210 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULIURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ September 4, 1884. 
but rather as an element of justice to the man who works and the 
master who pays ; for it can never be right for the latter to be 
allowed to overlook anything that is necessary to enable him to form 
a sound opinion and arrive at a just decision on any matter affecting 
the reputation of another, in whatever capacity he may serve. 
Aftkr this tolerably long “ think,” but not too long, perhaps, 
considering the wide scope and important nature of the subject, I 
will indulge in a moment's reflection on another matter which is 
led up to by the use of two old-fashioned words in the previous 
paragraph—“ master ” and “ man.'’ 
When I read the “ soft sawder ” contribution of “A. F. M.” on 
page 187 I thought if there was not much of it there was a good 
deal in it. I thought that he must be “one of the old school," 
and withal a “ good old sort,” as not a few of them are, into the 
bargain. I thought he recognised both the vanity and the frailties 
of rich humanity, and the pride, vanity, and want of tact of their 
toiling br-. I had almost written brethren, but as that would 
perhaps savour too much of equality, I will say dependents, for “ all 
men are brethren,” it would seem, only applies when they are in 
church, not in the world._ 
I ALMOST dare venture to think, too, that our friend—for his letter 
is clearly a most friendly one—does not believe in lady helps, kitchen 
artists, and garden superintendents, but prefers the ancient denomina¬ 
tion servants. And -why should anyone who serves object to that 
honourable designation ? for no greater honour can attach to a person 
than to serve loyally and faithfully. 
Then the term “emploj’er" is too pedantic for “A. F. M.” 
But is not a ma-, I mean gentleman who employs another man 
(I am right this time) strictly an employer? I think he is ; but if 
it would please the distinguished individual whom I have the pleasure 
to serve to refer to him as master I would do so with pleasure, because 
he is a good one, but I do not believe he would thank me for it if 
I did. I know very well he is my master, because he pays me my 
sa-, no, wages ; and if I were to say “Thank you, master,'’ and 
he were to respond, “ You are welcome, servant," I think we should 
both of us feel a little queer, to say the least. 
It is not often I look into the dictionary (it would, perhaps, be 
belter if I did), but I have been impelled to see if I could find this 
sentimental problem solved there. What do I find ? Simply that 
a master is just a man. Here are the exact words : “ Master—a man 
who rules, governs, or directs either men or business." Very good. 
Now, I turn to another page and read : “ Employer—one who 
employs, or one who engages or keeps in service." Good again ; 
but how very enlightening ! The truth about this matter seems to 
be expressed in the hypocritical sentiment embodied in the term 
“ soft sawder.’' If, to speak from the dictionary, a man who is 
master likes “ soft sawder,” and pays for it, I think the man who is 
a servant would not be that master’s servant long if he did not 
supply the solatium. The moral is evident. Let each one judge for 
himself, and act accordingly. 
Just a thought on the terms of remuneration for services rendered. 
Clergymen have stipends, lawyers fees, shopmen salaries, soldiers 
pay, and servants wages. This is, to say the least, curious, for all 
are servants who serve and receive in return money, under whatever 
terra it may be conveyed. There is not anything particularly 
extravagant, then, in a gardener receiving a salary ; but I for one 
would prefer good wages to a poor salary any day, and so I think 
would most men, at least I have never known a gardener who would 
not, wdiatever may be the preferences of others who would teach the 
craft common sense and humility. 
On another subject broached by “ A. F. M.” there cannot be two 
opinions by persons who think the matter out. Nothing that grows in a 
garden is the property of the gardener who grows it and is paid for 
his skill for doing so. Even if the gardener raises a Brown's Wonder 
Cabbage or a Green’s Triumph Onion in his emp-, no, master’s 
garden, they are the property of the master, and not of the servant; 
but I should think very little of the master who begrudged either 
Brown or Green the credit of their work ; and, on the other hand, 
I should think a gardener extremely foolish if he did not allow the 
owner his just due in those matters when to do otherwise would be 
displeasing to him, for I know of few things more gratif 3 'ing than 
0 see the owner of a garden take a deep and active interest in it, 
and I cannot help thinking that more would do so if gardeners would 
at times be a little less conceited and unbending. Y’oiir correspondent 
has opened a wide subject for thought, but it is somebody else’s turn 
to think about it now, and I come to a full stop. 
