42 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 21, 1886. 
beginning at the landlord, descends to the farmer. It is useless seeking 
to maintain an appearance that the means do not warrant, inasmuch as 
it is had at the impoverishment of the soil, everything being taken from 
it, little or nothing returned in labour or fertilisers. It must fall still 
lower in value under such conditions, and will eventually necessitate 
a sale. Capital will be forthcoming to work it on new lines at a profit, 
and that it may now be worked to the mutual advantage of the cultivator 
and consumer I will give an instance. In this parish, not a hundred 
miles from Fleet Street, a farmer arranged with a market gardener in an 
adjoining parish to plant a field with Potatoes, the farmer to find the 
land and manure, the market gardener the seed and all labour in con¬ 
nection with the crop. The crop was a heavy one, both agree in its being 
satisfactory. The farmer had not the capital to find seed and labour, and he 
was deficient in the “ go ” of the market gardener. Why not transfer the 
land to the market gardener? The farmer only pays 30s. per acre, for 
land in an adjoining parish the market gardener pays £4, £5, and some as 
high as £7 per acre. The farmer keeps his phaeton, and his daughters 
play the piano, employs a man and boy, with odd man occasionally, and 
has the character of always being backward in paying, indeed figures in 
the county court. The market gardener only keeps a gig as principally 
used for business, his sons all work or manage, and his daughters never 
stay on his hands after they become instructed in home duties. He finds 
employment for as many as sixty men, women, and boys, and is renowned 
for his ready money transactions. “A Thinker” is right, the farmer has 
been ruined by prosperity, and nothing in the shape of reduced rents will 
save him; he needs capital to purchase stock, employ labour, and pur¬ 
chase fertilisers. Owing to the land hunger of the farmer in the prospe¬ 
rous times, medium-sized holdings were thrown to large farms. The land¬ 
lord sees his error now, for he cannot draw even reduced rent with 
regularity, and is glad to let a tenant remain whether he attends the rent 
audit or not, for if he leave where are the arrears to come from, and who 
will take the land? Let the obviously too large farm be reasonably 
divided, is a ready answer. But where is the capital to come from to 
erect the homesteads ? and if these are granted, where are the tenants ? 
Have not the best men gone to the towns and the lands of the 
west ? There are plenty of labourers, but with their low wages and in¬ 
termittent work they are as “ hard up ” as any other class. What an 
anomalous state of things for a wealthy nation. The land will pay if well 
tilled, but where are those to be found who have cultural knowledge and 
money too ? That is the crucial question. 
Passing to horticultural matters, foremost comes the consideration of 
an over-stocked market—too many gardeners, too few situations. It has 
been so ever since I entered a garden forty years ago. There always were 
too many seeking appointments. Influence placed me in a garden ; by it 
alone was I permitted to follow my desire to become a gardener, and I 
can now understand why I was treated coldly by the chief. I was to be 
manufactured into a gardener without a premium. I never paid one and 
never have taken one ; indeed, I feel after thirty years’ practice as head 
that I have yet much to Jearn. The premium system has much to answer 
for. A premium will never make a gardener, but it acts as a stimulus by 
which unworthy men are placed in the market and a glut created. It 
manufactures journeymen, a large per-centage only pass from that stage 
to become porters, &c., and of the remainder few give proof of the plodding 
industry and interest out of which the gardener is made. The worst of 
the premium system is that it means pushing on the giver whether he 
have the capacity or not in return for the monetary consideration. This is 
bad ; still worse is the practice that obtains of a bonus being given to those 
having influence in procuring situations. Gardeners like those who have 
been under them to get good places ; it says much for the gardener, it gives 
the place notoriety ; indeed, so notorious are some that to have been at 
such a garden under such a man is sufficient to give a pass to the first 
vacancy. Surely all the best lads, all the best journeymen, and all the best 
foremen are not absorbed by those places that manufacture a certain 
number of gardeners annually. I have heard it boasted that on an average 
as many as nine young aspirants are placed in head situations from one 
noted garden every twelvemonth. This system means the ousting of other, 
older, and more experienced men. I blame those that take lads solely for 
the sake of a premium, that have a journeyman for work that a labourer 
could do just as well, or better, and that push foremen into head places 
simply because they have been under them so long as to render their stay¬ 
ing a reproach on the credit of man and place. 
What becomes of the many men changing places (and invariably 
succeeded by foremen from some grand place) is to me a puzzle, 
inasmuch as I seldom find a note of their re-appointment. They must go 
somewhere and live somehow. Some few get admission to nurseries, 
these being too full to accommodate all, even those that had been good 
customers. The way out of the difficulty is to aim at a higher standard 
and admit none to pass but the painstaking and meritorious. If an 
apprentice, journeyman, or even foreman shows no capacity for becoming 
a competent gardener, then I submit the chief should at once put in his 
veto instead of pushing an unworthy man into another place. 
There is a method of manufacturing gardeners, which, though a preva¬ 
lent one, is overlooked by “ A Thinker ”—viz., the many lads taken into 
gardens at the command of the proprietors—the sons of poor tenants, 
smart it may be at school and of service in the choir. The parents are 
poor, have a large family—it may be the breadwinner is taken away— 
something prompts their being given employment in gardens. The 
gardener must acquiesce, the progress of the pupils under such patronage 
is rapid, and they are pushed ahead. Gardening ought to be made a 
science, public examinations, certificates of competency doing away with 
the passes now granted upon favour as often, if not oftener, than upon 
the sound principles of industrial energy and skill in the profession. 
