82 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
f January 31, 1889. 
letting of land that a farmer may rent a field for agricultural pur¬ 
poses at from 40s. to 80s. an acre—I am speaking of Scotland ; 
but if a nurseryman or market gardener wants the adjoining field 
of the very same quality he will not get it under £8 to £10 an acre, 
and if he does not keep it in the highest state of fertility he would 
starve on it ; yet the landlord handicaps the gardener with a rent 
that would land the farmer in the workhouse in a very short time. 
Great progress has, no doubt, been achieved in horticultural 
practice, speaking generally. The fashion and exigency of the 
times have thrown aside some things, and good old triumphs in 
connection with them, but the methods of culture are more rapid, 
and the duties of the gardener more varied. The quantities of 
cut flowers and decorative plants demanded now are tenfold what 
they once were, and the species and varieties of plants that supply 
this want have been greatly improved and multiplied. Look, for 
instance, at the Chrysanthemums and the Roses. Their name is 
legion ; their colour and symmetry such as were never dreamed of 
when some of us were boys. But even in these two popular 
flowers there is plenty to conquer yet one way and another. It is 
to be hoped that breeders will make it their aim and effort to give 
us, or the next generation, “ mums ” of a dwarf habit that will not 
require a backload of fishing rods to stake them. There is no lack 
of literature about the “ mums.” A correspondent remarked the 
other day that the papers smelt of mums, but the aim and object 
I name in connection with them has not been mentioned to my 
knowledge. We have perfection, I might say, of shape, and nearly 
every shade of colour in the Rose ; but —Oh ! that growers of 
these fine sorts would discard all abominable stocks and strike them 
by cuttings. Nearly twenty years since I planted some H.P.’s on 
their own roots, and they are now fine strong healthy bushes, while 
generations of the same sorts on Briar and Manettis have passed 
away in succession. Speaking of striking Roses, I noted the other 
day a writer of acknowledged practical ability recommended the 
striking of Apples from cuttings. When will the Bunyards and 
Rivers take to that way of it? I was interested in this new(?) 
idea, because I struck Apples from cuttings more than half a 
century since, when I was a boy at school and spent my holidays in 
my “little garden.” But I took larger cuttings than the writer in 
question recommends. I took off big branching pieces of an Apple 
tree with a “heel” and stuck them in, and they grew. But trees 
raised in this way are slow of growth. Not so Hoses ; when once 
established they throw up shoots like Osiers. — D. Thomson, 
Drumlanrig Gardens. 
PEACHES—EXTENSION AND RESTRICTION. 
A fE\v years ago the columns of this Journal and the Horticul¬ 
tural Press were crowded with discussions bearing on the subject of 
Peach Culture —“ Extension veisus Restriction.” That discussion, 
carried on as it was in most instances with ability, courtesy, and 
good feeling, coupled with the fact which, I think, cannot be gain¬ 
said, that the present race of gardeners are more determined to 
search out for themselves the best and most efficient method of 
cultivating both plants and flowers than their predecessors were, 
will account for the almost entire disappearance of the old way of 
cutting back the growth of Peach trees, whether ripe or unripe, to 
the regulation distance according to rule of thumb. An allusion to 
the subject may effect the useful purpose of convincing some of 
the few gardeners who still practise this wasteful and almost 
obsolete system. 
One example or object lesson is worth more to the inquirer after 
useful knowledge than a whole volume of theory. I happen to have 
such an example before me in a house of Peaches planted here in 
the spring of 1887. The trees when planted were two years old. 
They made good progress the first year ; some of the growths 
would measure from 2 to 21 feet long and of fair strength, which 
ripened well, 1887 being a specially favourable year for this 
purpose. Some of the trees had on as many as two dozen fruits 
last summer. The trees were not pruned this spring without it 
was to remove a misplaced or useless shoot. They broke evenly 
and strong, and the shoots were disbudded to the number considered 
necessary to furnish the tree for the ensuing year. By the end of 
the autumn two of the trees had covered an area of 18 by 9 feet; 
some of the shoots measured 7 feet and were as thick as one’s little 
finger. The trees which had grown the strongest were lifted and 
replanted as soon as growth was completed. 
