January 7, 1886.] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
natural consequence the land became infested, and in the case of thousands 
of acres practically “ eaten up” with weeds. That is the certain road to 
ruin, and is the root of the evil of falling rents that is so much to be 
deplored. 
Permit me now to express my thoughts very plainly on a public 
question of vital import. If I were a landlord and had tenants who had 
been accustomed to pay, say £2 an acre for the land ia the so-called 
“ good times,” hut now by gradual reductions pay little, if any, more than 
half the amount, and still not satisfied, I shoul l make no further abate¬ 
ment. I am beginning to think that rent reduction is a sort of fashion¬ 
able epidemic, and that the more it spreads the worse is the farming. If 
a man with a thousand acres of land that, if well managed, would grow 
five or six quarters of Wheat per acre, cannot pay 25s. an acre and live, 1 
believe five men with two hundred acres each can. The better the rents, 
in reason, the better is the farming as a rale, and it is a question if 
“reduction” is not in danger of being overdone. Oaegreat landlord ha3 
stopped it effectually by reminding his tenants that he had receive 1 no 
requests from holders of medium-sized farms for any further abatement. 
They will all farm better now. 
But what has this to do with horticulture ? It has a very great deal 
to do with it. If the rents of the large estates of thi3 country are allowed 
to glide away to nothing, how is horticulture to be supported and high- 
class gardening to be maintained ? For my part I like to see a flourishing 
aristocracy, the land worked well and capable of yielding more food and 
leaving a good margin for rent. That is surely not antagonistic to a rich 
mercantile community. Is it not rather the reverse P And does it not 
follow that the greater the proceeds from land or commerce the better 
are the emoluments of the wage-earning class ? Amidst all the “ depres¬ 
sion ” 1 am more “depressed” by the falling wage rate than anything 
else. If the millions cannot earn money to spend, general stagnation 
must sooner or later prevail. 
I AM of opinion that bringing down wages to the lowest possible point 
is of benefit to no one, hut acts prejudicially all round. What does it 
mean? It means le3s work—limited production. Taking the community 
throughout, if wages are reduced 5 per cent, the value of labour given in 
return will fall in greater proportion. Nothing can prevent this. How¬ 
ever high the profession of individuals, or humble their calling, they give 
their services grudgingly or willingly according to emoluments. It is 
always better to face facts than to shirk them. If low wages were con¬ 
ducive to prosperity low wage counties would be the richer and high wage 
districts the poorer. Exactly the reverse is the case. And it is precisely 
the same with nations. So-called “ cheap ” labour, like “ cheap ” shoidy- 
made goods, which ought to be ticketed “ bads,” are dear in the end. The 
principle applies to gardeners, for I must not forget them. Thoroughly 
competent men, well paid, give in return their honest hearty services, 
never knowing when they have done enough ; but the underpaid crawl 
their time over grumblingly, and these are the really unprofitable. Perhaps 
I shall not be able to make wage-payers believe this, but however that 
may be, I am convinced of the absolute truth of the statement, which is 
not made in the interests of a class but for the mutual benefit of all 
concerned. 
I should now like to say what I think on another matter, which the 
experience of the year suggests as worthy of attention. It is an old habit 
that seems to need checking—the over-manufacture of gardeners. Now 
that so many labourers need employment it would be better that more of 
these be accustomed to do much of the work that is done by young 
men who, by-and-hy, will find it diffimlt if not impossible to obtain 
appointments such as they desire, and who will either have to quit the 
country or take refuge in the army or police force. Why should men be 
trained for positions they can scarcely hope to fill, while at the same time 
labourers with families are only one remove from the workhouse ? The 
rates are heavy enough now. A change in the direction indicated wou'd 
be of benefit to all—to the young men who would be directed to some 
other field of labour, to village workmen longing for employment, to 
owners of gardens, and to ratepayers. 
One way of limiting the manufacture of gardeners would be to abolish 
the premiums that students have to pay, compensati m being made to 
those gardeners who have benefited by the “ vested interests ’’—that is to 
say. where these have been enjoyed in lieu of additional wages. It is in 
that light they are regarded; but it is tolerably certain that the noble 
and the rich never think that young men or their parents are impoverished 
to defray the expenses of the establishments of the wealthy. I wish 
some nobleman would set the example of settling this matter equitably, 
and the few pounds of compensation he would pay would be saved twice 
over. When a gardener takes a premium with students he is almost 
obliged to keep them for a considerable time, however unprofitable they 
may 5 be ; he is bound by a custom that is econ imically unsound and ought 
to bel mg to the things of the past. 
