What I want to show is, that the balance struck between the two systems is unwarrantable, unfair, and calculated to mislead.

In every one of the instances where monster Vines are held up as patterns of cultivation, they have an unlimited run in congenial soil, and that in the natural directions of outwards and onwards. Now, apart from all other considerations, it appears to me very questionable whether - in a position where the natural soil is adverse, and the border has to be artificially formed, and, as a consequence of position and dearth of soil, restricted, say, to a parallelogram 30 feet by 60 feet - any one of these large Vines pointed to would, at this date, have been in the same vigour and fruitful condition in a circumscribed artificial border, especially when denied progress in a direct contrary line to the top growth. Their doing well for so long a time, in my opinion, depends on their roots having unlimited room in a soil and subsoil naturally suited to the Vine. And such being the case, it is simply ridiculous to preach this extension system for universal practice. Besides, has it been proved that single-rods, 20 feet long, planted 4 feet apart, managed on the spur system, and not allowed to bear fruit out of proportion to the space occupied by the foliage, would not survive and do well, all other circumstances in soil and root-scope being equal, for a similarly lengthened period 1 What of the longevity of the old restricted Vine-stools on the Continent 1

It has not been advanced - for a wonder - that Vines of such size, with their roots occupying, it may be, a paddock, are suitable for any other purpose than ripening their crops, almost without any fire-heat, in August and September; while it is a well-known fact that a vast proportion of single-rod Vines are started into growth under the most artificial conditions in the dead of winter. More than this, it is a well-known fact that such is the character of the natural soil of a vast number of gardens, that it would be a misuse of hothouse room to plant Vines without preparing both artificial sites and soils for their growth. This fact renders unlimited root-extension impossible, so that the borders under such circumstances are soon traversed, outwardly especially, by the roots; and I cannot suppose that such limited scope is any more calculated for the long maintenance of a monster Vine than for smaller ones, both of which may, however, by good surface-management, live a long time, and bear fine Grapes, if not forced very early.

But apart from the scope afforded to roots, if the single-rod Vines, planted 4 feet apart, were allowed to bear fruit in proportion to the foliage, what quantity will they make every year in that space ? I do not see that much is gained by allowing the Vines to make three rods instead of one, and training them 2 feet and even 18 inches apart, as is so often met with; while, if you let the single 20-feet long rod have 4 feet of space and unlimited run in good soil, why should it not live as long as the monster Vine ? We are told that Mr Meredith trains his rods at 2 feet apart. I have never seen his Vines; but this I will predict, that if he persists in training them so close, whether otherwise restricted or extended, his crops will go back. He may, over his vast extent of glass, be able to cut here and there, near the top, show bunches; but with such thick crowded training, his general crop will not continue equal to what he has produced. Vines at 3, and especially 4, feet apart will make far more permanent Vines, and continue to yield finer crops, than when in closer quarters.

In this I am not referring to sensational Grape-growing, now made so much of, but to good substantial family cropping, which is incompatible with sensational Grape-growing.

My advice is, to avoid the one- or two-Vine system in a vinery where the border is strictly artificial, the soil and subsoil unfavourable, and where circumstances do not admit of a border extension to the front, so as to keep pace with the onward route of the roots consequent on a large top-development. Under such circumstances a greater number of smaller Vines will take more equable possession of the nutriment afforded by a limited area, and are not so likely to go beyond it into the deleterious surroundings, as one large Vine or two would be likely to do. Under different circumstances, nothing can be said against the extension system.

The magnesian-limestone question is one regarding which I cannot say I have any settled conviction. This much I can say, from experience in Vine-border making in different parts of the country, that some soils which, to appearance, are much alike, have very different effects on the growth of the Vine. On the chalk of Buckinghamshire I found Vines make splendid growths, and yield equally fine Grapes. In Wales I have seen wonderful crops of Grapes where the water was so impregnated with lime that the Grapes, if syringed with it, became as if whitewashed. In that soil the Vines and bunches were altogether splendid, grown in Pine-pits, a rod to each rafter. I have had Vines thrive remarkably well, and yield Grapes of unsurpassed quality (by this I do not mean mere size), in soil where the Rhododendron and the Heath died out because of the presence of lime in the soil. Moreover, the water with which the Vines were constantly watered was so full of lime that it ate through lead cisterns in a very short time, and literally killed Azaleas, Camellias, etc.; but I never could detect that it injured the Vines, except whitening the foliage and fruit if syringed with it.

