306 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
April 11,1895. 
may be closely shortened after the fir^t season’s growth, borne 
lightlj' the second season, and moderately the third year for laying 
the t'oundaticn of a strong constitution and long continued 
productiv'eness. 
It mu t be understood that we have nothing to say against this 
practice, fur as judiciously carried out it has given satisfaction in 
hundreds of gardens, and will probably do to again; but it is not the 
practice of many successful growers of Grapes for market, as they 
want the best ritirns iu the least time for the outlay they invest in 
the work. From this point of view Mr. Colebrook appears to have 
good reason to be satisfied with the results he has achieved. In 
March, 1892, he planted a hou;e with Gros Colman Vines, raised 
from eyes the preceding year (not cut-backs). In August, 1893, a 
photograph was taken of the vinery, and this is reproduced with 
absolute accuracy on page 315 of the present issue. The twenty- 
eight Vines produced and finished well 986 bunches, weighing in the 
aggregate 126 3 lbs , the heaviest bunch 3 lbs 10 ozs. Such a crop 
as is represented in the illustiation in nineteen months after planting 
the Vines is, so far as we remember, the best example of express 
Grape growing that has been brought to our notice, and we shall be 
glad to know if a greater yield has been obtained in less time. 
Naturally our r>aders will desire to know something about the 
methods pursued in the production of the crop in question. On 
writing to Mr. Colebrook we found he had no s.crets to suppress, 
but most readily told us the history of the Vines and the cultural 
routine he pursued. It is a simple narrative. There was no carting 
of old soil out and new turfy loam in to make a costly border. 
With the natural soil fish manure was incorporated freely (Grimsby 
is famous for fish), and oyster shells were also liberally used. The 
ATnes, raised from eyes, as before mentioned, in 1891, were 
eventually transferred to and grown in 10-inch pots. Ihe canes 
ripened and were cut back to about 6 feet at the end of the year. 
After starting into growth they were turned out of the pots, the loose 
soil removed, the outside roots liberated and planted with the balls of 
soil intact in February, the canes not further shortened. When the 
leader had grown about 6 feet it was topped. The leading growth 
resulting was allowed to extend, but all the laterals were pinched in 
the manner usually practised with Vines on the spur system. At 
the end of the season—December—the canes were shortened to one 
bud below where the leading growth was topped in the summer. 
The bearing canes were thus 11 feet long (the length of the roof) at 
the beginning of 1893, and produced the crop that was photographed 
in August of that year. 
The question might be asked if the Vines were allowed to carry 
any fruit during the year they were planted. Three or four bunches 
were borne by each according to their weight and the strength of the 
canes, but on the strongest Vine six bunches were retained. This 
Vine, Mr. Colebrook says, “ is the strongest in the house to-day. I 
have just counted the bunches now showing—sixty-six, and last year 
I cut 46f lbs. of Grapes from this Vine.” This is nearly 4|- lbs. to 
the lineal foot of rod, so the Vine was evidently not exhausted by its 
first year's crop. 
Overcropping and exhaustion are, it should never be forgotten, 
relative terms. What may look like a much too heavy crop on some 
Tines may not be nearly so heavy to them as a crop only of half the 
weight is to others that are enfeebled by various causes, such as 
defective root action, a lack of appropriate food, impaired foliage— 
the result of crowding, scorching, or insect ravages ; any, or all those 
contingencies render Vines unable to bear other than unsatisfactory 
crops of fruit, whereas when all their requirements are met in all 
those respects, they mature heavy crops without being materially 
distressed. 
Mr. Colebrook’s Vines planted in 1839 have not yet suffered by 
early and very free cropping. They have, he says, borne wonderful 
crops for four years, showing not the least signs of weakness, and 
their promise this year is as good as ever. “Thej^ afford,” to 
quote his words, “ plain proof that the old system of allowing 
four or five ^ ears to elapse before covering the roof with wood 
capable of bearing fruit is not necessary.” He is not alone in 
thinking that what are known as “permanent” Vines may he 
humoured to an unnecessary extent in resting, while “ super¬ 
numeraries ” are doing the useful work. There are gardeners, and 
of very high standing, too, who believe that when young Vines 
are strong enough for bearing it is wise to let them bear to what 
they deem a reasonable extent, and this is much greater than 
others admit to be safe. Bearing does them good, brings them into 
good habits early, is the view that is entertained, and, like Mr. 