I MEANT thinking about lifting Peach trees last week. I did, in 
fact, think about the subject, as suggested by the article of “ W. B." 
on page 1G4, but had not time to put my thoughts on paper. When 
I read that article I thought the trees referred to were in a highly 
tractable state, and in condition to be lifted with about the same 
impunity as a plant is shifted out of one pot into another. It is 
quite clear that when trees are in that state, with a mat-like mass of 
fibrous roots, that large borders are superfluous ; but then I cannot 
help thinking after all that the borders referred to are either too 
large or too rich, or receive too much water, or the trees would not 
fail because just one year passed without transplanting. 
Time was, I thought, when crops of Peaches, and good crops and 
fine fruit too, could be insured with the regularity of clockwork 
under glass without the trouble of lifting annually. I can think of 
trees wLich never failed to bear the best of fruit without any dis¬ 
turbance of the roots for years together, but the borders were not 
rich. They were firm, contained plenty of calcareous matter, and the 
annual op-dressings induced a network of roots near the surface. 
I CANNOT help thinking that there is something wrong about 
borders when trees have to be lifted every year to check over¬ 
luxuriance, and if I had such borders I should work in a quantity of 
chalk if I could get it, and if not I should get lime and make chalk, 
and also should contrive to make wood ashes ; then with thinly 
training the growths and regulating the wmter supply according to 
circumstances, should expect to have hard medium-sized wood and 
bold buds that would “ stick on,” and with even one pollen-bearing 
tree and a hive of bees not far off: should expect much more fruit 
than the trees could perfect without so much lifting. No doubt 
your correspondent does quite right in lifting his trees, but I 
think there is something in the soil at his command that is not good 
for them, and something out of it too, that they need—in a word, it 
is too rich in nitrogenous and proportionately deficient in calcareous 
and phosphatic matter. Let him think about that aspect of the 
subject, and he will, if he acts accoidingly, perhaps have less wood 
and more Peaches, with less lifting of the trees into the bargain. 
By the way, I thought Mr. Elwes’ report of the International 
Exhibition and Botanical Congress at St. Petersburgh a model in its 
wa}L There appeared to be little or nothing to “ report,” and he 
said so ; but I thought he very adroitlj" took advantage of his 
opportunity in suggesting to the Science and Art Department that 
horticulture and its interests may possibly be worth some slight 
official recognition, and that “ if anything like the same consideration 
and assistance were given by the Government to the Fisheries and 
Health Exhibition there would be something to “ report." There 
would be something, I think, that would astonish the world and 
benefit its commerce, that would reveal the magnitude of the horti¬ 
cultural industry, and show that it is greater in England than in any 
nation on the face of the earth, and yet it is practically unrecognised. 
I cannot think any further on this subject now, and conclude with 
“ Well done, Mr. Elwes." _ 
“C. W." appears to have satisfied himself by experiments that 
aerial roots on Vines are induced more by a humid atmosphere than 
sluggish action of the roots in the soil. I think he is right ; at any 
rate I have seen aerial roots hanging from Vines in remarkable pro¬ 
fusion when the border was a veritable network of active roots, and 
I never saw finer Black Hamburgh Grapes than were produced 
under the steaming treatment that was accorded when the fruit was 
swelling ; but I have seen Vines innumerable with not half the 
feeding roots in the border, yet quite without aerial roots when a 
comparatively dry atmosphere has been maintained ; and I do not 
think that roots from the stems do any harm whatever, nor indicate 
exhausted Vines, but rather the contrary. 
Mr. Abbey derives comfort from the dry weather, inasmuch as 
it will conduce to the fruitfulness of trees I think it can hardly 
be otherwise ; and I think also that “Non-Believer” may possibly 
have the pleasure of seeing plenty of Apple and Pear blossom next 
spring on the growths of the present summer. I know I shall if I 
live, for I can see the fruit buds forming now ; and, in passing, may 
I say that I hardly think Mr. Waiting shows his authority as a judge 
and lecturer on “style" in writing in his letter on page 184? 
Perhaps neither he, nor I, nor “ Non-Believer ” would be any the 
worse if we could remember those stinging lines, of Burns ; “ Oh 
w'ad some power the gif tie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us,” 
for I think we all need polishing. 
