222 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
Sej-temlrer 6,1834. 
weie usually confined to brick pits, but no demand was ever made for 
them until th’s year. 
Now, as to the soil used, “ W. I,” gays “ Mr. Calvert has to contend 
with canker, and he partially blames the li?ht soil for this. He has not 
been at Woburn Abbey many months, and had no time to look up a 
heap of what he rightly considers suitable soil. Another season all 
this will be altered, as they do not appear so shy of cutting soil at 
Woburn as at far too many other places.” 
Once more my reply is, for many years up to 1894 no turf was more 
jealously guarded than at Woburn, and none permitted to be dug except 
in this light loamy corner, and " W. I.” may console Mr. Calvert that I 
at las*', just before leaving, was permitted to select for his use a part of 
the park where he can cut turf for years to come of a quality that will 
cure the “ canker ” next year, if soil alone will do it. 
For years the Woburn Abbey Gardens have been known for their 
all-round work with a stated number of hands. My noble employer 
once told me, “ The gardens were for his experiments and pleasure, and 
not, as in too many places, for the gardener.” Consequently everything 
was worked to that end. How well that object was attained, after 
seventeen years’ management, speaks for itself in the following 
memoranda. On presenting a letter with the balance-sheet at the end 
of the year it came back endorsed, “ I beg to thank Mr. McKay for this 
very satisfactory statement.— Bedford.” 
The following year’s note is, “ I have received the Woburn Abbey 
Hardens account, and beg to thank Mr. McKay for his good and 
economical management.— Bedford.” 
The originals of those memoranda shall be shown to “ W. I.” at any 
time if he will call on me.— Alex. McKay (lafe of Wohurn), 2, Stock- 
wood Crescent, Luton, Beds. 
[We insert Mr. McKay’s critique on the notes of our correspondent 
“ W. I.,” which appear on page 130 of our issue of August 9th, with a 
request that those of our readers who are interested in the matter, and 
not prejudiced, will carefully examine and compare them with the 
present rejoinder, then judge for themselves as to whether Mr. McKay 
has any such legitimate grounds of complaint as he imagines. 
We should be very much surprised if “ W. I.” had Mr. Calvert’s 
predecessor in mind when he penned his article. Be this as it may, 
we believe our correspondent to be incapable of “ hitting” at a gardener 
•out of a situation. We are convinced he would have far greater 
pleasure in assisting a competent and worthy brother of the craft into 
a good one if he could, and as he has many times done. We should not 
thank any gardener to write to the Journal of Horticulture if he would 
not do this, and we would not knowingly publish an article from any¬ 
one who made it the medium of casting reflections of the nature of those 
'indicated by Mr. McKay. 
The question of the absence of suitable houses for Melons is 
-comp'etely answered by the statement that ” Melons were not required 
during the last twenty years,” therefore neither were the houses. Now 
that Melons are wanted is it not reasonable to suppose that suitable 
means for producing them will be forthcoming ? 
As to soil, evidently Mr. McKay was not satisfied with it, and it was 
kind of him to obtain permission to procure some of a better staple for 
his successor ; yet we doubt if it will “ cure,” though we hope it may 
prevent canker in Melons. 
The Duke of Bedford’s memoranda could only be dictated by noble 
instincts, and it was an act of innate courtesy to thank his gardener for 
his satisfactory statement and good management. 
If ” W. I.” should call at Luton to see the “originals,” he will also, 
we presume, be permitted to see the “ number of letters,” the writers 
of which interpret the remarks in the article on “ Melons at Woburn ” 
as a reflection on the capacity of the late gardener there. If the number 
is large we shall take it as a compliment that the Journal of Horticul¬ 
ture ii so extensively and carefully read ; if small, that there was not 
much to complain about. We trust Mr. McKay will soon obtain a 
situation which will afford scope for the exercise of his gardening 
abilities.] 
NOTES ON PEAS. 
The instructive notes by Mr. Chinnery (page 173) cannot fail to be 
of interest, recording as they do a selection and the behaviour of well 
known Peas in a season which has been scarcely paralleled for severe May 
frosts, also an almost entire absence of sunshine during the summer. 
Opinions will always vary as to the best varieties to grow ; but there is 
no doubt that a carefully selected list is of much importance where a 
succession must be maintained. 
How much we are indebted to the firms who have introduced the 
many useful Peas. I have this season given a trial to May Queen and 
Al, sown at the same time and on the same border as American Wonder 
and William Hurst. Although they scarcely possess the dwarf habit of 
the two latter I must admit that Al was the earlier to gather, being a 
week in advance of the others, whilst May Queen made a good succes¬ 
sion, the pods being long, well filled, with the true Marrowfat flavour so 
highly prized by connoisseurs of Peas. Three weeks were allowed 
between the second sowing, when Improved Ringleader, which has taken 
the place of WiBiam I. possessing as it does much better flavour and 
larger pods. Early Marrowfat, Plentiful, Satisfaction, Sharpe’s Queen, 
and Duke of Albany were sown. With this selection we have had no 
break in the supply. 
