3G0 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ October 18 1888 
Williams’ Bon Chretien, Beurre cl’Amanlis, Fondante d’Automne, 
Louise Bonne of Jersey, Madame Treyve, Beurre Hardy, Beurrd Super- 
fin, Seckle, Marie Louise, Doyenne du Comice, Thompson s, Duchesse 
d’Angoulfime, Glou Morgeau, Winter Nelis, Comte de Lamy, Beurrd 
Bachelier, Josephine de Malines, Winter Crassanne, Huyshe s Victoria, 
Olivier de Serres, Easter Beurrd, Nec Plus Meuris, jxnight s Monarch, 
and Bergamotte Esperen. All these are generally well known varieties 
in most parts of Britain, proof sufficient, I think, of their excellence ; 
and I can vouch for their reliability for this district in respect of 
constant and free bearing and their high quality. 
The least meritorious in the list are : —Madame Treyve (quickly over), 
Duchesse d'AngoulGme (gritty), Beurre Bachelier (mealy), and Nec Plus 
Meuris (also gritty), yet I know no other four kinds that can all 
points considered—replace them. Lest anyone should conclude from 
what I have said as to the number of kinds to insure a regular succes¬ 
sion of useful fruit that is all that is required to make certain of the 
supplies, I will undeceive them at once by saying no. There is no fruit 
that gives better returns for labour expended, and none that more 
quickly resents the “ let alone ” policy that one is occasionally com¬ 
pelled to behold. As regards the former, nearly all our trees are grafted 
on the Quince, from which stock it is no exaggeration to sav that we 
get at least double the fruit that we do from trees on Pear stock, and 
high feeding is therefore a matter of necessity ; but then the labour of 
applying these manurial mulchings we place as a set-off against that of 
the time expended in root pruning, that nearly all trees on Pear stock 
require about every alternate year, and the fruit is neither so numerous 
nor so well coloured, and not superior in quality. No, if good crops of 
fruit are expected annually water and mulch, mulch and water, must 
be the order of the day all through the fruit-swelling season. Those 
that must by reason of restricted space grow only a few varieties, and 
whose demands for fruit arc, as a matter of course, proportionately 
restricted, may do something towards lengthening out the supply of ripe 
fruit by gathering the same variety of Pear at varying intervals of from 
a week to ten days. The fruit of most varieties —more especially the 
earlier kinds—will then ripen at similar intervals, and thus the season 
of ripe fruit be considerably extended. To those that have unlimited 
room, and can therefore grow.the required number of varieties to insure 
supplies, this piecemeal gathering is not of so much consequence, never¬ 
theless, I strongly advise its being done with any varieties that ripen 
rapidly, such as Citron des Carmes, Jargonelle, Williams’ Bon Chretien, 
and Fondante d’Automne. 
ON PRUNING. 
By Me. Shirley Hibberd. 
It is commonly asserted in the books, and forms part of the faith 
of mankind, that pruning tends to augment the vigour of trees, and as a 
consequence much of the pruning that is done has in view to promote 
the end predicated for it. There can no longer be entertained by observant 
men a doubt of the fact that pruning, so far from augmenting, actually 
diminishes the vigour of the subjects operated on, and the one sole 
reason that the fact is not strikingly illustrated in the outdoor world 
is that Nature is generous, and accomplishes much in compensation for 
the injuries that are inflicted by the pruning knife. And because 
Nature is generous and compensative, a certain amount of pruning may 
be done without harm, and, as regards the objects we have in view in 
pruning fruit trees, with positive benefit. But so long as we keep in 
mind that pruning in the abstract is objectionable, we shall be careful 
to prune in a way to ensure a maximum of the advantage for ourselves, 
with a minimum of disadvantage to the trees. 
Keeping this in mind, we may at once compare the several forms of 
trees with a view to arrive at conclusions as to their relative values. 
For the present we will compare the standards, the pyramids, and the 
bushes. We must deal with them generally, and make broad com¬ 
parisons, for particular cases would require particular consideration 
that would be scarcely possible in connection with this Conference. 
