JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
Apiil  21,  1904. 
342 
Potatoes  and  the  Potato  Boom. 
Briefly  I  would  reply  to  “  Horticultural  Instructor.”  As  to 
Northern  Star,  he  appears  to  think  that  I  speak  of  it  solely  on 
iny  own  tests ;  but  will  he  believe  that  there  are  Scottish 
tainieis  and  Midland  men  who  will  back  Hp-to-Date  against  it? 
And  what  will  he  say  when  I  on  heavy  soil  and  others  on  light 
soil,  in  this  district  were  not  impressed  with  it?  I  may  say, 
liowever,  that  I  have  not  eaten  all  my  Stars,  and  should  they 
this  year  iirove  superior  to  over  100  varieties  pitted  against 
tliem,  then  I  shall  not  be  backward  in  making  it  known  Like 
sc  many  clever  people,  “  H.  I.”  runs  away  with  the  impression 
tiiat  tile  Star  is  the  first  of  a  new  disease- resisting  strain,  but  it 
IS  quite  a  while  back  since  tlie  Bed-skin  Flourball  came  over, 
and  Magnum  Bonum  had  such  a  reputation.  Further,  I  now- 
hold  a  variety  that  the  raiser  positively  states  has  never  been 
diseased  during  its  ten  or  more  years’  existence,  yet,  because 
there  w-as  no  boom,  it  has  not  been  made  much  of,  nor  will  it 
ever  gain  high  favour  owing  to  its  appearance.  Bespectino- 
Discovery,  ”  H.  I.”  relies  on  two  samples,  but,  owing  to  the 
habit  of  modern  sorts  producing  both  kidnevs  and  rounds  we 
have  to  judge  a  variety,  by  the  greatest  quantity  of  either  shape 
produced,  and  I,  as  well  as  many  others,  say  that  Discovery 
yields  more  rounds  than  true  kidneys. 
Begarding  the  boom,  if  "  H.  I.”  can  prove  that  the  rise  in 
price.s  was  the  natural  outcome  of  the  ordinary  course  of  things 
let  him  do  so.  I  w-ould  advise  him  to  go  deeply  into  the  sub¬ 
ject,  and  not  merely  ask  a  Potato  farmer’s  opinion.  He  should 
take  note  as  to  what  some  of  the  trade  papers  say  of  the  boom. 
Again,  he  says  that  fabulous  sums  would  not  be  paid  were  there 
no  chance  of  profit,  and  here  lie  the  po.ssibilities  of  the  boom 
tor  there  are  men  nn, scrupulous  enough  to  push  aiivthing,  ami 
1  could  name  one  individual  who  is  now-  pushing  a  variety  that 
he  knows  nothing  about,  but  simply  uses  tlie  rai.ser’s  de.scription. 
Owing  to  the  Journal  being  crowded  by  contrilmtors,  and 
having  more  important  business  than  arguing  with  ”  H.  I  ” 
J  liaye  no  intention  to  accede  to  the  call  for  an  outflow  from  niv 
fountain  pen!  Mere  it  po.ssible  for  ”  H.  I.”  to  hear  what 
tan -minded  men  have  to  say,  he  might  in  future  drop  acute 
liersonalities  le.st  he  some  day  should  meet  in  person  the 
youthful  Goliath  he  derides.-  T.  A.  AV. 
The  Luxury  of  Gardening. 
