174 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ March 8,188?. 
from my own experience and a close observation of other people’s 
practice in many parts of England, therefore I was not depending 
entirely upon my Swanmore experience for my knowledge. I have been 
acquainted with the leading growers of Chrysanthemums for the last 
eleven years, and during this time I have had abundant opportunities of 
testing the best methods of detail in the various stages of growth. 
Some parts of Mr. Garnett’s critique do not require an answer, no 
good could possibly accrue from it. He criticises entirely from 
his own point of view as applicable to his own district. I wrote my 
book intending it as a general guide, and not for one place. I 
admit that Swanmore is well situated for the culture of the flower, 
but I do not agree with Mr. Garnett that the greater number of 
gardeners have to practise within the smoke zone of large manufacturing 
towns. I take the Liverpool and London district growers as examples ; 
the leading ones in both those parts are not much hampered by smoke, I 
fancy. Certainly there is more than at Swanmore, but not to an 
injurious extent. I have previously stated that I did not make guesses, 
as Mr. Garnett says I did, anent the dates suitable for northern 
growers, I can assure him they were taken from personal observation. 
The controversy he alludes to in the Journal on the bud question did not 
prove I was wrong, for we had no evidence that my advice had been 
faithfully followed in all instances. I still say that if the plants are 
treated as advised in all stages the buds will come at the time we want 
them, in spite of Mr. Garnett’s assertion to the contrary ; but the plants 
must have the necessary attention from the time the cuttings are in¬ 
serted and during the after stages of growth. Many collections of plants, 
I am afraid, are often spoiled during the busy spring and summer months 
when other work presses heavily. 
With regard to the time best suited for striking the cuttings, Mr. 
Garnett is very fortunate if he has had no experience with “ bud-pro¬ 
ducing propensity.” If he had been a large grower, I fancy he would 
indeed be lucky if all the cuttings he inserts go right away into proper 
growth. At the present moment we have sucke cuttings of Meg 
Merrilies and Empress Eugenie, for instance, that are showing flower 
buds. I mention this to show that Mr. Garnett’s experience avails us 
little. In my remarks upon the time the cuttings should be inserted, I 
said there is no hard-and-fast line as to date, circumstances must guide 
the grower somewhat. Let me cite one instance. If the stock of any 
particular variety consisted of a very few cuttings, and these were likely 
to become too tall through being drawn weakly or other unforeseen 
occurrences ; instead of allowing them to grow so tall, I should take 
them off and insert them a week or two before the stated time (December 
10th). Most growers to my knowledge do not commence propagating 
much sooner than about the time stated. 
Referring next to the remarks where Mr. Garnett quotes the words 
'■ some growers say that late propagation reduces the height of the 
plants. This is the case in some instances.” My answer to his query— 
why in some instances ?—is simply that the plants have not had time 
to grow to their full height owing to their late propagation and the time 
lost which they would have had had striking the cuttings earlier been 
ractised. He next asks what degree of height is essential to produce 
looms of the best quality ? Mv answer is, The natural height, so to 
speak, of each variety prior to the production of the crown bud. This 
is varied by the growth of the plants caused by loose potting, position 
in which the plants grow, whether they were allowed to become drawn 
weakly in their younger stages of growth. A variety of causes will 
alter the heights in the hands "of different growers, but 1 will name one 
variety—for instance, Princess of Wales. Owing to the causes above 
stated this may not suit everybody, but it will be approximate. From 
5 to 7 feet high is a fair height for this variety. He next takes excep¬ 
tion to the words, “ I have not yet seen, save in an exceptional case or 
two, blooms of the same quality produced on dwarf plants through 
some unaccountable reason.” He asks, Why unaccountable 1 Now, here 
I am unable to answer his query, but I have seen two plants of the 
same variety growing side by side under exactly the same conditions as 
to propagation, soil, and all other cultural details ; still, one plant 
grows 6 feet high, while the other attains the height of 8 feet, but both 
produce blooms equal in quality. This is why I said some “ unaccount¬ 
able reason.” Perhaps Mr. Garnett will enlighten us on this point. It 
is easy to ask the question, but not so easy to answer it. 
My next answer is that it is not more unaccountable for dwarf plants 
to produce good flowers than it is for tall plants to produce poor flowers. 
I have many times seen tall plants produce the reverse of good blooms 
when all conditions appeared favourable to their well doing. This I 
must class among the “ unaccountables.” If this were not the case, and 
every plant could be relied upon to produce good blooms, growers 
would not require so many plants to depend upon for the supply of the 
finest blossoms, for in some instances a few blooms of exhibition quality 
only are produced on a large number of plants. The risk, then, of 
winning prizes would be reduced to a minimum. My experience differs 
from that of my critic in looking over collections of Chrysanthemums 
in bloom that dwarf plants do carry finer flowers than taller plants 
of the same variety. In my case it is the reverse, for often the blooms 
on dwarf plants have, at the first glance, seemed larger and better, but 
upon a close examination they were found to lack the most essential 
point—viz., depth; they might possibly be more inches in diameter. 
Mind, I am speaking in a general sense. As before stated, some dwarf 
plants do produce good blooms. 
