350 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AX D  COTTAGE  GARDENER , 
October  16,  1902. 
rather  than  as  much  as  he  may  be  worth.  In  these  circum¬ 
stances  the  question  of  combination  amongst  private 
gardeners,  which  is  sometimes  talked  about,  is  absurd. 
Gardeners  cannot  put  a  monetary  value  on  their  occupation, 
when  that  occupation  does  not  contribute  towards  the 
income  of  their  employers,  so  the  situation  must  be  accepted 
as  it  is.  When  everything  is  considered,  the  difference  is 
readily  seen.  Take  the  case  of  a  wealthy  manufacturer  or 
coal  owner.  The  meanest  workman  in  the  mine  or  factory 
is  a  unit  in  the  combination  which  provides  the  owner  with 
his  wealth,  and  as  such  he  has  to  be  considered  ;  but  the 
private  gardener,  though  his  position  is  infinitely  better,  is 
nothing  of  the  kind.  In  fact,  he  is  not  a  paying  concern, 
and  could  be  dispensed  with  before  the  miner  or  the  factory 
hand. 
All  the  same,  and  luxuries  though  they  be,  I  do  not 
think  that  private  gardeners  have  as  much  room  for  com¬ 
plaint  as  some  of  them  imagine.  Comfort  and  peace  of 
mind  are  two  great  factors  towards  happiness  in  this  life, 
and  it  must  be  said  that  many  employers,  the  majority  of 
them  I  think,  study  their  domestic  employes  in  this  respect. 
Perhaps  the  gardener  who  receives  30s.  per  week  may  think 
he  is  ill-paid  by  the  side  of  the  artisan  who  receives  "half  as 
much  again  in  hard  cash,  but  the  former  should  also  con¬ 
sider  his  perquisites.  Let  him  reckon  house  rent  and  other 
items,  and  the  fact  that  trade  disputes,  slack  times,  and  bad 
weather  do  not  affect  his  pocket,  and  he  will  have  to  confess 
that  he  is  the  better  off  of  the  two,  luxury  though  he  be. 
The  very  fact  that  he  provides  the  luxuries  rather  than 
the  actual  commodities  of  life,  removes  a  load  of  respon¬ 
sibility  from  the  life  of  our  private  gardener,  because 
disasters  through  unfavourable  climatic,  conditions,  and 
other  losses  do  not  necessarily  affect  him  in  a  direct  way. 
Last  May,  for  instance,  we  had  a  severe  frost  which  did 
great  damage  to  fruit  and  vegetable  crops.  Everybody 
suffered,  the  private  gardener  and  the  market  gardener ; 
but  they  were  not  affected  alike.  The  former,  in  the 
interests  of  his  employer,  and  for  his  own  satisfaction  as 
well,  deplored  the  loss,  but  it  did  not  affect  his  salary  ; 
but  how  about  his  neighbour  the  market  gardener?  To 
him  the  loss  was  doubly  serious,  because  it  was  a  question 
of  pounds,  shilling,  and  pence.  On  the  welfare  of  those 
crops  depended  the  living  of  the  man  who  is  employed  in 
the  commodity  aspects  of  horticulture,  and  the  whole  or 
partial  loss  meant  a  difference  in  the  profit  and  loss  account 
at  the  end  of  the  year.  To  mention  another  instance  of 
similar  character  ;  a  terrible  storm  burst  over  a  part  of  Kent 
a  few  weeks  ago  which  respected  neither  the  fruit  in  private 
gardens  nor  market  plantations.  They  all  suffered  alike, 
but  with  a  different  effect ;  because  whereas  the  private 
gardeners  will  have  less  fruit  for  the  kitchen  and  dessert 
table,  the  deficiency  can  be  supplied  by  their  employers 
without  seriously  affecting  them  ;  the  little  market  man,  and 
the  big  one  too  for  the  matter  of  that,  were  depending  on 
the  fruit  in  the  orchards  and  plantations  to  bring  in  so  much 
money,  but  in  the  space  of  only  a  few  minutes  hopes  and 
calculations  were  clashed  ruthlessly  to  the  ground. 
