JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
August 3, 1882. ] 
munications could be accepted from him under any circumstances. 
Had we acted otherwise we should have become parties to a prac¬ 
tice that cannot be too strongly condemned. We should like to 
know who the present plagiarist is. Unless there has been any 
change since the “ Directory ” was published he is not the gar¬ 
dener at Nash Court, but this is a matter that can be explained ; 
at any rate “ D. D.” has made himself notorious as a mere scribbler 
and copyist, and we must express our conviction that such indi¬ 
viduals should not be encouraged to act as “ instructors ” (?) to 
the gardeners of this country. We have taken a few introductory 
lines from both the articles, and a few sentences from Mr. Bard- 
ney’s, but have not altered those remaining, nor have we 
expunged a word from or altered a sentence in the citation from 
our contemporary. Impartial readers can now form an opinion 
on the whole matter.] 
VINE CULTURE AT LONGLEAT. 
As Mr. Taylor has now finished his articles on this subject, per¬ 
haps you will allow me to make the following observations on 
some of his statements thereto. As Mr. Taylor’s success as a Grape 
grower has been brought about by a system of culture which 
others, including myself, have advocated in the case of both the 
Vine and the Peach and other fruits before Mr. Taylor had a word 
to say on the subject (I mean “ extension ” v. temperatures, the 
main features of his essay), it can afford them nothing but gratifi¬ 
cation to hear of that success ; hut when he tells your readers that 
he had “ never yet read an essay on Vine culture ,” that his system 
of culture is “ the plan ire should probably follow if we had never 
heard of any other," and that “ that will probably account for his 
following it," I think he is taxing the credulity of his readers a 
little too far. To speak plainly, had he not made these declara¬ 
tions I should have concluded that he was perfectly familiar with 
every essay that had been previously written on the Vine, for his 
articles contain what to anyone would appear conclusive evidence 
of the fact; and when I came on the following passage of his I 
think I might well have been excused for thinking that he had 
read a certain essay of my own, published in a contemporary about 
two years ago. I put the passages in opposite columns. 
Mr. Taylor’s version. 
“ Cutting down the stem of a 
Vine does not add to the vigour of 
the growth produced in the same 
way or in the same proportion as 
cutting back does in the case of 
the Apple, Peach, or other fruit 
tree. The superiority of the shoot 
made when a young Vine is cut 
down which has ample roots to 
sustain a large amount of stem 
and foliage is more apparent than 
real, as may be seen afterwards 
when it comes to ripen. . . . 
The growth at the end of a young 
healthy Vine left 12 feet long will 
not compare unfavourably even at 
starting time with that of a similar 
Vine which is cut doicn to the 
ground .” 
My version. 
The Garden, August 14.1880 : 
“ Neither do I believe that the 
mere cutting bach of a Vine induces 
a permanently stronger growth, or 
adds in any ivay to the vigour of 
the Vine. How can it ? The re¬ 
bound that a cut-bach Vine rod 
viahes when it begins to grow again 
is more apparent than real, but it 
. is certain that the Vine which is 
allowed to make the most growth 
and pruned the least lays on timber 
fastest and thichest. For example, 
a Vine that mahes 20 feet of cane 
the first year, if left that length at 
pruning time, will, provided it 
breahs all its buds regularly, malce 
just as good a Vine in the end as 
one which is cut bach annually.” 
I think the similarity of these two passages and the order of 
the words and ideas would strike an expert in such matters, as 
to my knowledge they have struck others of your readers besides 
myself as exceedingly singular coming from one who has never 
read any essay but his own. In the same chapter from which 
these remarks of mine are taken I also discuss the merits of young 
Vine rods 12 feet and 60 feet long, and in his chapter Mr. Taylor 
does the same, reasoning to the same effect upon them ; while, 
according to his own statements, it does not appear that he ever 
had young Vines either 12 feet or 60 feet long, while I have had 
both, and have described them accurately more than once. That 
portion of his remarks cannot apply to his Vines at Longleat, but 
must have been taken for granted, I imagine, from the experience 
of others.—J. S. W. 
As a reader of the Journal I have been very much interested in 
the papers contributed by Mr. Taylor on the culture of Vines at 
Longleat. Permit me, therefore, to ask if the papers will be 
published in book form, and if so when, also where it may be ob¬ 
tained and at what cost. If you would kindly impart this know¬ 
ledge through the Journal I doubt not it will be serviceable to 
others, and it will oblige—C. K. 
