Nurserymen and florists are frequently called gardeners, but in the present case I wish to be understood as meaning gentlemen's gardeners. To begin at the beginning, I will first inquire what a gardener is. In scientific phraseology, he belongs to the genus Homo and to the natural order of Menials. If you doubt my assertion, or wish for higher authority as to the correctness of my classification, I refer you to any of the New York papers, where, if you will run your eye down the columns, you will find - "Wanted - Three cooks, one housemaid, two waiters, four coachmen, two gardener, and a servant of all work".

As the gardener belongs to this family, he is treated by his employer in the same manner as the rest. "And why not?" some of my readers may ask. Who or what is the gardener, that he should be distinguished or held in higher esteem than the rest ? I do not wish to reflect, sneer, or in any way speak or write disparagingly of these necessary and useful worthies; they may discharge their various duties with credit to themselves and to the satisfaction of their employers: but the requirements of the gardener I conceive to be of a different and more important character than of the others. He must be a man of mind, capable of thought, foresight, and reflection. He has not only the same amount of manual labor to perform as the other domestics, but his mental powers must be taxed - he must work with head and hands too, or he is no gardener. He is required, perhaps, to produce bunches of well-ripened Grapes in May or June, while the waiter has merely to dish them and carry them to the table: and in the same months, Cauliflowers, Cucumbers, and new Potatoes; while the disciple of Mrs. Glasse has merely to cook and serve them up. Poor blue-apron has first to "catch the hare? which is certainly the most difficult part of the business.

I will next inquire why it is that a gardener is treated like a mere machine, which in many situations he is. Is the fault his own, or does the blame attach to his employer I am inclined to think that in very many cases blame ought to rest on his own shoulders. I admit that many good gardeners frequently become careless and indifferent from the fact that their services and ability are not properly appreciated by their masters; but I think one reason why he makes no distinction between the gardener and the other servants, is because he actually can not see any difference, either in address, intellectual acquirements, or anything else. It is to this I would particularly wish to call the attention of the gardener. There is truth in the adage, that "if we wish to command respect from others, we must first learn to respect ourselves;" and I should infer, from the personal appearance of some gardeners, that they have entirely lost all self-respect It may appear a small affair to some to allude to the subject; but, while I abominate all coxcombry and dandyism, at the same time I do not see why a gardener should not be clean in person and decent in apparel.

It is too delicate an affair for an employer to allude to; but I feel assured that many men would hold a higher place in the esteem of their employers, if they paid a little more attention to this.

A gardener ought to be intelligent, and well informed about every thing appertaining to his business. There are many who are well posted up in politics, the price of lots, Ac., and who do not know the names even of half the plants under their care, saying nothing of their native habitats, introduction into the country, etc. Others again have I met with (despisers of books, catalogues, etc.,) relying on their own unaided practice, as they say, for their knowledge, who have affirmed that they could tell whether a plant was hardy or tender, by its appearance. I should like to hear the verdict of one of these knowing physiologists on two such plants as Auracaria excelsa and Libocedras Chiliensis, supposing they had never seen them before.

As regards information from books and practice, the latter I admit is the most important; but at the present day, the gardener who never reads, whatever he may think to the contrary, is most certainly behind the age in which he lives. I know that the majority of gardeners have received only the rudiments of an education; neither have some of the greatest men of the past and present ages - they have been self-taught. "What education did Sir Joseph Paxton receive? and now look at the position he holds. Some jealous minds may sneer, and say that had it not been for the patronage of his princely employer he would have been nothing more than any ordinary gardener. I do not believe it; recollect there is no royal road to learning. Doubtless he met with every encouragement, but his success must be mainly attributed to his untiring industry and perseverance. Although I am not personally acquainted with Sir Joseph, I think I have sufficient acquaintance with such a man to warrant the assertion that (if called upon to do it) he would cast his title at her Majesty's feet, and his property after it, rather than sacrifice or be robbed of the knowledge he possesses - the information he has obtained from books, observation, men, practice, etc. Such is the value of knowledge.

Of course, in this country a gardener does not expect to receive the honor of Knighthood, but if he will, fession, which presents more seductive allurements for the acquisition of knowledge, than that of a gardener. There is hardly a tree, plant, or shrub, which he has under his care, but has some beautiful association. Why even the name is suggestive - it reminds us of some eminent person, place, or event. Take one or two plants for illustration - Gardenia Fortunii, Abies Douglasii, Tropaeolum Lobbianum, Acacia Drummondii. Who are these individuals whose appellations these plants assume; are they alive, or dead; and where did they travel? Some are no more; but the majority are alive, and still actively engaged in the field of operations. The first traveled in China, and has introduced during the past eight years some of the most beautiful plants that ever graced shrubbery or parterre; the second in Oregon, California, etc., and met with an untimely fate; the third in Chili, the Andes, and Patagonia; the last in Australia. If geography was not taught at the school our supposed inquirer attended when a boy, he will of course have but a vague idea of the exact longitude and latitude of the above-mentioned localities.