October 31, 1878. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
335 
do so, and is about as keen atitasever. He has many amusing 
stories to tell of his exhibition days, now extending over a 
period of five and twenty years, some of them against himself ; 
as for example, how shortly after the rule was introduced that 
addition of foliage would disqualify, he took up a splendid 
stand of twenty-four to the Crystal Palace beautifully encased 
in foliage of the best quality which he had carefully selected 
from his healthiest trees. As he looked down the stands in 
competition he came to the conclusion that he was an easy 
first. Imagine his consternation, when he came in to see his 
victory, to find his beautiful foliage rudely scattered on the 
box and “disqualified ” written on his card. ‘“ Didn’t I look 
down the other boxes to see if there were not others in the 
same predicament as myself! but alas! no. Iwas the only 
one who had not noticed the rule, and consequently the only 
one who had to bear the punishment.” Nor does he grudge 
to see the victory snatched from his hand by another. How 
enthusiastic he was over the “dark horse” from Lincolnshire 
who came down to Maidstone this year and carried off the 
prize, Mr. A. G. Soames. ‘‘It was,” he said, “a pleasure to 
see such an eighteen ; and although several of our local men 
said it was too bad, I was heartily glad to see such Roses go 
in and win.” 
Adjoining his own property he rents land from Lord 
Romney, a large pond wherein Water Lilies, Reeds, and other 
aquatics grow in wild profusion, and where is one of the most 
beautiful examples of the lovely deciduous Cypress I have for 
a long while seen. As I looked over these grounds in various 
directions I could not but think, What a good opportunity for 
a grower of herbaceous plants, what fine bors might be made, 
and how grandly almost everything would grow in one or 
another position in the garden ! 
Nor must I omit one other feature of the garden, a range 
of vineries 100 feet long, and filled with some of our best 
descriptions of Grapes. The Muscats were very fine, and I 
do not think that I ever tasted such Grapes as the Canon Hall 
Muscats grown there. Madresfield Court was also very good, 
and assuredly it was Grape-growing made easy. No nasty 
stokehole to descend into, no need of watching fires; there 
was simply a connecting link between the pipes of the house 
and the mills, and the stream flowed on night and day; the 
temperature once arranged never altered, and all risks were 
avoided. What more delightful for a gardener than such an 
arrangement as this? It is quite in accordance with the 
character of our good friend that he never sends a pound of 
Grapes to market, but distributes them amongst his friends, 
costing him, as he says, a little fortune in baskets. 
Need I add, for he is a true rosarian, that nothing could be 
more hospitable than his reception, and I am sure all who love 
his favourites would meet with the same kindness that I did? 
May he long exhibit amongst us—one of the very “ straightest ’ 
of all our exhibitors.—D., Deal. 
DRESSING CARNATIONS. 
AFTER all that has been written on this subject there yet 
Temains a point or two that requires clearing up, especially as 
regards the legitimacy of one fancier growing the flowers and 
another fancier dressing them. Mr. Douglas has given direct 
evidence that dressing is all-powerful in winning prizes, for 
he has stated on page 242, in reference to some Hyacinths that 
he dressed for another exhibitor, that “they would have found 
no place in the prize list if they had been exhibited as grown,” 
and further adds, “but I dressed them for him, and they ob- 
tained the first prize,’ and then asks ‘Who ought to have 
received it?” Most people, I think, who weigh the matter 
fairly will consider that the prize ought to have been shared 
between the grower and the dresser. 
Subsequently it was suggested by “WyLp SAVAGE” that 
Mr. Douglas himself, who wins so many prizes, “does not dress 
all his own flowers.” I quite thought that Mr. Douglas would 
have denied the imputation ; indeed, I rather expected that he 
would have galloped in on the donkey he introduced on the 
page quoted and trampled the poor “SAVAGE” to death. 
Neither donkey nor rider have, however, since shown them- 
selyes in the arena. Instead of doing so your excellent corre- 
spondent ‘“GILLYFLOWER,” on page 311, answers for him, 
admits the truth of “WyLpD SAVAGE’S” utterances, and makes 
an excuse for his friend Mr. Douglas. That excuse as put is 
a reasonable one ; but the question is, Was it a matter of press- 
ing anyone who happened to be present at the show to assist 
him in staging his flowers in time? 
