May  2,  1901. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
373 
What  is  Mr.  Brock’s  complaint  ?  That  the  cheque  was  made  jointly 
payable  to  his  employer  and  himself,  and  that  the  cup  was  sent  to  his 
employer.  In  my  view  he  has  absolutely  no  case  ;  it  was  he  himself,  I 
understand,  who  put  his  employer’s  name  on  the  entry  form.  As  a 
mere  matter  of  form  ?  Quite  so ;  and,  as  a  mere  matter  of  form,  the 
prizes  were  sent  to  him  through  the  exhibitor  whose  name  was  on  the 
card.  And,  as  a  matter  of  personal  opinion,  I  should  say  that  in 
ninety. nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred  this  would  have  been  satisfactory  to 
all  parties.  The  case  shows  the  necessity  of  “  playing  the  strict  game,” 
i.e.,  adhering  absolutely  to  the  letter  of  the  schedule  and  the  rules' 
When  once  that  informal  entry  was  accepted  the  rules  were  broken,  and 
it  was  impossible  to  go  by  them  afterwards. 
Although  this  Pear  is  scarcely  ever  good  from  the  open  garden, 
yer,  from  either  s.uth,  east,  or  west  walls,  it  is  always  abundant  and 
delicious.  If  I  was  restricted  to  two  varieties  of  late  Pears  I  would 
select  Josephine  de  Halines  and  Bergamotte  Bsperen.  I  would 
therefore  say,  Save,  oh  !  save,  this  grand  old  Pear  from  obscurity. 
— T.  Challis. 
This  Pear  is  a  good  late-keeping  variety,  and  generally  of  finest 
quality  when  ripe.  It  succeeds  well  against  a  wall,  and  is  fairly 
prolific  when  grafted  upon  the  Quince,  but  less  so  upon  the  Pear 
stock.  As  a  pyramid  it  is  useless  in  the  open  in  this  northern  part. 
— J.  Day,  Galloway  House,  Wigtonshire. 
Pear  Bergamotte  Esperen  is  very  reliable  as  regards  cropping,  either 
in  the  open  or  against  walls.  It  usually  pays  well  for  a  severe  thinning 
of  crop.  Late  gathering  of  fruit  is  also  indispensable,  and  with  all  this 
the  variety  is,  unfortunately,  unreliable  in  ripening,  only  being  really 
good  occasionally. — W.  Iggulden. 
The  matter  has  also  its  comic  side,  as  might  be  expected  from  dear 
old  Ireland.  Let  us  put  the  question  before  any  experienced  exhibitor, 
who  has  heard  nothing  of  it  hitherto,  thus  : — An  exhibitor  makes  entry 
in  three  classes  in  an  informal  manner,  the  person  put  down  as  an 
exhibitor  not  being  a  subscriber,  and  no  entry  fees  having  been  paid. 
He  wins  in  these  three  classes  a  challenge  cup,  a  silver  medal,  and  £16. 
He  gets  these  prizes  all  right ;  at  least  (barring  the  medal,  of  which  we 
hear  no  more),  if  he  has  not  got  them  now,  it  is  because  he  has  sent 
them  back.  Then  follows  a  complaint  to  the  Journal  from  a  dissatisfied 
exhibitor.  Who  is  he  ?  Well,  I  think  an  unimaginative  and  practical 
Saxon  would  say,  “  Oh  !  no  doubt  the  complainer  is  one  of  the  other 
exh  bitors  in  those  classes— for  choice,  say  the  second  or  third  prize 
men.”  Not  at  all ;  the  fuss  is  made  by  the  winner  himself,  and  the 
complaint  he  makes  and  writes  to  the  Journal  about  is — that  the 
prizes  were  sent  to  the  name  and  address  of  a  gentleman  whom  he 
himself  put  on  the  card  as  an  exhibitor!  A  mad  world,  my  masters! 
— W.  It.  Raillem. 
- - 
Royal  Horticultural  Society  of  Ireland. 
A  Reply. 