d  hough  the  remarks  of  ”D.”  on  page  325  contain  words  of 
lunch  caustic  liearing,  tliere  is  nevertlieless  much  truth  contain.^d 
therein.  Ihe  luxury  of  gardening  to  which  he  takes  sucli  semwe 
exception  mustj  howevei*,  f)e  admitted  to  some  extent,  ti  omdi 
not  to  the  extent  some  are  inclined  to  think.  If  employers  are 
di^spo.sed  to  preach  the.  doctrine  of  luxury— and  there  are  many 
XX  ho  do— it  not  avail  the  gardener  much  to  attempt  .simple- 
landed  to  deny  it.  If  the  Gardeners’  A.ssociation  can,  bv  ccm- 
bination,  place  the  interests  of  the  calling  on  a  comm^r^ial 
tooting  and  raise  the  standard  by  protection,  it  will  most  cer¬ 
tainly  deserve  well  of  the  craft.  One  sentence  in  ”  D.’s  ”  notes 
1  can  imrify  as  lieing  true  to  the  letter,  as,  like  him,  I  have 
asceitained  what  is  the  extent  and  commercial  value  of  the 
supply  fi-om  gardens  the  year  through,  and  which  of  neces¬ 
sity  includes  vegetables,  salads,  fruits,  plants,  flowers.  Ac.  I 
was  piomjited  to  do  this  because  the  “  luxury  of  gardening  ”  was 
so  frequently  paraded  as  being  out  of  proportion  to  its  cost.  I 
vainly  eiideayoiired  to  show  that  value  for  value  w  as  given,  bur 
as.sumption  did  not  .satisfy  without  facts,  and  even  with  the  aid 
ot  figures  conviction  was  scarcely  possible. 
rile  necessity  of  curtailment  in  establishment  expenses  almost 
invaiiably  .strikes  hrst  on  the  garden,  yet  when  comparisons  are 
made  liy  .simple  calculations,  there  is  a  vastly  greater  cost 
a  ending  livened  or  stable  service,  without  a  corresponding  use 
or  pleasure  resulting.  A  fairly  good-sized  lawn  and  shrubbery 
could  be  niaintained  in  very  good  order  at  the  tate  of  expendi- 
tuie  incurred  111  the  service  and  equipment  of  an  ordinary  foot- 
nan,  let  the  latter  is  an  indispensable  item,  w-liile  the  garden  at 
be  a  luxury,  not  supported  by  apparent 
‘'’i  were  to  act  on  the  suggestion  of  vour 
vn  .  a  daily  record  based  on  commercial 
''Vf.pf ills'll  satisfaction  might  be  more  often  obtained  as 
.-uectiug  the  two  {(uestious.  supply  and  cost. 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  horticulture  has  been  for  some  tiw.e 
past  taking  on  a  commercial  aspect,  even  in  the  conduct  of 
private  gardens.  Some  w-ho  hold  high  rank  among  the  nobilty  of 
Fngland  stoop  to  the  cause  of  commercial  gardening  by  the  sale 
of  w  hat  is  termed  surplus  produce.  True,  as  “  D.”  says,  artists, 
musicians,  jewellers,  and  actors  are  no  less  luxuries  than  jrar- 
deiiers,  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten  these  are  supported  by  the 
masses  alnio.st,  or  in  quite  equal  degree,  to  that  of  the  affluent. 
The  garden  and  its  commodities,  however,  are  as  necessary  for 
everyday  life  as  tho.se  of  the  grocer,  butcher,  or  baker,  and  if 
gardeners  themselves,  aided  by  the  influences  of  the  Gardeners’ 
Association,  can  only  bring  these  hard  facts  forward  and  make 
them  agreeably  familiar,  in.stead  of  repellent,  there  should  be 
more  mutuality  of  feeling  and  a  great  respect  endowed  in  the 
cau.se  of  horticulture  as  between  employer  and  employed.  Impor¬ 
tations  and  the  market  clearly  indicate  that  commercial  garden¬ 
ing  is  very  much  alive,  and  increasingly  active,  and  though  the 
])rivate  garden  and  market  are  not  so  closely  allied  in  its  forces, 
I  feel  much  convinced  that  the  private  man  could  hold  a  more 
independent  attitude  were  he  to  carefully  ascertain,  and  prove 
at  the  year’s  end,  the  value  of  his  labour  against  the  capacity 
•and  co.st  of  production.  —  \V. 
Gardeners  and  Their  Duties. 
