The English gardening periodicals are going over a question, long ago settled we think by their American brethren, whether or not pruning promotes vigor. One of the best affirmative writers puts his argument in this way:

"Supposing twelve pigs are feeding out of one trough, and eleven of them are removed or killed, would there not be many times more food for the one pig left, though nothing more were put in the trough? The illustration may not be either elegant or absolutely correct, but it is near enough for the purpose. The pruner, by reducing the buds in a wholesale way, increases the supplies for the few left, and as these ultimately appropriate the whole to their own use, they, of necessity, are better fed and become more vigorous in consequence of the reduction of mouths".

We have found in our country that the food re-fened to, is stored up in the wood of the tree or shrub, and so far as that goes, the illustration holds good. For that particular growing season, there is a vigorous push. Every body knows this.

But the strong point on the other side is, that an innumerable number of roots die after a severe pruning of the branches, and the permanent vigor of the tree is seriously checked. We have only to look at the "topped " street tree, and the street tree "untopped;" the willow trunk when cut for osiers, and the one left to grow; the Osage orange or other tree in a regularly pruned hedge, and the Osage left to grow up without pruning; any one can see after a few years, that the unpruned trees make trunks of double the size of the pruned ones, and can have no hesitation in deciding that pruning is opposed to vigor, in the full meaning of the term. The temporary strength of the illustration has never been doubted.