I  asked  as  to  the  ownership  of  the  Chrysanthemums,  because  I 
understood  (page  290)  that  the  opinion  of  the  readers  of  the  Journal 
was  solicited  on  the  matter,  and  in  such  a  case  it  did  not  seem  right  to 
take  anything  for  granted.  But,  as  Mr.  Brock  seems  to  wish  it,  I  will 
take  one  other  fact,  which  I  will  mention,  for  granted,  and  give  my 
humble  opinion  for  what  it  is  worth.  It  will  at  all  events  be  impartial, 
for  previous  to  this  correspondence  I  had  never  heard  of  Mr.  Brock  or 
his  employer,  and — this  is  to  my  shame — had  forgotten,  if  I  had  ever 
heard  of  it,  the  existence  of  a  R.H.S.  of  Ireland. 
Having  been  judge  and  exhibitor  at  flower  shows  for  about  twenty 
years,  I  take  for  granted  that  there  was  a  rule  at  the  show  in  question 
that  the  articles  exhibited  should  be  the  bond  fide  property  of  the 
exhibitor.  Occasionally  there  is  the  addition  of  the  words  “or 
of  his  employer.”  Whether  this  addition  existed  in  the  rules  of 
the  show  in  question  is  evidently  of  the  first  importance.  I  take  it  for 
granted  they  were  absent  ;  if  I  am  wrong  all  the  rest  of  this  letter  falls 
to  the  ground,  and  the  sole  question  remains,  “  Why  did  not  Mr.  Brock 
exhibit  in  his  own  name?”  We  are  supposing,  then,  a  rule  that 
exhibitors  must  show  their  own  property,  and  we  have  it  that  there  was 
another  ihat  subscribers  could  show  without  fees,  and  non-subscribers 
must  pay  entrance  fees ;  also  that  Mr.  Brock  was  a  subscriber,  that  his 
employer  was  not,  and  that  no  entrance  fees  ‘were  paid.  Here  is 
evidently  a  dilemma  a  the  very  start,  before  even  the  entry  is  sent  in. 
Whether  he  enters  himself  or  his  employer  as  the  exhibitor,  Mr.  Brock 
appears  to  be  equally  offending  against  the  strict  rules.  He  makes  the 
entry  in  his  employer’s  name,  by  so  doing  he  offends  against  the  rules. 
The  society  accepts  the  entry,  and  by  so  doing  itself  offends  against  its 
own  rules.  And  this  accept  ance  of  the  entry  by  the  society  does  not 
“  make  it  all  right two  wrongs  never  did,  and  never  will,  make  a  right. 
In  this  matter  it  appears  that  both  Mr.  Brock  and  the  society  are  offenders 
against  the  rule.  What  is  the  meaning  of  it  ?  Probably  there  is 
generally  an  understanding  that  in  such  a  case  this  should  be  so.  Such 
an  understanding,  however  common,  is  a  mistake ;  if  the  schedule  and 
the  rules  are  not  followed  strictly,  there  is  sure  to  be  trouble  sooner  or 
later. 
What  follows  ?  Mr.  Brock  wins  the  handsome  prizes,  and,  I 
suppose,  his  employer  is  published  as  the  winner,  and  then  the  society 
finds  out  its  trouble  in  accepting  an  informal  entry,  and  tries  to  mend 
matters  by  serving  both  masters — the  broken  rule,  and  the  “  under¬ 
standing  ”  which  evades  it.  It  was  well  meant,  but  it  looks  as  if  they 
could  not  do  what  was  strictly  right  now,  anyhow.  Perhaps  (merely  a 
persona'  opinion)  the  Dearest  approach  to  right  and  equity  would  have 
been  to  have  sent  all  prizes  to  tbe  employer,  with  a  request,  if  thought 
necessary,  to  hand  them  on  to  Mr.  Brook.  If  I  am  right  in  supposing 
that  there  was  such  a  tacit  understanding  that  an  evasion  of  the  letter 
of  the  law  might  be  winked  at  in  such  a  case,  such  a  thing  may  work 
all  right  for  a  while  ;  but  when  one  of  the  parties  to  it,  though  full 
practical  justice  has  been  done  to  him,  olaims  that  the  understanding 
should  publicly  override  the  rule,  he  is,  to  say  the  least,  in  my 
opinion,  making  a  needless  bother  in  the  matter. 
A  Hall  for  Horticulture. 
