512 
December  11,  1902. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AXD 
CO  TT A  GE  GA RDENER, 
N.C.S.  Judges. 
The  complaint  of  "  F.  W.”  under  this  heading  in  a  previous 
issue  reminds  me  of  the  words  of  a  friend  :  “  Whenever  you'  hear 
a  man  grumbling  about  judges  or  judging,  you  may  be  sure  in 
nine  eases  out  of  ten  that  he  is  a  disappointed  exhibitor.”  How 
often  this  has  proved  correct  I  am  not  prepared  to  say ;  but 
frequently  it  has  come  true  in  the  past  under  my  own  observa¬ 
tion,  and  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  the  trouble  will  arise 
many  a  time  and  oft  in  the  future. 
The  Scarcity  of  Journeymen  Gardeners. 
Here  again  we  have  an  old  friend  very  ably  touched  on  by 
“  E.  E.  R.”  on  page  513.  That  there  is  a  scarcity  of  young  men 
willing  to  devote  themselves  to  a  gardener’s  career  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at  if  the  attractions  and  greater  emoluments  of  other 
avocations  are  for  one  moment  considered.  “  E.  E.  R.”  is  afraid 
the  coming  generation  of  gardeners  will  not  enjoy  the  palmy 
clays  of  their  predecessors.  One  would  have  thought  that  with  a 
coming  scarcity  there  would  have  been  a  tendency  for  higher 
rates  of  payment  and  greater  privileges.  It  is  not  wise  to  look 
too  far  ahead,  but  if  the  experience  of  the  present  generation 
of  gardeners  is  at  all  reliable  as  a  basis  for  forecasting  the 
future,  expert  gardeners  will  be  needed  in  but  few  establish¬ 
ments  in  time  to  come.  The  man  in  the  street,  or  his  employer 
who  reads  a  gardening  paper  once  a  month,  if  to  be  believed, 
may  be  expected  to  know  more  of  the  craft  than  those  who  have 
served  a  lifetime  in  the  ranks. — A  Provincial  F.R.H.S. 
The  Horticultural  Hall. 
It  is  an  old  adage  that  what  is  everybody’s  business  is  nobody’s 
'business,  although,  fortunately  for  the  reputation  of  the 
world,  there  is  far  increased  disinterestedness  and  singleness  of 
purpose  awakened  of  late  years,  which  proves  our  march  to  a 
higher  plane.  Relatively  to  wealth  distributed  in  the  world, 
our  great  Babylon  constitutes  an  unenviable  exception  in  the 
race  for  honourable  distinction  in  this  connection,  and  the  spirit 
of  sordid  venality  is  more  or  less  prominent.  Many  of  the 
sections  of  the  administration  are  unevenly  balanced  in  this  vast 
metropolis,  and  we  see  utter  neglect  of  first  principles  here,  and 
lavish  prodigality  there,  within  a  stone’s  throw  of  each  other. 
London  can  furnish  no  brilliant  example  for  imitation  by  less 
notable  centres.  This  condition  of  things  is  prominently  notice¬ 
able  in  relation  to  horticulture,  which  suffers  ignominy,  especially 
at  the  hands  of  our  numerous  so-called  amateurs  in  well-to-do 
positions,  who,  in  reality,  are  much  more  numerous  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  off  substantial  prizes  for  exhibits  than  show¬ 
ing  backbone  in  furthering  the  behests  of  horticulture  in  a 
national  sense.  If  we  measure  not  the  potential,  but  the  actual, 
wealth  of  these  isles  against  that  of  the  United  States,  we  may, 
in  a  sense  not  geographical,  compare  our  English  counties  to 
the  States  of  the  great  American  Republic  in  this  way,  that,  as 
an  instance,  the  county  of  Kent  might  be  likened  to  the  State  of 
Massachusetts,  and  allowing  the  section  of  London  on  the 
Kentish  soil  to  count  as  Boston  does  in  that  State.  Now  we  find 
that  pushful  Boston  has  been  on  the  qui  vive  after  a.  horticultural 
hall  coincident,  with  London,  and  has  dedicated  a  goodly  sum, 
equal  to  £120,000,  towards  the  grounds  and  hall  for  a  suitable 
establishment.  Kent,  with  the  section  of  London  pertaining  to 
it,  is  probably  as  affluent  as  Boston  and  its  State,  yet  it  not  only 
does  not  equal  Boston  in  its  horticultural  worth,  but  Kent,  the 
“  Garden  of  England,”  and  the  whole  of  London  besides,  and  the 
latter  as  the  representative  of  the  wealth  of  the  kingdom  and 
the  dignity  of  the  Empire,  cannot  collect  towards  the  ideal  hall 
and  its  cost  more  than  the  fraction  beyond  £100.000  out  of  the 
£120,000  already  secured  by  Boston.  And  the  Boston  Hall  is 
completed  during  the  same  few  years  that  London  lias  wasted 
in  ruminating,  and  has  in  effect  been  literally  overwhelmed  by 
the  attenuated  claim  on  its  prodigious  resources  for  a  sacrifice 
on  the  altar  of  horticulture. 
