816 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND GOTIAGE GARDENER. 
[ October 16, 1884. 
really cannot think what a person can be thinking about to deliberately 
act in that manner. I presume there must be some good reason for it, 
but at present I quite fail to perceive it, and the practice seems tanta¬ 
mount to allowina: plants in pots to droop and wither by want of water, 
a practice which I am sure every competent gardener condemns. 
'i'*" But to the liquid manure. To give it to plants in the state just 
alluded to is philosophically, practically, and economically wrong. To 
give it in an insufficient quantity to thoroughly moisten the soil is posi¬ 
tively wasteful, for it runs out almost as fast as it is poured in and is lost. 
To give it until the shrunken soil swells and regains its retentive and 
absorbent character is injurious, for the thirsty plants in their ravenous 
drink take an excess of the salts of the manure, and an excess of any¬ 
thing that is good when rightly used is admittedly injurious. 
Dissolve a quantity of arsenic at the rate of five grains to each gallon 
of water. A horse that is not thirsty will not drink more than a gallon, 
and only gets the five grains, but let him be famishing for water, he will 
diink five gallons if allowed, and thus takes, instead of five grains of the 
arsenic, twenty-five grains. The light dose may not be injurious, it may 
indeed be beneficial, but the larger dose will be dangerous, and may be 
fatal. It is to be understood that this is merely illustrative. I am not a 
horse doctor, and for aught I know to the contrary the smaller dose of the 
poison may be excessive. That has nothing whatever to do with the real 
subject under discussion, but the simile shows in what manner liquid 
manure acts injuriously to plants in dry soil when they drink their fill of 
the stimulant. When my critic proves that the horse can drink water 
with arsenic in solution and reject the poison, or if he can demonstrate 
that the horse’s master who drinks two cups of tea does not imbibe more 
theine than in drinking one, I will admit the fallacy of my argument, 
and not before, because plants have no more power to imbibe water and 
reject what is held in solution in it than has the cultivator of these 
plants. That is my case theoretically ; now, practically. 
Permit the soil in a pot in which a Chrysanthemum, say, is growing, 
to get dry—not half dry, but really dry, so that the soil shrinks and loses 
its absorbent pioperty, while the leaves wither and the shoots bow down 
their heads from exhaustion. Dissolve an ounce of guano in a gallon of 
water, pour some of this into the pot ; it will rush through quickly ; 
collect it; what is it ? It is guano water still. To use liquid manure in 
that way, then, I assert, is absolute vvaste, because if given to plants in 
the ground it amoun's to pouring the liquid into the drains, for it rushes 
away from the roots, flowing past them, the plants getting about as much 
of it as a thirsty ol^ t< per would of a pint of beer poured on his head 
in his catching that' portion that trickled down his face in passing his 
mouth. It would be tantalising to the toper, no doubt, and he would 
think the beer wasted ; so it is in giving liquid manure to plants in quite 
dry soil. 
Now to the danger test of excess. Continue pouring the guano into 
the Chrysanthemum pot until the soil becomes absorbent; never mind 
how much drains away and is wasted (if not caught), it will in time 
escape slowly, not to say tediously, and the excess that the soil cannot 
hold will be clear, the virtues of the liquid will be retained in the earth, 
the plant will have absorbed a great deal more than is good for it, not of 
water, so much as what was in it, and if it does nut die it will not 
thrive. 
Let anyone tiy the experiment suggested fairly, fully, and honestly, 
as I have dune years ago, not with the object of refuting the opinions of 
anyone, but of ascertaining the truth, and I assert my belief in the 
impossibility of his winning even a third prize at any good Chrysanthe¬ 
mum show this autumn in any class in which there are six competitors, 
with either his plants or the blooms he cuts from them. If any man 
accomplishes this, to me, impossible achievement, and will have the 
goodness to let me know, I will, if need be, travel 300 miles to see the 
wonderful products, if only with the object of gathering food for further 
thought. 
The application of liquid manure in the most economical and effectual 
manner does not appear to me to be sufficiently understood. If a man 
of the mental calibre of “Non-Believer” has yet to learn, what about 
others whi m he would teach ? It is for the guidance of those “ others,” 
rather than the instruction of him, that I jut down these thoughts, for I 
cannot resist saying that a sort of shadowy suspicion haunts me that my 
critic was not very serious in his remarks, but that his object was to 
“ draw me out.” If that is so, he has succeeded ; but he has yet to prove 
me wrong, and if he really intends to do so the oppoitunity is afforded 
him : if he succeeds, I have the consolation of thinking I shall learn 
something, while others will benefit too; and herein lies the advantage 
of “ frank and friendly ” discussion, conducted for the purpose, not of 
shou ing over the downfall of an opponent, but of “eliciting truth.” 
