4 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 3,1883. 
-candidate, but, on the other hand, some, perhaps, are discarded that, 
'with more patience, might have proved well worthy of cultivation. 
Lady Helen Stewart (1887) I saw somewhere in good form, but can¬ 
not remember that it made much impression on me. 
Mary Bennett (1884). — Very finely shown by Mr. B. Cant at 
Ipswich. It has a beautiful colour and stout petals, but I fear it is a 
weak grower. 
Mrs. John Laing (1887).—I think this is one of the finest Roses sent 
out for a long time. I have some fear that it will be a late bloomer ; 
most of mine came out very late, but every bloom was good enough to 
show. It was the year after Her Majesty that Mrs. John Laing gained 
the gold medal of the N.R.S., and I remember hearing it said at that 
time that the latter was the better of the two. I should not like to 
dogmatise on this point myself at present, but both Roses have cer¬ 
tainly been shown in far better form since that time. More power to 
your elbow, Mr. Bennett! Don’t let that gold medal at the Palace go 
begging next year, please. 
Madame Suzanne Rodocanache (I do not know whether I have the 
name right; opinions seem to differ according to the taste and fancy of 
the speller, but, anyhow, I would sooner spell it than pronounce it) is a 
Rose I have heard well spoken of as likely to prove good, but if she does 
come into my service I shall take the liberty of dropping her awful 
surname, and calling her simply “ Susan.” 
Sir Rowland Hill (1888).— Twice at least shown well by Mr. Pem¬ 
berton, and undoubtedly seems to be a fine Rose of a colour new to our 
exhibition stands. It will, no doubt, be very popular, and come into 
strong demand. 
The Puritan (1887).—This being a white H.P.,was, of course, utterly 
out of it in a season like that of 1888. There can be no doubt of its lasting 
properties as a cut flower, when we think that blooms from America 
■were shown in good condition in London ; but, from an exhibitor’s point 
■of view, I fear the shape is not satisfactory. 
Victor Hugo (1884).—A capital grower, and a very good addition 
£o our dark Roses. It evidently much preferred our last cold wet 
•summer to the heat and drought of 1887. 
TEAS. 
Comtesse de Frigneuse (1885).—This has not proved worth keeping 
-with me, the blooms being loose, shapeless, and unstable. 
Henriette de Beauveau (1887).—The last Rose of Lacharme’s raising. 
Is, I suppose, from its extra strong growth of Gloire de Dijon race, which 
some are inclined to put in a class by themselves, and in my opinion it 
is likely this will have to be done sooner or later. The bloom is a 
capital colour, being of that bright, decided, not too pale yellow, which 
so much improves the appearance of a stand or a bouquet of Roses, and 
at present is by no means so common among our Teas as could be 
wished. Few Roses of this race have sufficient quality for exhibition ; 
but, from what I have seen, this one, helped by its colour, may possibly 
be useful for that purpose. 
Madame Hoste (1887).—A good grower, with blooms something of 
the colour of Caroline Kuster. I have great hopes of this Rose turning 
-out well. 
Miss Ethel Brownlow (1887) seems to be a great acquisition, being 
more perfectly imbricated than any Tea Rose with which I am ac¬ 
quainted. A beautifully folded point in the middle, combined with the 
imbricated form, makes this Rose almost an ideal in shape for exhibi¬ 
tion purposes. It is very difficult to describe the colour of this and 
many other Tea Roses, especially some of the newer ones, for it varies 
very much with the weather and general treatment received ; but the 
general colour of Ethel Brownlow is pink, more or less tinged or shaded 
with yellow. It would undoubtedly be of greater use for showing if it 
bad more size, but perhaps this will come. A very fine bloom of it was 
- to be seen in Mr. Paul’s stand at Manchester. 
Princess Beatrice (1887).—Undoubtedly a good grower, really a 
very important point with Tea Roses. I have not succeeded in getting 
or seeing a good bloom, but have good hopes of it from the general 
appearance of those which had battled with the cold storms. 
Souvenir de Gabriel Brevet (1884).—This has disappointed me. 
The buds are.very promising, recalling the shape of Madame de Watte- 
ville ; but mine have failed to fulfil this promise, and have shown an 
early tendency to become hollow in the middle. 
I have alluded to the Bride and others in a former letter on sports, 
and, in conclusion, I think we may all congratulate ourselves upon the 
greatly increasing number of good new Roses which are raised in the 
British isles, not only for patriotic reasons, but also because we are 
having now a larger number of simple English names which everyone 
can repeat, instead of troubling our tempers and tearing our tongues 
with the terrible titles of “ Susan ” and Co.— W. R. Railleh. 
GARDENERS’ EDUCATION AND THEIR SOCIAL 
POSITION. 
I am pleased to find that someone has noticed my remarks on 
page 332, even though my critic does not agree with me altogether. 