The house is intended for early forcing, so this year with the 
object of familiarising the trees with the work expected of them in 
future I started them on the 1st January. They are now in bloom 
and promise to give me a good crop, and the strong shoots (not 
shortened) are breaking as freely, if not more so, than the weaker 
growths. Had I adopted the old method of cutting back the strong 
growth the result would have been that from each shoot I should 
have had two or three growths probably stronger than the original, 
with most likely in addition an indication of gumming setting in ; 
whereas now I shall have six or seven moderately fruitful growths 
from each shoot and the roof of the house filled from floor to apex 
with fruitful, healthy, and beautiful trees in certainly one-fourth 
the time the old system took to fill the same place with often 
deformed and stunted specimens. 
Towards the end of July, when I saw how strong the growths 
were, I applied brisk fire heat with plenty of air for a period of five 
weeks, which caused the wood to be thoroughly ripened, hence their 
breaking so freely so early. I mention this in case the inexpe¬ 
rienced should suppose that soft and immature growth can be de¬ 
pended on to do the same. I am only treating of Peach trees 
grown under glass where it is easy to ripen the wood satisfactorily 
in most seasons. 
This note is headed “Extension and Restriction.” I hope I 
have made myself clear to your readers in my advocacy of the 
principle of extension whether they agree with me or not. I 
would now say a word on restriction, but certainly not as applying 
to the growth of branches and foliage, but to the restriction of the 
growth of roots, and should be wasting valuable space if I were to 
occupy it in trying to demonstrate that which every gardener knows 
full well—namely, the importance of good roots to the health and 
well-being of a tree. My object is more particularly to direct 
attention to the mischief resulting from planting young trees in 
large borders of rich soil, resulting in the formation of long fibre¬ 
less roots, which soon become warty, knotty, and almost useless, 
and, as a consequence, produce long-jointed (buds far apart) pithy 
soft growths. 
The method of root culture I advocate is to plant young trees 
in restricted borders in soil which is not too rich, and not giving 
a too copious supply of water until they are in a condition to bear 
a crop of fruit, which they will be after the second year. By this 
time the border will be filled with fibry feeding roots, which, if 
liberally watered with liquid manure, and slightly mulched with 
short litter to prevent too rapid evaporation, the trees will bear a 
good crop of fine fruit. The trees should be occasionally lifted 
and replanted, and the border added to every second or third year 
(taking care to press the soil as firm as possible). Where this plan 
is carried out, the trees kept clean, and the shoots properly thinned 
out in summer, success in Peach culture under glass is easily 
accomplished.—O aven Thomas, Chatsworth Gardens. 
ON PACKING AND TRANSMITTING PLANTS. 
Is it not possible to institute a more generally efficient system 
than that at present prevailing of distributing plants ? If a few 
dozens of any kind of plants are ordered they are almost invariably 
received in the same condition, each wrapped up by itself, and with 
material packed among the pots, so that a large and heavy hamper 
or box is filled and dispatched by goods train in order to save 
expense of carriage. If the packing of the plants has been intelli¬ 
gently managed the goods are received in good condition ; if badly 
packed there is sure to have been a great smashing of pots on the 
road ; but the main fault is that besides being unnecessary, packing 
thus is expensive, and delays the arrival of plants. Market growers 
have a very simple method of carrying plants, and that not only for 
journeys of a few miles, but over long railway systems, and with 
the very best results. They have strong wooden box trays, with 
sides some 8 inches in depth, and with a dividing board across the 
middle. These appear to be made to hold two dozen plants in 6-inch 
pots, and they are packed simply with a little straw between the 
pots to keep these from shifting. The great advantage of this 
method is that the plants are so light as to be cheaply sent per 
passenger trains, no time is lost in transit, and even somewhat 
tender plants are safely sent if care is taken to protect each of these 
singly with sheets of paper wrapped round them. Where plants 
have to travel on other than trunk systems and by slow trains deep¬ 
sided boxes might be better than the comparatively shallow ones 
used by market growers. I have sent a good number of boxes 
during the past year in boxes deep enough in the sides to protect 
the tops of the plants. For plants lifted with good roots out of 
borders I know no better system of forwarding than simply placing 