[It is the intention of Mr. Taylor to have his articles published 
in the form of a cheap manual. This is now being prepared, and 
the particulars requested will shortly be announced.] 
101 
At page 32, in my notes on the Longleat Vines, there occurs an 
error that may have puzzled not a few, and I hasten to put it 
right. I am made to say: “As for the advantage of air-giving, 
the system of giving air at the front only is, I hold, radically 
wrong.” Instead of “the front” it should have been “two 
points”—namely, top and bottom.— Single-handed. 
NOTES ON VEGETABLES. 
WHEELER'S IMPERIAL CABBAGE. 
Although this has been in commerce some years, it does not 
as yet appear to be so well known as it deserves to be, and for 
what reasons I am unable to say. This much, however, I can 
freely assert—viz., as an early spring and summer Cabbage I 
know of none to equal it, and on this account I would strongly 
commend it to the notice of those with whom it is a stranger. 
Its character may briefly be described thus—Medium size, conical 
in shape, wonderfully crisp and of excellent flavour, with heads 
at this time of the year as hard as a bullet. It may be as well to 
state that it was raised and sent out by that veteran florist, the 
late Mr. George Wheeler of Warminster ; and to make sure of obtain¬ 
ing the true variety I would recommend those who wish to grow 
it to procure a packet of seed from the present representative of 
the firm, Mr. James Wheeler. 
LETTUCE. 
By what particular name a variety which was sent me for trial 
some time ago is going to be sent out under, I know not. Still, 
I think it will not be any breach of confidence to state, for the 
information of your readers, that a packet of seed was sent me 
by Messrs. Cooling of Bath, with a request that I should give it a 
fair trial and report to them accordingly in due course, it being 
at the time stated to be a selected variety from that general 
favourite Bath Cos, and of which, it may be added, there are so 
many types. Respecting the particular variety under notice, I 
can honestly say that it is a decided improvement on the original 
Bath Cos, being much broader in the leaf, more crisp, and of 
larger size, and last, though not least, of sufficient hardiness to 
stand through the winter. That it will be extensively grown 
when its merits are well known and when it is distributed there 
cannot be a doubt, but as to when it will find its way into com¬ 
merce I am not in a position to state. Of novelties which are of 
sterling merit, enormous quantities of seeds or plants, as the case 
may be, are required to meet the trade and retail demand, and 
under these circumstances the public may have to wait some 
time before they will have an opportunity of verifying for them¬ 
selves what is stated above. 
PEAS. 
Of these there are so many varieties, that to those who are not 
perfectly acquainted with each it becomes a somewhat difficult 
task to make their selections when scanning through the cata¬ 
logues of some of our leading firms. The following varieties may 
be depended upon, and, I might almost say, would give satisfaction 
to the most fastidious of critics—viz, William I. for very early 
supplies, Telegraph, Stratagem, Veitch’s Perfection, Marvel, and 
Ne Plus Ultra. Given these six sorts, a continuous supply of finest 
flavoured Peas may be had from the end of May to October. 
TURNIPS. 
Early Munich is an acquisition and a valuable friend early in 
the spring. It has quite superseded our old favourite Early Stone 
and other well-known varieties. Where Turnips are in demand 
every day in the year, as they are here, the above and Chirk 
Castle are the only sorts I find it necessary to grow.— Et 
Castera. 
(ENOTHERAS. 
Amongst GEnotheras, which are generally hardy in the un¬ 
kindly climate of Cheshire, perhaps the most useful for mixed 
border decoration is QE. fruticosa or (E. Fraseri, for I am unable 
to make any constant or well-defined difference between the 
two. In spite of its name it seldom assumes a shrubby habit, 
being generally truly herbaceous, and certainly doing best when 
starting fresh from the ground in spring. It has a very long 
flowering period, lasting for two or three months from early 
summer. It does not spread much in breadth, but the shoots soon 
become so densely crowded on the crown that they cannot be 
properly developed, and the plants ought to be pulled to pieces 
and replanted every third year. It grows from 2 to 3 feet high, 
but needs supports. 
ffi. Youngi has decidedly larger and handsomer flowers, but is 
more straggling and less upright in growth, though it comes very 
