January 23, 1886. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
63 
preferring the thread, and it is this : when the plants have grown 
to the height of 5 or 6 inches towards spring we often have a fall 
of snow, and I have found that the nets hold the snow for a 
certain time until the weight presses them to the ground, 
and I find after that the Peas never do so well as those that have 
thread strung from end to end. Watch the plants, and if you 
notice the slugs have been destroying any of the plants give a 
good dressing of unslacked lime just at dusk. Lime is preferred 
to soot, because it is better for the Peas, a quicker destroyer of • 
slugs, and rather cleaner to use. 
When the Peas are ready for earthing up and the plants are very 
numerous I draw a number out of the rows, and find the others 
grow much more sturdily; but 1 always leave more plants in the 
rows this first time of drawing than is wanted to stand for a crop, 
because the slugs, I find, very often eat the plants just above 
the earth, also strong wind perhaps breaks some of the plants, 
therefore I find it is better to leave a little over a crop than 
under. 
I recommend those who have the trenches ready to make a 
sowing as soon as possible of Carter’s Telephone, Stratagem, 
and Pride of the Market, Laxton’s Evolution, or Everlasting, as 
I call it for it bears fine pods of peas a longer time than any 
Pea I have over grown, also Laxton’s Charmer, Webb’s Wordsley 
Wonder, House’s Perfect Marrow, and Culverwell’s Telegraph. 
There are many other good Peas, but I know none better for 
profit or exhibition than the above named.— Hy. Ma.rk.iott. 
THOUGHTS ON CURRENT TOPICS. 
When reading the elaborate commentaries of “Utilitarian” and 
“J. T. S.” last week on a few dreary parapraphs (page 3) on the 
relative positions of private and professional market gardeners and 
cognate matters, one thing was impressed rather forcibly on my mind— 
namely, that my readers and critics will never all agree, either to present 
me with a testimonial, such as a polished pen, or invest me with the 
distinction of being the “ ugly duck ” of the Journal family. I therefore 
derive consolation from a diversity of taste. 
In accepting the invitation of the first-named correspondent to “ crack 
a few nuts” he has provided, I must remark at the outset that my inter¬ 
locutor is placed at a natural disadvantage, inasmuch as he is confessedly 
an interested party, even to such an extent that he sits in judgment on 
his own case. What wonder, then, he should give the verdict in his own 
favour / But what weight can a verdict have under those circumstances ? 
That is, I think, a fair point, not to be overlooked in the consideration of 
the matter at issue. “ Utilitarian ” sells, by order, the produce from his 
master’s garden ; it pays him to do so, benefits others, therefore is right. 
Possibly it may be. We shall see. 
One fact appears to be established that I was a little anxious to elicit. 
Some rather hard things have been said of the owners of gardens making 
a profit out of their luxuries to the prejudice of struggling toilers in their 
vicinity. I am not one who believes in the grasping proclivities of the 
nobility and gentry of this country. On the contrary, I am of opinion 
there is no more just and generous class of individuals, if I may so call 
them, on the face of the earth ; and I fear that in not a few instances 
advantage is being taken of their good-heartedness in the systematic 
clamour for the repeated abatements of rents ; but in this matter of 
selling garden produce in competition with market gardeners it has come 
out at last that gardeners, not masters, are at the root of at least some of 
it, because of the “commission.” Thank you, “Utilitarian,” for that 
significant and unasked-for admission. Yon are a good and faithful 
servant, I doubt not, looking well and honestly after your master’s 
interests, and your own. 
• Now to business. Your correspondent has never heard a “ single ” 
market gardener complain of his competition, nor a married one either, 
perhaps; but let that pass. If the seat of his operations overlooks the 
highly cultivated market garden faims in the Thames Valley, the owners 
of them are not much more likely to complain than the directors of the 
Great Western Railway would if a new one-horse carrier commenced 
business by the side of their line. It is the smaller cultivators who are 
striving, almost ia vain, all over the country, to make a livelihood from 
their land and vineries, who feel themselves handicapped because of the 
enormously greater per-centage they believe themselves rated on their 
property in comparison with their great rivals, who profit by private 
market gardening. I am neutral in this matter, and have raised the 
question with the object of seeing what there is in it. There may not be 
the great inequality of rating that many suppose, and in that event there 
is no real grievance. What I think is this. If a gentleman systemati¬ 
cally buys plants to grow with the object of selling them again at a profit, 
he should be rated exactly on the same scale as if he were a nurseryman ; 
and if another grows fruit, flowers, and vegetables with the same object 
in view—profit, he should be assesssed at the same rate, in accordance 
with the value of his land and structures, as regular market gardeners are 
in his district, and no more. Has “ Utilitarian ” anything to say against 
that ? If it is unfair I ask him to point out wherein it is so. 
the production of garden produce in the slightest degree. As much as 
ever would be produced, and it would reach consumers just as cheaply as 
it reaches them now. The difference would be this—Those cultivators 
who are rated too high now would have their profits slightly increased, 
because of the rating reduction ; while those rated too low would have 
somewhat lessened profits in accordance with the increase of the rates 
They would be placed on an equality as traders, and I cannot conceive 
any fair-minded person complaining of that. The difference would pro¬ 
bably be slight in either case in the majority of instances ; but slight or 
not, I cannot think it right for one trader to enjoy privileges at the 
expense of another. If “Utilitarian" thinks differently let him state 
“ the reason why.” 
