1873.] UNDER-GARDENERS. 129 



turning-point of Lis existence? whereas, in these " confidential cliaracters," lie 

 blames the world for not appreciating his abilities, instead of thinking for a 

 moment that the blame lies on himself. J. S.'s concluding remarks are rather 

 ' ' staggering. " We have been in one or two of the midland counties of Eng- 

 land, and must say that there must be a great reformation since that time if 

 the civility of the natives much exceeds that of the Scotch. J. S. must be 

 labouring under a hallucination when he states that young men going to Eng- 

 land (after serving an apprenticeship in a "gentleman's " garden, even in Scot- 

 land) would have any doubts about addressing a superior. J. S. should bear 

 in mind tha there is a limit even to civility — any person going beyond which, in 

 our opinion, appears ridiculous. 



In conclusion, we agree with our Editor's remark that journeymen are not 

 overpaid at 1 7s. per week, even with the perquisites they generally get. But 

 there is no allowance made for the time they are in a nursery, where they are 

 anything but overpaid ; and in such a season as this there will be little else 

 than broken time. Caledonicus. 



[We are at a loss to understand how a head-gardener can direct the proper 

 management of a garden establishment without teaching his subordinates. — Ed.] 



Allow me to say a few words on the remarks made in reference to under-garden- 

 ers, by J. S., in your January issue, which I heartily endorse. I do not mean to 

 go over the ground again, but rather wish to supplement him, where, according 

 to my mind, he stopped short. He says, and says truly, that to attempt to teach 

 some youths is like throwing pearls before swine ; and further on, something to 

 the effect that permanent labourers are generally to be preferred to journeymen- 

 gardeners. I agree with him entirely, so far as my experience goes. Now, I ask 

 what he did not ask. Who is to blame ? I think it -a disgrace to the profession 

 that, in this nineteenth century, it should be said that common garden-labourers 

 are better qualified for the general work of a garden than men who call them- 

 selves gardeners. Who is to blame ? Without hesitation I answer, head-gar- 

 deners. 



How can it be otherwise ? When a lot of young men are engaged, the first 

 question they generally ask is, "What's the pay? " and are generally answered, 

 14s. 15s. or 18s. per week, as the case may be. Thus, at the very outset, before 

 the head-gardener can })ossibly know who are worth the money and who are not, 

 each and all are assured of what amount they are to receive. Some of them are 

 possibly underpaid, and some are overpaid — yes, overpaid, for many professed 

 gardeners are not worth half what they receive. 



[This applies to all classes, as well as to gardeners.— Ed.] 



Instead of promising men a certain pay, Avhether they are worth it or not, why 

 not state that they will be paid according to ability ? As the general system is 

 at present, every encouragement is given to men of indolent habits to practise 

 those habits ; while those who are really in earnest to do their duty efficiently 

 and expeditiously, are kept in check by the knowledge that it is all one whether 

 they trifle their time or not, so far as present reward is concerned. I have often 

 known men, when remonstrated with on their careless way of doing things by 

 their fellow-labourer or foreman, turn round and tell them that they got as much 

 thanks and pay, and would get as good a character when they left, as those who 



I 