The  object  for  which  a  garden  is  cultivated  governs  the 
methods  that  are  employed.  In  private  gardens  certain 
crops  are  grown  in  certain  ways  to  fulfil  the  wishes  of  the 
owner  of  the  same,  and  the  gardener  gets  into  a  groove  suit¬ 
able  to  the  circumstances.  He  is  dealing  with  luxuries, 
mind  you,  and  the  question  of  profit  and  loss  does  not 
closely  affect  him.  It  is  when  he  leaves  this  line  and  takes 
up  commercial  gardening  that  he  realises  the  difference 
between  supplying  one  family  with  its  luxuries  and  the 
public  at  large  with  its  commodities.  Many  instances  could 
be  given  of  men  who  have  given  up  private  gardening,  and, 
through  their  natural  business  capacities,  they  have  adapted 
themselves  to  the  changed  circumstances,  and  have  made 
not  only  good  livings,  but  in  some  cases  fortunes.  But  the 
failures  must  also  be  considered.  How  many  private 
gardeners  have  invested  their  little  savings  in  commercial 
horticulture,  only  to  find  out  that  their  former  training  was 
of  little  use  to  them  in  the  new  line,  and  that  the  methods 
which  answered  in  one  case  were  out  of  place  in  another, 
which  had  to  show  a  profit?  They  might  have  learnt  the 
right  course  by  experience  if  the  funds  had  held  out,  but 
with  these  expended  they  had  no  other  choice  but  to  go  back 
to  private  service.  It  is  just  a  question  of  cutting  a  peg  square 
and  then  trying  to  fit  it  in  a  round  hole.  The  principles  of 
horticulture  may  be  learnt  in  a  private  establishment,  but 
if  his  gardening  has  to  show  a  profit  the  student  had  better 
get  experience  in  an  establishment  where  this  is  done  before 
he  sets  up  in  business  for  himself. 
And  what  has  been  done  for  horticulture  through  the 
mediums  of  its  luxury  and  commodity  aspects?  Much. 
Through  the  lavish  expenditure  of  wealth  for  the  sake  of  a 
hobby,  and  to  provide  luxuries  for  those  who  can  afford 
them,  the  natural  products  of  the  whole  world  have  been 
gathered  together  in  these  islands,  and  the  conditions  pro¬ 
vided  so  that  they  can  be  grown  artificially.  Art  has  been 
brought  to  bear  to  improve  on  Nature,  in  the  introductions 
of  fresh  forms  and  new  varieties  of  plants  for  the  same  end, 
and  not  really  because  they  were  essential  for  the  daily 
requirements  of  the  community  at  large.  Luxury  plays  an 
important  part  in  the  higher  phases  of  gardening.  The 
nation  would  doubtless  exist  and  prosper  without  gorgeous 
Orchids,  costly  exotics,  and  new  varieties  of  scores  of 
flowers,  but  without  them  it  would  be  all  the  poorer. 
With  the  growth  and  progress  of  a  nation,  its  require¬ 
ments  also  increase.  What  were  counted  as  luxuries  in  one 
generation  are  commodities  in  the  next,  and  in  horticulture 
this  is  particularly  w7ell  demonstrated.  Not  many  years  ago 
the  only  Grapes  in  the  market  were  the  surplus  produce 
from  private  establishments,  and  they  were  luxuries  if  only 
on  account  of  the  prohibitive  price.  But  men  saw  money 
in  Grapes,  and  now  they  are  practically  reduced  to  a  com¬ 
modity.  And  in  order  to  produce  them  at  the  commodity 
cost,  growers  had  to  unlearn  a  great  deal  that  had  formed 
their  education,  and  adopt  other  tactics.  According  to 
established  customs,  Grape  growing  was  an  intricate  opera¬ 
tion,  requiring  great  trouble  and  expenditure ;  but  the 
market  man  has  upset  the  theories  of  the  old  growers 
altogether.  He  has  shown  that  the  best  of  Grapes  can  be 
grown  in  simple  houses,  with  small  borders  and  ordinary 
treatment,  and  by  his  economic  methods  he  produces  crops 
year  by  year  that  wTould  have  been  considered  impossible 
by  the  old  school  of  Grape  growers.  Whether  it  pays  is  his 
concern,  but  by  means  of  competition  and  a  large  output 
the  price  of  English  Grapes  has  been  brought  down  to  the 
level  of  a  commodity. 
