A. J. R., (Middleborough, Mass.) you cannot do better than follow Mr. Rivers' plan, detailed in vol. 6, page 17, ex-cept that we recommend you to build the house higher so as to avoid the sunken walk; yon will find it more convenient; and we advise you to board both sides of the posts as recommended in the note to page 18, of the article referred to ; this will enable you to make the house more useful during winter, because if you take the vines down from the rafters and cover them up, you may then keep out the frost by the stove, and use the house for plants or any other purpose that does not require a high temperature. As to the borders, read Mr. Buist's articles in vol. 5, page 86, and Mr. Chorlton's in the present volume, page 94, both very judiciously written by men who thoroughly understand the subject, and the material details in which our own experience for many years fully confirms. Do not aim at too many varieties in a house the size you name. The Black Hamburgh, the Victoria, the Grizzly Fontignac, and the Muscat will be ample; but plant most of the first named.

Grape Houses 70053Grape Houses 70054Grape Houses 70055

Grape Houses #1

My remarks in favor of curvilinear roofs, do not appear to have had much influence with Mr. Saunders; but as I do not consider them quite disproved by his last communication, I have a short rejoinder to make respecting two or three points in his article. I have no desire or intention, however, of embroiling myself, in a controversy, concerning what many regard as a mere matter of taste and opinion, particularly as there is so little probability of either party being converted.

Mr. Saunders' assertion that grapes can be grown as well and easily, under a straight, as a curved roof, I do not gainsay, as his experience is much more extensive than my own; but some other of his arguments I shall. not so readily admit.

Regarding the cost, the next most important point, he states that the necessary additional expense of a curvilinear roof is "over thirty per cent." Now I am informed by a practical mechanic, who has devoted much time and study to this subject, and is engaged in erecting such structures, that he is willing to contract to build curvilinear houses at an advance of ten per cent upon Mr. Saunders' prices for angular ones, the finish to be, in every respect, equally good.

I differ from Mr. Saunders in regard to the deficiency of architectural beauty and proportion of which he speaks. In giving the dimensions of a curvilinear house, he allows but two feet for the height of the front wall, which I consider a quite too low base for either a curveal or straight rafter to rest upon, and see no good reason for restricting it to that height. Did such a necessity exist in either instance, I should think that his objection would apply with equal force to both cases.

As to "the difficulty of equalizing the temperature" in "narrow, high houses," 1 do not consider it necessary that a curvilinear roof should be much higher in proportion to the width than an inclined one. That they are not unfrequently constructed in that manner is not to be denied, and Mr. Saunders will doubtless admit that he has seen " narrow, high houses" with right lined roofs, but my remarks (and 1 presume also those of Mr. Saunders,) are not intended to apply to either extreme, but to the most approved form of each class.

Mr. Saunders deserves some credit for the ingenuity with which he equalizes the training surface, by considering the upright glass of the one construction as a part of the roof, and assuming that none exists in the other. It is the case however, in most of the curvilinear houses that I have observed, that a large part of the front - usually from one and a half to two feet - consists of glass, affording nearly the same amount of upright surface as in the former instance.

Like Mr. Saunders, my views of the subject remain unchanged, but if they are erroneous, I have no constitutional objections to being convinced. If that event should happen, I shall not fail to make it manifest - John B. Eaton.