September 11. 
COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION. 
433 
ought rather to thin some of them out altogether, and to 
j cut some as far as they shaded.] 
“I have followed closely Clement Hoare’s treatment of the 
Vine, and have had fine Grapes; but for the last two or 
: three years I have fancied the close pruning he recommends, 
leaving only two bearing shoots and two of the current 
year’s for future bearers, does not yield a sufficient amount 
of foliage to sustain the energies of the tree. Is it so ? 
—Edward Fairbrother.” 
[No; quite the contrary; but Ho are never recommended 
close pruning at all; and those who close prune Grapes in 
our climate, in the open air, are fighting against reason, ex¬ 
perience, and Hoare’s system ; but you may extend each of 
your Vines to double the present space with advantage, by 
cutting out the rest. 
Hoare is the best English author on out-door Grapes ; yet 
he has mistakes and errors of principle.] 
IS AN UNDER-GARDENER A GENTLEMAN'S 
GARDENER ? 
“ Since the answer to this question was given, in p. 361, 
I have had several inquiries as to judgments made in a 
similar case. There is no difficulty about it; but still, I 
must say, that in the main, I do not see my way clearly to 
join in the opinion there announced, unless there was some 
peculiarity there not stated. I would at once have placed 
“ the second under-gardener, who cultivates a plot of ground 
at his own residence for the use of his family, in the fourth 
class of ‘ cottagers and cottage gardeners.’ ” That the con¬ 
test would not be equal, because he would have the advan¬ 
tage of seeds, plants, &c., from a gentleman’s garden, is 
merely suppositious. He may have had such things, and 
so may the other villagers, and, perhaps, with benefit to 
neither. Cottagers who are particular in these matters 
will not trust to the seeds and plants that a gardener raises 
from seed supplied by a nurseryman or seedsman. The 
quality of the produce is often owing to the great care with 
which they save their own seeds and roots. I should, there¬ 
fore, consider a second under-gardener, living in a cottage, 
and cultivating his plot of ground—as a mere cottager— 
a superior kind of labourer. I recollect priding myself as 
belonging to a profession, —as gardening was called. Small 
pride now, when every razor-grinder, corn-cutter, hop-step- 
and-jumper, is a professor, with a break-jaw name as long as 
my arm. In the palmy days of the Horticultural Society, 
young men got riled, and turned cranky upon going, be¬ 
cause they were admitted merely as labourers. Our old wor¬ 
thies recognised no one as a gentleman’s gardener, or hav¬ 
ing any right to the title of Mr., UDtil he had held a situa¬ 
tion. Before that he was only plain Bob, Donald, or Sandy. 
Some big chaps used to have letters directed to them as 
gardeners to Sirs and Earls; but the more knowing ones 
used to poke rare fun at the unsophisticated vanity. One 
of my worthy old masters, on leaving, gave me a caution 
about this, as many gardeners might take offence at it, and 
advised me to have my letters addressed—The Gardens, of 
such and such a place. When the foreman, the only under¬ 
gardener recognised, used to have under-yardener on his 
letters, he was sure to run the gauntlet of a nice piece of 
chaffing, if there was no dread of his physical prowess. 
Even he would have been laughed at and badgered outright 
if he had called himself a gentleman's gardener. It is cer¬ 
tainly a new thing in my experience for a second under¬ 
gardener to be called a gentleman’s gardener. What havoc 
we should make in domestic service if our terms were used 
so loosely. The matter is trifling, but still it is worth ven¬ 
tilating. My present impression is—an impression on 
which I have frequently acted—that the second under-gar¬ 
dener is, in such circumstances, a cottager.—R. Fish.” 
[Having received the foregoing from our valued coadjutor, 
Mr. Fish, although we had not the slightest doubt that our 
decision was right, yet we laid the case and Mr. Fish’s com¬ 
munication before Mr. Beaton, and the following is his 
reply:— 
“ You were quite right. When a man has worked twelve 
months in a gentleman’s garden, he must be a dull, stupid 
fellow if he does not learn enough of gardening to put him 
up higher in the scale of gardening than another man who 
has never seen a better garden than his own; therefore, 
the two would never compete against each other under the 
same letter or figure, if the committee had made out a 
proper schedule. Moreover, they should not so compete, 
for it would be an unfair competition. Some of our best 
and most amiable country cousins often commit great absur¬ 
dities when they undertake tasks, without proper experience 
about shows and premiums. I had some experience of 
this many years ago, which led me to form a resolution 
which has puzzled many, because they did not know that I 
had made that resolution for myself. It is now seventeen 
years since I was at a provincial show for garden produce, 
and I never mean to see another. I have been driven away 
solely through the bad management of committees. I 
would have common sense, rather than the letter of the law, 
at all country shows. The law insists on it that every one 
who works in a garden should be called either an under¬ 
gardener or a garden labourer ; those of them who 1 live at 
home,’ or have cottages and gardens of their own, the law 
equally insists on their being styled cottagers; hut to put 
some of them upon the same footing for prizes as country 
labourers would be preposterous. I had under me, at Shrub- 
land Park,six such gardeners, who were far better gardeners 
j than nine-tenths of the head-gardeners you generally meet 
with in the middle class of life; and it is the same in 
j all the large establishments throughout England. The 
! very best of the six took a prize every year at Ipswich, as a 
j common cottager, because the schedule did not make a 
proper classification of exhibitors. In other words, common 
sense was sacrificed, in order that ‘ our show ’ might run 
after some model show, which took the fancy of some in¬ 
fluential talker on the part of the society.—D. Beaton.”] 
DICKSON’S EARLY FAVOURITE PEA. 
Permit me to offer a few remarks on the above-named 
Pea. I consider, when nurserymen, or any one else, introduce 
a really good fruit or vegetable, they ought to have every 
credit for it. We are never very fast in buying new vege¬ 
tables ; but from the favourable report given of the pea by 
j the Horticultural Society, I was induced to purchase a couple 
j of quarts. One row was sown the 12th Feb., a little more than 
I one quart of seed, which produced nineteen pecks heaped 
! measure, of good Peas, each pod averaging nine peas in a 
I pod, and in many of them we found eleven peas in the pod. 
A row of Bishop's Longpod Pea sown by the side, the same 
; quantity of seed, and sown the same day, only produced eight 
i pecks of peas. Many of these pods were not well-filled, 
j The peas from Dicksons Favourite were sold at lid. per 
j peck. Your readers will agree with me this was a tolerable 
1 good crop. I consider everybody that grow Peas ought to 
have at least one row of Dickson’s Early Favourite. —W. 
Hill, Keele Gardens, Staffordshire. 
The old saw says, “ Practice makes perfect;” but it has 
not yet been defined what amount of practice is neces¬ 
sary to ensure it. 
The experience of Poultry Shows would go to prove 
one of two things; either exhibitors are really blind to 
the defects of their own birds; or that years of practice 
are not enough to teach. 
The office of Judge is always an unthankful one, hut 
especially at this time of the year when the moulting 
season causes ample and florid combs to wither away; 
when what remains of the once brilliant plumage is poor 
in colour and quantity, and even the best birds are but 
shadows of what they were and what they will be. 
But we contend, that even in their present “ poor es- 
