222 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[July 10. 
cut from this plantation ? Mountains are made of mole¬ 
hills, and many objections have been made to Mr. A 
showing from the plants grown on Mr. B’s premises; 
hut we will not go into all the gyros and cons, because we 
place the thing at once on a broader base. If Edmonton 
produced better pansies than any other locality, and we 
bargained for half a man’s garden there, and Sawbridge- 
worth grew lloses better than other places, and we 
rented part of some man’s premises there, and, in fact, 
went to the expense of ten bits of garden in ten places ) 
and paid people to look after them, we are most decidedly 
of opinion that we should have a right to show from all 
of them. No line can be drawn that will exclude a man 
from exhibiting from all the pieces of ground he may 
rent. One of the best members of the Metropolitan Society 
was constrained by his business to reside in the heart of 
London, surrounded hy its smoke; he grew his dahlias 
at a small nursery north of London, and frequently won 
prizes. There were dark insinuations about his not 
showing his own flowers; and at last, a formal complaint 
was made and met. He rented a piece of ground at a 
nursery, paid a man to look after his flowers ; of course 
the case broke down; for you might as well refuse to let 
the Duke of Devonshire show from Chatsworth because 
he lives also at Chiswick, as forbid a man showing from 
twenty gardens, if he went to the expense of twenty. 
The only bad feature about the matter is, the renting of 
ground at a nursery; because there seems no check 
upon cutting from the owner’s stock as well as one’s 
own; but if a man be honest, he will not do so.” 
With the opinion thus expressed, we entirely coin¬ 
cide, with the exception that under no circumstances 
would we allow the portion of garden rented to be part 
of a nursery. 
The second question is the following:—A nurseryman 
rents a piece of ground, erects upon it greenhouses, and 
stocks it thoroughly. The parish then endeavours to 
rate him to the poors’-rate according to its improved 
value; and the question has arisen whether this higher 
rating is admissible. The question was brought before 
the Winchester bench of magistrates, and was decided 
by a majority that the higher rating is not maintainable. 
They held that greenhouses, unlike other buildings 
erected by tenants in other trades, do not attach to the 
land, but are always treated in law as stock in trade, 
which is clearly not rateable. What Lord Kenyon 
stated in Penton v. Hobart (2 East, 90), is so strongly 
in support of this view of the case, and is so illumined 
by that enlightened policy which should influence a 
decision upon this question, that we offer no excuse for 
its quotation :— 
“ The old cases upon this subject, said his lordship, leaned 
to consider as realty (part of the freehold) whatever was 
annexed to the freehold by the occupier; but in modern 
times the leaning lias always been the other way, in favour 
of the tenant, in support of the interests of trade, which is 
become the pillar of the state. What tenant will lay out his 
money in costly improvements of the land, if he must leave 
everything behind him which can be said to be annexed to 
it ? Shall it bo said that the great gardeners and nursery¬ 
men in the neighbourhood of this metropolis, who expend 
thousands of pounds in the erection of ^greenhouses, and 
hothouses, <fcc., are obliged to leave all these things behind 
them, when it is notorious that they are even permitted to 
remove trees, or such as are likely to become so, by the 
thousand, in the necessary course of their trade. If it were 
otherwise, the very object of their holding would be defeated. 
This is a description of property divided from the realty.” 
Now, if a greenhouse be property divided from the 
freehold, it cannot, in the case of a nurseryman, be 
anything but a part of his stock in trade, which, as we 
have already observed, is clearly not rateable. The 
bench were not unmindful of the recent decision in The 
Queen v. Haslam (Justice of the Peace, xv. 24); but 
they held, though not unanimously, that greenhouses 
being uniformly treated as part of a nurseryman’s stock 
in trade, the present was distinguishable from that case. 
We should not have mentioned this, but to apprise nur¬ 
serymen of the mischief that is stirring; for if that mis¬ 
chief fixes upon them, they need not be reminded that 
it will be a very serious annual charge upon them. 
GARDENING GOSSIP. 
Cheltenham Monster Show —for such was the name 
given to the first attempt, and, as the good people of 
that celebrated town chose the name, we will not attempt 
to change it. Some exceedingly misinformed gentleman 
has ventured to announce that in our remarks upon 
this great enterprise “ there is not a single statement 
founded on fact.” Now we happen to have been one of 
the few writers who never had to apologise for a false¬ 
hood, nor to retract a paragraph, and if we do so now it 
will be a novelty. We can endure anything, pardon 
anything, but falsehood, wilfully put forth to lower any 
one in public estimation; and we expect no mercy our¬ 
selves if we, by any chance, should be found tripping; 
but, before we proceed to substantiate what we said, let 
us repeat the paragraph: 
“ The inhabitants of Cheltenham had a chance of establish¬ 
ing one of the finest shows in England, having the advantage 
of a heavy subscription. But they farmed the exhibition 
out to private speculators, who turned out one of the worst 
schedules that was ever printed, promised the most ridiculous 
prizes, cut them down after they were fairly won, and were 
actually threatened with law proceedings before even some 
of these were paid. It may be improved, but it will never 
be what it might have been with good management.” 
Now the statements here are exceedingly plain :— 
1st. They farmed the exhibition out to private speculators. 
2ndly. The private speculators turned out one of the 
worst schedules that was ever printed, and promised the 
most ridiculous prizes. 
flrdly. Cut the prizes down after they were fairly won. 
And, 4thly, were actually threatened with law proceedings 
before even some of these were paid. 
Now first, we have it on the authority of Mr. Glenny, 
who was consulted from tire commencement until it was 
turned over, that the first movers in the affair turned 
over <£200 subscriptions to the parties who engaged, on 
tlieir own account, to carry it through. Let this be 
denied or evaded, as the case may be, yet the fact cannot 
he denied. 
Secondly, we refer to the schedule itself, the worst for 
a public show that was ever put forth, and so ridiculous 
that the judges were ashamed to award the prizes even 
to things shown fairly up to the point of excellence'' 