I would next venture to bring under review for a moment another 
practice that is increasing and developing. A few years ago, when pro- 
dueewas sold from the gardens of the nobility and gentry, it was not 
done openly as a trade, but in a quiet unobtrusive manner. Things are 
different now. No secret is made of the practice, and numbers of gentle¬ 
men’s gardens are in reality “market gardens,” fruit, vegetables, flowers, 
and even trees being grown for sale, the gardener having a commission on 
the proceeds to stimulate him in making money. Any nobleman or 
gentleman has a perfect right to do that. He can even feel the work is 
a benevolent one, inasmuch as he enables the inhabitmts of the adjacent 
town to obtain better “garden stuff” at a cheaper rate than before. It 
is certainly better to sell what others want than to waste it. That must 
be conceded ; but there is another asp ct of the question. Since, say, 
£500 a year have been made out of a private garden, its assessment for 
rating purposes has not been increased one farthing; but if Brown by 
his frugality saves a little money and commences as a market gardener 
just outside the park gates, his assessment is increased with every green¬ 
house he builds, until eventually he is taxed 100 per cent, higher than his 
great rival, and mayhap a goo i deal more. Brown, who is struggling for 
a livelihood, is as, I think, unfairly handicapped by the greater burden 
he has to bear because of the exemption of his neighbour and powerful 
opponent in business. We hear a good deal about “ fair trade ” nowa¬ 
days, but I do not call it fair for one of two persons, who are engaged in 
the same calling, to enjoy such an extraordinary exemption from loca' 
rates, and the other—he whose livelihood depends on his labour—to b» 
correspondingly overburdened. As this is neither a personal nor a political 
question, it is eminently proper for discussion on its merits. But what is 
the use of opening it, it may be asked, without suggesting a remedy ? 
Well, here is a proposal. 
The owner or occupant of every private garden who competes with 
regular traders in supplying the markets openly or in a semi-private 
manner with fruit, flowers, or vegetables should in my opinion be assessed, 
or at least his garden should, at precisely the same rate that regular trade 
establishments are in the same district. Against this it may be said the 
produce sold from one private garden may amount to £500, while that 
from another may not amount to a tenth of that sum. No matter. If 
a person does not like the extra assessment he has the remedy in his own 
hands—he can give up marketing ; or, on the other hand, if he be willing 
to endure it and make the best of i f , he can extend his operations. This 
private trading in Grapes, Orchids, and other things under exceptional 
circumstances is of no benefit except to those who engage in it, while it 
places a large class of regular traders in a most unenviable position, inas¬ 
much as it, in effect, reduces their business and raises their rents. I know 
very well that gentlemen pay a tax that market gardeners do not—a tax 
on their gardeners as domestic servants. It would be better to abolish it 
in the case of those who trade, and thus place all on the same footing by 
an absolute equality of assessment than to leave open a grievance, that 
one class of the community is favoured at the expense of another. But I 
must pause. 
I have been obliged to observe what seems an absurdity during the 
past year—Apple tress groaning with fruit that could scarcely be sold at 
any price, while a month or two afterwards (and now) markets were 
supplied with American produce. Here is the humiliating spectacle of 
Apples being sent 3000 or 4000 miles to market while home-grown fruit 
is going a-begging. How is this? Simply that transatlantic growers 
have plan’ed freely and exclusively the most tempting market varieties, 
while in this country there has been no systematic action in improving 
the supply of useful fruit; or at least it did not commence soon 
enough, and Britishers are, for the tim°, left behind their rivals in 
the competition. 
My thoughts have not run in a particularly cheerful groove so far, 
but things will come right in time, as they have come right before after 
worse periods than this. John Bull when rolling in rich pastures is apt 
to become lethargic, but he moves with persistent force when he is 
hungry. He is not in a moribund state, though temporarily depressed. 
He will brighten up by-and-hy, rents will be firmer with better culture, 
and this will follow because it is a necessity of existence, trade will revive, 
and wages increase, and a more prosperous future is in store for those 
who shall labour and will be permitted to wait; at least such are the 
convictions of—A Thinker. 
P.S.—“ Current Topics ” have had to stand aside for a consideration of 
greater and more general subjects, and in respect of recent episodes I can 
only thank Mr. Harrison Weir for the information that he objects to being 
referred to as an “ individual.” No one could, of course, have anticipated 
such an objection, and I certainly shall not employ the term again, or at 
least apart from the well merited adjective “ distinguished.” The fact is, 
I have for years been a great admirer of Mr. Weir’s talents, and have re¬ 
garded him as one of the distinguished men of our generation.—A. T. 
PLANTS CERTIFICATED IN 1885. 
MR. B. S. WILLIAMS. 
Foe many years the Victoria Nurseries, Upper Holloway, have annually 
contributed largely to the novelties submitted to public attention, and so 
much care has been exercised in the selection that a good proportion have 
obtained prominent positions amongst the best of garden plants. Nur¬ 
serymen contribute greatly to their reputation b/ judioiously excluding all 
novelties of doubtful merit from their lists ; purchasers are saved much 
annoyance, and, indeed, are encouraged when they find they can rely 
upon obtainiog something both new and useful. It is an important 
mitter to secure the confidence of the public, in trade it is in fact the 
secret of success. - 
From the plants Mr. B. S. Williams has had certificated during the 
past year a dozen excellent novelties may be selected as worthy of special 
notice, and, taking them in alphabetical order, the first to demand atten- 