Nor  is  this  a  solitary  instance.  Look  at  Tomatoes, 
Cucumbers,  plants,  flowers,  and  vegetables  at  all  seasons, 
that  were  luxuries  in  our  grandfathers’  days,  but  are  com¬ 
modities  now7,  and  purchased  for  daily  use  by  the  man  in 
the  street.  Indeed,  apart  from  the  personal  pleasure  and 
satisfaction  there  is  in  growing  your  own  produce,  it  is 
questionable  whether  the  average  garden  pays,  and  if  the 
expense  were  reckoned  up  it  is  possible  that  it  would  be 
cheaper  to  buy  the  produce. 
This  can  only  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  commercial 
and  commodity  gardening  is  also  economic  gardening.  The 
best  of  everything  has  to  be  produced  at  the  lowest  possible 
cost,  and  in  quantities  that  -would  be  impossible  in  a  private 
establishment.  It  is  from  the  private  garden,  the  luxurious 
adjunct  to  the  home  of  the  well-to-do,  that  these  various 
branches  have  emanated,  the  nurseries,  market-growing 
establishments,  and  the  rest,  and  owung  to  the  various  means 
of  growing  horticultural  produce  of  all  kinds  the  line  which 
divides  garden  luxuries  from  garden  commodities  gradually 
grows  less  and  less  distinct.  Is  there  a  possibility  also  of 
the  private  gardener  pure  and  simple  becoming  extinct? 
Some  perhaps  will  think  of  the  many  establishments  which, 
though  they  do  not  keep  a  profit  and  loss  account,  keep  a 
“  surplus  produce  ”  item  which  is  expected  to  grow  rather 
than  diminish,  and  shake  their  heads  with  a  fear  that  such 
a  thing  is  not  unlikely. — G.  H.  H. 
Small  Fruit  Culture. 
So  far  back  as  the  official  figures  are  available,  it  would  appear 
that  the  extent  of  land  in  Great  Britain  devoted  to  the  cultivation 
of  small  fruit  this  year  is,  with  one  exception,  the  largest  on 
record,  as  it  now7  amounts  to  75,378  acres,  or  379  acres  more  than 
in  1901.  The  present  acreage  has  been  exceeded  only  by  that  of 
1896.  when  the  extent  of  land  under  small  fruit  was  returned  at 
76,245  acres.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  there  was  a  continuous 
expansion  in  the  acreage  up  to  1896,  followed  by  a  pronounced 
contraction  in  1897,  and  by  another  continuous  expansion 
since  1898,  it  appears  not  improbable,  observes  the  “  Times,” 
that  through  some  imperfection  in  the  returns  the  area  of  the 
crop  was  over-estimated  in  and  before  1896,  and  that  the  correc¬ 
tion  made  itself  apparent  in  the  returns  for  1897  and  1898.  It 
seeins  likely,  therefore,  that  the  present  year’s  acreage,  vdiich  is 
5,625  acres  in  excess  of  that  of  four  years  ago,  is  really  a  maxi¬ 
mum,  although  the  figui'es  do  not  show  it.  Kent  claims  nearly 
one-third  of  the  entire  acreage. 
