THE GARDENING WORLD , 
April 1, 1905. 
25S 
Letters to the Editor. 
To be, or not to be, Apprenticed to Horticulture ? 
To the Editor of The Gardening World. 
Sir, — l have been much interested in and also much amused 
by the discussion i;t your paper on the above subject, opened 
by “ Heather Hell," in the issue for February 18th. 
So far, it seems to me, your correspondents have been 
arguing - on the matter of a “ term ” rather than on the prin¬ 
ciple of the subject. 
Each writer, so far, including the intrepid “ C. Blair, 
agrees that it is necessary for a man or lad to learn the 
” business ” in older to be a gardener worthy of the name. 
Then why worry about the “ term ” which may be applied to 
the per iod of initial instruction ! 
So far as my own experience goes, there is practically no 
difference between the work done by, or the training given to, 
the “ apprentice ’’ and the " garden boy.” For either of them 
to " make anything out,” it is essential that the endeavour to 
learn be present, and for the sources of knowledge to be 
available, and these essentials are pretty evenly divided 
between the two “classes ’’ of boys. 
If the truth of the matter was to be honestly faced, I strongly 
suspect that the only essential difference between a “ garden 
boy” and a “boy apprentice” is visible in the pocket of the 
head gardener. That may seem a strange place enough, but 
there are few gardeners 1 trow who could conscientiously deny 
it. 
It amounts to just this: Well-to-do parents who wish their 
son to learn gardening pay a sum of money to a head 
gardener or to a nurseryman, who may. or may not, give a 
formal receipt or acknowledgment to the effect that “ So-and- 
So is bound for three years (more or less) to So-aud-So, with 
the object of learning tlie gardening profession.” The ap¬ 
prentice begins his duties forthwith, and receives a weekly 
emolument, which is charged with the garden or nursery 
t epe rises. 
In the case of the garden boy, there s, . >urse, no written 
or verbal guarantee that he shall be taught, but he receives 
a similar emolument, differing only from that of the apprentice 
in that the boy proudly calls it his wage, and carries it, with 
the enviable consciousness that he has earned it, to his poor 
mother, who gladly receives it. 
As for the work done by (or left undone by) the apprentice 
and the garden boy. there is, as I have already said, practically 
no difference in it. I have known gardens where both 
apprentices and garden boys were employed simultaneously, 
and have seen them working at the same job, and at similar 
jobs as a regular procedure. Of course, with the consciousness 
of his parents having paid a premium, the prentice may (if he 
is the bigger hoy) bully the common or garden species into 
doing his (the apprentice’s) share of the dirty work in addition 
to his own, but such minor details do not bother the head. 
On the other hand, if the garden boy is smart, and the ap¬ 
prentice dull, the path of the former is often made much 
smoother m order to retain him, since he is a free ament, while 
the apprentice is not. 
To put the matter briefly, I ask your correspondents what 
is the difference between a boy of eighteen years who has 
served three years regular apprenticeship, and "a boy eighteen 
years old who has worked in the same or similar maidens for 
the same period as garden boy, both being understood to 
possess equal powers for the assimilation of knowledge? 
It would be more than unkind, it would almost amount to 
barbarous cruelty on toy part. •• , t Mr. C. 
Blair that lie search his inner conscience for the vast difference 
which he finds between his apprentices and his garden bovs. 
■Still one cannot help think _ that Mr. Blair has been woud'er- 
fully blest in his apprentices, and equally woefully unfortunate 
with his garden boys. 
Tlie paragraph referring to what is obviously a sore point 
with Mr. Blair, namely, the ambitious labourer.” is charged to 
the full with a quaint humour, which in my ignorance I accept 
as “ best Scotch.” Mr. Blair says “ he (the labourer, of course) 
often lands as man-of-all-work to a parson. That, however, i, 
his bad luck, not his merits.” 
One wonders whether his bad luck alludes to the parson or 
to the ambitious labourer ; if to the latter, then the “ Little 
Meeuister ” can scarcely be expected to be grateful to Mr. Blair. 
To assist the memory of your correspondents who may have 
forgotten, and for the information of those who do not know. I 
give below the four primary conditions or qualifications for 
membership of the B.G.A. 
(1) To be not less than twenty years of age. 
( 2 ) If less than twenty-three years of age, to have had at 
least fire year s' training in good private, public, or commercial 
establishments. (The italics are mine.) 
(•3) If more than twenty-three years of age, to have had at 
least seven consecutive years' professional experience. 
(-1 > To be able to produce satisfactory testimony as to general 
character. 
It will be seen that there is no mention of apprenticeship; 
neither are apprenticeship indentures required of young men 
desiring to enter the Royal Gardens at Kew. The sole qualifi¬ 
cations demanded of young gardeners entering Kew are: — 
To be between the age of twenty and twenty-five vears, to have 
had five years' training in gardens or nurseries, and to possess 
a good character. 
W it!i regard to examinations as a test of knowledge of horti¬ 
culture. I consider them absolutely impracticable. As has been 
said, an excellent gardener may easily fail in paper examina¬ 
tions, while a useless, theoretical, horticultural-college man 
may pass with honours. 
Practical examinations (to cover the whole field of gardening, 
as, of course, they must to be practical) are also impossible,’ 
but I think it may safely be left to the 500 members of the 
B.G.A. to formulate sufficiently clear and effective rules for 
the purpose of admitting only bona-fide men with thoroughly 
good past experience. Hosiocea. I 
To the Editor of The Gardening World. 
biR,—Mr. Blair should be careful how he twists about one's 
statements. I have not said that a happy-go-lucky method of 
training a gardener is the only trustworthy one, neither can it 
be fan ix said that toy statements implied such a ridiculous 
notion. Any sane person knows that a. happy-go-lucky method 
of doing anything cannot be trustworthy, but where is” the need 
or compulsion for such method to be adopted by any lad who 
desiies to obtain a knowledge of horticulture? Mv argument 
is that an intelligent lad with an inclination for gardening eau, 
lv working in a good garden, studying and observing, learn 
his bit without being apprenticed. When it is shown that he 
cannot do so I wili at once give in, and admit that apprentice¬ 
ship is the only trustworthy course. 
I do not condemn apprenticeship to any trade or profession, 
because I know in some there is no other opportunity for learn¬ 
ing the trade: but in gardening other opportunities do exist, 
consequently apprenticeship is not necessary. Great changes 
must have been wrought in Scotland of late.” for 'tis not above 
half-ardozen years since I was working there in an establish¬ 
ment where an apprentice was receiving 2 s. 6 d. a week— 
scarcely equal to a journeyman's wage, even in Southern Eg 
laud, that, however, was iu the east of Scotland, so perhaps, 
as the song says, “ there is a difference between east and west. 
I also know more than one lad whose parents paid premiums 
tii' the time of L 2 -l so there is some excuse for mv nonsense on 
rhat point. If lads can be apprenticed freely and receive such 
liberal wages, it seems strange that any lad will work iu a 
garden without being apprenticed. Mr! Blair tliiuks that a 
lad who knows his service can be cut short at anv time will 
Lave less interest in his work than one who knows he is bound 
tor a stipulated time. I have known apprentices of whom 
rheir masters have said. “The sooner their time is up the 
better. I think, however, we can both agree that it depends 
upon a lad s intelligence and inclination whether or not he will 