We are on the verge of an important subject—that is, of increasing 
the feitility of the soil at the least possible outlay. When I think of the 
tons of liquid manure and dry aitificial fertilisers that have been wasted, 
I am not surprised at the intelligent and scientific Mid-Lothian farmers 
“ waiting for rain ” before sowing their money, but I am at present con¬ 
fident, whatever the results may have been in the case cited last week, of 
applying manure, whether in a dry or liquid form, to parched ground 
and watering in, that they would have been infinitely greater, having 
regard to the returns from capital invested, if the ground had been well 
watered first and the stimulants given afterwards, then lightly “washed 
in.” I say we are on the “ verge ” of a great subject, for if the practical 
and scientific experience of your correspondent on Scottish farming 
extends over a much longer period than my own, and if he has had very 
much greater facilities for sharing in experiments conducted by a scientific 
and practical “ Laird of Mid-Lothian,” something interesting ought to be 
forthcoming. Like Goethe was once, I am now—longing for “ more light,” 
A Thinker. 
COMMENTS ON THE PAST ROSE SEASON. 
Till I saw the letter of “ Y. B. A. Z.” last week I had not intended 
to answer “ T. W. G.’s ” criticism upon my suggestion that Rose plants 
the year after budding should be called “ yearlings ” instead of “maidens.” 
The question seemed to me to be rather a matter of taste, and hardly 
suitable for discussion. 
I will, however, now state that, though I have had for many years 
what “ T. A. B.” calls “ an acute form of Rose mania,” I have hitherto 
been able to control my feelings sufficiently to allow me to call my 
favourite flowers in a general way just Roses—not Empress, Queens, or 
Royal Princesses, or anything of that sort. 
In short, I am as fond of poetry and of Roses as anyone; but prac¬ 
tical, not poetical, culture will grow the best Roses, and practical names 
will suit practical treatment best. 
As a county player of some fifteen years’ standing may I inform 
“ T. 'W. G.” that he is mistaken in supposing that “ in cricket an ‘ over ’ 
is called a ‘ maiden ’ vs hen no fault can be found with it; when, in fact, 
it is too good for everything ?” That seems to me to involve a misappre¬ 
hension of the meaning of the word “maiden.” The worst over ever 
bowled may be a maiden, if the batsman is duffer enough. 
I think, too, that if “ T. W. G.’s ” inquires he will find “ maiden ” is 
as common a “ stud-farm appellation ” as “ yearling.” It is used in that 
case as at cidcket. 
But I did not hope to conv'nce many. Those who have not found 
incongruity and inconvenience, as I have, in calling yearling Roses 
maidens, will continue to use that term. I will not quarrel with them 
any more. 
“ Y. B. A. Z.” is quite right about Madame Lacharme. If the plant 
is doing really well, as soon as the flower buds surrounding the central 
one are taken away, every bud will break the whole way down the shoot, 
form considerable growth, and undoubtedly rob the central bloom to a 
considerable extent. On ihis account I make it a rule to examine 
Madame Lacharme carefully at least once a week during the growing 
season, and pinch out all these growths. I think it would be a good 
plan to disbud them all carefully at first with a knife, the second blooms 
are rarely valuable. I also, at the same time, gradually thin out the 
weakest of the actual shoots ; for however closely you may prune Madame 
Lacharme it makes a very thick compact head, and much gi.'od may be 
done by letting in more light and air. By taking these pains I have had 
some very good Madame Lacharmes ; just before it gets dark on a July 
evening it is wonderful hovv beautifully that row shines out. 
Nevertheless, I yet further agree with “ Y. B. A. Z.” (how comfortable 
it is to agree, and what an extremely intelligent Rose-grower he must 
think I am !) in that I have also had my doubts as to the advisability of 
always disbudding and at all stages. I pick out the buds as soon as they 
can be moved—f.c., when no bigger than peas. Even in that case you 
may see great “ blobs ” of sap coming from the wounds, sometimes for 
days after, and I have no doubt there is a check to the whole shoot for a 
short time. If the disbudding be neglected till the centrsl bud is nearly 
in bloom, I think it is advisable to “let well alone,” unless the super¬ 
numerary buds are so numerous and compact as to hinder the development 
of the central bloom. 
I think it was in 1882 that Mr. Cant’s silver medal Suuvenir d’Elise at 
South Kensington had not been disbudded, for it had one or two long- 
legged buds, but was still a w’onder. It is not necessary, however, for 
several months vet to reopen the question of the danger of bleeding in 
Roses.—A. F. M. 
TAKING OFF THE SHADING. 
All tender-leaved plants grown under glass during the hot sunny 
summer weather are benefited by being shaded. Some, as Ferns, may 
require a dense covering, while others which have to mature their 
gi’owth for fruiting or flowering at a subsequent period may, as a rule, 
be grown successfully with much less shading. In autumn, however, 
this often proves injurious, especially if left on until now, as it makes the 
growths weak and incapable of bearing any hardships throughout the 
winter. We have no doubt about the advantages of shade in summer, 
but we thoroughly approve of taking it off in good time in autumn and 
letting the plants have the benefit of the sunshine to mature their growths 
for w'inter. It is very seldom that any mistake occurs where the shading 
consists of canvas which can be rolled down or up as the sun comes or 
goes, and is kept up altogether on dull days; but ail shadings which 
have to be put on with a brush like paint, become dangerous in autumn. 
In wet seasons they may be washed off by degrees until little or none of them 
remain by September or October, but in a season likethe present I doubt 
much of the shading brushed on in spring w ll still remain, and it is this 
which will prove injurious. There is no plant under glass at the present 
time requiring shading now, and every particle of it should be removed as 
soon as possible. All roofs and ends of houses should be brushed over 