We will begin with standard orchard trees that bear abundantly, 
as many orchard trees do. It will be observed that pruning neither 
augments the vigour of the trees nor does it promote their fruitfulness, 
for as, generally speaking, they are not pruned at all, they teach a bold 
lesson of the non-neeessitv of pruning. Now we will turn to the perfect 
pyramids, say of Apples and Bears, formed to an ideal model by long 
years of pruning and pinching. As pyramids they are perfect, being of 
even contour, dense with foliage, with scarcely room anywhere to allow 
one to thrust a hand in. and they are healthy and bright from the 
ground line to the summit. It has to be remarked of these compact 
leafy trees that they produce so little fruit as but rarely to pay a fair 
return for the land they occupy. They do, indeed, occasionally present 
their owner with a crop, and often he is satisfied. But if we are to take 
measures for increasing the production of fruit we shall rather avoid 
than accept trees of this form, or if we must have them we shall, having 
fruit in view, rather promote an open growth with room to thrust ones 
head in at many places, this form of tree being favourable to fruit 
production. We have in our collections many kinds of Apples and 
Pears that will not, no matter what we do for them, conform to our 
ideal of the perfect pyramid. It is usual, therefore, to suffer these to 
grow as open loose bushes, and the difference between them and the 
pinched pyramids is seen not only in the form and furnishing, but in 
their superior fruitfulness. 
Pursuing the comparison, it will be observed that pruning tends to 
promote secondary growth that often is immature when the season 
closes. This growth, therefore, has been obtained by a false system, 
and its uselessness is a proper commentary on the violence done to 
Nature. The perfect pyramid is for ever loaded with immature wood 
that earns nothing, and the density of the foliage so completely ex¬ 
cludes the light and air from the wood that fruit spurs are few and 
commonly unproductive. The free bushes that are not pruned at all, 
or but moderately pruned, are, as a rule, vastly more fruitful than the 
pyramids, and the free standards are more faithful than either. Thus, 
as a matter of fact, the order of fruitfulness is in an inverse ratio to 
the order of the pruning, and we may conclude that the pruning knife 
is a deadly enemy to Apples and Pears. 
The natural growth of a fruit tree is definite and orderly, but much 
of our practice appears to proceed on the hypothesis that it is a matter 
of accident. There is sent forth a certain number of long rods. If 
these are cut back secondary rods appear, and by stopping these we 
obtain a lot of soft spray, and so on for ever. But the long rods left to 
themselves throw out a few side branches and form fruit spurs the 
greater part of their length. In due time the fruit appears. Often, 
where the soil and climate favour the business, and the varieties arc 
naturally freebearing, the fruit may be seen to hang like ropes of Onions, 
while at the same time pruned trees of the self-same sorts are thinly 
dotted with fruit, so that we can actually count them, which in the 
other case is impossible. The unpruned standards and bushes are free 
to follow the course of Nature, and we see them fruiting abundantly 
and frequently, while the pruned trees fruit scantily and seldom. The 
obvious lesson is that long rods admitting light and air freely are more 
serviceable than rods systematically cut back, and thereby compelled to 
become densely furnished, forming compact trees impervious to light 
and air, as compared with the free trees, that delight to display their 
fruits in the fullest exposure. The leading shoots, therefore, should 
never be shortened except for some special reason. 
In the year 1876 I had the honour of reading before the Society of 
Arts a paper on “ Fallacies in Fruit Culture.” One of my objects was 
to demonstrate that systematic pruning and pinching of open ground 
fruit trees deferred and limited the production of fruit, although these 
operations were intended to hasten and augment fruit productio 
And I placed before the meeting for inspection and criticism a number 
of trees that I had in the first instance selected for their ugliness, but 
which, having for some years occupied a good soil in a suitable situa¬ 
tion, had acquired symmetry and proportion and fruitfulness without 
aid from the pruning knife, one great point in the business being that 
every annual growth had been allowed to acquire maturity, no secondarv 
growth being promoted by summer pinching, and no superabundance 
of furniture resulting from winter pruning. Some of you will remem¬ 
ber that in doing this I exposed myself to what I may now recall as a 
shower of hot shot; but I live still, and repeat the story, and if another 
dose of hot shot is ready for me I will not flinch so much as to move my 
eyelids, so sure am I that common sense will at last prevail, and that it 
will be agreed all round that Nature has something to do with the pro¬ 
duction of fruit. 
I have the consolation, however, of knowing that common sense has 
prevailed. The horticultural papers altered their tone on the subject of 
pruning from that date ; practical gardeners who lead by intelligence 
and example saw and acknowledged I was right, and to their advan¬ 
tage they have used the knife less freely than formerly. Moreover, since 
the year 1876 we have had a succession of Apple and Pear Conferences, 
and their collective lesson appears to be Magna est veritas ct prevalent. 
for have we not entered on a new career in fruit culture, common sense 
guiding the way 1 because only where common sense prevails does Nature 
prove herself in every sense the friend of man. While we repudiate 
reason Nature destroys our false work, and does not even stop there, for 
i she destroys man himself, and history is in great part the record of 
