282 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ September 25, 1884. 
The concluding paragraph in the truly admirable article of “ A. F. M.” 
last week shows conclusively that the strong can afford to be generous. I 
am thanked, he it noted, not for supporting the views of a writer, but 
because my criticism was “ friendly.” That is what we should endeavour 
to cultivate—“ friendly criticism.” The best way in which I can show my 
appreciation of the kindly references is to comply with the request of your 
correspondent to bestow a few passing thoughts on his “ disjointed notes.” 
“ Disjointed.” In that lies their freshness. One-idea articles, 
stretched over column after column, are seldom otherwise than tedious; 
but here is an article that sparkles with ideas and suggestions from end to 
end. There is, in fact, so much to think about in it that the difficulty is to 
know where to begin. _ 
Leaving to rosarians the discussion of varieties, I will dwell on a few 
other points, and will first of all tell “ A. F. M.” what he “ ought to have 
done ” when his blooms were infested with thrips, as at least I will tell 
him what I found useful. When both Roses and Carnations were opening 
I syringed them with quassia water; being perfectly clear it did not stain 
a petal, and the insects certainly did not enjoy it. This decoction was 
made in the simplest manner, and not in accordance with the orthodox 
prescription of boiling for so many minutes then diluting, &c. Chips 
were just put in a vessel of clear cold water’ at the rate of an ounce to 
each gallon, and after forty-eight hours the decoction was used wdthout 
.any dilution. As often as a gallon of water was taken out another was 
put in with an ounce of chips, and a supply of the insect deterrent was 
always at hand with little trouble. That, 1 think, is the easiest mode of 
preparing quassia water and of banishing thrips. 
“A. F. M.’s” observations on and experience with liquid manure 
merit thoughtful attention. Liquid manure is either an enemy or a friend 
of the cultivator. Given when needed of the proper strength, and when 
the soil to which it is applied is moist, it cannot fail to be highly beneficial; 
hut given when not required or given too strong, it is decidedly injurious ; 
in fact, it is in one case nourishing food, in the other nothing less than 
poison. Plants that are growing freely and have thereby impoverished 
the soil in pots or borders may, and indeed ought, to have liquid manure 
if further or stronger growth is desired ; but to give it to weakly plants 
with slight root-action is one of the greatest mistakes that can be made. 
The few roots cannot absorb what is given, but the soil absorbs the salts 
of the manure to such an extent as to prevent what is greatly needed— 
further root-extension. The erring cultivator thus defeats his object in the 
most effectual manner. 
Liquid manure should never be given when the soil is dry, even if the 
plants need extra support. Strong food given to a famishing man is 
admittedly dangerous, and it is equally dangerous to give it to plants 
suffering from thirst. An able man has written, “A plant which is in 
soil healthily moist will take up what it wants: one flaccid by want of 
water will absorb any soluble matter, even to its own repletion and 
destruction if applied in water. 
“A. F. M.” is quite right in advocating the use of liquid 
manure when the soil is moist, but not for the reason he slates, 
that the plants “have their mouths open then, and are on the feed.” 
They are “on the feed.” it is true, as a healthy satisfied animal is; 
but if the animal is half dead with thirst it will drink five times more in 
a given time when water is within its reach than if it were not uncom¬ 
fortably thirsty, and if the water contains anything that is injurious it 
is drunk all the same; therefore, supposing one grain of matter in a 
gallon is safe and five grains dangerous, the dangerous dose is necessarily 
taken by the great greedy drink. It is exactly the same with thirsty 
plants; they absorb much more water—-their roots of course being plenti¬ 
ful and absorbent—in a given time than less thirsty plants do, and conse¬ 
quently take up an injurious quantity of the matter in solution. They 
have no power to reject it; if they take the water they take what is in 
it, and the excess is poison. That, I think, is the explanation of the 
danger of giving liquid manure to plants in dry soil. 
The right course to pursue in giving Roses or anything else a needed 
stimulant in dry weather is to first give water copiously, and allow a 
sufficient time for the plants to quench their thirst before liquid manure 
is applied to the roots. It is not enough that the soil be moist, but should 
have remained so for several hours when the stimulant is applied. It is 
then not only safe but beneficial. A good plan is to saturate the beds 
towards night and give the liquid manure before the dew is off the foliage 
the next mornfng. 
Another method of giving liquid manure to Roses well established 
in beds is worth thinking about. I have thought a great deal about it 
and acted on the thought with decided benefit to the Roses and satisfac¬ 
tion to myself. I refer to giving the liquid stimulant in the winter. 
Whenever the soil is sufficiently drained for water to pass freely through 
it the drainage from manure hills may be poured into it copiously with¬ 
out fear any time from October till February, and the liquid can be given 
then much stronger than at any other period of the year. I think if 
“ A. F. M.” will try this out-of-the-way plan of giving liquid manure to a 
few Roses that need assistance, the results will be such as to encourage 
him to extend the practice another year. 
