118 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN, May 25, 1858. 
was equal to about 10 lbs. weight, the pressure which the 
supporting table would have to sustain, was at once manifest, 
as forty-five pounds. 
With a rectangular aquarium, though the same rule is 
made use of, the calculation is much simplified. 
Thus a tank 24 ins. x 12 ins. x 9 ins. inside measurement 
Ins. Ins. Sq. ins. Cub. ins. Gallons. 
24 x 12 = 288 x 2592 -4- 277 = 9 
will contain 9 gallons of water, weighing 9 lbs. 
In conclusion, let me ask the cottager to look a little more 
into the works of God in Nature, he will then see how very 
far they excel all productions of human art. When a man 
enjoys the loveliness of creation here, he is able to understand 
more thoroughly, what a happy, glorious world, that better 
land must be, which is beyond the grave, of which it is said, 
“ Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into 
the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for 
them that love Him.”—E. A. Copland. 
GARDENING ECONOMICS-PRICE OF 
I • ARTICLES. 
I “ Could you inform me the price of ice ? I send to the 
house a barrow-load at a time, and know not what to charge 
! for it. Could you give me any information respecting the 
j value of flowers ? I am in the habit of supplying a small 
basketful of choice kinds, such as Camellias, Ericas, Acacias, 
Azaleas, Daphnes, Roses, &c.”— Peo Bono Publico. 
“Is there any rule of charge for a gardener supplying the 
family by Contract ? If there is, it would be useful infor¬ 
mation to employers and young gardeners.”—G. W. J. 
“ I have kept an account of all outgoings for the garden 
this year, and have calculated the value of everything that 
has come to my table, and find that I could have been cheaper 
supplied at Covent Garden prices. The gardener says that 
much had to be given and thrown away, for which there was 
no market to be had in the neighbourhood, and that, besides 
mere eatables, there was much time and labour involved in 
getting flowers for the ladies ; but these I care nothing about, 
and, therefore, can allow no value for them. Flowers, indeed! 
as a matter of value! Why should I keep a garden, if I can 
get what I want cheaper and better from markets P ”— Look 
Sharp. 
“ My coal bill since last November has been excessive. 
Flowers, it is true, have been forced, but one cannot eat them. 
I have, it is true, some good black Grapes ripe, and I would 
willingly sell some to lessen the expense; but the fruiterer says 
he cannot afford more than 3s. per pound for them, and the 
| gardener says they are worth four times that money. (Try 
j Covent Garden.) I would rather have them at little cost in 
| September.”— Economicus. 
“ My kitchen garden is about an acre. Loudon says that 
one man should manage an acre. There are some frames and 
a little house or two, and more than an acre of lawn and 
flower-beds ; but these, to keep them neat, can require only a 
brush over with the scythe, now and then ; and I keep three 
men and a boy. I am sure I do not get the value of two 
men’s labour, in the real risef ul things that come to my table. 
! They seem very active, and constantly employed, but some¬ 
thing must be wrong, when I get so little return for my 
money.”— A Grumbler. 
“ I noticed that, in the neighbourhood of London, the 
market-gardeners take several crops OS' the same ground in 
the year. Why should not I obtain the same results from 
my kitchen garden, and thus economise space, and get greater 
quantity and better quality ? Why should our gardeners not 
crop as market-gardeners do ? ”—Fair Play. 
■ 
! These are merely a sample of the inquiries and com¬ 
plaints, that have been presented to me through our j 
conductors and others, and I much regret that I am 
not in a position to meet the various cases. I have i 
delayed the matter for a week, hoping to have more ! 
decided replies to questions I put to those fully com- ' 
petent to answer them ; but these have not as yet j 
arrived. That the matters may not be lost sight of, I 
have thus presented them to general consideration, and 
will content myself with making a few preliminary 
observations. 
1. Supplying a family by contract .—There would be 
great difficulty in establishing any general ride on this 
subject. It is seldom adopted, unless where the 
garden is let, and then it seldom proves satisfactory to 
either party, unless a clear specification is previously 
drawn out, just as in any other contract; and even 
then there will be heartburnings, as to deficiencies and 
extras, unless there is a large-hearted forbearance on 
both sides. In all such cases the resident, or the pro¬ 
prietor, must form no exuberant hopes of the comfort, 
or pleasure, he is to derive from his garden; unless he 
looks upon everything just as the gardener will be 
forced to do, in the light of market utility. The diffi¬ 
culties of forming any definite rule, either from the 
number to be supplied, or other causes, will be in¬ 
creased from the different tastes and requirements of 
different families ; and also from the different circum¬ 
stances as to the garden, whether fertile and easily 
worked, or the reverse, and whether near to, or far 
from, a suitable market for disposing of the overplus. 
Some years ago, I was asked what a man could afford 
to give for a large kitchen garden a-year, to keep up the 
wall trees, and to crop it as a kitchen garden ; and, con¬ 
sidering the circumstances, I stated, that instead of pay¬ 
ing anything at all, I would sooner give £'8 per acre for 
land on the west side of London. If a large establish- | 
ment had been to be supplied from it, that would have 
altered the case. If the ground could have been 
treated as a small farm, then a proportionate rent 
might have been paid, with an additional allowance for 
fruit trees; but the distance from a market, and the ! 
stiffish nature of the soil, rendered a high rent out of 
the question. 
2. Profitable cropping .—There can be no doubt, 
that gentlemen’s gardeners would be benefited, by ob¬ 
serving and studying the systems adopted by market- 
ardeners, who supply London, and other large towns, 
t is a fallacy, however, to consider us wholly ignorant 
of such systems. They Vho please to write up our 
ignorance in such matters, would be surprised to see 
how quickly we can adopt such systems, when our con¬ 
sumers are the public, instead of a private family. In 
the latter case, the supply in any one thing, on the 
market garden plan, would soon exceed the possible de¬ 
mand, or consumption, and if there were no profitable 
outlet, the remainder would be comparatively lost. In 
the former case, such as in the neighbourhood of Lon- j 
don, and other large towns, the supply as yet has seldom 
exceeded the demand. True, a glut in the market at 
times, will bring down certain articles, so as hardly, in¬ 
dividually, to be within remunerative point ; but it is 
seldom, or never, necessary to take these articles home 
unsold, as the lowering of price places them at once 
within the reach of large classes, that cannot obtain 
them when comparatively dear. The market-gardener 
seldom loses any part of his crop, because he clears it 
off' his ground as soon as it is at its best. In small 
towns, his great aim should be, to be first in the 
market, and then not to have so much at a time as to 
glut the market, and thus lower the market value. 
Competition will be sure to effect this at times, and 
then the masses of the public get the advantage of it. 
The produce, at the lowest, always brings something. 
Hence it is the interest of the producer to clear his j 
ground as soon as possible, in Order that he may fill it 
again. If “Fair Play’s” gardener cropped in the 
same manner, he need not be surprised if a barrow¬ 
load of early Turnips were brought to his kitchen one 
morning ; a vanful of Cos Lettuce the next ; a cart* 
load of Cauliflowers on a third; and several sacksful 
of Peas on a fourth ; and then days, or weeks, elapse be¬ 
fore he saw either of them again. This is pretty much 
