140 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ Angnst 14, 1884. 
We are wrong in letting weeds grow because we cannot help 
it. Wrong because we cut our CauHBowera instead of pulling 
them, like pulling Apples or Gooseberries. Wrong in letting 
Lettuces run to seed, even if the cook wants succulent stems for 
preserving. Wrong in waiting for rain for planting, and wrong 
if we do not wait. Wrong if we raise too many plants, and 
wrong if we have none to plant when the ground is ready. I 
have never being able to determine bow many wrongs make 
one right, and I thought it would not have been amiss if this 
“ Old Gardener ’’ had solved that old problem for the benefit of 
the old and young readers of this Journal. 
But I must not forget that we are wrong in another thing—■ 
training gardeners. 1 thought when I read the list—a negative 
list it IS true, of the delinquencies of the craft, that it was just 
a little curious that if there are so many untrained gardeners 
picking the plums from the pudding that it should be such a 
great “mistake” for the best men in the ranks to train others 
to follow in their footsteps, for it is presumably only the best who 
can take apprentices, and—is this the “ rub ” I wonder?—who get 
a premium ^ ith them. _ 
W HiLE I think there is a great deal of truth in the suggestion 
that gardeners are being manufactured too freely and in advance 
of the increasing wealth of the country, by which alone they can 
be supported, it is very doubtful if a less number were trained 
by skilled men in the best gardens that any real improvement 
would follow, for the reason that the door would be opened 
wider for those spurious gardeners who are ever seeking oppor¬ 
tunities for elbowing themselves in, and the more there are of 
these the more the status of the craft wdll be lowered, and emo¬ 
luments would almost inevitably fall in the same proportion. 
Let it not be supposed that I am animated by any personal 
motives in these observations, such as seeking an excuse for 
taking fees from young men. This is not so, for although I have 
helped to make a few' gardeners, it has never been the custom in 
the establishments in which they served to charge any fees 
whatever. 
I HAVE always thought that this is an employer’s rather than 
a gardener’s question. When gardeners are permitted to take 
fees with pupils, these fees are regarded as part of the gardener’s 
salary: that is to say, he is paid so much less than if there vs'ere 
no fees, and we thus arrive at the somewhat strange fact that 
the young men in question really contribute what is to them a 
no small moiety towards the keeping of the gardens of the 
wealthy. I cannot help thinking, if this subject was well con¬ 
sidered, that noblemen and gentlemen would make the (to them) 
small addition to their gardeneis’ wages that the apprentices 
contribute, and thus abolish fees altogether. It is certain, if 
this were done, it would be better for all, for the gardener w'ould 
then be under no obligation to keep a man if he was not worthy, 
and had not great aptitude for his calling, and was not diligent 
in his work. 
I HAV'E been led into this subject by the thought that an 
“ Old Gardener ” approached a question that he was too diffident 
to examine fully; and here let me say in all seriousness, that 
although 1 have commented freely upon w'hat I fancied was per¬ 
ceivable between the lines of the article under notice, I still 
thank your correspondent most cordially for a communication 
that may be studied with advantage by all. 
Undoubtedly the irext most noteworthy article in your last 
issue is that supplied by an “ Employer ” on gai’deirers exhibiting. 
I thought when 1 read that admirable paper that such a one 
had never come under my notice in the gardening press. If an 
“ Employer s ” reasoning is not sound it will be well if someone 
wi;l point out the weakness of his arguments. On every point 
save one it appears to me that he is in an impregnable position, 
and the exceptioiral point is debateable—namely, that light 
cropping necessarily results in large produce. In instances 
iirnumerable the poorest of Grapes, Melons, and all other fruits 
save been seen where the crops were of the lightest; while, on 
the_ contrary, the very finest of examples have been part of 
decidedly heavy crops. The question is one of high culture 
solely; and the man who wins prizes in good competition simply 
shows that he is a good cultivator-, and in nine cases out of ten 
Iris crops “at home” ar-e decidedly heavier than those who have 
not fruit of anything like e:[ual mer it. 
^ Another and highly important rrratter is introduced by 
“Employer”—namely, quality size as the pr-imary merit. 
