, which is sold for the 
diffusion of scent, and most useful I have found it for Roses in 
pots, Pelargoniums, See., but for a vinery this is too small. I ap¬ 
plied recently to the maker of the vapouriser which you described 
and figured in your paper, and he sent me one on trial. I found 
it, however (whether from my own fault or that of the instrument 
I cannot say), a total failure. It did not work well horizontally, 
and the moment the nozzle was raised so as to bear upon the 
leaves of a vinery its action ceased altogether. 
Many years ago I saw in a horticultural paper the figure of an 
American instrument, which I thought might be very useful, but 
1 do not know whether it could be obtained in this country. The 
vapouriser was hung with a swinging joint on the nozzle of a pair 
of bellows, so that whichever way the instrument was held the 
vessel containing the liquid retained its perpendicular position. 
By working the bellows the spray was distributed. 
A really efficient vapouriser would, I should imagine, be most 
welcome, not only to English horticulturists but to Indian Tea- 
planters. The great enemy which they have to contend with is 
the red spider. Their method of cultivation is the following :— 
Supposing a shoot of the Tea plant to contain five leaves, they 
take two and the final bud and leave three, from the base of which 
