March 8, 1887. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
165 
8 
Tn 
Linncan Society at 8 p.m. 
4 
P 
5 
s 
fi 
Run 
2nd Sunday in Lent. 
7 
m 
8 
To 
Royal Horticultural Society. Fruit and Floral Committees at 11 A.M. 
9 
W 
JUBILEE PROPOSITIONS. 
S we suspected when introducing as a matter 
“worthy of consideration” the raising of a 
national fund in commemoration of the fiftieth 
anniversary of Her Majesty’s reign, to be ex¬ 
pressed in the form of a permanent erection 
as the head quarters of horticulture in this 
country, other methods of celebrating the 
event have been advanced. It has been pro¬ 
posed to obtain land with the object of finding employ¬ 
ment for “ surplus ” gardeners in growing fruit and 
vegetables for market. However desirable it may be to 
find occupation for men willing to labour, we are brought 
face to face with an initial difficulty—namely, if the de¬ 
mand for garden produce is met by existing establish¬ 
ments, and extra labour cannot be profitably employed 
in increasing the supply, there is small hope of any 
organisation of the nature suggested proving satisfactory. 
The next proposition is the establishment of a home for 
old or disabled gardeners in poor circumstances; and it 
is further suggested that if ,£20,000 could be raised and 
worked in connection with the Gardeners’ Boyal Bene¬ 
volent Institution, with or without a “ home,” a large 
amount of distress might be prevented. Undoubtedly 
that is so, and in all probability much more good could 
be done with such a sum without a necessarily costly 
“home” than with one. A third proposition is raising 
a fund for granting relief to gardeners out of employ¬ 
ment. This, like some other of the propositions, has met 
with no response, not through any want of sympathy with 
the object, but from a consciousness of the impractica¬ 
bility of any such scheme. We now come to the proposi¬ 
tion of Mr. C. Penny—namely, the establishment of a 
home for the orphans of gardeners. This admirable 
suggestion has met with an encouraging share of'approval. 
Several letters have appeared in our columns in favour 
of the project, and none against it. Others appear in our 
present issue. “ C. II. S.” pleads eloquently on behalf 
of the project, and proposes the opening of subscription 
lists. Mr. Hull expresses his sympathy in the practical 
form of a cheque, which we have forwarded to Mr. Penny ; 
and Mr. Goodacre and Mr. D. Thomson contribute letters 
worthy of attentive consideration. 
The scheme, as Mr. Goodacre observes, is a gigantic 
one, and in carrying it out there must be strong and 
earnest workers on its behalf. A question for the con¬ 
sideration of the projector and his supporters is the 
desirability of torming a central committee for deciding 
on a form of appeal and drafting propositions to be sub¬ 
mitted to meetings of gardeners and others in sympathy 
with the object in various parts of the country. With a 
complete organisation and wide concerted action there is 
No. 349.— Vol, XIV., Third Series 
not a doubt that a very large sum of money may 
collected with the object of assisting the widows of ga 
deners in bringing up their children, and affordin 
orphans a means of support and education fitting them 
for the duties of life. The precise form in which this 
could be best done is a question that must be governed 
by the circumstances of the case. The object itself is so 
good that it will command support if placed before the 
public in a manner that could be devised by a committee 
of business men, for no individual however able and 
earnest ought to be expected to carry out a work of the 
magnitude suggested even with the aid, generous though 
it may be, of casual helpers, and it appears to us that an 
administrative body is necessary for carrying out, in the 
best manner of which it is capable, the project which the 
Prince of Wales’s gardener has had the honour to 
originate. If Mr. Penny should be fortunate in securing 
the patronage of his august master, the “ popular Prince,” 
to this good object its success would be assured. 
We give the same prominence to the gardeners’ 
orphanage scheme that we gave to the project first men¬ 
tioned, and leave our readers to decide on their line of 
action. We shall be ready to help forward either or both 
the objects, and shall rejoice if Mr. Penny and his coad¬ 
jutors achieve the object of their desire. 
The letters received this week are appended :—• 
The idea of a gardeners’ orphanage as a Jubilee institution is as 
noble as it is gigantic, and unless it meets with general approval and 
support the task will be a hopeless one for gardeners to accomplish. It 
will require a large amount of outside help, as the sum of money 
needed before such a scheme could look at all successful is very large, 
and considering the depressed state of trade, we cannot expect very 
much of this. Fortunately we find the nursery and seedsmen amongst 
the most generously disposed, especially towards gardeners, but as these 
are mostly located in towns where they will possibly subscribe to the 
Imperial Institute fund, we cannot expect the support we might other¬ 
wise get in more fortunate times. 
We have in the Railway Orphanage at Derby the most modern and 
best-managed institution to be found in the country. The architectural 
plans and supervision, and many of the arrangements, are all gratui¬ 
tous, and the children carried free from any part of the country to 
Derby, yet the lowest possible cost is £14 per head per annum. 
When we look at the enormous advantage the railway authorities 
have compared with gardeners, who are isolated and scattered far and 
wide, it makes the task look more difficult for the latter to accomplish. 
To make anything like a respectable start it will require £30,000 to 
procure suitable land and erect proper buildings. There are about 
one thousand nursery and seedsmen, and about five thousand gardeners 
in the country. To raise this sum it would average something like £5 
per head, but whether this would be done remains to be seen. I trust 
the above will meet with general support ; but I am wondering if an 
orphans’ fund could not be associated in some way with the Gardeners’ 
Royal Benevolent Institution, and meet with more approval. 
If we could dispel the notion of ill-treatment to boarded-out children, 
I think some such system could be adopted at much less cost, as I find 
the average cost per head for several unions is 4s. Id. per week. If 
anyone chooses to inquire of Mr. Hall, Railway Orphanage, Derby, that 
gentleman will be most happy to give any information on the subject.— 
J. H. Goodacre, Elvaston Castle Gardens. 
Your correspondent, - A. L. G.” seems somewhat of a pessimist, but 
I hope that the subject of this letter may be considered in future as the 
gardeners’ orphanage—that is to say, the question of its being established 
must be admitted, and not for a moment doubted. 
Surely the excellent suggestion of Mr. Penny will not be allowed by 
the gardeners of England to fall flat. I would ask them to remember 
the project is not one to glorify the dead or to flatter the living. 
What Mr. Penny proposes is an institution to save from want the 
children of gardeners who may be cut ofE without the opportunity of 
providing anything for their family, and who shall say where the 
calamity shall first fall ? 
There is an old saying that mankind thinks every other man mortal 
but himself—that is to say, whilst we are too apt to think death may 
overtake many with whom we are acquainted, we too often fail to ex¬ 
pect such a calamity in our own case. There is no institution in 
existence connected with gardeners that is fairly worthy being so de¬ 
scribed, whilst almost every other trade and profession have their 
institutions to provide for poor children that may require assistance. 
It is essential that the project should be sot going by gardeners and 
those who are most directly interested in such an institution ; when it 
No. 2005.— Yol. LXXVI., Old Series, 