We  have  been  authoritatively  informed  a  few  weeks  ago  by 
the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  that  the  total  promised  towards 
the  hall  is  just  over  £18,000,  where  the  modest  sum  of  only 
£40,000,  for  the  metropolis  of  the  world,  is  the  limit  of  the  claim 
for  the  hall.  If  these  figures  here  mentioned  could  not  be  sub¬ 
stantiated,  the  proportions  cited  seem  to  constitute  a  gross  libel 
on  the  love  of  flowers,  which  is  assumed,  at  least,  to  pervade 
the  nation,  and  to  assist  in  its  festhetic  elevation  to  a  point  in 
this  connection  abreast  of  the  world,  which  we  have  a  claim  to  lead 
by  the  ethical  magnificence  of  some  of  our  national  institutions. 
But  this  comparison  does  not  even  show  us  true  proportions. 
About  twelve  years  ago  a  similar  attempt  at  the  creation  of  a 
hall  was  on  the  point  of  succeeding,  about  £27.000  having  been 
promised  towards  £40,000  required,  when  the  unfortunate 
Baring  Crisis  knocked  all  financial  matters  on  the  head,  and  the 
project  disappeared  from  among  practical  politics.  It  was  an 
evil  time  for  London  and  true  horticulture.  These  £27,000  were 
promised  among  Fellows  of  the  Society,  numbering  under  2,000, 
twelve  years  ago,  whereas  the  present  numbers  are  three  times 
greater,  or  about  6,000,  showing  the  intended  sacrifice  of  £14 
per  head  on  the  previous  occasion,  and  only  £3  promised  on  the 
present  one. 
Nor  is  this  the  only  ground  on  which  “  love  of  flowers  ”  merely 
skin-deep  can  be  proved  in  wealthy  Britain.  The  flimsy  super¬ 
ficiality  is  emphasised  when  we  read  of  1,000  applications,  as 
occurred  the  other  day,  received  by  the  owner  of  one  private 
garden  requiring  a  head  gardener.  Horticulture  is  actually  going 
begging,  which  finds  significant  expression  in  the  parallel  case 
that  few  private  establishments  care  to  afford  anything  beyond 
the  kind  of  plants  that  can  be  most  effectively  ravished  for  the 
decoration  of  dinner-tables  and  other  social  sensations — flowers 
to  be  cut!  Yes!  plants  to  cut  from;  we  want  nothing  else! 
reiterate  our  nouveaux  riches,  and,  alas!  many  of  the  anciens 
riches  as  well. 
Mr.  Ebenezer  Howard  is  proposing  to  develop  the  problem 
of  garden  cities  among  us  in  order  to  raise  our  standard  of  life 
from  the  present  sordid  environment;  £20,000  were  required  to 
start  preliminaries — the  Pioneer  Company — and  this  sum  lias 
been  furnished  as  an  act  of  philanthropy  from  among  the  (about) 
1,700  members  constituting  the  Garden  City  Society.  All  but 
£1,000  subscriptions — viz.,  £19,000,  have  been  promised  in  the 
course  of  less  than  six  months,  so  that  virtual  success  crowns  the 
effort. 
