February 11, 1886. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
107 
plants have similar growths, and two and three on each plant at 
the present time—a remarkable instance of cultural skill. Among 
other flowers are Cypripedinms biflorum and Spicerianum, 
Peristeria elata, Angrsecum sesquipedale, and Vanda Sanderi- 
ana, a very deep-coloured variety, just passing. There are 
many others in Hower which space forbids to name now, and 
then soon will follow the Cattleyas and many Dendrobes; those 
I have named, however, constitute a fine display.—J. H. E. 
FARMERS AND GARDENERS. 
This subject has been very ably discussed, but a few words for the 
farmers will not be out of place. If my memory does not fail me, about 
fifteen years ago “ farming ” was at its best, not by steady and sure pro¬ 
gress, but by a great leap of prosperity which unduly stimulated not only 
it but every other trade, and which, as subsequent events prove, has done 
more harm to the country than good. Prices of agricultural produce 
were then very high, almost double the prices as stated by “ Thinker ” on 
page 2. Machinery was becoming largely used, thus superseding much 
hand labour, and men consequently rushed to the towns for higher wages. 
Farmers undoubtedly then made great profits, and through that cause 
were able to pay greater increased rents to the landlord. But tradesmen 
who had themselves made small fortunes saw with envy the position the 
farmers then held in reference to profits, and the supposed ease and 
pleasure of a country life. They then entered into competition with the 
farmers for the possession of the coveted farms. The result was that 
either farmers had to take increased rents or leave their farms, which of 
course they naturally did not like, as perhaps the farm might have been 
in the possession of their family for a century or two. By such means 
perhaps more money was paid for the land rental than it was practically 
worth, as subsequent events proved. Bad seasons began to follow the 
prosperous ones. Agricultural produce prices began to fall through the 
keenness of foreign competition. But to make matters worse wet seasons 
came in succession, thus preventing the farmer getting his crops properly 
harvested, and also en'ailed a large amount of extra labour as well as 
giving produce of inferior quality. Wet seasons not ODly affected the 
crops, they had undoubtedly a great deal to do with the increase of cattle 
disease. As it is well known, couch grass and weeds spread more in wet 
weather, and this accounts for the deplorable state of the land, the wet 
seasons preventing the farmer getting his land clean. But who did bad 
seasons affect first ? The tradesman who had made his fortune in the 
town and who had taken to farming in the hope of increasing his gains ; 
but he found that farming was not to be learnt behind the counter and 
succumbed, his capital soon becoming exhausted through his ignorance of 
farming and the high rental he paid. The experienced farmer naturally 
survived longer than his town competitor ; but taking into account the 
great reduction in value of all kinds of agricultural produce, he is now in 
my opinion entitled to a reduction of rent which shall place him on the 
same footing as before rents were increased in the so-called “ good old 
times ” all over the country, 
Perhaps after describing the farmer’s past history we may look at the 
proposals which are put forward for his benefit, They have been advised 
to take to “ market gardening but although it might benefit those who 
live near towns, I think that the present state of prices and the railway 
charge for carriage to market make it impossible for them to follow it 
with any success ; and I did not see a very encouraging report of farmers 
who had in Essex taken to growing Onions and other vegetables, as it was 
stated that they had been ieft on the ground to rot on account of the unre- 
munerative prices. I anree with “ J. T. S.” that farmers could do better 
if they would turn their hand to some of the smaller industries, such as 
the rearing of fowls in greater numbers and the larger production of eggs 
and butter, for I think the prices of grain will never greatly improve in 
the face of foreign competition. “ Thinker ” considers that higher culti¬ 
vation in farming ought to be aimed at, and with that I thoroughly agree; 
but may I remind him that many farmers have had their capital washed 
away by the wet seasons l He also speaks of the supposed advantage they 
possess in being nearer home markets, but the cheapness of freightage 
from America and the few taxes they have to pay places both parties 
nearly equal. It is a known fact that grain can be brought as cheap, if 
not cheaper, from New York to London than it can from Cheshire to 
London. I think improvement would follow if British farmers were 
placed on an equd foo'ing with their American cousins in reference to 
railway rates, and also confidence should be brought into farming, so as to 
encourage capital to be invested in the land ; and I think focal rates 
which press so heavily on land ought to be equitably readjusted. With fair 
rents and seasons like the last two we have experienced farming will come 
back to sure and steady prosperity we all hope for, as it is certain the 
position of gardeners would be improved thereby.—A. E. H. 
Fkoji their omission in “ Thinker’s ” opening paragraph I conclude 
we agree in agricultural depression being mainly due to badly cultivated 
land and in the “ manufacture ” of gardeners by premiums, bonuses, and 
favouritism As he also does not say one word against gentlemen selling 
garden produce the difference between us is much simplified. Still it is 
painful to see land growing as much couch as Wheat, pastures not depas¬ 
tured, homesteads wit lout tenants. Think of these things, Mr. “ Thinker,” 
and tell us if it is not in a groat measure due to driving the labourer from 
the village to the town, and adding nothing to the soil. I do not think 
I need trouble your readers with any oomments on paragraphs i and 
5, as they contain nothing but an idea existing in the minds of those 
fearing open competition. “Thinker” clearly believes in “fair,” I in 
“ free ” trade. It is not my business to look after the assessor—to tell 
him I have given up growing solely for my employer’s use, but as we sell 
some of it I wish him to make an early call, If I improve the soil and 
make it grow double, ought I to he assessed at a higher rate? The ques¬ 
tion is the same whether I sell or not. I do not believe in an inequality 
of taxation, and I do not comprehend why a house costing £1000, and let 
at £50 or £100 a year, should be more highly taxed as a lodging house than 
as a private residence ; but if the house as a private residence only 
lets for £50 and as a lodging house at £100, it is clear which valuation 
it would be rated upon. 
