898 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ May 20 1S86. 
ance to a situation when the three years expired. The objectionable 
cases in gardens are those in which the gardener trades upon the name of 
the place he superintends, and takes premiums from the men for the bare 
privilege of working in the garden in any department for perhaps two 
years, when they are compelled to leave and go elsewhere without any 
further assistance. This is what used to be done some years ago in a 
noted garden in the Midlands. I wrote to the chief myself not long after 
he took charge on behalf of a young man I was interested in, and either 
£5 or £10, I forget which, was asked as a premium, the man to leave at 
the end of two years. I agreed to pay the sum on the condition that the 
man would be prom ted or assisted into a situation elsewhere, provided 
he gave satisfaction, but the gardener declined to bind himselt in that 
way, as he could get pupils who would not insist on such terms. I need 
hardly say he did not get my man. In this same place the wages have 
always been lower than anywhere else in the neighbourhood, so that a 
premium became a hardship to many young men there, as they found out. 
Whether the present superintendent there requires premiums or not 1 do 
net know. I can give you names and particulars privately if required, 
and I may add that the head gardener who took the premiums bestowed 
no personal attention on his pupils, and had not been long there. If they 
made good use of their opportunities, well and good, either way they had 
to pay. There is nothing easier than for head gardeners to get premiums 
if they choose to lay themselves out for them ; but, personally, I have 
never been enamoured of the system, although I have had many offers, 
and constantly receive them, for the reason that it is not worth while, 
pecuniarily, unless premiums are taken from all, and a regular system of 
limited periodical service carried out; but the worst feature of the system 
is that it ties the hands of the master, and thrusts responsibilities upon 
him, and often indifferent men, both of which he is much better without. 
1 have heard of gardeners who have been much worried by premium men, 
who presumed in consequence, and should not wonder if some of the 
cases recorded in your pages lately were of this sort, although I know 
nothing of them. As to wearing gloves when stoking, these are provided 
for the purpose in all good places where much stoking is necessary, as it 
tries the hands severely in winter. Housemaids are regularly provided 
with gloves to brush the grates. Eings, over-much jewellery, and other 
signs of fop per} - , few real gardeners like to see, because the paltry vanity 
such things indicate is seldom associated with good sense and practical 
ability. I know many of the best gardeners personally, and none of 
them are fops or wearers of rings.—A Gardener to an Earl. 
Your correspondent “ W. P. R.” has very kindly acted upon the sug¬ 
gestion of “ A Thinker ” at page 353, and sent me copies of the Journal 
for April 29th and May 6th, in the first of which I am directly charged 
with treating a young man with positive hardship and injustice ; and in 
the number for May 6th appears a statement of a case showing what 
might be my position in regard to the circumstances mentioned at page 
312. The premium of £5 was to be paid down, and on being asked after 
his arrival here how he intended to pay the amount, he replied that he had 
a friend in London with whom he had been staying who would lend him 
the money. In about a fortnight after he informed me that he had 
written to this friend, but could get no reply from him ; he, therefore, 
suggested to me that I should keep so much per week from his wages 
until the £5 was paid, and inasmuch as he was paid for eleven weeks I 
deducted from his wages a total sum of 22s., which is at the rate in round 
figures of £5 for the year. He never asked for an explanation. How 
could he, when it was his own suggestion ? He was set to do other work 
after he had shown that he was unable to perform satisfactorily work that 
he was engaged to do (after much forbearance). The next sentence of 
“ W. P. R.” is also untrue. Nearly all my young m°n stay with me 
from two to five years. During a period of ten years I have only had 
two who have stayed but twelve months. I do not include the young 
man who is the cause of this discussion. I have never taken more than 
£5 from any man, no matter how long he has been with me ; therefore, 
the intricate calculation and polite inuendo of “ W. P. R.” is uncalled 
for. The insinuation that my noble employer makes me an allowance 
in lieu of premiums is untrue and entirely devoid of foundation. Many 
of the young men that have come in these gardens have been experienced 
men, and have paid no premium. As “ W. P. R.” directs his attention 
and questions to “ Observer ” at page 376, I will leave “ Observer ” to 
deal with him ; and as “ \V. P. It.” for obvious reasons abstains from 
giving either his own name or mine, I will content myself by remaining 
—The Earl’s Gardener. 
[The “ Principal Foreman ” in the garden in question also writes, 
stating that “the young man in question did ignore my authority in not 
keeping proper time.’’] 
“ W. P. R.,” at page 376, conveniently overlooks the fact that he and 
I occupy different positions in regard to the matter under discussion. He 
cites what he believes to he a hard case at page 342, and that, apparently, 
from purely ex parte statements, and proceeds to make certain serious 
specific charges against some particular individual ; and he appears to 
think that because be has not mentioned names he is therefore acting in 
a very careful and discreet manner. Doe3 it not occur to “ W. P. R. ” 
that he would have been much more careful and discreet if he had made 
some attempt at inves’igation privately before rushing into print ? Has 
he written a single letter to the gardener in question, inquiring how far 
the young man’s statements were correct, and what his reasons were for 
discharging him ? If “ W. P. R. ” has not done that I think he has been 
both discourteous and unfair to the gardener in question. 
