It may not be inappropriate at the present season, when the subject is being treated of at length in the 'Gardener,' to make a few remarks on the materials in use for training wall-trees. This part of the subject which I have chosen may no doubt appear to many to be somewhat trivial, but nevertheless it is one which requires a little consideration, as it involves a question of time and labour, two things of which we cannot be too economical. On this very subject I have many a time wondered how many far-seeing men, who are often just hard enough pinched to make ends meet as regards labour, could waste several months in getting done with the training of their wall-fruit, when it might almost have been done in as many weeks. In many establishments, and more particularly in the southern portion of the kingdom, when the walls are being built, and while the mortar is yet soft, studs are pushed into it with the lines of brick, at perhaps a foot distant from each other, those in one line being alternate with those in the next, and so on. Two reasons are generally assigned for their use: first, as a preventive against harbouring insect-vermin about the trees; and again, as having a more tidy appearance than nails and shreds.

I must confess that I am rather sceptical on both points, at least so far as experience has hitherto taught me to believe; and on comparison of the two systems, I should without hesitation give my vote in favour of the nails. In the first place, the studs put in at first are always insufficient for their purpose, at least in training young or pliable wood. The branches must not be trained along the line of studs, or a likely consequence would be that the wood will get grown about them, if tied tightly; and if tied loosely, they cannot be close to the wall, and the winds would be liable to throw them loose altogether. The ties being done with matting, are not to be depended on for bearing much strain the second year. As the branches are taken between the two rows of studs, therefore each tie is about 4 inches in length; and if the piece of matting used be at all stout, it will in my opinion be more unsightly than a neat shred, which can be nailed close to the branch, and yet not be so tight as to cut into it during its growth.

Stand a few yards in front of a wall done in this fashion, and from which a tree has just been taken; extra studs have been put in from time to time, and of course these cannot be driven deep, not often one-third of their length; well, there they are, each head of them three times the size of a nail-head. Then they cannot be drawn well. It is easy to give a nail a tap on the head, give a twist and draw it out; but try a lot of studs in the same way, if you don't smash the eye you break it off short with the wall, or if you draw it, out comes half an inch or even more of the lime along with it. Sometimes you can draw, without much breakage, some of the extra-strong sorts, but these require no pointing out to show their unloveliness. On calculating the difference of the two pieces of metal, you will find that to do a tree properly, about thrice the time is required to do it with the studs; and take into account the extra labour and cost, there will remain a pretty round balance in favour of the nail. Every nail can be drawn from a piece of blank wall, and come again into use; with studs, the originals must remain while the wall lasts - a continual eyesore where not filled up - and of the rest the one-half will be useless by breakage.

As for the harbouring of insects, I have never yet seen the difference, so I think that may go for nothing.

But on looking over, I find that I have said a great deal on a very small subject - not too much, however; and I trust it may have the consideration of all gardeners, to whom time and labour are important objects. R. S.