Febrnary 6, 18D0. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
115 
alone’. I have only now jast completed planting another new orchard, 
the stocts of which I raised from pips, grafted them myself experi¬ 
mentally (I am nothing if I am not experimental) with local Apples, 
and I hope to he spared another year or two to let you know the result. 
And now for something neto on my part. 
Memorial Trees, a Soporific. —Great men have left it on record 
how to obtain sleep. The late Bishop of Oxford (Wilberforce) was the 
last I believe. His soporific was to count up to a certain number of 
figures, and repeat till Morpheus came ; dry work, and uncertain. Now, 
many friends of mine through my request have presented me with 
memorial trees, both evergreen and deciduous. I have them planted 
around my place in sympathy. '‘“When in the night 1 sleepless lie” 
(and 1 assure you I am not exempt from the troubles of this world) I 
walk and talk in mind around my living representative keepsakes, call¬ 
ing them by their own and their donors’ names, thus :—Cupressus 
Lawsoniana, poor Woodbridge ; Taxus variegata aurea, poor Howe ; 
Cupressus Lawsoniana viridis erecta, poor Wildsmith ; Thuiopsis borealis, 
friend Bell ; Pinus austriaca, friend Jones, must reluctantly trim off 
bottom branches ; seedling purple Plum from Green Gage (excellent), 
friend Stroud ; Thuia Lobbi, friend Coombes, must be top-dressed with 
some fresh loam ; and so on, and as I have above 100 mementos which 
I can dwell upon and admire in my mind’s eye I can generally reckon 
upon obtaining unconsciousness before I have got one-quarter through 
them, and upon the next sleepless night I begin where I left off, and so 
shake hands as it were with all my friends without neglect of any, 
and “ so He giveth his beloved sleep.” Let our friends try this plan.— 
Robt. Fenn, Cottage Farm, SuUiamstead Abbots. 
[Our old friend is decidedly “in it,” and on one part at least is very 
much awake. His proposition for retaining the Exhibition building of 
1851 as a centre for national horticulture appeared in the Cottage 
Gardener of April 22nd, 1852. His proposition that we reprint “ at 
once” his orchard notes from the “ Gardener’s Almanack” (1852) must 
have been made when under the soporific influence of his memorial 
trees, and if he rubs his eyes a little he will see that monthly instruc¬ 
tions from January to December on seasonable routine could not all be 
in season “ at once,” good as they may be for the several periods of the 
year ; but we find an article on small fruits that reads as fresh as the 
day it was written, nearly forty years ago, and which we will reprint 
for the perusal of present day readers, and those of them who are 
acquainted with the genial author will rejoice that he is still engaged in 
the youthful work of making experiments. If his new Apples prove 
as good as his new Potatoes he will deserve doubly well of his country.] 
It is not my intention to prolong this correspondence. I wrote to 
further the best interests of the Rose and her exhibitors. Your readers 
will judge whether “ D., Deal," in his last letter does or does not simply 
beg the question. It may be that in this instance a certain legal maxim 
is being adopted—viz., when your case is weak abuse the plaintiff’s 
attorney.—J. H. P. 
MANNERS AND CUSTOMS—A CATALOGUE COMMENTARY. 
(^Continued from page 65.') 
Mrs. Earlier (Laxton, 187C).—Of Victor Verdier race, fol’owing the 
manners and customs of its tribe ; perhaps the lightest of them in colour, 
of excellent shape, but not very lasting. 
Mrs. Harry Turner (Turner, 1880).—Of strong good characteristic 
wood and foliage, not much injured by mildew or rain. This is the 
brightest of all the deep crimson Roses, and would have a great reputa¬ 
tion if it had but lasting qualities. Unfortunately the centre is weak, 
and it will not stand, so that it is next to impossible to show it. A free 
bloomer and fair autumnal. Sure to attract attention in the garden by 
the splendid glow of its colour. 
Mrs. John Luring (Bennett, 1887).—One of the very best ; apparently 
from similarity of wood and growth a seedling from Francois Michelon. 
One catalogue describes it as “ in the way of Madame Gabriel Luizet,” 
but this is surely a slip. Fine hardy growth and foliage ; not liable to 
mildew or injured by rain. In the matter of “ coming good ” it may, I 
think, fairly dispute the palm with Marie Baumann, for it always 
comes well shaped with me, even in the autumn, and though a new 
Rose it has stood and successfully passed the tests of a cold, wet, late 
summer, and a hot early one. In every quality—petal, fulness of centre, 
shape, colour, lasting qualities, size, and freedom of bloom in summer 
and autumn it seems to be first rate. It is hardy and strong in consti¬ 
tution, and, in fact, I am puzzling my brains to think of a weak spot or 
deficiency of manners in any respect, but in vain. Go up to the top of 
the class, Mrs. John Laing, among the choicest of Rose queens. 
