December 2, 1886. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
498 
valuable support in my theories. A “Kentish Gardener’s” imagination 
“runs riot.” lie sets up views, presumably mine, and knocks them 
down again as only Kentish men can do it. Our stokehole drain, to 
which he alludes on page 411, is certainly 10 feet deep at the stokehole, 
but he was not supposed to know that we are on a sharp declivity, and 
bef ore our drain has travelled 20 yards it was only 2 feet from the surface. 
It was a fair test of both the value of trenching and subsoil drainage, 
and as such I was justified in quoting it. If “ A Kentish Gardener ” can 
open a drain quickly without some of the subsoil mixing with the surface, 
he is a clever man. In our case, what appears to be a solid wall of clay 
dissolves, and assumes more the consistency of birdlime in a very short 
time after it is exposed to the atmosphere. The sides of a deep drain 
collapse in a surprising manner, and such wretched stuff near the surface 
is simply unmanageable. 
Our friend writes—“If I mistake not, Mr. William Taylor had, when 
in charge of the gardens at Longleat, almost, if not nearly, the same soil 
to contend with as Mr. Iggulden, yet he did not practise the surface¬ 
tickling system, but deep cultivation by trenching and burning of the sub¬ 
soil, and all to excellent effect.” Luckily he adds he is open to correc'ion, 
or he would feel rather small in the matter. Whatever Mr. Taylor might 
have done at the commencement of his honourable career at Longleat, I 
have his authority for asserting he did nothing so foolish after he had 
some experience with the garden. Nor does his practical successor, Mr. 
W. Pratt, go in for trenching, yet there is no mistaking the excellent 
effects of their good surface culture. Some of the best crops of vegetables 
I have yet seen were raised at Wilton House, near Salisbury, and pro¬ 
bably there are few, if any, more intelligent gardeners than Mr. Challis. 
On the same day I asked Mr. Taylor about his Longleat experiences, I 
also incidentally questioned Mr, Challis as to his system of culture, and 
was delighted to find that he, too, found it would not pay to meddle 
with the chalk subsoil at Wilton. With such important testimony before 
me, am I so very unreasonable in again questioning the wisdom of deep 
culture in all and every case ?—W. Iggulden. 
Me. Iggulden, at page 448, concludes from a remark I had made in 
an article published a few weeks previously, that I do not appear to 
believe in trenching. I am afraid he has based that conclusion on too 
slight a foundation, though I may perhaps have to take some blame for 
not employing a more definite expression than I used. “ The poorest and 
shallowest part of the garden ” is a comparative statement, and at this 
moment does not bear, to my mind, the same idea, when applied to the 
ground in question, that it would have done a dozen years ago. But in 
that time, in addition to two heavy dressings of manure, there has been 
at least 9 to 12 inches in depth of material incorporated with the soil, 
and in fact the paragraph from which the above expression was taken 
clearly shows that it was the recommendation of a particular material too 
commonly wasted as a valuable agent in securing fruitfulness that was in 
the writer’s mind, and no question as to deep or shallow cultivation, 
though the tone of the article showed to which side he leaned; most 
certainly not to that of Mr. Iggulden. 
I have not followed closely the discussion on trenching, and cannot 
therefore enter on it here. However, I would desire to say that, to my 
mind, the whole matter may be summed up in a very small compass. On 
one side the practical bearing is, that the deeper the body of fertile soil, 
so much the more valuable is a particular space of ground ; on the other 
side, given a minimum depth of soil, and whatever goes beyond that 
depth is not only unnecessary, but may become detrimental to good 
culture, and therefore lessens the value of the ground.—B. 
MUSCAT GRAPES AT MOUNT MELVILLE. 
Me. W. Williamson, on page 471, observes “ Your correspondent 
(meaning myself) has made a slight mistake regarding the award for 
Grapes at the Show referred to, which I conclude was the last interna- 
national in Edinburgh.” It is Mr. Williamson who is wrong in his 
conclusions. It is some few years since I saw the beautiful Muscats at 
Mount Melville with paper shades over them. Though I doubt not your 
correspondent is correct in his statement respecting Mr. Dickson’s object 
in using those shades, yet there was at least one exception to their being 
used on “ hot days only,” for the day on which I had the pleasure of 
inspecting the Grapes was cold, dull, and showery. Still it is possible 
that a sudden outburst of sun might have been expected, and it is these 
sudden gleams at midday that are often injurious. However that may 
be, the Grapes were shaded, and this did not impair their colour and 
finish, nor prevent their winning the high honour indicated at the show, at 
which I was not surprised to see them awarded the “first prize.”— 
Expebientia docet. 
CUT-BACK DWARF H.P. ROSES. 
I QUITE agree with “ J. H. W.” that good blooms can be cut from 
dwarf H.P.’s that have been grown in one position without transplanting 
longer than four years, as we cut and exhibited successfully last season 
blooms from a bed planted more than twelve years ago. We have lifted 
the plants this autumn, though not without certain doubts whether they 
will not be missed next season, but it was a case of necessity, there being 
so many varieties that twelve years ago were in the first twenty-four, but 
will hardly rank in a seventy-two now, so great has the improvement been 
of the “ queen of flowers.” We have plants in another bed just com¬ 
mencing their ninth year, and showing no signs of age at present. I 
think, writing from my experience, that an eight-years average for beds is 
preferable to four, but much depends on the way the ground is prepared. 
I think deeply planted dwarfs throw up stronger wood and so better 
blooms than those shallow planted. I have often noticed we have better 
blooms when they have rooted well above th9 collar than otherwise. 
Standards require transplanting more frequently, as from mulchings 
and digging they are apt to be buried too deeply, and so will not thrive. 
This is an interesting subject, and I should like to read the opinion of 
more able and experienced Rose-growers than—H. E. M. 
STERNBERGIA LUTEA. 
A HAEDY bulbous plant that has long been a favourite in many 
gardens is Sternbergia lutea (fig. 69), or, as it is sometimes named, 
Amaryllis or Oporanthus luteus. In warm, well-dra : ned soils this plant 
Fig. 69.—Sternbergia lutea. 
and several other closely related species are very pleasing in the autumn, 
producing their flowers freely, something like Crocuses or Colchicums. 
Sternbergia lutea is a native of Southern Europe, and has been in cultiva¬ 
tion for nearly 300 years, yet it is seldom grown in pots for the green¬ 
house or conservatory. Beautiful as it is in the borders, its bright golden 
flowers are much clearer and finer under glass, and a few potfuls are most 
welcome for late autumn or early winter in any cool house. A light 
compost of sandy loam and leaf soil is all that it requires, and it is not 
difficult to obtain a succession of flowers during several weeks by potting 
the bulbs at different times. 
A form of the above, named angustifolia, also has fine flowers, though 
the leaves, as indicated in the title, are more narrow. S. colchiciflora is 
