August 8, 1878. ] 
and the only enemy I fear now is drought early in the season, 
and then I water. Iam generally able to place a dish of Straw- 
berries on the table any day for a month or more, which is all 
that can be expected on light land. The soil is deep light 
loam rather poor than otherwise. The following I consider 
the best—First early, Roden’s Early Prolific ; second early, 
Keens’ Seedling; main crop, Sir J. Paxton and President ; 
late, Elton Pine. I also grow a few of Myatt’s Prolific in 
a line as an edging, and cover them over with wire Pea 
guards to keep off the birds; the others I net. Harly Prolific 
and Keens’ Seedling I set out 2 feet apart in the rows and 
1 foot 6 inches from each other, the rest 2 feet apart each way. 
Tf the ground is not rich I should put between the rows some 
well-decayed manure in November. As a general rule I do 
not dig between the plants, but keep down weeds with the hoe 
and hand-weeding. 
If the Strawberries mentioned above do not succeed the 
following might be tried—First early, Black Prince; second 
early, Vicomtesse Héricart de Thury ; main crop, Amateur and 
La Constante ; late, Eleanor. 
Whether La Grosse Sucrée is worth continuing I have not 
yet decided. It was pretty good this year, but last year was 
the reverse of sugary, and that I expect will be the complaint 
against it except in a warm climate like France. I have not 
tried Marguerite, but have heard it is too soft. British Queen 
and Filbert Pine are good Strawberries, but not suited for 
light land. 
I do not care very much for Eleanor as a late Strawberry. 
I have grown it two or three seasons, and if it does not do 
better next year shall not retain it. It is very likely that it 
requires heavier land.—AMATEUR, Cirencester. 
ROSE JUDGING AND ROSE SHOWING. 
THE writer of your leading article on page 61 praises the 
London system of judging and its collateral arrangements. 
He next proceeds to cite Preston as an instance of the inextri- 
cable muddle into which the officials of provincial exhibitions 
get if they retain their own system, “one,” to use the writer’s 
own words, “which is dictated by local fancies, prejudices, or 
jealousies.’”” Now, I venture to entertain the opinion that the 
question of success or failure does not so entirely depend upon 
the adoption of one of the two systems he mentions, open or 
blindfold judging—the terms themselves are misnomers after 
all—but whether the particular system as such is efficiently | 
worked or not. The system in yogue at Preston, given at some 
length by your correspondent, hardly could have been, for one 
very similar has been followed at the West of England Rose 
Show, Hereford, for the last dozen years, where no less an 
authority than the Rey. J. B. M. Camm (I may add also Mr. 
Baker) pronounces the management throughout perfect, 
I will just outline the leading features in our system. Each 
exhibitor has a through number representing his own identity, 
and separate numbers identifying each collection given him. 
These numbers have to be affixed in front of each box. A 
member of the sub-committee goes round with each set of 
judges (always three if possible) to explain and direct, to- 
gether with another official who takes the judicial award to the 
secretary. This individual sits close at hand in the exhibition 
hall, whose easy duty it is to write on a card from his entrance 
book the name corresponding with the number handed in to 
him, which is immediately nailed on a lathe conspicuously and 
securely (a very important point) behind each exhibit to which 
it belongs. This process is quietly and effectually gone through 
in very little, if any, more time than it takes me to describe it, 
and from what I have seen and heard this year the Rose Show 
at Hereford was quite equal to any other, metropolitan or 
provincial, both as regards quantity and quality. I do not say 
but that the reyerse-card system is the simplest and easiest 
worked; what I do say is, that when older existing systems 
work efficiently, let well alone. Iam happy to be able to fully 
endorse your correspondent’s remark that complaints are 
pen unheard of in connection with the awards of the 
ndon shows. I must here mention one signal exception (we 
will say to prove the rule), which took place last June at the 
London exhibition of the Royal Horticultural Society, and 
became the subject of very general comment at the time. I 
refer to an extraordinary case of Rose judging in placing Mr. 
Jowitt second in twenty-four single varieties to Mr. Hollings- 
head's first prize. The former gentleman certainly had one 
signally unfortunate bloom of Mdlle. de St. Amand in the 
middle of his stand, while the collection of the latter was 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
103 
uniformly weather-stressed and singularly rough, not to say 
much smaller throughout. As I was looking at this class my 
old friend, the President of the National Rose Society, joined 
me and expressed himself amazed at the decision ; indeed, so 
strongly did the Canon feel in the matter, that I know as a 
fact he conveyed his sympathy to Mr. Jowitt afterwards in a 
letter. 