Voui  correspondent  “  X.”  (page  293),  in  your  issue  of  April  7, 
may  be  sure  that  his  complimentai'y  remarks  respecting 
Mr.  Slade’s  exposition  on  the  duties  of  gardeners  w-ill  meet  with 
general  approval.  But  without  knowing  the  particulars  or  the 
circumstauces  which  led  up  to  ”  X.”  being  served  w-ith  ‘‘  the  cold 
shoulder  ”  on  the  occasion  of  his  demonstration  in  a  certain  well 
kept  garden  in  the  absence  of  the  gardener,  I  venture  to  think 
there  must  have  been  cause  as  w-ell  as  effect.  Should  “  X.” 
be  a  “demonstrative”  demonstrator,  the  cause  is  evident,  and 
the  effect  is  what  might  have  been  expected  in  some  form  or 
other — all  for  the  want  of  a  little  diplomacy.  Alay  I  suggest 
for  the  future  that  “Demonstrator  X.”  make  hiimself 
acquainted  with  the  person  in  charge  before  he  demon.st rates  on 
his  w-ork  ?  It  is  not  always  .so  muQh  what  is  done,  hut  the  way 
in  w'hich  it  is  done,  that  is  resented,  and  a  little  diplomatic  oil 
would,  I  am  sure,  be  worth  a  ti’ial  on  all  future  occasions. — 
B.  C.  S. 
Professional  Gardeners’  Friendly  Benefit  Society. 
My  attention  has  I’ecently  been  called  to  the  report  in  the 
Journal  of  March  17  of  the  annual  meeting  of  the  United  Horti¬ 
cultural  Benefit  and  Provident  Society,  and  the  question  is  there 
asked  “  why  the  Leeds  gardeners  found  it  necessary  to  establi.sh 
an  opposition  society,  instead  of  sti'engthening  the  already 
exi.stent  body?”  By  the  Leeds  gardeners  I  suppose  is  meant 
the  Professional  Gardeners’  Friendly  Benefit  Society — [Yes. — 
Kd.] — which,  by  the  way,  never  was  a  society  of  Leeds,  or  even 
Yorkshire,  gardeners,  many  of  its  members  never  having  been  in 
Leeds  ;  and  the  answer  to  the  ([uestion  is  that  if  the  United 
H.B.  and  P.  Society  existed  at  the  time  when  steps  w-ei’e  taken 
to  form  the  P.G.F.B.S.,  its  existence  was  not  knowm  to  the 
promoters  of  the  latter.  The  probabilities  are  that  both  had 
been  e.stablished  several  years  before  either  knew  of  the  other’s 
existence.  About  20  years  ago,  Mr.  MT'ight,  at  that  time  of  tlie 
Journal  of  Horticulture,  was  present  at  our  annual  meeting, 
.and  his  subsequent  report,  and  some  correspondence  which  fol¬ 
lowed  in  the  Journal,  I  think  showed  that  at  that  time  he  had 
no  knowledge  of  any  other  society  of  its  kind. 
I  have  before  me  the  first  contribution  sheet,  dated 
January  1,  1867,  when  77  members  paid  their  first  contributions, 
and  23  others  were  initiated,  also  the  certificate  of  registration 
of  rules,  dated  Februar.y  22,  1867.  As  some  mouths  previous  to 
this  were  occupied  in  preliminarj-  arrangements,  the  making  of 
rules,  Ac.,  one  is  tempted  to  ask.  How  long  previous  to  this  had 
the  United  been  formed?  But,  seeing  that  two  such  good 
societies  for  gardeners  are  so  well  e.stablished,  why  talk  of  oppo¬ 
sition  ?  Surely  the  United  Kingdom  is  large  enough  for  both  to 
continue  to  do  the  good  work,  and  w  hich  they  are  so  proud  cf 
having  been  able  to  do  in  the  past. — George  Carver,  Secretary 
of  the  Profe.ssional  Gardeners’  Friendly  Benefit  Society,  Chapel 
Allerton,  Leeds. 
[Onr  representative  who  w-as  responsible  for  tlie  report  of  the 
meeting  referred  to  was  under  the  impression  that  the  society  of 
W'hich  our  correspondent  is  secretary  w-as  of  recent  origin,  hence 
his  parenthetical  query.  The  two  societies  are  evidently  nearly 
level  in  point  of  age,  but  the  United  Horticultural  Benefit  and 
Provident  Society  is  now  undoubtedly  better  known,  is  rich,  and 
has  a  numerous  membership.  “  Union  is  strength  ”  ;  why  have 
two  gardeners’  benefit  societies  ?—Fr).] 
