February 2f5. 
COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION. 
y/EEKLY CALENDAR. 
S87 
D 
M 
D 
W 
FEB. 26—MARCH 3, 19i6. 
! Weatuee nk.ye London in 
Barometer. Thermo.^ Wind. 
1855. 
Rain in 
Inches. 
Sun 
Rises. 
Sun 
Sets. 
Moon 
R. & 3, 
Moon’s 
Age. 
Clock 
bf. Sun. 
Oav of 
- 
1 ear. 
26 
Tn 
Podura vitidis. 
! 29 . 533 — 29.469 
1 40—32 N.W. 
04 
,55 a 6 
31 a 5 
11 57 
20 
13 
15 
27 
\v 
Helophorus stagnalia. 
I 29 . 8 U — 29.602 
42—37 s, 1 
06 
53 
33 
morn. 
21 
13 
4 
68 
28 
Th 
lUston hispidarius. 
' 29 . 777 — 29.737 
; 50—29 9AV. 1 
13 
61 
35 
1 14 
22 
12 
54 
59 
29 
F 
Silpha opaca. 
1 
49 
37 
2 31 
e 
12 
42 
fit) 
1 
S 
Abrseus perpusillus. 
29 . 62 , 5 — 29.527 
; 53—39 9.W. 
09 
47 
38 
3 in 44 
lU 
12 
30 
61 
‘i 
Sun 
4Tn, or Midlent Sdmday. 
29 . 355 — 29.001 
1 53—38 S.W. 
23 
45 
40 
4 49 
25 
12 
18 
62 
3 
M 
Helophorus griseus. 
) 29 . 434 — 29.808 
1 50—30 .S.W. 
06 
42 
42 
6 36 
26 
13 
5 
63 
JIeteorology of the Week. —AtChiswick, from observations during the last twenty-nine years, the average highest and lowest tem¬ 
peratures of these days are 48.3°, and 34 . 4 °, respectively. The greatest heat, 64°, occurred on the 28th,,in 1846; and the lowest cold, 18°, 
on the 3rd, in ;6.')4. During the period 107 days were 6 ne, and on 89, rain fell. 
At page 416 of our last volume, after stating what we 
considered common sense adjudged, to he a gardener 
rendering his employer liable to pay the tax assessed 
upon such a servant, we added—“ but there are so many 
finelj' drawn distinctions, that we advise that an at¬ 
torney be consulted.” That we were right in such 
advice is evident from many cases which have since 
occurred, for we thought, and we still thinh, that if the 
tax be paid by a gentleman upon his head and under¬ 
gardeners—and we considered, and still consider, under- 
gardeners to be such men of shill as are capable of 
entirely managing a garden in one or all of its de¬ 
partments— that the employer has been taxed to 
the extent that reason and the legislature intended. 
In such opinion we have been mistaken. The words 
of the Act (l(i and 17 Viet. e. t)0 ) are as follows: — 
“The said duties on Gardeners (.£1 Is. if above 18 
vears of age, and 10s. Od. if under 18) shall ex¬ 
tend to every gardener who shall have contr.acted for 
the keeping of any garden or gardens wherein the 
constant labour of a jierson shall be necessary, or when 
a person shall have been constantly employed thereiu> 
to be paid by the person for whose use and in whose 
garden such gardener or person shall have been em¬ 
ployed; provided that no person shall be deemed a 
gardener unless the whole or the greater part of his 
time shall be employed as a gardener in a garden re¬ 
quiring the greater part of the labour of one pci’son ; 
provided also that any person employing any under- 
gardener shall be chargeable for such under gardener at 
the rate of Ids. (Id. only.” 
This is nil sufficiently imprecise, for according to its 
wording, a woman, for the term “ a person,” includes 
such, “shall liave been constantly employed” in a 
garden, she is witliin the words of the Statute! 
