December 3, 1892. 
THE GARDENING WORLD 
211 
nection with the Fruit Congress of last year there 
are, of course, many inferences to be drawn. The 
president of the first day's conference, the Earl of 
Derby, with his characteristic judicial calmness, 
made a few observations which I think deserve most 
careful consideration. His lordship said, " that every 
expedient which tends to increase the value of Eng¬ 
lish soil and leads to the profitable employment of 
labour upon it deserves our serious attention.” It 
seems to me that this statesmanlike utterance is preg¬ 
nant with meaning. We think that the extension of 
fruit culture in this country will tend very much to 
“ increase the value o English soil ; ” and on this 
ground I say, without tear ot contradiction, that the 
subject with which we are dealing is of more import¬ 
ance than the subjects ol Home Rule tor Ireland or 
the Extension of the Parliamentary Franch.se to 
Women. 
We all know (or whethrr we know it not it is so) 
that we are absolutely dependent upon the vegetable 
world for our existence ; this is, of course, a sim le 
elementary fact, but I fear that the bulk ot mankind 
are prone to forget first principles. There seems to 
be a tendency in this age to “leave the elementary 
principles," and “ go on ” to, alas, not “ perfection,’' 
but things of a baser sort. I suppose that it will be 
admitted without controversy that the food we eat 
(whether animal or vegetable), the raiment we wear, 
the fuel we burn, and all the elegancies of life come 
to us from God's works, as set forth in the vegetable 
kingdom. And, further, when we are suffering from 
disease and sickness, from what source does the 
medical practitioner derive his remedies? In nine 
cases out of ten the “ vegetable kingdom.” Seeing 
that these things are so, why, I ask, should our rulers 
in this country be so backward to recognise the im¬ 
portance of this matter under consideration? If a 
vote on account is proposed in Parliament to pur¬ 
chase some works of art, costing the nation a million 
of pounds, there is not much difficulty in passing 
such a resolution. But if it is proposed to spend a 
few thousands in connection with agriculture or 
horticulture, the “items” shake empty heads and 
cry “ madness.” 
We had a local illustration of this spirit not so 
very long ago. An exhibition was held at Old 
Trafford called the “ Royal Jubilee Exhibition.” 
Manchester was justly proud of that exhibition ; it 
was a success in every sense of the word, and why 
was it so ? In the first place, because it was a 
magnificent display,and,secondly and mainly, because 
we had glorious summer weather throughout the 
season. I have never seen that the directors in their 
report acknowledged their indebtedness to this factor. 
I have no doubt whatever but that these same 
gentlemen with their Ship Canal experiences have 
found out their absolute nothingness and their entire 
dependence upon a higher power than themselves. 
If they had to battle with weather like 1892, depend 
upon it, the surplus would have been very small 
indeed. But what I have to say is this, that in 
dealing with the surplus they gave it to a something 
called the “ Whitworth Institute,” and a considerable 
sum was spent upon pictures. 
This subject of fruit culture in connection with 
the soil is not modern. Lord Derby, in his admirable 
address, said most truly that “ in the southern 
counties fruit-growing has been studied as an art for 
centuries.” The orchards and gardens of Kent are 
spoken of by travellers with admiration as early as 
the seventeenth century. The earliest notice of 
British pomology is that by Richard Arnold, a citizen 
of London, who published his Chronicles in 1502, in 
which work he dedicates a chapter, “ The crafte of 
graftynge and plantynge and alterynge of fruits as 
well in colour as in taste.” The art of grafting is the 
subject principally treated of in this work, a proof 
that the science had attained some degree of advance¬ 
ment even at this early date. Arnold, as a pomo- 
logical author, was followed by Sir Henry Platt 
Gerard, Lawson, Parkinson, Abercrombie, and 
others, and last, but certainly not least, by the late 
Mr. Robert Thompson, of the Royal Horticultural 
Society of London, who has done more, particularly 
in the arrangement of the nomenclature of fruits, than 
all the others together. 