I now come to the conversion of private gardens into “ market 
gardens.” The proprietor, through the depression in agriculture, the 
reduction of rents, the non-payment of rent, and land unlet, cannot 
maintain the garden in anything like the same order as formerly, neces¬ 
sitating a reduction of hands, wages, and general expanse. This is a 
general case. The place must go down ; instead of being highly cultivated 
it becomes neglected, and is neither a source of pleasure or profit to the 
proprietor and no credit to the gardener, even if the old gardener remain. 
Tell u>, “Thinker,” why this garden should not have its assessment 
reduced ? Its value is less, it is not worth half as much to the proprietor 
as it was when he was able to maintain it in a high state of cultivation. 
Gardeners, if wise, will suggest to an employer of this kind maintaining 
the garden— i.e., the profitable part, in a state of cultivation by selling 
the produce, not now weeded through the reduction of the establishment. 
The gardener will do this through sheer necessity. He will seek to main¬ 
tain his position for the benefit of himself and family, the men under 
him will be kept together, and the tradesmen of the locality and the 
public at large will be benefited by the produce, which come3 as a god¬ 
send in cheapening food, especially as wages are low and employment 
scarce. The market gardeners in the locality may grumble—the squire 
turned market gardener ; he pays no rent, and his land is assessed at a 
much lower rate than ours ; to which the answer is clear—the land is his, 
the land with the buildings upon it are assessed at the value the assessor 
puts upon it, even the lawn and shrubberies are taxed, and it is difficult to 
tell in what the grievance consists ; besides, whether the landowner sells or 
not, the same duty is levied on those he keeps as gardeners. It is folly to 
write of gentlemen’s gardens not being rated. If “ A Thinker ” should have 
better luck than most of the craft, cleans his spade, retires, and adds a 
greenhouse to his villa, how long does he suppose it will be before the 
assessor pays him a visit ? Try it, “ Mr. Thinker,” and then tell us the 
difference between the assessment of a glass structure erected for pleasure 
and that of one for profit. 
I cannot see any difference between a landlord making the best use of his 
land by selling the produce himself or letting the land and allowing others 
to sell the produce they obtain. “Ah, I see how it is,” “A Thinker” 
may say, “ you sell.” I do, and not a single complaint have I heard from 
a market gardener since I commenced, and there are those that have hun¬ 
dreds of acres near under similar crops. It is not market gardeners who 
complain, but the nurserymen. The selling means that the garden has 
become a producing not a consuming establishment, which makes a dif¬ 
ference. Who gains ? The owner—rent for the land, interest for the 
capital invested ; the gardener maintains his position—nay, a higher one, 
from being more confidential ; and the community at large. A general 
opinion obtains that landlords take to marketing with a view to profit. 
This may be right, but I do not know of an instance, and I could give several 
instances where selliug is practised that not a farthing of profit is made. 
The proprietor finding the garden too large—more flowers, fruit, and vege¬ 
tables produced than he needs—and directs their disposal, and considerately 
allows a commission to the gardener as a reward for the increased labour 
entailed. It is a shame to let the produce waste. Now, as giving it away 
would only prevent those receiving it from purchasing, in what way are 
they damaged by its sale ? The public get as good, if not better, produce 
and more of it, therefore the selling business is for the general good. 
There is another aspect in which to look at the sale of produce from 
private gardens. Where selling is practised the garden is maintained in a 
high 6tate of cultivation. It will not pay without this and carefully 
selected seeds or plants. Inferior will not sell, at least it does not pay— 
not even for carriage. 
If “ A Thinker ” asks why I sell, my answer is, I was told to do so. 
We had produce that went to the pigs by the cartload, and was given 
away until we got no thanks. Now, mark, the same ground would not— 
did not—grow sufficient for the household only two years previously; it 
was a question of begging and buying, which straits some so-called gar¬ 
deners are ever being put to through their own incompetency or inatten¬ 
tion. Cultivation alone gave the increased yield, and my employer said, 
Sell it and employ the money in improvements. I tell you this is the 
most interesting part I have ever had in gardening. The greengrocers 
complained before they were hurt, for we kept clear of them by sending 
to Covent Garden Market. Covent Garden drew largely, so that out of 
some £200 worth of produce that would otherwise have been wasted I had 
£150 more to spend on the garden, for one-fourth went in expenses. 
Does “ A Thinker ” suppose that when the working men have allot¬ 
ments that they will consume the whole of the produce ? I think not, 
and they will have as much right to sell as the market gardener or any¬ 
body else. More growers, better cultivated land, increased produce, better 
fed and clad people, is the dream of many besides —UTILITARIAN. 
Among the many interesting and instructive “thoughts” which have 
proceeded from “Thinker’s” mind, and recorded in the pages of this 
Journal, the remarks made on the relative positions of farmers and 
gardeners, and the way they face adverse times, seem to the writer to be 
pre-eminently interesting, and true market gardeners are heavily handi¬ 
capped by having to face the competition of so many noblemen and 
gentlemen whose gardeners are at the present time engaged in growing 
produce for sale. That we have reached the lowest ebb in regard to the 
reduc'ion in the value of such products of the farmer as Wheat and other 
cereals does not appear to the writer, and it is almost certain that still 
more reduction in the prices of these products will have to be submitted 
to by the farmers of the future. That the price of beef and mutton will 
fall much lower does not seem so probable ; indeed, it may almost be 
prophesied that such will not be the case, at least if trade generally 
attains to anything like prosperity 