Colebrook, they have something to show in support of their theory 
in the form of magnificent crops of Grapes that the ultra-cautious 
cultivator would almost shudder to see, in the full conviction that 
the Vines were being ruined. It is well that both sides of the 
question be considered, though it is not wise to be too slow in these 
keen competitive days. 
Possibly some of our readers who are interested in modern Grape 
growing—perhaps even more “ modern ” than Mr. W. Taylor’s 
routine—might, if convenient, find it worth while to pay Mr. 
Colebrook a visit in the summer and see his work. According to an 
illustrated account of Grimsby and Cleethorpes his offices are in the 
Old Market Place, and the nurseries are only a mile distant. They 
are said to have been started in a ploughed field in 1878, and are 
now of considerable dimensions, their founder rejoicing in the 
patronage of Koyalty. He evidently does not let the grass grow 
under his feet, nor Vines “ rest” long unproductive. 
EMPLOYERS AND GARDENERS. 
In dealing with what, from a gardener’s point of view, may 
be rather a delicate subject, I wish it to be clearly understood 
that my object is not to cause any bitterness of feeling between 
the two classes, but rather to try and point out some of the dis¬ 
advantages felt at times by both in their relations with each other, 
with the hope that perhaps a few stray shots may hit the mark. 
Gardeners, of course, are like all other mortals, and subject to 
the same faults and failings as the rest of mankind. Gardeners 
need to have, perhaps as much as any class, an even temper and 
good control over themselves, for as well as finding it a somewhat 
difficult task at times to suit our human rulers, even the very 
elements are often at war with us, and seem bent on destroying us 
in some way or other. A gardener should also possess the art of 
making himself agreeable in conversation, for remember our 
employers, especially if they should be enthusiasts, really look 
forward, I have no doubt after a hard day’s business, with pleasure 
to their quiet walk through their garden and a chat with the 
gardener, so the more bright and inteliigent he makes himself the 
more likely is his employer to enjoy his company. 
I am afraid gardeners sometimes, in their anxiety to secure a 
situation, are not quite so particular as they ought to be in getting 
a thorough understanding at the commencement as to what is 
expected of them, and the means allowed for producing the same. 
Situations are now so difficult to obtain that there is no doubt 
every excuse for them ; still, in their own interest, and also the 
interest of the employer, it is best, as things which may appear 
trifling, and which, if the place can only be secured, may be left 
to right themselves, are, after all, very often the first that cause 
trouble. The employer sees fit to complain, the gardener makes 
excuses—not enough kelp, houses no good, and others. The 
answer is this : “ You saw the place before engaging, and if you had 
taken the trouble might hive found out all these other things, so 
there is no excuse whereas if a proper understanding had been 
arrived at to commence with, the gardener would have been able 
to say, “ Sir, you have broken the contract, and can hardly blame 
me for the result.” Some gardeners on taking charge of a garden 
are apt to look on their predecessor and all his works as wroiig ; 
the object of the new man becomes, so to speak, a task of pulling 
to pieces anything and everything. 
I think I am right in assuming that this is so to a great extent, 
for I remember one of our illustrated papers some years ago 
making the matter a subject for their cartoon. The new gardener 
was depicted in a garden, up to his waist in weeds and rubbish, 
coat and waistcoat off, braces down, striving with might and main 
to restore things to something like order. Over the fence—spick, 
span, and smart—stood the late gardener. “ Morning, W. ; seem 
busy this morning.” “ Busy, aye ! and likely to be, B. ; you left 
the place in such a precious mess.” We gardeners have, to a 
. certain extent perhaps, deserved this, but it would be much better 