In the excellent address given by Mr. Baillie, of 
Chester, at the congress held last year, he stated 
that he thought a considerable quantity of waste 
land might be utilised by planting fruit trees, and 
instanced railway embankments. Now it seems to 
me that before these positions could be of much use 
for fruit-growing a very large expenditure would take 
place in providing suitable soil. Then, again, there 
is the question of police. We read in the Old Book 
of the tree of life planted in the garden of Eden, and 
that this tree was protected by keepers with a flaming 
sword which turned every way to meet trespassers. 
If our railway embankments are ever planted with 
fruit trees, I think that a very considerable number 
of “ flaming swords ” as keepers would be required. 
There is at the present time a larger quantity of 
land devoted to the cultivation of fruit than has been 
the case at any previous period in our history, but 
this has only been brought about very recently. 
“ For many years prior to 1887, the system of grant¬ 
ing garden allotments to agricultural labourers and 
to others of our rural populations had been 
established.” The returns showing the number of 
allotments granted from the date of the passing of 
the Allotments Acts in 1887, prove that a very large 
number of people have availed themselves of the 
privileges of this Act. For many years .prior to the 
passing of this measure it was well known that the 
agricultural labourers of this country had not the 
same interest in the soil as they once had. 
Every village and district of country readily 
afforded examples of patches of land having been 
consolidated with a larger tract belonging to some 
wealthy person in the neighbourhood. A constant 
dissevering of the land from the limited holders had 
thus been going on for several centuries. Though a 
necessary consequence of the improved state of 
agriculture, the decay of the cottar tenantry was an 
evil which was not sufficiently appreciated. 
It seems to me consistent with sound policy to let 
every English labourer, when practicable, have some 
certain provision uninfluenced by the fluctuations of 
the labour market to which he might resort in time 
of need. My recommendation is that, however 
small, he should, if possible, have his share of the 
land. History speaks loudly and distinctly on this 
point, and traces the melancholy fate of the most 
powerful empires and states to the cutting off of 
every particle of the soil from those who were so 
closely attached to it. I wish not to be misunder¬ 
stood on this important point, and beg to state that 
I entirely disapprove of any and every scheme 
which means confiscation and robbery ; equality of 
possessions cannot surely be entertained seriously by 
anyone. The inequality of individual disposition 
and faculties must ever thwart the idea of a uniform 
distribution of wealth, and the absurd idea may be 
at once dismissed. But there can be no doubt, I 
think, that it would be well if possible to admit all 
into the benefits of the social compact, for the man 
who rents a perch of land is invariably found to be 
a better subject than he who is without any. He is 
more disposed to obey the laws of his country, and 
more energetic in spreading abroad a love for 
those laws, just because he knows that to them 
he is indebted for the preservation of his little 
property. 
So true is this, writes Mr. Grigor, “ that a 
statistical statement, indicating the safety and 
influence of any Government, might be accurately 
framed from the state of the poor with reference to 
their holding in the soil.” Chartism springs up not 
among the occupiers of the ground. Those who 
watch narrowly the calendars of our assizes fail to 
discover a rickburner to have been known at the 
time to hold a plot of land. It is pretty evident then 
that in urging any system for investing the labourer 
with a handful of the soil, the plan morally and 
politically is free from objection. This, surely, is a 
great point to gain. To start him in a course which 
the Government of the.country and all those who are 
interested in the cause of morality may equally 
applaud might be taken at once as a substantial 
proof of its goodness. Sir John Benet Lawes has a 
very valuable article on this subject, which is 
published in the proceedings of the Royal Agricul¬ 
tural Society of England. He says, “ the passing of 
the Allotments Acts of 1887 and of 1890, and of the 
Small Holdings Act of 1892, is evidence of the 
public interest taken in recent years in the position 
and future prospects of the agricultural labourer. 
Stated in a few words the object of the first two of 
these measures is to facilitate the acquirement of 
areas not exceeding one acre, mainly, therefore, for 
the provision c f what may be called garden allotments, 
as distinguished from small agricultural holdings. 