Quality, in my opinion, is by far the more important element; 
and in the case of fruit, for example, the test of merit should be 
this—whether this large birrrcb of Grapes or huge Pine or Melon, 
but neither of them quite ripe and of inferior kavour, worrld be 
more acceptable in a high-class dessert than smaller exarrrples 
perfect in finish and markedly superior, as tested by the palate. 
If I were judging I should act on the latter principle and let the 
critics have their fling._ 
In the case of “ specimen ” j)lants, the best judges never 
overlook quality, and they would make a serious mistake if they 
did. They will not, nor ought not to hesitate in glvdng premier 
honours to specimens, say, 3 feet in diameter, if they are in 
superior condition as regards culture to otbers of twice the size. 
As “Employer” so tritely remarks, “size means generally age 
or room ”—namely, that “ the plant has lived several years and 
that the owner has a house large enough to hold it.” Still, we 
occasionally see products honoured because they are large and 
little else, but judges do not honour themselves by such verdicts. 
Then tlie greed of exhibitors is referred to in the same signi¬ 
ficant article. It is this “ greed ” that has caused many owners 
of gardens to prohibit showing altogether. The immoderation 
of gardeners in scraping together everything they could—making 
the whole routine of practice subservient to the show day, practi¬ 
cally clearing the garden with the object of getting every possible 
prize in every possible class, showing neither consideration 
towards employers nor mercy towards competitors with humbler 
means—it is this kind of showing that sooner or later results in 
no showing at all from the gardens in which such extreme and 
unthoughtful practices have been indulged in; and also induces— 
and who can wonder at it ?—the owners of other gardens to take 
their stand against exhibiting. Other thoughts ai-ise in connec¬ 
tion with this important subject, but they must at present be 
snppressed. _ 
“We are all too much afraid of cutting and pruning trees in 
summer,” writes a gardener on page 114. 1 think not quite “ all ” 
are afraid of the practice, but the vast majority of persons are. 
Time is showing, as it must show, that the more of summer and 
the less of winter pruning is done the more fruitful ai-e the trees, 
whatever they are, and in whatever form grovn. It cannot be 
too widely known that branches may be removed from fruit 
trees in summer, and shoots thinned out to any required extent 
quite as safely as in the winter. Now is the time for pruning to 
be done effectively. There should be no delay. At no other 
time can such an accurate judgment be formed as to the proper 
distances for securing the growths. Let them be so disposed 
that the sun and air can act as directly as possible on the foliage, 
and if fruit buds do not follow there will bo “something wrong 
at the roots.” 
“A. J. B.” v/ishes to know the opinions of correspondents 
generally, and that of Mr. Iggulden particulai-ly, relative to the 
merits of Muscat Troveren and the two Black Muscat Grapes 
named on page 114. As to the two blacks, they are so much 
alike in my eyes that I cannot tell “ t’other from which,” and if 
I taste them I am in the same difficulty. I have, however, never 
grown them side by side, because I never thought it worth while 
having more than one rod of this Grape under whatever name 
it was offered. As to the Muscat Troveren, I think it is a very 
good Frontignan Grape. I have never seen it win a prize in 
competition with Muscat of Alexandria, and I do not think I c ver 
shall, unless the latter is very bad and the former better than I 
have yet seen it. The Muscat Troveren is rich in flavour and 
large for a Frontignan, but it bears no comparison in size of 
bunch and berry, nor of productiveness, with the best of all white 
G rapes, Muscat of Alexandria. 
Mr. Burton evidently grows splendid Rose leaves, but the 
condition of his bushes is due, I think, to something besides 
early pruning. The thinning-out of the wood of Roses in 
autumn, cutting away as much as the weak and the old and 
leaving the strong and young shoots, is the best of all n ethods 
of getting fine foliage, and if the pruning is not too close, of 
fine blooms too; but if very strong gi-owths are shortened 
severely there will be fine leaves only. Your correspondent 
thinks the “ middle or end of March quite late enough for 
pruning even so far north ” as V estmoreland. As to this, I am 
of opinion that the danger of early prunirg is greater in the 
south than in the north, but the end of March is not very early 
for pruning anywhere. 
Mr. Murphy advances what he calls his “ last word ” on 
A. K. Williams Rose. I hope it is not his last word. I think 
