560 JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. [ December 22, 1881. 
January. Thisis quite distinct from the Ne Plus Meuris of Van 
Mona.” 
BLUE ROMAN HYACINTH. 
Some months ago I referred to the above Hyacinth as badly 
adapted for forcing and worthless as a decorative plant. Messrs. 
Jones & Sons, Shrewsbury, then wrote against my statement and 
in favour of the plant. After further experience I can now say 
it cannot be forced nearly so readily as the white Roman, and 
when potted at the same time and treated exactly the same i3 
several weeks longer before it flowers. I did think it could not 
be had before Christmas, but must admit I was wrong on thi3 
point, for I have plants just opening their flowers. In my former 
note I said, if I remember rightly, it might be useful for culting 
purposes. I am willing to give it that credit now, but as a deco¬ 
rative plant it is useless. You will be able to judge of its merits 
from the sample I send by this post. They have had the same 
treatment as white Romans, which are dwarf, compact, and 
beautiful. I asked your other correspondents to state in these 
pages about Christmas when they had a good batch in bloom and 
I would pay them a visit, but I do not now consider the blue 
Roman worth a short journey to see. Would Messrs. Jones do 
as I have done—send you flowering plants of this Hyacinth ?— 
Cultivator of Bulbs. 
[The plants received had been shaken from the soil, and their 
drawn condition confirms our correspondent’s estimate of them ; 
the flowers might be useful when cut, but the plants sent are 
worthless as decorative objects. The leaves are exactly 15 inches 
long, and the longest spike has seven flowers.—E d.] 
THEORIES IN VINE CULTURE. 
My name, or rather my nom de pluvie, has been used with much 
frequency by those who have taken part in the discussion now 
going on under the above heading in the pages of the Journal ; 
and as much of what I said when writing before on the subject 
has been misconstrued, much misunderstood, and not a little mis¬ 
represented, perhaps you will allow me space to answer some of 
my critics, to explain what I at first meant, to give my reasons for 
the opinions 1 hold, my reasons for holding them, and my practice 
and its results ; for I think that only thus shall we ever be able 
to perceive each other’s meaning clearly, and only thus enable 
the body of your readers who are interested to understand and to 
judge which of the opposite systems so keenly advocated by the 
different sides is best, and which safest to adopt or reject. Perhaps 
this method, if followed properly, will also enable us to discuss 
the real question at issue and to avoid the large number cf side, 
or even irrelevant, questions which have been introduced into the 
discussion as it has progressed, more especially by Mr. Taylor. 
First, then, let me “defend a system I am practising” by 
noticing a few of the points which have been made prominent in 
the discussion. The first thing I object to is the constant reiter¬ 
ation of such phrases as the following —“ A few leathery leaves 
are preferable to a greater quantity of thin papery foliage 
“ foliage which is thin and which cannot be acted on by the light 
is not only useless,” and so on. The only meaning such sen¬ 
tences can have is that one side advocates poor, thin, overcrowded 
foliage, and the other the opposite. I presume Mr. Bardney 
can appreciate the advantages of sturdy foliage thinly enough 
placed to allow of sun and air acting their part ; and as for your 
humble servant, he has often pointed out the necessity for such 
conditions. That, then, is not the question, for such has never 
been disputed ; neither is the amount of restriction to which 
Vines ought to be subjected after the structures in which they are 
grown are filled. Mr. Iggulden’s latest on this point, and also 
what Mr. Taylor says I can agree with at once, and practise 
similarly so far a3 is possible under my present circumstances ; 
and as Mr. Bardney has been all along labouring to show the 
benefit of such a system, with certain but not very important 
modifications perhaps, I presume he also will agree that neither 
is that the question. 