I have been a grower of Carnations in a small way for many 
years, growing about a hundred pairs. I have exhibited at 
local shows, and have been fairly successful in obtaining 
prizes ; but I have not ventured to exhibit in London, neither 
am I likely to do so, for I feel that I should not be exhibiting 
under equal conditions if the practice prevails of allowing a 
grower to obtain the services of an expert dresser—dressing 
being, as Mr. Douglas has afforded evidence, of such primary 
importance. 
For the purpose of judging of the quality of the blooms 
staged in London, and comparing them with my own, I made 
a long journey to see one of the National Carnation and 
Picotee Society’s shows. 1 confess that many blooms sur-, 
prised me, especially by the high quality of their dressing ; but 
I was equally astonished to find an overwhelmingly greater 
number of inferior or inferiorly dressed flowers. While in the 
exhibition I entered freely into conversation with those sur- 
rounding the boxes. “Douglas first again,” was the general 
buzz, and was responded to in various ways, one of which 
fairly startled me—it was, “ Yes, and always likely to be when 
he gets Ben Simonite to go to Loxford to dress his blooms for 
him!” Thinking that a mere grumble of a disappointed 
exhibitor I took but little notice of it at the time, but now I 
think it fair to all who are interested that we should know 
whether the rumour which is evidently afloat is anything 
more than a rumour. Is it a fact? 
I do not for a moment suppose that Mr. Douglas would do 
anything that he considered wrong or unfair; he has the repu- 
tation of being an honest exhibitor, as he is undoubtedly a good 
grower. It is evident that he does not think it unfair to dress 
another exhibitor’s flowers and so win a prize for him, and it 
is therefore unlikely that he (Mr. D.) would object to another 
doing a like favour for him. But I, and I know others think 
with me, do not think the practice right. If I grow and dress 
my own flowers as well as I can I feel that I am seriously 
handicapped if I enter the lists against the best grower in 
England, who calls in the aid of perhaps the best dresser before 
he places his flowers in the stands. If that is nota “two-to- 
one’ system of exhibiting I should like to know what is. 
Your correspondent “GILLYFLOWER” writes admirably, also 
consistently, on dressing, and would “‘recommend that a prize 
be given for the best dressed flower, the dressing to be done at 
the exhibition, limiting the time of dressing to ten minutes,” 
the object being, and an excellent one it is, to afford instruc- 
tion to beginners in the art. Mr. Douglas must excuse me 
if I deem him less consistent. When “*D., Deal.” adduced his 
evidence against the excessive dressing of flowers Mr. Douglas 
was “down upon him” immediately, yet in a cutting from a 
paper that has been sent to me (not sent by anyone who has 
taken part in the present discussion) Mr. Douglas’s name is 
attached to the following statement: “It is certainly better 
that the public should see and judge of the flowers in a natural 
state than when art has been employed to assist nature.” That 
cannot be regarded as a youthful notion—an old opinion since 
departed from—for it was written in March of the present 
year. How does Mr. Douglas reconcile that statement with 
his acts of exhibiting flowers “dressed in the highest style of 
art?” —A STAFFORDSHIRE GROWER. 
WORK FOR THE WEEK. 
KITCHEN GARDEN. 
THE haulm of Asparagus being ripe it shouid be cut off level 
with the surface, and after clearing off weeds, &c., dress the beds 
with salt, which will destroy slugs, &c., and at the same time act 
as a manure, applying it at the rate of half a peck perrod. If sea- 
weed can be had it forms the best of dressings for Asparagus beds, 
and may be applied to the depth of an inch and covered witha 
little soil from the alleys, or a dressing 1 to 2 inches thick of rich 
manure may be employed, leaving it on all winter, forking it 
in carefully in the spring. Asparagus intended to be taken up 
for forcing should be covered with litter, so as to admit of its 
being lifted irrespective of frost. The leaves and stalks, if any 
are yet remaining, should be removed from Rhubarb and Seakale. 
For forcing those crops select roots which have not been cut or 
plucked, as those which have made an early and unchecked growth 
will have stronger crowns, and, ripening earlier, will start more 
freely into growth than those having received a check from cut- 
ting off the heads or plucking the stalks. Similar remarks apply 
to Asparagus. Seakale not intended to be lifted for forcing may 
be covered with about half an inch of ashes, and if a sprinkling 
of salt—about half the quantity given to Asparagus prior to putting 
on the ashes—is given it will do much in the way of slug destruc- 
tion. Seakale intended for forcing under cover may be taken up 