Paul Neyron (Levet, 1869).—Alphabetical order is strictly impartial, 
and we have here, following a gold medallist, one of the “ best abused ” 
of Roses. Of extraordinary strong growth and foliage, little injured by 
rain, and almost entirely untouched by mildew, with enormous blooms 
of grand stout petals, Paul Neyron is yet justly considered to be too- 
coarse and wanting in delicacy and symmetry fora florist’s flower. The 
outside world have often (most unjustly) taunted Rose exhibitors with, 
going in for mere size, it being their idea, 1 believe, that Edouard 
Morren and Paul Neyron are the special darlings of our hearts. I re¬ 
member on one occasion a worthy gentleman sending six Paul Neyrons 
with considerable confidence to a show in his neighbourhood, and in¬ 
structing his gardener to pick out the “ biggest.” They formed a most 
ludicrous sight against other well shown Roses; southerly overblown, 
shapeless, and discoloured that, as “ Duckwing ” observed, a cow would 
have turned up her nose at them. It may perhaps be said that this was 
mere local ignorance, but I also remember one or two articles from the 
editor’s pen in a weekly journal of very high repute, in which the sorts 
raised and shown by exhibitors were condemned as being chosen for 
mere size and blowsiness, and as worthy of the terrible title of the 
articles in question, “ Ugly Roses.” Paul Neyron is occasionally shown 
in fair form, and would be oftener thus exhibited no doubt, but 
rosarians have felt the weight of the unjust stigma alluded to above, 
and poor Paul Neyron and Edouard Morren have become bywords among 
them. Fairly free flowering and pretty good in autumn, with its strong 
growth and constitution, and especially with its remarkable immunity 
from mildew, the evident use of this Rose is as a seed parent to instil 
vigour and size into refined but weakly sorts. Mons. Levet has already 
made use of it in this way, as we know, and Paul Neyron lives again, with 
vastly increased reputation, in Ulrich Brunner. 
Penelope Mayo (Davis. 1878), syn. Duchessede Caylus (Verdier, 1864), 
—Rather weakly in growth and foliage, with wood of very distinct ap¬ 
pearance, and not much liable to injury from mildew or rain. The 
blooms come fairly well, small, but sweet scented, of perfect form, good 
centre and bright colour. It still keeps its place, but a Rose which is 
weakly in growth, not good in free flowering or autumnal qualities, and 
decidedly below nar in size, will fall out of the lists, I expect, before 
long. * , 
P'oerre Netting (Portemer, 1863).—Of very vigorous strong growtht 
with extra large fine foliage. Rather liable to mildew, and will roa 
without opening in wet weather. This Rose “ comes ” very badly as e 
rule, being slow in opening, and showing a groat hollow in the centrd 
right down to the eye even before it does expand. The plants are passec 
by as hopeless again and again ; then, with some mysterious climatie. 
change (for fine weather alone will not do it), towards the end of the 
season the blooms sometimes begin to open properly when all tht 
strongest are over, and we see what a truly grand flower it can be when ij^ 
chooses. Though still weak in centre and in endurance, it is the 
excellent in shape, colour, fragrance, substance, and size, an® 
“ bad manners ” alone keep Pierre Netting from a very high position* 
It is aggravating to see such splendid shoots produce nothing but ill- 
formed hollow lumps, which can hardly be called Roses, while the plant 
has such flne possibilities within its reach. Free flowering but not a 
good autumnal, the second crop of blooms being seldom of any value. 
The violet shade on the outer petals has always appeared to me one of 
our nearest approaches to blue ; and appearances seem to show that the 
first blue Rose (when will it come ?) will be a dark one.—W. Rl 
Raillem. 
(To be continued.) 
IMPROVING AN OLD ORCHARD. 
Respecting the application of liquid manure to fruit trees in 
winter, I can add a little testimony. Eleven years ago last August I took 
charge of an old orchard. The trees were in a bad condition, and the 
fruit they produced did not always satisfy the cook. Some of the tree 
stems were 9 to 11 inches in diameter, quite hollow in the centre, and 
birds reared their young in the holes every spring or summer, and I was 
told that the trees only had a crop every alternate year. They were 
standards, planted 15 feet apart, though 40 feet by 30 feet would be a 
great deal better, with nuts and bush fruits between, also a few Farleigh 
Damsons planted at intervals, that would give the Apple trees a chance 
of benefiting the occupier. The orchard in question was sheltered from 
strong winds. The depth of soil was only 5 to 9 inches, on limestone, 
for 18 inches or 2 feet, in thin, flat pieces in layers ; below that the 
stones were thicker. Many of the tree heads were crowded with wood', 
some of the branches crossing each other. The stems and branches 
were a'so covered with moss, and some of them with Ivy climbing. The 
causes of the defects, I considered, were overcrowding the heads and 
poverty at the roots. 
In starting for improvement we thoroughly thinned the branches, 
carefully smoothing the wounds with a carpenter’s chisel. The cuts 
were then painted over with a composition of clay, cowdung and soot 
The stems and large branches were scraped, and when finished we gave 
a good lime-washing, with a little soot added to kill the moss on the 
small branches. A labourer went with a wheelbarrow of lime (slacked), 
with a shovel threw the lime up amongst the branches. 
There happened to be a good liquid manure tank with a pump in the 
crew yard, and with a large barrel in a cart a man with a strong pony 
carted out the liquid in frosty or wet weather all the year round. We 
gave a load to each tree ; when all the trees had been supplied we began 
again for about six or seven years. After the trees had four or five 
years sueh treatment some of them carried crops of fruit that would not 
have disgraced anyone. Some of the fruits with other varieties added 
did good service on the show tables for more than one year. That was 
not all, for instead of the trees bearing a crop of fruit every alternate 