When  we  read  of  a  patriotic  lady  in  Philadelphia,  evidently  an 
admirer,  and  anxious  to  forward  horticulture  in  America,  bequeathing 
£40,000  wherewith  to  build  and  maintain  a  Hall  of  Horticulture  in  that 
city,  we  feel  that  it  is  retrogression  on  the  part  of  the  British  in  not 
possessing  one  loDg  since  to  carry  on  one  of  the  greatest  sciences  of  the 
nation.  There  are  many  amongst  our  wealthy  who,  i.  their  time,  have 
enjoyed  an  immense  amount  of  happiness,  luxury,  and  contentment 
from  their  garden,  and  who,  we  believe,  will  follow  the  noble  example  of 
this  estimable  and  generous  American  lady,  and  immortalise  their  names 
by  securing  and  presenting  the  freehold  of  a  suitable  site  for  that  noble 
and  most  necessary  institution—  to  hold  their  meetings,  shelter  their 
library,  and  the  Council,  who  so  nobly  carry  on  the  work  for  the  benefit 
and  honour  of  dear  old  England.  We  hope  to  live  to  see  the  day  when 
we  have  a  hall  worthy  of  our  great  nation,  and  that  the  committee  of 
the  National  Chrysanthemum  Society,  the  members  of  whioh  number 
well  nigh  1000,  and  whose  work  and  exhibitions  are  of  great  importance, 
and  stand  pre-eminent  with  that  flower,  may  be  invited,  and  see  their 
way  also  to  hold  their  shows  and  meetings  in  this  building  ;  and  all  special 
societies,  such  as  for  Roses,  Dahlias,  Auriculas,  Carnations,  &o.,  also  the 
Gardeners’  Benevolent  Institution,  Gardeners’  Orphan  Fund,  and 
Gardeners’  Provident  Society,  in  fact,  all  societies  pertaining  to  horti¬ 
culture,  have  the  same  privilege,  and  thus  avoid  expensive  hotels  and 
other  public  resorts.  This  building  we  picture  in  our  minds,  and  hope 
some  day  to  see  in  reality. — H.  Cannell. 
Scarcity  of  Journeymen  Gardeners. 
Having  read  the  discussions  on  “  The  Scarcity  of  Journeymen 
Gsrdeners,”  I  and  many  others  are  pleased  to  see  that  someone  takes 
an  interest  in  the  young  gardeners  and  their  welfare.  I  have  seen  lads 
who  have  been  apprenticed  to  the  profession  (and  some  have  paid  dearly 
for  it,  too),  when  they  have  served  their  time,  say  from  two  to  four  years', 
as  pot  washer  and  orocker,  have  then  gone  out  as  journeymen  for  12s. 
or  14s.  and  bothy,  and  very  often  less.  Can  anyone,  then,  blame  an 
active  and  smart  young  man  for  taking  to  the  khaki  ?  Even  labouring 
pays  better.  In  what  other  profession  or  trade  dare  they  offer  such  a 
ridiculous  wage  to  a  man  who  has  served  his  apprenticeship  ?  It  is  as 
“  G.  H.  C.”  says,  “  we  are  the  laughingstock  of  the  whole  working 
classes.”  But  what  is  to  be  done  ?  How  can  it  be  rectified  ?  I  think 
if  all  head  gardeners  would  stick  up  for  higher  wages  for  their  men 
they  would  be  appreciated.  I  know  some  do,  but  why  do  not  all  ?  All 
things  would  then  work  right  in  time,  yet  we  seem  to  be  about  fifty 
years  behind  the  rest  of  the  world.  We  want  pulling  up  a  little,  and 
who  has  the  power  to  lend  us  a  helping  hand  ?  Why,  no  one  but  our 
superiors.  “  G.  H.  C.”  asks,  “  Cannot  the  young  fellows  do  anything  ?  ” 
What  can  they  do  ?  The  only  thing  that  I  see  they  can  do  if  they  want 
more  wages  is  to  give  it  up  (as  many  are  doing  at  the  present  time),  and 
take  to  something  else,  and  I  am  afraid  that  if  things  do  not  alter 
journeymen  will  get  scarcer  still ;  and  what  then  ?  Why  the  young 
fellows  will  he  doing  better  for  themselves,  but  where  will  the  head 
gardeners  be  ? — H.  G.  C. 