The object of the more recent measure is, on the 
other hand, to facilitate the acquirement of areas of 
more than one and not exceeding fifty acres, that is, 
for the acquirement of small farms." 
The records which are available enable us to form 
a fairly approximate estimate of the impetus given to 
the extension by the discussion and by the passing 
the Allotments Acts. The following figures seem to 
me rather startling. The number of allotments in 
Great Britain in the year 1873 amounted to 246,398, 
and in the year 1890 to 455,005. The increase per 
annum between the years 1873 to 1886, a period of 
thirteen years, amounted to 8,569, and from the years 
1886 to 1890, a period of four years, 24,302. It is 
noteworthy that the rate of annual increase in the 
last four years has been apparently three times as 
rapid as between 1873 to 1886. Clearly then there 
has been a great increase in the acquirement of 
allotments directly or indirectly under the influence 
of the Allotments Acts of 1887 and 1890, and it is 
probable that the increase will continue for some 
time to come. Nor can there be any doubt that such 
allotments are a very great boon, especially to rural 
populations. Indeed, the fact of the rapid increase 
in their number, which the figures indicate, is of 
itself sufficient evidence of the appreciation of them 
by those whose position they are intended to 
improve. It is another matter, however, whether 
the sanguine anticipations of those who have so 
strongly urged the importance of providing by 
enactment facilities for the acquirement not only of 
allotments but of small holdings will be realised. 
As every year sees an increasing number of the rural 
populations flocking into our towns, it is not unnatural 
that the urban populations should ask why those 
who have been born upon the land should not be 
able to earn a living upon it. The subject is one of 
great national importance, and it certainly is 
desirable that it should be freely and fairly discussed 
on its merits without reference to party politics. 
I have very little faith in the “ various ways ” by 
which some propose to better the condition of the 
agricultural labourer. A “ variety of measures” is, 
in my opinion, quite incompatible with his capacities, 
whose powers are altogether centred in the soil, and 
in sowing and reaping its products. Out of this ele¬ 
ment he is timid and helpless, but in it all his powers 
seem to be gratified, and the desire he evinces to be¬ 
come possessed of a patch of land to cultivate on his 
own account is little short of a passion. 
The late Mr. James Grigor, of Norwich, in an 
article upon this subject, says : “ This subject is of 
the deepest importance, and seldom indeed have the 
offices of humanity been exercised on a theme more 
sacred or interesting. It would be little short of 
stupidity to disguise the fact that the security of 
every nation must depend very materially on the 
condition of the labouring classes. The greater the 
distance between them and the higher orders in the 
enjoyment of common rights, the more unsafe will 
be the state of society in that community, and the 
more frequent those broils and disorders which 
impair the stability of a nation.” 
I do not for a moment consider that the best 
system of allotments would be a universal panacea 
applicable to every labouring man. Some there are, 
I know, who consider the whole system as Utopian. 
Inconsiderate friends, again, in talking and writing 
about it, have pronounced it to be the realisation in 
a great measure of the state of perfect existence which 
poets have sighed for, and that which will sooner or 
later possess the land. But poets, as a rule, are ill 
qualified to judge of what is practically beneficial, 
and that in the allotment system there is no poetry 
except that which springs from hard well-directed 
work concentrated upon a small piece of ground. If 
anything will possess the whole land, it is the same 
hard work. If ought will deepen the green hue of 
our crops, or cause them to wave more luxuriantly 
over the glebe, it is the contents of the manure tank 
carefully and judiciously applied ; and, certainly, if 
white and trim cottages are to rise in the wake of the 
industrious, it would be difficult to find a reason why 
they should not in the case of those systematic 
workers who labour in their own allotments. If such 
things form suitable themes, poets are welcome to 
praise them, but it is mere folly to connect the results 
with aught except the “ sweat of man’s brow,” and 
the important accompaniments of forethought and 
skilful management. Those who expect to see every 
man indiscriminately enjoying himself " under his 
vine and fig tree ” are sadly mistaken. Such a scene 
will never, I fear, be realised upon this earth. 
(To be continue !.) 
