DECEMBER. 373 



effect upon the late occasi n, I must state the schedule of prizes was 

 only issued after a prolonged canvas, embracing every cultivator known 

 to me — certainly every cultivator of eminence — and after the only 

 gentleman whose competition for a first prize might have been defeated 

 by such an arrangement, had positively declined to exhibit. 



What '' other objections " may exist I am unacquainted with, ex- 

 cepting only those which apply to all combinations, whether the com- 

 bination of twelve Carnations and twelve Picot^es, or the combination 

 of twelve or any other number of Carnations or other flowers. And 

 my surprise would be greatly increased if 1 found you objecting to the 

 advantages of combination, the evils which are its inseparable con- 

 comitants. But as my remarks are intended merely to remove the 

 assumption of carelessness or incapacity on the part of the manage- 

 ment, it is unnecessary to pursue this. I sincerely hope tlie managers 

 for the coming year may more truly deserve, and succeed in securing, 

 your approval. 



The latter portion of your criticism — your objection to the showing 

 of duplicates " in so small a number as twelve blooms," remains, how- 

 ever, to be noticed ; and on this point I must declare unreservedly my 

 total issue with your conclusions. With the sincerest esteem for your 

 ability and your experience, I am totally at a loss to discover the least 

 force or significance in the objections urged. Is it possible there can be 

 a greater difficulty in noting nitie dissimilar flowers than m noting 

 twelve ? Can it he more difficult to note nine flowers in twelve than 

 it is to note twenty- four in thirty -six? Yet this latter arrangement 

 yoQ suggest for the Hollyhock, and the question is therefore one of 

 detail not of principle. 1 may here state in a parenthesis, that your 

 criticism, after your approval, or ct any rate absence of disapproval, of 

 the draft of the schedule before publication, seems incomprehensible 

 here. How, too, whilst advocating variety, the " better variety " you 

 should assume the exhibition of " twelve varieties," would not only not 

 gain a point, but probably lose, is inexphcable. Used against variety 

 it might be understood, but coming from its advocate, and as enforcing 

 its claim to attention, it is past my comprehension. It is simply absurd 

 to say, " It must be taken for granted all are equal on this point." It 

 would be as reasonable to assume each stand of flowers equal on every 

 other point. I do not urge this merely for a victory. I believe a point 

 of vital importance to the success of the National Carnation and 

 Picotee exhibitions, and consequently to the position of the flower, is to 

 be determined, and I cannot stay my voice. 



Let us go back a few years. I well remember, when the National 

 Carnation and Picotee Society was formed, on the aftenioon of the first 

 of the trial exhibitions in 1850, the excellence of that exhibition, the 

 closeness of the competition, and the absence of anything like marked 

 inferiority in the collection, was the subject of general remark ; and the 

 cause for this excellence was declared to belong to the fact, that the 

 collections being of six blooms only, tlie number was within the compass 

 of every cultivator. So much so, that it was proposed the collections 

 from the amateurs should not in the (then) new Society exceed six 

 blooms, whilst the nurserymen should show nine. Eventually it was 



