Whenever a man sets out to instruct his fellows, in gardening or anything else, if he fail to practice as he preaches then he is certainly deserving of the sharpest criticism; so that your correspondent, "J. B.," of Fredericton, N. B., is perfectly justified in asking why I now use drainage in flower pots, when in Practical Floriculture (which I wrote in 1868), without qualification, and rather dogmatically, I denounced the practice. That is now nearly eighteen years ago, and I frankly admit that the larger experience of the intervening years has convinced me that such a sweeping condemnation of this method of pot drainage was an error, which I have, to some extent, atoned for in some of my more recent works. In the article on " Drainage," in Garden and Farm Topics, published in 1884, I use the following words:

"Many years ago, in some of my first writings on the subject of drainage in pots, I admit to having taken rather too radical grounds against the practice, because, in those days, everybody almost used to 'crock' or drain the very smallest pots. The absurdity of this soon became apparent to me, as I found that, with hardly an exception, for plants in pots up to the size of four inches, it was worse than useless to drain; and as all my practice up to that time had been with pots but little larger than four inches, I rather rashly jumped to the conclusion that in our warm, dry atmosphere, the European practice of crocking all sizes of flower pots, might be wholly dispensed with. But added experience showed that even in our dry atmosphere, flower pots of four inches in diameter and upwards, in which are grown roses or other plants whose roots are sensitive to moisture, had better be crocked or drained. It is not pleasant to admit an error, particularly when promulgated in print for the 'instruction' of others; but it is better to make what amend is possible by making the acknowledgment, than to continue to stick to opinions before given, when there is reason to believe that these were formed in error".

Still, we do comparatively little crocking or draining of pots. With ninety-nine hundredths of our stock, whether grown in large or small pots, no drainage whatever is used. But in new roses, or other plants where the best growth is wanted in the shortest time, we now believe it is best to use drainage; but when it is done at all it must be done thoroughly. The mere placing a piece of broken potsherd in the bottom of the pot, I believe to be of no benefit whatever. When we now drain at all, we let the drainage occupy one-third of the depth of the pot, be it large or small, although we never use it in less than three-inch size and rarely then. We first use a piece large enough to cover the hole in the bottom of the pot, and then fill over this with a size varying according to the size of the pot, from the size of peas to as large as broad beans, and then, above all, if the drainage is to be of any value, we cover over this with sphagnum, or, what is better, the thready part of cocoanut fibre, so as to completely prevent the soil washing down among the drainage. This complete drainage not only allows the water to pass off, but, what is of equally great importance it admits the air to the roots.

The experience of the past few years has caused many of us to change our opinions very radically on this subject. Less than ten years ago the best rose-growers, when bedding their roses on benches, used eight and nine inches of soil, placed on ordinary board benches, with little provision for drainage. Now the plan is to use only about four inches of soil, placed on sparred benches, made with weather strip three inches wide, leaving a space of nearly one inch between, to admit the water to pass off as quickly as it is poured on; and although roses were often grown well by the old method, yet, it cannot be denied that better results are obtained from the shallow benches, through which the water passes off at once.

Jersey City Heights, N. J., December, 1885.