In my opinion the practice of sending large quantities of produce 
from private gardens to Lmdon does not benefit consumers to anything 
like the extent that is popularly supposed. I have helped to clear more 
than one house of Grapes, and gather and pack other produce for Covent 
Garden. This was as often as not done as a matter of home convenience. 
The result was often disappointingly small “ returns ; ” but those who 
think the produce was sold to the public at correspondingly low prices are 
greatly mistaken. The middleman, greengrocer, call him what you will, 
is the gainer in these transactions, not the public. Private garden stuff 
is a gold mine to these enterprising individuals. They buy pretty much 
at their own price and sell too, and in the former case it is as low as pos¬ 
sible and the latter as high. This is what is called “ doing business.” I 
am intimately acquainted with a gentleman who gave 5s. 6d. a pound for 
Grapes at a London fruiterer’s that were grown in the gentleman’s own 
garden and sold therefrom for 2s. 6d. a pound, and on his return home 
the gardener had not a very pleasant quarter of an hour. If means could 
be devised of getting the produce from gentlemen’s gardeners more 
directly to consumers its sale would be a blessing to millions, whereas it 
is now mainly a great blessing to middlemen and a small one to gardeners 
in the shape of the “ commission,” which as a rule they well earn by 
good management and hard work. As the London butchers get the profits 
from farmers’ flocks and herds, so do middlemen chiefly benefit by the 
culture of garden produce. Things have come to the pass that is bur¬ 
lesqued in the case of the hungry lawer and his litigants—“ A shell for thee ; 
a shell for thee; the oyster is the lawyer’s fee.” Who can point out a 
remedy ? If an “ Utilitarian ” can, the greatest blessing of all will be 
his having entered into the arena of garden literature. I have read a few 
of his previous articles with interest, but his last bore the stamp of groat 
ability, and if he is a novice, which I am inclined to doubt, he is 
promising. 
Your correspondent puts two questions to me—one personal, the 
other typical. These I will endeavour to answer, then propound one 
which I hope he will answer in turn. The personal question is founded 
on the hypothesis that I may some day retire from work and live the life 
of luxury in a villa. I anticipate no such luck, but, on the contrary, am 
inclined to think that “Utilitarian,” with his wages as a gardener and 
his commission as a trader, will first qualify himselt for that distinction. 
Yet, suppose I should ever be able to retire into villadom, aDd attach a 
conservatory to my residence, I am invited to say what I should think if 
my assessment was increased on that account. I should think it quite 
right if it was not in excess, proportionately, of that of the Lord of the 
Manor. Conservatories are luxuries, and it is a fundamental principle of 
government administration that luxuries shall be taxed the first and the 
heaviest : necessities the last and the lightest. If I make a profit out of 
my conservatory the luxury is the greater to me, and the more enjoyed ; 
therefore the assessment should be slightly increased ; and if I add more 
structures, and especially if I profit by them, each should be rated in turn, 
because I am not dependant on them for a livelihood. That is my answer. 
The next question is typical. A garden of luxury, once well kept, 
is now practically abandoned through reduction and non-payment of 
rents, &c. I am asked to say why this neglected garden should not have 
its assessment reduced ? If the estate of which the garden forms part is 
rated proportionately higher than the land and houses of farmers and 
market gardeners in the same parish, the assesmeut should be reduced ; 
but if there is no such inequality, then, in my opinion, there should 
be no reduction, because this would amount to a contribution from im¬ 
poverished farmers and others to maintain the “ stables, showy men 
servants, and general keepiDg-up appearances,” cited by “ Uiiiitarian ” 
a9 causes of neglected gardens. It would be granting a bonus for the 
very extravagance your correspondent condemns. If the garden were not 
amenable to improvement it would be another matter ; but we are 
given an example of a garden being improve 1 marvellously, yielding now a 
profit of £150, whereas two years ago it did not grow sulfide .t for the 
household. “ Cultivation alone ” gave the increased yield. That is the 
Sound remedy. This garden is a greater luxury than ever, and if the 
assessment of the property is not already equal to that of suirounding 
market gardens, “Utilitarian” ought, as a just man, to be glad to see 
an early rectification. 
Now Mr. “Utilitarian,” kindly attend to this. Supposing you have 
to leave your pleasant post, and havo by frugality and thrift s ived a 
few pounds, not sufficient for the “ villa,” but just enough to enable you 
to earn an honest living by hard work as a market gardener. Your little 
homestead is already assessed at as high a rate in accordance with the 
value of the property as the mansion and demesne you have left. You 
manage to erect a house, sell a ctop of Cucumbers or Tomatoes from ii 
Equitability in the matter of rating would not, in my view, limit 
