102 



JOURNAL OP HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



[ November 4, 1875. 



of Grapes, for it seems to ns that the Jadges must, as regards 

 that Show, be the Eole authorities. It must be remembered 

 that they were investecl with full discriminatory and jndioial 

 powers. They constituted the highest tribunal of the Royal 

 Caledonian Horticultural Society in determiniag the legitimacy, 

 80 to speak, of tho products of every competitor, and were 

 gentlemen of ability and integrity. They, according to rule C 

 of the schedule, had power to "withhold" or "modify" the 

 prizes, and from their decision there is no appeal. We must 

 in the matter at issue assume that they have seen no sufficient 

 ground to warrant them in " modifying " their decision in tho 

 award of class 2G of the schedule. The official stipulation was 

 for " one heaviest bunch of white Grapes," and the official 

 award was made to the bunch which was beyond all doubt the 

 heaviest when weighed by them. The competing bunches 

 were weighed by the same official?, with the same scales, and 

 at the same lime, and one was found to weigh over 26 lb?, and 

 the other under 2G lbs. The Judges had no other object than 

 to do justice, and they awarded the prize to the heaviest bunch. 

 Their decision was called in question, and the justice of it was 

 disputed. But considering the case calmly and without bias 

 — holding the balance perfectly evenly — we are bound to ask 

 that if they had awarded tho prize to the bunch which weighed 

 under 26 lbs. instead of tho one which weighed over 2G lbs., 

 would their decision have received general approval ? We 

 think not. They would have been taunted on the standing 



Fig. 8J. 



authority of weights and Eciles, and the wording of the sche- 

 dule, in awarding the prize to the lightest bunch. 



But then comes the objection that the bunch was not a 

 bunch, or that it was more than a bunch. But to what 

 authority could the Judges or anyone else turn ? to what stan- 

 dard could they appeal ? on what written law or definition 

 could they base their authority in proof or disproof of the 

 exhibit being legitimate? There was no law on the subject, 

 and they made one on the spot. They could not turn to any 

 recorded definition, so they relied on their own judgment and 

 the decision of scales and weights. 



There was not a written decision to guide them, simply 

 because there had not been a necessity for such a record ; yet, 

 as the sequel has proved, there was an accepted reasonable 

 standard which has now found utterance, and that utterance 

 we shall attempt to define. 



It is the unanimous opinion of men who are capable of 

 comprehending a given subject that enables a standard to be 

 arrived at which ought to bo accepted and respected. We are 

 in possession of authorities sufficient to define what, according 

 to the professional and practical mind, is tho standard for 

 judging a bunch of Grapes. We submit that standard for 

 future guidance — we submit it until something else expresses 

 a better reflex of the horticultural mind as the condensed 

 convictions of British Grape-growers. 



In the controversy which may now fittingly close nothing 

 has been expressed which should in any way mar the good 

 feeling which should exist between competitors; but, on the 

 contrary, if an accepted standard can be arrived at for judging 

 " a bunch of Grapes," greater confidence than has previously 



existed will be esteblished, and none can regret that the matter 

 has been fully ventilated. So long as the judging of a bunch 

 of Grapes was left to individual interpretation, so long must 

 suspicion lurk in many minds, but it oueo an accepted standard 

 can be arrived at a great cause of doubt and dispute will be 

 removed. 



We submit the accompanying figures as illustrating what a 

 bunch of Grapes should and should not be. 



Fig. 84 is a cluster of fruit springing from two distinct axes, 

 and constitutes undoubtedly two distinct bunches, and should 

 bo unhesitatingly disqualified when offered in competition as 

 " a bunch of Grapes." 



Fig. 85 is a cluster of fruit springing from the same eye, 



Fig. 85. 



which in reality contains two axes of growth or bunch bases, 

 and the cluster ia a twin bunch, and it cannot be legitimately 

 regarded as " a single bunch of Grapss ;" it must also be dis- 

 qualified. 



Fig. 86 ia a true single bunch of Grapes as the distinct 

 growth from a definable point of the axis, having a distinct 



Fig. 86. 

 simple paduncle between the lateral and the shoulders, and 

 afterwards dividing into shoulders and other branches. No 

 matter how many branches it may afterwards assume, provided 

 it breaks from the lateral with one simple peduncle, it is a 

 legitimate single bunch of Grapes. 



OSMASTON MANOB, 



THE SEAT OF J. WEIGHT, ESQ.— No. 1. 



" G." HAS been revelling in his researches amongst the ante- 

 diluvians — those who were before the Flood, the flood of 