It is unfortunate for me that “ H. W. W.” does not show where 
I am illogical, so that I and my readers might profit by the cor¬ 
rection. But is not “ H. W. W.” illogical ? He first claims a 
high and honourable position as being that of gardeners, who, he 
-says, “rank in position next to the steward of the estate,” a 
^position which “ the gardener is not unfrequently called upon to 
fill,” and then proceeds to tell us, after all he has claimed for them, 
that gardeners are conscious of their social inferiority, and educate 
their sons “ for filling a better social position than that occupied 
by themselves.” If gardeners rank next to estate stewards, and 
are estate stewards sometimes, and occupy the same social position; 
and if estate stewards occupy the same social position as lawyers, 
doctors, and farmers (as they do); what calling is there that the 
best gardener’s best son is likely to follow that will give such son 
a higher social position than these have ? My friendly critic has 
proved too much for his own view of the case, and has practically 
and forcibly substantiated mine, for which I thank him. 
Gardeners do not occupy the same social position as land 
stewards, and probably there is not 1 per cent, of gardeners who 
are also land stewards in the proper sense of the term; possibly 
there is not 1 per cent, who are also land stewards in any sense of 
the term, therefore it is wrong to value the position of gardeners 
generally by the standard of, perhaps, half a dozen individuals. 
Such a valuation would be “unjust and delusive;” “unjust’ to 
the gardeners themselves, and “ delusive” to would-be gardeners. 
It may be that I do not know much about gardeners, but what 
I do know causes me to think that they neither occupy their proper 
position nor receive adequate remuneration for the attainments 
and skill the average gardener already possesses. I observe that 
“ H. W. W.” ridicules the idea that gardeners should give their 
sons a university education in order to become gardeners, but 
applauds the suggestions made (in effect) from time to time in the 
Journal, that the young men should study, equally as hard, the 
same subjects that they would be required to study did they enter 
cither Oxford or Cambridge, the only exceptions being Greek and 
Hebrew, and I wonder some ardent educationalist has not suggested 
the former as an absolute necessity to a young gardener, on the 
plea that many plant names and botanical terms are derived from 
the Greek ; and all this in addition to the twelve or sixteen hours 
of hard manual labour and mental worries every day—for even 
young gardeners have their worries about their work.. 
“ H. W. W.” expresses his surprise at a gardener being considered 
a “ menial servant.” I will confess that I am not less surprised, 
and I will thank anyone to prove the statement to be untrue ; but 
in a handy work called “ Every Man His Own Lawyer,” 
written by a barrister, and in an edition for this year, is the follow¬ 
ing paragraph on page 343:—“The term ‘domestic’ or ‘menial 
servants, is now to be considered as applying to such servants, as 
housekeepers, cooks, kitchenmaids, still-room maids, parlourmaids, 
housemaids, dairymaids, nurses, nurserymaids, butlers, valets, pages, 
coachmen, grooms, gardeners, huntsmen, &c. ; ” and on page 344 
are these words :—“ A head gardener at £2 a week, who resided in 
a detached house belonging to his master and in the grounds, sued 
for a quarter’s wages, but he was held to be a menial servant, and 
entitled to a month’s warning only.” In Chambers’ “ Information 
for the People,” in an article on the History of Laws, we find^on 
page 695 corroborative testimony, though the word “ gardener ” is 
not used, but I have no doubt that the remarks applied equally to 
them as to butlers, huntsmen, valets, and “ grafs ” or land stewards, 
but the latter now occupy a higher legal and social position. Unless 
recently altered, masters or mistresses who emp’oy a regular gardener 
or gardeners have to pay a tax upon each ; but it is some satisfaction 
to know that a wise and appreciative Government assessed the 
annual value to revenue of “ H. W. W.’s ” “ man of responsibility ” 
at exactly double that of hi3 dog. 
On page 332 I said that a gardener was politically in some 
respects inferior to his subordinates. Last year an Act was 
passed by Parliament conferring certain new powers upon nearly 
all the people of this country, and authorising the election of 
members of certain new governing bodies called County Councils, 
&c. Every cottager, no matter what his position, education, or the 
value of his cottage, is entitled to vote if he is also entitled to vote 
at a parliamentary election. Not so a gardener, or gardener and 
land steward, or sub-agent, if his house is on his employer’s 
premises and assessed with those premises for poors rate. These 
men have parliamentary votes under the Service Franchise, but 
they are not entitled to vote for the County Council unless they 
have some special qualification either as a freeholder or tenant of 
land of the annual value of £10 and upwards. This is a clear in¬ 
justice to gardeners and other servants. Here is a case in point. .1 
occupy a house which costs me £20 per annum indirect rent, or, in 
other words, my employer would have to pay me £20 more per 
annum salary than he does if he did not find me the house I live in. 
I also rent land for which I am assessed at £3 10s., but for which 
I pay £4 10s. as rent, so that I am an occupier to the yearly value 
of in round figures £25, and yet I have no vote, simply because my 
house is in my employer’s grounds instead of outside, and because 
my land is not of the value of £10 yearly rental. Yet my subor¬ 
dinates, no matter how illiterate, and only paying from £2 to £4 a 
year as rent, have their vote, and rightly so. There are hundreds 
