44 THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION.— October 21, 1856. 
PEACH CULTURE AT MONTREUIL. 
Montreoil is situated about five miles east from Paris ; 
but the road to it from the Barriere do Montreuil lies in a 
north-east direction. Between 1100 and 1500 acres of the 
Commune are occupied by walled enclosures, chiefly for the 
growth of Peaches. It appears a walled country, without 
houses or tall trees to interrupt the view, apart from the 
village, which lies lower than where the gardens extend. 
The gardens are generally parallelograms, with cross walls, 
the latter about 00 feet apart, and from 8 to 10 feet in 
height. The walls are 10 centimetres, about 15$ inches 
thick at bottom, and 00 centimetres, or 11 l-5ths inches at 
top. Three metres, about 9 feet 10 inches, is now con¬ 
sidered a suitable height; but in England, particularly in 
the northern parts, the walls cannot be too high; for the 
higher the wall, the better the Peaches will ripen. The 
walls at Montreuil are generally plastered on both sides 
rather more than an inch thick. Instead of tying the shoots 
to wooden trellising, the Montreuillois now prefer training 
to the naked wall, driving the nails into the plaster. The 
walls covered with this substance afford one peculiar ad¬ 
vantage; they can be kept free from insects by frequent 
whitewashings without being thereby disfigured. They have 
permanent copings, projecting from 5 to 10 inches, according 
to the height of the walls or the fancy of the proprietor. 
For the Peach, the south-east asjiect is considered at Mon¬ 
treuil the most favourable. 
The soil appears a poor, yellowish.brown, calcareous, sandy 
loam, such as would be unfit for wheat or other corn crops. 
In the Peach culture it gets occasionally some Paris street- 
manure. 
We called on M. Alexis Lepere, Cullivateur de Peckers, 
Rue Cuve-du Four, 40, a Montreuil-sous-bois , who has pub¬ 
lished a very good work on the pruning and management 
of the Peach tree. We found him at his grounds, where on 
certain days he gives practical instruction, each person at¬ 
tending paying three francs. To make sure of meeting 
him, we went on one of those days. 
Fig. 1. 
Before describing his mode of training, considered the 
latest improvement of the Montreuil system, it may be 
proper briefly to explain what that system was. Its principle 
originally consisted in checking the perpendicular flow of 
the sap by diverting it into two channels, right and left. 
This was effected by means of the two main branches, laid 
off like a V. But branches taken from the under sides of 
these invariably became too weak, whilst those allowed to 
grow at the same time from their upper sides soon exceeded 
the original main branches in point of vigour. The under 
branches frequently died, or became useless from weakness, 
and those above them had to be lowered in their places. 
This was the case for two centuries at Montreuil. 
Butret published a treatise entitled Taille Itaisnntiee dcs 
Arbres Fruitiers, which was considered the vade niecum of 
the cultivators. In it the physiological del ails connected 
with' the management of the Peach-tree are excellent, and 
led to the mode of allowing the branches on the under side 
of the main branches to be a year in advance of those on 
the upper. This was considered the best system of Mon¬ 
treuil training when the Garden of the Society was formed, 
and accordingly it was there adopted. But it was found not 
to answer; for although the under branches had the ad¬ 
vantage of being started a year before those springing from 
the upper side, yet in two years the latter not only exceeded 
those secondary branches, but likewise, in most cases, the 
main branches themselves. It was therefore found im¬ 
possible to follow the system with advantage, and conse¬ 
quently its adoption was never recommended by the Society. 
The Montreuillois now condemn that mode themselves on 
the same grounds. 
In order to remedy the evil as much as possible, instead 
of starting the under branches one year in advance of the 
upper, they give them several years’ advantage, as will be 
understood from Fi<j. 1, which represents the number and 
direction of the principal branches forming the charpente or 
frame-work of a tree trained a la Montreuil, as now practised. 
The figures represent the years in which 
the respective branches were originated, 
reckoning from the plantation of the tree. 
From this it will be seen that no branches 
are permitted to grow on the upper side of 
the two main branches ( branches meres), 
marked No. 1, till the fourth year; and 
then the branch No. 4 is allowed to push; 
in the fifth year No. 5 is originated; and 
finally, in the sixth year, No. 6. It must 
be observed that Nos. 5 and 6 will still be 
apt to appropriate more sap than Nos. 2, 
3, 3, although these have been three or 
four years longer established. Aware of 
this, M. Lepere has acted on the principle 
of allowing the under branches a still 
longer period to establish themselves before 
any are encouraged on the upper side. Fie 
has the east aspect of one wall covered 
with trees managed according to his 
Pratique Raisonnee de la Taille du Pecker , 
en Espalier carve. The trees were sixteen 
years old : one of them extended 40 feet, 
others 30 feet, on the wall, which is 
feet high. 
Fig. 2 represents the branches of one of 
his trees, trained en Espalier carve, so 
named from the branches terminating in 
points, lines drawn through which would 
form an oblong square. The marks in¬ 
dicate the places where the leading shoots 
■were shortened, and the figures indicate 
the years from the plantation of the tree, 
in which the cuts on the respective branches 
were made. 
Suppose the tree planted and headed 
back to two eligible buds for producing the 
two main branches (branches meres) A A, 
then at the end of the 
\ r> \0 