This season has quite convinced me that Duke of Albany must be 
left out another year, for it cannot hold its own with such fine sorts as 
Plentiful and Satisfaction, their recommendations being dwarf habit, 
enormous cropping qualities, nearly three times the weight being picked 
from each row, and last, but not least, the delicious flavour retained 
even when the pods seem bursting. As Mr. Chinnery points out, however, 
Duke of Albany can soon be cleared off the ground. Prodigy, Heroine, 
Magnum Bonum Marrowfat, and Ne Plus Ultra were the next to 
follow. Of the former I need add no furt’ner praise than what has 
already been accorded. Heroine has a light coloured pod, but flavour 
and cropping qualities are excellent. Magnum Bonum Marrowfat 
possesses grand cropping qualities and superior flavour, leaving nothing 
to be desired, whilst of Ne Plus Ultra I can only say that it is 
one of the most useful Peas in existence. Shropshire Hero is the 
heaviest cropping variety with which I am acquainted, and Fame is 
almost identical with Ne Plus Ultra, both quite a week earlier than 
Matchless Marrowfat, which I consider the best Pea in existence for any 
purpose. Latest of All formed the next sowing, a good succession being 
the result. For the latest sowing very few varieties could be found to 
approach Chelsea Gem and Improved Ringleader. From these varieties 
we are likely to have a fine late crop. 
The above notes refer to Peas that do well in the neighbourhood of 
Liverpool, the varieties being, with the exception of Fame and Ne Plus 
Ultra, dwarf heavy croppers, and of excellent flavour. The trench system 
will not do with us, but if the seeds are planted almost on the ground 
level the crop is abundant. Our garden has not more than 3 feet of 
soil, a solid bed of clay running throughout. Although the season has 
been so sunless, we have never been more free from mildew, and that 
with the rows of Peas planted from 3^ to 4^ feet asunder. It is 
evident that mildew is not altogether the result of close planting, 
for I saw on Thursday last two fine long rows of Ne Plus Ultra com¬ 
pletely ruined by it, the rows being 10 feet asunder.—R. P. R. 
THE MAKING OF GARDENERS. 
The recent articles on this subject which have appeared in the 
Journal of Horticulture will doubtless be read with great interest by 
gardeners generally. The subject itself to my mind is open to very 
wide argument, and the most knotty points of the question appear to 
be—(«) The best mode of training young gardeners; (&) The best 
method of proving their competence. Many able suggestions have been 
made towards solving these difficulties, among which have been mentioned 
“ training colleges.” Such establishments would doubtless be very 
useful for teaching the theories and technicalities of what might be 
called higher grade gardening, but so far as teaching the practical 
routine of a gardener’s occupation is concerned, they would be com¬ 
paratively useless. This can only be learnt by experience and constant, 
practical diligence. Again, supposing for a moment it were possible 
that a few years’ study in a training establishment would be sufficient to 
make a competent gardener, would he be able at the end of that period 
to command a sufficiently high salary to repay him for the money he 
must necessarily lay out in his course of training ? No, I say ; and 
before such a method can be made feasible for the training of gardeners, 
gardening itself will have to rise considerably higher as a calling in this 
country. 
I quite concur with “ J. S.” in his article on page 123 that the best 
mode of training young gardeners is a thorough experience in all the 
departments of a well-kept garden, and this training, to my mind, 
should take the form of an apprenticeship, after which a youth would be 
able to produce his indentures and prove that at any rate he had gone 
through a competent course of training. It is a well-known fact that 
gardening at present is considerably overstocked, and this, to a great 
extent, has been brought about through there being no limit to the 
inflow into the ranks. A youth may obtain employment in a gentleman’s 
garden, and without having any particular bent towards horticulture, or 
any ardent desire to become a gardener, find himself drifted along, and 
in a few years advertises himself as being a thoroughly competent 
gardener. He probably fails in the first charge he has, and so employers 
think the days for good gardeners are gone by, while bond fide men are 
greatly hampered in their attempts to succeed by such stumbling-blocks. 
If gardeners were obliged, on applying for situations, to prove that they 
had served an apprenticeship to their calling, it would at any rate stop 
the inflow of so many men who, after perhaps failing at one or more 
other branches in life, take up gardening as a last resource. 
In dealing with the second point—namely. How to prove a gardener’s 
competence, Mr. Dean (page 26) is no doubt right to a certain extent 
when he says, “ By the work of his hands.” But before jumping directly 
to this conclusion let us pause to consider how often even good 
gardeners are greatly handicapped in their situations, to such an extent 
that even this method sometimes appears useless. No gardener can 
produce good results alone. There must be encouragement and help on 
the part of his employer in the shape of sufficient glass and other 
accommodation, a competent staff of men to keep the place in order and 
carry on the work satisfactory. Alas 1 do we not all know many 
instances where the gardener is expected to make “ bricks without 
straw ? ” 
Before we condemn a man as being an incompetent gardener, let us 
try and have a peep behind the scenes, and see under what circum¬ 
stances and conditions he is expected to carry on the place which he 
may have charge. None of us, I think, need travel very far to see 
gardens that are anything but creditable, which, under circumstances fair 
to the gardener, he would probably be able to defy even the severest 
critics. All this goes to prove that we have not yet a thoroughly reliable 
method of proving the capabilities of gardeners.—G. H., Alton Towers, 