Another “ wrinkle ” in the article in question will be noted by 
the observant and turned to account by the wise. “ Be sure to bud stocks 
from flowering shoots ” of strong-growing and shy-blooming varieties is a 
splendid idea. I recall to mind a circumstance that occurred years ago 
with the barren but beautiful Cloth of Gold. The first bloom I saw of 
that Rose was in the coat of a nobleman. From the stem supporting the 
bloom we took two weak buds which were inserted in a standard Briar ; 
one of them grew, and the next year produced a splendid bloom. After 
that the plant took to growing, was pruned like the other standards, but 
was never known to bloom again. I know that cuttings made from wood 
that has flowered, say of Gloire de Dijon, produces dwarfer and more 
floriferous plants than those laised from strong flowerless shoots, and^ for 
years I have been careful to select the former growths for plants raised 
for flowering in small pots. And it is the same with Marechal Niel, which 
may be flowered in 5-inch pots, but not when raised from robust shoots. 
It would be singular if the same character was not displayed in plants 
raised from buds, and I can only regard myself as a poor thinker not to 
have thought of that before. 
Other things I should like to dwell on, but cannot ; one, however, 
should not be passed on maintaining a supply of late Peas. Young 
gardeners especially should take note of a remark in Mr. Luckhurst’s ex¬ 
cellent article on vegetables on page 255 relative to doubling the number 
of rows of Peas for a la'e supply. I failed in the manner referred to 
more than twenty years ago. Ever since then, instead of the usual two 
rows at a time, I have put in six rows of late Peas towards the end of 
May, or a similar and larger quantity towards the middle of June, and 
have never since failed to gather a dish of Peas when wanted until frost 
stopped the supply. When we consider that very late Peas do not set 
half 80 many pods as form on earlier rows it follows that we must 
double the quantity of rows or a blank is inevitable. By far the best Pea 
for use in September, October, and November is Ne Plus Ultra. 
In conclfision, I am going to venture on delicate ground. In all 
meekness may I suggest that I think it w’ould be an improvement if the 
printers would not make me talk more nonsense than is my wont ? In the 
last line of my fourth prragraph la?t week the words “ this communica¬ 
tion ” were substituted for “ their communications,” which the Editor 
will find if he cares to refer to my manuscript.—A Thinker. 
[Our correspondent is quite right ; it was a printer’s error that ought 
not to have been made and passed.] 
FRUIT TREES IN POTS—A REVIEW. 
It is quite a quarter of a century since my first attempt was made in 
the culture of fruit trees in pots. The system was then in its infancy, for 
though it was not new to grow Vines, Figs, and Cherries in pots, it 
was not until the publication of “ The Orchard House ” by the late Mr. 
Rivers in December, 1850, that an impetus was given to the general 
culture of fruit trees in pots. Seme possessors of gardens, not overbur¬ 
dened with means, saw, or believed they saw, in these cheap structures a 
convenient mode of reducing the fruiterer’s bill. Some became quite as 
enthusiastic as the originator of the system, and this was more paiticu- 
larly the case with those residing near the great manufacturing towns. 
To grow fruit outdoors was next to impossible, and that had from the 
shops was stale or not of a quality seen at the tables of friends in the 
country ; besides, the locality itself was quite unfavourable to the successful 
cultivation of the choicer fruits either against walls or in the open. 
It was in cold localities and smoky districts that orchard houses were to 
effect wonders. The proprietor of a plot of ground had nothing to do but 
erect a cheap house, and requiring no expensive appliances, or little skill 
in management to enable him to grow his own fruit instead of buying it or 
trusting to the weather. Those that could not afford expensive vineries, 
Peacheries, and walls for growing choice fruit could have all they 
needed from an orchard house—Grapes, Peaches, Nectarines, Apricots, 
Figs, Plums, Cherries, Pears, and Apples. There arose quite a mania for 
orchard houses ; they sprung up like Mushrooms, quickly and thickly, 
until in the words of the author above noted, “Every moderate-sized 
garden in England—more particularly in the north and in Scotland— 
had in the course of a few years its orchard house. They glistened on 
highland and lowland, and gladdened many a garden-lover with their 
genial climate and varied produce.” This is one side of the question. 
Gardeners of the old school, though they were accustomed to grow fairly 
good Grapes over Pines, Peaches, and Nectarines on trellises beneath, 
scouted the toy trees and the flimsy houses, their frailness of con¬ 
struction and instability of material. I confess to having formed a 
similar opinion. Houses with wood sides to a height of several feet, in 
fact to the eaves, did not appear likely to render the lower part of bush 
or pyramid trees healthy. The trees, as they must have all the light they 
received vertically, would soon be in the same condition as trees in a 
wood, very different indeed from trees having light laterally as well as 
vertically. 
Ours was the first house of its kind within three-quarters of a mile of 
the centre of a large manufacturing town. It had wood sides, a glass 
roof, and side ventilation only. It was a complete failure. Other houses 
were erected in the locality. They had glass side lights made to open 
the entire length of the house by crank and lever movement, and were 
20 feet in width, ours being only 12 feet. They succeeded admirably. 
I had the temerity to give an account of these in this Journal, and was 
complimented by Mr. Rivers for having the courage of my convictions, 
but the late Mr. Pearson of Chilwell took me to task, and sought to give 