I cannot quite comprehend the purport of the article on 
Rose showing by a “LOVER OF ROSE SHOWS,” although I 
thank him for giving me an opportunity of adding a few 
words on the recent contest for Messrs. Cranston’s cup at 
Hereford between Messrs. Baker and Jowitt, as*the writer 
seems toimply, from what he gathers from “ WYLD SAVAGE'S”’ 
report, that the latter gentleman was also in this case, as well 
as in the one I have just mentioned, unfairly beaten, especially 
as something is added about the desirability of the judges’ 
names being printed in the schedule. I repeat I am only too 
glad to make still further known the names of the judges 
over amateurs, for whose appointment I am solely responsible 
to the exhibitors and the public. I feel sure it is quite suffi- 
cient to mention the names, so well known to horticulturists, of 
the brothers Gater, the clever, experienced, and respected fore- 
men of the Cheshunt and Slough nurseries, supplemented by 
the valuable aid of Mr. Curtis of Torquay (our veteran rosa- 
rian now John Keynes is gathered to his fathers), who has lately 
so often written in our Rose Journal for the benefit of its 
readers. All I can say on this point is that there are many 
with me who would pity the touching innocence of any ex- 
hibitor who dared to risk a duplicate Rose in their collection 
in the belief that these arcades ambo would fail to spot it. 
No, sir, not one member of the cognoscenti would dream of 
doubting either their capability or integrity. I say then fear- 
lessly, as all Mr. Jowitt’s friends would and did say, that never 
was there a more gallant struggle, never a more righteous 
judgment. 
May I in conclusion try to throw some light on a “ LOVER 
OF ROSE SHOWS” seeming bewilderment? I fancy he does 
not make sufficient allowance for the exuberant humanity with 
which all the friends of “WyYLpD SAVAGE” know that gentle- 
man to be endowed. Who would not make allowance for one 
in your reporter’s position criticising the merits of the exhibits 
of two personal friends? George Paul’s quaint comparison 
from the poultry yard, apposite and amusing on some former 
occasion your writer refers to, was here utterly out of place, 
although my humble self, who crept longo intervallo into a 
third place, may indeed have been suggestive of the bantam 
in such big company. But who—certainly not “ WYLD 
SAVAGE ”’—could find it in his heart merely to give the dry 
stereotyped names of the victor’s collection with the usual 
oft-imaginative variations, and not sympathetically describe 
(as he can describe) the congenial merits of the gallant loser, 
most of them being his own specialities, his shapely though 
smaller blooms, his lovely Teas, his admirable arrangement? 
Even if the contrast was just a trifle incongruously heightened. 
at the expense of the victor, those faults began and ended, in 
my humble opinion, with a coarse and aged bloom of Mrs. 
C. Wood (how exquisitely Cranston shows this Rose !), but 
surely not such as to spoil his collection. Victrix causa Deis 
placuit, sed victa Catoni. No, “ WYLD SAVAGE,” you are no 
Cato, saye in your strict impartiality, honoured here just for 
once in the breach. Rather in the scribbling of your genial 
pen (and long may Rose shows and our Rose Journal have the 
benefit of it) can I fancy I hear the distant echoes of those. 
generous Harrow boys, shouting at the close of their recent 
hardly-won victory at Lord’s, ‘ Three cheers for Eton.’—THE 
HEREFORDSHIRE INCUMBENT. 
[This article has been unavoidably delayed a week.—EDs. ] 
STRAWBERRIES IN POTS. 
COMPLETE the potting of the runners for forcing purposes 
as soon as possible, for if this be deferred much longer the 
plants have not time to make a good growth and form well- 
developed crowns, which are essential to a satisfactory result. 
Those potted some time ago should be examined two cr three 
times a day, not necessarily to water them, but to see that 
none are drooping for want of that element. Give them a good. 
watering overhead, if with a hose-pipe all the better, making 
sure that the plants have a thorough supply at the roots. A 
peck of soot to thirty gallons of water is a capital stimulant, 
and is not relished by worms or red spider. Too much vigour 
can hardly be given the plants during the next six weeks, but 