Now for your question, Mr. “ Thinker.” Suppose I have saved a little 
money and may get some land, work hard, my market-gardening experi¬ 
ence coming in useful, and build a house, grow and sell something. I 
suppose I shall not be obliged to tell what is made out of it annually. If 
asked, I could say it is there : It cost me so much, say £50 ; well, it is 
worth £5 a year to you at 10 per cent., and he assesses me accordingly. 
A retired tradesman opposite has put up a conservatory costing £100, and 
is only rated at 5 per cent,, or £5. I should grumble even at that, and 
what I should do if the tradesman began to sell I do not know ; certainly 
grumble harder, and at the next assessment appeal. If a person selling 
the produce of the land he cultivates himself is not taxed upon the same 
scale as others similarly occupied there is an inequality, and if a garden 
which has previously been devoted to growing for home use is taxed at a 
less rate than that of growers for sale, then the inequality comes in again, 
for if the grower did not produce his own flowers, fruit, and vegetables, 
he must of necessity buy—that is, if he will have these he ought to pay 
for them, whether he produces them himself or they are grown by others 
and purchased by him. My contention is, that whether a man cultivates 
his own garden or whether it be let it should be rated at its full annual 
value or rental. I am not aware that there is any difference between the 
rating of the garden and structures in it of which I have charge than of 
the ground and structures in a neighbouring nursery. If a garden that 
hitherto has only grown sufficient for the establishment grows more and 
sells, I cannot see any injustice in not seeking an “ early rectification ” 
simply because the rate is as high (with a tax on the labour in addition) 
a? land used for a like purpose in the locality. 
Allotments are coming to the front. I think there is plenty of them 
in most parishes ; at least, there was in the village where I was born. My 
father and grandfather had one each, and the rent was 10s. per rood, 
40s. per acre. This was over forty years ago. Both had the three acres 
of land and the cow, and I wish every labouring man had the same. It 
would fix him to the soil, and it would be better for the landlord, the 
tenant, and others. But to stick to one thing. Allotments have been 
provided on every estate I have been on, east, west, north, south ; and 
where they have been insufficient for the increased population a represen¬ 
tation at the proper quarter has insured a sufficiency I want to know 
why an allotment should be rated at a higher value than land adjoining 
under plough. If there is any logic in “ Thinker’s ” reasoning it ought 
to be. Under deep spade cultivation and more cleanly culture it will 
grow double, it is worth more ; Why not tax it higher ? Take two allot¬ 
ments ; of one the occupier consumes the produce, the other is cultivated 
to grow for sale. Why should not, both be taxed alike ? The first 
derives no profit; he gets as much as the other, but in a different way, 
because he grows for himself, but the other does because he sells ; and 
ought he to suffer ? The grower for himself exhibits for the most part 
little skill in culture, but the grower for sale must cultivate well if he 
seeks a balance on the right side of the ledger. Private gardens, as a 
rule, are very indifferently cultivated, some of them woefully neglected, 
and the sooner they are turned into market gardens the better for the 
owners, the better for the gardeners, and the better for the public. 
Gardeners by so doing will be “ looking well and honestly after their 
masters’ interest and their own.” It is the gardener’s first duty to earn 
his own living, and above all things give his employer confidence in him 
as a cultivator not afraid to compete with the market gardener, and if 
need be with nurserymen in the open market. 
I believe that gardening for utility will assuredly supplant gardening 
for fancy. I do not advocate gardeners turning greengrocers and 
costermongers ; one trade is enough for me, and that is to grow all and 
the best I can, selling it in the open market. The remedy for the 
“ middleman ” is simply to do your own marketing. If people will have 
things brought to the door they must pay for it, and if they will have 
credit they must be charged interest, but it does not suit— Utilitarian. 
In this Journal for January 7th, page 2, I was a little surprised to 
read in “ Thinker’s ” thoughts on the past year his reference to farmers 
and gardeners. If “ Thinker ” had ever been one year in a farmhouse 
I fancy he would have found the farmer not quite such a sluggard as he 
represents him to be. The farmers have pushed forward through this 
great depres ,ion with equally as much energy as the private or market 
gardeners, also there are very many farms well managed, and the land 
well cultivated. “ Thinker ” says five or six quarters of Wheat per acre 
should leave a living profit. I have seen six and a half quarters of 
Wheat per acre, and seven quarters of Barley per acre this last season, 
and still there is great depression. Mr. “Thinker” quotes five farmers 
to 1000 acre farm, where one who have farmed it and could not get a 
living profit. If Mr. “ Thinker ” could insure five or six quarters to the 
acre every year, and good luck with the stock, perhaps the farmer can 
live, hut not to get a return for his capital, which ought to be recovered 
as well as in every other branch of industry. Now, I say he cannot 
iniure five or six quarters per acre even on the be it land in adverse 