The  Royal  Agricultural  Society  recently,  in  fixing  upon  a 
permanent  locality  for  its  great  annual  show  on  a  site  near 
Willesden,  easily  obtained  the  necessary  funds  from  its  Fellows 
within  a  short  time,  and  furnishes  another  object-lesson  for  the 
accentuation  of  the  perfunctoriness  of  purpose  attaching  to  the 
cult  of  Flora  in  the  well-to-do  circles  of  this  great  metro¬ 
polis.  As  to  the  rapidly  increasing  ratio  of  the  annual  growth 
of  the  memberships  of  the  R.H.S.,  we  wTould  fain  desire  to  claim 
the  greater  proportion  as  devotees  from  real  love  of  horticulture, 
intent  upon  furthering  its  true  interests,  and  not  merely  joining 
as  a  freak  of  fashion.  Were  the  former  hypothesis  admissible, 
London  might  rightly,  and  with  real  pride,  have  been  enabled, 
logically,  to  point  to  the  creation  of  an  adequate  mansion  and 
real  home  of  horticulture,  set  appropriately  in  park-like  sur¬ 
roundings,  instead  of  being  compelled,  after  a  sojourn  in  a  quasi¬ 
dungeon,  humbly  to  adopt  a  retreat  wdiich  seems  to  be  inade¬ 
quate  to  needs  of  even  early  coming  years,  and  demanding  ten 
times  the  amount  now  modestly  required. 
I  think  I  read  a  recent  statement  that  about  nine-tenths  of 
the  sum  total  promised  are  attributable  to  the  Council  of  the 
Royal  Horticultural  Society  and  their  older  and  nearest  friends, 
which  would  further  emphasise  the  extreme  want  of  sympathy 
on  the  part  of  the  many  well-to-do  or  even  affluent  people,  whose 
joint  promises  come  to  a  couple  of  thousand  pounds  out  of  about 
£18,000  promised  on  this  reckoning.  Also  some  of  those  exploit¬ 
ing  the  modest  space  for  their  trade  exhibits  are  far  from  being 
conspicuous  in  recognising  their  liability.  As  a  case  in  point, 
the  modest  hall  proposed  seems  to  be  inadequate  to  the  require¬ 
ments  of  our  Rose  and  Chrysanthemum  Societies  for  their  annual 
shows,  which  is  a.  matter  doubly  regretful,  as  the  Aquarium  is 
on  the  point  of  disappearing,  which  hitherto  gave  shelter  to 
Chrysanthemum  interest.  Even  King  Edward  and  our  Prince  of 
Wales  cannot  stimulate  fashionable  enthusiasm,  though  they  have 
kindly  sent,  contributions. 
A  correspondent  in  one  of  your  contemporaries  asks  wdiat  is 
the  cause  of  the  existing  state  of  the  gardeners’  labour  market, 
and  vaguely  replies  that  it  cannot  be  that  employers  are  taking 
less  interest  than  hitherto  in  horticultural  matters,  judging  from 
the  increase  of  the  number  of  new  Fellows  elected  to  the  Royal 
Horticultural  Society.  My  earlier  reference  to  these  numbers 
may  slightly  modify  his  optimism.  Finally,  he  opines  that  it 
is  now  more  a  matter  of  wage  than  anything  else.  According 
to  -my  point  of  view,  the  extremely  low  wages  mostly  prevailing 
for  service  of  really  good  gardeners,  from  whom  much  is  expected, 
provide  another  peg  on  which  to  expose  the  relative  degeneracy 
of  horticulture  on  its  own  account.  Employers  who  would  make 
horticulture  their  obedient  slave  infinitely  outnumber  those 
aiming  at  a  superior  plane  in  their  sympathies.  The  true  mean¬ 
ing  is  the  ignorance  and  indifference  of  employers  in  most 
gardening  matters,  ignorance  which  proclaims  itself  in  that  of 
most  of  the  “  common  things  ”  in  our  environment. 
The  suggestion  made  on  page  488  of  your  issue  as  to  structural 
improvements  on  the  plans  submitted  by  the  R.H.  Society 
should  find  full  application,  for  they  are  decidedly  good. — H.  H. 
Raschen,  Sidcup,  Kent,  December  1,  1902. 
P.S. — We  are  editorially,  but  apologetically,  informed  in  the 
“Gardeners’  Chronicle”  of  December  6,  in  relation  to  this  sub¬ 
ject,  that  “  one  need  not  point  to  Boston,  Philadelphia,  or  even 
to  Amiens,  because  the  conditions  might  not  be  applicable  to  us.” 
Such  a  sentiment  seems  to  be  a  feebly  disguised  acknowledgment 
of  our  ineptitude  and  illiberality  and  another  spirit  elsewhere. 
Nor  does  the  “  noble  work  accomplished  by  the  Shropshire  Hor¬ 
ticultural  Society,”  referred  to  in  the  same  issue,  “  alleviate 