The strongest pot-Vines I ever grew were in this lime-impregnated soil and water, and Muscats especially seemed to colour to a very high degree. The crops produced were not of the sensational but family character - moderate, compact bunches in large quantities.

Since coming here, I have observed that on the red soil, or the red sandstone (much the same as the soil about Dunbar in East Lothian), the Vine grows with wonderful vigour. The Muscat Hambro', on its own roots, grows with great vigour in a small vinery at Eccles; and so do Muscats and other Vines, all bearing wonderful bunches in this red soil. I planted some Golden Champion and Tynningham Muscats last year in a low house (very unsuitable for Grapes), which made growths that astonished me for vigour and solidity. One Vine, struck from an eye and planted in April, was left to grow unrestricted, and it made 36 feet of main stem, strong wood; and the others would have done the same, had they not been handled with an object. The loam is rather of a reddish colour, and somewhat strong. The influence of soils is doubtless great, but my experience and observation would lead me to decide for the red sandstone to produce vigorous Vines.

As to the pruning by the cut-to-the-best-bud system - that is, leaving two, three, or four eyes, as the case may be, in preference to spurring back to one bud - I think there is a phase of this question which has not been brought prominently forward. The two- or three-bud system produces, perhaps, a bigger, at least a longer, bunch; but that is not proving that it produces a better or more serviceable bunch, which is the real question. No good Grape-grower is ever afraid to spur back good Vines to a single eye close home to the main stem. It is a well-known fact that the ripening process of the wood begins at the base of the young shoot, and finishes upwards to the extremity; and that, in pruning the shoot within an inch or so of the main stem, the wood is found harder and with much less pith than three or four buds farther up along the growth. My experience has been - for I have tested it over and over again - that the long spur yields a bigger and less compact bunch, more likely to shank than does the hard wood closer home, which yields a more compact, neat, and serviceable bunch, and generally with bigger berries and stiffer foot-stalks than the bigger buds farther up the shoot. Now I hold it to be wrong to judge of the produce of a Vine by the size of bunch.

The aim of the family Grape-grower is fine berries, and compact, moderate-sized bunches in great numbers. Tested by family usefulness, and, commercially, by the demand of the market, the smaller and compact bunch takes precedence of the biggest bunch; besides, employers soon tire of sensational Grape-growing to the tune of 6 or 8 bunches to a 16 or 20 feet rafter. If serviceable bunches are wanted, I advise to prune back to one eye; if larger, looser, and less serviceable bunches are wanted, take them from the fourth or fifth bud.

The question as to whether the root or top growth of Vines commences first (looked at as coming merely within the range of physiology) may not be of vast moment to the practitioner, although all that is connected with plant life bears directly on practical horticulture. Most experienced Vine-growers will agree that the growth of root or branch takes precedence the one of the other, according to circumstances. The local application of heat - the great moving power in the growth of plants - in most cases settles that. It is a point I have narrowly watched in the case of pot-Vines, and have always found that a Vine not plunged in bottom-heat, but placed on a shelf in a hothouse, will make top-growth before new growth takes place at the root; but, plunged in bottom-heat, and the top kept cool, young roots are produced first. Vines shaken out and planted in the ordinary way, I have invariably found to make top-growth to a certain extent rapidly, then halt till young feeders were formed, when the top starts at an accelerated pace; and I believe this is, in the majority of cases, the order of nature.

The question that most concerns practical gardeners appears to me to be, whether an effort should be made to get root-growth prior to top-growth 1 In forcing, the great advantage of bottom-heat consists in its setting the fluids stored up in the Vine speedily in motion, and in producing root-growth sooner than it takes place in an unheated border. The best way of applying this bottom-heat to Vines seems to be a disputed point. Yet it seems strange it should be so, as, in its application to other plants, there seems little difference of opinion as to the propriety of applying it from below by hot-water pipes. To apply it from above, seems to me very much like putting a boiler below the fire to get most heat from the fire. D. T.