The most common doubt, however, has arisen upon 
tlie question, “ What constitutes an under-gardener 
within the meaning of the Statute? ” 
We have given what we consider the correct definition, 
but grave judges of our liighest Courts of Law have 
decided otherwise, for in one of the following cases, a 
man employed under a head-gardener, though “ paid 
weekly wages at the rate of common agricultural la¬ 
bourers of the district,” and “ knowing nothing of the 
management of a garden,” is an under-gardener, and 
liable to the half-guinea tax. 
We are indebted to the Qanleners Chronicle for the 
three cases which follow :— 
No. I.—At a meeting of the Commissioners of Land and 
Assessed Taxes held at Hanmer for the Division of 
Alaylor, in the County of ITint, on the 4th day of Sep¬ 
tember, 1854, for tlie purpose of lieariug appeals against 
first assessments of Assessed Taxes for 1854. 
Sir John Hanmer, Baronet, appealed against assessment 
made upon him for two under-gardeners. Appellant slated 
that he only kept one gardener, at an annual salary, and 
that the other two men employed by him in Ids garden were 
labourers not in receipt of annual salaries, but paid weekly 
wages at the rate of common agricultural labourers of the 
district; consequently, he contended, they were not under¬ 
gardeners under the meaning of the Assessed Tax Act of 
last session. Appellant is assessed for one gardener and 
two under-gardeners. 
The surveyor objected and stated tjie laboiu'ers in question 
Avere in his opinion assessable as under-gardeners. 
The Commissioners relieved appellant from assessment, 
and the surveyor demanded a case for the opinion of Her 
Majesty’s judges, which we have stated and signed accor 
dingRx— Joaeph Lee, Thomas. IF. Lee, Commissioners. 
.lirDaMENT.—We are of opinion that the determination of 
the Comniissioners is wrong.— Wm. JFifihlmaii, 7'. J. Plat/, 
Samuel Martin. 14th December, 1854. 
No. II_At a meeting of the Commissioners of L.and and 
Assessed Taxes, held at the Crown Hotel, Faringdon, on 
the .‘lOth September, 18-54, for the pm pose of hearing 
appeals against the first assessments for the year 1854-5. 
The IliGHT Honourable Yiscotjnt Barrington appealed 
against a charge made on him for four under-gardeners, 
wliom he considered as labourers, and who were engaged in 
the garden assisting, and under the management of the 
gardener; they were paid weekly wages, knew nothing of 
the management of a garden, and were frequently changed 
in the summer months, .and therefore couhl not be termed 
nnder-gardeners as meant by the act of .Parliament, but 
that nnder-gardeners ivere persons skilled iii gardening, and 
who might take upon themselves the charge of a garden in 
the absence of the head-gardener. 
Mr. Webber, the surveyor, contended that, as these men 
were employed in the garden, lawn, and shrubberies, under 
the direction of the head-gardener, they ivere assessable as 
nnder-gardeners at lO.s. (Id. each, but w'e, tlie majority of 
tlie Commissioners present who heard tlie said appeal, 
being of Ids lordship’s opinion relieved him from the 
charge. The surveyor being dissatisfied with the deci.siou 
requested a case for the opinion of Her Majesty’s judges, 
which we hereby state and sign accordingly. 
The same case will govern the charge made upon Sir 
Bobert Throgmorton, Baronet, wdio was relieved by the 
Comndssioners from four nnder-gardeners. 
(riven under our hands this fourth day of December, 
18-54.— O'. Butter, Georep: jMantell, 'Thus. Beteher, Geo. F. 
Crou'dij, Commissioners. 
.Tudgment. —We are of opdnion that the determination of 
the Commissioners is wrong.— Wm. Wlphtmaa, T. J. Blati, 
Samuel iMnrtiu. 14tli December, 1854. 
No. 111.—At an adjourned meeting of the Commissioners 
of Assessed Taxes for the hundred of Wootton, in the 
county of Oxford, held in the Town Hall, in Woodstock, 
in the said district, on Wednesday the ‘lOth day of Sep- 
Na. CCCLXXXYir. You. XY. 