The next reference is to Mr. Garnett’s remarks anent the dwarf plant 
of “ Peter the Great.” He asks, What influence here has the height of 
the plant on the size and quality of the bloom 1 His answer is, Little or 
none ; but mine is that were it not taken from a plant somewhere near 
the natural height required of the variety to produce such blooms as the 
aim is; that were the cuttings taken from all dwarfer plants, the cer¬ 
tainty of having the wished-for flowers is considerably reduced ; that is 
what influence it has in this case. I could take a cutting of the same 
sort, which should be 12 inches nearer the point where the last bud was 
formed, and I have no doubt this plant would attain the height assumed 
—viz., 20 inches, and the flower would be much smaller than the one on 
the 8-inch plant, but that would not be following the advice I gave, 
p. 45 of the book, therefore Mr. Garnett’s argument is all in my favour 
on that point. Certainly anyone setting out with the idea he suggests 
will be sorely disappointed. It is the insertion of the cuttings on the 
date when they are ready upon which success depends, and not upon the 
theory of other methods. The approximation as to time will be found 
to come very near, if not quite, for all localities, even if it does not fit 
Mr. Garnett’s district in this one instance. The instructions given on 
p. 47 are quite clear to produce the desirable dwarf plant, that being 
the object of that chapter. It seems absurd to compare such plants in 
their relations to height and quality of flowers with those grown for 
another object. It seems Mr. Garnett grasped this little plant to sub¬ 
stantiate his argument that height has nothing to do with quality of 
flower. I do not agree with Mr. Garnett when he says it is essential 
that a person must be master of the cause of the puzzling compli¬ 
cations in the bud setting. If he expects beginners to master all this 
before he can grow the flower, it strikes me he will have some time to 
wait. This can only be had by years of practice.—E. Molyneux. 
(To be continued.) 
WARWICK CASTLE. 
Warwickshire possesses a combination of historical interest and 
natural beauty such as few other English counties can equal, and 
perhaps none excels. Taking Warwick as a centre, Kenilworth, Strat¬ 
ford-on-Avon, and Coventry are easily reached, and in all the tourist 
finds a host of historical memories, relics of a past magnificence or 
stately grandeur unknown to the present age. A most charming sylvan 
scenery is also characteristic of the county, the wealth of arboreal 
beauty presenting a striking contrast with the comparatively bare extent 
of land in the eastern portion of the kingdom. From any moderate 
elevation views are commanded of a vast park-like landscape, gently 
undulated, never bold, but exquisitely beautiful in the fresh verdure of 
spring or the varied hues of autumn. Many fine estates are scattered 
over the county, and a horticulturist who has the opportunity of 
enjoying a few days holiday can spend the time most profitably in a 
visit to Warwickshire. In such a journey undertaken last autumn the 
first establishment en route was Warwick Castle, to which the following 
brief notes are devoted, but which cannot do full justice to either its 
historical or horticultural interest. 
Warwick Castle is one of the best preserved memorials of the feudal 
period that can be seen in England, and abundant evidence remains to 
prove what a powerful stronghold it was when “ might was right.” 
Unlike crumbling Kenilworth, Warwick does not seem to have even 
reached its first period of decay, and after braving the vicissitudes of 
many centuries it is now in a venerable but majestic old age. With the 
massive walls and towers time seems to have dealt gently, and we are 
delighted with an antiquity that has not been spoiled by inconsistent 
attempts at modernisation such as too frequently detract from the 
charms of similar buildings. The Castle is approached by a road cut 
deep in the solid rock, and curving round gradually conducts the visitor 
to the chief entrance, on each side of which are the noble towers com¬ 
manding the approach. Guy’s tower is 130 feet high, and from the top 
of this an unrivalled view can be obtained, the classic Avon passing the 
base of the Castle walls and winding its way thence through a densely 
wooded country, with here and there a bright green meadow as a break 
in the luxuriant tree growth. We look down upon the courtyard with 
its remarkable lawn, like fine green velvet, so level and dense is it, and 
beyond we see the wonderful Cedars that have attracted so many 
admirers of tree beauty to Warwick. The illustration (fig. 29) represents 
the Castle as seen from the river that is to the east, the two towers 
being partially concealed by the trees. 
Of the Castle itself little need be here said except that it is crowded 
with historical interest of an exceptional character, from the dungeon to 
the great hall and drawing rooms, all of which, by the liberality of the 
Earl of Warwick, are usually open to the public. They well repay for 
a visit, and tourists flock thither in great numbers during the summer 
months. We were, however, especially desirous of seeing the gardens 
and pleasure grounds, together with the Cedars already mentioned, 
which alone are worth a long journey. Fine specimens of Cedrus Libani 
are by no means scarce, but these at Warwick are magnificent in the 
extreme, and must be ranked amongst the oldest and most handsome in 
cultivation. There are great numbers of trees of various sizes, but 
several near the Castle and close to the bank of the river are the giants, 
the stems at 1 foot from the ground measuring 23 to 28 feet in circum¬ 
ference, the height about 70 feet, and the branches extending along the 
ground 14 yards from the stem. Some of these are a forest of stems, 
dozens of great limbs shooting upwards, each large enough to make a 
good sized tree, and the appearance of these huge specimens viewed from 
below is very imposing. In Strutt’s “ Sylva Britannica ” it is truthfully 
remarked that ‘* there is something in the air of the Cedar remarkably 
indicative of its comparative immortal nature. The foliage is very 
beautiful, each branch is perfect in its form ; the points of the leave 
