March 9, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND' COTTAGE GARDENER. 
191 
THE RAILWAYS AND THE 
PUBLIC. 
-X- 
P OWERFUL as is the great railway organisation, there is not 
wanting evidence that the British public is still more power¬ 
ful. The proposed rates for merchandise as determined by the 
concerted action of the companies cannot be sustained, and there is 
a general tendency to return to the old scale, coupled with the 
repayment by the companies of what may be called the excess 
charges that have been enforced. If it had been possible for the 
higher rates to be maintained the effect would have been disast''0U3, 
and shareholders must have eventually suffered ; but the great 
community of producers would have suffered the first and the 
most, while the prices of goods to consumers must have been 
materially enhanced. The ultimate effect of the new changes 
would have amounted to a tax on food, and as no Government is 
strong enough to impose any such tax, even if disposed, it was 
not to be expected that the public would allow any trade 
organisation, however powerful, to do so ; and hence the whole 
country, so to say, rose in rebellion at what was felt to be an 
unbearable imposition. 
The new rates would have had a ruinous effect on farmers, and 
especially on market gardeners, and the case made out by the 
recent deputation of the latter to the Board of Trade was un- 
mistakeable. The facts stated by Messrs. Berry, Poupart, Monro, 
and others were of the most crushing character, and such as no 
Government could ignore. When it is made clear that the 
difference between the old rates and the new for certain garden 
produce would amount to an increased rental of £5 an acre, the 
impossibility of the proposed charges is too obvious for argument, 
and a modification of recent rates becomes imperative. 
The subsequent Parliamentary action, in which Sir A. Rollit 
and Sir James Whitehead figured prominently, and the result of 
their presentation of the case, leave no room for doubt that the 
new rates, broadly speaking, must go. It is due to Sir James 
Whitehead that his services be acknowledged. In and out of 
Parliament he has laboured incessantly in the public interest on 
the question of railway charges, and his undoubted ability and 
great tenacity have contributed largely to the results which have 
been so far achieved, but more remains to be done till the matter is 
placed on a perfectly satisfactory basis. 
It is quite enough, in fact a great deal too much, that the 
preferential charges by which French and Dutch producers can 
place their goods in our markets at lower rates than Kentish and 
Essex growers are allowed ; this, we say, is quite enough without 
further impositions being made that amount to a tax on home 
industries and the correlative crippling of trade. The railway 
companies have made a mistake. The practically formed syndicate 
is breaking up, shareholders will have to pay for the error in 
judgment in the form of reduced dividends, and the only hope for 
an increase of these rates is the expansion of trade, and clearly 
this cannot be developed by prohibitive rates for merchandise. 
As the riches of the railways have been mainly provided by the 
lowest scale of passenger fares, paid by the million of travellers, 
it may be hoped a reduction of terms for small consignments will 
be effected with the object of increasing the number of such 
consignments to the material advantage of producers and carriers. 
It is in that way prosperity lies, the opposite leading to stagnation 
and national discontent. 
No. 663. — VoL. XXVI., Third Series. 
LAND AND ESTATE DECADENCE. 
AN IMPEACHMENT. 
I HAVE received the following letter from one of the best 
of British cultivators and estate managers. It is so trenchant 
and suggestive that the public who are interested in land cultiva¬ 
tion ought to have the opportunity of reading it. The writer 
of the letter gives utterance to home truths in no hesitating 
manner, and as he is not a young enthusiast, but has had half 
a century’s experience in land improvement, in which he has 
successfully shared, he is entitled to be listened to on that account. 
He is earnest in the desire to see the gardeners of the future 
in the fullest degree competent, and several of his pupils worthily 
occupy responsible positions. He rebukes the frivolity of those 
heirs to estates who pay little or no attention to their improvement, 
but, on the contrary, impoverish them by indulging in the luxuries 
of life. He condemns the absurd practice of appointing agents 
who are necessarily ignorant on subjects which are the root and 
basis of successful management. He deplores the decadence of 
old families, and is deeply concerned that so many gardens are 
being ruined that dogs may be pampered and sport flourish. More 
in anger than in pity does he look facts in the face—facts, too, that 
he feels are of vital importance as affecting the best destinies of 
the nation. The letter was not written for publication. It is, 
perhaps, all the better on that account, and the great majority of 
the readers of the Journal of Horticulture will, I think, agree that 
it is worthy of a better fate than the waste paper basket ; and at 
least they shall have a chance of judging. Here it is :— 
“ Your ‘ Primer ’ is bound to be useful to the million if they 
will read and digest. Would that young gardeners, as a class, 
would study the natural sciences that bear directly on horticulture. 
Both in agriculture and horticulture the state of matters in this 
respect, from the proprietor and his estate agent downward, is 
deplorable. I am certain if ten of our estate agents were asked 
what effect caustic lime has on land, the answer of nine would be 
a blank stare ! 
“ In the first place, the heirs to estates are taught everything 
and anything but estate management, and in the majority of cases 
the management falls into the hands of a lawyer or half-pay captain. 
Is it any wonder the land interest is depressed ? The marvel 
would be in these times if it were not. Fancy any of our large 
ship-building yards or any mercantile affair managed with as little 
knowledge scientifically of their business as agriculture is managed. 
What would be the result ? 
“ The landowners are in many cases in difficulties. If they had 
made their land a study and lived reasonably they might have had 
splendid bank accounts, whereas they have not a peg to stand on. 
Gather up the rents, and go and squander them on all sorts of 
things but estate improvement ! It takes £4,000,000 a year to keep 
up the hunting establishments of Britain, and what good does it 
do ? The last thing to be reduced are the kennels and keepers, and 
useless horseflesh, 
“ I am grieved to see our fine old aristocratic gardens and estates 
in such a plight as they are in so many instances falling into. Want 
of order and high culture prevail where once the reverse ruled. 
Doubtless the masses are being reached by horticulture and its 
products as they never were before, and that is a blessing ; but 
for what have we to thank the so-called managers of many 
estates ? ” 
Though I know there are many gratifying exceptions to the 
conditions indicated in the above letter, the facts set forth cannot 
easily be refuted. There are prudent proprietors of estates who 
devote their attention to improvement, and there are competent 
and diligent managers, but all the same it is deplorable to note the 
spendthrifts in high places, who bring ruin to estates and misery to 
districts; and it is unfortunately true that persons are entrusted 
with the management of property whose training has been on 
wholly different lines, and whose tastes lean in the direction of 
sport rather than productiveness. Not a few of the most successful 
stewards and directors of estates were once gardeners—men of 
education, intelligence, business aptitude, and cultural skill. These 
men have been trained to habits of economy, and also to 
No. 2319.—VoL. LXXXVIII., Old Series 
