April  30,  1896. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
399 
and  dealing  as  it  does  with  thousands  of  w  aters  the  majority,  if  not 
the  whole  of  whom,  would  be  greatly  benefited  by  the  Saturday  half¬ 
holiday. 
In  looking  through  the  annals  of  any  great  social  reform  that  has 
iaken  place,  and  rendered  its  assistance  in  making  our  country  the  envy 
of  the  civilised  world,  do  we  not  find  a  certain  per-centage  of  the  popu¬ 
lation  who  have,  directly  speaking,  received  no  apparent  benefit  from  that 
said  reform  ?  Yet  no  one  is  rash  enough  to  say  that  such  a  measure  was 
unnecessary,  because  everyone  knows  full  well  that  the  majority  of  the 
community  has  profited  by  it — hence  the  justice  of  it.  We  all  know  the 
old  fable  of  the  mau  who  endeavoured  to  please  everybody,  and  the 
fearful  muddle  he  found  himself  in  at  the  finish.  The  contention  then 
is,  that  in  the  majority  of  establishments  the  half  holiday  for  gardeners 
is  practical  and  would  prove  beneficial, |ithis  beingi  sufficient  reason  for 
its  more  general  adoption. 
interests  are  affected  that  any  alteration  iu  the  working  hours  in  one 
department  would  have  to  be  followed  in  others.”  And  why  not  1 
Surely  he  would  not  confine  its  benefits  to  the  under  gardeners  alone,  as 
the  labourers  claim  an  equal  right.  For  the  most  part  they  have 
gardens,  allotments,  or  small  holdings  of  their  own,  with  no  time  but 
the  evening  in  which  to  do  the  necessary  work  on  them  ;  thus  life 
becomes  one  long  monotonous  round  of  labour.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  add  how  much  the  few  hours  on  Saturday  afternoon  would  be 
appreciated  in  such  cases. 
“  S.”  states  further  that  the  arrangements  adopted  work  admirably, 
but  was  withdrawn  owing  to  the  tenant  farmers  on  the  estate  complain¬ 
ing  that  their  workmen  were  dissatisfied.  But  this  I  will  pass  over  with 
the  remark  that  it  sounds  very  much  like  coercion,  and  hardly  worthy 
of  our  age. S.’s  ”  method  of  paying  for  overtime  is  a  matter  for  con¬ 
sideration,  as  it  might  lead  to  doing  away  with  payment  in  case  of 
Fig.  66.— AURICULAS  :  1,  Mrs,  Henwood,  green  edge;  2,  Midnight,  self;  3,  Dean  Hole,  alpine. 
Mr.  Bardney,  in  opening  the  controversy  on  page  122,  asserts  that 
after  giving  the  Saturday  half  holiday  system  a  fair  trial  he  iB  fully 
satisfied  with  the  experiment,  finding  that  the  work  is  done  as  thoroughly 
as  was  the  case  hitherto.  This  is  gratifying,  because  if  the  employer 
is  satisfied  with  it  there  is  no  need  to  make  inquiries  respecting  the 
employed. 
“  T.  B.,  Leeds' ’  on  page  167,  commences  well  by  expressing  his 
satisfaction  at  Mr.  Bardney ’s  plea  for  shorter  hours,  in  which  he  appears 
to  agree  with  him,  but  further  on  he  emphatically  states  that  the 
Saturday  half  holiday  would  be  impossible  in  the  establishment  of  which, 
I  presume,  he  iB  the  head.  “  T.  B.”  does  not  add  whether  the  experiment 
has  been  tried,  and  here  we  note  a  weak  point  in  his  argument,  as  my 
experience  of  young  gardeners  tells  me  that  they  would  not  be  found 
wanting  in  the  extra  spurt  necessary  to  complete  the  work  at  one  o’clock 
instead  of  four.  After  all,  “  T.  B.,”  two  hours  is  not  much  to  argue  about, 
as  I  presume  the  men  have  the  usual  dinner  hour  on  Saturdays. 
“  S.,  Yorks,”  on  page  210,  while  being  in  favour  of  the  half  holiday 
appears  to  fear  its  practicability,  because  “  on  large  estates  so  many 
sickness  or  holidays.  He  further  fears  there  will  be  no  material  improve¬ 
ments  made  until  the  “  stigma  ”  of  being  termed  a  domestic  servant 
is  removed  from  gardeners.  But  why  use  that  term,  “  S.  1  ”  as  I  fail  to 
see  where  the  “  stigma  ”  comes  in,  for  surely  all  honest  labour  is 
honourable,  and  so  long  as  our  living  is  fairly  earned  there  can  be  no 
“stigma”  about  the  term  “domestic,”  and  certainly  it  is  no  argument 
against  the  gardener’s  half  holiday,  the  case  differing  entirely  from  that 
of  the  housemaid  or  groom. 
Mr.  I).  Brough,  on  the  same  page,  says  that  “  in  many  places  circum¬ 
stances  and  location  make  it  such  that  the  Saturday  half  holiday  is  not 
the  best  method  to  adopt  for  the  interest  and  convenience  of  the  men.” 
Well,  perhaps  not  in  his  case,  where  “  each  man  can  have  a  day  off  when¬ 
ever  he  wishes  it.”  Lucky  are  the  men  in  that  establishment,  and  I 
should  say  contented  beyond  doubt,  as  I  look  back  on  the  time  when  1 
used  to  approach  my  chief  with  fear  and  trembling  for  the  proverbial 
day  off  “  when  I  wished  it,”  and,  alas  !  generally  bad  to  be  content  by 
having  it  if  “  he  wished  it.”  Mr.  Brough’s  system  cannot  fail  to  be 
satisfactory  under  the  circumstances,  but  it  in  no  degree  weakens  the 
