Though we have not been able hitherto to produce monstrous bunches of Grapes, nor yet what could justly be called very extraordinary bunches as regards size, considering the variety, still we frankly confess our admiration for a large bunch, when well finished in other respects. Nor, though our acquaintance extends to not a few Grape-growers of eminence, have we ever found any one who had a great objection to large bunches, provided they could secure them. I think he would be a bold judge, not to say unjust, who would dare to disqualify a bunch of Grapes simply because it was big. Fancy the grimace of the unlucky exhibitor who discovered that his big bunches had been disqualified as an "infringement of the laws of nature." So long as we are able to supply the dessert with good Grapes, no matter how large the bunches are, neither employers nor gardeners are likely to trouble their heads hugely as to how the laws of nature have been violated in their production. We must be careful how we apply general principles. Nature is only intent on perpetuating its species, but the farmer and horticulturalist conduct their operations with a different object.

Now, however, that "J. H." has broken the ice, and condemned large bunches of Grapes as an infringement of the laws of nature, we are quite prepared to see others following in his wake, and on the same reasonable grounds condemning big Pines, big Peaches, big Turnips, and big Potatoes. We wonder in what light" J. H." regards Paterson's "Bovinia" or "Cattle-feeder" - would he be disposed to hand the raiser over to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Does he cultivate such abortions as Cauliflower, and would he prefer a crab to a Keswick Codlin for culinary purposes? If he is consistent, as I doubt not he is, he never indulges, we suppose, in a succulent steak from a stall-fed ox, or a chop from a plump Southdown. What horrid practices we horti-culturalists are up to in trying to bend Nature out of her track ! Contemplate a Carrot, for instance, or a Drumhead Cabbage! and fancy poor Nature's struggle before she was subdued into such obese types of race. I daresay "J. H." will tell us he never intended to go this length, and we may believe him, but he might have done so on equally good grounds. With much that he says in his suggestive paper no one can disagree.

Carrion borders have been condemmed pretty generally ever since the subject was ventilated so much over the Raby Castle Vine-borders many years ago; but large bunches of Grapes are not necessarly connected with carrion or otherwise too rich borders - this we can testify from our own observation. Your correspondent "J. H." doubts if large bunches are an evidence of cultural skill, but would prefer "medium-sized, large-berried "bunches. Now the connection between large berries and large bunches is so intimate, and the conditions that produce both are so much alike, that we doubt very much if any one could point out the distinction. We could refer to instances where the size of the bunch was entirely due to the size of the berries - increasing the height by nearly a half. There may be a limit to size, beyond which perfect finish cannot be attained; but hitherto this has not been proved. Spongy growths are induced by spongy borders without doubt, and such growths no amount of fire-heat will properly ripen, and such always produce miserable samples; but strong growths that carry their solidity along with them are a different thing, and it is these that produce the large, well-finished bunches we sometimes see; and I cannot see any reason to doubt that such vigour may be retained by proper treatment.

At all events, unless we are to look upon good Grape-growing as an accident altogether, size of bunch will always command its share of admiration as an evidence of cultural skill. J. Simpson.

Large Bunches Of Grapes #1

It is always pleasing to a writer on any subject to know that his productions are taken notice of, and I feel somewhat flattered that a gentleman possessed of the horticultural knowledge of your correspondent, Mr J. Simpson, should have thought my paper on Vine-borders in the May number of the 'Gardener' worthy of his notice. Friendly criticism, when moderately administered, is very encouraging. In the present instance, however, I am almost disposed to find fault with him for his generosity.

Just glance at his bill of fare; here it is: succulent steak from a stall-fed ox, chop from a prime Southdown, big Potatoes, big Turnips, abortive Cauliflower, Carrots and Drumhead Cabbage, with big Pines, big Peaches, Keswick Codlins, and Crabs for dessert. Truly your correspondent's admiration is for big things in general, and it is much to be regretted that he has "not been able hitherto to produce monstrous bunches of Grapes, nor yet what could justly be called very extraordinary bunches as regards size." But no doubt he will do so, and the horticultural world may reasonably expect ere long a surprise in the shape of enormous bunches of Grapes. I admit he would be an unjust judge who would disqualify a big well-finished bunch; but it is only sometimes we see well-finished big bunches; and I maintain, size of bunch receives from many judges an undue share of consideration. Then Grapes are not grown principally for the exhibition-table, and your correspondent is aware when they are grown for that purpose, the smaller bunches are in most instances sacrificed in order that their big brethren may have a better chance of perfecting themselves.

If I was wrong in condemning, as an infringement of the laws of nature, any process by which we force the smaller-bunching varieties of Grape-vines to produce enormous bunches, surely it did not require such a big list of big vegetables and big fruits to prove that I had made a big mistake. The Codling-and-Crab question might have sufficed to settle the point. I will answer it by asking Mr Simpson if he is aware of any process - except the natural one of cross-breeding - by which nature can be bent so far out of her track as to make the Crab assume the size of the Codlin. Will Golding's manure, the extension system, cordon training, or any "horrid practices we horticulturists are up to," lead to that result?

That the hybridiser has assisted nature in giving us improved varieties of vegetables and fruits, both as regards size and flavour, is too well known to need mentioning. But nature received only assistance in a path she already was disposed to go; had she refused her co-operation, art could never have subdued her "into such obese types of race." Does Mr Simpson consider obeseness in fruits and vegetables of more importance than flavour? Is it not a fact that large coarse-grown vegetables are inferior in flavour to those of medium size? It would appear that rabbits - and they are not very particular as to what they eat - reject coarse herbage for that of moderate growth. Does not strong-grown Celery lose the nutty flavour so much prized in that vegetable?

Is it not a violation of natural laws to force, by any cultural process, medium-sized types of race into obese types? Do we not lose some important natural quality for the sake of superabundant fatness, which I take to be the meaning of obeseness? The very word sounds of bad flavour. To come to the big-bunch-of-Grapes question; would Mr Simpson prefer a bunch of Syrian to a bunch of Muscat of Alexandria for dessert? or suppose a Black Hamburg cane 14 feet long, having upon it 30 lb. of Grapes, would he prefer that weight represented by five bunches 6 lb. each, or by ten bunches 3 lb. each? and would he prefer the former to the latter for general purposes? and, keeping in view the longevity and continued fruitfulness of the plants, does he consider the former the better system of cropping? I prefer the latter, for this reason, medium-sized bunches generally swell finer berries both in size and flavour: they keep better than the large bunches; they are more handy when they come to be dished for dessert; they look better on the dining-table; and, finally, the Vines will continue to produce them without becoming exhausted for a longer period.

J. H.

[The question at issue between our correspondents is one of importance, and well worthy of temperate discussion. - Ed].