The question now is whether Vines in the first few years of 
their existence are benefited by being allowed to make as much 
growth as possible—that is, fill the house fairly with foliage, or 
by having that growth restricted to from 4 feet upwards, but never 
more than two-thirds of the rafter. Having had something to do 
with both systems, my experience is that the more restricted 
Vines are incapable of doing the same work as those treated to 
what one writer calls the “ exhaustion system,” but which I call 
the strengthening system. Ten years ago I planted two vineries 
the borders of which were composed of material brought fully 
ten miles, and your readers will understand that the expense of 
that would scarcely be incurred for inferior material. The borders 
were mixed and made on orthodox principles, and the Vines 
planted and trained very much in the way Mr. Iggulden and others 
advocate. The results were good, but I now think a year or two 
was lost in filling the house. Four years ago we planted another 
vinery with Vines struck the same spring. The border was com¬ 
posed of poor material, two-thirds being turfy soil from mac¬ 
adamised roadsides, and the remaining third fibreless loam not 
quite of the best description. In this was mixed some lime 
rubbish, horse droppings, and bones, but in less quantity than in 
the more favoured borders of the other two. The Vines were not 
allowed to grow exactly “ Bramble fashion,” but the first year 
they went to the top of the house, when they were stopped. The 
laterals were allowed to grow till the house was fairly filled, and 
all further growth kept down. To fully ripen the growths firing 
had to be practised far into autumn. Most of the canes were 
remarkably stout when cut down just when they were about 
eleven months old, but one or two did only moderately. In 
planting them we used some decayed weeds and a little manure 
to give them a start, and round one or two of the Vines the 
soil produced a fungus which attacked and weakened them, 
hence their lagging. The permanent canes were cut down to 
about 18 inches from the soil. Those of your correspondents who 
have taken sides with Mr. Iggulden will say that I had then only 
18 inches of stem left. In the case of the weakly Vines I had not 
much more, and in the case of the restricted supernumeraries 
certainly the stems were above ground ; but in the case of the 
incomparably thicker permanent Vines I consider I had much 
underground stem, and I think Mr. Inglis might have thought 
what he was writing when he objected to my calling these by 
their right name. Mr. Inglis evidently prefers wrong names. 
Next year the Vines had the same treatment. They were never 
touched till they were at the top of the house, and then they were 
stopped. The laterals were again allowed to develope, and were 
stopped exactly as if they had been fruit-bearing. As Mr. Iggulden 
says, many of the main stem leaves fell off in consequence of the 
rapid swelling of the canes after all the growths were stopped. 
The bark, too, split and tore from the same cause. The falling 
leaves gave us little concern, for we doubted not that those on 
the laterals would carry on the work instead, and we were not 
mistaken. 
The difference between the restricted supernumeraries and the 
permanent rods was the second year very great, and in favour 
of the permanent Vines. The next year they were fruited, having 
been in winter cut down to 7 feet. Those who maintain that 
under such extension as this the lower buds are inferior, will, 
perhaps, be surprised to hear that the smallest bunch in the house 
was fully 2 lbs, and several were over 3 lbs., while seven bunches 
were taken from every cane save two, and one of these was one 
of those which suffered from the fungus attack. It was only 
allowed to carry two, and the other carried nine bunches, which, 
aggregately, weighed I9| lbs. Two of these bunches were awarded 
the second prize at one of the largest shows in the kingdom. 
This was against seventeen competitors. I only mention tbis as 
proof that the Grapes were well finished. Such crops I never 
saw taken from “ restricted ” canes of the same age. But perhaps 
your correspondents on the other side will say that the above is not 
particularly great. I do not say it is, and with my choice of 
materials for border-making I should not fear to surpass it greatly. 
Perhaps they will say that the question is, Which system will pro¬ 
duce greatest permanent fertility 1 I am not forgetting. 
The next year, in pruning, 6 feet more of rod was left, which 
was rather too much, for the lower buds on the upper 6 feet did 
not break so strongly as was desirable ; on these no fruit was 
left, but bunches were left on all the other spurs. I ought to 
say that the Vines are only 3 feet apart, so, as to give them proper 
span, the rods are lowered and the laterals trained upwards, 
and the spurs are thinner than usual. That year the rods carried 
eleven bunches on an average—fully equal to the first year’s. 
This year the weakest Vines earned thirteen bunches, which 
weighed together 27f lbs., and the strongest seventeen bunches, 
which weighed 46^ lbs. Some of the bunches were over 6 lbs. 
on some of the other, but the aggregate weight I cannot give. 
The whole was not weighed. 
Every year the house has been as full of foliage as if the Vines 
had been twenty years old, and to this chiefly we attribute the 
power of the Vines being sufficient to carry such crops. I con¬ 
sider that this year I had a full crop, and cannot hope that the 
weight will increase even with the increase of laterals, for tbis 
and last year the house was as full of leaves as could be fully 
acted on by sun and air, and I believe their working power was 
fully taxed. 
There is one point in my practice which I have not referred to, 
