JUNE. 
163 
practical every day. Let them not be behind the demand, but prepare 
at once for a share of the prizes which the competitive principle of 
election will place in their way; or should business on their own 
account be their ultimate object, how materially this youth-training 
will assist them in after life, and contribute to their success, old 
heads can decide. 
Want of success oftentimes arises from entertaining the very 
fallacious idea, that to rise to any eminence in life good friends are 
indispensable, or a large share of good luck; that the highest merit 
frequently goes unrewarded, while the mere empiric, if fortune favours 
him, gains the prize. We need not say we repudiate such dogmas in 
toto as unworthy of a moment's consideration, and yet they appear to 
be entertained by parties from whom we expected better things. We refer 
to a review, in the last number of the “ Scottish Gardener,” where the 
writer, in alluding to the efforts of the two brothers—George and David 
Don, tells us, “ Success in life is a very curious thing, and often made 
up of very curious elements. We would not say, indeed, that Mr. 
George Don, and still less that Professor David Don were absolutely 
unsuccessful, but yet their success was moderate compared with that 
of certain sommites of botany and horticulture, who can hardly be 
conceived to be of higher scientific powers than the Dons were * * 
Undoubtedly Scotch gardeners occupy some conspicuous places in the 
empire ; but it is nevertheless true, that no Scottish journeyman gardener 
has ever attained the dignity of baronet and M.P., and no Scotchman 
has ever made such a good thing of instructing the public as a distin¬ 
guished horticultural leader is said to do. Possibly the facts are too few 
to warrant a conclusion being drawn between the countries ; but still the 
comparative success of the individuals in question remains a problem to 
be solved ; we are not grudging it, but we should like to see through the 
mystery.” We opine the solution of the problem lies in a nutshell; 
but our principal object is to enter our protest against the assumption 
of a difference in regard to merit, between Scotch and English 
gardeners, who, themselves (at least all the more sensible of them) 
repudiate the distinction. Half-a-century back, and the veriest tyro 
from Scotland thought himself, when once in England, infinitely 
superior to any English gardener whatever, a feeling entertained to 
some extent at the time by employers as well. We are happy to say 
a larger intercouse with each other, and a more enlightened appreciation 
of each other’s merits, has now dispelled this illusion; and gardeners 
of any standing in their profession whether born on this or that side 
of the Tweed, or beyond the Irish Channel, have learned to respect and 
esteem each other on their merits, without reference to country or creed. 
Referring to the two Englishmen, alluded to by our contemporary as 
having been successful beyond their merits, for such we take to be the 
writer’s meaning, we happen to have known both of them for many 
years, and having watched their \ rogress almost from their commence¬ 
ment of life, have always considered their success due to a wise 
application of their powers of mind. Both are men of industry and 
energy, as well as of great ability, and these high qualities are fortu¬ 
nately combined with a large share of common sense, which has enabled 
