Apiul 22. 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER. 
51 
that there is in human character ever a tendency to 
rush to extremes, so much so, that very often the dis¬ 
ciple goes much farther than his teacher. This is partly 
owing to the antagonism that ever exists between old 
practices and new theories. Both may be alike success- 
lul, and yet the means employed be vastly dissimilar. 
Both may develop their principles to a culpable ex¬ 
treme, because this is always the tendency of party 
debate on any subject. 
Eor instance, how different is the mode of forcing 
now generally adopted to that practised in our younger 
days. Then, whatever the weather, the night tempera¬ 
ture must be high and regular; the day temperature 
kept as regular and low, by the admission of air in 
sunshine. Here the high temperature at night was 
neutralised by the air and low temperatures during 
the day. We now save trouble and expense by regu¬ 
lating temperature by light, at least as far as we can 
do so within the bounds of safety. The results may not 
be superior, but economy, and a more natural system 
may be claimed for the latter. Yet so liable are we to 
run to extremes, that we have seen crops, grown upon 
the old system, that were never perfected, because the 
high temperature in darkness had wasted the excitability 
of the plant; while in going to the other extreme, and 
allowing the temperature to be cooled unduly at night, 
the youug fruit received such a chill, that they never 
swelled kindly afterwards. This may be conned over 
by those who have now vines beginning to start in their 
greenhouses. 
Again, time was, when he was considered a notable 
potter who could most dexterousty slice off the outside 
of the ball of a plant, and then stick the mutilated 
lump of roots into a pot, similar in size, at most 
not much larger than the pot whence it was pulled 
from. It is not our purpose here to show how ruin¬ 
ously this affected some plants, nor how even now 
it might at times be practised with others that 
make fresh roots freely. The horror of the system 
was carried to the opposite and, frequently, equally 
ruinous, extreme, of transferring balls of plants from one 
pot to another, without doing any thing to the roots at 
all, however laced and matted they might be. Again, 
most of us recollect how fine we used to sift our soil and 
compost for pot plants, and how regularly we used to 
drench the pots after potting; but then, any thing like a 
large shift was a more than a seven days wonder. With 
the time of large shifts came the supposed necessity for 
the soil being rough and porous, for the free admission 
of air and the free percolation of water. But no sooner 
did this fine idea get started, than, like a high spirited 
horse, it was galloped to the death of many a nice plant. 
Sifted soil was abjured, it is true; but then it was ex¬ 
changed, in mauy instances, for stuffing and squeezing 
several large pieces into a single small pot, entailing 
upon the plant more than all the disadvantages such a 
plant could have experienced by being placed in common 
soil out of doors, and depriving it of all the advantages 
it would have realized when thus planted out. Pro¬ 
portioning the roughness and porosity of the material 
to the size of the pot, the size of the shift given, and the 
length of time the plants might be supposed to remain, 
were too trivial matters ever to be inquired about. Nor 
was this all: roughness and porosity of material came to 
be considered synonymous with looseness in potting; the 
rough soil was therefore merely trundled in; the water¬ 
ing, in course of time, rendered the compost more dense, 
taking fresh soil and the best roots along with it to the 
bottom of the pot; and, unless frequent top-dressings 
were resorted to, the top part of the old ball would be 
left sticking like a pillar in the middle of the pot, with 
little chance of ever having the fibres contained in it 
moistened, except by capillary attraction, or setting it 
over head in a tub of water. How natural, in such cir¬ 
cumstances, to eschew the loose potting, and with either 
rough or fine soil to resort to the hammer or the mallet, 
as adverted to by a correspondent, to thump the 
material close and firm to the sides of the pot. Is such 
firm potting necessary ? Asa general principle we 
should say, no ! just because, in most cases, to a certain 
extent, we wish to encourage growth before bloom. 
In many cases, and especially in hard-wooded plants 
with fine hair-like roots, if we used the rough soil, and 
did not use the mallet, which we vevy seldom do, we 
should, nevertheless, press the materials as firmly toge- ! 
ther as possible, and this all the more^ if we wished 
more for bloom than growth. In all hard-wooded plants, 
as a general rule, it may be stated that, provided the 
soil be rough and open, as recommended in these pages, 
it should be pressed firmly together. Instead of mallet- 
ing, we should, unless in particular instances, prefer 
leaving the new soil at the sides higher than the surface 
of the old ball in the centre. Watering is thus secured 
to all the fibres. Before a man could expect success 
from thus malleting fine-sifted soil, and at the same time 
used large shifts in potting, he would require to be an 
adept at, and understand thoroughly, all the effects of 
the water-pail. One of the advantages of using mode¬ 
rately rough compost, rather firmly pressed together, 
with abundance of proper drainage, is, that the cultiva¬ 
tor is rendered more independent of the waterer. The 
more hard the soil is, therefore, the more carefully must 
the water be given. In the first case, however put on, 
it will precolate freely through the mass, and the over¬ 
abundance will escape. In the latter case, unless great 
care is used, there will always be a tendency to excess 
in one part, find a deficiency in the other; while the 
very hardness will bring the earth so much under 
hygrometric influences, that in a hot day the earth 
will shrink from the sides of the pot, and thus cause 
cracks to be formed, which would be strangers in a 
pot in which the soil was more moderately pressed. In 
soft-wooded plants, we do not press the soil nearly so 
much, because we wish growth to precede the flowering 
process; and in every case, where both growth and 
bloom are wanted, the result of our observation and 
practice leads us to recommend a medium of firmness 
in potting. In using compost rather rough, I always 
finish with a layer of finer on the surface, which thus 
prevents the air entering too freely, and thus causing 
the soil to dry too quickly. 
Between malleting and pressing , I am aware there can 
be given no very well-defined idea of difference; and if 
the former was not done to excess, I do not see why it 
should not do as well as pressing, provided, in both 
cases, the soil was rough and porous, and neither wet 
nor dry. But we generally see enough of broken pots 
already; and once introduce tbe hammer and mallet, 
and I should dread the accumulations to the crockery ; 
heap. 
These remarks are merely general. There are many 
exceptions. It would be easy to find confirmation and 
disproof too, in the separate provinces of our excellent 
coadjutors. For instance, there is a nice cabbage plant 
that we want to make the most of for the kitcheu-table. 
We loosen the earth about its roots, and its appearance 
soon tells we had been doing right. Did we wish that 
plant to bloom as soon as possible, we should do no 
such thiug. There is a pear tree, destined to be an orna¬ 
ment for landscape scenery. We give it width and 
depth of the best loam, and well turned and loosened. 
Here is another we wish to be a Lilliputian pyramid, 
clothed with bloom buds and fruit. We set him upon a 
hard mound, and do little more than cover his roots with 
soil. Nay, could we spare the space in tbe border now 
wanted for other things, we would, judging from analogy, 
carry the idea of hardness to such an extent, that we 
would waterproof a considerable space over the roots of 