My position differs from “ W. P. R.’s ” in this respect—I am, unhappily, 
acquainted to a certain degree with both sides of the case I quoted, and 
was, as my letter showed, the means of the engagement between the bead 
gardener and young gardener ; and as it is just possible that the matter 
may yet be carried to a court of law—especially if a certain party does 
that which “ W. P. R. ” thinks I might have set an example in doing 1 
do not wish to precipitate such a result; but the gardener to whom I 
have alluded is quite willing that I should give his name. I will neither 
give his nor the young man’s for the above reasons, but “ W. P. R- c ^ u 
have my name and address by applying to the Editor of this paper. In 
withholding my name from the bottom of this letter I am not actuated 
by feelings of either modesty, fear, or shame. 
My friend di 1 not suppose the young man would wish to go to him 
after receiving such a letter, but as he is of a warmhearted and generous 
disposition, he had not the heart to tell the young man he would not 
have him after the former had written accepting the engagement, and 
decided to give him a trial ; and, in doing that, he did what I would not 
have done after I had seen the letter in which he had referred to his 
father in such “ filial ” terms ; and I did not hesitate to write back and 
say that “ I would uot have engaged such a man upon any terms. The 
young man in question had not “ £5 in his pocket,” nor could he borrow 
the sum from the “ friend ” with whom he had been staying, and who 
he said would lend it him ; therefore “ W. W. R.’s” observation on that 
point is quite beside the mark. I suppose the young man agreed to pay 
the premium in order to have the opportunity of learning that with which 
he was unfamiliar, as I and scores of others have done, and not for the 
particular purpose of b^ing allowed to do the work he was specially 
engaged to do on his representations that he was accustomed and competent 
to carry out such work. 
“ W. P. R.” acknowledges that “considerable forbearance” was exhi¬ 
bited towards this young man ; but although, in his own view, no other 
but philanthropic motives are very clear, yet he is reluctant to credit my 
friend with such motives. In the absence of any other clear motives, 
“ W. P. R.” has no alternative but to so credit him. I cannot see any¬ 
thing peculiar in the fact of the £5 having to be paid during the first 
year; as a rule, it is during the first year that men give the most trouble, 
and sometimes it happens that after they have been allowed twelve 
months’ credit they have left their situations and “ forgotten ” that they 
owe anything. My friend informs me that his predecessor experienced 
that. I have no personal experience in the matter, for the reason that I 
have never yet taken a premium off a young man ; but my experience on 
the subject is that they who get the most information imparted to them 
gratis are by no means the most grateful for it, and I do not think I shall 
long continue my practice in that respect, although I have done so nearly 
eleven years. 
I do not feel called upon to answer “ W. P. R.’s ” last inquiry, but for 
the sake of courtesy I will do so. The number of young men who have 
not stayed more than twelve months in the gardens alluded to during the 
ten years my friend has been there—and where there are six in the 
bothies—I understand are three, and that number includes the young man 
in question. During the first part of the period of ten years there were 
but four in the bothy, latterly there has been six, thus giving an average 
number of five. There has been a total of fifteen changes during the ten 
years, this gives an average of three years and four months per man. 
Can “ W. P. R.” cite another case under similar conditions where the same 
average number of young men stay the same or greater average length of 
time ? I base my statements upon information supplied to me from the 
pay sheets, which I consider to be far more reliable than one-sided state¬ 
ments. 
“Another Observer” admits my case is the same as he mentions on 
page 376, and says that he has sifted out a few facts in connection with 
the same, and says there is good reason for disquietude and inquiry, and 
appeals to the Editor for a fair hearing. I make no such appeal to him, 
because I am confident that, having admitted such a serious charge 
against a gardener into his paper, he will not close its columns until the 
matter is brought to a clear issue, and provided the question is discussed 
in a proper manner. I notice that, although he says he has sifted out a 
few facts in regard to this case, yet he does not attempt to refute or dis¬ 
prove any one of the positive statements that I made on pages 353 and 
354, but contents himself by making calculations on a qualified statement 
—viz., “ about 24s.” I qualified the statement because I did not remem¬ 
ber the exact sum, and by quibbling over a few days in regard to the 
words “ several months.” The young man was employed ten weeks and 
four days, and I am informed be was paid for eleven weeks ; eleven 
weeks come nearer the period of three months than two months, and as 
any small number over the singular comes within the meaning of the 
word “ several,” I contend that my statement in regard to time was 
correct. 
My friend positively states that “Another Observer’s” assertion as to 
the amount deducted is absolutely incorrect. He says it was 22s. and not 
27s., as stated by “ Another Observer therefore his calculations are 
worthless, and his knowledge of that and similar cases nil. I made no 
defence of too much dress, consequently there is none for “ Another 
Observer ” to pass. When a case has to be propped up by incorrect asser¬ 
tions, quibblings, or garbled quotations it indicates weakness indeed. 
“Another Obseiver” says, “The charge of not turning out and 
ignoring the foreman’s authority is disputed,” and calls for the foreman 
as a witness. Well, he shall have him, and here is his testimony as given 
last Saturday in reply to questions on the points “ disputed ” but not 
denied: “ I had to speak to the young man in question as to turning out 
