PROTECTION OF WALL-TREES. 
489 
net was secured to the coping of the wall, and brought down, at an 
angle of forty-five or fifty degrees, to within four or five feet of the 
ground, and supported upon rails, with their lower end fixed in the 
ground, and resting against the wall at the top. This covering was 
not removed during the day, hut remained on during the whole time 
the trees were in bloom. In the spring of 1829, some Peach and 
Nectarine trees were left without protection, and also some parts of 
others, over which the netting did not extend. It was not expected 
that these unprotected trees would produce a regular crop of fruit, 
and this did not prove to he the case. The fruit set equally well as 
those under the netting, and the young shoots were evidently more 
vigorous. The following spring, my attention was again more par¬ 
ticularly directed to the same subject, and several trees were pur¬ 
posely left unprotected in different parts of the garden, others were 
covered with branches of beech trees, which had retained their foliage 
through the winter, and the remainder were covered with netting in 
the usual way, with this difference, that at distances of about twenty 
yards, it was taken across and secured to the wall, and again returned 
and carried along at the same angle as before. The intention of thus 
bringing it in contact with the wall at these short distances, was to 
prevent as much as possible the currents of air created in the con¬ 
tracted space between the net and the wall, but notwithstanding this 
precaution, during the day, the temperature under the net was gene¬ 
rally from three to five degrees lower than on the open wall, and in 
bright sun shine, accompanied with frosty wind, the difference some¬ 
times amounted to ten degrees. It had, however, to a certain extent, 
the effect that was intended, hut on comparing the trees with those 
which were wholly unprotected, I could not perceive the result to be 
in any respect different from what was noticed to have taken place 
the preceding year. At the time these coverings were removed, the 
trees which were protected with beech branches were more healthy, 
and the fruits more regular in size than either those under the net¬ 
ting or such as were fully exposed on the open wall, hut the quan¬ 
tity of fruit which had set in each case was nearly alike. 
The Author of the Domestic Gardener’s Manual particularly al¬ 
ludes to two peach trees which missed bearing fruit in 1830, and 
seems to he of opinion that the use of woollen-netting was the cause 
of the failure. I have certainly no such charge to bring against it, 
but I am fully convinced, that beech branches, or indeed any loose 
spray that can be readily procured and easily fixed to the wall, will 
prove a more effectual protection to the tender blossom of these trees 
than woollen netting, or any similar screen, at least if applied in the 
