Maroh 10,1887. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
187 
the roll call that spring revealed the lamentable fact that 115 Roses 
were killed right out. I was a Manetti man then—I am not now— 
that deadly season filled me up, destroyed my appetite altogether— 
for Manetti. I said to myself, “ If this Manetti business is going 
to necessitate the purchase annually of 115 Roses, simply to replace 
losses, I shall try the Briar, and if after that there is still no 
improvement in the death rate, I shall resign.” 
My pruning that season consisted of—manually, the removal of 
the dead wood ; and verbally, the calling down of blessings (!) on 
the head of the late Dr. Manetti, and altogether I felt rather 
dismal. But when summer came I thought no more of my 115 
slain ; the superb blooms and the magnificent foliage took up and 
engaged my attention and admiration, and I there and then became, 
and have continued to be ever since, one of the hardest of hard 
pruners. 
Wood more than two years old is not much use for the pro¬ 
duction of fine blooms. What we want is a constant renewal of 
young wood. If we turn to figure 34, which represents the same 
plant as shown on figs. 27 and 28 (page 168), we shall see the plant has 
thrown up two fine shoots from the base. Fortunately for our 
wishes Roses are almost constantly sending up these shoots from 
the base, and although at the end of the season the tops of these 
shoots are often not ripe, they are generally so at the base. These 
are the shoots we must look to for future blooms, and we must year 
after year cut out the old shoots and branches, allowing these new 
comers to take their place. Another advantage in close pruning is, 
that it encourages the plant to send up these new shoots, thus 
giving us an abundance of what we require, and enabling the plant 
to renew its youth like the eagle. They sometimes come up so 
thickly as to be puzzling to a 
new' hand, but there are gene¬ 
rally two or three which can be 
selected as being finer and riper 
than the others. These should 
be left and pruned for bloom, 
and the others should be cut out 
altogether, along with the old 
wood. 
This renewal of the shoots, 
together with the fact that the 
union of stock and scion is 
always below the surface, or 
should be, if properly planted, 
is, to my thinking, one of the 
greatest advantages of dwarf 
Roses over standards. Stan¬ 
dards about here almost in¬ 
variably perish in two or three 
years (Gloire de Dijon is the 
only exception I know of) and 
nearly always from a kind of 
ossification of the union of the 
stock and scion. This, in my 
opinion, arises from this part 
being exposed to the winter 
weather partly, and partly fro si 
its being always out of the 
ground. Compare the union 
of a dwarf, which is, or always 
should be, buried in the soil, with that of a standard of the 
same age. The bark round about the union of the dwarf is soft, 
supple, and of exactly the same nature as the bark of a true root— 
in fact, it is very often a starting place for a lot of roots. On the 
other hand, the bark round the union of a standard is hard, and 
dry, and old ; in fact it is always a wonder to me that they live as 
long as they do. 
No beginner ever does prune half hard enough. It requires a 
great deal of faith on the operator’s part to cut away the nice long 
branches almost entirely. I never can get visitors to my garden to 
believe that I cut all my Roses down to the ground each year. As 
they walk round in the late summer (our Roses rarely bloom before 
July) and see shoots full of vigour, covered with large and perfect 
foliage and fresh and fragrant flowers, the shoots in many cases 
3 feet high or more—I could find some 5 feet, I daresay—I have 
great difficulty in persuading them that their Roses would do quite 
as well, and grow quite as vigorously, if treated in a similar 
way. 
Friends of mine often say, “ I wish you would come and prune 
my Roses some day.” As I have a very strong suspicion that the 
result would end in my getting abused, I generally say, “ Oh, yes ? 
delighted—when shall I come ? but, remember, I shall cut them all 
away.” “ Oh ! well in that case I had rather you did not come ; I 
should not like to see the plants destroyed.” 
A nurseryman friend of mine tells me of a somewhat similar 
experience, only it had a different ending. He was asked a similar 
question by a gentleman, but he agreed to go. He went, and, of 
course, cleared the decks. When the gentleman arrived home he 
gazed around, he could not believe his eyes, all his Roses had 
apparently disappeared. At an early hour the next day he was at 
the nursery, and my friend had ratlmr a hot time with him. Bat 
when summer came, the tune was changed, the result was—well, 
just what it always is in such cases, provided other parts of the 
cultivation are not neglected—a grand success. The owner was 
delighted, and expressed his satisfaction freely. He, too, is now, 
no doubt, enrolled among the noble army of close pruners. 
SHORT PRUNING—EXCEPTIONS. 
Gloire de Dijon.— This variety requires very little pruning. 
The removal of the tops of the late-growing shoots, which are 
generally killed back by the frost in this neighbourhood, and the. 
cutting away of old and worn out wood occasionally, is all that will 
be necessary. The blooms are produced on short laterals thrown 
out from the buds on the main shoots which have grown up during- 
the preceding season. 
Other exceptions are—all the vigorous-growing varieties among: 
the Bourbon, Noisette, and Hybrid China Roses, although some of' 
these answer well on the close system. 
All climbing Roses are also exceptions. The whole of these 
exceptions require to have the branches left long for flowering, the 
unripe tips only being removed, while the weaker shoots may be 
cut away altogether. If the shoots are very long they will break 
more evenly if laid down on the ground horizontally until the buds 
have broken and commenced to grow. 
LONG PRUNING. 
Long pruning is applicable to all kinds of Roses which make 
long shoots or which grow very vigorously. All the ordinary 
vigorous varieties may be grown in this way. Such Roses as 
Madame Isaac Perrier and the new Rose Her Majesty, two very 
rampant growing varieties, are good examples of Roses which I 
fancy would require this treatment. Cheshunt Hybrid, too, answers 
well this way, but it is so accommodating that one can hardly go- 
wrong with it. 
Long pruning consists simply in leaving the branches reserved 
for blooming much longer than we should do on the close system, 
but we partly make up for this by removing some of the shoots 
altogether. Among the vigorous growers in the Hybrid Perpetual 
section, which generally embraces nine-tenths of most collections, 
I do not find any advantage in leaving the shoots more than 
9 or 10 inches long, and I do not allow more than three shoots on 
any one plant. If a beginner finds, after the first season, that any 
of his Roses have produced vigorous wood shoots instead of blooms, 
he cannot do better than try this system with these plants. He 
will soon discover the happy medium, and a little observation will 
enable him to see at once where to cut to.—D. Gilmopr, jpn. 
(To be continued.) 
OPEN AIR PEACHES AND NECTARINES. 
I read with great interest Mr. Pettigrew’s remarks, and also those 
from the editorial pen relative to the above subject (page 125), and do 
not doubt but what much good will be the ultimate result. There can 
be no gainsaying the fact that of late years the successful culture of 
